20 Apr 2017

IMU-Simons African Fellowship Program 2017 (Fully-funded)

Application Deadlines: 
  • 15th March, 2017 (Decisions will be made by April 30, 2017)
  • 15th May, 2017 (Decisions will be made by June 31,2017)
  • 1st July, 2017 (Decisions will be made by August 31, 2017)
  • 1st September, 2017 (Decisions will be made by October 15, 2017)
  • 1st November, 2017 (Decisions will be made by December 15, 2017)
Offered Annually? Yes. Until 2021
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): Worldwide
About the Award: The IMU-Simons African Fellowship Program supports research sabbaticals for mathematicians from AFRICAN developing countries employed in AFRICA to travel to an Internationally known mathematical centre of excellence/university (WORLDWIDE) for collaborative research.
The program is not for any post graduate courses or post doctoral training but for a LIMITED RESEARCH PERIOD. The grant covers TRAVEL and LIVING COSTS of African mathematicians working in Africa (Specifically coming from a developing country, the definition of which is determined by the IMU for all its schemes) during the sabbatical.
Offered Since: 2016
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  1. The applicant has to hold a valid doctoral degree (PhD) in mathematics.
  2. The African applicant must be based (place of work) in an African developing country.
  3. The applicant has to be employed as a mathematician in a faculty of a university or an equivalent higher education institution.
  4. The applicant should already have established contact with a mathematician in the host institution in mathematical centre of excellence worldwide and should have a definite research plan together with the host, which must be submitted along with the curriculum vitae of both mathematicians at the time of applying for this grant. This plan should be approved by the host as well.
  5. The applicant should have been granted appropriate leave of absence from his/her home institution which will cover the period of the visit.
  6. The application must also be accompanied by a formal letter of invitation from the host institution, which clearly specifies the period of the (short) research visit as well as the extent of its financial commitment and support. It is expected that the host institution would at least offer office space, free Internet access and other basic amenities.The invitation has to come from the dean of the faculty for the host institution.
  7. The minimal length of a visit that could be favourably considered would be one month. There is no maximal length but it has to be a sabbatical/ research visit not a fellowship position in the host institution (e.g. doing a post-doctoral).
Value of Scholarship: The grant under this scheme will cover:
  1. Travel costs from the place of work of the applicant to that of the host to the extent of economy class airfare (Public) transport (surface transport by rail or bus between the nearest city where the airport is located and the headquarters of the candidate or the city/town where the host institution is located, if necessary)
  2. Visa fees
  3. Travel insurance charges
  4. Basic living costs
  5. Accommodation cost (guest house of the institution or rented flat if possible).
  6. Maximum four (4) Taxi fares (on submission of receipts) may be allowed to travel between the residence and the airport/railway station (upon arrival and departure).
How to Apply: It is important to go through the basic application requirements and process before applying.
Award Provider: Simons Foundation, New York

Royal Veterinary College (RVC) Commonwealth Scholarship for Students form Commonwealth Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 12th May 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries:  developing Commonwealth countries
To be taken at (country): UK
About the Award: The scholarships are funded by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and academic direction is provided by the Royal Veterinary College (RVC), a constituent College of the University of London.
The MSc is offered via distance learning and the programme is supported by a wealth of online resources and support, in addition to annual residential teaching workshops at the RVC.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: To study the MSc, students must have:
  • Either a second class honours degree, or the equivalent, in a scientific subject:
    • veterinary science
    • animal science
    • agriculture
    • biological sciences or medicine.
  • Or a second class honours degree, or the equivalent, in a scientific discipline, which has, in the opinion of the University, included suitable training.
English language requirement:
Applicants must provide documentary evidence acceptable to the University that the applicant has passed the IELTS English Proficiency test within the past three years, with an overall score of 6.5 and a minimum of 6.0 in each sub-test.
Applicants are invited to apply whilst awaiting IELTS results. The English language result is not required prior to application.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of program
How to Apply: Application is a two-stage process:
Stage 1 – Deadline 12 May 2017
Interested applicants should complete and submit the following:
  • The application is accessed via the Commonwealth Scholarships website (See in Link below).
    • Click ‘Go to the EAS’ and on the Electronic Application System [EAS] click ‘Applicant’s Portal’, you can register as a new user with your email address.
  • Complete the Scholarship Application Form [Word Doc] and email with your Curriculum Vitae (CV) to the Course Administrator: rchandler@rvc.ac.uk
Successful applicants of Stage 1 will be notified when they may progress to Stage 2 of the application process (end August).
Award  Provider: The scholarships are funded by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and academic direction is provided by the Royal Veterinary College (RVC), a constituent College of the University of London.

