Australian union pushes through pay cut at paper mill

Chris Sadlier

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) has pushed through a 5 percent wage cut at the Maryvale paper mill, operated by Australian Paper in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley. The union announced last Thursday that workers had narrowly endorsed a new enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) at the site containing the wage reduction.

The result follows a campaign of intimidation by the CFMEU and the company warning workers that the plant would be shut and they would lose their jobs if they did not accept the pay cut of up to $100 a week. It underscores the role of the unions in enforcing the dictates of the corporate and financial elite and establishing further precedents for the destruction of wages and conditions.

The vote by production workers was held by secret ballot through the mail, without any mass meeting being held. As many as 900 full-time, part-time and casual workers are employed at the mill, the largest in the country.

According to the CFMEU, 199 voted for the agreement and 187 against. Some 20 percent of workers eligible to vote boycotted the ballot. The result reflects widespread hostility to the company-union wage-cutting campaign.

The EBA establishes a two-tier wage system, with an effective 11.5 percent pay cut for all-new starts. It follows an agreement backed by the union in 2016 which resulted in a wage freeze for 160 maintenance workers at the plant. Under the deal, maintenance employees work a 38-hour, four-day week, while being paid for just 35 hours. The arrangement has reportedly saved the company $3 million.

In comments to the Latrobe Valley Express last week, CFMEU Maryvale branch secretary Anthony Pavey hailed the latest agreement, declaring: “It was a show of good faith from the 516-strong production workforce to help secure the future of the financially troubled mill.”

Speaking like a representative of the corporate shareholders who have demanded stepped-up “efficiency,” Pavey boasted of the “savings” already imposed by the union in the 2016 agreement. “The maintenance workers were able to achieve their savings by doing extra hours and taking pay freezes; we haven’t changed our conditions we’re dropped the value of our dollar basically,” he said.

Pavey pointed to the ongoing anger among workers over the deal, warning: “[T]he workforce is fairly flat and a little bit divided with such a close vote. It’s very difficult at the moment.”

Australian Paper national manager of sustainability, communication and marketing, Craig Dunn, publicly thanked the union for pushing through the cut, stating, “the company appreciated the sacrifice of its workers.”

Pavey’s comments, and the union’s record, make clear that the CFMEU is committed to enforcing an unending assault on the jobs, wages and conditions of Maryvale workers, in the name of ensuring that the company remains “internationally competitive.” While the full content of the EBA has not been publicly released, it no doubt contains provisions for further inroads into jobs, wages and conditions.

The cuts at Maryvale are part of a broader corporate offensive, aimed at dismantling the rights and conditions won by workers over decades of struggle. The Latrobe Valley, which is in Victoria’s east and has historically been a centre of manufacturing and the power industry, is a focal point for this campaign.

Earlier this year, the federal government’s Fair Work Commission endorsed demands by AGL for the elimination of the existing EBA at its Loy Yang A power station in the Latrobe Valley. The ruling has created the conditions for wage cuts of up to 65 percent.

This followed the announcement late last year by French multinational Engie that it will close the nearby Hazelwood power station at the end of March, resulting in around 700 job cuts.

The CFMEU, having overseen the destruction of tens of thousands of jobs in the Latrobe Valley, is doing everything it can to isolate workers at each plant, and prevent the development a unified struggle against this onslaught.

The role of the union was on full display last month when Anthony Pavey swerved his four-wheel drive near a supporter of the Socialist Equality Party campaigning against the CFMEU-company deal. Pavey told the SEP campaigners to “get the f— out of here,” accusing them of “making it hard for the workers to make their decision.”

Referring to Pavey, a worker later told the WSWS, “he is afraid to come down to my section of the plant. He’s betraying the workers. He’s here for what he can get out of it.”

Hand-in-hand with their pro-company thuggery, the CFMEU has promoted virulent nationalism, aimed at dividing the working class and diverting attention from the role of the union and the company in slashing wages and conditions. The union has blamed the attacks on Maryvale workers on the alleged “dumping” of cheap paper on the world market by Chinese corporations, and has called for tariffs and other protectionist measures to be imposed.

In other words, the union is demanding the escalation of trade war measures, which are already resulting in a fracturing of the world economy, and heightening the dangers of military confrontations.

In reality, the cuts at Maryvale and throughout the Latrobe Valley are a product of the crisis of global capitalism, and the dictates of the financial elites everywhere for workers to pay for the ongoing economic slump.

Australian Paper is owned by Nippon Paper Industries, a multinational corporation, which is restructuring its global operations in response to a growing downturn in paper demand. The company is selling its mill in Washington in the US. The plant curtailed production last month, with over 100 workers reportedly laid off. At the same time, the company is establishing paper cup operations in Vietnam, aimed at taking advantage of ultra-low wages.

