7 Jul 2021

US imperialism’s criminal debacle in Afghanistan

Bill Van Auken


US troops pulled out of the sprawling Bagram Air Base at three in the morning last Friday, without notifying the Afghan government forces meant to replace them, and cutting off the power on the way out, an act that triggered an invasion of the base by a small army of looters.

This ignoble retreat is a fitting symbol of the debacle wrought by 20 years of US war and occupation in Afghanistan. Bagram, built by the Soviet military in the 1950s and vastly expanded by the Americans, was at the heart of US imperialism’s two-decade-long criminal war of aggression.

Hundreds of thousands of US personnel passed through the base in the longest war in US history. From Bagram, US warplanes carried out bombing campaigns that claimed the lives of countless thousands of Afghan civilians, and special forces kill teams launched raids in which entire families were wiped out. The base, moreover, housed the Parwan Detention Facility where thousands of suspected insurgents were imprisoned and the methods of “enhanced interrogation”, i.e., torture were employed. Prisoners were beaten, attacked by dogs, shackled to the ceiling, subjected to sexual humiliation and sleep deprivation, and, in some cases, tortured to death.

A member of the Afghan security forces walks in the sprawling Bagram air base after the American military departed, in Parwan province north of Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, July 5, 2021. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)

Bagram was abandoned in the midst of an unmitigated rout of Afghan security forces at the hands of the Taliban insurgency. The Taliban has overrun roughly a quarter of the country’s districts in the space of a few weeks–in addition to the territories it already controlled. Government soldiers have handed over bases and stockpiles of US-supplied weapons and, in some cases, joined the Islamist fighters. Monday saw more than 1,000 government troops flee across Afghanistan’s northeastern border into the former Soviet republic of Tajikistan to escape the fighting.

This rout, which seems to confirm the worst-case scenario prepared by US intelligence agencies that Kabul could fall within six months of a US withdrawal, has touched off an increasingly bitter “who lost Afghanistan” dispute in Washington. Right-wing Republican politicians have indicted the Biden administration, while proclaiming their deep concern for the rights of Afghan women. Biden’s supporters have in turn pointed out that it was the Trump administration that signed the agreement with the Taliban in Qatar in February 2020 mandating the US pullout.

The reality is that the United States lost Afghanistan over the course of its two-decade colonial-style occupation, which provoked intense opposition and anger within the Afghan population.

It is conservatively estimated that 175,000 civilians have been killed in the war. If those dying as a result of the conditions of mass displacement and the general destruction of social conditions were to be added, the total doubtless would climb to well over a million.

The US intervention began with a horrific war crime: the mass execution of over 2,000 Taliban prisoners who were suffocated or shot to death in shipping containers after surrendering to US special forces and their Northern Alliance proxies in November 2001. The US war, obscenely dubbed “Operation Enduring Freedom,” produced an unending series of such crimes against the Afghan population. According to conservative estimates, over the past five years alone, some 4,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in US and allied airstrikes, including nearly 800 children.

The empty promises that the US occupation would bring the Afghan people democracy and prosperity have been exposed as a fraud. The puppet regime in Kabul, the product of rigged elections and deals with criminal warlords, lacks any legitimacy. After 20 years of US aid, Afghanistan still ranks 169th (out of 189 countries) on the UN’s Human Development Index, behind most of sub-Saharan Africa.

The US spent $143 billion on Afghanistan’s “reconstruction”, a sum that is greater, adjusted for inflation, than what Washington spent on the entire Marshal Plan for the reconstruction of Western Europe after World War II. This money has produced neither any significant improvement in the lives of the vast majority of Afghans, nor any development of basic infrastructure. It has gone overwhelmingly to line the pockets of one of the most corrupt kleptocracies on the planet, including the military command, which has stolen soldiers’ pay and supplies, contributing mightily to the ongoing collapse of the security forces.

The war’s costs for the United States, besides the trillion dollars spent to fight it, are measured in the deaths of 2,452 US military personnel, along with those of 455 British soldiers and 689 from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Australia, Spain and other countries. Thousands of military contractors also lost their lives. There are many among the three-quarters of a million US troops who deployed at least once to Afghanistan who returned maimed or mentally scarred by the dirty colonial war.

With the US withdrawal, the question arises: what justified this sacrifice? The claim that the war was waged to protect the American people from Al Qaeda terrorism is a patent lie. It continued for more than nine years after Osama bin Laden, sick, isolated and under house arrest by Pakistan’s ISI military intelligence agency, was executed by a Navy Seal squad. During that period, Washington funded and armed Al Qaeda elements for its wars of regime change in Libya and Syria.

Moreover, the tragic encounter between the people of Afghanistan and US imperialism began not in 2001, but more than two decades earlier, when the CIA, collaborating with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, mobilized Islamist fighters from throughout the Muslim world for a proxy war against Soviet forces supporting a secular government in Kabul. Among the CIA’s closest collaborators was bin Laden, who founded Al Qaeda with the backing of the US intelligence agency.

The motives for the war, which had nothing to do with the welfare of the American people and everything to do with the interests of the financial and corporate oligarchy, are indicated in some of the criticism of the US withdrawal.

The Washington Post editorialized: “U.S. rivals such as Iran, China and Russia could draw the conclusion that Mr. Biden lacks the stomach to stand up for embattled U.S. allies such as Iraq, Taiwan and Ukraine.”

The Wall Street Journal pointed to “strategic costs” of the withdrawal, stating “An American presence in Afghanistan, including at the large air base at Bagram, has given pause to both Iran to the west and China to the east. A significant American presence in that strategic spot provided at least a bit of a check on Iranian aggression and Chinese expansionism.”

