What Kind of Family is Yours?

David Rosen

Photograph Source: Macfadden Publications Copyright 1955 – Public Domain

What kind of “family” is yours?  Is it a traditional “nuclear” family, with a mom & dad & a couple of kids? Or is a two-some, just you and a partner, no matter what gender? Or maybe you are part of an extended grouping, be it an adopted family, a commune or shared housing of multiple parents with children?  Or maybe it’s just you, a “family” of one?

Over the last few years, there has been increased discussion of the changing nature of the “traditional” nuclear family.  No matter what “family” formation you are part of the “classic” Ossie & Harriet family celebrated on TV land during the ‘50s is declining.  In 2021, only 18 percent – or 23.1 million — of U.S. households were “nuclear families” with a married couple and children.  This is a significant drop from nearly 60 percent during the 1970s.

David Brooks, a conservative opinion writer for The New York Times, wrote a compelling article in The Atlantic, “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” in 2020. It chronicles the decline of the nuclear family and, more importantly, he considers the new forms of interpersonal association that are emerging today.

Brooks offers a rigorous and carefully reasoned analysis of the history and current decline of the “traditional” nuclear family, a decline intimately linked to structural changes in U.S. capitalism and deepening inequality.  His critique of the family is simple:

“We’ve made life freer for individuals and more unstable for families. We’ve made life better for adults but worse for children. We’ve moved from big, interconnected, and extended families, which helped protect the most vulnerable people in society from the shocks of life, to smaller, detached nuclear families (a married couple and their children), which give the most privileged people in society room to maximize their talents and expand their options.”

Brooks concludes, noting, “The shift from bigger and interconnected extended families to smaller and detached nuclear families ultimately led to a familial system that liberates the rich and ravages the working-class and the poor.”

Perhaps most surprisingly, Brooks reveals, “Two years ago, I started something called Weave: The Social Fabric Project. Weave exists to support and draw attention to people and organizations around the country who are building community.”  He then goes on to mention, “In 2015, I was invited to the house of a couple named Kathy and David, who had created an extended-family-like group in D.C. called All Our Kids, or AOK-DC.”  And adds, “I joined the community and never left—they became my chosen family.”

The article drew much critical attention. From the left, Nicole Sussner Rodgers, writing in The Nation, argued,

Brooks writes, ‘while social conservatives have a philosophy of family life they can’t operationalize, because it’s no longer relevant, progressives have no philosophy of family life at all.’ Seldom do I agree with Brooks, but on this point, he’s correct.

She then adds: “Progressives are finally beginning to understand that the decline of nuclear families among working-class and poor folks is better understood as one symptom of growing economic inequality, not its cause, as conservatives typically contend.”  Most insightful, she insists, “Children can flourish in a variety of family types and living arrangements.”

From the right, Kay Hymowitz, of the Institute for Family Studies and the Manhattan Institute, argued, “Scholars now pretty much agree that the nuclear family household has been the “dominant form” in Western Europe and the United States since the dawn of the industrial era. In fact, demographic realities made extended families an impossibility.”  She then insists:

Because humans can’t seem to resist pairing up, couples who break up will likely look for new partners. The partner who moves out will be mourned and newcomers will have to be incorporated into the pre-existing family, whether it is nuclear, extended, or forged.

Since time immemorial, humans have cohabitated or associated in sharing clusters to meet survival issues and address caregiving needs. Today, Americans – in unprecedented numbers — are experimenting with new forms of kinship and extended family association.

Matt Bell distinguishes two types of extended family association – (i) multigenerational families and (ii) nonbiological kinship lines.  Multigenerational or extended families include people that cluster along biological kinship lines and can involve (i) grown children living with married parents, (e.g., young adults moving back home after college); (ii) married or single adult parents helping elderly parents; and (iii) seniors living with unmarried children (e.g., “in-law suite”).

Nonbiological kinship lines include groups like the one Brooks is part of and CoAbode that welcomes single mothers who can find other single mothers interested in sharing a home. Its purpose is bold: “Combining resources allows single mothers and their kids to afford a better home in a better school district, helps lighten the load of parenting and childcare, and enhances their economic opportunities.”

The changing composition of the “family” signals an equally significant change remaking society – the erosion of patriarchy. “Before the nineteenth century, most families were organized according to patriarchal tradition,” notes Steven Ruggles in “Patriarchy, Power, and Pay: The Transformation of American Families, 1800–2015.”  Going further, he points out:

Masters of the household [i.e., men] had a legal right to command the obedience of their wives and children—as well as any servants or slaves—and to use corporal punishment to correct disobedience.

The waning of patriarchy was accompanied by a shift toward simpler and more unstable family structures.

