18 Jun 2018

Clashing with Rome, Paris persecutes refugees at Italian border

Athiyan Silva & Alex Lantier

French President Emmanuel Macron is escalating his the offensive against immigrants and refugees in Europe after meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte on Friday in Paris. After briefly criticizing the Italian government earlier this week over its cruel and sadistic refusal to allow the Aquarius and its 629 refugees to land in Italy, Macron called on European Union (EU) countries to make “profound reforms” in order to toughen EU asylum law.
Every sign indicates that the European powers are preparing enormous new attacks on immigrants across the continent. The clash came after last month’s installation of a new Italian government dominated by the far-right Lega party of Matteo Salvini that has pledged to deport a half-million immigrants—mass deportations that would require a police crackdown without precedent since the end of World War II. At the same time, French police are intensifying their illegal persecution of refugees, including unaccompanied children, along the Italian-French border.
Three days before the Paris summit meeting, Macron had attacked Rome for refusing the Aquarius permission to dock in Italian ports, accusing it of “cynicism and irresponsibility.” This provoked a diplomatic spat with the Conte government, which summoned the French Ambassador to Italy, Catherine Colonna, to protest. Italian Economy Minister Giovanni Tria canceled a planned trip to Paris, and Salvini as interior minister sharply denounced Macron’s statement.
“The problem is that our history in terms of generosity and voluntarism does not deserve to be lectured so severely by French government representatives who, I hope and believe, will present official apologies as soon as possible,” Salvini said. “If official apologies are not forthcoming, Prime Minister Conte would do well not to go to France.”
The spat between Paris and Rome took place as a major crisis erupted inside the German government, also triggered by the issue of immigration. Meeting with both Salvini and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer threatened to defy Chancellor Angela Merkel and close German borders, risking a collapse of the German government.
In the event, however, Conte went to Paris on Friday and held a friendly press conference with Macron, where both men laid out their plans for attacks on refugees. Both called for changes to the Dublin accord, which mandates that the EU country where an asylum seeker first arrives handles his or her asylum application. While Conte said Italy is “opposed” to the system, Macron said he wanted a “refoundation” of the system “to better adapt it to the realities of each country.”
While Macron called for reinforcing the EU’s Frontex border agency, Conte called for a bilateral Franco-Italian summit meeting “in the autumn” in Rome.
There are growing signs that the upcoming EU summit at the end of June will feature new attempts by the various EU powers to change EU asylum rules and drastically step up attacks on migrants. The Macron government has passed a draconian asylum law that effectively gives police veto power over asylum applicants’ files, as France mounts mass deportations of tens of thousands of refugees each year. However, Rome and Paris are clearly pressing to step up these fascistic attacks.
Macron and Conte both urged to EU to create more so-called “hotspot” camps, that is, concentration camps in North Africa where hundreds of thousands or million of refugees can be detained. Conte said, “We should create European centers in the countries of departure” to block an “exodus” of migrants towards Europe. Macron supported Conte’s reactionary plan, calling on “branches of our asylum agencies to tackle this question on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea.”
In fact, the “centers” proposed by Conte and Macron are hellish, EU-funded prison camps set up in Libya after the 2011 NATO war to detain masses of Middle Eastern and African migrants fleeing imperialist wars and grinding poverty. After UN officials reported on the mass resort to torture, sexual violence and murder in Libyan camps and CNN broadcast a video of African migrants being sold as slaves in the camps, Amnesty International published a harrowing report on them last year. It confirmed that the EU is funding camps where these atrocities are committed.
Further camps are being set up in Chad, Niger, Morocco and in countries across North Africa, to block masses of refugees from attempting the hazardous Mediterranean crossing to Europe.
The row between Paris and Rome reflects bitter struggles erupting inside the European ruling class over the fate of the EU and its global policy. The refugee question plays an enormous role in this crisis. Decades of US-led imperialist wars have devastated entire countries and regions—from Iraq to Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Mali, Burkina Faso and beyond—killing millions and forcing tens of millions to flee their homes. Ten to fifteen thousand refugees have drowned in the Mediterranean, provoking horror and outrage among millions of workers across Europe.
The deepening crisis of relations with the United States, the recent collapse of the G7 summit talks with Washington, and initial US trade war measures against Europe are accelerating these political conflicts inside the European bourgeoisie, as it seeks to fashion a new, militarist and anti-immigrant politics in order to push through European militarist policy.
The European powers are haggling over how to divide the limited numbers of refugees and asylum seekers they will admit. At the press conference with Conte, Macron said that “if Austria, Hungary and some others, thanks to these special contacts, can provide more of the solidarity that Italy needs, it’s very good news for Italy and for everyone.” Seehofer, for his part, called on Austria and Italy to “ally themselves with Germany to work at the interior minister level on security and immigration.”
Macron’s anti-immigrant stance and his ties with the far-right Italian government are a further vindication of the Socialist Equality Party of France’s stance in last year’s presidential elections.
It insisted that workers could not support Macron as a lesser evil than neo-fascist candidate Marine Le Pen, based on claims, for example, that Le Pen would be more hostile to immigrants than Macron. Rather, the SEP insisted that the task was to mobilize independent opposition to both candidates and give revolutionary leadership to the movement in the working class that would erupt again—as indeed it has, with masses of strikes and protests particularly since the beginning of this year.
Similarly, neither the more explicitly nationalist Italian government nor the Macron government, which seeks to coordinate its persecution of immigrants more broadly through the institutions of the EU, have anything progressive to offer to masses of workers and youth.
One indication of this are the terrible reports about French police abusing immigrants, including immigrant children, that are emerging along the Franco-Italian border in the Alps, as refugees try to flee across the border from Italy to France. The Italian government protested to the French government earlier this year that French police had violated Italian sovereignty by crossing over into Italy to dump refugees back on the other side.
Last week, new reports emerged from Oxfam that French border guards along the Italian border in the Alps near Ventimiglia are abusing, detaining and illegally deporting back to Italy children as young as 12. They are also cutting the soles of children’s shoes, stealing their mobile phones’ SIM cards, and refusing shelter, schooling, and access to clean water, toilets and medical care to minors, including pregnant teenagers.


