Ninety three dead and dozens in critical condition from Mexico pipeline explosion

Andrea Lobo

At least 93 people have died and dozens were severely wounded in an explosion of a gasoline pipeline with a leak in the community of San Primitivo in the central Mexican state of Hidalgo, just over 50 miles north of downtown Mexico City.

The victims are being treated in hospitals across Mexico and the United States, most of them with severe burns and fighting for their lives, according to the Secretary of Health. This includes one 12-year-old boy. Four died from their injuries on Tuesday.

The explosion and the enormous human toll are an indictment and a direct result of the reactionary and militaristic policies of the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) to accelerate the privatization of the country’s oil.

On Sunday, the state governor, Omar Fayed, announced that most of the remains of those killed in the blast are unidentifiable and will take days or even months to identify by way of genetic samples provided by their families.

Hours before the explosion, a leak was reportedly opened deliberately, creating a 22-foot fountain of gasoline that up to 800 neighbors approached during the afternoon to fill bottles for their families to use. At the time of the fire, about 200 people were reportedly in the immediate surroundings.

Shortly after, harrowing images appeared everywhere on social media and the news stations showing dozens of men and women running away from what had become a giant wall of fire. Family members nearby, calling out the names of their loved ones and telling people on fire to roll on the ground, captured with their phones the moments victims approached them, pleading, “Help me, I’m dying.”

The deadly fire took place in the context of a new supply and distribution system implemented by the recently-elected National Regeneration Movement (Morena) government of López Obrador to prevent the stealing of gasoline from pipelines.

The government’s “strategy,” implemented the first week of 2019, has consisted in deploying more than 5,000 members of the military and police to Pemex installations—including six refineries, 39 storage and distribution terminals and others—and closing down 1,050 miles of pipelines until they can be policed by the armed forces or repaired.

At least ten states in the center of Mexico have reported shortages of fuel, and the Federal Consumer Protection Office (Profeco) reported last Tuesday that 69.5 percent of gas stations in these states surrounding the capital, Mexico City, had no oil.

In the colonias or neighborhoods and surrounding cities of this scattered metropolitan area of more than 25 million people, getting gas has required waiting hours in lines that extend for a mile or more. This has produced the immediately desperate conditions in which hundreds approach such dangerous leaks, something that continues even after the fire on Friday.

More broadly, however, as part of the oil privatization scheme initiated by the previous administration of President Enrique Peña Nieto, cuts to gas subsidies to liberalize the market have made the product increasingly unaffordable for workers.

The explosive and massive Gasolinazo protests all across the country in January 2017 in response to a 20 percent price hike caused by subsidy cuts demonstrated the widespread and profound popular opposition to the ongoing privatization scheme, but also the obstinate determination of the ruling class to carry it through, deploying the military and police to suppress the protests, leaving four dead and hundreds arrested.

The policy of the Morena administration to deal with oil theft is a continuation of the militarized response of the ruling class to any obstacles to the implementation of energy reform and social cuts, including preparation to crack down on future protests like those in 2017 against privatization.

This is yet another measure by López Obrador repudiating his campaign promises to remove the military from domestic operations, after years of being implicated in widespread abuses and even massacres like the 2014 killing of the 43 Ayotzinapa teaching students.

The 2019 budget approved by López Obrador and the Morena-controlled Congress was celebrated by ruling circles because of its continued social austerity under the banner of “fiscal responsibility.” It also provides the largest disbursement to the armed forces in Mexico’s history, in part to create a new National Guard of up to 150,000 soldiers, as a guarantee that the new government will not hesitate to defend the private interests of the bourgeoisie against any challenge from below.

On Sunday, López Obrador stated in a press conference that he didn’t blame or “criminalize” the victims, and rejected criticism by some officials of the failure of a few dozen soldiers present to forcibly remove people from the vicinity of the pipeline before the explosion. “We shouldn’t do that because we have to resolve these things from their root,” he said. “Those practices will be eliminated with the support of people and options for people with needs who chose to do these things.”

And yet, this is precisely what his policy against oil theft has been, criminalizing and deploying the military against the impoverished workers and youth compelled to take such risks. López Obrador said one honest thing Sunday, pledging “all the support to the military,” demonstrating that his response to generalized poverty and staggering levels of social inequality will be no different from his predecessors—militarization and mass repression.

This was seen clearly in Matamoros this past week, where the administration’s response to an ongoing 10-day strike by 70,000 maquiladora workers has been to ignore their demands for just salaries, and deploy police and Navy soldiers with assault rifles to harass workers at the picket lines.

The government has also indicated that the stealing of oil represented losses for the state oil company Pemex of about $3 billion each year, claiming its measures are meant to “save” money for the government.

However, all signs indicate that they are directed at accelerating the privatization of the oil fields. In fact, the government is assuming new costs on behalf of private companies. On top of the military and police deployments, Pemex will be buying 1,600 new tanker trucks and hiring 3,600 new drivers and other staff from private contractors also profiting from Obrador’s measures.

When the Peña Nieto administration implemented a sweeping energy reform in August 2014 annulling the 1938 constitutional provision that nationalized the oil industry under President Lázaro Cárdenas, 17 percent of proven reserves and 79 percent of prospective ones were opened for private investment.

As of mid-2018, about 3 percent of oil reserves were in private hands, according to Forbes. After a sharp fall in oil prices after 2014 slowed down the pace of privatization, higher prices since the beginning of 2018 (in spite of a significant fall since November 2018) and a relatively cheaper peso, cutting labor and other production costs for the last two years, has accelerated investments and pressures on Pemex to create new incentives.

Back in May 2018, when the tide was turning, Carlos Morales-Gil, CEO of the new oil company Petrobal created by Mexican billionaire Alberto Bailleres González, told a meeting of oil magnates in Houston, Texas, “Mexico is a country with social challenges. So, the value of our natural resources needs to be realized more efficiently, and monetized quicker. We are a welcoming market… If liberalization still remains the objective, we [private companies] also need open access to infrastructure built by Pemex.”