An article by Lt. Col. David Clukey, a retired US Army Special Forces officer, which appeared on the website of the Naval War College, warned that the withdrawal would give “communist China ... an opportunity to undermine 20 years of US efforts while simultaneously enabling People’s Republic of China (PRC) advisors and military forces strategic access and influence in South-Asia - a move that would strengthen deterrence against U.S. military intervention in the region.”

What these statements make abundantly clear is that the disputes over the Afghanistan withdrawal are rooted not in fears of terrorism, much less concerns for women’s rights, but rather the geostrategic interests of US imperialism, particularly in relation to its intensifying confrontation with China.

On October 9, 2001, two days after Washington launched its invasion of Afghanistan and in the teeth of a ferocious propaganda campaign by the US government and the corporate media to sell the war to the American people as revenge for 9/11, the World Socialist Web Site posted a statement titled “Why we oppose the war in Afghanistan.” It exposed the lie that this was a “war for justice and the security of the American people against terrorism” and insisted that “the present action by the United States is an imperialist war” in which Washington aimed to “establish a new political framework within which it will exert hegemonic control” over not only Afghanistan, but the broader Central Asian region, “home to the second largest deposit of proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world.”

The WSWS stated at the time:

The United States stands at a turning point. The government admits it has embarked on a war of indefinite scale and duration. What is taking place is the militarization of American society under conditions of a deepening social crisis.

The war will profoundly affect the conditions of the American and international working class. Imperialism threatens mankind at the beginning of the twenty-first century with a repetition on a more horrific scale of the tragedies of the twentieth. More than ever, imperialism and its depredations raise the necessity for the international unity of the working class and the struggle for socialism.

These warnings have been fully confirmed over the course of the last 20 years, as US imperialism has waged new and equally criminal wars and military attacks from Iraq to Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen, while erecting the scaffolding for a police state within the United States itself.

While there is deep hostility to these wars within the American population, these anti-war sentiments have been repeatedly suppressed and diverted behind the Democratic Party. It regained control of both houses of Congress in 2006 and won the presidency for Barack Obama in 2008 on the back of these sentiments, only to continue and expand America’s wars, including through Obama’s “surge” in Afghanistan.

Whether Biden’s troop withdrawal signals an end to US imperialism’s four decades of death and destruction in Afghanistan remains to be seen. The US military and intelligence apparatus is developing an “over the horizon” capacity to continue bombings, drone strikes and special forces interventions, while the State Department is casting about for new bases in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia.

The bid by both Biden and Trump to end the US military occupation of Afghanistan is bound up with preparations for a far more dangerous eruption of US militarism, as Washington shifts its global strategy from the “war on terrorism” to preparations for war against its “great power” rivals, in the first instance, nuclear-armed China and Russia.

Ensuring the end of the 20-year war in Afghanistan and stopping the eruption of new and even more catastrophic wars requires the independent political mobilization of the working class in the US and uniting its growing struggles with those of workers in Asia, the Middle East, Europe and internationally in a socialist anti-war movement. Without the revolutionary intervention of the working class, the threat of a nuclear third world war will only grow.

Food delivery workers in Berlin continue wave of strikes

Markus Salzmann


Workers at the Gorillas delivery service held a number of strikes last week at several of the company’s warehouses in Berlin. They have drawn up a list of demands and indicated that they may continue their job action, which has been provoked by extremely poor working conditions and the confrontational attitude of the company’s management.

On 28 June, several dozen riders, as the workers are known, gathered in front of the company location in Berlin’s Schönhauser Allee. They published a list of 19 demands, including equal pay for equal work, payment for overtime, better equipment, ventilation systems in all warehouses and bikes more suited to transport deliveries.

Solidarity with Santiago

A key demand of the riders is the immediate payment of outstanding wages. By the end of the month, several workers were short on their wages, according to the strikers. The reason given by management was that they had lost income due to being ill, but this is a clear violation of the principle of paid sick leave. In some cases, the riders were only paid for the delivery time, as opposed to their actual working hours, which includes wait times and over which they have no influence. The workers rightly characterize this as “wage theft”. Workers have given management two weeks to respond to the demands.

Company founder and CEO Kağan Sümer showed up during the protest and attempted to appease the angry workers, but without success. Sümer was greeted with placards reading, “Get off your bike and pay us!” A spokesperson for the strikers called for an “end to oppression” at the company. Sümer announced that he wanted to visit a total of 40 company sites across Germany starting on 28 June, in order to do a three-hour shift with his employees and answer their questions. A bike ride in Berlin, which Sümer sought to use to calm the situation down, was cancelled, however, according to media reports.

On 30 June, just two days after one set of the protests, workers at the company branch in the Berlin district of Pankow went on strike. Having been forced to work for four hours in torrential rain with insufficient rain gear, they stopped work at 13.00. As a result, local management had to temporarily halt operations. The strike was suspended in the evening only after a representative promised that the riders would be provided with adequate clothing by the end of the week.

On the same day, about two dozen riders struck in front of the warehouse in Muskauer Straße in Kreuzberg. They also demanded, among other things, waterproof gear.

The jackets and trousers currently provided by the company are completely inadequate, and company spokesperson Tobias Hönig had to admit that what it provides “does not fully protect against getting wet.” At the same time, he launched a broadside against the workforce. “We cannot tolerate the fact that this circumstance has been used as the reason for a spontaneous strike without any legal basis and to call for further strikes in other warehouses,” he told the Berlin newspaper Tagesspiegel.