CMAAE African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) Masters Fellowship for African Researchers 2017

Application Deadline: 15th June 2017
Offered annually? Yes
About the Award: The Collaborative Masters of Science in Agricultural and Applied Economics (CMAAE) programme of the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) is run in a network of 17 participating universities in 12 countries in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa.
The students enroll in any of the 8 accredited university departments of Agricultural Economics (see application procedure below) for the first two semesters to take core courses before the successful ones converge at a Shared Facility for Specialization and Elective (SFSE) to undertake elective courses in the third semester, usually at the University of Pretoria.
Field of Study: Fields of specialization covered in the CMAAE programme include Agricultural and Rural Development, Agricultural Policy and Trade, Environment and Natural Resource Management, and Agribusiness Management.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • Must be nationals of Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda or Ethiopia;
  • Must have attained a First Class or a Second Class Honours (Upper Division) degree in Agricultural Economics or related field from a recognized university;
  • Must be willing to work in their country government ministries/ institutions upon graduation.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Duration of Fellowship: The duration of the CMAAE programme is 2 years, generally starting in August/September 2017 for all the universities except the University of Pretoria which will admit in January 2018.
How to Apply: Interested applicants must submit their applications for admission directly to any of the eight CMAAE accredited universities (application procedure can be obtained from the respective university websites).
These are: Egerton University, Kenya; Haramaya University, Ethiopia; University of Nairobi, Kenya; Makerere University, Uganda; Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania; Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), Malawi; University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe; and University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Upon receipt of an admission letter from the specific university, the applicant should upload the following documents via the AERC scholarships application portal http://scholarships.aercafrica.org/ not later than June 15, 2017.
  • Scholarship application letter;
  • Curriculum vitae;
  • MSc admission letter or temporary/provisional admission letter, or an official letter assuring admission with fee structure;
  • Certified copies of University transcripts and certificates;
  • Academic reference from at least a Senior Lecturer;
Award Provider: AERC
Important Notes: Females, candidates from less privileged regions or groups as well as candidates with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply.

LMS-AMMSI Conference Travel Grants 2017 to African Postgraduate Students in Mathematics

Application Deadlines: 
  1. Deadline for 1st Conference: 1st February 2017
  2. Deadline for 2nd Conference: 1st May 2017
  3. Deadline for 3rd Conference: 1st September 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country):
About the Award: The funds are for travel only and are not to be used for accommodation or other expenses.  Institutions or organizations can apply for these grants by filling the application form below and submit by the following deadlines, according to the month in which the conference is to be held:
  1. 1st Conference:  March to June 2017
  2. 2nd Conference:  July to October 2017
  3. 3rd Conference: November 2017 to February 2018.  
Type: Grants
Eligibility: These grants are to cover the travel costs of postgraduate students, with mathematics degrees, to enable them to attend the conferences.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: £2,000 (GBP) per conference
How to Apply: Please submit applications by E-mail only to: AMMSI Administrator
Email:    ammsi.africa@gmail.com
Download application forms from the link below
Award  Provider: The London Mathematical Society (LMS), African Mathematics Millennium Science Initiative (AMMSI)