The alternative to the nationalism and corporatism of the unions is the fight for an independent political movement of the working class, uniting workers around the world in a counteroffensive against the attacks of finance and big business.

As a first step in this struggle, workers at Maryvale and throughout the Latrobe Valley should establish rank-and-file committees, independent of the unions, to oppose the company-union attacks, break the isolation imposed by the CFMEU and link up with other sections of workers across the country.

Above all, what is required is a new political perspective aimed at establishing workers governments, which would place the major corporations and manufacturers under public ownership and implement socialist policies, including guaranteeing a decent, well-paid job for all.

South Asian nuclear arms race accelerates amid India-Pakistan standoff

Sampath Perera

Recent weeks have witnessed a further intensification of the nuclear arms race in South Asia, with arch-rivals India and Pakistan both carrying out tests of nuclear-capable missiles and making bellicose war threats.

India and Pakistan came perilously close to all-out war last fall, after India boasted it had terminated its policy of “strategic restraint” and would continue to mount military strikes inside Pakistan until Islamabad stops all logistical support for the anti-Indian insurgency in Kashmir.

For two months thereafter, the Indian and Pakistani armies exchanged daily, often lethal, artillery and gun-fire barrages across the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistan-held Kashmir.

While the cross-border firing has now abated, relations between South Asia’s nuclear powers remain fraught and both countries have stepped up their war preparations.

India has reportedly spent more than US $3 billion (20,000 crore rupees) since September on emergency arms purchases from Russia, Israel, and France. According to Indian press accounts, the purchases include ammunition, engines and spare parts for fighter jets and other aircraft, armour-piercing rockets for battle-tanks, and anti-tank missiles. The ammunition and parts are supposed to ensure that India has the capacity to wage at least 10 days of “intense fighting.”

India’s Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has effectively frozen all ties with Islamabad since the mid-September attack that Islamist Kashmiri separatists carried out on the Indian Army base at Uri—an attack the BJP, with the full support of India’s political establishment, blamed on Pakistan. In a statement to the Indian parliament earlier this month, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said India’s policy is “no dialogue until peace,” i.e., no resumption even of India’s normally frosty relations with Pakistan until Islamabad demonstratively curtails support for the Kashmiri insurgency from its territory.

Flexing its nuclear muscles, India carried out back-to-back tests of two nuclear-capable missiles in December and January. The first, the Agni-V, is the most powerful surface-to-surface ballistic missile in India’s rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal. It is designed to carry multiple nuclear warheads to targets up to 5,000 kilometres (3,100 miles) away. Already, with the Agni-IV, which New Delhi tested for the fifth time on January 2, and which has a range of 4,000 kilometres (2,485 miles), India had the capacity to strike all major Pakistani population centres and military installations even from southern India.

Earlier in 2016, India announced that it had completed the development of a “nuclear triad”—the capacity to launch nuclear weapons from land, air and underwater. In August, India commissioned its first nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine, the INS Arihant, and earlier last year it successfully tested a submarine-launched ballistic missile, with a range of 3,500 kilometres (2,175 miles), the K-4. India has a second nuclear submarine currently undergoing sea trials and two others are reportedly under construction.

Islamabad responded to India’s latest Agni tests by staging its own tests of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, the Babur-3 and the Ababeel.

On January 9, Pakistan claimed to have staged a successful test from an undisclosed Indian Ocean location of the Babur-3. An underwater-launched cruise missile, it has a range of 450 kilometres (280 miles) and is designed to hug near the sea and land so as to escape detection.

The Pakistani military claimed the Babur-3’s maiden test was a “measured response to nuclear strategies and postures being adopted in Pakistan’s neighbourhood” and boasted that it gives Islamabad a “second strike capability.” That is the ability to mount a devastating nuclear strike even if an enemy “first-strike” has destroyed all of Pakistan’s land-based nuclear facilities and incinerated much of its population.

Unlike India, Pakistan does not possess nuclear submarines. As a result, it will be forced to deploy the Babur-3 in diesel-electric submarines, which have a much more limited capacity to remain underwater.

On January 24, Pakistan announced it had successfully conducted its first-ever test of the Ababeel, a nuclear-capable intermediate ballistic missile with a range of 2,200 kilometres (1,370 miles). Ababeel is designed to carry multiple nuclear warheads and, according to a Pakistani military press release, has the capacity to “ engage multiple targets with high precision, defeating the enemy’s hostile radars.”

Both India and Pakistan are also proclaiming their adherence to aggressive military strategies that increase the prospect of war and of any war becoming a nuclear conflict.