Ruggles provides an invaluable overview of the shifting landscape of family life that grounds his analysis. “The tectonic shifts in the structure of the economy since the early nineteenth century transformed family relations. The transition from corporate families to male breadwinner families was a consequence of the rise of male wage labor in the Industrial Revolution.” He then adds:

The transition from male breadwinner families to dual-earner families reflects the massive increase in wage labor among married women following World War II. The decline of corporate families led to a profound upheaval of generational relations as family patriarchs lost control over their wage-earning sons. The decline of male-breadwinner families led to an equally profound upheaval of gender relations as men lost control over their wage-earning wives and daughters.

These developments had profound consequences. “In the past half-century,” Ruggles asserts, “the long-run trend toward atomization of families has accelerated. A broad retreat from marriage began after 1960.”

Now, a half-century later, what kind of “family” is yours?

Cuba Scores a Big Victory in the UN General Assembly

W.T. Whitney Jr.

Photograph Source: Bruno Rijsman – CC BY-SA 2.0

The United Nations General Assembly on November 2 voted to approve a Cuban resolution that, unchanged over 31 consecutive years, calls for an end to the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba. Approval once more was overwhelming: 187 nations voted in favor and two against, the United States and Israel. Ukraine abstained.

Reacting to the vote, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel proclaimed a “new victory for the Cuban people and their Revolution!” He pointed to “the triumph of dignity and the fearlessness of our people,” and expressed gratitude for “the international community’s recognition of and support for Cuba’s heroism and resistance.”

For over 20 years, the only nations opposing the Cuban resolution, apart from the United States, have been Israel and, formerly, a few U.S.-dependent Pacific island nations. The blockade began in 1962, and now 80% of Cubans have lived under its sway.

Before the vote this year, dozens of delegates representing member states spoke out against the blockade. Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Relations Bruno Rodríguez addressed the General Assembly, insisting that the U.S. blockade interferes with “the right to life, health, progress and welfare of every Cuban family.”

He explained that Cuba’s financial losses from the blockade reflect factors like the high cost of substituting for goods excluded under the blockade with more expensive goods and/or those with higher transportation costs. Losses take the form also of an overall lack of necessary materials, goods, and services. And “barriers Cuba faces in gaining access to advanced technology” lead to monetary loss.  

 The chancellor emphasized that “sectors like agriculture and energy face serious obstacles to acquiring spare parts or machinery.” He cited examples of blockade-related shortages such as extreme shortages of gasoline and oil, cancer patients being denied “first-line treatments and drugs,” and healthcare providers and their patients lacking respiratory ventilators and medicinal oxygen normally available from abroad.

The blockade’s assault against the Cuban people shows up clearly and dramatically in money lost to Cuba’s economy. Rodríguez claimed that Cuba’s GDP would have grown by 9% in 2022 without the blockade, and that the $4.87 billion in losses occurring between March, 2023 and February 2023 correlated with “pain and suffering.”

Cuba’s monetary loss in over 60 years of blockade now totals $159.8 billion, according to one account. What with inflationary change, that’s $1.3 trillion.

Another report indicates that between August 2021 and February 2022, losses in the energy and mining sectors added up to $185.5 million, in the agricultural sector, $270.9 million; and in banking and finance, $280.8 million. Between January and July in 2021, losses were $113.5 million in the healthcare sector; $30.6 million in education; and $31.3 million in the transport sector.

Cubans’ lives are affected:

+ During the last school year, Cuba’s government lacked paper sufficient to “print and assemble books and notebooks for students,” in part because a Canadian paper manufacturer did not extend credit.

+ Presently, according to the Granma news service, no school books are being produced due to a lack of supplies and spare parts.

+ Lack of access to high-performance brands and equipment, as well as spare parts, serves to handicap Cuba’s telecommunications sector, thus easing the way for U.S. and European competitors to reach Cuban users.

Laws authorizing the U.S. blockade include the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act, the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (Torricelli Law), and the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (Helms-Burton Law). Executive actions taken to implement the blockade have been central to how that policy affects Cuba.  The Obama administration eased many blockade regulations. President Trump added 243 new measures, with disastrous effects. The Biden administration continues them. The U.S. Treasury Department imposes large fines on third-country exporters failing to comply with its rules, so they often do not sell to Cuba.  Because the Treasury Department forbids foreign banks from using U.S. dollars, international financial institutions rarely make loans to entities in Cuba and are reluctant to handle U.S. dollars in transactions involving Cuba.    The U.S. government has recently been weaponizing its false declarations that Cuba is a terrorist-sponsoring state. The enabling legislation on the matter granted the U.S. government authority to penalize any international financial and banking sectors bold enough to have dealings with states so designated.

