UFOs: The Myth That Won’t Die?

David Macaray

“Sometimes I think we’re alone in the universe. Sometimes I think we’re not. In either case, the thought is staggering.”

—R. Buckminster Fuller

The 19th century naturalist Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) made an astute observation. He noted that even though the universe has to be filled with all sorts of alien life—that, statistically, it is almost guaranteed to be teeming with both intelligent and unintelligent life forms—there is virtually no chance of any of them ever meeting any of the others. Why? Because it’s simply too big. As Donald Trump might say, the universe is “yuge.”

Pick up a high-powered rifle and fire it in the air. If the bullet were to travel for, say, 10,000 years at rifle-speed, the distance it traversed over that period would be so infinitesimally small compared to the dimensions of the universe, it wouldn’t even move the needle. How big is the universe? So big, no adjective can describe it.

And yet there are people who insist that aliens have not only landed on earth, but that they were the ones who created the dinosaurs, built the pyramids, and gave us the world’s great religions. After building the pyramids, they decided to hang around for a few centuries. Apparently, they now occupy themselves by doing rectal probes on the white, male population of rural Alabama.

It’s no coincidence that the so-called “UFO craze” in America began in the 1950s. This craze happened to coincide with the same period in which the U.S. Air Force and the Soviet Union began experimenting with all manner of exotic aircraft. There were literally thousands of UFO sightings during this decade. Thousands.

But if these super-advanced space aliens had been tooling around Earth in their flying saucers ever since the pyramids, why were there no reports earlier? Why were there no sightings until the 1950s—when the Air Force began doing its experiments, and everybody and his brother began reporting UFOs?

There was a ridiculous book written in 1968, called, “Chariots of the Gods,” by Erich von Daniken, a self-promoter and con man who had spent time in a Swiss mental institution. The book was filled with spectacular examples of “proof” that space aliens had visited Earth. Naturally, it became a best-seller.

One of von Daniken’s amazing examples was the famous Iron Pillar, located in Delhi, India, estimated to have been built around 400 AD. The author stated that, incredibly, even after all this time, (1) the 23-foot high iron edifice was totally rust-free, and (2) that no one had a clue how it was created. The world’s greatest scientists were dumbfounded. The greatest minds in the world were baffled. Clearly, it had to be the work of an advanced race of extraterrestrials.

As it happened, I was in Delhi years ago, and (along with thousands of other tourists) visited the Iron Pillar. While it was impressive, there were two things wrong with von Daniken’s claims: (1) The Iron Pillar does, in fact, have rust on it, and (2) after examining its metallurgy, scientists had no problem figuring out how it was constructed. While it was an amazing accomplishment for 400 AD, it was clear that this puppy had been built by ingenious Indians, not spacemen.

But, alas, as long as it remains fun to believe in space aliens, we’re going to believe in them. And because no one trusts the Government, we cling to the myth that we actually captured some of these little bastards and are keeping them locked up in Area 51. It’s all part of a massive cover-up. It’s a conspiracy. And it’s yuge.

Cameroon expels 500 Nigerians fleeing Boko Haram

Anderline Amamgbo

Thousands of Nigerians have been displaced by the Boko Haram insurgency. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said it was “very concerned” after 517 Nigerians were expelled, including 313 who had requested asylum. As of February 17, more than 61,000 Nigerian refugees were at the Minawao camp in northeast Cameroon, but there are many others outside the site. Boko Haram, a militant Islamist group that has now fragmented into two factions, took up arms against the Nigerian government in 2009. The conflict, which has spread from northeast Nigeria to other countries in the Lake Chad region, has displaced more than 2 million people.

Over 500 Nigerians who fled into northern Cameroon to escape Boko Haram Islamists have been forced to return to Nigeria, the UN refugee agency said Wednesday. The UN agency said it planned to sign an agreement with Cameroon and Nigeria on March 2 for the voluntary return of 85,000 Nigerian refugees. But it also said it was continuing to urge the Cameroon government to offer asylum and respect international conventions against forced repatriation of asylum seekers. Boko Haram attacks have also driven people from Cameroon villages along the border. On Wednesday, the Red Cross distributed food to 2,500 displaced households at a camp in Kolofata, Cameroon.

In the meantime the Nigerian Government has approved the construction of the Cameroon-Nigeria border link bridge as part of its efforts to strengthen the bilateral ties between the two countries. The Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Babatunde Fashola said the construction would swallow up $38 million, while $9 million would be for consultancy. Nigeria and its neighbours have cooperated closely in fighting Boko Haram, which split into a faction aligned with the Islamic State militant group (ISIS). Five countries—Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon, Chad and Benin—contribute troops to a regional taskforce aimed at routing the militants. Cameroonian troops have also conducted cross-border operations against Boko Haram. The militants have been pushed back in Nigeria, but still retain the capacity to carry out suicide and car bombings. Seven suicide bombers blew themselves up last week on the outskirts of Maiduguri, the Borno state capital in northeast Nigeria.

South Africa: Anti-immigrant protests erupt in Pretoria

Anderline Amamgbo

An anti-foreigner mob of about 1,000 people rampaged across South Africa’s capital city on Friday, assaulting and looting, in the latest dangerous escalation of tensions over immigration. The march nearly turned disastrous when the mob entered a Pretoria neighbourhood dominated by Somali and Nigerian migrants. Hundreds of foreigners confronted the mob, the two sides separated by only a few metres, wielding bricks, wooden poles and other weapons. Police finally managed to disperse them with stun grenades, rubber bullets and water cannons.