Militarism and Militancy in Kashmir Have Nipped Evolution in the Bud

Nyla Ali Khan

Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh has recently claimed that Kashmir will be a changed place within a year.
Subcontinental politics is ridden with mainstream political organizations and, in conflict zones, separatist organizations attempting to outdo one another in taking the moral high ground and adopting righteous attitudes, while obviating the necessity of repairing dysfunctional institutions. The deployment of violence to quell an insurrection has, historically, depoliticized societies and metamorphosed organizations which were created for the protection of borders and trained for land warfare into political stakeholders. I recall a conversation that I had with a politically influential acquaintance about the role of the Indian Army in J & K. I asked rather acerbically how the Army had become a stakeholder in the Kashmir imbroglio, and she hurriedly and just as acerbically replied that, “there are good stakeholders and there are bad stakeholders, and armed forces are, inevitably, stakeholders in an insurgent zone.” I was rather ticked off by that response and wondered how a mediator with such a mindset could be open to diplomacy and peaceful negotiations to further the India-Pakistan peace process.
If the political evolution of a society is nipped in the bud by a puissant military establishment, state policies always fall short of becoming coherent. The more the military establishment makes incursions into democratic spaces, the more shaky institutions of state remain and the more fragmented the polity becomes. Once a populace begins to question the validity of the choices it exercises in the electoral process because processes of electioneering and institutions of democratic governance lack transparency and are debilitated, the sociopolitical fabric is ripped to pieces. The “sovereign” role played by the GHQ in Pakistan is an example of such a scenario. In civilized societies, political dissent is not curbed and national integrity is not maintained by military interventions. The more military officials get involved in issues of politics, governance, and national interest, the more blurred the line between national interest and hawkish national security becomes. Contrary to what the Indian military establishment is doing in J & K and the Northeast and what the Pakistani military establishment is doing in Balochistan, people must learn to work together across ethnic and ideological divides and insist that everyone be included in democratic decision-making and be given full access to basic social services. It is an egregious mistake and one that has severe ramifications to allow the military of a nation-state to bludgeon its democratic processes.
Belligerent political and military voices at the federal level conveniently forget that the special position accorded to J & K would enable the strengthening of a closer association between the state and India. The Constituent Assembly of India had been careful to take note of the special circumstances for which provisions had been made in J & K. It is interesting to note that while the Praja Parishad, which fought tooth and nail against the special status, constitutionally, granted to J & K and merged with the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in 1963, raised the slogan of Ek Pradhan, Ek Bidhan, Ek Nishan in the 1950s, a spokesperson of that organization claimed that they would strive for the replacement of the national flag of India by a bagwa-flag. Instead of deterring the growth of democracy, the goal should be to empower the populace of J & K sufficiently to induce satisfaction with the Kashmir constituency’s role within current geopolitical realities such that a dis-empowered populace does not succumb to ministrations of destructive political ideologies. In addition to addressing the political aspect of democracy, it is important to take cognizance of its economic aspect as well. The dominant perception of Kashmir as just an insurgent state within the Indian Union and not as a political unit with legitimate regional aspirations might benefit security hawks but will not do any long term good.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir is so geographically located that it depends for its economic growth on an unhindered flow of trade to both countries.  Kashmiri arts and crafts have found flourishing markets in India for decades.  At the same time, the rivers and roads of Kashmir stretch into Pakistan. Prior to 1947, Rawalpindi used to be Kashmir’s railhead, and Kashmiri traders would use Karachi as the sea-port for overseas trade. The welfare of the people of the state can be guaranteed by securing the goodwill of the political establishments of both India and Pakistan, and by the display of military discipline and efficiency at the borders. The forte of the armed forces of a country, to the best of my knowledge, is national security, not national interest or foreign policy.