Conveniently enough, Cuban analyst Claudia Fonseca Sosa recently provided President Biden with advice as to “substantive modifications” of methods for carrying out his policy. He could authorize “the export of U.S. products to key branches of Cuba’s economy” and of medical supplies and equipment to the island to help with the manufacture of biotechnical products. Biden could allow U.S. companies to invest in Cuba and enable U.S. citizens to receive medical treatment there. The prospects for changed policies toward Cuba perhaps have improved; a recent report documented the major role of the blockade in propelling Cuban emigration to the United States – and sending Venezuelans and Nicaragua there too. Those three blockaded countries presently supply most of the migrants crossing into the United States. U.S. sanctions cause desperate living conditions, and so people leave.

End all three blockades. Relieve the pressure on people, and maybe they’d stay home. Who could object?

Japanese PM Kishida visits Manila, intensifies preparations for war with China

John Malvar

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida staged a two-day official visit to the Philippines over the weekend. In meetings with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Kishida arranged the sale and transfer of military equipment and surveillance technology to the Philippines for use in the disputed waters of the South China Sea and began negotiations for the deployment of Japanese forces to the Philippines. 

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., right, with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida after their joint statement at the Malacanang presidential palace in Manila, Philippines on Friday, Nov. 3, 2023. [AP Photo/Aaron Favila, Pool]

Tensions in the region are extremely high after a collision two weeks ago between Chinese and Philippine ships off the Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea. Kishida’s visit only inflames the situation.

During an official banquet at Malacañang presidential palace, Kishida stated that Japan and the Philippines “are now experiencing an excellent relationship—we call it the golden age. I look forward to working with President Marcos to take these bilateral relations to even newer heights.” 

The “golden age” of which Kishida spoke was the developing return of Japanese imperialism to Southeast Asia, to the countries that it once ravaged, now under the auspices of Washington’s war drive against China. Tokyo is abandoning even the pretense of upholding Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, known as the pacifist clause, and is returning to the world stage as a military power, supplying arms and deploying troops.

Kishida donated P235 million ($US13.5 million) of Overseas Security Assistance (OSA) for the acquisition of coastal radar equipment to improve the Philippines’ “maritime domain awareness.” The technology will be used to surveil Chinese vessels and coordinate naval activity in the hotly disputed South China Sea.

Kishida stated that Japan would be providing the Philippines with additional patrol vessels, “defense equipment” and radar. Tokyo’s transfer of military hardware specifically designed to augment the Philippines capacity to escalate its already tense maritime confrontations with China is immensely provocative.

The Global Times, which articulates the interests of sections of the Chinese state and particularly the military, wrote of Japan’s military aid to the Philippines: “This move—driven by Japan’s desire to create chaos and provoke conflicts—will further escalate tensions in the South China Sea, which is detrimental to peace and security in East Asia.”

Marcos and Kishida discussed the establishment of a Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA), a defense pact that would allow the exchange and deployment of troops between the two countries for joint exercises. Japan has already established RAA’s with the United Kingdom and Australia. The Philippines is the first Southeast Asian country to begin discussion of an RAA with Japan.

On Saturday, Kishida delivered an address to a special joint session of the Philippine Congress, the first time any Japanese leader has done so since World War II and the devastating Japanese occupation of the country. 

He told the assembled representatives that the two countries had agreed “to further strengthen the trilateral cooperation among the Philippines, Japan and the US” and added that “in the South China Sea, the trilateral cooperation to protect the freedom of the sea is underway.” 

This is the crux of the matter. The driving force behind the dangerous reemergence of Japanese militarism is Washington, the third partner in this trilateral cooperation. It is US imperialism and its aggressive campaign against China that is forcing open the doors of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, devastated by Japan in the Second World War, to a restored Japanese military presence.

On November 3, as Kishida visited Manila, Washington made its presence known as the US Seventh Fleet sent a Navy Destroyer to stage a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) through the South China Sea near the Spratly Islands. It was the first time in six months that Washington had conducted such an operation near the Spratlys. 

The timing was not accidental. Looking to consolidate Japan’s military ties with Manila, Washington deliberately escalated tensions with China for Kishida’s visit.

The details of the trilateral cooperation of which Kishida spoke are not yet clear, but they will doubtless include the use of the basing facilities throughout the Philippines that have been set up for the US under the auspices of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA).

No two countries created more misery and oppression in the Philippines in the past one hundred fifty years than the US and Japan. 

At the opening of the twentieth century, the US conquered the Philippines in a bloody colonial war that killed hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. The US military tortured Filipino civilians, executed revolutionary soldiers as bandits, banned freedom of speech and thought, and destroyed the fledgling Philippine Republic. Out of this bloodshed it crafted a colony subservient to its interests and in service to these aims elevated a rapacious and corrupt elite to positions of political power that they still hold.

Japan ruled the country in a brutal three-year occupation during World War II, marked by mass repression, public executions, concentration camps, starvation in the cities, and the forced sexual slavery of so-called “comfort women.” The occupation and the return of the US military left the country in smoldering ruins.