Many South Africans accuse the foreign migrants of causing unemployment and crime, despite evidence that the migrants create jobs by opening businesses and employing locals. Anti-foreigner attacks, which have erupted sporadically into deadly violence since 2008, have remained frequent in South Africa this year at a time of economic stagnation, high unemployment and rising crime. The attacks on foreign migrants – largely Nigerians, Zimbabweans and Congolese – have caused a growing rift between South Africa and other African countries. The Nigerian government has protested the attacks this week, calling on the African Union to “intervene urgently” to prevent more bloodshed. The violence has sparking retaliatory attacks in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, where one group of protesters on Thursday ransacked a shop owned by MTN, a South African cellphone company. After protesting the anti-foreigner violence in South Africa, they broke into the shop and stole cellphones and laptops. Police were deployed to guard the shop.

South Africa has suffered anti-foreigner violence in the past, mostly notably in 2008 and 2015 when dozens of foreigners were killed by mobs. Attacks have erupted again in Johannesburg and Pretoria over the past week, on the pretext of targeting drug-dealers and brothels. Dozens of foreigners saw their homes ransacked, robbed or destroyed in arson attacks. In one case, a mob invaded a Nigerian church, assaulting the Nigerian pastor and his congregation and leaving them with bloody injuries.

At the same time, another group announced the formation of an anti-foreigner political party, South African First, which vowed to force all foreigners to leave South Africa within 48 hours of winning power. The violence in Pretoria on Friday began when an anti-foreigner group – supported by the new political party – obtained permission to march to government offices. The group carried an official memorandum blaming foreigners for a long list of problems: everything from illegal taxis and untidy churches to unfair hair-salon competition. It even demanded a government program to teach foreigners to speak more politely. “They are arrogant and they don’t know how to talk to people,” the memorandum concluded. At least one person in the anti-foreigner march carried a placard asking U.S. President Donald Trump for support. “Donald come and save us,” the sign read. “Foreigners must go,” the mob sang after one assault. “We will kill them. They are destroying South Africa.” they said.

South African President Jacob Zuma seemed to be supporting the marchers, saying that the organizers were merely protesting against crime. “It was not an anti-foreigners march,” he said on Friday, disregarding all of the evidence. Amnesty International said the South African government has fuelled the anti-foreigner attacks since 2008 by failing to arrest the perpetrators and tolerating a “toxic populist rhetoric that blames and scapegoats refugees and migrants.” The Nelson Mandela Foundation, a charity created by the late president and anti-apartheid hero, said it was shocked that the authorities had given permission for a “march of hatred” in Pretoria on Friday. The Nigerian embassy in South Africa set up a hotline where Nigerians could report attacks on foreigners. The Nigerian government advised its citizens in South Africa to be vigilant, and it urged South Africa “to bring perpetrators of these deplorable acts of violence to justice.”

Australian youth pushed into unpaid “work experience”

Robert Campion

A recent report has shown that amid the slowdown of the Australian economy and the growth of unemployment, thousands of young people are being compelled to perform unpaid work, in the hopes of securing permanent employment.

The government-sponsored report, entitled Unpaid Work Experience in Australia: Prevalence, nature and impact, was carried out by several universities. While the report tried to put a positive spin on the phenomenon, its contents give a glimpse into the lives of a generation facing perpetual job insecurity.

The report was based on a survey of 3,800 young people around the country. It found that a staggering 58 percent of respondents aged 18–29 had participated in at least some unpaid work experience (UWE) in the previous five years. The figure was estimated at 26 percent for those aged 30–64 and 34 percent across all ages.

The length of UWE varied widely. Over a third of the young people surveyed had worked unpaid for over a month. For 10 percent, it lasted six months or longer. Much of this was accrued on a part-time basis.

Only 27 percent of respondents were offered paid employment by the host company or organisation. Half of those surveyed participated in unpaid work as part of a university or tertiary course. But significantly, 47 percent signed up for UWE as individuals, in an attempt to break into the labour market.

The workers faced precarious conditions, with virtually no rights or legal protections. Over 30 percent of those who chose to comment, said their experience was negative. They cited dangers to health and safety, injuries, insufficient amenities, including toilets, and confusion over whether they would be covered in the event of an injury or accident. Others said they had been forced into menial tasks that gave them no experience in the relevant field.

Some reported they had been “exploited” and simply used as “free labour.” Examples in the report included, “a musician asked to work for ‘exposure’ rather than payment” and “a pastry maker used for 160 hours of work experience, told he was a great worker, but then let go at the end as the patisseries knew they would get another free worker.”

Respondents said they faced financial hardship, including struggling with the cost of living, childcare costs and relying on support from family and friends. The report mentions similar studies in the UK, which have revealed that professions such in journalism, law and finance are dominated by those from “privileged backgrounds” not merely because they have access to social networks, but because their families are able to bear the financial costs, particularly in expensive cities such as London.

Following the report’s publication, a number of young people commented on their experience. Michael Hogan, quoted in news.com.au, spoke about the pressures of UWE placements for teaching students: “Imagine this day. You’re at work at 7.30 am ready to make another impact and show how good you are, then you don’t leave until 4.30 pm because you’re getting assessed and unpacking what you did that day and then you get home and you’re evaluating and looking back at feedback and what you did wrong. It’s very stressful, you almost get to the point where you break. Sometimes you don’t put the pen down until 8 pm.”

Sophia, who worked for nine months as an intern in the media industry, was sometimes required to work 12-hour days without any pay. “You felt like you couldn’t say no because there were a million other people who would happily take your spot if you refused to do something or left on time,” she explained.

Commenting on the prospects facing young people, Sophia said: “I think it’s so competitive now, everyone has a tertiary education, so the only way to differentiate yourself is to have first-hand experience or a post-grad degree. When we hire at my current job I instantly dismiss anyone who hasn’t had past industry experience—internships have been normalised and are expected rather than being a bonus.”

The prevalence of unpaid work is a product of a decades-long assault on the jobs, wages and conditions of the working class, presided over by successive Liberal-National and Labor governments, in collaboration with the thoroughly corporatised unions.