The road to Kabul from India and Pakistan runs through Kashmir. Central and Southern Kashmir shares borders with India, Pakistan, and China. Pakistan-administered Northwest Kashmir shares a border with Afghanistan and China. China administers the Northeast Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram tract in the northeast. Various territorial disputes persist. Thus, a crucial step to winning the peace in Afghanistan is to ensure the empowerment and stability of Kashmir’s culture, economy, and democratic institutions.
The purported “statesmanship” of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his cohort has just further deterred the growth of democracy in the state. Instead of empowering the populace of J&K sufficiently and ensuring that a disempowered populace does not succumb to ministrations of destructive political ideologies, the BJP has left no stone unturned to exacerbate the alienation of the people of the state.

Chronic Pain? Don’t Look for Help From Traditional Medicine

Martha Rosenberg

It is estimated that up to 66 percent of US women and 45 percent of US men live with chronic pain from spinal disorders like disc disease, pinched nerves and neck pain, to complex regional pain syndromes, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and headaches. Low back pain alone affects eight out of 10 people worldwide and is the fifth most common reason people visit the physician.
Yet despite steroid and pain-killer injections, expensive and invasive treatments like spinal fusion, disc surgery, spinal cord stimulators, nerve ablation and the controversial opioid drugs, chronic pain is becoming worse in the US adult population not better.
The truth is, even though pain medicine is now a $300 billion a year business, it mostly offers only short-term solutions and short-term relief to patients sometimes with considerable risks.
For example:
*Spinal surgery fails so frequently in resolving pain, it has created the medical term “failed back surgery syndrome.” No one has ever heard of “failed hip surgery syndrome” or “failed shoulder surgery syndrome” because they don’t exist. One study of Workers’ Compensation patients found the success rate after a second lumbar surgery was only 53 percent and after a third, 35 percent.
*Surgically-implanted spine stimulators, which control pain by exerting electrical signals, have been linked to migration of the leads, lead breakage, infection, unwanted jolting and shocking and more.
*Radiofrequency ablation, commonly called “nerve burning,” can cause infection, numbness and allergic reactions to contrast dye and burning sensations after the procedure. Despite destruction of the apparent offending nerves, pain can persist and migrate to new locations.
* Loosened guidelines and wider prescribing for opioid narcotics have not only created an unprecedented national addiction problem, over time, they can produce the very pain they are supposed to treat–a phenomenon called opioid-induced hyperalgesia.
*Medtronic’s highly promoted Infuse Bone Graft that was supposed to stimulate bone growth and replace damaged spinal disks during surgery but turned out to be linked to side effects like paralysis, nerve damage, respiratory problems, excessive bone growth and worse. Congress found the company downplayed risks and side effects.
*In 2012, sealed vials of the steroid methylprednisolone used for spinal injections from  compounding pharmacies spread a rare fungal meningitis that killed seven people and sickened 64 across nine states. In 2007, the journal Spine reported 78 injuries and 13 deaths from the injections prior to the fungal contamination.
There are three reasons why the $300 billion a year pain “biz” is ballooning: Aggressive advertising, a population that is aging and growing heavier and more sedentary and patients and physicians who too often believe that quicker and more dramatic treatments are always better. Even though the public accepts the necessity of hard work for positive results in sports, academia and most other fields, when it comes to chronic pain, Americans often want a quick fix, like narcotics, surgery, injections and implanted devices– not hard work.
Yet only twenty years ago chronic pain was treated in a different and more effective way. Chronic pain patients used to receive the attention of a whole team of medical professionals, called a “multidisciplinary team.” The team would include a physiatrist (a doctor specialized in physical medicine and rehabilitation), physical, occupational, vocational, exercise and ergonomics therapists as needed, a social worker, psychologist, rehabilitation nurse and even support groups of other pain patients and clergy.
Of course, today insurers will not reimburse such treatment thinking it “too expensive.”  Yet when looking at long-term outcomes, repeated surgeries and re-hospitalizations, worker disability and opioid addiction, the upfront investment in multidisciplinary treatment is actually cost saving.
One reason multidisciplinary team treatment works so well for pain patients is it addresses both mind and body. Also, patients are part of the team and their opinions and input matter; in most pain treatments today, patients are passive and told what to do.
Yes, more people are suffering from chronic pain than ever and there are more treatments available. But it is not clear that pain patients themselves are benefiting.
Moreoverthe risks are sometimes considerable.