“Children, women and men fleeing persecution and war should not suffer further abuse and neglect at the hands of the authorities in France and Italy,” commented Oxfam’s Elisa Bacciotti, adding, “Children should never be kept in jail cells or subjected to cruel abuse.”

NATO, Germany build up for war against Russia

Gregor Link

The defence ministers of all NATO member states met in Brussels on June 7 and decided to take all necessary steps over the next two years to be able mobilise a total of 90 military, naval and air force combat units at short notice and at any time.
To this end, two new headquarters will be built, with one of them located in Norfolk, Virginia. According to the US Defence Department, the Norfolk centre will organise the rapid deployment of combat units across the Atlantic, so that the “entire spectrum of transatlantic missions” can be successfully carried out.
“The return of the major powers and a resurgent Russia demand that NATO focus on the Atlantic to ensure a capable and credible deterrent,” Pentagon spokesman Johnny Michael declared in early May. The new NATO command will be “the linchpin of transatlantic security.”
The second new Joint Support Enabling Command (JSEC) will be built in Ulm, Germany, following a proposal made by the German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen.
“It will be a new NATO command tasked with coordinating all military troop movements within Alliance territory in the event of a crisis,” von der Leyen said at the NATO defence ministers’ meeting in Brussels. The construction of the new command is to be based on the Multinational Command Operational Command operating in Ulm. This unique centre is already carrying out NATO, UN and EU tasks and, according to the German army (Bundeswehr), has already begun preparations for the JSEC.
The JSEC should reach full operational readiness by 2021. Already by 2020, 90 units from all three military branches (army, navy, air force) are to be upgraded so that in case of emergency they can be sent into action within 30 days.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that 30 army battalions (30,000 troops) would be available for this purpose. In addition, 30 aircraft squadrons, and 30 large warships as well as submarines should be able to mobilise within “30 days or less.” In the future, these units will strengthen the already existing NATO Response Force (NRF). Up to now, the NRF has consisted of 20,000 rapid deployment troops and a reserve pool of another 20 battalions. In addition, Stoltenberg announced an increase in the number of positions in NATO’s multinational planning and management staff from its existing level of 1,200 to 8,000.
The German army has made no secret of the fact that this massive rearmament is aimed at preparing for a major war. “This is basically about preparing for intervention,” von der Leyen said. It must be possible “to keep troops in high operational readiness, so that they can be deployed quickly.”
According to a report from the army command, “In the event of an attack on an ally, the Command Center will be responsible for troop and material transports within Europe and coordinate their protection. Already on the way to the operational area and well in advance, planning can be centralised and the tasks of protection harmonised.
“The possible area for intervention extends to the area of responsibility of SACEUR [Supreme Commander of NATO in Europe], ranging from Greenland to Africa, Europe and its coastal waters.”
The preparations for war are specifically directed against Russia, a nuclear power. Just a few days before the meeting of NATO defence ministers, the European Commission announced that it would invest 6.5 billion euros to build new roads in Europe by 2027 to enable troop-carriers and military vehicles to reach the Baltic countries at short notice. Currently bridges and rail networks are often not designed for the heavyweight tracked vehicles.
The preparations for war in Eastern Europe are already in full swing with Germany playing a key role. It is already central to the strengthened NATO presence in Lithuania, with 4,000 soldiers on the eastern border of the NATO. In addition, the Bundeswehr will take over leadership of the “NATO Spearhead” VJTF (Very High Readiness Joint Task Force) in 2019 and 2023.
Since May there have been large transfers of NATO forces through Germany to Eastern Europe, which will continue until the end of June. As part of the operation “Atlantic Resolve III,” 3,500 US soldiers and about 1,400 vehicles, plus supplies, are to be transferred to Poland and the Baltic states. In addition, massive exercises are already underway with German participation.
The NATO exercise “Saber Strike” is currently taking place in Lithuania, with the Bundeswehr leading the eastern flank reinforcement. According to the US Army, about 18,000 soldiers from 19 countries are taking part in the exercise. Among other things, the operation includes the simulated storming of the Russian Kaliningrad exclave through the Suwalki gap between Lithuania and Poland. The Bundeswehr is participating in NATO exercises this year with about 12,000 troops, a tripling of its commitment compared to last year.


Under conditions of growing conflicts between the NATO powers themselves, the German Defence Ministry sees the NATO offensive against Russia as a means of increasing its own military clout. The leadership of the VJTF must “invest and modernise certain units to bring them up to their best,” von der Leyen said. This will be high up on the agenda for the upcoming NATO summit in July.