Within days of General Bipin Rawat becoming India’s new army chief last month, he boasted about India’s readiness to fight a “two-front war” against Pakistan and China, and declared that India’s military has adopted Cold Start, a battle plan that calls for India’s military to be able to mobilize and launch a large-scale invasion of Pakistan in just 48 hours.

So provocative is Cold Start that the Indian military long denied it was part of its war planning. Cold Start is aimed at exploiting the large gap in strength between Indian and Pakistani conventional forces. It also is aimed at ensuring India can strike before other powers intervene to try to defuse an Indo-Pakistani war crisis, as happened in 2001-02.

Shortly after Rawat confirmed the Indian military’s adherence to Cold Start, India announced it intends to dramatically expand its tank deployments along the Pakistan border. Senior Indian Defence officials told IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly India will deploy upwards of 460 new Russian “main battle tanks” (MBTs) to the border states of Rajasthan and Punjab, where India already has a massive force of between 800 and 1,200 MBTs.

Islamabad has responded furiously to Rawat’s Cold Start claims. Pakistani officials told the London-based Financial Times that Islamabad would “use nuclear weapons should India invade Pakistan.” Indeed, Pakistan has justified its development of “tactical,” or so-called battlefield nuclear weapons, on the grounds India is pursuing aggressive strategies like Cold Start to overwhelm Pakistan’s smaller conventional forces.

A recurring complaint from Islamabad is that Washington’s longstanding campaign to build up India as a military-strategic counterweight to China has overturned the shaky balance of power between South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals and is encouraging New Delhi to assume an increasingly belligerent posture.

To harness India to its anti-China “pivot to Asia,” Washington has showered strategic favours on India. These include allowing it to purchase advanced US weapons systems and creating a special status for India in the world nuclear regulatory regime that allows India to buy advanced civilian nuclear equipment and fuel, thereby enabling it to concentrate its indigenous nuclear programme on weapons development.

In a recent interview with Voice of America, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s main foreign policy adviser, Sartaj Aziz, warned Washington against further disrupting the “strategic stability” of South Asia. “We have been emphasizing to (the) US,” said Aziz, “that if you start your defence cooperation and arms agreement (with India) in such a way that disturbs our strategic stability then we will have no option but to respond and that is not good for the peace in the region or world.”

Under pressure from an India emboldened by Washington’s support, Pakistan is taking steps that dangerously lower the nuclear threshold. New Delhi, for its part, has signalled that were Islamabad to use tactical nuclear weapons against Indian troops, whether inside Pakistan or amassing to invade Pakistan, it would consider that as an act of nuclear war justifying use of its strategic arsenal, i.e., the unleashing of a nuclear attack on Pakistan’s major population centres.

Pakistan’s attempt to counter India’s nuclear triad by developing its own capacity to launch nuclear missiles from its fleet of diesel-electric submarines adds yet another element of risk.

Stratfor, an intelligence firm with close ties to the US military-security establishment, warns Indian anti-submarine forces will be unable to distinguish Pakistani submarines that are part of its “nuclear deterrent” from those with conventional warfare responsibilities. As a result, Pakistani commanders could misread an Indian attack on the submarines as an “effort to neutralize Islamabad’s sea-based nuclear force” and “fire their nuclear missiles during what might otherwise be a conventional conflict.”

Coal crisis hits Ukraine as far-right groups enforce blockade

Jason Melanovski 

Vowing to end contraband from entering Ukraine, nationalist far-right militia groups have blockaded trains, roads and other conduits of goods from the separatist-controlled Lugansk and Donetsk provinces in the Donbass region. As a result, Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman announced last week that the country had been forced into a state of emergency due to the loss of coal resources from the Donbass region.

The area has long been the major producer of anthracite coal that is used for heating and electricity both in Ukraine and throughout the former Soviet Union. Lacking coal, millions could be left without heat and electricity within weeks, including the major Ukrainian cities of Kiev and Kharkiv.

The far-right forces behind the coal blockade also regularly prevent food, water, medicine and other humanitarian assistance from reaching the Donbass, which is a direct violation of the Minsk II protocol agreements signed by the Ukrainian government in February 2015.

Due to the present crisis, Ukraine could be forced to import coal from Russia, according to Minister of Energy and Coal Industry Ihor Nasalyk. Other sources, such as South Africa, are experiencing high demand and would be unable to supply Ukraine with the coal necessary to keep the country running. Imported coal from Russia would likely also be seen as unacceptable to Ukraine’s far-right militia groups that were essential in bringing the Poroshenko regime to power in a western-backed coup three years ago.