Turnbull government announces anti-immigrant “Australia first” policies

Oscar Grenfell 

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced on Tuesday that his Liberal-National Coalition government is abolishing the “457” visa category in a reactionary move directed against foreign workers who gain employment in Australia under this longstanding arrangement. Turnbull followed up today by unveiling a series of discriminatory measures to make it more difficult to acquire Australian citizenship.
Turnbull asserted that the cancellation of 457 visas “reflects our policy of putting Australians and Australian jobs first.” He declared: “This is all about Australia’s interest.”
Turnbull’s insular, economic nationalist rhetoric is a clear departure from his assertions last year, before the July federal election, that it was the “most exciting time to be alive” and global “opportunities” existed for “innovative, agile, courageous” entrepreneurs.
The shift echoes the “buy American, hire American” policy introduced by the US administration of Donald Trump, crackdowns on the rights of foreign workers in New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere, and the growth of extreme right-wing tendencies internationally.
When an interviewer yesterday commented that Turnbull’s policies were “Trumpesque,” the prime minister did not disavow the comparison. Like the Trump administration, the Australian government is seeking to divert growing social discontent over unemployment and underemployment, the rising cost of living and cuts to education, healthcare and other social services, into the reactionary xenophobic channels.
At the same time, the measures are aimed at heading-off a deepening crisis of the Coalition government, which holds office with a fragile one-seat majority. Turnbull faces incessant demands from big business for sweeping austerity measures in the looming May budget, amid open divisions within the Liberal Party and constant speculation of a move against his leadership.
Turnbull’s announcement came just two days after Tony Abbott, whom he replaced as prime minister in a September 2015 leadership coup, launched his latest public broadside.
Abbott declared on national radio that Australians were “fed up with underperforming government.” His comments were a veiled reference to frustrations in the corporate elite that the government has not pressed ahead quickly enough with its austerity genda, and recent symptoms of popular discontent, including last month’s routing of the Liberal Party in the Western Australian state election. Abbott is demanding that the government adopt his proposals for even harsher measures against immigrants.
Turnbull’s measures are also a transparent attempt to secure support from the constituencies of various right-wing, anti-immigrant formations. Senator Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party is polling as high as 10 percent in the state of Queensland, where an election is due by early next year. Senator Cory Bernardi, who split from the government in February, has formed the “Australian Conservatives” on an explicitly xenophobic program. Both Hanson and Bernardi responded to Turnbull’s announcements by declaring the government was adopting their policies.
The visa changes potentially affect tens of thousands of prospective foreign workers. There are currently over 95,000 overseas workers employed in Australia on 457 visas. The government will replace 457 visas with a two-year temporary visa, and a four-year visa for highly skilled workers.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said yesterday that unlike workers on 457 visas, employees on the two-year visa would be blocked from “permanent residency outcomes” at the end of their work period, restricting their right to continue working in Australia and ultimately seek citizenship.
The number of occupations eligible for temporary work visa status has also reportedly been cut from 651 to 435. According to modelling by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 8.6 percent of visas granted under the 457 arrangements would be blocked under the new regulations.
Foreign workers seeking employment in human resources, production management, sales, market research and computer support will all be hit by the changes. Leading academics and scientists have warned that the changes, which include a requirement of two years’ work experience in the relevant field, could prevent foreign doctoral graduates from being hired in important research roles.
The Labor Party and the trade unions, which have waged a continuous campaign against 457 visas, denounced the government policy for not going far enough in curtailing the working rights of overseas citizens. Labor leader Bill Shorten said the policy was a “con job” that would make “no real difference.”
Union leaders made similar comments. Australian Workers Union national secretary Daniel Walton summed up their reactionary line, declaring that the policy was just “window dressing” and “is not going to benefit Australian workers in the long-run.”
Labor and the unions have employed “Australia first” demagogy in a bid to divide workers along nationalist lines, and divert from their own role in collaborating with the major corporations in the destruction of jobs, wages and working conditions.
The Greens also denounced Turnbull’s measures from the right. Adam Bandt, the party’s employment spokesman, called for the revision of trade agreements that include provisions for foreign workers to be employed in Australia. Bandt singled out the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which has been the subject of a thinly-veiled racist, anti-Chinese campaign by Labor, the unions and the Greens.
Like the visa overhaul, the government’s new citizenship requirements are a continuation of bipartisan attempts to curtail the democratic rights of migrants. Speaking before the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry yesterday, Turnbull couched the changes in the language of the fraudulent “war on terror,” and the demonisation of refugees and other migrants. He declared that the new requirements were aimed at “ensuring social cohesion while enhancing our security.”
Underscoring their anti-democratic character, the laws are set to be backdated to April 19, supposedly to prevent a “flood of applications” prior to their passage.
Among the foreshadowed measures are higher-standard English tests, which inevitably discriminate against migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds and poorer immigrants with limited formal education. Other changes include extending residency requirements from one year to four, requiring proof of “allegiance” to Australia, and forcing migrants to provide “evidence of integration,” including tax payments and employment records.
The new measures are also aimed at extending the powers of the government to discriminate against prospective immigrants because of their religious or political views. Under the pretext of targeting “religious extremists,” the new requirements will include an expanded test of unspecified “Australian values,” effectively providing for a political interrogation of prospective citizens by immigration authorities. Government documents leaked in February last year revealed plans for ongoing mass surveillance of immigrants.
The latest changes are of a piece with previous measures. In late 2015, the government pushed through legislation, with the Labor Party’s backing, enabling it to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals, effectively abolishing citizenship as an inalienable democratic right.
That measure, along with others introduced under the banner of “Australian values,” have created a body of legislation that can be used against opponents of war, austerity and virtually any other government policy.