The US has never apologized for the crimes of the Philippine-American War, nor has Japan apologized for the rape of comfort women.

Now these two imperialist powers, with Japan working as junior partner to the US, posture as the noble defenders of Philippine sovereignty. The claim is an historical abomination.

What is more they claim to be defending the Philippines from Chinese aggression. The Philippines has never been the victim of Chinese aggression, but like the Philippines, China has been the victim of both the US and Japan. The US sought to dismember and subjugate China with its “Open Door” Policy in the 1920s and 1930s, and Japan invaded and ravaged China in the 1930s and 1940s. 

Kishida’s visit to Manila marks a significant step in the dangerous reawakening of Japanese imperialism. While Tokyo currently moves in lockstep with Washington, it has its own interests. The imperialist cooperation of the US and Japan against China contains explosive objective contradictions that could lead to deadly falling out. Washington, looking to secure its hegemony by aggression in every corner of the planet, is stoking the fires of world war.

G7 members threaten Iran with regional war amid ongoing Israeli slaughter in Gaza

Jordan Shilton

Israeli army troops are seen next to a destroyed building during a military operation in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, November 8, 2023 [AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed his government’s opposition to a ceasefire Wednesday, emboldened by a G7 statement that backed Israel’s genocidal violence against the Palestinians in the name of “self-defence” and threatened Iran. The imminent danger of a region-wide war was underlined as both the US and Israel launched air strikes in Syria against targets claimed to be associated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corp.

Meeting in Tokyo, foreign ministers from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and the US gave their stamp of approval to the Netanyahu regime’s bombardment of Gaza, which has officially claimed over 10,500 civilian lives. “We unequivocally condemn the terror attacks by Hamas and others across Israel that began on October 7, 2023, as well as ongoing missile attacks against Israel,” the statement declared, echoing the pro-war propaganda of the far-right Netanyahu regime. “We emphasize Israel’s right to defend itself and its people, in accordance with international law, as it seeks to prevent a recurrence.”

The G7 statement carried the unmistakable signature of US imperialism as it prepares for a wider regional war to secure its hegemony against all challenges. “We call on Iran to refrain from providing support for Hamas and taking further actions that destabilize the Middle East, including support for Lebanese Hezbollah and other non-state actors, and to use its influence with those groups to de-escalate regional tensions,” the statement threatened. In a section devoted entirely to “Iran,” it denounced everything from the country’s nuclear power program to development of ballistic missiles and human rights record.

Needless to say, no mention was made of the “destabilising” role of American imperialism, which has waged wars across the Middle East and Central Asia for the past three decades, destroying entire societies in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan. In portraying Iran as the chief escalator of the present situation, the fact that Washington has dispatched two aircraft carrier battlegroups and a nuclear-armed submarine to the region was also passed over in silence.

The G7 statement also included sections asserting the bloc’s support for the ongoing US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine and denouncing China as a threat to the stability of the “Indo-Pacific.” The statement underscores that the imperialist powers, led by the United States, view the expansion of war throughout the Middle East as one front in a global struggle for a re-division of the world.

Just hours after the provocative G7 statement, US aircraft struck a site in eastern Syria allegedly used by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and allied groups. Describing the air strike as a “self defence” act following a series of attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria, a Pentagon statement said that President Biden “directed” the strike to “make clear that the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests.”

Israeli air strikes were also launched against southern Syria and Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of three people.

Within the context of their support for Israeli genocide and threats of war with Iran, the G7’s appeal for “urgent action” to reduce the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza appears risible. The Orwellian call for “humanitarian pauses” in Israel’s relentless onslaught will do nothing to stop the Netanyahu regime’s collective punishment of the entire 2.3 million population by withholding fuel, electricity and clean drinking water.

In remarks at the White House on Wednesday, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby underscored just how flimsy such pauses would be, explaining that they would last “hours to days.” He continued, “So it would be an agreement that for a set period of time in these agreed coordinates, there would be a pause in the fighting. That doesn’t mean there won’t be, or couldn’t be, fighting outside that zone during that same period of time. So all of that has to get factored in, and I have no doubt that on the Israeli side, as they look at each proposal, they’ll think about the potential impact on their military operations on the ground or in the air.”

In other words, Kirby, who just a day earlier confirmed that Washington is still imposing no “red lines” on Israel, was effectively admitting that Israel would have a veto power over any “humanitarian pause” that clashes with its military operations.

The green light from the G7 for Israel to continue with its murderous assault on Gaza coincided with further evidence of the horrendous conditions facing the population. The Norwegian Refugee Council reported that over half of all housing units have either been damaged or destroyed. The 40,000 housing units made uninhabitable have left 200,000 Palestinians without homes, while damage to over 220,000 homes has impacted over a million people.