The coal crisis coincides with news of a forthcoming gas price hike of up to 40 percent on April 1, the date Ukraine agreed to deregulate its gas prices according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreements. According to Nafto-Gaz director Yuri Vitrenko, “If government regulation of consumers prices doesn’t continue, so called ‘special obligations,’ then going by current prices in the European market, the value of the Ukrainian currency and other factors, we can expect consumer prices for gas to grow by up to 40 percent.”

The continuation of discounted gas prices for consumers would be a violation of the IMF agreements. It could jeopardize the continued financial backing of the IMF, which is essential to keeping the current government in power.

Poroshenko has responded to the coal crisis by vowing to end the blockade. Speaking before the country’s National Security and Defence Council, he stated, “If the blockade is not lifted, the Ukrainian steel industry could lose up to 300,000 jobs. And the state will lose up to $2 billion in foreign exchange earnings.” Poroshenko added that the militia forces were harming the Ukrainian government’s attempts to protect its “territorial integrity” and accused the groups of carrying out a PR campaign “of blood.”

Despite the Poroshenko government’s public opposition to the blockade, it was well aware of the far-right militias’ blockade plans for several months prior to the current energy crisis.

Anatoly Vinogrodsky, one of the main organizers of the blockade, claimed that blockade forces had notified the government in December 2016 of their plans.

Rinat Akhmetov, a coal and steel oligarch from Donetsk who possesses a net worth of over $3 billion, is often identified as one of the targets of the blockade. In October 2016, Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published an investigative report into the smuggling operations of Donbass seperatist groups. The report showed that, free from government taxes and regulations, separatist leaders and oligarchs such as Rinat Akhmetov have enriched themselves while war continues and the working class suffers the consequences. Despite backing the Donbass separatists for financial gain, Akhmetov himself lives in the capital of Kiev to stay close to the Poroshenko regime.

Fearful that the blockade could further undermine its allies in Kiev, the European Union (EU) has called for an immediate end to the blockade. “Those responsible for the blockade must cease their actions and the authorities must address this problem as a matter of priority,” stated an EU spokesman on February 16.

The US administration of President Donald Trump, still undecided in its attitude toward the Poroshenko regime, refused to offer outright for the Ukrainian government, remarking only, “We are concerned by the current disruption to the coal supply from the on-government-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk and its potential impact on Ukraine’s energy system, the Ukrainian economy, and the Ukrainian people.”

Due to Kiev’s domestic unpopularity and reliance on western imperialist backing, relatively small nationalist, far-right political parties in the country, such as Right Sector, have been able to gain a degree of power that is disproportionate to their size or level of support within the populations.

Regardless of its present confrontation with these forces, right-wing militia groups, such as the Azov Battalion, are essential to the Poroshenko government’s continued war against the Donbass.

UK: New legislation proposes to jail whistleblowers for up to 14 years

Trevor Johnson 

The UK government legal adviser, the Law Commission, has issued a “Consultation Paper” revealing plans to replace the Official Secrets Act with much more draconian powers.

The new law will also target those who even receive sensitive material from unofficial sources. Anyone who passes on or publishes such material will face a similarly lengthy prison sentence.

The ability of whistleblowers to defend their actions on the basis of “public interest” will be explicitly removed. It will no longer be possible for whistleblowers to justify going to the media or publishing information online because it exposes serious wrongdoing by the government or its agencies. The state is intending to arrogate to itself the sole right to determine what is in the public interest and what is not.

The proposed replacement law will punish whistleblowers like US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden with a prison sentences of up to 14 years. Following Snowden’s revelations that the US state had established a massive surveillance apparatus—in alliance with Britain’s intelligence agencies—that was able to monitor the activities of every man, woman and child on the planet, the Tory government asked the Law Commission to come up with measures to counter such devastating exposures.

The mantra of the British state has become, “We must know everything about you; you must know nothing about us.”

Since the passage into law last November of the Investigatory Powers Act, or Snoopers’ Charter, the state now has access to every citizen’s personal data, but anyone—whether a British citizen or not—who gets access to information on the functioning and nefarious activities of the British state will be dealt with as ruthlessly as if they were a hardened criminal.

The proposals represent a reversion back to the draconian Section 2 of the 1911 Official Secrets Act. This notorious legislation criminalised the disclosure, or receipt, of any piece of official information. The original Act, rushed through Parliament in 40 minutes at the height of the Agadir crisis in 1911, when war with Germany loomed, gave blanket protection for every single piece of information inside Whitehall. Then, however, those convicted under it faced imprisonment for up to only two years, compared with 14 under the new legislation.

It was only after a string of high-profile cases in the 1970s and 1980s, and the prospect of a likely successful challenge before the European Commission of Human Rights by civil rights campaigners, that Section 2 was replaced. In 1989, under the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, it was replaced with a slightly less restrictive version.

