6 Feb 2020

From the UN, New Ammo for Egalitarians

India: One million public sector bank workers strike for higher pay and against privatisation

Arun Kumar

One million public sector bank employees held a two-day national strike on January 31 and February 1 to demand a 20 percent pay rise, a five-day working week and the incorporation of a special allowance into their basic pay. The workers also demanded the Indian government withdraw its plans for bank mergers and privatisation.
Striking bank employees protest near Beach railway station in Chennai
Banking operations were seriously impacted by the walkout in Maharashtra and Gujarat in the west, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka and Kerala in the south, Delhi, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh in the north and West Bengal in the east.
The strike blocked cash withdrawals and deposits, private bank cheque clearances and money transfers. Bank unions told the media that about 3.1 million cheques worth 230 billion rupees ($US3.22 billion) could not be cleared.
However India’s two major private sector banks, the ICICI and HDFC, functioned normally because the unions restricted the industrial action to the public sector banks.
The strike was called by the United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU), a federation of public sector bank unions that includes the All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA), All India Bank Officers Association (AIBOA), Bank Employees Federation of India (BEFI) and the Indian National Bank Employees Federation (INBEF).
The UFBU was forced to call the strike in response to workers’ mounting anger over the Indian Banks Association’s (IBA) continued refusal to grant workers’ long-standing demands. In a bid to prevent the strike, the union federation held talks with the IBA to work out a face-saving “solution.” The association rejected all the federation’s demands and only offered a 15 percent pay rise. Public sector bank workers have been demanding a 20 percent pay rise since November 2017.
The two-day national walkout demonstrates public sector bank workers’ determination to fight the austerity and job-cutting policies of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government and part of a rising wave of strike action by workers in India and internationally. Tens of thousands of bank workers participated in the multi-million strong January 8 general strike against the Modi government.
Last August, the Modi government announced plans to merge 10 public sector banks into four. Workers fear this will lead to the closure of around 5,000 government bank branches, boost the fortunes of private operators and cut jobs, wages and benefits.
On October 22 last year, some 400,000 public sector bank employees walked out for 24 hours against the government’s mergers plans and a reduction in interest rates on deposits. Confronted with major losses, bank employers are demanding increased workloads and other measures to reduce losses and increase bank assets.
During her budget speech last week Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told parliament that “there is a need for greater private capital” and announced that the government planned to sell 46.5 percent of its holdings in the Industrial Development Bank of India to private, retail and institutional investors on the stock exchange.
Sitharaman’s announcement is directly in line with International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) demands. In December 2017, an IMF “stability report” on India called for “greater participation of the private sector in capitalising the PSBs [Public Sector Banks] and full privatisations.”
As the WSWS noted on January 9: “Since winning re-election last May, with massive big business and corporate media support, the BJP government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has dramatically escalated its assault on the working class. Through changes to the country’s labour laws, it is promoting the proliferation of precarious contract-labour jobs and further limiting workers’ right to strike and organise. It has also dramatically accelerated the privatisation of public sector enterprises, moving forward with plans to sell off India’s railways, open up the coal industry to private investors, and privatise Air India and Bharat Petroleum. It has also provided big business with another bonanza by slashing the corporate tax rate by 8 percentage points, or more than a quarter.”
The unions are desperately manoeuvring to block any independent mobilisation of the working class against the Modi government, falsely claiming that mass protests and limited strikes will force it to modify its policies. But under conditions of increasing demands by international finance capital and a deepening economic crisis, every Indian government—whether led by the BJP or Congress—will step up its attempts to impose austerity attacks on working people and rural toilers.
The role being played by the unions is directly related to the pro-investor policies of the political parties to which they are affiliated.
Both the AIBEA and AIBOA are linked to the Stalinist Communist Party of India (CPI). The BEFI has fraternal relations with the Centre of India Trade Unions, which is affiliated to the other main Stalinist party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM, and the INBEF is affiliated with Congress, the Indian national bourgeoisie’s traditional ruling party.
These parties are all committed to the same retrogressive neo-liberal economic reforms being implemented by the ruling BJP. Congress, for example, initiated pro-investor economic reforms of transforming India into a cheap labour platform of global capital in 1991 and aggressively continued those policies whilst in the office at central and state levels. The Stalinist CPM and CPI provided crucial parliamentary support for national governments headed by Congress and carried the same pro-investor economic policies whilst in power in the Indian states of West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala. The CPM-led administration in Kerala is currently pursuing the same policies.
Indian supporters of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) spoke with striking bank employees in Chennai on January 31 and circulated hundreds of copies of the WSWS article “Indian workers need a revolutionary socialist program to fight Modi, capitalist austerity and communal reaction.”
Several workers voiced their frustrations with the failure of previous strike action organised by the bank unions to win any gains and said they were interested in further discussion on the revolutionary socialist program outlined in the WSWS article.