The discussion in Houston, according to Forbes, continued on the sidelines of the meeting with demands that Pemex increase its “transportation capacity and storage” and dismissing any concerns that a Morena administration will have less of an “appetite for privatization.”

In other words, the oil-supply policies of the López Obrador administration cut across its demagogic claims that it seeks to cut costs for social investment. They expose Obrador’s nationalist bluster about making Mexico less “dependent” on US oil by building more refineries, pipelines and investing more on exploration. This rhetoric has all been a façade for transferring enormous wealth from previously state-owned and future oil reserves and from government coffers into the profit-making schemes of the Mexican, US and international financial elite, with fatal consequences for Mexican workers and youth.

Germany, France step up military, police alliance with Aachen treaty

Alex Lantier

Fifty-six years after the signing of the 1963 Elysée treaty, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron met yesterday in Aachen to sign another Franco-German friendship treaty. Despite its tired references to international amity and social rights, a reading of the treaty makes clear that it is part of an aggressive, wide-ranging and unpopular agenda to impose police-state regimes across Europe in order to collectively rival America as a military power.

Comparisons of the Aachen and Elysée treaties are fundamentally misleading. While the Elysée treaty was signed shortly after France’s bloody neo-colonial war in Algeria and amid growing financial tensions with Washington over the US dollar, it was signed amid the post-war economic boom. The German government intervened to insert provisions in the Elysée treaty specifying that it would be subordinated to the NATO alliance with the United States.

Now, after nearly three decades of imperialist war and growing economic crisis since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, a far deeper crisis of capitalism and of inter-imperialist relations is unfolding. Amid US threats of trade war, transatlantic relations are disintegrating and Germany is seeking to remilitarize its foreign policy. Just before mass “yellow vest” protests against austerity and inequality erupted in France last November, Macron said Europe should be prepared to confront Russia, China or the United States.

Speaking in Aachen yesterday, Merkel confirmed this is the central purpose of the new treaty: “We are committing ourselves to the development of a common military culture, a common defence industry and a common policy on weapons exports. This is how we want to make our contribution to the development of a European army.”

The treaty lays this out, pledging Berlin and Paris to “seek a common foreign and security policy that is both strong and effective, and reinforce and deepen economic and monetary union. … The two states will deepen policy cooperation on foreign, defence, exterior security and interior security, and development while seeking to reinforce Europe’s independent capacity for action. They will work to define common positions on any important decision affecting their common interests.”

The treaty creates “a Franco-German Council for Defense and Security as the political organ to guide these common commitments.” With German troops already fighting in France’s war in Mali, it pledges to “further reinforce cooperation between their armed forces in order to create a common culture and plan joint deployments.” It sets up a yearly dialogue between Berlin and Paris on Africa policy, including “management of peacekeeping and post-conflict situations.”

Amid calls for an EU army and after the creation of a €13 billion European Defense Fund last year to boost funding for European weapons systems, including tanks and fighter jets, the treaty calls for a close integration of German and French arms industries. Berlin and Paris, it declares, “support the closest possible cooperation between their defense industries, on the basis of mutual trust. The two states will formulate a common approach on exports of jointly-produced weapons.”

While the treaty maintains the pretense that Berlin and Paris work within the NATO alliance, in fact it calls for coordination between German and French officials at the UN, NATO, and the EU to work out an independent Franco-German policy. It adds, “The admission of the Federal Republic of Germany as a permanent member of the UN Security Council is a priority of Franco-German diplomacy.”

The treaty commits Germany and France to coordinating economic policy, as well as environmental policy and research on artificial intelligence and “other cutting-edge innovations.” It also calls for coordinating transport and infrastructure policies in regions along the German-French border. This is to be achieved via yearly joint meetings of the full German and French ministerial cabinets, and exchanges between them every trimester.

EU policies of austerity and militarism are widely despised among workers in Germany, France and across the European continent. And so the drive towards militarism abroad is inseparable from the drive to police-state measures and coordination of police and domestic intelligence operations across the continent. The treaty specifies that joint Franco-German police operations will proceed not only on German or French soil but, remarkably, in foreign countries as well.

It states, “On internal security, the governments of the two states will further reinforce their bilateral cooperation against terrorism and organised crime, as well as their cooperation on judicial matters, intelligence and police. They will set up measures for joint training and deployment and create a common unit designed for stabilisation operations in other countries.”

One indication of the character of Franco-German police operations is the collaboration two years ago of German and French officials to censor and shut down the German linksunten.indymedia.org website hosted in France. This was a blatant attack on freedom of speech. Now, the Aachen treaty is being signed amid widely reported fears that French police could be swamped by the “yellow vest” protests.

The Aachen treaty is a warning to workers across Europe and beyond. Militarism, austerity and police-state repression of social opposition are not accidents or mistakes by individual heads of state. Rather, the accelerating turn towards military-police rule is an international process, rooted in a systemic breakdown of world capitalism. It can only be fought by uniting the working class internationally on a socialist program for struggle against capitalism, dictatorship and war.

The only progressive opposition to the maneuvers of the Merkel-Macron axis comes from the working class. From within the political establishment, the only criticisms came from neo-fascistic or nationalist politicians seeking to advance their imperialist interests at the expense of the other member of the German-French tandem.

Alice Weidel of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) attacked the treaty as an attempt to subordinate Germany to French interests: “Macron gets what he wants. Germany commits in the first article to ‘strengthen and deepen’ economic and monetary union, that is, to build a union that transfers and redistributes money … a better, quicker grab at German tax funds for French inflationary policy.” She also said French defense contractors could be the “main profiteers” from a European defence policy.

In France, neo-fascist politicians led attacks on Macron for betraying French interests to Germany without public discussion. Marine Le Pen said, “Macron is selling our country, destroying its sovereignty. … He ultimately may think of sharing our UN Security Council seat with Germany, maybe even sharing our nuclear arsenal because he wants arms industry agreements at any price.” She said that the issue of France’s UN Security Council seat was “extremely serious.”