16 Jun 2018

Reclaiming the UN’s radical vision of global economic justice

Adam Parsons

What are the political implications of meeting the established human right for everyone to enjoy an adequate standard of living? In short, it necessitates a redistribution of wealth and resources on an unprecedented scale, which is why activists should resurrect the United Nations’ radical vision for achieving Article 25. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the most translated and celebrated documents in the world, marking its 70th anniversary this year. But relatively few people are aware of the significance of its 25th Article, which proclaims the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living—including food, housing, healthcare, social services and basic financial security. As our campaign group Share The World’s Resources (STWR) has long proposed, it is high time that activists for global justice reclaim the vision that is spelled out in those few simple sentences. For in order to implement Article 25 into a set of binding, enforceable obligations through domestic and international laws, the implications are potentially revolutionary.
Since the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, the United Nations never promised to do anything more than “promote” and “encourage respect for” human rights, without explicit legal force. The Universal Declaration may form part of so-called binding customary international law, laying out a value-based framework that can be used to exert moral pressure on governments who violate any of its articles. But in the past 70 years, no government has seriously attempted to adapt its behaviour in line with the Declaration’s far-reaching requirements.
While civil and political rights have enjoyed an increasing degree of implementation throughout the world, the historical record on economic and social rights is far less sanguine. This is forcefully illustrated by the UN’s current Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston. In his first report submitted to the Human Rights Council, he argued that economic and social rights are marginalised in most contexts, without proper legal recognition and accountability mechanisms in place. Indeed, he even questioned the extent to which States treat them as human rights at all, and not just desirable long-term goals.
Even many of the States that enjoy the world’s highest living standards have disregarded proposals to recognise these rights in legislative or constitutional form. Most of all, the United States has persistently rejected the idea that economic and social rights are full-fledged human rights, in the sense of “rights” that might be amenable to any method of enforcement. It is the only developed country to insist that, in effect, its government has no obligation to safeguard the rights of citizens to jobs, housing, education and an adequate standard of living.
In their defence, governments may point out the historical progress made in reducing extreme poverty across the world, which has generally been achieved without adopting a strategy based on the full recognition of economic and social rights. But the extent to which these rights remain unmet for millions of people today is unconscionable from any kind of moral perspective. Consider that more than 60 percent of the world population struggles to live on less than $5 per day, an amount which the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has considered the minimum daily income which could reasonably be regarded as fulfilling the right to “a standard of living adequate for… health and well-being”, as stipulated in Article 25.
The International Labour Organisation of the United Nations also estimates that only 27 percent of people worldwide have access to comprehensive social security systems, despite almost every government recognising the fundamental right to social security, as also enshrined in Article 25. The fact that many thousands of people continue to die each day from poverty-related causes, while the number of chronically undernourished people increases once again, is an affront to the very idea that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living.
Even in the most affluent nations, millions of people lack access to the financial system, struggle to pay for food or utilities and die prematurely. Across the European Union, for example, one in four people are experiencing income poverty, severe material deprivation and/or social exclusion. There is no country which has secured fundamental socioeconomic rights for the entire population, including the generous welfare states of Scandinavia that are also being gradually eroded by market-driven policies.
Such facts demonstrate how far we have strayed from realising the modest aspiration expressed in Article 25. The challenge is well recognised by civil society groups that advocate for a new direction in economic policymaking, beginning with a reversal of the austerity measures that are now expected to affect nearly 80 percent of the global population within a couple of years.
Rendering Article 25 into a truly “indivisible”, “inalienable” and “universal” human right would also mean, inter alia, reforming unfair tax policies that undermine the capacity of countries to invest in universal social protection systems. It would mean rolling back the wave of commercialisation that is increasingly entering the health sector and other essential public services, with extremely negative consequences for human wellbeing. It would also demand regulatory oversight to hold the out-of-control finance sector to account, as well as domestic legislative action in support of a living wage and core labour rights.
In short, implementing Article 25 would call for a redistribution of wealth, power and income on an unprecedented scale within and between every society, in contradistinction to the prevailing economic ideology of our time—an ideology that falsely views economic and social rights as inimical to “wealth creation”, “economic growth” and “international competitiveness”.
This only serves to underline the enormous political implications of achieving Article 25. For it is clear that rich countries prefer to extract wealth from the global South, rather than share their wealth in any meaningful way through a redistribution of resources. Yet we know the resources are available, if government priorities are fundamentally reoriented towards safeguarding the basic needs of all peoples everywhere.
To be sure, just a fraction of the amount spent on a recent US arms deal with Saudi Arabia, estimated at over $110 billion, would be enough to lift everyone above the extreme poverty line as defined by the World Bank. If concerted action was taken by the international community to phase out tax havens and prevent tax dodging by large corporations, then developing countries could recover trillions of dollars each year for human rights protection and spending on public services.
Fulfilling the common people’s dream of “freedom from fear and want”, therefore, is not about merely upscaling aid as a form of charity; it is about the kind of systemic transformations that are necessary for everyone to enjoy dignified lives in more equal societies with economic justice.
These are just some of the reasons why the human rights of Article 25, however simply worded and unassuming, hold the potential to revolutionise the unfair structures and rules of our unequal world. Because if those rights are vociferously advocated by enough of the world’s people, there is no estimating the political transformations that would unfold. That is why STWR calls on global activists to jointly herald Article 25 through massive and continual demonstrations in all countries, as set out in our flagship publication.
The UN Charter famously invokes “We the Peoples”, but it is up to us to resurrect the UN’s founding ideal of promoting social progress and better standards of life for everyone in the world. It is high time we seized upon Article 25 and reclaimed its stipulations as “a law of the will of the people”, until governments finally begin to take seriously the full realisation of their pledge set forth in the Universal Declaration.

Despite rising social anger, Macron pledges to step up austerity attacks in France