Sri Lanka: The ruling elite’s hollow national independence celebrations

K. Ratnayake

President Gotabhaya Rajapakse’s government grandiosely celebrated Sri Lanka’s 72nd Independence Day on February 4—the day marking the formal handing over of political power by Britain’s colonial rulers to the pliant bourgeoisie.
University students rally outside presidential secretariat in Colombo
The media published articles on the significance of Independence Day, but cautiously covered up the deplorable record of the more than seven decades of capitalist rule in Sri Lanka.
A one-page article in the Daily Mirror headlined “72 years after independence, where are we now?” noted: “When we gained Independence it was the classic model of moving up towards prosperity. Alas, it did not work out that way…”
Referring to the social inequality between rich and poor, regional economic disparities and corrupt politicians, the columnist insisted, however, that “despite many stresses and strains over the years, [the country] has survived, and even at times, flourished.”
Sunday Times editorial asked, “Is there much to celebrate?” and disingenuously answered, “Despite the criticism, and some nostalgically yearning for the past, the country’s positives are many.”
Housing Authority workers demonstrate in Colombo
Notwithstanding the propagation of these false hopes, there was no semblance of enthusiasm for Independence Day amongst workers and the poor. On the contrary, Colombo’s streets, over the past weeks, have seen thousands of young workers and students demanding their rights.
Last week alone, thousands of workers from the Petroleum Corporation, housing and archaeology departments, the dengue eradication campaign and trainee teachers, demonstrated outside the Presidential Secretariat. These workers have been sacked by Rajapakse’s new government over the past two months. A day before the February 4 celebration, and the day after it, thousands of students marched in Colombo demanding job guarantees and decent education facilities.
These demonstrations are a continuation of protests and strikes that began under the previous unity government of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Confronted with this rising social opposition, the discredited government was torn apart.
Police confronting workers outside presidential secretariat yesterday
Rajapakse and the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna exploited this popular opposition, whilst at the same time stepping up their communalist propaganda against the Tamil and Muslim communities. Every faction of the Sri Lankan ruling elite uses communalism to try and divide the working class and the poor.
Promising to establish “strong and stable” rule for big business, the Sri Lankan president is militarising his administration, appointing senior officers from the armed forces to key posts, in preparation for intense class war against the working class.
The struggles now erupting, in fact, are an expression of the seething anger of workers, youth and the poor over their lack of basic social and democratic rights, demands that the ruling class has never been able to address.
Thousands of petroleum corporation and other workers demonstrating in Colombo
Seventy-two years ago, the Sri Lankan ruling elite did not win independence in a “bloodless struggle” against British imperialism, as it falsely and shamelessly claims.
In 1946, the Sri Lankan elite, organised in the Ceylon National Congress, which later formed the right-wing United National Party (UNP), did not even demand independence, but called for Dominion Status under the British Crown. The political arrangements for transferring power into the hands of the local ruling elite were organised in a conspiracy with the colonial masters in London and against the insurgent Sri Lankan workers.
In 1947, British imperialism, which faced a rising revolutionary upsurge of workers and the poor in India, collaborated with the leaders of the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League to partition the sub-continent and create a Hindu India and a Muslim Pakistan, in the name of “independence.” The partition provoked communal violence, in which millions were killed. The Stalinist Communist Party of India supported this reactionary carve-up.
The Bolshevik Leninist Party of India (BLPI), the then section of the Fourth International on the Indian subcontinent, exposed the fake character of so-called independence in the region, explaining that it was imperialism’s transition from “methods of direct rule to methods of indirect rule.”
In a statement on Sri Lanka issued on February 4, 1948, the BLPI declared: “Will there be anything for the masses of this country to celebrate? The BLPI’s answer to the above question is a clear and unequivocal No! … [T]he new status of [what they obtained] is not ‘independence’ but actually a refashioning of the chains of Ceylon’s slavery to British imperialism.”
In 1950, although the BLPI entered the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), which also claimed to be Trotskyist but had a nationalist orientation, its powerful prognosis was confirmed in the ensuing decades.
The first act of the new UNP government was to abolish the citizenship rights of more than one million Indian-origin Tamil plantation workers. This deliberate act was aimed at whipping up anti-Tamil chauvinism to divide the working class. And, as the crisis of the ruling elite deepened, the poison of Sinhala chauvinism was also intensified.
Immediately after the August 1953 nationwide semi-insurrection of workers, which was supported by the rural poor, the newly-formed Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) began its reactionary “Sinhala only” campaign, to make Sinhala the country’s official language.