Bulgaria: New government to include fascist parties

Markus Salzmann

The right-wing conservative party, GERB, which gained the most votes in the Bulgarian parliamentary elections last month, has agreed to form a coalition with an alliance of fascist parties known as United Patriots (UP). The new parliament is scheduled to meet for the first time on April 19.
The alliance of United Patriots includes the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria, the Bulgarian National Movement (VMRO) and Attack (Ataka). The VMRO, the largest organisation in the UP, emerged out of a militant nationalist grouping that for decades used terrorist measures to further its aim of establishing a Greater Bulgaria, including neighbouring Macedonia. The National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria also propagates openly fascist and racist positions. In 2011, it split off from Attack, which also belongs to the UP.
GERB won the early election at the end of March with about 33 percent of the vote. The UP gained a little over 9 percent. The new coalition, with 122 seats in the 240-seat parliament, has a slim majority. Nevertheless, and despite forecasts to the contrary, the coalition negotiations were completed in a short time. Boyko Borissov, former GERB prime minister, refused to negotiate with other parties and decided to form a coalition with the ultra-nationalists.
He told the daily newspaper Dnevnik he was “happy” with the coalition because the UP parties were “very responsible”. His only condition was that the UP support him as a part of the government and not just in parliament, as the ultra-right parties had done in the past.
Another right-wing party, Volya (Will), headed by the businessman Veselin Mareshki, will also probably back the coalition. Mareshki’s role model is US President Donald Trump. The names of the members of the new cabinet will be announced in the next few days.
This means that Bulgaria, an EU member that is to hold the presidency of the EU Council from January 2018, will be led by an ultra-right government, members of which adhere to fascism and fascist traditions.
Attack is openly anti-Semitic and notorious for its violent provocations against Muslims, Roma and other minorities. The party was due to be banned in 2015 after forming a paramilitary unit. Its leader, Volen Siderov, is a professed Holocaust denier.
Shortly before the elections, the VMRO blocked a Bulgarian-Turkish border crossing to prevent Turks with a right to vote in Bulgaria from entering the country. Krassimir Karakachanov, the chairman of the WMRO, calls for the use of firearms against refugees at borders and for violence to be used against Roma living in the country. He regards Bulgaria as a front-line state in a campaign against Islamism.
All three parties have a strong presence in the media. Their management staff are often recruited from former intelligence officers, and many of its members are police officers or other state officials.
Only recently, Borissov stated that the Balkans was on the brink of war. Now he has formed a government with an openly fascist party. His party, GERB, whose initials stand for “Citisens for European Development of Bulgaria”, is a member of the European People’s Party (EPP), which includes the German conservative parties, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU), as well as the French Republicans. In 2014, the EPP warned against any alliance with the UP and characterised it as an “unacceptable partner”. Now, however, it has made no criticism of the new government.
The government programme bears the hallmarks of the far right and goes far beyond the reactionary policies implemented by Borissov, who was prime minister from 2009 to 2013 and again from 2014 to 2017. He resigned both times, in 2013 after mass protests, and again this year, after his favoured candidate for the presidency failed to win the presidential elections.
The new government programme provides for a massive build-up of state forces in order to prevent any refugees entering the country. The borders are to be reinforced to repel all immigrants. Illegal immigrants are to be rapidly deported. Police presence is to be stepped up in all cities and villages, with some police duties transferred to private security companies and local authorities. In reality, this means that the existing fascist gangs, which are already intimidating immigrants, have been officially legitimised.
For some time, fascist militias have been hunting down refugees along the country’s borders. There have already been fatalities as a result. The government has tacitly tolerated this policy.
In this context, the government anticipates “active cooperation” between the military and “patriotic organisations” to install “patriotic spirit into our young people”. On the subject of education, the government paper states: “patriotism in the education system should be the basis for education and the uplifting of the Bulgarian spirit, a means for forming a sense of solidarity in society and devotion to the homeland.”
Another component of the coalition agreement is the clampdown on democratic rights on the pretext of combating “terrorism, organised crime and corruption”. It also provides for measures against radicalisation and extremism. In a government including members of paramilitary groups, this means the intimidation of political opponents.
After intense debate, the coalition agreed on a tiny increase to the minimum wage and minimum pension. The latter is to be increased from €80 to €100. The minimum wage is also expected to rise at a similar level within the next four years. This barely noticeable increase will be offset by cuts to social benefits.
All pensions approved by 2010 are to be re-examined and new criteria introduced to limit pensions. This was a central demand of the UP, which claimed that Roma were illegally benefitting from disability pensions. It is likely that pensions will now be massively reduced, especially for members of the Roma minority.
Military spending is also to be increased to 2 percent of GDP within the next four years. At the same time, a balanced budget is planned by 2020—a proposal that can only be realised through massive budget cuts in all other areas.
Officially, the coalition partners have agreed on a commitment to NATO and the EU. Bulgaria is an “active and reliable partner,” the government said.
In fact, the country’s relationships with the EU and Russia are highly controversial. The election of Rumen Radev to the post of president in November last year was interpreted as a turn toward Russia. Radev and the chairman of the Socialist Party, Korneliya Ninova, are advocates of ending EU sanctions against Russia and closer cooperation with Moscow. For his part, Borissov is a supporter of the EU.
The parties of the UP alliance had called for the lifting of sanctions against Russia in the election campaign, and Attack has called in the past for a referendum for a withdrawal from NATO. The coalition agreement tries to cover over these contradictory positions with its slogan for a “pragmatic foreign policy”.