Were other organisations, including the World Socialist Web Site, to receive sensitive material covered by the new law, they could be subject to legal action, with its editors facing prison sentences.

It also raises the very real possibility of the state using leaks of material as a form of entrapment. Unless a recipient destroys the material received, or takes it to the “Investigatory Powers Commissioner,” they will face prosecution. With court hearings being held in secret “when necessary” and no need for the leaked information to be confirmed—even if a hearing were held in public—such operations would be performed at minimal risk to the perpetrators.

Even the Tory-supporting Daily Telegraph felt forced to note, “The new law, should it get approval, would see documents containing ‘sensitive information’ about the economy fall foul of national security laws for the first time.”

The Law Commission arrogantly asserts that the “person making the unauthorised disclosure is not best placed to make decisions about national security and the public interest”—thus dispensing with hundreds of years in which the law allowed that they could, on the basis that this was a check on the state’s misuse of power.

The Law Commission states, “Our provisional conclusion is that the public interest is better served by providing a scheme permitting someone who has concerns about their work to bring it to the attention of the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner.” That is, whistleblowers must report only to representatives of the state machine, who will then warn their masters in the ruling elite on the possible threat to their interests!

A further proposed change to existing law, prompted by the revelations of both WikiLeaks and Snowden, is the removal of any need for the prosecution to prove that any harm was suffered as a result of information being disclosed.

In the words of the Law Commission, “[C]urrently the prosecution must prove that the information disclosed damaged or was likely to damage specified interests. A prosecution would, therefore, involve public confirmation that the unauthorised disclosure did cause or risk harm. ... We suggest remodeling the offences so that they focus ... upon whether the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe the disclosure was capable of causing damage. It is ... not whether damage did or did not occur.”

This proposal arises out of the difficulties state prosecutors had in finding a means to charge WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and other whistleblowers under existing laws. In addition to the overwhelming strength of the public interest defence, and the risk that the illegality of many of the activities uncovered would be given more publicity, prosecution would involve showing the damage caused by WikiLeaks to the operations of the state. While many spurious assertions have been made by representatives of the political and military establishment alleging “harm” caused by WikiLeaks, including loss of life, none have ever been backed by evidence.

The Law Commission’s proposals handing even more power to a repressive state apparatus was revealed in the same week that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) admitted that “there is evidence which suggests documents were shredded [by the police] after the Undercover Policing Inquiry [commenced].”

The Independent reported that the IPCC is investigating claims that documents kept by the National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit (NDEDIU) of the Metropolitan Police were shredded in May 2014. This was shortly after Prime Minister Theresa May, then the Home Secretary, initiated measures to allow a highly restrictive public inquiry into undercover policing practices.

This latest example of criminality on the part of the police comes after months of revelations of undercover cops being given the names of dead children and having long-term relationships with young women. This was in order to best facilitate them carrying out spying activities on legally constituted groups who were involved in peaceful protests.

In response to the Law Commission proposals, the Law Society minimised their significance. It claimed that “criminalisation is limited to the unauthorized disclosure of those categories of information that have implications for the national interest.”

The history of state activity has proven that “the national interest” is a euphemism for the interests of the elite.

The Trump administration and the crisis of American capitalism

Joseph Kishore

President Donald Trump will deliver an address to both houses of Congress tonight, broadcast live throughout the United States. According to talking points released by the White House yesterday, the speech will “lay out an optimistic vision for the country” and “invite all Americans of all backgrounds to come together in the service of a stronger, brighter future for our nation.”

The very fact that Trump will be delivering the address is proof that the “state of the union” is neither optimistic nor bright. Trump and his administration of political thugs are testament to the horrifying decay of political culture in the United States. The agenda that the administration is rapidly implementing holds out for the working class of the entire world a future of unending war, dictatorship and social devastation.

The first five weeks of the Trump administration have given ample demonstration of this fact. Trump is packing his administration with CEOs, billionaires, ex-generals and individuals dedicated to what his chief strategist Stephen Bannon referred to last week as the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” In a policy directive released yesterday, the Trump administration calls for a massive 10 percent increase in spending on the military, to be paid for through cuts in everything else: public education, mass transportation, housing, job training, the arts, pollution controls, and health and safety regulations.

The “administrative state” is to be replaced with the “garrison state,” with all the resources of American society subordinated to the preparations of the ruling class for world war.

Among the first actions of the new government is a brutal crackdown on immigrant workers. Thousands are being rounded up and deported, and the Trump administration is setting up the framework for mass internment camps. The government is encouraging the most backward and reactionary elements, expressed in the wave of bomb threats against Jewish community centers and the racially-motivated shooting of two Indian men in Kansas last week.