The political degeneration of the LSSP, and its adaptation to the crisis of the Sri Lankan ruling elite, helped the capitalist parties to whip up this chauvinism.
In 1964, as workers rallied, across ethnic lines, around 21 demands, the LSSP betrayed the principles of socialist internationalism and joined the SLFP government of Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike. The LSSP’s political betrayal was prepared by the opportunist faction of the Fourth International, led by Michael Pablo and Earnest Mandel, which had broken from Trotskyism.
The LSSP leadership played a prominent role in the 1972 constitution, imposed by the SLFP-LSSP-Stalinist Communist Party coalition government. The constitution further entrenched communalism, conferring Buddhism as the state religion and Sinhala as the official language.
The LSSP’s betrayal helped the emerging Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) gain ground among rural youth. Preaching an ideological mixture of Castroism, Maoism and Sinhala patriotism, the JVP diverted rural youth away from the working class. The LSSP’s treachery also dashed the hopes of Tamils in the working class, and paved the way for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to win a hearing for separatism among the Tamil population.
The discredited right-wing UNP was able to exploit opposition to the coalition government and the LSSP’s betrayals in order to come to power in 1977.
The UNP government under President J.R. Jayawardene imposed an autocratic executive presidency and began implementing “open market” policies. International capital was invited into Sri Lanka and the country became integrated into the processes of globalised production. When public sector employees began a general strike action against the government’s policies, Jayawardene sacked 100,000 workers.
Maintaining the government’s “free market” policies, Jayawardene systematically whipped up anti-Tamil communalism and, in 1983, provoked the war that devastated the country for nearly three decades.
From 1988 to 1990, President Premadasa’s UNP government responded to the JVP’s fascistic campaign against its political opponents and the working class, by unleashing military, police and death squads to suppress the rural youth. About 60,000 young people were killed during this brutal repression.
The final years of this bloody conflict took place under former President Mahinda Rajapakse, with Gotabhaya Rajapakse as his defence secretary. The war ended in May 2009, with the final weeks, according to UN estimates, claiming the lives of some 40,000 unarmed Tamil civilians.
Today, de-facto military rule and occupation continue in the North and East, where the majority of Tamils live.
According to official data, the richest 20 percent in Sri Lanka hold 52.8 percent of total household income, with the poorest 10 percent receiving only 1.8 percent. Expenditure cuts to public education and health are increasing, while private education institutions and hospitals earn ever-increasing profits.
Above all, imperialism’s grip on the country is tightening, with the connivance of every faction of the ruling elite. In 2015, the US-orchestrated a regime-change operation to oust Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse and bring Sirisena to power. Washington considered Rajapakse too close to China, and insisted on Sri Lanka lining up behind the US military plans against China.
This political operation was backed by the pseudo-left, the JVP and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). The TNA has openly declared its readiness to serve US geopolitical interests, in exchange for privileges from the new Rajapakse government.
President Gotabhaya Rajapakse has been served notice by President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to deviate from Sri Lanka’s military integration with the US and its build-up towards war against China. Moreover, India, under both the former Congress government and the current regime of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been transformed into a frontline state for Washington’s war plans against Beijing.
On February 4, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse issued a statement declaring that there was “some cause for satisfaction” in Sri Lanka. “We are now on the cusp of a golden era once again.”
This is an outright lie. The new Rajapakse regime, like its counterparts around the world, is rapidly adopting authoritarian methods to take on the increasingly militant working class.
Seventy-two years of brutal rule by the Sri Lankan capitalist class have, once again, confirmed Leon Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution. The capitalist classes in the countries of belated capitalist development are incapable of freeing themselves from imperialism or addressing and resolving critical social and democratic tasks.
These tasks can be achieved only by the working class, in a socialist revolution, as part of the international struggle for world socialism. In every country, globalised production and distribution has welded together the international working class on an unprecedented level.
The Socialist Equality Party, Sri Lankan section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, has fought, since its inception in 1968 as the Revolutionary Communist League (RCL), for the political independence of the working class based on an international socialist perspective. On this basis, the SEP fights for a Sri Lankan and Eelam Socialist Republic, as part of a Union of South Asian socialist republics. We urge workers and youth to join this struggle.