Alex Lantier

Despite rising social opposition after both houses of parliament voted to privatize the French National Railways (SNCF), French President Emmanuel Macron plans to intensify austerity and develop closer ties with the far right. This is what emerged from Macron’s speech to French health insurers in Montpellier on Wednesday and then during a trip to Vendée to meet far-right royalist politician Philippe de Villiers.
Tuesday night, as the National Assembly prepared to vote the SNCF pact, Macron released a video in which he contemptuously denounced social spending. The 40-year-old, transformed by the Rothschild bank into a multimillionaire after a few years of work, made clear he believes the population is lazy and reliant on state aid. “We spend too much money, we let people evade their responsibilities, we are in curing mode,” he complained about French health care, while attacking the “crazy amounts of money” France spends on social issues even though “the poor stay poor.”
At the same time, polls emerged showing a continuing erosion of Macron’s popularity. With only 40 percent approval ratings, Macron has lost the support of 19 percent of the voters who cast ballots for him on the first round of the elections, a group that counted only 16 percent of registered voters. The presidential staff at the Elysée palace commented only, “Our base isn’t abandoning us.”
In Montpellier on Wednesday, Macron endured catcalls during his speech but nonetheless insisted he would press ahead with social cuts at all costs.
He called for drastic cuts in social spending: “We should not believe that there are some who believe in social transformation and are looking to borrow money, and others who do not believe in it who want to cut spending. There is bad news: social spending, you pay for it, we pay for it.”
Macron briefly mentioned mass anger in the French population at social conditions: “We live in a country where democratic promises are often not kept, because we have kept many formal rights that often exist only on paper, and that leads to the contemporary French indignation. And yet we keep spending more of more of our wealth on social issues.”
For the millionaire in the Elysée, the solution to this problem is clear. If the French are not properly grateful for their social situation, more cuts should be made to concentrate wealth where the divine right of kings says it should be: at the very top. Macron went on to promise to “liberate” France from what is holding it down, comparing his plans for a “deep revolution” to the creation of Social Security by the National Resistance Council (CNR) in 1945.
Macron’s speech was a reaction to growing concern inside his own party about the collapse of his popularity and growing strikes among rail workers, electricity workers and at Air France—and in similar industries not only in France but across Europe. These fears were particularly intense as the rail workers are overwhelmingly opposed to the reform that has been voted by the parliament.
Last week, three Macron advisers—Philippe Aghion, Philippe Martin and Jean Pisani-Ferry—had cynically proposed an attempt to improve Macron’s image in a memo that was partially leaked to the press. While detailing stepped-up austerity measures they were proposing against the workers, the three advisers also stressed their concern that Macron “gives the impression of being indifferent to the social question.”
Macron’s speeches were designed to make clear that there will be neither a change in his policy, nor a cynical PR campaign to try to soften his image. The president’s contempt for the French electorate is itself a sign of a broad movement of the entire ruling class towards the far right, where it no longer even postures as seeking to work out a policy in line with the will of the people.
A revolutionary situation is emerging in France and across Europe. Macron is counting on the trade unions to suppress the continuing strikes against the SNCF reform and other austerity measures. However, he is leaving no room for maneuver or compromise if workers mount a rebellion against the trade union bureaucracy to defend themselves against Macron’s attacks. Against such a struggle, Macron is preparing a vast police-state machine inherited from the state of emergency, even if this risks provoking an all-out confrontation with the working class.
As he cynically applauds the Gaullist and Stalinist reforms of the post-1945 era, Macron is very well aware that he aims to destroy them. The Labor Code has been effectively abrogated by the 2016 labor law, which allows employers to violate the Labor Code if they have union approval and which Macron is using to privatize the railways. And more cuts to Social Security, pensions and other basic social programs are being prepared.
These programs were created in their current form by the Gaullist, social democratic and Stalinist forces of the CNR, which pledged that France would be a “social” republic that would organize “the eviction of great economic and financial aristocracies from control over the economy.”
Three quarters of a century later, under Macron, the bourgeoisie has openly repudiated the reforms that the CNR implemented at the Liberation from Vichy-Nazi rule, in order to head off a revolutionary struggle of the working class led by the Fourth International. All its state institutions, including the trade union bureaucracies, work to impose austerity and disorganize workers’ struggles against austerity.
This vindicates the call advanced by the Socialist Equality Party for the struggle against Macron. The only viable strategy for the workers is to mount a rebellion against the unions, organize independent rank-and-file committees to unify the different ongoing struggles in France and across Europe, and take the road of the struggle for power.
As for Macron, he is developing his ties with the far right. After leaving Montpellier, Macron went to the Vendée region to visit the royalist de Villiers, the former leader of the Rally for France (RPF) party and operator of the Puy du Fou theme park.
Macron had provoked some hostile comments in the press prior to his election by criticizing the French Revolution and insisting that France needs a king: “There is a void in the democratic process. In French politics, this void is the figure of the King, whose death I think the French people fundamentally did not want.”
After having gone to visit the royal tombs at the St. Denis basilica in April, Macron stressed this week his good relations with de Villiers, saying that he had “colorful” discussions with him while adding that de Villiers “does not defend the same values or principles as I do.”
Macron adviser Bruno Roger-Petit stressed, however, that the president shares the same basic outlook as the RPF royalist: “He and Macron have the same conception of the vertical nature of the exercise of power.” As a summary of Macron’s utter contempt for social and democratic rights, there is not much to add.