The crisis in medical care also continues to deepen. According to a Gaza Health Ministry spokesperson, thousands of people in critical condition “do not have access to treatment in hospitals in Gaza.” Dozens are dying each day as a result of Israel’s refusal to let them leave for treatment in Egypt.

Conditions are especially bleak in Gaza City, where Israeli forces are operating on the ground as bombardments continue. While ordering civilians to leave, the Israeli military opened only one “humanitarian corridor” for civilians to flee south. At least 100,000 civilians remain trapped in Gaza City and its environs, according to Israeli military estimates Wednesday.

The Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City has suspended all surgeries due to a lack of fuel, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent. In its three buildings, some 14,000 people are sheltering. All roads leading to the hospital are closed due to the bombardment. “Most of the buildings around the hospital have been almost completely destroyed. The bombings are getting closer and closer to the hospital, and we fear a direct hit to the hospital,” the Palestinian Red Crescent said in a statement.

The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians continued Wednesday unabated, with at least 19 people killed in the latest strike on the Jabaliya refugee camp and the updated figures indicating that more than half of the enclave’s housing units have either been damaged or destroyed. Further south, sustained air strikes were carried out in many areas where Israel is demanding civilians flee to. Khan Younis was hit repeatedly throughout the day.

The United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees reported Wednesday that 92 aid workers have died in air strikes since October 7. “This is the highest number of United Nations aid workers killed in a conflict in the history of the United Nations,” the agency noted.

Raids by Israeli soldiers and far-right settlers across the West Bank are also intensifying, prompting a senior UN official to declare conditions “increasingly dire.” Martin Griffiths, head of the UN Relief Agency, noted, “Since October 7: 158 Palestinians were killed, including 45 children. Over 2,400 were injured. At least 250 children and over 1,000 were displaced—including 424 children.”

The G7 statement made a show of criticising “extremist settler violence” in the West Bank. But much like the call for “humanitarian pauses,” such platitudes ring hollow given the unconditional support extended to Netanyahu, whose political career since the 1990s has been closely bound up with the rise of Israel’s far-right settler movement.

Illustrating the worthlessness of the G7’s condemnation, Netanyahu convened a meeting of settler leaders Wednesday to strengthen his support for their expansionist seizure of Palestinian land, which has essentially turned the West Bank into a series of isolated bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements and transportation routes. Netanyahu declared that there is “a small handful of extremists who do not represent the group sitting here.” He added, “I told President Biden that the accusations against the settlement movement are baseless. There is a small extreme minority that does not come from the settlement movement.”

In reality, settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has been pervasive since October 7, with 218 attacks, or seven per day, recorded. The UN’s Human Rights Office reported 28 attacks resulting in Palestinian casualties, 157 causing damage to property and 33 resulting in both. Even prior to the bombardment of Gaza, an average of three attacks by settlers on Palestinians occurred every day this year. “In nearly half of all incidents, Israeli forces were either accompanying or actively supporting the attackers,” the UN wrote.

Repression against Israel’s Arab population, which accounts for some 20 percent of the country’s inhabitants, is also being strengthened. Israel’s Supreme Court upheld a ban on protests calling for an end to the war in Gaza in the Palestinian towns of Shaknin and Umm al-Fahm. More than 2,200 Israeli Palestinians have been taken into administrative detention since 7 October, according to Amnesty International, which pointed to widespread torture and abuse in detention centres.

Commonwealth Split-Site PhD Scholarship 2024

Application Deadline: 5th December 2023

Eligible Countries: Developing Commonwealth Countries

To be taken at (country): UK Universities

Eligible Field of Study: All subject areas are eligible, although the CSC’s selection criteria give priority to applications that demonstrate the strongest relevance to development.

About Scholarship: Commonwealth Split-site Scholarships support one year’s study at a UK university as part of a PhD being undertaken in a candidate’s home country, under the joint supervision of a home country and UK supervisor.

The 12-month period of study in the UK supported by the scholarship can be taken at any stage during your PhD study, providing this is justified in your study plan. It can be divided into two or more periods, with no more than 12 months elapsing between each award term. If you have not already started your PhD at the time of your application, you will be eligible to spend a maximum of six months in the UK in your first year of study.