The Labor governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating deregulated the economy, beginning in the 1980s, creating the conditions for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs. The unions have enforced the shutdown of large sections of manufacturing and the erosion of longstanding working conditions, leading to an unprecedented growth in various forms of insecure employment. According to various reports, up to 50 percent of the entire workforce is employed in casual and part-time positions.

Australia’s youth face an historic reversal in social conditions, with rising housing costs, student debt, and chronic under-employment. Apprenticeships, TAFE courses and other forms of vocational education have been gutted.

Today, government measures are aimed at using young people, ever more directly, as an ultra-cheap labour force, to drive down the conditions of the working class as a whole.

The federal Liberal-National government is rolling out a ‘Prepare, Trial, Hire’ (PaTH) policy. Coming into effect in April, it will push youth who have been unemployed for six months or more into 30–50 hours of work a fortnight. They will receive an additional payment of just $200, on top of their meagre unemployment benefit, effectively a wage of $4 per hour. The government will also reimburse employers with $1,000 for taking on an “intern.”

The policy is aimed at creating an “intern army” of 120,000 young people over a period of four years. They will take up virtually unpaid positions in fields such as motor trades, hospitality and retail. The Labor Party welcomed PaTH, having previously supported moves to force all long-term unemployed people under the age of 50 into “work for the dole” programs.

Border issues and Brexit dominate Northern Ireland elections

Steve James

The March 2 elections for the 90 seats of the Northern Ireland Assembly will take place in conditions of mounting political turmoil.

The Brexit crisis, followed by the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, has greatly exacerbated divisions between Europe and America and is provoking open conflict between the UK government and the European Union (EU). In addition, the British ruling class and all its political parties are split between Brexit supporters and those whose interests are entangled with continued British membership of the EU.

Whatever the outcome of the election, the power-sharing arrangements between pro-British unionist and Irish nationalist parties are coming unstuck.

The election was triggered by the resignation of Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness and Sinn Fein’s refusal to immediately nominate a replacement. Sinn Finn seized on the long-running Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) scandal as an opportunity to attack their unionist rivals and partners in power, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Sinn Fein has stated they will not re-enter government with the DUP under leader Arlene Foster until the conclusion of a public inquiry into RHI. Party spokesman, West Belfast MLA Pat Sheehan, insisted there would be no revival of the assembly, housed in Belfast’s Stormont Palace, without an Irish language act, a bill of rights and agreement on how to deal with the “legacy issues” of “the Troubles”.

Between 1969 and 1998, Northern Ireland was torn apart by an extended low-level war between the British Army and forces loyal to the Protestant-dominated Ulster (Northern Ireland) government on the one hand and Irish republican forces dominated by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) on the other.

The conflict resulted in thousands of deaths and was brought to an end under the auspices of Tony Blair’s Labour government, when, backed by the EU and the US, a deal was put together which opened the door PIRA’s political wing, Sinn Fein, to share power in the Northern Ireland government with the pro-British unionists. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement and subsequent deals allowed the British military presence to be vastly reduced, the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish republic to be de-militarised and facilitated a considerable flow of EU funds and global investment into the formerly investment-starved north.

Political life, as codified in the agreement, remained divided on sectarian and “community” lines, with parties being required to identify themselves as Unionist or Nationalist. The vicious anti-Catholic discrimination which characterised Northern Ireland from its founding in 1921 at the conclusion of the Irish War of Independence morphed into a new form of institutionalised sectarianism, which served and serves to divide the working class.

Since 2007, Sinn Fein and their former arch enemies, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and then later the DUP have run Northern Ireland in the mutual interests of rival cliques of the upper middle class seeking to fill their pockets while jointly imposing austerity measures.

Deepening social inequality and a host of ever more egregious corruption scandals have exposed both ruling parties and the institutions they uphold as hostile to the interests of the working class.

In addition, the British decision to leave the EU is generating enormous alarm in both parts of the island. While factions of the ruling elite in the north see departure from the EU as offering new opportunities to slash taxes and drive down living standards, the dominant faction in the south and a significant section of the northern bourgeoisie extending beyond Sinn Fein’s normal constituency see Brexit as undermining both trade with Britain and Ireland’s position in transatlantic transactions between the US and the EU.

Concerns are centred on the border, which 20 years ago was marked with heavily fortified military and police checkpoints and patrolled by British Army helicopters but which is now almost invisible. Today over 200 crossing points carry around 177,000 lorries, 208,000 vans and 1.85 million cars every month. Any disruption to this flow of goods, commuters and travelers threatens an economic collapse on both sides. Theresa May’s Conservative government have, however, made clear they intend to leave the EU’s customs union, thereby making the 1921 partition line an external EU border.

The British and Irish governments have repeatedly insisted that no border checks will be imposed, but no one has yet come up with a means to explain how this can be done. Instead, the border and even the status of Northern Ireland are becoming one of many bargaining chips in the high stakes struggle between Britain and the EU over the terms of the country’s departure.

Following recent talks between Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Enda Kenny, and the President of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, Kenny and Juncker announced their shared aim that, according to Kenny, “the language of what is contained in the Good Friday Agreement will also be contained in the negotiations outcome”—referring to the a final deal between the EU and Britain. “In other words, if at some future time, whenever that might be if it were to occur, that Northern Ireland would have ease of access to join as a member of the European Union again.”

Northern Ireland voted by 56 to 44 percent to remain in the EU, but the DUP campaigned for a “leave” vote and even served as a conduit for pro-Brexit cash to be funnelled into “leave” adverts in London, thereby avoiding limits on referendum expenditure.

Deep divisions between the EU and the US that have emerged in recent years over Ireland’s status as a low tax haven for US tech and chemical companies are further complicated by the election of Trump.