British government extends censorship of online activity

Simon Whelan

One year on from the June 2017 attack by Islamist terrorists at London Bridge, Conservative Home Secretary Sajid Javid used the anniversary to announce new authoritarian and anti-democratic “counter-terrorism” powers.
The measures incorporate “the lessons learnt from the attacks in 2017 and our responses to them,” he said. One of the key lessons learnt, he said, was that the authorities could “do better” in sharing information more widely and locally.
The WSWS has noted the intense collusion between British security services and Islamist terror groups. What is clear from the evidence that emerged in the aftermath of last year’s terror attacks is that the reason they were not prevented from their brutal assault was not due to “intelligence” failures.
Rather, there is evidence that the British security services were entirely aware of the activity of the terror cell who carried out the London bridge attack. In the case of the suicide bombing at Manchester Arena, British intelligence knew the bomber and his immediate relatives as members of a Libyan Islamist group they backed to depose the Gaddafi regime in Tripoli.
The real target of Javid’s measures are the democratic rights of working people.
In order to share information, the home secretary announced that local authorities, community police forces and probation officers will be allowed—for the first time—to see declassified intelligence about terror suspects in a pilot scheme to be run initially in London, the West Midlands and Manchester.
Javid declared these new and intrusive measures—whereby the British state accrues ever more dictatorial domestic and international powers—would be used to tackle the dangers presented simultaneously by Islamic terrorism, far-right terrorism and the Russian state.
“The threat to the UK today remains at severe—meaning an attack is highly likely” Javid announced ominously in the speech. The terror attacks in Manchester and at London Bridge, the slaying of Labour MP Jo Cox during the 2016 Brexit referendum, together with the alleged nerve gas attack by Russian actors upon Sergei and Yulia Skripal, were meshed together in order to stampede public opinion behind the further erosion of democratic rights.
Immediately after telling the public they cannot be protected from an attack by terrorists, Javid revealed, “Our security and intelligence agencies are, right now, handling over 500 live operations, they have 3,000 ‘subjects of interest.’ And there are a further 20,000 people who have previously been investigated, so they may still pose a threat.”
The personal information held by MI5 on 20,000 British “suspected” citizens is to be declassified and shared with local authorities, police “and others.”
About the thousands of additional suspects, Javid said, “This is not about people who are the hardened attack planners, out there plotting or being active right now,” before adding, “That will remain predominantly the preserve of the intelligence services and the specialist policing.”
Who are these 20,000 people? What exactly are they meant to have done? Why they are they being targeted? Upon whose say so? Upon what evidence? Exactly where and when are declassified details about the 20,000, and the personal information held on them, to be shared with local authorities, police “and others”?
In addition to creating a new layer of state surveillance, the government expects to increase their cooperation even further with the private sector. As is de rigueur ministerial custom, Javid fawned over big business and their role in censoring the Internet, stating, “As someone with a private sector background myself, I understand that government cannot deal with these kinds of challenges alone. I’m committed to improving how we work with businesses across a range of issues.”
Consequently, the role and responsibilities of technology companies to police the Internet and social media will increase even further. The giant tech corporations will be granted greater responsibility to tackle cases of whatever is deemed as “extremist” online activity, either by the state or increasingly by the self-imposed censorship of the technology corporations.
Javid also called for greater cooperation with small businesses to identify what he described as “worrying buying-patterns.” In addition to increasing the powers of the state and big business to monitor the online activities of all, the government is recruiting small businesses, such as car and van hire companies and various shops, to pitch in and report any assorted petty suspicions they may have.
The response from government for more teachers, nurses and ambulance crews are met with a constant refrain of “there is no money.” Nevertheless, there is an open spigot of funding for the security services to employ vast numbers of spooks to spy on the British public.
Javid said, “In the 2015 Spending Review, this government committed to spending more than £2 billion on counter-terrorism each year. We’re giving counter-terrorism policing a £50 million increase in funding this year—to over three quarters of a billion pounds. And we’re recruiting over 1,900 additional staff across the security and intelligence agencies to improve our response still further.”
Javid also used the opportunity to reaffirm the government’s support for the reactionary and widely despised “Prevent” programme, which criminalises student’s opposition to militarism and makes teachers and lecturers akin to spies in their day-to-day employment. MI5 will apparently warn teachers and police about those it deems suspected “child militants.”
Under the changes proposed by the home secretary, the offence of possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist—the parameters of which have been deliberately left open—would be extended to apply to material viewed online three or more times. The maximum penalty for this offence would be increased from 10 to 15 years in prison.
Certain material freely available to view online will be reclassified as illegal on government say so. Anyone viewing it can be punished under the crude and arbitrary “three strikes & you’re out” policy.
The scope to extend these measures beyond what the government currently deems subversive and politically dangerous is wide open to future redefinition.
In October 2017, MI5 head Andrew Parker grossly exaggerated the threat posed by Islamist terrorism when he claimed that threats were “at the highest tempo I have seen in my 34-year career.” Likewise, the military/intelligence complex and the government are exploiting the actions of a handful of known Islamist extremists and right-wing thugs to strengthen the state in anticipation of an eruption of the class struggle.
The press release issued by the government to accompany Javid’s speech stated, “Responding to the recommendations of MI5 and the counter-terrorism police Operational Improvement Review into the 2017 terrorist attacks,” “new multi-agency approaches—initially in London, Manchester and the West Midlands—involve MI5 and the police using and sharing information more widely, working with partners such as local authorities to improve our understanding of those at risk of involvement in terrorism and enable a wider range of interventions” (emphasis added).
The measures were first trialled months ago and have already received the backing of the Labour Party, with shadow home secretary Dianne Abbott declaring in favour, as well as Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham.