One rider told the local TV channel rbb24 that while “rain jackets and rain trousers are available here…they are very dirty.” “We don’t want to wear them, but we have to,” he added. The clothing is also not available in all necessary sizes.

The dangers involved in working without adequate gear were highlighted on July 1 when a rider from Pankow suffered an accident after an ill-fitting rain jacket snagged in her bike. Her injuries were so severe she had to be treated in hospital.

The conflict at the start-up, which attained a company value of one billion dollars in record time and is aiming for a total valuation of six billion dollars, has been simmering for some time and is now assuming ever sharper forms.

Last winter the company failed to provide its riders with warm jackets. Now the company’s warehouses lack any air conditioning, endangering those forced to work during the past several weeks when summer temperatures soared. Riders have long complained about back pain due to their heavy bags and problems arising from defective bicycles. In addition, their hours have recently been extended. They are expected to work shifts between 7 a.m. and midnight.

About three weeks ago, the dismissal of one colleague during his probationary period brought the situation at the company to a head. After one rider named Santiago was let go, about a hundred workers assembled in protest. In solidarity, they blocked two company warehouses in Berlin and demanded his reinstatement. The protest was also directed against Gorillas’ “hire and fire” policy, which uses long probationary periods to dismiss employees when it is convenient. In Santiago’s case, Gorillas justified his dismissal by citing misconduct and alleged unexcused absences.

Now, based on news reports, the company is bracing itself for a possible major strike. According to social media, employees from other areas are to be used as riders if necessary, serving as strikebreakers.

The anger among workers is enormous and there have been calls made to extend the strike wave. Solidarity statements from other workers and the setting up of a solidarity fund on social media are expressions of this anger.

The strikes enjoy considerable public support, with increasing numbers of Gorilla customers declaring that they would no longer use the delivery service if conditions for the workers were not improved.

As the situation intensifies and the strikes widen, workers face urgent political questions. In order for their protests to be successful, Gorilla workers must reject the demand for the involvement of trade unions, which is being raised by several pseudo-left groups around the strike. The call for a works council dominated by the leadership of the NGG (Food, Beverages and Catering Union) is a political trap for workers.

In a provocative move, India deploys 50,000 more troops to its disputed border with China

Rohantha De Silva & Keith Jones


India has deployed 50,000 more troops to its disputed Himalayan border with China, action it claims is in response to a Chinese military buildup.

Last year the rival nuclear-armed powers came the closest to all-out war since they fought a month-long border war in 1962. This included a bloody pitched battle on a mountain ridge in the Galwan Valley on the night of June 15, 2020, in which 20 Indian and 4 Chinese soldiers died, and an Indian military operation in late August that saw thousands of Indian troops seize a series of mountain ridges near Pangong Tso lake, which forms part of the current de facto border between India and China. Indian officials subsequently admitted that this highly provocative action, reportedly facilitated by US satellite intelligence, could easily have resulted in a violent clash with Chinese troops spiraling into war.

Tanks on the banks of Pangong Tso lake region, in Ladakh along the India-China border on Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2021. (Indian Army via AP)

With its most recent troop deployments, India now has at least 200,000 and, according to some reports, as many as 250,000 troops arrayed along its northern border. According to a report published by Bloomberg last week, the additional troops have been deployed to at least five bases along the full breadth of India’s more than 3,000-kilometre (2,000 mile) border with China. 20,000 of them have been deployed to Leh in Indian-held Ladakh. Along with the adjacent Chinese-held Aksai Chin, eastern Ladakh has been the focal point of the current flare-up in the Sino-Indian border dispute.

India is also in the midst of a crash infrastructure building campaign in its border regions, developing new fortifications, airstrips, and road and rail links to swiftly move troops and supplies. Late last summer, when it took possession of the first of the 35 Rafale fighter jets it has purchased from France, the Indian Air Force made a point of immediately deploying them over Indian-held Ladakh. India has also established a new 18 fighter-jet squadron aimed against China based in Ambala in the north Indian state of Haryana and intends to soon establish a similar squadron at its Hasimara air base in West Bengal to police the eastern section of its border with China.

Citing people “familiar with the matter,” the Bloomberg report said the Indian military has positioned itself to assume a much more aggressive stance. “Whereas previously,” the report explained, “India’s military presence was aimed at blocking Chinese moves, the redeployment will allow Indian commanders more options to attack and seize territory in China if necessary, in a strategy known as ‘offensive defense.’” The report added that Indian forces are now more mobile. This is due to recently acquired US-made helicopters, which can ferry soldiers and artillery including the British-made M777 howitzer from Himalayan “valley to valley.”

India’s officer corps and its government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his far-right Bharatiya Janata Party, have repeatedly boasted that India is ready to confront China. Last week, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh pledged India would “give a befitting reply if provoked.” With the world’s fourth largest military budget, ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, India certainly possesses weapons of mass destruction, meaning that any Sino-Indian conflict, even if it erupts due to miscalculation and is initially confined to their respective border regions, threatens to rapidly spiral into an unparalleled catastrophe for the people of Asia and the world.

But while the two countries have roughly the same size population, China’s economy is more than four times bigger and in most technological domains China eclipses India. The deplorable state of Indian infrastructure has been highlighted by the catastrophic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic that, according to the official gross undercount, has sickened more than 30 million people and killed more than 400,000. Although India does have significant vaccine-manufacturing capacity, to date just 5 percent of India’s population has been fully vaccinated.