These scholarships are for:

• 12 months study at a UK university as part of an applicant’s doctoral studies in their home country, starting in Sep 2024
• Applicants who are registered (or will be registered by September 2024) for a PhD at a university in an eligible Commonwealth country
• Study at a UK university with which your home university has an established institutional or departmental link
• Study at a UK university which has a part funding agreement with the CSC. View a full list of UK universities with part funding agreements

Offered Since: 1959

Type: PhD study

Selection Criteria: Applications for Commonwealth Split-site will be considered according to the following selection criteria:

• Academic merit of the candidate
• Quality of the research proposal
• Potential impact on the development of the candidate’s home country

Eligibility:

• Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
• Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
• Be registered for a PhD at a university in an eligible Commonwealth country by the time your Scholarship starts (September 2024)
• Ensure that an institutional or departmental link exists between your home university and your proposed UK university. This link must be greater than simply a collaboration between individuals – see section on ‘Tenure and placement’ for further details. Both supervisors must provide a supporting statement which provides further details of the link to ensure your application is eligible.
• Be available to start your academic studies in the UK in September 2024
• By September 2024, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) honours standard, or a lower second class degree and a relevant postgraduate qualification (usually a Master’s degree)
• Be unable to afford to study in the UK without this Scholarship

The CSC aims to identify talented individuals who have the potential to make change. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity and non-discrimination and encourage applications from a diverse range of candidates. For further information on the support available to fellows with a disability, see the CSC disability support statement.

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Commonwealth Split-site Scholarship: Each fellowship provides:

• Approved airfare from your home country to the UK and return at the end of your award (the CSC will not reimburse the cost of fares for dependants, nor the cost of journeys made before your award is confirmed)
• Approved tuition fees
• Stipend (living allowance) at the rate of £1,347 per month, or £1,652 per month for those at universities in the London metropolitan area (rates quoted at current levels).
• Warm clothing allowance, where applicable
• Study travel grant towards the cost of study-related travel within the UK or overseas
• If a Scholar is widowed, divorced, or a single parent, child allowance of £576.61 per month for the first child, and £143 per month for the second and third child under the age of 16, if their children are living with them at the same address in the UK.

The CSC’s family allowances are intended to be only a contribution towards the cost of maintaining your family in the UK. The true costs are likely to be considerably higher, and you must be able to supplement these allowances to support any family members who come to the UK with you.

Duration of Scholarship: One year

How to Apply for Commonwealth Split-site Scholarship: Applications to the CSC must be made using the CSC’s online application system.

Candidates must apply to study at a UK university which has a part funding agreement with the CSC. Part funding agreements are at the discretion of individual universities. For a list of universities that have agreed to part fund Commonwealth Scholarships, visit the UK universities with part funding agreements page on the CSC website

Candidates are advised to complete and submit applications as early as possible, as the online application system will be very busy in the days leading up to the application deadline.

Applications must include supporting documentation to be eligible.

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

Visit Programme Webpage for details

The genocide in Gaza and the attack on the right to demonstrate in Germany

Peter Schwarz

Germany’s “Basic Law” (constitution) gives everyone the right “without registration or authorisation, to assemble peacefully and without weapons” (Article 8) and to “freely express and disseminate their opinions in speech, writing and images. There shall be no censorship” (Article 5).

The extent to which government and the security authorities disregard these basic democratic rights is breathtaking. Demonstrations against the genocide in Gaza are being banned or subjected to strict conditions. Large police contingents intimidate participants, censor every spoken and written word, arrest participants by the dozens and confiscate flyers and banners.

Police officers on the fringes of the Berlin Palestine demonstration on 4 November 2023

According to a survey by news weekly Der Spiegel, a quarter of all registered pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the 20 largest German cities were banned. The rest took place under conditions of harassment that stipulated in detail what could and could not be said and shown. The restrictions are reminiscent of the “Newspeak” in George Orwell’s novel 1984, which is intended to ensure the correct world view and mindset “by eliminating undesirable words.” These conditions differ from city to city and are characterised by complete arbitrariness on the part of the state.

Even exclamations such as “from the river to the sea” have been categorised as “antisemitic, inciting hatred, glorifying violence or terror” and banned. In Berlin, where around 20,000 participants gathered on Saturday for the largest demonstration to date, the police had issued an extensive catalogue of restrictions. Anyone who denied Israel’s right to exist would be committing a criminal offence, which would be punished immediately, warned head of operations Stephan Klatte, threatening to break up the demonstration in the event of a repeat offence.

Symbols, flags and proclamations, as well as expressing support for Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the recently banned prisoner aid organisation Samidoun, were also prohibited. Palestinian scarves and Palestine flags were allowed but could be confiscated if they were used “in support” of banned slogans.

The police deployed 1,000 officers to monitor the restrictions and intervene immediately if they were violated. The security forces were rigorous in their approach. According to the police, 68 arrests were made in connection with the demonstration and 36 investigations were initiated.

The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party) was also affected by the repression. Leaflets with the statement “Stop the imperialist-Zionist genocide in Gaza!” which it distributed at the demonstration were confiscated for half an hour until the police censors finally released them again.

In other cities, the conditions were even more restrictive. Anyone who wanted to demonstrate in Frankfurt am Main against the massacre in Gaza needed courage. The demonstration on Rathenau-Platz, which was attended by around 800 people, was cordoned off on two sides by police vans. On the narrow sides there were groups of police in helmets and armoured vests next to police film crews recording every movement. The rally speech, given by a Muslim woman from Bavaria, was interrupted several times by a disembodied voice over police loudspeakers, with the constant threat that the rally would be broken up if this or that poster was not removed immediately.