German government rent by deepening crisis

Peter Schwarz

Just three months after taking office, the fourth government of Angela Merkel is facing possible dissolution. A fierce conflict over refugee policy between the conservative sister parties, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU), threatens to blow apart the Grand Coalition, which also includes the Social Democratic SPD. This could also mean the end of the chancellorship of Merkel, who has been German head of government since November 2005.
CSU chairman Horst Seehofer, the interior minister in Merkel’s cabinet, wants to refuse entry at the German border to refugees who have already been registered in another European Union country and whose fingerprints are stored in the Eurodac system. In the last year alone, this would have affected 60,000 people.
Merkel rejects this and instead is seeking a “European solution” to the refugee issue, which amounts to the hermetic sealing off of Europe’s external borders, standardized asylum procedures being carried out in special camps and the distribution of refugees by country quotas. Merkel fears that unilateral German action will trigger a Europe-wide chain reaction, leading to the collapse of the open borders of the Schengen system, which would have devastating economic consequences and blow apart the European Union.
The CDU and CSU are independent parties, but they do not compete against each other in elections. The CSU exists only in Bavaria, while the CDU is represented in all other federal states. At the federal level, the two parties traditionally work together and form a common faction in the Bundestag (parliament). But in the past week, the conflict between them has escalated rapidly. “The Chancellor’s fall, the end of the Grand Coalition, the end of the community of the CDU and CSU—everything is possible in the capital,” wrote Spiegel Online on Friday.
On Monday, Interior Minister Seehofer intended to present a master plan on asylum policy, on which he had not previously agreed with the Chancellor. Its 63 points also contained the controversial rejection of refugees directly at the German border. Pressured by Merkel, Seehofer finally canceled the planned press conference. Instead, he met with the Bundestag members of his party, who closed ranks behind him. The next day, several CDU deputies supported Seehofer’s position at a joint parliamentary group meeting between the CDU and CSU.
Then on Wednesday, Seehofer failed to appear at the regular integration summit with migrant associations and instead met with Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, a hardliner on refugee issues. Kurz was campaigning for an “axis of the willing” between Berlin, Vienna and Rome to ward off migrants. Seehofer provocatively invited Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, a right-wing extremist from the Lega, for a visit to Berlin. Salvini had recently refused to allow the Aquarius, with more than six hundred refugees on board, to land in Italy.
In the evening, the CDU and CSU party leaders tried in vain to reach a compromise in the Chancellery. Merkel’s proposal to take two weeks until the upcoming EU summit to strike bilateral agreements with countries directly affected by the deportations was rejected by Seehofer.
On Thursday, CSU and CDU Bundestag members debated for hours in separate sessions. While the CDU largely supported Merkel, the CSU delegates, as one participant noted, put themselves “three hundred percent” behind Seehofer. Panic also broke out among the parliamentary deputies. One compared the situation with the end of the Weimar Republic in the 1930s. From the CSU, the call sounded for a change of leadership in the CDU, in other words, for Merkel’s resignation.
A decision could come on Monday, when the CSU executive will meet. Seehofer wants to have his master plan for asylum policy approved by them. He has threatened to order the rejection of refugees at the border against Merkel’s will by ministerial decree. In this event, Merkel would have little choice but to sack Seehofer.
Efforts are still being undertaken to defuse the crisis. The CDU has asked the Bundestag President and former Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, who himself is close to the positions of the CSU on many issues, to mediate between the two parties.
The conflict between the CDU and the CSU has revealed contradictions that have been developing over a protracted period. There is agreement in ruling circles that Germany must respond to growing global conflicts by returning to a great power policy and militarism. “Germany is too big to comment on world politics only from the side lines,” the then Foreign Minister and today’s Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier declared four years ago.
But there are sharp differences regarding the way such a policy is to be carried out. Sections of the CDU, the SPD, the Greens and the majority of the Left Party believe that Germany can only muster the necessary economic and military weight to “stand eye to eye” with the US, China and Russia in the concert of world powers with the help of the European Union. They therefore advocate enhancing the EU’s military capacity, subordinating it to German interests, and subjecting the European working class to strict austerity measures. They support close collaboration with France, whose President Emmanuel Macron advocates similar ideas.
The CSU, a part of the CDU, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and a wing of the Left Party, however, believe that the EU is too cumbersome, too dependent on majority decisions and, above all, too expensive to serve the interests of German imperialism. They look to unilateral national actions that confront others with a fait accompli and force them to decide, for or against Germany. The CSU and Seehofer maintain close ties with nationalist forces in other European countries. For example, the ultra-nationalist Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is a regular guest at CSU party events.
When Austria’s Chancellor Kurz spoke with Seehofer of an “axis of the willing,” he was not merely referring to the rejection of refugees. The term “coalition of the willing” was originally coined by US President George W. Bush for the Iraq war, when he flouted international organizations such as the UN and even military alliances such as NATO and attacked Iraq in an ad hoc coalition.
Similar disputes not only divide the German, but also the European bourgeoisie. In the UK, the question of whether the country’s future lies inside or outside the EU has hopelessly divided both the Tories and Labour. In Eastern Europe, in Austria and now also in Italy, nationalist governments have come to power who are skeptical of or even hostile to the EU.
The escalation of conflicts with the US after the G7 summit—especially Trump’s trade-war measures, which hit Germany and Europe hard, and his threat of a war against Iran—have further exacerbated the conflict over these issues. The dispute in Germany revolves around how to best step up the country’s military capability, while placing the burden of rearmament on the working class.
On Wednesday, German foreign Minister Heiko Maas gave a keynote speech on foreign policy, demanding an independent German-European foreign and defense policy in response to “Donald Trump’s egotistic ‘America first’ policy, Russia’s attack on international law and the sovereignty of states and the expansion of the Chinese giant.” The German aspiration to fuse Europe together as a miltary bloc against the three major nuclear powers of the world strengthens extremely nationalistic and xenophobic tendencies.


The working class must counterpose its own independent policy to the sharp turn to the right of the ruling class. The only response to anti-refugee politics, welfare cuts, militarism and the stepping up of state powers is the international unity of the working class in the struggle for a socialist program.

15 Jun 2018

Cell Norbert Zongo Grants for Investigative Reporting in West Africa for African Journalists 2018

Application Deadline: 22nd June 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: The Norbert Zongo investigative grant is proud to announce the first round of their Sahel Program focusing in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso.
We believe good quality journalism is key to promoting transparency, impact positively on civil society and improve good governance, democracy and accountability in the sub-region of West Africa.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: The Award is looking for investigations with a unique angle powered by public interest and innovation, tackling issues in three different countries in the Sahel: Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso.
We are looking for stories that exposes bad governance, organised crime, corruption and human rights violation in the following areas:
  • Sanitation :
Health systems, Water, Food, Pollution, Illnesses, Medicines.
Crucial for development, we are looking for innovate stories that could help us raise awareness on issues, businesses or practices impacting health in West Africa.  The dimension of health is broad, it means water, access to hospitals, medicines, food, public contracts, traffick of medicines, problems in the health infrastructure, food, environmental issues, prostitution, drugs, unacceptable working conditions, pollution, etc.  If you have an investigation idea or lead where you think health of individuals can be compromised, let us know!
  •  Traffick and Illicit Transit:
The traffick and illicit transit poses a growing risk for the region, being key point from America, Europe and Middle East, West Africa is also a strategic area for illegal transit or traffick of humans, young girls or young boys specially, medicines, cigarettes, cash, minerals, drugs among many others. We believe these stories must be tell. We encourage you to apply.
  •  Open data, Transparency & Accountability:
We encourage applicants to send data-driven proposals, using open data to explore new angles of underreported issues. CENOZO could provide assistance for visual elements and data analysis. This category could mean land property, budget analysis, aid data, legal and procurement data available.