The EU has demanded the Irish government collect €13 billion in taxes from, among others, the US-based Apple Corporation. There is widespread speculation as to the impact of Trump’s “America First” agenda in exacerbating these tensions and the impact this will have on Ireland.

Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole questioned whether post-Brexit Britain securing a quick and unfavourable trade deal with the US would mean that the Northern Ireland border would become a geopolitical fault line not only between Britain and the EU but between European and US-dominated power blocs.

This is the context of Sinn Fein’s decision to effectively shut down the Northern Ireland government, at least for the duration of the RHI enquiry and pending full implementation of outstanding issues from the Good Friday Agreement. Direct rule from London, something the British government is keen to avoid, will necessarily be imposed instead. Sinn Fein’s aim would seem to be to marginalise Stormont during the Brexit negotiations, while pushing forward their case for a new “border poll” on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein is the only all Ireland party and has been mooted as a coalition partner for both the main bourgeois parties in the south, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail.

Foster’s DUP warned in response of a “brutal” election, which can only mean a savagely sectarian campaign harking back to the days of the Protestant hegemony. This month, the DUP voted, like the vast majority of MPs, to trigger Article 50 in the House of Commons. It also voted against an amendment put forward by Northern Ireland’s nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) to preserve rights for the “people of Northern Ireland” contained in the Good Friday Agreement and upheld by the EU. Foster has reiterated her intention to cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent in line with the Republic of Ireland, or even as low as 10 percent.

Spanish port workers prepare national strike against EU reforms

Alejandro López & Alex Lantier 

Spanish port workers unions have called nine days of strikes starting on March 6, as anger builds among workers against the conservative Popular Party (PP) government’s port liberalization decree.

The decree, which still requires parliamentary ratification, would be a historic attack on the labour conditions of port workers in Spain, in line with similar attacks across southern Europe. It opens the door to mass redundancies, wage cuts of up to 60 percent, using temp agencies to provide low-paid contract workers, and slashing safety conditions.

By taking strike action, the port workers are entering into political struggle against the PP and the European Union (EU): the European Court of Justice has ruled that Spain must impose the reform or face sanctions. Their struggle can only be waged by mobilizing broader sections of the working class, in Spain and internationally, against EU austerity. The fight must be taken out of the hands of the unions, which have called the action only because, as wildcat actions spread, they feared totally losing control of the situation.

The State Coordination of Sea Workers (CETM), the main port workers union, has until now been doing everything it can to delay, break up, and call off struggles against the decree. Two weeks ago, it called a three-day strike to take place every other hour on February 20, 22, and 24—which it then called off in order to continue talks with the PP, which has pledged not to back down on the reform.

Finally, port workers took matters into their own hands, launching wildcat strikes in Valencia, Alicante, and Cádiz, where port companies’ association Anesco (the National Association of Stevedoring and Ship Consignment Companies) reported a 23 percent fall in productivity. CETM officials initially downplayed these reports, claiming this was because workers lacked “motivation.”

It is precisely such treacherous actions by the unions that have emboldened the PP to try to impose the liberalization decree, overturning an earlier agreement between Anesco and the CETM.

The strike can only proceed as a struggle against the port reform if workers reject the straitjacket that the union bureaucracy will seek to impose on it. The CETM has no intention of paralyzing Spain’s 46 major ports. Rather, it is again proposing to strike on alternate days at each port, undermining the impact of the walkout.

The CETM is further trying to lull workers to sleep, by advancing the false perspective that they can rely on pro-capitalist opposition parties, like the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) and Podemos, to block attacks on the port workers in parliament. In a statement published last week, the CETM appealed “to the common sense of the other parliamentary groups, so they do not support a modification of the port system which is, on the other hand, one of the most efficient in Europe.”

It also quoted CETM spokesman Antolín Goya: “We will initiate union mobilizations and actions to re-establish communication, demand companies to make every effort to negotiate, and explain to parliamentary groups the error of an imposed norm that destabilizes a sector and destroys jobs.”

The PSOE and Podemos are playing along, making empty criticisms of the decree. On Sunday, PSOE regional premiers Susana Díaz (Andalucía) and Ximo Puig (Valencia) complained that the decree “does not seek consensus and understanding between employers and workers.”

Unidos Podemos spokesman Félix Alonso lamented that the PP “seems not to be aware of the economic and social repercussions of a solution that has not been agreed upon” by the unions and the port companies. He warned that if the PP imposes the decree outright, this will undermine the authority of the unions among the workers. In future, he said, “any agreement between the unions and companies will be a dead letter.”

Claims that the PSOE and Podemos will help port workers defend themselves against PP attacks are a political fraud. These parties are servants of finance capital, whose international allies impose similar measures in other countries. In 2016, after two years of struggle, Portugal’s Socialist Party government oversaw an agreement between the Portuguese Dockers Union and port employers’ associations to liberalize the sector, imposing a wage scale going from €850 to €2,300 per month.

It was Podemos’ ally in Greece, the Syriza-led government, that imposed the privatization of the port of Piraeus in the face of strike action by Greek dock workers. After striking for one month, the Federation of Greek Port Employees (OMYLE) called off the strike as it began to have a real financial impact on the ports. This was another testament to the role of middle-class, populist parties like Syriza and Podemos as enforcers of the diktat of the financial aristocracy.

At most, the PSOE and Podemos may try to delay and manoeuvre, in order to better impose attacks on the workers without provoking a major strike against Spain’s minority PP government, which is very weak and unpopular. They fear that a major port strike could trigger far broader struggles in the working class—ending the “social peace” overseen by the unions, potentially bringing down the PP government and doing irreparable damage to their economic and political interests.

PSOE member César Ramos spoke for these concerns when he said, “we should be thinking more about social peace than the €21 million fine [from the EU for not imposing the liberalization decree]. That amount is insignificant compared to what we can lose if the conflict is maintained in ports.”