In all its actions, the new government is implementing a definite political strategy. One should not hesitate to use the word “fascism.” The denunciation by Bannon of the “corporate globalist media,” Trump’s demand for “total allegiance to the United States of America” and his call for a “new national pride” founded on the “blood of patriots”—this is language inspired by Mussolini and Hitler. The Trump-Bannon government is using the immense power of the presidency to develop a fascistic movement, which will increasingly take on extra-parliamentary forms.

Throughout his campaign and in the first weeks of his administration, Trump has pitched his rhetoric to the discontent and frustration of broader sections of the population. With lying and empty rhetoric about the “forgotten man” and pledges to “Make America Great Again,” he is seeking to direct social anger against the “enemy” abroad and establish the base for an authoritarian and militarist agenda.

Trump does not have mass support. Indeed, his presidency is the most unpopular in the history of the United States. Polls make clear that his attack on immigrants and other reactionary measures are broadly opposed. In the first weeks of his administration, Trump has confronted protests involving millions of people in the United States and internationally.

However, in the absence of any progressive political outlet for this anger, it is the extreme right that is benefiting. This is true not only in the United States, but also in Europe, where far right and fascistic political movements are also on the rise.

The administration’s greatest asset is the spineless and reactionary character of his critics within the political establishment. The Democrats are doing everything they can to divert and disorient popular opposition. Along with their allies in the media, they are promoting a vile, neo-McCarthyite campaign focused on denunciations of the Trump administration for being too soft on Russia. Their strategy is two-pronged. They want to pressure Trump to adopt positions that conform to the demands of dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, while at the same time diverting the anger of millions of workers and youth away from any challenge to the capitalist system.

Responsibility for the rise of Trump lies squarely with the Democratic Party and what is generally presented as “left” politics in the United States. The Democratic Party, no less than the Trump administration itself, is a political instrument of Wall Street and the intelligence agencies. The policies of the Obama administration for the eight years that followed the economic crash of 2008 were dedicated to rescuing and enriching Wall Street. Far from being held accountable for the swindling and criminality that produced the crisis, the financial aristocracy is richer than ever. The Obama administration continued and expanded the wars of the Bush administration, while escalating the attacks on democratic rights and increasing the power of the intelligence agencies.

During the 2016 election campaign, Hillary Clinton ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the status quo, refusing to even acknowledge mass social discontent. While the leftward movement of broad sections of workers and youth was expressed in support for the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and his call for a “political revolution” against the “billionaire class,” Sanders’ task was to channel this anger behind Clinton, an action that helped assure Trump’s victory. Sanders is now reprising this role in his new position as part of the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate.

The obsessive fixation of the Democratic Party and the political organizations that surround it on various forms of racial, ethnic and gender identity politics plays into Trump’s hands. The Democrats and their apologists are opposed to any movement against Trump that is associated with policies of social reform and economic redistribution, beyond a more agreeable distribution of wealth within the top 10 percent. As such, they are incapable of advancing a viable basis for opposing the reactionary chauvinism of the fascistic right.

In the final analysis, the rise of Donald Trump is the expression of the protracted and now terminal crisis of American capitalism. He is not an intruder in an otherwise healthy society. However bitter the dispute within the ruling class, they are all united on the conviction that American imperialism must control the world and the attack on the working class must be intensified. Under Trump, the ruling class is embarking on a new stage in this catastrophic project.

Essential political conclusions must be drawn. It is impossible to separate the fight against the Trump administration from the fight against the social and economic order that has produced it: capitalism. The social force that must be mobilized against Trump is the working class. It is in the working class that real and enduring opposition to the new administration will develop.

The Socialist Equality Party is fighting to arm the working class with a political program that offers a real solution to the great problems that it confronts. The working class can only secure its basic rights—to a secure and good-paying job, health care, housing, education, retirement—by means of a frontal assault on the wealth of the corporate and financial elite. It must reclaim the massive fortunes accumulated by the super-rich through fraud and speculation. The stranglehold of the financial aristocracy must be broken through the transformation of the gigantic banks and corporations into publicly-owned utilities, democratically controlled to meet social need, not private profit.

The social interests of the working class must be connected to the fight against imperialist war, which threatens the entire globe with catastrophe. The SEP fights to counter the reactionary and fascistic nationalism promoted by Trump and similar political tendencies internationally through the unification of workers of every nationality, race and gender on the basis of their common class interests.

The basic and urgent task is the building of a revolutionary leadership, the SEP and our worldwide organization, the International Committee of the Fourth International. The Trump administration represents a clear and present danger. It must be fought through the systematic, persistent and urgent organization of the working class in the fight for socialism.