Burqa ban included in German union contract

Marianne Arens

Five unions in the German state of Hesse have accepted the introduction of a so-called burqa ban into a public sector contract. In doing so, they have opened the door for the Hesse state government, a coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Green Party, to prohibit the veil, even though a corresponding law does not exist.
On April 4, the Verdi (German United Services Trade Union) Contract Commission approved a new labour agreement covering 45,000 Hesse state employees. It contains a passage which requires workers “not to conceal their face as a matter of principle in the exercise of their duties or in the case of direct employment.” In addition to Verdi, the teachers' union GEW and three other trade unions also accepted the contract.
The contract, which includes a moderate wage increase of 4.2 percent for two years and a job ticket for local transport, will apply to 90,000 Hesse public sector workers. The state of Hesse had already left the joint collective agreement of the Länder (German federal states, TV-L) in 2004.
State interior minister Peter Beuth (CDU) is said to have made the paragraph concerning the full veil the ultimate condition for agreeing the contract. Beuth, like his chief and predecessor, Hesse state premier Volker Bouffier, is a hardliner in the CDU for whom the increase in the powers of the state under federal interior minister Thomas de Maizière has not gone far enough.
The prohibition of the full veil is a demand with which the CDU wants to recover votes from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). While it affects only a very small number of women, it is being used to foment anti-Muslim sentiments. It is part of the “Berlin Declaration of the Interior Ministers of the CDU and CSU (Christian Social Union)” of August 2016. The demands include: an increase in the number of police at the federal and state level, the use of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) for domestic operations, the video monitoring of public places, a European-wide networking of databases and the abolition of dual citizenship.
In Hesse, interior minister Beuth and state premier Bouffier are champions of this right-wing campaign. In August 2016, for example, Bouffier declared of the full veil: “Anyone who excludes herself from society by clothing cannot be integrated in a rational way.” A “Burqa-wearing woman” was inconceivable, in his opinion, in public service.
Since then, the Bavarian CSU state government has already passed a Burqa ban in parts of the public sphere. In the public sector in Bavaria, for example, the face can no longer be covered in kindergartens, schools and universities, in courts, when driving, in polling stations and during ID checks.
However, it is not certain whether the law will survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The right to the “undisturbed exercise of religion” is anchored in the constitution. In the 2015 so-called headscarf decision, the Supreme Court had ruled that “the state is not allowed to evaluate such beliefs of its citizens or even to call them true or false.” This could be why interior minister Beuth would prefer to deal with the issue through collective bargaining with the trade unions.
The conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote, “He [Beuth] probably does not want to burden the coalition with the Greens with a topic that could see both parties driven apart by the opposition.”
Beuth, however, can fear little resistance from the Greens. The Green Party state parliamentary deputy Jürgen Frömmrich has not the slightest problem with the Burqa ban in the contract agreed with the unions. He praised it exuberantly, “It is a good deal and a good day for Hesse.”
The contract has breached a taboo. The hessschau cited the Frankfurt employment lawyer Peter Wedde saying that the contract was “fatal” and contained a “blueprint for additional demands by the employers.” Wedde reveals the profoundly opportunist character of the deal: It works according to the motto, “We give you a little more money, for that we want something else, which we do not want to regulate politically, because it is too delicate and too risky.”
The trade unions—which in addition to Verdi and the GEW, include the police union GdP, the civil servants' union dbb and the DStG (German tax union)—have helped the CDU state interior minister with the problem by including his demand for a ban on the full veil.
On the eve of concluding the collective agreement on March 3 in Dietzenbach, Jochen Nagel, GEW chairman and a member of the Left Party, said, “This issue is complete nonsense in this context. One can be quite certain: the trade unions will not allow themselves to be involved in such a dirty business.”
Nevertheless, Nagel signed the shameful contract on behalf of the GEW. The GEW text on the agreement states it is “completely clear” that “the proposal is part of a political campaign to mobilize resentment against Islam for electoral reasons.” With this, “the employer has put the union contract negotiation committees in a morally difficult situation.”
But why did they agree, when it was “completely clear” that it was a foul right-wing campaign? The answer reads: “The GEW negotiating committee has agreed to the results of the negotiation mainly on the basis of the material offer.” So, “the material offer”—i.e. a few euros and a job ticket—was enough for the trade unions to do the dirty work of the Hesse CDU.
Shortly before the conclusion of the contract, Verdi state leader Jürgen Bothner made clear the profound opportunism of the unions: “The question is: the state of Hesse would like to have this—what do we get for it? ... well, if they want to have it in the collective agreement: collective agreements are compromises. Then there is a price for this. Then let's see.”
In fact, the behaviour of the trade unions goes far beyond pure opportunism. It is part of a breathtaking shift to the right by the so-called “lefts,” trade unions and the media, which Left Party leader Sahra Wagenknecht summed up with her infamous statement: “Whoever abuses their right to hospitality has forfeited their hospitality.”
There are countless examples for this turn to the right. It began in France with an aggressive anti- headscarf campaign, which was also supported by “left”parties such as the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA) and Lutte Ouvrière (LO), and recently appeared in the Spiegel column of Jakob Augstein, who claims that “Islamization” threatens the “identity” of the Germans.
In Der Spiegel, the comments by Jan Fleischhauer show how closely the anti-Muslim campaign is connected with the foulest war-mongering. In a commentary over two years ago, (“Chantalle, put the burqa on”), Fleischhauer had claimed, “The impression of many citizens that Muslim parents do less for the education of their children is not evil prejudice, but corresponds to the facts.”
It was no accident that the Spiegel columnist wrote in the same commentary that Islamic State (IS) could only be combated with massive military force: “The only way I see to deal with the spectre is drones and a few American elite units, who would show the Salafists the entrance to the martyr's heaven.”
The prohibition on the veil also found support in the newspaper Junge Welt. It writes, “Much speaks in favour of banning the wearing of the Burqa, a symbol of Islamic ideology and the religiously veiled reign of moral terror, as well as other forms of full veiling in all areas of the public service.”
In reality, the inclusion of the ban on the full veil in the collective bargaining agreement means an open affront against thousands of workers in the public service. The prohibition of the full veil, the Hijab or Niqab, stigmatizes a very small, religious minority, fostering resentment against Muslim immigrants, thus deepening the division of the working class.
In urban transport, in hospitals, in garbage collection or at the Rhine-Main airport, many workers have a Muslim family background. Many of them have long since fallen out of the public service collective bargaining agreement because the trade unions here have also encouraged an increasing fragmentation.
Earlier this year, 2,000 Hesse bus drivers conducted a fundamental struggle against wage cutting, which Verdi deliberately isolated from the rest of the public service. These bus drivers did not even receive the job ticket that is now being celebrated as the most significant achievement in the current deal, even though they work daily for local public transit.
With their approval of the Burqa ban, Verdi and the GEW have proved that it was neither a coincidence nor an exception when the IG Metall recently let the far right Alternative for Germany participate in the union-organised march in Görlitz when workers at the train builders Bombardier demonstrated against job cuts.