Spanish business is now deeply dependent on exports and fears a port strike that would halt the flow of goods. Spanish exports have risen €65.3 billion since the 2008 economic crash, as successive PSOE and PP governments’ austerity measures slashed wages and conditions. While Spain’s economy collapsed, and mass unemployment spread, Spain also emerged as a profitable export platform for international capital.

William Chislett of the state-funded Elcano Royal Institute said, “Faced with plummeting demand from consumers, companies and the government, companies have had no alternative but to seek out markets abroad, or in some cases face going to the wall, particularly small and medium-sized ones. Exports thus became a matter of survival.”

Port management and the PP are in a weak position, and they are acutely aware of explosive political discontent in the European and American working class after the election of Trump, which provoked mass protests internationally.

Precisely because of this, however, the ruling class will rely all the more on the treachery of the union bureaucracies and take ruthless measures against the workers. The media have already launched a hysterical and provocative propaganda campaign—coming from defenders of the Spanish government and the EU, which since 2008 have handed trillions of euros to the banks—accusing port workers of being “privileged” members of a “labour aristocracy.”

This makes it all the more urgent for workers internationally to support Spanish port workers as strike action develops, and for the workers to take the struggle out of the hands of the unions, organizing it on the basis of an internationalist and socialist perspective.

Hostility to immigrants dominates major parties in Dutch election

Dietmar Henning & Martin Kreickenbaum

According to recent polls, the two governing parties taking part in the Dutch parliamentary elections on March 15 will be punished for their drastic austerity policies.

Poised to benefit the most from the losses of the free-market, liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), whose leader is Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and its coalition partner, the social-democratic Labour Party (PvdA), is Geert Wilders’ anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim Party for Freedom (PVV). Current polls place the latter in the lead, just ahead of the VVD.

The elections in the Netherlands are significant. This country of approximately 17 million people has often been the harbinger of trends affecting Europe as a whole. In May there will be presidential elections in France, and parliamentary elections will take place in Germany this September. Here, too, the far right hopes to profit from the politics of the established parties.

Wilders is basing his campaign on a concoction of social demagogy and xenophobia years in the making. In a televised interview he compared mosques to “Nazi temples” and the Koran with Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Wilders calls Moroccans “vermin” and “scum.”

In its election program, the PVV calls for a ban of the Koran, the banning of construction of new mosques, a halt to immigration from Islamic countries, the abolition of the right to asylum, the sealing of the borders, an exit from the European Union (EU) and the ending of all state funding for developmental aid, wind energy, art and public broadcasting.

At the same time, Wilders engages in certain social demagogy. He promises to reverse the raising of the retirement age, as well as cuts to elder care. In addition to this, he promises that obligatory deductibles for health insurance would be rescinded.

Above all, however, the PVV has been successful because no one has seriously opposed its radical right-wing course. In the last 10 years, various coalitions of all the established parties have set the stage for the ultra-right with an unprecedented orgy of social cuts and the scapegoating of refugees and migrants as responsible for declining social conditions.

According to official economic and social data, the Netherlands is doing well by international standards. In the last year, its economic performance rose by 2.1 percent while the unemployment rate decreased to 5.4 percent. But concealed behind these numbers are enormous social tensions.

During the 2008 global financial crisis, the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and PvdA government pumped more than €85 billion [$US 90 billion] into the financial sector to rescue failing Dutch banks.

Prime Minister Rutte, whose VVD governed from 2010 to 2012 in an alliance with the CDA and since the September 2012 general election with the PvdA, set out to recover the cost of bailing out the banks through extreme social cuts.

The labour market was radically liberalized, the retirement age and sales tax increased, the health care system effectively privatized and basic social security slashed. Subsidies for students and the disabled were cut. The housing market collapsed and many families lost a large proportion of their assets through the decline in the value of their homes.

The supposed economic upturn has done nothing for the poor and working class. The number of people living in poverty has increased sharply since the crisis of 2008. Some 1.2 million people, or nearly 8 percent of the population, are still considered poor. In the big cities—Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague—the unemployment rate is between 13.4 and 14.4 percent.

Particularly affected by the rise in poverty are children and immigrants. Approximately 22 percent of Dutch residents originating in Morocco live beneath the poverty line. Some 12 percent of all children suffer in poverty. Among children with immigrant backgrounds, that figure rises to 28 percent.

At the same time, the portion of workers with a “secure job” fell from nearly 57 percent in 2008 to 30 percent in 2014. The increase in low-wage work ensures that the official unemployment rate remains relatively low. But the underemployed, who work part-time or are often self-employed, and the so-called “discouraged workers” who have given up searching for a job, are not included in the numbers. According to calculations made by the Dutch central bank, if one were to include these figures, the unemployment rate would stand at 16 percent.

In the eradication of social benefits, the social democratic PvdA distinguished itself in particular. In 2008, then party chairman Wouter Bos organized the bank bailout. And as the minority government of the VVD and CDA came apart in 2012 over a further austerity program, because Wilders refused to support them in parliament, the PvdA threw itself into the breach.

Six PvdA ministers hold positions in the current government, including the party’s leader and top candidate, Lodewijk Asscher, who serves as minister of social affairs and employment and deputy prime minister. Minister of Finance Jeroen Dijsselbloem also comes from the PvdA. Since January 2013, he has been the president of the Eurogroup (the informal meetings of the finance ministers of the eurozone) and in this capacity he oversees the brutal austerity policies in Greece and other countries burdened by extreme debt.

Through its ties to the Dutch Federation of Trade Unions (FNV), the PvdA also made sure that the 2013 labour protests against the austerity measures of the government did not get out of control.

While social spending decreases, spending on the military and security apparatus is rising. The budget for the police force and judiciary has increased by €700 million in the last two years. By the year 2020, the defence budget will climb by €1 billion. Dutch troops are participating in the US-led war in Syria, supposedly training Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight ISIS, and alongside German troops in their mission in Mali.