Passing over in silence German-French police cooperation against the population, Le Pen warned against any defence industry cooperation with Germany as harmful to French arms exporting interests. She said, “If we build weapons with the Germans, we French people will have to ask for permission from the Bundestag [German parliament] before exporting weapons.”

Jean-Luc Mélenchon of Unsubmissive France (LFI), affiliated to Germany’s Left Party and the pro-austerity Syriza government in Greece, called the treaty “a step back for our sovereignty” and a “social and ecological step backward.” He said German-French collaboration would mean “fewer public services and less public investment, wage cuts, attacks on the unemployed.”

In fact, the record of Syriza—which took power in 2015 pledging to end austerity, but then trampled the will of the electorate, imposing billions in new social cuts to work out a deal with the EU and the banks—is the clearest indication that there is no national perspective for the workers. The only way forward against austerity and the move to military-police rule is the mobilization of the growing opposition in the working class and its unification in a struggle for the United Socialist States of Europe.

Scottish teachers balloted for strike action in pay dispute

Darren Paxton

Teachers in Scotland are demanding a 10 percent pay increase, having rejected on several occasions the Scottish government’s offer of a paltry 3 percent. Teachers argue this does not cover the huge income losses they have experienced over the last decade, during which pay dropped by nearly a quarter.

Teachers have been demanding industrial action for almost a year and, after months of prevaricating, the EIS (Educational Institute of Scotland) finally conceded a ballot on the issue.

In March 2018, after teachers rejected the 3 percent offer, Scottish First Minister and Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Nicola Sturgeon stated that even 5 percent was “unaffordable,” making clear the Scottish government’s attitude towards 10 percent.

Seeking to divert and disperse workers’ anger, the EIS launched a token petition campaign to “pressure” Scottish MPs into supporting the demand for a 10 percent increase. This petition received 25,000 signatures.

Last June, EIS President Alison Thornton made clear the goal of the EIS was not to mobilise teachers but rather to suppress moves towards a strike, stating, “The EIS remains committed to seeking a negotiated solution in order to remove any prospect of a formal dispute...”

In a further attempt to drag matters out, the EIS opened yet another ballot in October on the already rejected 3 percent offer. The ballot lasted almost a month and the offer was yet again thrown out.

On October 27, 30,000 teachers, students and family members took to the streets of Glasgow to demonstrate their willingness to fight back against decades of attacks on their pay, terms and conditions.

The size of the demonstration, expressing the frustration felt by workers over the long period of inaction, took the EIS by surprise.

The EIS invited representatives of the SNP, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Green Party to speak at the rally, revealing their utter complicity with those who have either carried out or covered up for the assault on teachers over the past decade. One after another, speakers stepped up to the podium to urge a demobilisation and acceptance of a future sell-out offer.

The unions are working to isolate this movement from lecturers and local authority workers. An equal pay demonstration in Glasgow took place just days before the teachers march. This demonstration drew in 6,000 local authority care workers and won spontaneous support from every waste collection worker in Glasgow.

One month later, local authority workers across Scotland rejected a 3 percent pay rise from COSLA (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities). Seventy-nine percent of the members of the public sector trade union Unison rejected the COSLA offer while 67 percent voted for industrial action. GMB and Unite union members also rejected the offer. Scottish local authorities employ around 244,000 workers overall.

GMB, Unison and Unite are fully aware of the toll taken on council workers due to cuts, increasing workloads and low pay. In July last year, the unions filed a Freedom of Information request which revealed that, in 2017, 918 workers from Glasgow City Council took time off work suffering from stress.

A further 685 Glasgow City Council workers were unable to attend work, between January and July of 2018, due to stress, anxiety, depression and nervous debility. Between 2012 and July 2018, as many as 5,030 Glasgow City Council workers were off due to stress.

These figures forced Glasgow City Council to put an “early intervention” policy in place that will supply counselling for workers suffering from stress. This, however, does nothing to address the roots of the problem.

Unmanageable working conditions for teachers were also exposed by an anonymous letter sent to Scottish National Party Deputy First Minister of Scotland and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills John Swinney.

The teacher insists “the SNP and Scottish government are not tackling the underlying issues in education but are rather just putting a plaster on a gaping wound.”

The letter highlights increasing numbers of physical and verbal assaults from challenging children and identifies the attacks on education funding to be the root of the issue. “There are an increasing number of challenging children within our schools, and yet our resources are being continuously depleted. We have fewer classroom support worker hours. ... Children’s needs are simply not being met.”

The letter explains teachers often find themselves targeted for blame when pupils do not receive adequate care or attention, when in reality there is very little they can do with the resources on offer.

The teacher reported having to evacuate a classroom of pupils whilst one challenging pupil proceeded to “trash” the class, explaining that it is incredibly difficult to be attentive to every pupil adequately with a lack of staff when some individual pupils need extra support. Teachers are “worn down from day to day stress ...”

In the final paragraphs of the letter, the teacher expresses frustration and opposition toward the SNP administration’s inaction: “I sincerely hope you take the content of this letter seriously, because I know I am starting to feel quite disillusioned with the SNP government’s lack of concern for our failing education system at present.”

All this expresses that there is the basis for a broad movement uniting education and local authority workers against austerity. But the unions refuse to link up these struggles, instead working to splinter and isolate disputes from each other.

The EIS held a strike of Scottish lecturers on January 16 for a 2.5 percent pay increase in line with inflation. The EIS-FELA ballot saw a 90 percent vote in favour of industrial action. This strike was held in complete isolation from the 10 percent pay campaign, with some of the striking lecturers entirely unaware of the teachers’ pay dispute.

In Edinburgh, Queen Margaret University workers voted 64 to 36 percent in support of a strike in opposition to plans from management to sack around 10 percent of the workforce. Opposed to taking up this struggle and linking it to the struggles of teachers and local authority workers, the University and College Union are advising that management make cuts elsewhere.