New Delhi’s aggressive stance in the current border conflict with China is directly bound up with the support and encouragement it is receiving from Washington.

As per an agreement between Beijing and New Delhi, Indian Army and Chinese People’s Liberation Army officers held disengagement talks in the fall and early winter, and the two sides pulled back forward deployed troops near Pangong Tso lake. However, these talks stalled shortly after Joe Biden was sworn in as US president.

On taking office, Biden lost no time in making clear that under his Democratic administration Washington will intensify its economic, diplomatic, and military-strategic offensive against China, and that India and the Indian Ocean are central to US strategy to thwart China’s “rise,” if necessary, through war. In March, Biden convened the first-ever heads of government meeting of the Quad, a “strategic dialogue” quasi-military alliance, led by the US and including India and its most important Asia-Pacific treaty allies, Japan and Australia. Soon after, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin became the first high-level Biden administration official to visit New Delhi. In a gesture meant to underline the importance India attaches to expanding military-strategic cooperation with Washington, Austin was accorded an audience with Modi.

Since last July, impromptu military exercises between the Indian navy and US aircraft task forces passing near to India have become virtually routine, in what is an unmistakable message to China, whose economy is highly dependent on Mideast oil and Indian Ocean-borne exports to Europe, Africa and much of Asia. The most recent such exercise was on June 23-24, when the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group, which is based in Japan, passed by India en route to the North Arabian Sea, where it is supporting the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. According to an Indian Navy press release, the exercise was aimed at honing the two militaries’ “war-fighting skills” and enhancing “their interoperability as an integrated force,” and involved practicing antisubmarine warfare.

Washington has played an intrusive role in the current Indo-China border dispute almost from its outset in May of last year. In a marked contrast with the 2017 Doklam standoff, when Indian and Chinese troops confronted each other on a Himalayan plateau claimed by both China and Bhutan, the US made no pretence to neutrality, quickly labelling China the “aggressor.” Moreover, it has further upped the ante by linking the Indo-China border dispute to its accusations of “illegal” Chinese actions in the South China Sea. Opposing Chinese “expansionism” in the South China Sea is one of the principal pretexts the US has advanced for its massive buildup of military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific and for its provocative “freedom of navigation” exercises off China’s shores.

With strong support from India’s venal capitalist elite, the Modi-led BJP government has followed the path blazed by its Congress Party-led predecessors and integrated India ever more completely into the US offensive against China, on the gamble that by allying with a crisis-ridden American imperialism it can advance New Delhi’s great-power ambitions. Toward this end, during its first six years in power, it threw open India’s ports and airbases for use by US military forces for “rest and resupply,” signed other agreements that the Pentagon insists are necessary for joint military operations, and adopted Washington’s provocative stance on the South China Sea.

But over the past 14 months, roiled by the pandemic and an unprecedented contraction of India’s already troubled economy, the Modi government has taken all of this to a new level. The border dispute with China has been invoked to justify a massive expansion of India’s bilateral, trilateral and quadrilateral ties with the US, and its closest regional allies, Japan and Australia. India has also intensified its collaboration with the US in countering Chinese influence across South Asia and the Indian Ocean region, including by dropping its opposition to Washington signing a defence cooperation with the Maldives, an Indian Ocean archipelago New Delhi hitherto sought to keep firmly under its thumb.

In a further indication of the extent to which India has been incorporated into the US strategic offensive against China, intelligence officials from India and Japan joined a meeting of the US-led Five Eyes global spying operation last fall focused on countering China.

For offering the Indian people up as satraps for US imperialism, the Modi government and Indian bourgeoisie hope to receive their reward in the form of greater international prominence, as in the recent invitation to Modi to attend last month’s G-7 summit in England, assistance in making India a rival production-chain hub to China, and major investments by US arms manufacturers.

Like Washington and other governments and ruling elites, India’s are also whipping up animosity against China as a means of deflecting anger over their disastrous mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. In recent weeks, the Indian media has given prominence to the Wuhan lab conspiracy theory of the origins of COVID-19 first promoted by the fascist Trump and recently revived by the Biden administration.

Beijing’s official response to India’s aggressive new border deployments has been relatively muted. Its official representatives have insisted that the situation remains stable and repeated calls for the two countries to resolve the current dispute through talks. “The words and deeds of the two countries should be aiming at cooling the situation and promoting mutual trust, not the reverse,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin. However, the Beijing regime, which represents the oligarchy created by the Stalinist Communist Party’s restoration of capitalism, has no solution to the US-led imperialist offensive. It oscillates between whipping up Chinese national chauvinism and pursuing its own military buildup and desperately trying to appease Washington through concessions.

Over the past two decades, the reactionary strategic conflict between India and Pakistan, for decades one of Beijing’s closest allies, and the Sino-Indian border dispute have become inextricably enmeshed with the ever-deepening US-Chinese geostrategic rivalry, enormously adding to the explosive character of all three. To prevent decrepit capitalism from plunging humanity into a global conflagration, the international working class must be politically mobilized to disarm the rival nationally based bourgeois cliques through socialist revolution.

USW proposed agreement with ATI would cut hundreds of jobs

Evan Winters


After more than three months on strike, the United Steelworkers (USW) has brought back a proposed agreement to 1,300 striking workers at Allegheny Technologies (ATI) in Pennsylvania and four other states. Despite the USW’s proclamations of victory, the contract is a transparent sellout for workers, giving the company everything it wants, including slashing hundreds of jobs.

After starving and isolating workers on the picket line for months, the USW clearly calculates that the proposed deal will pass when it comes to a vote this coming Tuesday.