Abel Visiting Scholar Program 2017 for Mathematics PhD Scholars in Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 

• 30th April 2017 for research visits between September 1 and December 31, 2017
• 31st August 2017 for research visits between January 1 and April 30, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

About the Award: The program is designed for post doctoral mathematicians in the early stages of their professional careers.   It is designed to offer the opportunity for a ‘research sabbatical,’ a necessary complement to teaching and other academic duties for mathematicians desiring to also sustain a viable research program.

Type: PhD/Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants must

     1.   hold at the time of application a PhD in Mathematics,

     2.   be based in a developing country at the time of application

     3.   hold a position in a university/ research institution

     4.   be in the early stages of their professional careers, more precisely: the applicants  should

            4. 1) not yet be of full professorial rank but have a working contract in a university/ college

            4. 2) be under 40 years of age at the day of the application deadline.

Therefore for the application deadline of April 30, 2017, applicants should be born ON or AFTER April 30, 1977.

The maximum age may be increased by up to three years in the case of an individual with a broken career pattern (applicants who wish to apply for the April 30, 2017 deadline should be born on or after August, 31, 1974). This should be noted in the application together with the reason for the broken career pattern.

 Applications from women mathematicians are strongly encouraged.

Selection Criteria: The selection criteria is based on the the quality of the project and the benefit/added value for the home institution/country.

Selection: A selection committee decides which applications are successful.

The Selection Committee consists of

a) a member chosen by the Abel board

b) a member chosen by CDC

c) a third member chosen by the IMU EC

The time of members of the committee is three years for the members b) and c) with a maximum of two periods. The Abel Board decides for a).

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The grant can cover for one month and only for the applicant:

1. travel cost to the host institution (economy flight or equivalent) 
2. food expenses (daily expenses should not exceed USD 30 per day)
3. accommodation expenses (monthly rent should not exceed USD 1200- in case you expect higher accommodation cost, please explain in your application the expected higher cost)
4. travel health insurance
5. visa cost
6. local public transport up to USD 100 (for one month)

The total maximum amount is USD 5,000 per grantee.

Family expenses and any other cost cannot be covered.  

Duration of Scholarship: 1 month. In case the length of the visit exceeds one month, the candidate should provide evidence of financial support from the host institution to cover the living expenses beyond the first month.

How to Apply: Each application must include:

1. A curriculum vitae including a list of recent publications
2. A research plan for the visit
3. An official invitation from the institution of the international research partner
4. One letter of recommendation If the letter of recommendation is not written by the international research partner (the host), the application should include a statement from the host approving the research plan.
5. A copy of the PhD certificate
6. A statement about the current employment status/ position in the home institution signed and stamped by your employer. The statement should include the duration of your employment
7. A budget estimation (see Financial Support)
8. In case you are planning to stay for more than one month you must attached a proof of the matching funds for your living costs from the host institution

The application form can be found here.

Please always send your application form cc to “cdc.grants@mathunion.org”.

Your application can only be considered if you sent by the date of the application deadline all required documents.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Abel Visiting Scholar Program is administered by the Commission for Developing Countries of the International Mathematical Union.

The ASC-IIAS Joint Fellowship Programme 2017 for Research Study in The Netherlands

Application Deadline: 

• 15th March 2017
• 15th September 2017

Offered annually? Yes

About the Award:  We are particularly interested in receiving fellowship proposals that go beyond a mere analysis of current issues associated with African-Asian comparative economic developments or Chinese investments in Africa — although none of these themes, if appraised critically and for their societal consequences, will of course be excluded. Our definition of Asia and Africa is broad and inclusive, Asia ranging from the Middle-East to the Pacific Coast, and Africa from North-Africa to the southern tip of the continent.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Applications include a work plan of 1000 words maximum and a CV
• Candidates should have a PhD

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Fellows will receive a monthly grant to cover the cost of living and housing

Duration of Fellowship: Fellowship has a maximum period of 6 months

How to Apply: Interested applicants are invited to email/post their applications, consisting of:

• Application form  download here (Word)
• Curriculum Vitae
• Two letters of reference
  Please ensure that a minimum of two letters of reference are sent to us in confidence via email or post, commenting on the applicant’s academic abilities and the value of  the applicant’s research project.