The National Education Union (NEU) refuses to call a single strike in the UK despite years of cuts to the public education budget amounting to billions of pounds. The union is actively resisting their members’ demands a fight be organised against the cuts. This week the NEU announced the results of a consultation of 257,849 school teachers and 4,550 sixth form college staff members. It received 82,487 responses overall with 99 percent of teachers replying “Yes” to the question, “Do you believe the Government funding cuts are having a negative impact in your school?” Eighty-two percent of teachers and 84 percent of college staff responded they were prepared to strike to secure more funding for their institutions and for an increase in pay. In response the union has announced nothing in the form of any action.

The role of the EIS, NEU and other education unions expresses their transformation into labour management outfits, who serve as an industrial police force seeking to suppress the class struggle while maintaining the most harmonious relations with government and employers.

To advance their struggle teachers must shake off the straitjacket imposed on them by the unions.

In a recent statement “ A fighting strategy for California teachers ,” the WSWS Teachers Newsletter explained, “A real fight can be carried out only if teachers take the initiative into their own hands. In every school and community ... teachers should hold meetings to discuss and debate a real strategy to win. Rank-and-file strike committees should be elected to formulate real demands, including a 30 percent wage increase, a 25-student cap on class sizes, a vast expansion of funding and the immediate reconversion of charter schools into public schools.”

The same struggle is posed before teachers across Britain.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)/World Trade Organization (WTO) 2019 Colloquium for Teachers in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Geneva, Switzerland)

Application Deadline: 17th March 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Geneva, Switzerland (WIPO-WTO

About the Award: The Colloquium focuses each year on a different range of specialized IP topics. Participants are expected to discuss on case studies and relevant teaching experience in relation to those topics. The Program will include visits to WIPO and WTO libraries and meetings with WIPO and WTO officials.

Type: Training

Eligibility: To be considered, applicants should:

• hold an advanced degree and have teaching experience in intellectual property law or international law/economics/management with a specialization in IP; and
• be fluent in English.

Number of Awards: 27

Value of Award: Scholarships cover:

• Return ticket
• Any fees related to the Colloquium
• Full board and lodging
• Medical insurance

Visa costs, if any, are at the charge of participants.

Successful applicants for WIPO and WTO scholarships are notified by the WIPO Academy and the WTO Intellectual Property Division. Thereafter, they will be provided with relevant information, including travel arrangements.

Duration of Programme: 17-Jun-2019 –  27-Jun-2019

How to Apply: Register now

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

MEST Pan-African Pitch Competition (up to $50,000 equity investment) 2019

Application Deadline: 15th February 2019

Eligible Countries: Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire, South Africa

About the Award: Are you the founder of a technology startup currently operating in Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire or South Africa, ready to scale across Africa?
Submit your company for the MEST Africa Challenge! Country winners from each region will be flown to the finals at the MEST Africa Summit in Nairobi to compete for up to $50,000 in equity investment and a range of other support to accelerate their Pan-African scale-up.
For more than 10 years, MEST has trained aspiring African entrepreneurs and invested in exceptional businesses with Pan-African ambitions. These businesses have gone on to enter new markets, with MEST growing alongside them as we’ve learned about the opportunities and challenges they face as they scale. Today, MEST Africa is the continent’s largest incubator network, present in Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa and Cote d’Ivoire.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Companies must:

• Be post-revenue
• Operate in the market in which they are applying
• Be primarily tech-focused

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Winners will receive up to $50k equity investment from MEST, a space in the MEST incubator of their choice and the chance to pitch at the finals on a global stage at the 2019 MEST Africa Summit in Nairobi.

Duration of Programme: Regional pitch events will be held on the following dates, at MEST Incubator locations or local partners office:

• Accra: Wednesday, February 27
• Nairobi: Wednesday, February 27
• Lagos: Thursday, February 28
• Cape Town: Thursday, February 28
• Abidjan: Thursday, February 28

How to Apply: 

• Apply here for the 2019 MEST Africa challenge.

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

British Association of International and Comparative Education (BAICE) Compare Fellowship 2019/2020 for Researchers in Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 1st March, 2019

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan; Benin; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Central African Republic; Chad; Comoros; Congo, Dem. Rep; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Gambia, The; Guinea-Bissau; Haiti; Korea, Dem. People’s Rep.; Liberia; Madagascar; Malawi; Mali; Mozambique; Nepal; Niger; Rwanda; Sierra Leone; Somalia; South Sudan; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Tanzania; Togo; Uganda; Yemen, Rep.; Zimbabwe 

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: Compare is a leading journal of international and comparative education, publishing six issues a year of high quality articles on diverse issues of educational policy and practice around the world. It is the official journal of the British Association of International and Comparative Education (BAICE), which works to support activities of research, teaching and collaboration in the field.
In order to maintain its significant global standing, one of Compare’s missions is to develop the diversity of its authorship, and support underrepresented groups, in light of the significant inequalities of global academic publishing.
For this reason, it established in 2017 an annual Compare Fellowship, to support early career academics from the Global South in disseminating their research and scholarship to a global audience.