Emergency legislation for terror law offenders in UK sets anti-democratic precedent

Thomas Scripps

Boris Johnson’s Conservative government is intensifying its repressive law-and-order agenda, utilising revulsion at recent terror offenses.
Immediately following the February 2 stabbing of two shoppers in Streatham, South London, by the recently released Sudesh Amman, and the November 29 murder of Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones by Usman Khan on London Bridge, also recently released, the government announced plans to increase the proportion of the sentence those convicted of terror offences will serve in prison.
These changes will be retroactively imposed on prisoners sentenced under the old system. Under the proposed law, offenders will serve a minimum of two thirds of their sentence before undergoing a Parole Board assessment.
Justice Secretary Robert Buckland told the House of Commons Monday, in the aftermath of the Streatham terror attack, that emergency legislation would “ensure an end to terrorist offenders getting released automatically having served half of their sentence with no check or review… We face an unprecedented situation of severe gravity, and as such it demands the government responds immediately and that this legislation will apply to serving prisoners.”
The proposed legislation—to be introduced Tuesday next week and set to be on the statute books by February 27—clears the way for the imposition of indefinite sentences, where prisoners are only released on the say-so of the prison authorities. Buckland said, “We will review whether the current maximum penalties and sentencing framework for terrorist offences is indeed sufficient or comprehensive on the underlying principle that terrorist offenders should no longer be released until the Parole Board is satisfied they are no longer a risk to the public.”
The next morning Cabinet Minister Michael Gove told Sky News, “We need to be able to prove that people are no longer a danger to the public. There is a big difference between those people who are Islamist extremist terrorists and those convicted of other offences.
“If you have people in the grip of an ideology that means they want to kill innocent people who in order to advance a particular religious or political view, they are a danger to society. Until they are comprehensively deradicalized and it is safe to have those people on our streets then public protection must come first.”
The full weight of the right-wing media was mobilised behind the government, with screaming banner headlines, editorials and op-eds. The Daily Telegraph complained in its editorial, “He [Amman] had been jailed for terrorist related crimes for three years but released halfway through and was being closely watched because he was deemed dangerous. In the past he might have received an IPP but there is no longer any mechanism for incarcerating people known to be dangerous indefinitely. They must be released, thereby using up massive police and MI5 resources to keep them under surveillance.”
IPP refers to an Imprisonment for Public Protection, an indeterminate sentence included in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 by Labour Home Secretary, David Blunkett, since abolished. Nominally intended for a small number of cases involving a hard core of extremists, IPPs ended up being served on more than 8,000 people. They were scrapped in 2012, but nearly 2,500 people are still indefinitely detained in prison on an IPP sentence.
The Telegraph concluded that Buckland “has announced emergency legislation to stop this but the real issue is not automatic early release but whether people like Amman should be allowed out at all.”
A range of legal experts and campaigning groups criticised the legality and practical impact of the plans. Claire Collier, advocacy director of Liberty, said, “The government’s response to recent terror attacks is a cause of increasing concern for our civil liberties.
“From last month’s kneejerk lie detector proposal [for those on or seeking probation], to today’s threat to break the law by changing people’s sentences retrospectively, continuing to introduce measures without review or evidence is dangerous and will create more problems than it solves.”
Amanda Pinto QC, chair of the Bar Council (the professional association for barristers in England and Wales), said the plan “should be the subject of careful consideration to ensure that it complies with the rule of law.”
Simon Davis, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, warned, “If the license period [the part of the sentence spent outside of prison] is instead spent in custody, we risk releasing inmates without any supervision, without any transition and without any opportunity for the probation service to recall them to prison if there are concerns about their post-release behaviour.”
Geoffrey Robertson, renowned human rights barrister at Doughty Street chambers, described the government’s announcement as “panic legislation.”
Even Lord Carlile—removed from a review of UK terror legislation in December after his impartiality was challenged—has questioned the legality of the government’s intentions and suggested the legislation will be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. Speaking on Newsnight on Monday, Carlile said, “The decision to lengthen the sentence of people who’ve already been sentenced and therefore expected to be serving half the sentence may be in breach of law.”
The government’s attempt to impose new sentencing laws retroactively—on prisoners who are currently serving sentences passed with the expectation of an earlier release, is an example of Ex post facto (“out of the aftermath”) law. This is prohibited by most constitutions, criminal codes and rights charters across the world. Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited by Article Seven of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and can also be said to breach Article Six, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
In the UK, the principle of “parliamentary sovereignty” can be invoked to deny this protection, though even in the UK the use of retroactive legislation has been rare. The government’s lawyers intend to lean on this principle to allow a deeply unpopular Conservative administration to trample on widely recognised legal rights in pursuit of a reactionary political agenda.
The Times reported Tuesday that Johnson is considering suspending the European Convention on Human Rights. The government could do so by applying for a “derogation” from the convention. This could be enacted “by simply informing the Council of Europe and explaining its [the government’s] reasons. The derogation could be open to legal challenge but several countries, including the UK, have derogated without crossing legal boundaries.”
Further draconian measures are under consideration with “Ministers… also examining plans to reintroduce ‘control orders’, which impose virtual house arrest on released terrorists, with restrictions on where they live, their movements and with whom they can associate.”
Control orders were implemented from 2005 by Blair’s Labour government—part of a raft of anti-democratic measures justified on the basis of strengthening counter-terror legislation. 
The policy does nothing to address the real roots of terrorist violence in militarist destruction abroad by the UK, as the junior partner in US-led wars going back several decades.
David Merritt, the father of prison rehabilitation worker and Cambridge University graduate Jack Merritt, killed in the London bridge terror attack, tweeted, “Longer sentences by themselves = just kicking the can down the road, allowing prisoners to radicalise each other & build greater resentment. Key has to be deradicalization, rehabilitation, supervision & diverting people from this path in the first place.”
Like all “national security” measures, as has already been shown with the governments listing of left-wing and climate action groups alongside right-wing terror organisations, the aim of the Tory emergency legislation is the suppression of all popular political and social opposition.
English and Welsh law is strongly bound by precedent. Once judges are given the power to impose indefinite sentences for “public protection,” a chain of rulings can quickly widen the scope of their application. Whatever measures are used initially against terrorists will be deployed more widely and severely against thousands of workers and youth who defy the class war offensive of the ruling elite.
The climate of fear accompanying the rush to “emergency legislation” is already being used to push through new draconian laws—in cases unrelated to terror offences.
On Wednesday, Home Secretary Priti Patel proposed doubling or trebling the amount of time a person can spend on pre-charge bail—a period in which a suspect is subject to police restrictions prior to any charges being made. This would delay the point at which a magistrate’s approval for the extension of bail is required from three months to six, nine or even 12 months. Her proposals also include removing the presumption against pre-charge bail and allowing officers of lower ranks to authorise and extend the term.