Posters showing dead people and children’s corpses, posters with the words, “genocide” or “Völkermord” and negative references to Israel were banned. Palestine flags were also banned, but in view of the large number of such flags, the police refrained from enforcing the ban.

At a smaller demonstration in Duisburg, the police also banned the distribution of pictures showing nothing but the truth. These were images of injured children, women and men in hospitals in the Gaza Strip, as can be seen every day on Al Jazeera and even occasionally on BBC, which, unlike ARD and ZDF, do not completely bow to government censorship.

Images that were banned at the Duisburg demonstration

Representatives of the police felt that the drastic restrictions on freedom of demonstration and freedom of expression did not go far enough. On Monday, the chairman of the Police Officers Union, Jochen Kopelke, called for only small, stationary demonstrations with a limited number of participants to be permitted.

Kopelke told Deutschlandfunk radio that the crowds currently taking to the streets at Gaza demonstrations could not be controlled. “All assembly authorities must be more restrictive and impose more conditions. These marches through German cities should no longer be allowed.” Large demonstrations were not “manageable” for the police. “The crowds are so big that we police officers can’t be in all places at once, of course. But if we discover something illegal, we crack down hard.”

Rainer Wendt from the smaller German Police Officers Union agitated in the Bild tabloid: “The radical Islamists are posing the question of power on our streets, and we have to answer it in our favour, otherwise it will no longer be the Basic Law that rules, but Sharia law.”

Media outlets reacted to the demonstrations with undisguised hostility. They began by absurdly understating the number of participants. For example, they reported figures of between 6,000 and 8,000 for the Berlin demonstration, although the number of participants was obviously at least three times as high.

None of the demonstrators, including Jews who were peacefully protesting against the massacre by the Israeli army, were mentioned in the brief reports. Instead, the reporting focused on how many “criminal offences” —i.e., violations of the undemocratic restrictions—had taken place.

As usual, Bild, the inflammatory newspaper from the Springer publishing group, went the furthest, unleashing a veritable pogrom of incitement. Bild reported on the Berlin “Jew-hating demonstration” under the headline “Thousands shout: ‘Bomb Israel!’” In reality, not a single participant in the demonstration had “shouted” anything of the sort. The demonstrators had chanted “Israel bombs, Germany finances.”

But no lie is too shabby for Bild to agitate against political opponents. In 1968, the tabloid had created a pogrom atmosphere against the student movement which led to the assassination attempt on its leader Rudi Dutschke. Bild’s lies about the Berlin demonstration clearly fulfill the criminal offence of incitement to hatred. But the Springer paper, whose annual press ball is attended by the crème de la crème of Berlin’s political and media scene, need not fear that the public prosecutor will knock on its door.

Moreover, the agitation is not limited to the tabloid press. German professors also do not shy away from digging deep into the brown (Nazi) filth when it comes to stirring up hatred against Muslims.

Professor Ruud Koopmans from Berlin’s Humboldt University tweeted on X: “Maybe it’s time to make ‘Allahu Akbar!’ a punishable battle cry at demonstrations. It’s used 100 percent equivalently to the Nazis’ ‘Sieg heil!’”

The Arabic “Allahu Akbar” means “God is great” and is used by hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world. It leads Friday prayers every week. Arabic-speaking Christians also use this phrase. The social scientist Koopmans had previously made a name for himself with questionable studies that declared almost half of European Muslims to be fundamentalists.

In an interview with the Frankfurter Neue Presse, Susanne Schröter, head of the Frankfurt Research Centre for Global Islam, who is also well known for her anti-Muslim stance, stirs up an amalgam of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, “extremely violent” Islamists, “Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist groups from the pro-Palestine bloc” and representatives of “post-colonial theory,” who are “irreconcilably against Israel, against the West.” She calls for bans and influence on public opinion.

The massive attack on the right to demonstrate and freedom of expression, which is supported by the major parties, the media and formerly liberal representatives of the wealthy upper middle class, cannot be explained by the war in Gaza alone. It is the reaction of a ruling class that feels increasingly isolated and threatened by the masses.

Despite the intensive media campaign, it has not succeeded in suppressing resistance to the genocide of the Palestinians. The protests against it are growing from week to week and have long since taken on an international character. Last weekend, millions took to the streets worldwide.

Reserve Bank of Australia deepens attack on working class

Nick Beams

As was widely expected, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) increased its base interest rate by 0.25 percentage points yesterday. This is another blow to working-class home buyers who have seen their disposable income cut by hundreds of dollars a week since the rate rises began in May last year.