Type: Research

Eligibility:

1. To be based currently in a university in a low-income country (according to the World Bank classification¹)
2. To have completed their doctoral degree within the last six years
3. To be teaching or researching in the field of education

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value and Duration of Award: The fellowship will run from 1 September 2019 – 31 August 2020 and provide full financial support (including travel, accommodation and subsistence) for the following activities:

• Attending the UKFIET conference in Oxford, UK, from 17-19 September 2019 (candidates are strongly encouraged to submit a presentation)
• Attending the Compare writers’ workshop at the conference (a full-day course for early career researchers)
• 2-4 week stay at an institution in the UK following the conference (to carry out library research, attend academic events, and develop publication ideas with the guidance of a mentor)

On returning to their country of origin, the Compare Fellow will be expected to continue with the following activities:

• Participating in the e-mentoring following on from the writers’ workshop
• Developing an article for Compare
• Facilitating the organization of activities to support academic writing for other academics in their institution/country
• Participating in Compare as a reviewer

How to Apply: All applicants should send the following documents via email to compare@uea.ac.uk

1. CV / resume (including qualifications, professional experience and publications)
2. Supporting statement of 1000 words (outlining research interests, publication trajectory to date and future plans, and potential benefits of the fellowship for themselves and their institutions/countries)
3. Abstract submission for the UKFIET conference (see requirements at www.ukfiet.org from 21st January)

If contact has already been made with a potential institution and mentor in the UK, then candidates should state this; however, it is not essential to have arranged this beforehand.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Commonwealth Shared Scholarship Scheme 2019/2020 for Study in UK Universities

Application Deadline: 14th March 2019 16.00 (GMT)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Bangladesh, Cameroon, Eswatini, The Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, India, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia.

To be taken at (country): Various UK Universities. Download CSS prospectus 2019 in Program Webpage Link below for full list of participating universities and respective deadlines.

Accepted Subject Areas: Commonwealth Shared Scholarship scheme is for taught Master’s courses only. All courses undertaken must be demonstrably relevant to the economic, social or technological development of the candidate’s home country.

About Scholarship: The Commonwealth Shared Scholarships, set up by the Department for International Development (DFID) in 1986, represent a unique partnership between the United Kingdom government and UK universities. To date, more than 3,500 students from developing Commonwealth countries have been awarded Shared Scholarships.
UK universities have offered to support the scholarships by contributing the stipend for the students from their own resources, or those which the university has been able to generate from elsewhere.

Offered Since: 1986

Eligibility: To apply for a Commonwealth Shared Scholarship scheme, candidates must:

• Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
• Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
• Be available to start your academic studies in the UK by the start of the UK academic year in September/October 2019
• By October 2019, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) standard, or a second class degree and a relevant postgraduate  qualification (usually a Master’s degree). The CSC would not normally fund a second UK Master’s degree. If you are applying for a second UK Master’s degree, you will need to provide justification as to why you wish to undertake this study.
• Not have studied or worked for one (academic) year or more in a high income country
• Be unable to afford to study in the UK without this scholarship

The CSC aims to identify talented individuals who have the potential to make change. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity and non-discrimination, and encourage applications from a diverse range of candidates.

Selection: Each participating UK university will conduct its own recruitment process to select a specified number of candidates to be awarded Commonwealth Shared Scholarships. Universities must put forward their selected candidates to the CSC by 17 May 2018. The CSC will then confirm that these candidates meet the eligibility criteria for this scheme. Universities will inform candidates of their results by July 2018.

Selection criteria include:

• Academic merit of the candidate
• Potential impact of the work on the development of the candidate’s home country

Number of Scholarships: More than 200 scholarships

Scholarship value: The CSC funds the cost of tuition fees (at overseas rate), return airfares, and other allowances. Participating universities are required to support the student stipend for the award holder (at the rate set by the UK government).

Duration of scholarship: Awards are normally tenable for one-year taught postgraduate courses only.

How to Apply

1. All applications must be made through your chosen university. You must check with your chosen university for their specific advice, admission requirements, and rules for applying. Some universities may require you to complete their own admissions application form as well, which may have a separate closing date. You must take the necessary steps to secure admission to your course at the same time as applying for a Shared Scholarship.
2. You must make your application using the CSC’s Electronic Application System (EAS), in addition to any other application that you are required to complete by your chosen university.
3. You can apply for more than one course and/or to more than one university, but you may only accept one offer of a Shared Scholarship.
4. The CSC’s online application form is now open.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

ICGEB Arturo Falaschi Fellowship 2019/2020 for Scientists in Developing Countries

Application Deadlines: 

• Closing date for applications for PhDs: 31st March 2019
• Closing dates for applications for Postdocs: 31st March and 30th September 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries. See List below.

To be taken at (country): Trieste, New Delhi or Cape Town.

About the Award: Fellowships include participation in a competitive research programme, access to state-of-the-art facilities, participation in ICGEB Meetings, Seminars and Journal Clubs. A competitive stipend, travel provision plus full coverage of tuition fees and health insurance. Additional benefits for postdocs.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Applicants must be nationals of an ICGEB Member State and may not apply for fellowships to be undertaken in their country of origin, unless they have been working abroad for, at least, the last 3 years and at the time of application.
• Degree requirements: applicants should hold a recent PhD in Life Sciences or have at least 3 years research experience.
• Preference is given to candidates below the age of 35.

Selection Criteria: The ICGEB Fellowships Selection Committee will evaluate complete and endorsed applications received by the closing date. The main criteria for selection include scientific excellence of the project, the qualities of the candidate’s CV and potential benefit for the home country.

Selection: All submitted applications will be transmitted to the respective ICGEB Liaison Officer in the country of which you are a national for endorsement. Endorsement is a fundamental requirement for the Fellowship to be awarded

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: The Fellowships consist of a very competitive package including stipend, health insurance and additional benefits. The most successful fellows will also be eligible, upon completion, to apply for ICGEB Early Career Research Grants to support their own research programmes as young PIs upon return to an ICGEB Member State.

Duration of Fellowship: 2 years with the possibility of a 1-year extension.

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ivory Coast, Croatia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, FYR Macedonia, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela and Vietnam

How to Apply: To apply, Applicants should contact the ICGEB Group Leader/PI of their choice with a motivation letter, to determine availability of laboratory space and to define the research project proposal that will form an integral part of the application.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details


Important Notes: ICGEB makes no financial provision, nor can it provide administrative support for family members of participants in the programme.

On the Brink of Brexit: the Only Thing Most People Outside Westminster Know About Brexit is That It’s a Mess

Patrick Cockburn

Government, parliament and parts of the media are obsessed by Brexit, almost to the exclusion of all else. The last few weeks have produced a cascade of apocalyptic warnings about the calamity facing Britain if it fails to depart the EU, or does so with or without a deal. These forebodings may or may not be true, but does this sense of crisis reflect the feelings of the British people as a whole?