The building up of the Dutch state apparatus goes hand-in-hand with sharp attacks on democratic rights, above all those of refugees and immigrants. As early as 2010, the once-liberal asylum laws were severely tightened. The human rights organization Human Rights Watch has since called them the strictest in the EU.

Asylum seekers receive only minimal provisions, commonly referred to as “bed, bath and bread.” Rejected refugees are given 28 days to leave the country. Even if deportation is impossible for legal reasons, the refugees no longer have the right to support from the state and are condemned to homelessness.

The wearing of burqas and niqabs is banned in state buildings, on public transportation, in hospitals and schools, although there are only 100 Muslim women in the Netherlands who wear veils covering their faces. In its latest annual report, Amnesty International criticized the fact that in the future the Dutch police and secret service will be allowed to carry out far-reaching surveillance measures while alleged “terror threats” are robbed of their rights.

The Dutch government confronts the population with open hostility and arrogance. When the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine was rejected last year in a referendum, Rutte flouted the decision and ratified the agreement anyway.

To open the election campaign, Rutte imitated Wilders’ xenophobic tirades. On January 23, he published an open letter in the seven largest daily papers in the country, calling on immigrants to adapt to “Dutch norms and values.” The prime minister said, “We feel ill at ease when people abuse our freedom to disturb the country though they came here because of this freedom.” He threatened: “Conduct yourselves in a normal manner or go.”

PvdA leader Asscher has adopted the same course. He calls for stricter regulations on immigration, a defence of Dutch “identity” and “progressive patriotism.”

Rutte and Asscher are playing directly into the hands of Wilders’ anti-immigrant agitation. Prior to 2005, Wilders was a member of the VVD faction in parliament and was considered Rutte’s mentor. He broke with the VVD over the question of Turkey’s entry into the EU and launched the extreme right PVV.

Three weeks prior to the election, Wilders’ PVV is neck and neck with Rutte’s VVD in the polls. Both parties would each have 23 to 28 seats in the 150-seat parliament.

The PvdA is threatened with a plunge from 38 to less than 10 seats. Their share of the vote in the polls has dwindled from 25.3 percent to 8 percent.

The Socialist Party (SP), which was founded in 1971 as a Maoist organization (the Communist Party of the Netherlands/Marxist-Leninist), has proven itself unable to profit from the collapse of the PvdA. After winning 25 seats in 2010 and 15 seats in 2012, it is now predicted to get only 11 to 13 seats despite the social crisis.

The SP, “socialist” in name only, advances a strictly nationalist programme and attempts to cover it up with hollow promises of reform. Their lead candidate Emile Roemer is in agreement with the law-and-order campaign of the other parties and calls for an increase in police personnel and equipment.

In addition to Wilders’ PVV, the CDA, the GreenLeft and the left-liberal Democrats 66 are expected to gain support. Each is counting on receiving around 11 percent of the vote, or 15 to 16 seats. The final election result, however, is far from certain. I&O Research reports that 77 percent of voters are still undecided.

Because no party is likely to achieve a majority of seats, the SP now speculates that it could build a coalition with the social democrats and GreenLeft. The SP is open to any coalition, according to its leader Roemer, “except with Wilders and Rutte.”

Rutte has also excluded the possibility of a coalition with Wilders, but according to polls, more than three-quarters of voters expect him to break his promise.

Private prison companies to profit from mass immigrant detention

Genevieve Leigh 

To enforce its mass deportation program, the Trump administration’s immigration advisors have proposed that the Department of Homeland Security double the number of people held in immigration detention centers to 80,000 per day. Such a massive increase in detentions will require the erection of a vast prison apparatus to house migrants who have committed the “crime” of escaping the violence and poverty of their war-torn home countries.

According to a February 23 USA Today report, several of the private prison companies profiting from immigrant detention donated heavily to Trump’s inauguration festivities. The report shows that GEO Group and CoreCivic each gave $250,000 to fund Trump’s inauguration.

GEO Group CEO Pablo Paez told USA Today that the corporation “does not take a position on or advocate for or against any specific criminal justice, sentencing or immigration policy” when asked about his donation to Trump’s inauguration. However, one industry analyst could not help but note that “the ICE picture bodes well for the private prisons.”

They certainly have reason to celebrate: Stock shares of the two biggest private prison operators—CoreCivic (formerly know as Corrections Corp. of America) and GEO Group—have doubled since the election of Donald Trump. These two companies, both real estate investment trusts, account for 85 percent of the private prison market in the United States.

Two immigrants jailed at the West Texas Detention Facility for the "crime" of crossing the border

Shares have increased further since Attorney General Jefferson Sessions announced last week that the new administration would not reduce the Department of Justice’s use of private prisons. Sessions claimed phasing out private prison use would “impair” the ability of the government “to meet the future needs of the federal correctional system.”

As of November 2016, 65 percent of ICE detainees were being held in facilities run by for-profit prison companies. These companies make money by charging the government a per-detainee, per-night fee and depend on profits made from cost cutting for detainee services.

The language of the new memos outlines blanket policies targeting virtually all undocumented individuals and gives the for-profit prison industry reason to believe its services will be in high demand: “With extremely limited exceptions, DHS will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement.” The total number of people now targeted under these policies have been estimated at anywhere from 8 million to all 11.4 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

As outlined in documents handed down to top Homeland Security officials in late January, the various immigration institutions have been instructed to rescind programs that allow people to leave immigration custody and check in with federal agents or wear an ankle monitor while their cases run through the system. The new policy is to detain these individuals for future deportation at the discretion of the local ICE officials.

Plans for expanded detention are being devised by Trump’s top officials behind closed doors. To manage the immediate influx, the administration is sending migrants to two new facilities commissioned by the Obama administration before leaving office.