Pickets assemble earlier in the strike at the ATI mill in Brackenridge (WSWS Media)

The USW has only released self-serving highlights instead of the full contract. Even these highlights, however, make clear the depth of the concessions the deal contains. The headlined “gain” in the agreement is a 3 percent wage increase in the second, third, and fourth years of the contract. The CPI inflation index has already risen by 5 percent this year, meaning that these nominal wage increases will likely mean a cut in real wages. ATI workers have not had a raise in seven years.

The proposal also includes lump sum payments of $1,500 in the third and fourth years and a $4,000 signing bonus bribe. ATI workers have been on strike for more than three months and have already lost thousands of dollars in income. Throughout this period, the USW has provided a miniscule $150-$225 per week in strike pay. While the USW promised that workers would receive $900 a week in unemployment benefits, this has already been denied in Ohio and will in all likelihood also be denied in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

From the outset, ATI demanded that any wage increase be offset by cuts in another part of the contract. The USW has complied, pairing the above “gains” with, among other things, the elimination of profit sharing.

A major demand of workers during the strike has been for premium-free medical coverage and an end to healthcare tiers. The USW touts the fact that the proposed agreement does not include premiums and is the same for all USW-represented employees. The USW achieved this by raising deductibles and co-pays for all workers and by agreeing to cap increases in the company’s medical and prescription drug costs at 3.5 percent per year. If the cost of workers’ healthcare rises above this cap, a Joint Benefits Committee, composed of “three union representatives and three company representatives” must “meet and determine how to pay the amount over the cap.” The summary explains, “This could be through a reduction to the lump sum in 2024 or through a premium payment in 2024. The parties have to agree on how to pay this and if there is a dispute.”

In other words, if workers’ healthcare costs more than ATI wants to pay, workers will pay the difference. The USW calls this a “victory” because it does not necessarily involve “premiums” and because it applies to all workers, rather than only to new hires.

The agreement also includes no gains for retirees. The union-controlled Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) retiree healthcare fund will continue to receive $1 per hour worked. The summary explains that, “This is adequate to fund the benefits for the term of the agreement, but long term funding will need to be addressed in the future.” In other words, the fund will run out of money no sooner than 2025. The VEBA is largely invested in the stock market, which has risen to record heights in the past several years due to massive infusions of cheap money from the US Federal Reserve. A decline in the stock market could leave retirees without healthcare within years.

The most damning indictment against this proposed agreement is that it does not lift a finger to protect the jobs of roughly 300 workers, about a quarter of the workforce, who are slated to be fired due to plant and department closings during the life of the contract. The USW summary simply notes that “Before negotiations began, ATI announced their intent to permanently close #3 Finishing in Brackenridge [in Pennsylvania], the Waterbury plant [in Connecticut] and the Louisville plant [in Ohio].” The USW then pats itself on the back for opposing company plans to deny laid off workers their pensions.

The summary also makes clear that upon returning to work, workers should expect a management dictatorship lasting at least 90 days. Although the summary says workers will not be forced to work alongside scabs, this only applies to contracted scabs, not management scabs. The union has agreed to “allow supervisors, non-represented workers and retirees to perform some bargaining unit work for 90 days as operations return to normal.” The union will also “allow the company to cancel or reschedule vacation shutdowns, and allow increased overtime.”

At the conclusion of the 2015-2016 lockout, ATI workers returned to the factories to find equipment vandalized by scabs, including human feces in some areas. The USW suspended the grievance procedure and allowed the company to force workers into extended overtime alongside management scabs.

ATI workers should vote to reject this agreement. After months on strike, ATI workers are seeking to win back old concessions, not accept new ones. ATI is immensely profitable, making $40 million in the fourth quarter of 2020 alone.

To move forward, ATI workers must understand that they face not only ATI, but also the pro-corporate USW. Appeals must be made not to the company, the USW, and the National Labor Relations Board, but to the wider working class, which is also moving into struggle.

Within the USW, 650 ExxonMobil refinery workers are locked out at a refinery in Beaumont, Texas. 2,400 miners in Sudbury, Ontario have been on strike since January 1. 2,500 steelworkers in Quebec are angered over the USW betrayal of their strike against ArcelorMittal. Roughly 70 workers at Custom Hoists in Ashland, Ohio walked off the job on June 13. In addition, 1,100 Warrior Met coal miners remain on strike in Alabama. 700 nurses in Worcester, Massachusetts have been on strike since March. And nearly 600 workers at a Frito Lay food processing plant in Topeka, Kansas, went on strike this Monday.

3,000 striking Volvo workers in Virginia are leading the way with the formation of the Volvo Workers Rank-and-File Committee. Working through this committee, Volvo workers have now voted down two pro-company contracts, which the United Auto Workers (UAW) said were the best deals workers could get. Volvo workers are now fighting against a third pro-company contract that the UAW says contains “major gains” beyond the two rotten earlier deals.

It is likely not a coincidence that the USW brought back a deal at the same time as the latest Volvo tentative agreement. The USW recognizes that if Volvo workers vote their contract down, this will embolden ATI workers to do the same, and vice versa.

To carry forward the struggle, ATI workers must form rank-and-file committees to break the USW-imposed isolation of the strike. These committees must reach out as broadly as possible, including to striking Volvo workers as well as to other workers in the steel industry. ATI workers in Pennsylvania should send delegations to nearby US Steel plants and make an appeal for their support.

These committees should draw up demands based on what workers need, not on what the company says it can afford. These demands should include an end to layoffs, the restoration of all concessions granted by the USW, a return to the eight-hour day, no increases in healthcare costs borne by workers, full funding for retiree healthcare, and at least $900 a week in strike pay.