Address for submission of applications, reference letters and/or queries:
(1) Email: iiasfellowships@iias.nl 

OR

(2) IIAS-ASC Fellowship Programme
c/o Ms. Sandra van der Horst
International Institute for Asian Studies
Rapenburg 59
2311 GJ Leiden
The Netherlands

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS)

Cologne Business School Bachelor, Master and Fulltime MBA Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th June 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Germany

Type: Bachelor, Master and fulltime MBA

Eligibility: 

1. The applicant is a non-German citizen
2. A full application for a CBS program (Bachelor; Master, MBA) has been submitted
3. The applicant provides excellent academic achievements
4. In addition to that, outstanding social & cultural dedication or athletic accomplishments will also be considered
5. The applicant has to write an essay about a topic which will be defined by the examination board
6. The applicant is only allowed to hold one scholarship at a time

Selection: After the closing date for the application has passed, the submitted documents of all applicants will be examined by the examination board and the most talented applicants will be invited to a Skype interview with a member of the examination board. Until the 23rd of June 2017, all applicants will be informed if they were awarded and about the level of their scholarship.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The level of the scholarship (25%, 50% and 75% of the tuition fee) mainly depends on the skills and the financing need of the applicant.

Duration of Scholarship: 2 years

How to Apply: If you want to apply for a foreign student scholarship, please submit the following documents until 15th of June 2017 (cob) to: scholarship@cbs.de

• Transcript of records and certificates of your latest school or academic degree
• An essay about “How does (if) the slowing down of China affect Germany?” (max. 1000 words). Please use the CBS Style Guide (see in link below)
  Essays that do not follow the rules set out in the CBS Style Guide, will not be considered for the scholarship!
• Proof of your social dedication or athletic achievements, if applicable
• Personal letter and statement that indicates the applicant’s need for a scholarship

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Cologne Business School

University of Sheffield Southern Africa Student Scholarship Fund (SUSASSF) 2017/2018 - UK

Application Deadline: 5th May 2017

Eligible Countries: Botswana,Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa,Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

To be taken at (country): UK

Type: Masters

Eligibility: You must have applied to study on one of the following courses to study at the University of Sheffield, starting in 2017:

• MA International Development
• MSc Environmental Change and International Development
• MPH International Development

2. You must be classified as overseas for tuition fee purposes.
3. You must be self-funded to receive this award, i.e. not funded by a research council, government, private enterprise, charity or any similar organisation.
4. This scholarship cannot be awarded in conjunction with any other funding awards, either from the University of Sheffield or external sources.
5. Your mode of attendance must be full time.
6. Receipt of the scholarship is subject to successfully meeting any condition(s) attached to your offer before the deadline provided by the Admissions Service.
7. Receipt of the scholarship is subject to successfully receiving a visa to study at the University in September 2017.
8. You must be a national of and permanently domiciled, in Botswana,Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Selection Criteria and Procedure: This is a competitive process and not all applications will be successful; a panel of senior members of staff will select the strongest application.

The panel will be looking to see in particular if you have:

• provided a clear rationale for applying for a postgraduate course at the University of Sheffield,
• outlined challenges to academic progress and detailed how these barriers have been overcome successfully,
• outlined examples of work experience in the field of International Development,
• clearly articulated future ambitions; these goals relate to the postgraduate degree you have applied for, and how your learning will benefit others from your country.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship offers the following support:

• A full tuition fee waiver
• Maintenance for University accommodation and a monthly stipend

Apply Here 

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Sheffield

Important Notes: The outcome of your application will be announced, via email, before Friday 30 June 2017.

Makerere University PhD Fellowship in Pre-eclampsia Research for African Researchers 2017 – Uganda

Application Deadline: 17th March 2017

To be taken at (country):  Uganda

About the Award: This is a three-year PhD fellowship to be undertaken at Makerere University. The successful candidate will work under the mentorship of Dr Annettee Nakimuli to develop a PhD research project to investigate the immunology and genetics of pre-eclampsia and its consequences among women attending Mulago Hospital. The PhD fellow is expected to undertake an international collaboration, with international co-supervision and mentorship. This collaboration may be within or outside Africa. This is intended to broaden and enhance the research experience and training. MUII-plus will support the PhD fellow to identify suitable collaborators.

Type: PhD, Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Masters degree in Obstetrics and Gynaecology or any Basic Science Masters in a relevant area ( Immunology or Genetics)
• Award will be conditional on acceptance for a PhD programme at Makerere University

Value of Fellowship: This fellowship includes University fees, student stipend, health insurance, one return airfare for student, one return airfare for overseas co-supervisor, travel insurance, visa costs, research funds, bench fees and costs for international conference attendance.

Duration of Fellowship:  Three years

How to Apply: Applications should be submitted to the MUII-plus Administrator, Mr Moses Kizza (mkizza@uvri.go.ug; moses.kizza@mrcuganda.org) and should consist of a cover letter (not more than 1 page), resume (not more than 4 pages), a personal statement (not more than 1 page), scanned copies of certificates and three letters from referees. The personal statement should include your aspirations for career progression in the next 8 years, research interests and any information you consider relevant. Closing date for receipt of applications is 17th March 2017. Ask the referees to send reference letters directly to Mr Kizza by the same date.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Makerere University