  • Terrorism and Extremism:
CENOZO is interested to raise awareness and understanding of terrorism and violent extremism in the region from a different and innovative way.   This problematic has been re-shaping in the last months in the borders, notably in Mali, Niger and Burkina. Does not mean you have to infiltrate a terrorist group! Think outside the box and surprise us.
If you have an impactful story idea that does not correspond with any of the categories above, don’t hesitate to send it through! We are open to receive stories with a public impact and innovative angles.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Small grants from (500 EUR) to bigger grants  (3500 EUR) are available for each category: Sanitation, Traffick and Illicit Transit, Open Data, Transparency & Accountability  and Terrorism and Extremism.

How to Apply:
  1. A pitch of maximum 250 words with the story idea specifying to which category are you applying for.
  2. A preliminary budget estimate with a detailed breakdown of costs (travel costs, etc). [link to doc]
  3. A confirmation the article could be published in the newspaper you work with.
  4. Specify how you plan to do it and if you have documents to prove your story.
  5. A sample of published work by you.
Fill out the application template and the proposed budget. And send it to.
Arnaud Ouedrago,  Programme Manager arnaud@cenozo.org 

Application template: https://goo.gl/rMuLvE
If you are working with other colleagues, choose a team leader and submit your proposal as detailed as possible.
Those stories with a proving documents that support the hypothesis will be privileged in the selection. Please make sure you have searched enough online to make sure your story hasn’t yet been covered the way you want to cover it!

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Cenozo

Important Note: We do not sponsor international flights! If you feel your story has a cross border angle we suggest you apply in collaboration with another journalist. Don’t stress if you don’t have a colleague yet, just let us know and we will be able to find a committed team member. That’s what our network is for! To connect us and make us stronger!

Abe Fellowship for Researchers in Developing Countries 2019

Application Deadline: 1st September, 2018.
Fellowship tenure must begin between April 1st and December 31st every year.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries

To be taken at (country): Japan and United States

Eligible Field of Study: Applications are welcome from scholars and nonacademic research professionals. The objectives of the program are to foster high quality research in the social sciences and related disciplines.

About the Award: The Abe Fellowship is designed to encourage international multidisciplinary research on topics of pressing global concern. The program seeks to foster the development of a new generation of researchers who are interested in policy-relevant topics of long-range importance and who are willing to become key members of a bilateral and global research network built around such topics. It strives especially to promote a new level of intellectual cooperation between the Japanese and American academic and professional communities committed to and trained for advancing global understanding and problem solving.

Programme Details: Applicants are invited to submit proposals for research in the social sciences and related disciplines relevant to any one or any combination of the four themes below. The themes are:
1) Threats to Personal, Societal, and International Security
Especially welcome topics include food, water, and energy insecurity; pandemics; climate change; disaster preparedness, prevention, and recovery; and conflict, terrorism, and cyber security.

2) Growth and Sustainable Development
Especially welcome topics include global financial stability, trade imbalances and agreements, adjustment to globalization, climate change and adaptation, and poverty and inequality.

3) Social, Scientific, and Cultural Trends and Transformations
Especially welcome topics include aging and other demographic change, benefits and dangers of reproductive genetics, gender and social exclusion, expansion of STEM education among women and under-represented populations, migration, rural depopulation and urbanization, impacts of automation on jobs, poverty and inequality, and community resilience.

4) Governance, Empowerment, and Participation
Especially welcome topics include challenges to democratic institutions, participatory governance, human rights, the changing role of NGO/NPOs, the rise of new media, and government roles in fostering innovation.


Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • This competition is open to citizens of the United States and Japan as well as to nationals of other countries who can demonstrate strong and serious long-term affiliations with research communities in Japan or the United States.
  • Applicants must hold a PhD or the terminal degree in their field, or have attained an equivalent level of professional experience at the time of application.
  • Previous language training is not a prerequisite for this fellowship. However, if the research project requires language ability, the applicant should provide evidence of adequate proficiency to complete the project.
  • Applications from researchers in professions other than academia are encouraged with the expectation that the product of the fellowship will contribute to the wider body of knowledge on the topic specified.
  • Projects proposing to address key policy issues or seeking to develop a concrete policy proposal must reflect nonpartisan positions.
Selection Criteria: Rather than seeking to promote greater understanding of a single country—Japan or the United States—the Abe Fellowship Program encourages research with a comparative or global perspective. The program promotes deeply contextualized cross-cultural research.
Successful applicants will be those individuals whose work and interests match these program goals. Abe Fellows are expected to demonstrate a long-term commitment to these goals by participating in program activities over the course of their careers.
All proposals are expected to directly address policy relevance in theme, project description, and project structure.

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Fellowship: 
  • The fellowship is intended to support an individual researcher totally, regardless of whether that individual is working alone or in collaboration with others.
  • Candidates should propose to spend at least one third of the fellowship tenure in residence abroad in Japan or the United States. In addition, the Abe Fellowship Committee reserves the right to recommend additional networking opportunities overseas.
  • Funds for language tutoring or refresher courses in the service of research goals will be included in the awards.
Duration of FellowshipThe program provides Abe Fellows with a minimum of 3 and maximum of 12 months of full-time support over a 24-month period

How to Apply: Visit Fellowship Webpage to apply

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP)

Important Notes: Please note that the purpose of this Fellowship is to support research activities. Therefore, projects whose sole aim is travel, cultural exchange, and/or language training will not be considered. However, funds for language tutoring or refresher courses in the service of research goals will be included in the award if the proposal includes explicit justification for such activities.

Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards for Women Entrepreneurs 2019 (USD100,000 to a winner from each region)

Application Deadline: 31st August, 2018 (Paris time)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Cartier reviews applications from 7 regions (Latin America, North America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Far East Asia, South-East Asia). One from each region wins this award.