Workers should also demand to see the full contract, rather than often vague highlights, with a full two weeks to study and discuss it. Any memoranda of understanding between the USW and ATI must also be made available to workers.

6 Jul 2021

Government of Ireland Africa Agri-food Development Program (AADP) 2021

Application Deadline: 30th July 2021.

About the Award: The Objective of the AADP is to develop partnerships between the Irish Agri-Food Sector and African countries to support sustainable growth of the local food industry, build markets for local produce and support mutual trade between Ireland and Africa.

It is intended that any investment by the AADP will be catalytic support with co-funding from the private sector. The fund is designed to leverage greater expertise, experience and investment from the Irish agri-food sector and projects should demonstrate results with a long-term developmental impact that will ultimately lead to sustainable benefits through investment by the private sector.

Irish agri-food expertise is extremely wide-ranging and examples of suitable AADP projects include:

  • Business development
  • Production system
  • Technology Transfer
  • R & D
  • Project Management

Type: Entrepreneurship/Grants

Eligibility: 

  • The partners involved must include one Irish registered agri food company and one local commercial entity in Africa;
  • All proposed projects must be commercial in nature and focus. Funding will only be awarded to Irish registered agri food companies.
  • AADP funding is up to a maximum of €250,000 per company for a full project or €100,000 for a feasibility study.
  • AADP funding will not exceed 50% of the costs of the project;
  • The funds contributed by the Irish registered agri food company must not comprise funding received from any other Irish Public funding source.
  • If an applicant company was previously successful in applying for AADP funding, it must explain clearly (in the application form) the new project goals/outcomes and how they differ from those in the initial funding round.
  • If an applicant company proposes to undertake a feasibility study, it should include a list of ‘potential’ partners with the application.
  • Projects will be supported in the following countries – Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria Malawi, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia;
    • Funding from the AADF must bring about additionality and not replace existing funding;
    • Successful AADF funding applicants will be encouraged to engage with Irish NGOs where possible on various aspects of the projects i.e. Mechanical and Engineering, Project design, etc.

Evaluation Criteria: Applications will be evaluated against the following criteria:

  • Development Impact
  • Company expertise (Technical, financial etc)
  • Commercial viability
  • Risk Analysis
  • Monitoring and Expenditure

It is intended that any investment by the AADP will be catalytic support with co-funding from the private sector. The fund is designed to leverage greater expertise, experience and investment from the Irish agri-food sector and projects should demonstrate results with a long-term developmental impact that will ultimately lead to sustainable benefits through investment by the private sector.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Possible funding of up to €250,000 in total per company

How to Apply: The AADP is now open for submissions. Application forms must be completed by the Irish applicant company and submitted to aadp@agriculture.gov.ie

The closing date for the receipt of applications is 5.00pm on Friday, 30th July 2021. 

Please monitor this website and the Departments’ Social Media accounts for updates:

Dept of Agriculture, Food & the Marine Twitter | Dept of Foreign Affairs Twitter

Application Forms

Applications will only be accepted through the official AADP Application Forms.

To request an Application Form for a Full Project or Feasibility Study please email aadp@agriculture.gov.ie with the subject line “Application Form Request”

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Important Note: Only Irish Agri-Food companies can apply.

Award Providers: The Africa Agri-Food Development Programme (AADP) is a joint initiative between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

DAAD Postgraduate Study Scholarship in Music 2022

Application Deadline: 27th September 2021

Eligible Countries: International

To be Taken at (Country): Germany

About the Award: In this study programme, you can complete

  • a Master’s degree/postgraduate degree leading to a final qualification, or
  • a complementary course that does not lead to a final qualification (not an undergraduate course)

at a state German college of music of your choice.
Postgraduate studies are possible in the so-called 2nd cycle (usually a four-semester Master’s degree) or a 3rd cycle which usually takes place in two semesters (concert examination, masterclass or PhD in an artistic subject).
This programme only funds projects in the artistic field. Other DAAD scholarship programmes are available for applicants from the field of musicology or music education or musicians with a scientific project.

Type: Masters, Short course/Training

Eligibility: Foreign applicants who have gained a first university degree in the field of Music at the latest by the time they commence their scholarship-supported study programme; if this is not possible, they should have at least exhausted all the training options available for their instrument in their country of origin.

  • As a rule, applicants should have taken their final examinations no longer than six years before the application deadline.
  • The respective college of music is responsible for deciding age limits for admission, whereby differing rules may be applied depending on the applicant’s academic level and chosen subject.
  • Applicants who have been resident in Germany for longer than 15 months at the application deadline cannot be considered.
  • If the scholarship holder is enrolled in a Master’s or postgraduate degree programme which includes a study period abroad, funding for this period abroad is usually only possible under the following conditions:
    – The study visit is essential for achievement of the scholarship objective.
    – The study period is no longer than a quarter of the scholarship period. Longer periods cannot be funded, even partially.
    – The study period does not take place in the home country.

Language: Applicants in the field of music should have a knowledge of the language of instruction that corresponds to the requirements of the chosen university at the latest by the time they start their scholarship. If you do not yet have the language skills required by the university at the time of your application, your application should indicate the extent to which you are in a position to reach the required level. After you have been awarded a scholarship, take advantage of the funding opportunities described under “Value”.

Selection Criteria: A special DAAD committee made up of professors from German colleges of music makes the final decision about scholarships in the field of music. The decision is based upon written applications and sound recordings which have to be submitted.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

  • A monthly payment of 850 euros
  • Travel allowance
  • One-off study allowance
  • Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover

Under certain circumstances, scholarship holders may receive the following additional benefits:

  • Monthly rent subsidy
  • Monthly allowance for accompanying members of family

To enable scholarship holders to learn German in preparation for their stay in the country, DAAD offers the following services:

  • Payment of course fees for the online language course “Deutsch-Uni Online (DUO)” (www.deutsch-uni.com) for six months after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter
  • if necessary: Language course (2, 4 or 6 months) before the start of the study visit; the DAAD decides whether to fund participation and for how long depending on German language skills and project. Participation in a language course is compulsory if the language of instruction or working language at the German host institution is German.
  • Allowance for a personally chosen German language course during the scholarship period
  • Reimbursement of the fees for the TestDaF test which has either been taken in the home country after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter or in Germany before the end of the funding period
  • As an alternative to the TestDaF for scholarship holders who have taken a language course beforehand: the fee for a DSH examination taken during the scholarship period may be reimbursed.

Duration of Award:

Master’s degree programme:

  • Between 10 and 24 months depending on the length of the chosen study programme or study project
  • The scholarships are awarded for the duration of the standard period of study for the chosen study programme (up to a maximum of 24 months). To receive further funding after the first year of study for 2-year courses, proof of academic achievements thus far should indicate that the study programme can be successfully completed within the standard period of study. Therefore, a reference of the main subject teacher will be required.
  • Applicants who are already in Germany in the first year of a postgraduate course at the time of application may apply for funding for their second year of study.
  • An extension of the scholarship is possible if changing to a new stage in studies is intended (usually from a Master’s degree to an advanced programme of study such as a concert exam or master class). For particularly qualified candidates, it is possible to apply for an extension for a concert exam for up to two years.

Complementary studies not leading to a final qualification:

  • One academic year. In individual cases, the scholarship can be extended on request
  • Start: usually on 1st October, or earlier if a language course is taken prior to the study programme

How to Apply:

  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Ireland-Africa Fellows Programme 2022/2023

Application Deadline: 1st August 2021

Eligible Countries: Djibouti, Eswatini, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Malawi, Liberia, Lesotho, Kenya.

To be Taken at (Country): Ireland

Field(s) of Study: Eligible courses are in areas such as agriculture, health, education, human rights, computer science, engineering, business and more, and are listed in a Directory of Eligible Programmes

About the Award: The Ireland Fellows Programme enables early to mid-career professionals from eligible countries, with leadership potential, to benefit from a prestigious, world-class, quality education contributing to capacity building. It offers selected students the opportunity to undertake a fully funded one-year master’s level programme at a higher education institution (HEI) in Ireland. The award covers programme fees, flights, accommodation and living costs. Eligible master’s level programmes in Ireland commence in August or September each year and, depending on the programme, will run for between 10 and 16 months. The Ireland Fellows Programme promotes gender equality, equal opportunity, and welcomes diversity.

The aims of the Programme are to nurture future leaders; to develop in-country capacity to achieve national SDG goals; and to build positive relationships with Ireland. 

The Programme is intended to support graduates on their return home, through the skills they develop, to contribute to capacity building in their home countries and to become one of the next generation of leaders in their respective fields. It is also envisaged that they will contribute to building enduring positive personal and professional relationships with Ireland, promoting institutional linkages.

The Ireland Fellows Programme is fully funded by the Irish Government and is offered under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). The Programme aligns with the Irish Government’s commitments under Global Ireland and the national implementation plan for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), The Global Island: Ireland’s Foreign Policy for a Changing World, A Better World: Ireland’s Policy for International Development, and Ireland’s International Education Strategy. The programme is managed by the relevant Embassy responsible for eligible countries. Programme implementation in Ireland is supported by the Irish Council for International Students (ICOS).

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To be eligible for an Ireland Fellows Programme – Africa scholarship commencing at the beginning of the academic year 2022 applicants must:

  • Be a resident national of one of the following countries: Djibouti, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
  • Have a minimum of two or three years’ work experience that is directly relevant to your proposed programme(s) of study, depending on the country (see the Guidance Note for Applicants).
  • Hold a bachelor’s level academic qualification from an accredited and government-recognised higher education institution, with a minimum grade point average of 3.0 (4.0 scale) – i.e. a first class honour, or second class honour, Grade 1 (in some cases a second class honour Grade 2 may be accepted, if the applicant has sufficient directly relevant work experience). It must have been awarded in 2010 or later (i.e. within the last 12 years).
  • Not already hold a qualification at master’s level or higher. Not currently undertaking a programme at master’s level or higher, or be due to start a programme at master’s level or higher in the academic year 2021/22.
  • Be applying to commence a new programme at master’s level in Ireland no sooner than August 2021.
  • Be able to demonstrate the following: leadership abilities and aspirations; a commitment to the achievement of the SDGs within your own country; and a commitment to contribute to building positive relationships with Ireland.
  • Have identified and selected three programmes relevant to your academic and professional background from the Directory of Eligible Programmes.
  • Have a clear understanding of the academic and English language proficiencies required for all programmes chosen.
  • Must not have applied to the Ireland Fellows Programme on more than one previous occasion.
  • Be in a position to take up the Fellowship in the academic year 2022/2023.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value and Duration of Award: The programme offers selected students the opportunity to undertake a fully-funded one-year master’s programme at a prestigious higher education institution (HEI) in Ireland. The award covers course fees, flights, and accommodation and living costs. Eligible master’s courses in Ireland commence in August or September each year and, depending on the course, will run for between 10 and 16 months. The Programme promotes equal opportunity and welcomes diversity.