The first, Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, opened in November and can hold 700 immigrants, including a separate 36-bed unit for transgender individuals. The Obama administration arranged the opening of this facility through a no-bid contract with the Louisiana-based private prison corporation Emerald Correctional Management. The corporation manages six other detention facilities and has faced numerous allegations of mistreating detained immigrants.

The second, Folkston ICE Processing Center, is a 780-bed center that is set to open in the coming months in south Georgia. This facility, arranged through a no-bid contract with Florida-based GEO Group, will cost $116.7 million over the next five years. GEO has also been accused of neglect and mistreatment of detainees, including denying attorneys and families access at the Adelanto Detention Facility in California.

The opening of these facilities exposes the role of the many pseudo-left organizations whose growing nostalgia for the days of the Obama administration obscures the reality of the administration’s criminal role in paving the way for Trump. It is a testament to the profound depths to which the Democratic Party has plummeted that the Obama administration’s attention to identity within their barbarous prison system would be hailed as “progressive.”

The Obama administration carried out a widespread attack on immigrants over its eight years in office. In addition to deporting more immigrants than any other president in US history, the legacy of Obama includes laying the groundwork for a massive detention network within the United States.

There are currently over 200 immigration jails across the country at which the government detains hundreds of thousands of individuals each year. In 2013, the last year for which there is accurate data, 441,000 individuals were held by the government in these facilities.

The detention system operates under a congressionally mandated quota that requires ICE to maintain 34,000 detention beds at any given time. Under this policy, the profits of the for-profit prison corporations will be guaranteed. This policy, known as the “detention bed quota,” was introduced by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd under the Obama administration in 2009, a time when there was a Democratic Party majority in both the House and the Senate.

These facilities are infamous for their inhumane treatment of detainees, including inadequate access to medical care and legal services, lack of clean clothes, unregulated food service and reports of physical and sexual abuse, among many others. Since 2003, 167 people have died in immigration custody.

World Socialist Web Site reporters visited one such detention center outside of El Paso, Texas, called the West Texas Detention Facility. The center, which began taking immigration detainees in 2004, holds up to 1,053 immigrants. It is located in the desolate town of Sierra Blanca, which has a population of 553 and a poverty rate of nearly 30 percent. Located off the highway down a dirt road, the facility is surrounded by multiple chain link fences topped with razor wire and patrolled 24 hours a day by ICE vehicles.

West Texas Detention Facility in Sierra Blanca, TX

In order to reach a detainee by phone, one must call and leave a message with the facility with the detainee’s full name and identification number, known as their “alien number.” Money must also be added to the detainee's phone account as they are not permitted to make free phone calls. Only those individuals who are added to the visitation list by the inmate at the time of initial processing may visit at the designated visitation hours, which are limited, and separate for males and females.

A 2007 audit of the facility by the consulting firm Creative Corrections exposed deficient food services, a lack of detainee grievance procedures, mismanagement of storing and maintaining hazardous materials, lack of clean clothes and an inability of families to leave money or property for the inmates. Despite these documented charges, the audit gave the facility a rating of “acceptable.”

There is no shortage of detainment horror stories and cases similar to or much worse than the West Texas detention facility. There are some locations which have even gone as far as altering the rules to lower facility standards in order to stay open, as in the case of the South Texas Family Residential Center.

In 2016 a state court threatened that it would shut down the facility unless childcare was improved. In response, the jail attempted to lower its own standards for childcare by increasing the maximum number of room occupants and allowing unrelated adults to share bedrooms. In this way, the facility was able to continue housing children. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services explicitly stated the standard was lowered to assist the Obama administration in executing its immigration policy.

The many barriers put in place to prevent oversight and the Spanish-speaking detainees’ lack of access to legal services means those allegations that end up being reported likely represent only a small fraction of the abuse migrants face in these jails.

The Obama administration was well aware of the conditions and crimes in the detention facilities which they insisted on filling. Even as many locations were forced to close over allegations of abuse or inadequate care, new contracts were simultaneously being drawn up and signed with the very same private prison companies running the shut-down facilities.

The massive system of for-profit incarceration, and the tools of repression which have been built up to sustain it, were forged long before Obama came to office. The 1980s and 1990s saw the introduction of for-profit prisons and draconian drug laws used to fill the new cells under the auspices of the “War on Drugs.” This growing apparatus was then expanded drastically under the “War on Terror” in the early 2000s. The Obama administration represents one link in the long chain of policies carried out by the American ruling class which have culminated in Trump’s executive orders.

These methods have today been turned against immigrants, one of the most vulnerable layers of the population. The fact that corporations could reap windfall profits on the mass incarceration of immigrants seeking to escape the violence and poverty of their home countries is a damning indictment of the capitalist system.

OWSD Elsevier Foundation Awards for Early-Career Women Scientists in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 1st September 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Dem. Rep., Congo Rep., Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

To be taken at (country): Boston, USA

Eligible Field of Study: Physical Sciences: Chemistry, Maths and Physics

About the Award: Launched by The Elsevier Foundation, TWAS and OWSD, the Awards reward and encourage women working and living in developing countries in the early stages of their scientific careers. Awardees must have made a demonstrable impact on the research environment both at a regional and international level and have often overcome great challenges to achieve research excellence.

The award has an important impact on local research cultures. Previous winners say the awards have had a powerful effect, enhancing the visibility of their past work and creating new opportunities for the future. The awardees are powerful role models for young women who are contemplating whether to remain in an environment that is often hostile to their needs and experience.

Nominations are invited from senior academics, including OWSD members, TWAS Fellows, ICTP visiting scientists and staff, national science academies, national research councils and heads of departments/universities both in developing and developed countries.