To be taken at (country):exact location still TBC

About the Award: The Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards are an international business plan competition created in 2006 by Cartier, the Women’s Forum, McKinsey & Company and INSEAD business school to identify, support and encourage projects by women entrepreneurs. Previous laureates have included several whose work links to environment and related issues, e.g., product recycling, low-cost energy, water treatment, fair trade, and others.
The Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards aim to encourage inspirational women entrepreneurs worldwide to solve contemporary global challenges by:
• supporting and recognizing creative women who are making concrete contributions to finding solutions for the future of our planet,
• bringing these business solutions to the largest audience possible.
Since their inception in 2006, they have accompanied 162 promising female business-owners and recognized 58 Laureates.

Offered Since: 2006

Type: Entrepreneurship, contest

Eligibility: The Cartier Women’s Initiative Award is looking for committed female entrepreneurs heading initiatives with the potential to grow significantly in the years to come. The selection of the finalists and laureates of the competition is done by an independent international Jury of entrepreneurs, investors, business executives and other profiles engaged in the support of female entrepreneurship.
The project to be considered for the Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards must be an original for-profit business creation in its initial phase (2 to 3 years old) led by a woman:
  • The “for-profit” requirement: the business submitted for the Award must be designed to generate revenues. We do not accept non-profit project proposals.
  • The “originality” requirement: we want your project to be a new concept, conceived and imagined by the founder and her team and not a copy or subsidiary of an existing business.
  • The “initial phase” requirement: the project you submit should be in the first stages of its development meaning between 2 and 3 years old.
  • The main leadership position must be filled by a woman. A good command of English is required (both verbal and written) to take full advantage of the benefits the Award has to offer.
  • All entrants must be aged 18 or the age of legal majority in their respective countries or states of citizenship, whichever is older, on the day of the application deadline.
Selection Criteria: The Jury evaluates the projects based on criteria of creativity, sustainability (potential for growth) and impact.
  • The creativity criterion: the Jury looks at the degree of innovation shown by the overall business concept, the uniqueness of the project on the market or country where it is being developed.
  • The sustainability criterion: the Jury examines the financial impact of the business, its revenue model, development strategy and other aspects indicating its chances of long-term success and future growth.
  • The impact criterion: the Jury evaluates the effect of the business on society, in terms of jobs created or its effect on the immediate or broader environment.
  • The overall quality and clarity of the material presented: the Jury is looking for motivated and committed entrepreneurs who are passionate about their initiatives. Being clear and concise, organizing your ideas and not repeating yourself will show that you are serious about your application.
Selection Process: 
  • Round 1: The Jury selects 18 Finalists*, the top three projects of each of the 7 regions (Latin America, North America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Far East Asia, South-East Asia), on the basis of their short business plans. They receive coaching from experienced businesspeople to move to the next round.
  • Round 2: The Finalists are invited to the final round of competition which includes submitting a detailed business plan and presenting their projects in front of the Jury.
Number of Awardees: Based on the quality of the plan and the persuasiveness of the verbal presentation, one Laureate for each of the seven regions is selected

Value of Competition: The 21 finalists, representing the top 3 projects from each of the 7 regions, will receive:
    One-to-one personalized business coaching prior to the Awards weekA series of entrepreneurship workshops, knowledge sessions and networking events during the Awards weekMedia visibilityA scholarship to attend the INSEAD Social Entrepreneurship 6-Day Executive Programme (provided their business meets INSEAD’s eligibility criteria)Networking opportunities through the Cartier Awards community and beyond
Winning Package
First prize for the 7 laureates:
  • US$ 100 000 in prize money
  • One-to-one personalized business mentoring
Second prize for the 14 finalists:
  • US$ 30 000 in prize money
How to Apply: Go here to apply

Visit Competition Webpage for details

Award Provider: Cartier

We’re the Wealthiest Country on Earth, But Over 40 Percent of Us Live in or Near Poverty

Mona Younis

Are we Americans unworthy? That’s certainly the message we’re getting from our government.
Over 40 percent of us are poor or low-income. How is that possible in the wealthiest country in history?
“The United States is alone among developed countries in insisting that while human rights are of fundamental importance,” explains UN rapporteur on poverty Philip Alston, “they do not include rights that guard against dying of hunger, dying from a lack of access to affordable health care, or growing up in a context of total deprivation.”
Alston says that “the persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power” — which means that “with political will, it could readily be eliminated.” Unfortunately, our government’s political will is increasingly exercised to make things more, not less, difficult for us.
Most Americans don’t know it, but in 1977 the U.S. actually signed an international treaty called the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which mandates government responsibility to ensure their citizens do more than merely survive. Unfortunately, one
U.S. administration after the other has completely disregarded it, and Congress never ratified it.
Our leaders have apparently judged that we either don’t need — or don’t deserve — things like an adequate standard of living and universal health care. As one dizzy U.S. congressman claims, “Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.”
164 countries have ratified the treaty, but ours won’t. Are their people more deserving than we are? Is it something we’ve done?
It can’t be because we’re doing fine without those rights.
I mean, look at our minimum wage. There isn’t a “single county or metropolitan area,” as a Guardian report put it, where a minimum wage can get you a “modest two-bedroom home, which the federal government defines as paying less than 30 percent of a household’s income for rent and utilities.”
The price we pay for this disregard for our fundamental human rights begins at the beginning of our lives. Indeed, many of us struggle to survive to our first birthday. Citing figures from the Centers for Disease Control, the Washington Post declared our infant mortality rate “a national embarrassment,” noting that it’s higher “than any of the other 27 wealthy countries.”
That’s painful enough. But they went on: “Despite health care spending levels that are significantly higher than any other country in the world, a baby born in the U.S. is less likely to see his first birthday than one born in Hungary, Poland, or Slovakia. Or in Belarus. Or in Cuba, for that matter.”
Sad!
And a recent UNICEF assessment of how children are faring found the U.S. near the bottom of 41 rich countries when it came to meeting goals on child poverty, hunger, health, and education.
Tragic!
Well, there’s an important difference between us and other prosperous countries: Their citizens expect and demand more of their governments than we do of ours. And governments do only as much as their citizens expect — not more! So why do we accept so little from ours? How have we come to deem ourselves less worthy than others?