Social inequality main issue in the Irish general election

Dermot Byrne

The general election in the Republic of Ireland takes place February 8. There are 531 candidates running to fill 159 seats across 39 constituencies. The election campaign takes place in conditions of immense anger felt by working people against Leo Varadkar’s outgoing right-wing Fine Gael Party.
Varadkar’s government has been kept in power over the past four years with the cooperation of Fianna Fáil, the main opposition bourgeois nationalist party. Under the leadership of Micheál Martin, Fianna Fáil signed on to a “confidence and supply” agreement with Fine Gael has fuelled resentment against the entire political establishment.
Growing social inequality, declining living standards culminating in the worst housing crisis in the country’s history, and a severe deterioration in the healthcare system and major aspects of social care stand alongside a concentration of extreme wealth in the hands of very few individuals.
A new study by the charity Oxfam has shown that the Republic of Ireland has the fifth largest number of billionaires relative to its population of any country in the world. Ireland is mirroring the global trend in wealth inequality with only Hong Kong, Cyprus, Switzerland, and Singapore having more billionaires per capita.
For the past three weeks the central issues have been homelessness and the housing crisis along with the scandal of patients forced to wait on trolleys in overcrowded and understaffed hospitals.
There has been a public outcry at the introduction of measures to raise the state pension eligibility age from 66 to 68 years. It was already increased in 2014 from 65 to 66, but under the terms of the bank bailout conditions imposed by the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund in 2011, the then Fine Gael/Labour government legislated to raise the pension age in three stages by 2028 to 68. This has inflicted significant hardship. Workers contracted to retire at 65 now find themselves forced to sign onto unemployment benefits for a year after working all their lives.
The trade unions have cooperated fully with the government in brokering deals via the pro-employer state sponsored Labour Court. Bus workers, for example, have experienced the privatisation of large slices of the national bus service, while strikes have been discouraged or called off.
Last year, as the crisis in the Irish health service reached a tipping point, union leaders imposed a deal brokered with the Labour Court on 40,000 nurses and midwives. The deal was widely opposed by health service workers because the unions had tied nurses to “work performance” schemes that increased workloads.
The working class, as well as bearing the consequences of crumbling public services, has seen a general deterioration in its quality of life. Figures published recently show that Irish workers have seen their living standards plummet by 14 percent since the banking and financial crash of 2008.
Workers often find they must travel in congested traffic conditions a hundred miles or more to get to work in the major cities and larger towns. Ireland has the highest childcare costs in Europe and a soaring crime rate that is the product of growing inequality and an oppressive class system.
While official figures put the number of homeless people at 10,000, this does not include young people, many with children, who have been forced into living with their parents because of spiralling rents.
The political parties including Fianna Fáil, Labour, Sinn Féin, the Greens and the pseudo left People Before Profit / Solidarity (PBP/S) have all been trading hollow election promises on the backs of these worsening social conditions since the election was called.
Brendon Howlin of the moribund Labour Party set it off, claiming at the launch of the party manifesto, “We will build 80,000 homes over five years.”
Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Féin and the PBP/S grouping both “pledged” 100,000 houses and a return of the pension entitlement age to 65. The Greens, who while in government with Fianna Fáil in 2012 helped impose brutal austerity measures cutting pensions, workers’ wages, benefits and huge areas of social spending, pledged 200,000 new homes.
Fianna Fáil promptly matched the 200,000 figure but nobody believes a word of it.
Indicating the level of disaffection with both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and a radicalisation amongst broad sections of workers, the latest opinion polls show Sinn Féin winning more support than any other party. Sinn Féin are now potentially the largest party with 25 percent support against Fianna Fáil on 23 percent and Fine Gael on 20 percent, although their low number of candidates, 42, means they are unlikely to be the largest grouping in the next Dáil Éireann.
This makes a coalition involving one or other of the main parties with Sinn Féin a serious possibility.
Liberal commentator Fintan O’Toole mused on the utility of this in the Irish Times in a piece titled, “It is time for Sinn Féin to come in from the cold.”
O’Toole noted that the decision of the Labour Party to enter government with Fine Gael in 2011, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, to assist imposing crushing austerity on the working class destroyed the Labour Party. It meant that “Sinn Féin would occupy the space where a traditional social democratic party should be.”
O’Toole is aware of the great vulnerability of the Irish economy to global waves of instability, starting with—but by no means restricted to—the impact of Brexit. He sees the need for Sinn Féin to come forward to play the role as the Irish Syriza. Left talking Syriza came to power in Greece in 2016 and promptly reneged on all its pre-election promises, imposing new levels of brutal austerity on Greek workers.
The nominal left parties seek to attract support from the working class in order to tie the interests of workers to capitalism and the political needs of the ruling elite. All of them, including the pseudo-left groupings, have made it clear that they seek some type of alliance with the main bourgeois nationalist parties.
Richard Boyd Barrett, the leader of the PBP/Solidarity Alliance with five TDs, has reassured those who vote for them that they “will not prop up a Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael dominated government,” but would seek “a broad left alliance to form a government” including Sinn Féin, the Greens and the Labour Party.
But both Eamonn Ryan of the Greens as well as McDonald of Sinn Féin have repeatedly made clear that their primarily goal is to enter government with either Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil.
Workers need a genuine socialist alternative to confront what is a worldwide crisis of the capitalist system, which brooks no national solution. No amount of auction block politics or reformist lies will make a blind bit of difference. Rather, the fate of workers in Ireland is bound up with that of workers across the world and demands a rejection of the capitalist system and the building of a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International in Ireland.