Are there identifiable signs of popular rage and division similar to those that accompanied the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14, the Great Reform Bill of 1832 or even, as one cabinet minister claimed a few days ago, the English Civil War in the 17th century, in which at least 84,000 died on the battlefield? So far there is no evidence of anything like this, though that is not to say the confrontation over Brexit might not one day erupt into violence.

The media furore over a single MP being verbally abused outside parliament shows, contrary to overheated reportage, how quiet things have been on the streets up to the present moment.

A striking feature of news reporting and commentary in the final weeks before the British withdrawal from EU on 29 March is how narrowly focused it is on Westminster and on the sayings and doings of the political establishment.

Commenters have largely ignored what was supposed to be one of the lessons of the 2016 referendum, which was that London-based television, radio and newspapers were out of touch with the feelings of the country – a lack of understanding which led them to being surprised and shocked by the outcome of the vote.

To get a better understanding of what people are thinking on the eve of withdrawal or non-withdrawal, The Independent has conducted a series of in-depth interviews – for the purposes of the present article in Canterbury and Dover– in the places where voters plumped overwhelmingly for Leave and gave it its narrow majority nationally.

It is apparent from what people say that the near hysteria about Brexit in parliament, government and some news outlets is not yet widely shared by the mass of voters. Instead, there is perplexity and disengagement, though this could swiftly change.

Paula Spencer, who manages the community centre in the white working-class suburb of Thanington on the outskirts of Canterbury, says that locals are too taken up with the problems of daily living to talk much about Brexit. She says their expectations are low and they do not realistically see them improving, adding: “The worst thing for me is that you can have a father and mother both with jobs and they still can’t pay for their rent and food, though they are trying their bloody hardest.”

She says that many in Thanington only get through the month by relying on food banks, something which she imagined 10 years ago would stop once the financial crisis was over.

It was poorly educated people on low ages or benefits, living in areas like Thanington, who overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU.

Martin Rosenbaum, in a classic study of the referendum that drew on the breakdown of the vote by wards obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, confirms that it was older, poorly educated voters who were decisive in the poll. He writes that “the data confirms previous indications that local results were strongly associated with the educational attainment of voters – populations with lower qualifications were significantly more likely to vote Leave”.

Broadly speaking, every study of the results shows that it was the older and less qualified voters, particularly those living in poor, largely white housing estates, who put Leave on top on the night of the referendum.

The same pattern was repeated all over the country: the highest Leave vote anywhere in England and Wales was the 82.5 per cent in Brambles and Thorntree in Middlesbrough, a ward which has the lowest proportion of people with a university degrees or similar qualifications – just 4 per cent – anywhere in the country.

Nick Eden-Green, a Liberal Democratic councillor for Wincheap in Canterbury, the ward to which Thanington belongs, argues the reason that so many people from the area voted Leave was the same as in other deprived parts of east Kent.

“It was partly voters saying a plague on both your houses [when it came to the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dem parties] and sod you shyster politicians,” he says. “Partly, it was fear of immigration: if you knock on doors people say ‘it is all these bloody illegals.’”

He says that for the present, those living in areas like Thanington are not talking much about Brexit, in sharp contrast to the better educated and the politically engaged. He asks: “Are people talking about Brexit? Among the ‘literati’ yes, but not here.”

People do not understand what is going on with Brexit other than that it is a mess; and Eden-Green finds their confusion perfectly understandable. He says: “I have spent a lot of my life in Europe and I speak French and German, but I still don’t know enough to decide what the country should be doing.”

Thanington locals say they do not know what to think, though they strongly suspect that nobody cares what they think, which was one of the main reasons they voted Leave in the first place.

Caroline Heggie, who has lived in the suburb since 1998, says that unlike most of her neighbours she voted Remain; but has stopped talking about Brexit. “The government don’t know what’s going to happen – how are we meant to know? I don’t know how it will affect me and I count myself as one of the more aware. I don’t understand the whole economic thing.”

She says that the main impression she gets is that there is an internal crisis in the government, which she says is “why we’re in this mess now”. She adds: “There’s a disconnect between what the government are doing and what the hell we’re going to do when it happens. I think most people here are in the ‘I don’t know’ category. As it happens, I haven’t found anyone who voted to Leave that has given me a good reason or argument or discussion on why they think it will benefit us. I believe the Leavers who voted have got less discussion than people who voted to Remain.”

Thanington is among the 20 per cent most deprived areas in Britain, though it does not look it. Residents and outsiders agree that it is fairly typical of other housing estates in East Kent. They praise its strong sense of community, saying that if a child is lost, everybody comes out to look for them. Nevertheless, words and phrases such as “deprivation” and “lack of qualifications” do not quite prepare one for the fact that this means hungry children and illiterate parents.

It is a shock to find that in Canterbury, where St Augustine came to convert the Anglo-Saxons and founded a school 1500 years ago, part of the population cannot read or write. Paula Spencer says she has “had people asking me to spell BBC for them so they can put it into Google because they can’t spell it themselves”.

A disconnect between Westminster and voters in places like Thanington stems from the fact that the former see the withdrawal from the EU in terms of national economic advantages and disadvantages. But the referendum and the anti-EU campaign was a vehicle for a multitude of grievances and discontents, many of them to do with the ravages of globalisation and privatisation, which have little to with the EU The slogan “Take Back Control” was notoriously effective because it scapegoated Brussels as responsible for failings that it had nothing to do with.

The views born out of this systematic demonisation are vividly illustrated by a widely circulated anti-EU online image entitled “40YRS EU RULE” under which is written “Ship building FINISHED, Coal mining FINISHED, Steel work FINISHED.”