Small uptick in growth but major downside risks remain, says IMF

Nick Beams

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast an increase in the growth rate for the world economy from 3.1 percent in 2016 to 3.5 percent this year and 3.6 percent in 2018.
In the opening section of its World Economic Outlook, prepared for the organisation’s Spring meeting in Washington over the weekend, the IMF says buoyant financial markets and a “cyclical recovery” underway in trade and manufacturing have brought about the improvement of economic prospects.
The use of the term “cyclical recovery” is significant, for, as Leon Trotsky once explained, such a term refers to the operation of the business cycle, which goes through ups and downs for as long as capitalism continues to exist. Trotsky likened this cycle to breathing, which continues right up until a person dies.
As far as the longer-term outlook is concerned, however, the IMF report makes clear that none of the underlying problems that have beset the world economy since the eruption of the global financial crisis in 2008 has been resolved.
The report is titled “Gaining Momentum?” The question mark is significant because, as IMF economic counselor Maurice Obstfeld commented in a blog, while there are “upside possibilities,” the world economy faces “headwinds.”
According to the IMF report, “binding structural impediments continue to hold back a stronger recovery, and the balance of risks remains tilted to the downside, especially over the medium term.”
There are “persistent structural problems,” including low productivity growth and high income inequality, which are leading to increased pressures for “inward looking policies” in advanced countries.
No details are directly given but the reference is to the growth of protectionism, expressed in the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda, Britain’s exit from the European Union and the rise of right-wing economic nationalist movements in Europe and elsewhere.
Such an “inward shift” in policies could pose a downside risk, with “lower global growth caused by reduced trade and cross-border investment flows.”
In his foreword to the report, Obstfeld points to the turn to protectionism “leading to trade warfare” with “zero-sum” policy approaches that “could undermine international trading relationships, along with multilateral co-operation more generally.”
Among other “downside risks,” the report also points to the possibility of faster than expected interest rate rises in the US, which “could trigger a more rapid tightening in global financial conditions and a sharp dollar appreciation, with adverse repercussions for vulnerable economies.”
The main concern here is for corporations in emerging market economies that hold dollar-denominated debt.
The IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR), also released yesterday, expands on these themes. What emerges from its survey is that no part of the world is free from the possibility of financial turbulence, with the risks once again on the increase in the United States.
Overall, the IMF says, financial stability has improved since its assessment in October last year, with a rise in US markets and elsewhere on the back of stronger growth expectations and higher commodity prices.
But the IMF warns that “new threats to financial stability” are emerging from “elevated political and policy uncertainty around the world.” In the US, if anticipated policy changes, including on tax and financial deregulation, are less benign than expected, then “risk premiums and volatility could rise sharply, undermining financial stability.”
The report repeats the warnings running through all the IMF reports and surveys of the recent period that a shift toward protectionism in advanced economies “could reduce global growth and trade, impede capital flows, and dampen market sentiment.” It states: “In Europe, political tensions combined with a lack of progress on structural challenges in the banking system and high debt levels could reignite financial stability concerns.”
The IMF says markets so far have taken a relatively benign view of these risks, “suggesting the potential for a swift repricing of assets in the event of policy disappointment.” In other words, an unexpected shock to the system could have major financial consequences.
Financial Times commentator Martin Sandbu noted while the IMF warnings on the European banking system are not new, “it is significant that even with upgraded growth forecasts, the fund warns that even an undisturbed recovery will not generate enough profits to make the problems go away by themselves.”
One of the most significant aspects of the GFSR is its focus on the position of US corporations in relation to any increase in interest rates. According to one measure, the ability of companies to cover interest payments is at its weakest since the 2008 financial crisis.
The Trump administration’s position is that its policy of lower taxes for corporations will lead to greater corporate investment and labour hiring, promoting economic growth. But if the administration’s policies turn out to be economically “unproductive,” this would lead to increased budget deficits and inflation, pushing up interest rates and leading to a higher value for the dollar, the GFSR says.
That would not only lead to problems for emerging market economies but could have a significant impact in the United States.
According to the IMF, US corporations have taken on $7.8 trillion in additional debt and other liabilities since 2010 and “corporate credit fundamentals have started to weaken, creating conditions that have historically preceded a credit cycle downturn.”
Companies with almost $4 trillion in assets, comprising 22 percent of total assets, are vulnerable to a sharp rise in interest rates.
Already companies with 10 percent of US corporate assets are not able to meet interest payments out of their current earnings. Most of these companies are in the energy sector and had been adversely affected by the fall in commodity prices. However, the IMF notes that “the proportion of challenged firms” has broadened to include real estate and utilities.
The IMF also repeats its warnings about credit growth in the Chinese economy, which increased in 2016. Last year an IMF paper noted that credit growth in China averaged around 20 percent a year between 2009 and 2015, much higher than the growth of gross domestic product (around 7 percent) and higher than the previous trend.
This signifies that in order to achieve the same level of growth as previously a larger injection of credit is necessary. As this process cannot continually indefinitely, the fear is that it can only end in a major financial crisis in the world’s second largest economy.