How to Apply: Please read the Applicants Guidance Note carefully before completing as eligibility criteria may differ from country to country. 

The application process consists of three stages:

  • Stage 1   Preliminary Application;
  • Stage 2   Detailed Application;
  • Stage 3   Interviews.

All applicants who are selected to go forward to second stage will be required to sit an IELTS exam, unless they are already in possession of an IELTS certificate that is dated 2019 or later at the time of application which shows the applicant has achieved the necessary score for the course they intend to apply to. Early preparation for the IELTS exam is strongly advised, even for native English speakers.

  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

The UK Government is Launching a Multi-Front Attack on Freedom of Expression in the Name of National Security

Patrick Cockburn


Matt Hancock’s bungling effort to conceal his affair with Gina Coladangelo may give hope to some that all government attempts to keep information from the public will be equally futile.

Unfortunately, the government has launched a carefully targeted multi-front offensive to hide its activities more effectively. Among measures being considered or already under way are a reformed Official Secrets Act that will conflate investigative journalism and whistleblowing with espionage. On another front, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is being crippled by rejecting requests and under-resourcing. At an individual level, ministers and senior officials escape scrutiny by using encrypted messaging services that can make conversations disappear from the record.

Hancock himself was apparently so concerned over the contents of his emails that he used a private email account. Any enquiry into the test and trace debacle or the mass deaths in care homes may find it difficult to discover with whom the former health secretary was in contact.

In the last year, the rejection of requests for information from central government under the FOIA have soared to 50 per cent compared to 15 per cent when it was first introduced. “The importance of FOIA is that it is a symbol of transparency which is why politicians hate it so much,” says Ben Worthy, a senior lecturer at Birkbeck specialising in transparency and freedom of information. He says that governments do not dare to abolish the act, but they can defang it by across-the-board rejections, deliberately long delays or simple non-compliance.

Most threatening of all to the public knowing what the government is doing are proposed changes in the Official Secrets Act which would treat journalists, whistleblowers and leakers as if they were spies. A little-noticed 67-page consultative paper issued in May by the Home Office and titled Legislation to Counter State Threats (Hostile State Activity) says anybody revealing information that the government chooses to label as a state secret would be liable for prosecution. The papers defines espionage particularly broadly as “the covert process of obtaining sensitive confidential information that is not normally publicly available”.

Critics say the proposed legislation would leave journalists and others facing the threat of 14 years in prison for publishing whatever the government may say is damaging to national security. The burden of proof for a successful prosecution would be reduced and juries would not necessarily be told why some disclosure poses such a serious threat.

In Priti Patel’s introduction to the document, the home secretary portrays Britain as beset by enemies at home and abroad who pose a mounting danger to the nation. Her declared purpose is “to empower the whole national security community to counter the insidious threat we face today”.

Supposing all these proposals are implemented then Britain will be well on the way to joining those countries where the disclosure of any information damaging to the government is punishable. Offences range from revealing war crimes to disclosing trivial failures. The Indian government would like to silence anybody revealing the true death toll in the Covid-19 epidemic; Turkey has jailed journalists for writing that it had supplied weapons to al-Qaeda-type organisations; the Egyptian government once stopped an academic from publishing a paper showing that more Egyptian farmers were going blind because of the spread of a waterborne parasite.

Britain does not have the same tradition of authoritarian censorship, but freedom of expression here is more fragile than it looks for two reasons. The Johnson administration has been more moderate than many nativist populist governments that have taken power around the world over the last decade. But it shares with them a strategy of systematic threat-inflation, frequently modelled on the agenda of the Republican Party in the US. In the paper cited above, Patel speaks of the necessity of introducing voter IDs and combating foreign powers interfering in British elections.

A second feature of British culture makes the country particularly open to the belief that somewhere in the heart of government lie informational crown jewels, well-guarded secrets so important that their disclosure would pose an existential threat to us all. Such a myth is central to the plot of thousands of spy novels and films. But in my experience as a journalist few such earth-shaking secrets exist and what many people think of as a secret is either trivial or can be deduced by any reasonably well-informed person.

Yet none of these revelations were “secrets” in any sense of the word since the facts about these disastrous decisions and decision-makers had long been obvious. What made Cummings’s testimony so fascinating was that it provided eye-witness confirmation of what most people already knew.

Much the same is true of the Wikileaks publication of hundreds of thousands of classified US diplomatic and military cables in 2010 for which Julian Assange is currently incarcerated in Belmarsh high security prison in London. Despite the best effort of the US government to prove the opposite, these supposed “secrets” revealed little that was not known previously, deeply embarrassing though it was for the US government to see proof that its helicopters were machine-gunning civilians in the streets of Baghdad.

To try to maintain the classic spy movie narrative that secrets betrayed means that there is blood on the hands of the betrayers, the US army set up a task force to try to find a US agent who had died because of the Wikileaks revelations. But after long researches the team of 120 counterintelligence officers failed to find a single person, among the thousands of American agents and secret sources in Afghanistan and Iraq, who could be shown to have died because of the revelations.

The real reason why governments fight so hard to maintain their monopoly control over information is not to keep security secrets vital to the nation, but to use or leak that information themselves.

They know that it is one of the key levers of their power and will persecute and punish anybody who tries to take it from them. As Ben Worthy puts it, the struggle, which people imagine is about keeping secrets, is really about who discloses them and is consequently “a battle to control the news agenda”.