Below that is a picture of a Union Jack with the words “Fishing DESTROYED” above it and “TRUTH” in large white letters on the face of the flag and, in smaller letters, “Currpt mps”. Below, railways, electricity, gas, BT, Royal Mail and water are listed as “SOLD!” and NHS as “BEING SOLD!” and a sidebar reads “Sovereignty going!”

The graphic shows the degree to which opposition to the EU is about much more than Britain’s relationship with Europe. It is, among many other things, an incoherent opposition to the status quo – in contrast to the Remainers, whose core supporters want things to stay roughly as they are. The symbolic nature of the Brexit vote makes it impossible to predict how people will react if Brexit is rejected or neutered beyond recognition.

But what if Brexit does falter or fall in the course of the next few weeks or months? Any Brexit deal will ultimately reflect the balance of political and economic power between Britain and the EU, in which British negotiators will invariably be overmatched. If there is an agreement, it will always be far from what the pro-Brexit camp had told their followers that they could get.

Theresa May’s deal already reflects this balance of power, which is not going to change. And whatever happens, the Brexit saga will go on for years and probably decades. Brexit will certainly hurt the UK – weakening links with your largest market is never a good idea for a commercial country – but the damage may well take the form of slow erosion rather than sudden collapse.

In the meantime, prophesies of the Wrath to Come if Brexit either falters or goes full steam ahead sound exaggerated, the grossest being that by the transport secretary Chris Grayling – not a man whose record in office encourages confidence in his judgement – who told Conservative MPs at the weekend that if they fail to produce some form of Brexit “we risk a break with the British tradition of moderate, mainstream politics that goes back to the Restoration in 1660”. Grayling apparently has not heard of the Popish plot or the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

On the other hand, Grayling may turn out to be like the little boy who called “Wolf!” to frighten his fellow villagers and was gobbled up when a real one came on the scene.

One reason Leave supporters do not want a second referendum is that they privately fear they would lose it. In 2016 they benefited from the chance coincidence of events favourable to their campaign; they may not be so lucky again. An accidental boost to their fortunes then came from enhanced fear of immigration, fueled by nightly television pictures of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees making their way to Europe.

The pathetic casualties of the Syrian war could be portrayed as all the more menacing because Isis was at the peak of its power in 2015-16, with its gunmen and suicide bombers massacring people in the heart of Paris and other European cities. Proponents of a second referendum may hope that polls showing hostility to migrants is ebbing are correct and immigration will have a less poisonous impact on a second poll.

The port of Dover, 17 miles south of Canterbury and 22 miles across the Channel from France, is a good place to see how far hostility to immigrants is really on the wane. Famed since medieval times as the “Gateway to England” and overlooked by Henry II’s magnificent castle, it is today a desolate place with job shortages, stagnant wages, low levels of education and a high street deserted by shopping chains.

Trucks carrying imports and exports worth £122bn a year rumble in and out of the port, but very little money rubs off on the local inhabitants.

Dover has been in the news recently with lurid accounts of the town being submerged by 10,000 HGVs unable to cross the Channel because of a no-deal Brexit. The only bright spot is that the possible return of a regime of permits and clearances at the port would require many more office workers to cope with the upsurge in paper work.

Less attention is given to the population of Dover itself, which voted Leave by a huge margin (40,410 to 24,606 Remain in the Dover local authority area). Immigration is a bigger issue there than in Thanington because of the presence of a substantial community of Slovakian Roma.

It is also along this part of the southeast coast of Kent that Iranian and Kurdish immigrants have being crossing the Channel in small dinghies. Their numbers are not large, but the dramatic nature of the dangerous voyage through the rough winter seas makes for good television.

It is well-publicised incidents like this that could reinvigorate immigration as an issue in much the same way as in 2016. One resident has a picture in his window of the White Cliffs, on which is written “CLOSED”.

Sam Hall, who has taught at a primary school in Dover for five years, says people she meets in the town “have bought into the rhetoric that there is a crisis [over the recent immigrant arrivals]. There is very little compassion. You may believe that the people coming here are desperate, but then you are desperate yourself.”

There is another aspect to the immigration issue in Dover revolving around the Slovakian Roma, who often do not speak English. Even those most sympathetic to them say they are peculiarly hard to communicate with. White parents express anger that scarce school resources are spent on teaching Slovakian Roma children to speak English.

Hall says: “The lies that were told on the Leave side during the referendum make it very easy for people to feel – when they see their town being left to rot – that we need to spend the money on ourselves.” She believes lack of education makes it easy for newspapers or politicians to persuade people that immigrants come to UK solely to live on benefits, take the jobs of local people, and get free treatment from the NHS.

“It is a real Project Fear,” she says, “it encourages the belief that if these immigrants are going to get more, then you are going to get less.”

Charlotte Cornell, the Labour candidate for Dover and Deal, says that people in the town feel not so much “left behind” as “left out”, excluded from “the political system that they feel can’t do them any worse.”

Though she voted Remain, she has an optimistic take on Brexit, arguing against a second poll, and seeing the referendum as “a vote for change”. She adds: “It’s a hope vote. This is two fingers up to the establishment – it’s a ‘this can’t be any worse for me’ vote.”

Appetite for change there may well be, but it is diffuse and its future direction is unpredictable. Dover may have a glorious past based on its strategic position: the headquarters for the Dunkirk evacuation were in tunnels in the White Cliffs that rise above the town. But its recent history has been one of decline.

Hall says parents and children are unable to break the grim cycle of poor jobs and poor prospects that consumes each generation and which is combined with a dispiriting conviction that education will not do much to improve the lives of their children.

“I think people who live in Dover feel cross and unheard,” she says. “There is this sort of anger and apathy going together and even if I try to have more fact-based conversations [about immigration and Brexit] I don’t connect with them because they are so cross.”

At this stage, the crisis in Britain is primarily at the level of the political class. It is bizarre that senior officials in the government say in private, as a matter of fact, that Britain is inevitably going to be weaker and poorer if the government achieves its aim of leaving the EU. They are aghast at seeing old alliances being thoughtlessly thrown away and the “Irish Question”, which convulsed British politics for centuries, being fecklessly reopened.

The educated classes are deeply worried and demoralised, but don’t know what to do to avert the inevitable shipwreck. As for the millions who voted for Brexit in order to change the status quo, their hopes and expectations are likely to end in frustration because so much of what they were promised will prove to be snake oil pledges that can never be delivered.

It is only when this becomes clear that we will begin to learn if the proponents of Leave are going to respond to disappointment with apathy or with rage.

Migrants in Australia hit by longer welfare wait

Martin Scott 

Workers and young people in the Sydney suburb of Auburn are among tens of thousands of migrants who will now face a wait of four years before they can receive welfare payments.

New measures that came into effect on January 1 doubled the previous waiting period for access to basic support payments including Newstart, Youth Allowance, Mobility Allowance, Sickness Allowance, and the Low Income Health Care Card.

Depriving immigrants of access to social services is a blatant attack on an already vulnerable layer, and will expose them to even greater exploitation in the workforce.

The western Sydney suburb of Auburn is the first port of call for many new arrivals to Australia. Some 70 percent of Auburn’s 37,366 residents were born overseas, and over 90 percent have at least one parent who was born overseas.

Auburn has the lowest median taxable income of any suburb in Sydney. Essential social services such as health and education have been run down and do not meet the needs of a population that has increased by more than 40 percent since 2001.

Speaking about the longer wait for welfare, Ken, a 17-year-old Auburn resident, told our reporters: “It’s not fair really. They come here to seek better conditions and they’re just kicked down more. There’s too much government support for the middle class and not enough for the working class.

“You have things like negative gearing to help with paying off investment properties; that’s just giving money to people who already have money. That could be spent on improving public services—the buses are awful, and schools could do better.”

Although the suburb is home to approximately 3,000 young people aged between 12 and 17, there is just one public high school in Auburn, and it is only for girls. Ken explained that he had a 20-minute commute each way to go to his high school in Parramatta, which was “not productive” and was taking away from his education.

“Particularly in my neighbourhood, there’s a few disadvantaged families. The parents don’t speak a word of English, and what you see is then the children suffer. I had this with some classmates of mine coming to school not really caring, because at home they’re struggling.

“What I personally believe is it’s because they don’t speak the language, they’re not getting the support they need from the government, they’re being exploited by unsympathetic bosses and potentially not getting the best possible conditions of work.”

At the time of the 2016 census, 12.7 percent of Auburn residents were unemployed, more than twice the figure for the state of New South Wales as a whole. Furthermore, only 49.1 percent of those with jobs were working full-time, compared to 59.2 percent for the state.

Auburn worker Ben came to Australia from India five years ago, initially to study, but subsequently applied for permanent residency. “Even though I’m well qualified—I’ve done my Bachelor’s and my Master’s—I’m still finding difficulty finding a job. I have experience from back home, but I’m still doing retail jobs, part-time, casual.”

As a recent migrant, Ben is not eligible to receive welfare payments. “It’s quite difficult for people who have not got it yet, it’s going to be very difficult [when the waiting period is increased]. They’ve spent a lot of money, they’ve paid a lot of taxes, but they can’t get the welfare. It’s unfair,” he said.

Ben said many migrants he knew were forced into poorly-paid casual or part-time employment. “Most of them, if they have found jobs, they’re reluctant to find something better, because, what they’ve got, they just want to stay put no matter what the work conditions are. No one complains after you get a job, whatever the conditions.”

Auburn Diversity Services Incorporated (ADSi) is a non-profit organisation funded by grants from the Department of Social Services, and tasked with helping refugees and other vulnerable migrants settle in Australia.

Almost half of ADSi’s clients are from Afghanistan, and are fleeing brutal conditions created by years of imperialist war and occupation, led by the US, and fully supported by successive Australian governments.

Aynalem Tessema, ADSi’s assistant manager of settlement and engagement, told the WSWS that the increased waiting period for welfare would make it “very hard for many people, especially when they come across financial crisis.”

While refugees are exempt from the increase, like many Australians they find the welfare payments to be woefully lacking. “$600 [per week] cannot pay for the rent. How can they afford rent and buy food?” he said.

Pointing to the difficulties facing refugees, Tessema commented: “Migrants have to escape for various reasons—war, political reasons, and oppression. Most of them come from a low education background.”

With minimal English skills, and little education, many migrants encounter difficulty finding employment. “To find a job is very difficult. When many people come to this country, they need a licence to begin some jobs for which they may already be qualified. Recognition of previous qualifications is something we’ve raised with governments,” he said.

Migrants arriving in Auburn confront an acute crisis of housing affordability and availability. The median weekly rent in the suburb is $530 for a house, or $445 for a unit. In the last three years the average rent for a unit in Auburn has increased by 13.9 percent (compared to only 3.6 percent across Sydney), and the vacancy rate is just 2.1 percent (3.2 percent in Sydney as a whole).

Agencies like ADSi rely on short term government funding. ADSi’s manager of capacity building, Justin Han explained: “There are fluctuations; we got 28 percent less funding than last year. There is always a lack of money to meet all the needs of new arrivals. Still there are service gaps for asylum seekers. We cannot provide services to them.”

Last November Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a further reduction in the number of migrants who would be granted permanent residency, claiming voters were “concerned about population.” Blaming immigrants for failing infrastructure, he said “the roads are clogged, the buses and trains are full. The schools are taking no more enrollments.”

In reality, it is not “migrants” and “population” but capitalism that is responsible for the lack of social and physical infrastructure. Urban expansion driven by profit has placed a crippling burden on education, health, and transport facilities. Privatisation of utilities, public transport, roads, and airports has contributed to the sky-rocketing cost of living. Rampant property speculation has put housing prices out of reach of workers, forcing them to move to cheaper suburbs without adequate schools, hospitals, public transport, and employment opportunities.

All of this is very evident in suburbs like Auburn, where many new migrants are forced because they cannot afford to live elsewhere.