Farmers protest Socialist Party-Podemos government in Madrid

Alejandro López

Hundreds of farmers rallied outside the Agriculture Ministry in Madrid yesterday to protest social conditions and economic problems facing the agriculture sector. This follows last week’s farmer protests in the regions of Galicia, Extremadura and Andalusia.
Farmers are protesting the fall in farm-gate prices and rising production costs. According to the Agriculture Ministry, farm income dropped 8.6 percent in 2019 alone. Large supermarkets and grocery chains are hiking their prices but slashing what they pay to farmers. According to Europa Press, in January, final sales prices of agricultural products were on average four times what supermarkets paid to farmers; for potatoes it was seven times more; and for meat, eggs and milk, three times.
Other problems facing farmers are linked to the crisis of European capitalism and global geopolitical tensions: trade restrictions and potential cuts in the European Union’s (EU’s) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies due to Brexit, US President Donald Trump’s tariffs on European agriculture, especially Spain’s olive sector, and EU sanctions against Russia.
Before last week’s protests, the Socialist Party (PSOE) regional premier of Extremadura, Guillermo Fernández Vara, blamed farmers’ low margins on small minimum wage increases agreed by the PSOE, the Stalinist United Left and Podemos in talks with the big-business Confederation of Spanish Enterprises (CEOE). Vara, who presides over one of Spain’s poorest, most agriculture-dependent regions, said, “with the low prices in this sector, it costs a lot to cover high salary costs linked to the rise in the minimum wage.”
The main organisers of the farmers protests—the Union of Small Farmers (UPA), the Coalition of Farmers and Herders (COAG), and the Association of Young Farmers (ASAJA)—have not made wage levels for agricultural workers their central issue, for now at least. These protests appear to have a socially heterogeneous character. They include layers of farm workers and impoverished small farmers living on tiny profit margins and incomes, as well as big and medium-sized landowners.
This is also reflected in their demands, which go from better insurance systems to wildlife management, transparent labelling, and higher subsidies. “Our main demand,” COAG General Secretary Ivana Martinez told El Pais, “is a fair price for agri-food products. ... They have to be worth what they truly should be worth and not what the big supermarkets and food chains impose, which are prices that always take all the added value.”
Many farmers are wearing yellow vests, echoing the hundreds of thousands of “yellow vest” protesters who have united on social media against French President Emmanuel Macron’s anti-worker policies. These demonstrations have become France’s most significant opposition movement since the May 1968 general strike. The French “yellow vests” include significant layers of workers and are not a primarily agricultural movement, and Madrid is clearly terrified of opposition spreading to Spanish workers as well.
In an El País column on the farmers protests, political analyst Fernando Vallespín wrote, “it’s still not a revolt. Neither is it organised, like the yellow vests in France, through social media. But the latest protests of the countryside in some parts of Spain are likely to make their impact felt beyond the specific problems of agriculture and livestock. It’s a wakeup call.”
Last week, a general strike paralysed Spain’s Basque country. Tens of thousands of factory workers, education, health, transport and small business workers struck against precarious jobs and low pensions.
January saw the destruction of 244,000 jobs, making it the worst month of January since 2014. With more than 3.25 million Spaniards registered as unemployed, an explosive social crisis is brewing.
The Barcelona daily La Vanguardia published an article titled “Sánchez deploys the whole government to stop the social explosion in rural Spain,” reporting: “The Prime Minister demands initiatives to stop a ‘yellow vest’ rebellion.” It writes that Agriculture Minister Luís Planes returned to Madrid “in shock” at popular fury erupting in rural Spain. Regional PSOE premiers, it noted, are warning Sánchez that this could be the “embryo” of a “movement like the yellow vests.”
La Vanguardia added that Deputy Prime Minister Teresa Ribera will visit the coal-mining region of León, “another centre of alarm as coal subsidies come to an end.” The PSOE-linked General Union of Labour (UGT) union has warned of a “possible social outbreak” by the miners.
The online daily eldiario.org wrote, “The government’s fears are that the anger will resemble the yellow vests of France and that it will also be capitalised upon by the far-right Vox party.”
The far-right danger is real: Vox is attempting to capitalise on growing popular anger. While the UPA, COAG and ASAJA said they wanted no political parties present, Santiago Abascal, the leader of the far-right Vox party, attended the rally to give a press conference. In his speech, Abascal criticised Spain’s other parties for “kneeling to the European Union” and called for the EU to grant preference on European markets to EU and Spanish products.
Abascal’s speech reportedly received a decidedly mixed reaction, however, ranging from calls of support to jeers and boos. In one of the videos, a protester can be heard shouting, “You are couch farmers! Show your hands, Abascal,” referring to Abascal’s career made of high-paid sinecures in government agencies to which he was appointed by politically connected friends.
While the danger posed by Vox is real, its rise is driven overwhelmingly from the top. The ruling class has promoted nationalism and police-state repression, especially against Catalonia, to disorient growing social anger at the current government’s austerity and military-police repression. The struggle against Vox is inseparable from a struggle to mobilise the working class, drawing behind it layers of farmers and small business, against the PSOE-Podemos government. The PSOE and Podemos are themselves deeply implicated in the crimes of Spanish fascism.
On Monday, Podemos and the PSOE joined the right-wing parties (Popular Party, Citizens, Vox) to block the publication of notorious fascist torturer Antonio González Pacheco’s service record. Better known as “Billy El Niño” (Billy the Kid), he was one of the most feared torturers of General Francisco Franco’s fascist dictatorship. He was accused of brutally beating up political prisoners, including pregnant women, as a secret police agent. He still lives and has never answered for his crimes.
Podemos claimed that they voted this way due to “juridical doubts” about the initiative presented by the Basque-nationalist EH Bildu party. Amid a public uproar over this vote, Podemos issued a meaningless promise that they might change their vote later.
As the WSWS warned two years ago in its piece “The ‘anti-fascism’ of Podemos: A cover for Spain’s anti-worker Socialist Party government,” analyzing the PSOE’s review of Pacheco’s merit awards: “A PSOE government backed by Podemos will prove to be a bitter enemy of the working class, whatever symbolic ‘anti-Franco’ measures it adopts. … They will not oppose, but rather fall in line with the EU austerity, wars and far-right attacks on democratic rights. They are indissolubly linked to neo-fascistic tendencies by their historic ties with the European ruling elite and state apparatus.”
Two years later, the ruling class is showering Podemos with praise for its right-wing record. The conservative daily El Confidencial carried an article titled “The unexpected maturity of Iglesias and his ministers,” writing: “The five ministers of the orbit of Podemos have avoided major stumbling blocks. ... Podemos seem to have left the chrysalis behind to become adults.”
One example, it noted, was the “institutional composure” shown by Podemos ministers after the King’s intervention at the opening of Parliament: the ministers, it concluded, were seen “clapping impeccably.”

Over 1.5 million homeless students in the US

Trévon Austin

On the day that US President Donald Trump proclaimed a “a blue-collar boom” in his State of the Union address, the Federal government reported that the number of students experiencing homelessness had hit a record high.
More than 1.5 million public school students, from kindergarten to high school, experienced homelessness at some point in time during the 2017-18 school year, according to a report released Wednesday by the National Center for Homeless Education. The number is the highest recorded since the organization began tracking student homelessness.
In this Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012 photo, Zach Montgomery and his niece Alexys watch TV in the motel room that is their home in Clermont, Fla. (AP Photo/John Raoux)
In his State of the Union address, Trump presented the United States as a paradise for American workers, declaring “The years of economic decay are over… Gone, too, are the broken promises, jobless recoveries, tired platitudes and constant excuses.”
Trump has consistently pointed to the “booming” stock market as proof that the economic situation of workers “has never been better.” However, the report is just one of many recent social indicators that expose mounting inequality and social distress in the United States.
The three richest people in the US have as much wealth as the bottom half of US society. Life expectancy in the country has declined for three years in a row, driven by overdose, suicide, and deaths of despair. On average, wealthier Americans live almost ten more “disability-free” years, after the age of 50, than the poorest.
The report defines homelessness as individuals who lack a “fixed, regular, and adequate” nighttime residence. This includes students living in hotels or motels, sharing housing with other families, living in homeless shelters, or in inadequate housing such as abandoned warehouses or vehicles.
Compared to the 2015-16 school year, the 2017-18 school year showed a 15 percent increase, from 1,307,656 to 1,508,265, in students reported as experiencing homelessness. The number from 2017-18 was more than double the 680,000 students who experienced homelessness in 2004-05, the first year examined by the organization.
Sixteen states experienced a growth of more than ten percent in their homeless student population, from 2015-16 to 2017-18. Texas saw the largest increase over the period, with its number of homeless students doubling to more than 231,000. Texas, California, and New York account for more than a third of all homeless students. Overall, fourteen states reported a decrease. Only six, however, reported decreases of more than ten percent.
During 2017-18, 74 percent of students experiencing homelessness shared housing with others, due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or similar reasons. Twelve percent of homeless students lived in homeless shelters. Seven percent primarily resided in hotels or motels, and another 7 percent were identified as unsheltered.
The report noted a 137 percent increase, over a three-year period, in students (totaling more than 102,000) who reported staying in unsheltered places, such as vehicles or abandoned buildings, while homeless. The number of students who lived in hotels or motels increased by 24 percent, while students who “doubled up” with other families increased by 13 percent. In contrast, the number of students in shelters declined by 2 percent.
Further statistics reveal that the severity of the issue has worsened. More children in primary school and early childhood education are homeless than those in middle and high school. Unaccompanied homeless youth, who are often fleeing neglect or abuse, make up nine percent of the homeless student population. Eighteen percent of homeless students are disabled and 31 states reported that at least 20 percent of their homeless students had an identified disability.
Under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, school districts are eligible for federal aid to support homeless students. In 2017-18, 4,387 school districts, just under one quarter of the total in the country, received subgrants under the Act. Funding under the McKinney-Vento Act rose by almost $12 million between 2015 and 2017, with states providing an average $76.50 per pupil. However, per pupil funding hardly changed, due to the larger number of homeless students.
The insecurity and lack of stability that homeless students face severely impact their ability to learn and assimilate information, in the most formative period of their lives. During the 2017-18 school year, only 29 percent of students facing homelessness achieved academic proficiency in language arts. Only 24 percent achieved proficiency in mathematics, and just 26 percent in science.
Barbara Duffield, executive director of SchoolHouse Connection, a nonprofit based in Washington that supports homeless youth, told the New York Times that the causes behind the rise in student homelessness were complex and depended on where students lived in the United States.
The sharp rises in states such as Texas and Florida were driven by natural disasters, including hurricanes and extreme flooding. During the 2017-18 school year, the Gulf Coast was ravaged by storms that destroyed thousands of homes. Duffield also explained that lack of affordable housing, the opioid and methamphetamine addiction crises, and local economic factors, such as factory closings, all influenced the increase in student homelessness.

5 Feb 2020

L’Oréal-UNESCO Sub-Saharan Africa Young Talents Programme 2020 for African Women in Science

Application Deadline: 30th March 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Sub- Saharan African countries listed below

To be taken at (country): Sub-Saharan African Universities

About Fellowship: Founded in 1998, the L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Sub-Saharan Africa Fellowships aims to promote and encourage young African women in science. Its programs reward established women scientists whose outstanding achievements have contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge and of its benefits to society and provide support to promising young women who are already making significant contributions in their scientific disciplines.

Eligible Field of Study: This program identifies and rewards talented young female scientists in the field of Life Sciences (such as biology, biochemistry, biophysics, genetics, physiology, neurosciences, biotechnologies, ecology and ethology) as well as Physical Sciences (such as physics, chemistry, petroleum engineering, mathematics, engineering sciences, information sciences, and earth and universe sciences).

Eligibility: Applicants must meet the following general criteria:
  • Having obtained Ph.D. degree in Life or Physical Sciences or pursuing studies leading to a Ph.D. degree
  • Having the nationality of a Sub-Saharan African country
  • Working in a Research Laboratory or Institution in one of the region’s countries or being- enrolled in a doctoral programme at a University in Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Candidates must be no more than 40 years old by the end of the application period for- PhD and not more than 45 years for Post-doctoral.
Selection Criteria: The selection criteria of the candidate by the jury are the following:
  • The candidate’s outstanding academic records (including number, quality and impact of the publications (impact factors to be submitted), conference presentations, patents…)
  • The scientific quality of the research project
  • The innovative nature and productivity of the research and its potential application in science
Number of Awards: The Program honors 15 doctorates and 5 post-doctorates every year.

Value of Award:
  • €10,000 each will be granted to Ph.D. Students enrolled in- an African University.
  • €15,000 each will be granted to 2 postdoctoral researchers- working in a laboratory or research institute registered in one of the region’s countries.
Eligible Countries: South Africa, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Níger, Nigeria, Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Sao Tomé & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Chad, Togo, Zambia and Zimbabwe

How to Apply: Applications can be only made  here  by the candidates themselves.  An application is considered complete only if it includes all documents below:
  • A detailed Curriculum Vitae (including outreach activities among youth, tutoring, etc.)
  • Certified copies of the degrees or recent diplomas-
  • A proof of having obtained a Ph.D. degree for postdoctoral candidates-
  • A proof of being enrolled in an African University for doctoral candidates-
  • A detailed project of maximum 2 pages, including:
    • The research project description
    • The proposed use of the grant motivating the candidature with some budget indications
  • Letters of recommendation from the research supervisor and/or the director of the- scientific institution where the research project is carried or the Dean of the University under which the candidate is running her research
  • The list of publications and patents
Incomplete files or received after the deadline for application, as well as candidatures that do not meet the requirements mentioned above, will not be taken into consideration.
It is important to download and go through application rules and regulations from the Fellowship Webpage below before applying


Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

EJN Reporting on Conservation and Wildlife Issues in East Africa 2020 for East African Journalists

Application Deadline: 15th February 2020 at 5:00pm EAT

Eligible Countries: Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda.

About the Award: Environmental loss and degradation is a global problem, but its outcomes vary as do the ways in which people are responding. What threats are species and habitats in East Africa facing? What are the ripple effects of these threats on livelihoods and human security?  
These story grants will support reporting that explores the short- and long-term consequences of environmental destruction while also informing policymakers, affected communities and the general public about ways to address these problems.
We’re looking for incisive, in-depth, solutions-focused stories on conservation and wildlife that put human experiences at the center of the storytelling. While the stories should be backed by scientific evidence and incorporate data in a simple and compelling way, they should focus on proven adaptations and responses to these challenges.
Ideas should consider but not be limited to questions such as:
  • How are communities working to conserve their immediate environments and ecosystems?
  • What new approaches are being developed or utilized to combat wildlife crime and poaching?
  • How do courts and the judiciary treat these crimes? Are changes needed to ensure more prosecutions?
  • How does law enforcement, especially rangers, deal with wildlife crime? Are they well enough equipped to deal with poachers who have sophisticated weapons and technology?
  • What role do policies play in environmental protection? What are some examples of successful regulation that could serve as models for similar places?
  • Who are the female champions and experts promoting conservation or adaptation?
We encourage reporters to view this not just as an environmental story and to think outside their beat, considering ways their reporting could address broader angles. For example, stories could explore the economics and financing driving the illegal trade in wildlife, or reporters could produce detailed “live action” profiles of rangers by shadowing them in the field. We also encourage the use of multimedia; applicants for long-form and multimedia narratives should include plans and budget for accompanying multimedia elements and distribution channels in their pitch.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: Grants are open to early- or mid-career journalists:
  • From Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda.
  • Working for international, national, local or community-based media.
  • Producing stories for digital, print, television or radio as well as other expert media practitioners reporting for a media-focused organization.
  • With a track record of covering conservation and wildlife stories.
  • Stories can be produced in English, Kiswahili or local languages. Applicants who intend to write or produce stories in Kiswahili or local languages should also include a translation of the headline and a short summary in English for publication by EJN.
Freelancers with a demonstrable plan for publication and a letter of interest from an editor are encouraged to apply. Similarly, photojournalists and multimedia practitioners with published visual work are also eligible.
Please note that EJN and its partners and donors have the right to edit, publish, broadcast and distribute these stories freely, once they have been published/broadcast in the original media outlet. 

Selection Criteria: Applicants should consider the following points when devising their story proposals:
  • Timing: We expect the proposed story or stories to be published within three months of the application deadline, or no later than June 1, 2020.
  • Relevance: Does the proposal meet the criteria and objectives of this call? Why does this story matter and to whom? Is the main idea, context and overall value to the target audience clearly defined?
  • Angle: If the story has been covered by mainstream media, does your proposal bring new insights into the topic or offer a fresh angle? 
  • Impact: Does the proposal have a compelling narrative or investigative element that will inform and engage, draw attention, trigger debate and urge action? 
  • Innovative storytelling: The use of creative approaches and data visualization will be considered a plus.
  • Feasibility: Can the story be realistically completed within the target time frame? Is the budget realistic?
  • Diversity: We will take gender and geographical distribution into account when selecting the grantees in addition to the criteria above.
Number of Awards: 10

Value of Award: Selected journalists will receive an average of US$1,000 in funding to cover travel and field reporting costs. Stories that use particularly innovative or investigative approaches that are more costly to produce may be eligible for additional funding.

How to Apply:
  • Click on the Apply Now button at the top of the page. 
  • If you have an existing account, you’ll need to log in. If not, you must register for an account by clicking “Join the Network” on the top right of the page.
  • If you start the application and want to come back and complete it later, you can click “Save Draft.” To return to the draft, you’ll need to go back to the opportunity and click “Apply Now” again to finalize the application.
  • Applicants should provide a detailed budget with justification for the amount requested. Download the budget template now by clicking on this linkWe expect that proposals will largely reflect what equipment the applicant already has access to (including cameras, drones, lighting, tripods etc.) and will not consider budgets that heavily focus on procuring new supplies. Please include the cost for translation in the budget, if necessary. Please also note on your budget form if you are receiving funding from other donors for the story.
  • You must submit three samples of stories or links to relevant work. You’ll be asked to upload these once you start the application process so please get them ready beforehand.
  • Applications submitted after the deadline will not be considered.
Visit Award Webpage for Details