The rate hike was pretty much a foregone conclusion after inflation figures for the third quarter were released last month. They showed an increase in prices from 0.8 percent to 1.2 percent for the three months, taking the annual inflation rate to 5.4 percent.

Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Michele Bullock [Photo: Reserve Bank of Australia]

The decision though was as much about politics as it was about any supposed economic reasons. The incoming RBA governor Michele Bullock sought to establish her authority, issuing hardline statements on the need to bring inflation down.

She declared “low tolerance” for allowing inflation to rise above the level that the RBA has identified as its target. That is to bring inflation down to the 2 percent to 3 percent range by 2025. Bullock said that the bank board “will not hesitate to raise the cash rate further if there is material upwards revision to the outlook for inflation.”

Had rates not been raised yesterday Bullock knew that after having made such statements, she would have come in for a hammering from the financial press for not enforcing what it regards as the necessary monetary policy.

As a comment by economics professor Richard Holden in the Australian Financial Review put it, it was not only the right thing to do, but the only thing to do.

“Inflation isn’t coming down nearly fast enough, rates were and still are too low, and the credibility of Michele Bullock’s governorship was on the line,” Holden wrote.

In her statement on the move, Bullock said inflation in Australia had “passed its peak but is still too high and is proving more persistent than expected a few months ago.” Goods prices had eased further but “the prices of many services are continuing to rise.”

The reference to services is significant because the RBA, like its counterparts internationally, particularly the US Federal Reserve, regards wage rises in this area as the key determinant of inflation and wants to ensure they are suppressed.

Bullock said that since its August meeting the RBA had received updated inflation on inflation and the labour market which suggested that the risk of inflation remaining higher for longer had increased.

She acknowledged that the economy was “experiencing a period of below trend growth,” but then made clear the bank wants to see it fall further. Bullock said growth has been “stronger than expected over the first half of the year.”

The growth rate was just 2.1 percent for the first six months of the year, down from 2.7 percent at the end of 2022. Growth per head of population, per capita GDP, declined by 0.3 percent in both quarters.

This means that while growth remains positive, the economy is in what is known as a per capita recession.

And the RBA decision is aimed at continuing this trend. Bullock said the economy was forecast to continue to grow below trend. She said that “employment is expected to grow slower than the labour force and the unemployment rate is expected to rise gradually to around 4.25 percent.”

Back in June, when she was RBA deputy governor and flagging her suitability for the top job, to which she was subsequently appointed by Labor government Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Bullock told an employers’ function that a 3.6 percent jobless rate was too low. It would “have to rise” to 4.5 percent to bring inflation down.

Even though this estimate has been revised down slightly, it still means that well over 100,000 jobs will be lost.

While it is fully behind the RBA policy, which has nothing to do with bringing down inflation but is directed at suppressing wages, the Labor government has tried to manoeuvre in order to appear to distance itself from the decision.

In the lead up to the announcement, Chalmers said the latest price numbers were not a “material” shift upwards in inflation, as if to give the impression the government was not in favour of a rate increase.

This word play has got nothing to do with defending the interest of workers. It is motivated by concerns that Labor’s very narrow electoral support—the government received just over one in three votes in the May 2022 election—is eroding even further. The government’s claim that easing cost of living pressures is at the top of its agenda is increasingly exposed.

It has never been publicly acknowledged by any Labor spokesperson but cost of living pressures and the growing hostility to the government was a central factor in the massive defeat of its Voice referendum.

And that hostility has only increased because of the Albanese government’s full-throated support for the Israeli government’s genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

Moreover, it is becoming increasing clear that the so-called fight against inflation has nothing to do with the real cause of price hikes. The actual driver of inflation has been identified by the United Nations and aid organisations such as Oxfam as the price gouging by major corporations and commodity traders in international markets, but this is explicitly denied by the RBA.

The RBA interest rate policy is aimed solely at the working class. Its content is to slow the economy and increase unemployment while pouring billions of dollars into the coffers of the banks via increased mortgage payments.

Facts and figures speak louder than all the doublespeak and obfuscation by the RBA and the Labor government about their concerns for the economic well-being of the population.

Since the rate rises began in May 2022—yesterday’s decision is the 13th hike—a family with a mortgage of $750,000, by no means at the top of the scale, is spending $1815 more on repayments a month. That is the equivalent of a wage cut of over $450 per week or around $22,000 a year. These figures signify increases of more than 50 percent in mortgage payments over the past 18 months.

A family with a mortgage of $500,000 has lost $1210 per month, while a family with a mortgage of $1 million—by no means an uncommon occurrence, especially in Sydney and Melbourne—is worse off by $2421 every month.

More is to come because, as Bullock said at the conclusion of her statement, the RBA remains “resolute in its determination to return inflation to target and will do what is necessary to achieve that outcome.”