Offered Since: 2012

Type:  Science Research

Eligibility: The nominee must be a female scientist; have received her PhD within the previous 10 years; and have lived and worked in one of the following developing countries during the three years immediately prior to the nomination:

Selection Criteria: The competition will be judged by a distinguished panel of international scientists, including members of TWAS, OWSD and ICTP, and chaired by OWSD. The assessment will be based on achievements in the field, with particular attention paid both to the nominees’ contribution to capacity-building in their region, as well as international impact. Winners will be informed of their selection in November 2015.

Number of Awardees: five Awards. One woman is awarded for each of five regions in the developing world: Latin America and the Caribbean; East and South-East Asia and the Pacific; the Arab region; Central and South Asia; and Sub-Saharan Africa (see the list of countries in Africa above)

Value of Award: Each winner receives a cash prize of USD 5,000 and an all-expenses-paid trip to attend the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston in February 2017. Lasting 5 days, the event is packed with networking opportunities. The winners receive their award at a special networking ceremony, as well as invitations to mentoring and science communication workshops, a visit to a local laboratory, and a celebratory dinner organised by the Elsevier Foundation.

Duration of Award: Not stated

How to Apply:

Visit Awards Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Elsevier Foundation

Important Notes: Candidates should please note that self-nominations are not accepted. Nominations must be made on the nomination form and signed by the nominator; they must include the candidate’s curriculum vitae and full list of publications; and be accompanied by three reference letters.

IDFA Bertha Fund for Filmmakers in Developing Countries 2017 – Amsterdam

Application Deadline: 15th May, 2017

Eligible Countries: developing countries

To be taken at (country): Amsterdam, Netherlands

About the Award: The IDFA Bertha Fund is the only fund in the world dedicated solely to stimulating and empowering the creative documentary sector in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe.  The IDFA Bertha Fund aims to stimulate and empower the creative documentary sector in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe by supporting the development, production and/or post-production of documentary projects by filmmakers from developing countries. The Fund not only provides financial support to realize this endeavour, but plays a crucial advisory role as well.

In short, the IDFA Bertha Fund supports documentaries that make a difference. Documentaries that are both a creative form of artistic expression, but also an expression of a world-view and a lifestyle.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Documentary projects can be submitted for two categories: Project Development or Production & Post-Production. The application has to be submitted by a director or producer from a country on the DAC-list. The core rule of the fund is that the director of the project should have the nationality of a DAC- country and live and work in this country.

• The director of the project should have the nationality of a country as defined on the DAC-list and primarily live and work in this country. In addition the production company attached to the project must be based in a country on the DAC list.
• In the category Production & Post-production the following countries cannot apply: Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico.
• Filmmakers from Brazil can apply for development, but only when they’ve completed a film education.
• Eastern Europe: only projects from Belarus, Kosovo, Moldova, Turkey and Ukraine can apply. Filmmakers from all other Eastern European countries have access to funding from the MEDIA programme.
• Filmmakers from the Caucasus can all apply: Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan (till the moment they’ll have access to funding from the MEDIA programme)
• If a production company from a non-DAC list country is attached to the project, it is also necessary that the project has a producer and production company based in a country on the DAC-list. In this case, the application to the fund must be filed by this producer.
• If a project is selected, the contribution must be spent in a country on the DAC-list.
• A project can be submitted only once for each category.
• A project can be submitted for Project Development and at a later deadline for Production or Post-Production, whether or not the Project Development submission was successful.

Submission requirements:

• Application deadlines in 2017 are February 1 and May 15. Incomplete applications will not be taken into consideration. (See Submit your project in link below) Completed applications must be in our office on the day of the deadline.
• Entry forms must be filled out in English. Only for applications coming from French-speaking African countries and Haiti, the Fund offers the possibility to submit the entry form in French.
• Production applications will only be accepted when accompanied by a trailer, demo, edited sequence or other audio-visual material of the project with a minimum of 3 minutes.
• Projects that have finished the shooting phase will be considered as Post-Production applications. In this case applications have to be accompanied by an edited sequence, rough cut or first edit with a minimum of 20 minutes.
• Project Development applications can be accompanied by one previous work when relevant to the project or when representative for the style of the filmmaker. If available a trailer or selected research material from the project is recommendable if representative for the style.
• DVD’s and Vimeo or YouTube links must be in our office on the day of the deadline. Make sure that dvd’s are clearly marked with the project title.
• DVD’s and Vimeo or YouTube links must be in English or have English subtitles. Links should remain online for at least two months following the deadline. If possible, please allow for free viewing of the material (no password required) or make sure you send us the password.

Only projects that have been submitted according to the IDFA Bertha Fund regulations will be considered.

Selection Criteria: Project’s originality, cinematic quality and market potential.

Selection Process: In assessing projects the fund will consider (1) the strength and originality of the treatment, (2) the originality and urgency of the story, (3) the vision and ability of the director and (4) the financial feasibility of the project.

Please note that fund is very competitive and can only select around 5 % of applications received.

All applications that are complete will be considered for selection. After a first selection round the fund will make a pre-selection. The filmmakers of the pre-selected projects will receive a more extensive application form. Within two months after the deadline the Fund will inform applicants of the selection results.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Programme: 

• Project development: The maximum contribution for project development is €5,000. A contribution for project development can be spent on research and on the development of a script and/or on the production of a trailer. It must be spent in a developing country.
• Production & post-production: The maximum contribution for production & post-production is €17,500. A contribution for production & post-production can be spent on all forms of production & post-production, but it must be spent in a developing country.

 Each year, also the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) screens a large part of the year’s harvest of completed films supported by the IDFA Bertha Fund. These may be selected in Competition or in the sections Panorama, Masters or Best of Fests. And every year the Fund works with numerous international film festivals, including Cannes, Berlinale, Thessaloniki, Locarno, Toronto and Pusan, to screen the films that have received IDFA Bertha Fund support.

How to Apply: Submit your project

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: The International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA)