UK minister lies to parliament as debt rises and welfare claimants go unpaid

Paul Bond

The chaos surrounding the government’s Universal Credit (UC) welfare benefit system reveals starkly its punitive character.

Last month, the National Audit Office (NAO) issued a damning report of UC, now eight years into rollout, saying its “larger claims…are unlikely to be demonstrable at any point in the future. Nor for that matter will value for money.”

Work and Pensions Secretary Minister Esther McVey, who lied to Parliament about the content of the NAO report, is still in her post. In Parliament, McVey flatly misrepresented the NAO’s report. Falsely claiming the NAO had agreed the UC was working, she said the report had called for rollout to be speeded up. The NAO’s head, Sir Amyas Morse, issued an open letter correcting her distortions.

UC is a regressive benefit payment system for working-age people that combines all entitlements into one payment. It replaces income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, income-related employment and support allowance, housing benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit.

Figures this month from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) show claimants going up to two months without income in February. An estimated 4,500 people were not paid in full within 10 weeks of their initial claim, and 2,300 were not paid in full within 14 weeks. The target period is five weeks. One in six claimants do not get payment in full and on time. A quarter of new claims last year were paid late.

A recent survey of housing association tenants has revealed that UC tenants are more than twice as likely to be in debt as are other tenants. Tenants on UC across 118 housing associations are in £24 million of rent arrears. Nearly three-quarters of UC tenants are in debt, compared with less than a third of other tenants.

Ostensibly intended to simplify the payment of benefits and get claimants back into work, UC is a vehicle for imposing austerity measures and cuts against the working class. It has been estimated that UC will cost 2 million in-work families £1,600 a year and more than 1 million out-of-work families £2,300 a year.

Proposed by then DWP Secretary Iain Duncan Smith in 2010, UC was due for implementation by 2013. The scheme has been vastly more expensive than originally suggested. The NAO now suggests it could cost more than the system it was designed to replace. Its report notes that government claims UC would save £8 billion annually were based on “unproven assumptions.” It expressed “significant doubts” about the achievability of the government’s stated aims, pointing out those ministerial claims about UC leading 200,000 into work and saving £2.1 billion in fraud and error could not be measured or proved.

By May of this year, 920,000 claimants were on UC, 37 percent of them in work. By 2022, more than 7 million households are due to move onto UC, which has a built-in delay period and is paid in arrears after assessment of income. Any further delays are thus catastrophic for recipients, who are already financially vulnerable. The NAO said the fact that the DWP does “not accept” UC has caused hardship.

Measures exist for claimants to receive cash advances to cover shortfalls, but claimants are not made aware of this. The advances are loans, however, and must be repaid.

Following the NAO report, several charities called for a delay in rolling out UC. Paul Farmer, of mental health charity Mind, said, “[E]ven those who are severely unwell and at crisis point are still being required to look for work or risking losing their benefits.” He pointed to “a real lack of support” for those who cannot manage an online claim or monthly payments, leading to “a cycle of debt, housing problems, and deteriorating health.”

Emma Revie of the Trussell Trust anti-poverty charity called for a truly universal support system of benefits “that is funded, that people are aware of, and that includes debt support and advice for everyone moving onto the new system.” The Trust’s food banks have seen the impact of delays and reductions in benefits: “People living with physical or mental health conditions skipping meals for days at a time, young families facing eviction, and single men with insecure work struggling to afford the bus fare to work.”

For the ruling class, the entire benefits system is an expensive concession that must be undone gain by gain. The NAO said the DWP “gives the unhelpful impression of a department that is unsympathetic to claimants.” The DWP’s disclaimer for late payments confirms this: the department says these are mostly “a result of unresolved verification issues,” implying they are largely the fault of claimants.

The reactions of Duncan Smith and McVey offer a truer picture of the contempt of the ruling class for their critics. Duncan Smith simply dismissed the NAO report as “shoddy.”

McVey went somewhat further and lied to MPs. She claimed the NAO had called for UC to be rolled out more quickly. In fact, as Morse’s letter explained again, the NAO recognised some “regrettable early delays” but now recommended ensuring UC was fit for purpose before proceeding further.

McVey falsely told MPs the NAO had agreed UC was working—an extraordinary claim given the NAO’s statement that many of the DWP’s assertions could not be measured or proved. McVey insisted claims UC would help 200,000 into work were robust and had been signed off by the Treasury. The NAO said this was unmeasurable and that the DWP had accepted this.

Morse said McVey’s statement UC was working “has not been proven” and that the DWP “has not measured how many [UC] claimants are having difficulties and hardship.” McVey repeatedly cited a survey of claimants suggesting 83 percent are satisfied with the department’s service. Yet, the survey revealed 40 percent of respondents experiencing financial difficulties and 25 percent saying they were unable to make an online claim.

McVey’s statement was criticised, and in response she claimed the NAO report was unreliable and outdated, because it had not considered recent changes to UC. In fact, the NAO acknowledged the specific policy changes she mentioned, discussing DWP data up to May 2018. Morse’s letter also explained that the DWP had agreed and signed off the NAO report shortly before publication, indicating its acknowledgement of up-to-date content.

With publication of Morse’s open letter, criticism turned on McVey’s falsehoods. She was recalled to Parliament to answer on misleading MPs but apologised only for claiming the NAO had demanded speeding up rollout, saying she had “inadvertently misled” MPs.

Her barely coherent apology was tempered by the claim that “[w]hat I meant to say was that the NAO had said that there was no practical alternative to continuing” with UC. In fact, the NAO had noted that, despite its failure to deliver, the government had committed so much to UC that “[t]here is really no practical choice but to keep on with the rollout.” In other words, the government has already pushed the policy through.

McVey is determined to brazen it out, and the episode demonstrates that no criticism or comment will be considered until the UC offensive against the working class is complete.

Labour Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Margaret Greenwood initially said McVey had broken the ministerial code and should resign. But within a week, this had been translated into an attempt just to dock McVey a month’s pay, similar to the sanctions imposed on benefit claimants deemed not to have complied with imposed commitments. This was duly defeated in a vote by 305 to 268.

Two months ago, Labour diverted criticism of Transport Secretary Chris Grayling into a similar silly stunt, attempting to fine him the cost of a railway season ticket. That vote was also lost. Even as safety valves for the ruling class go, these are threadbare.

Ryanair workers set to strike across Europe

Steve James

Pilots and cabin crew at European budget airline Ryanair are taking part in strike action today. The strikes, which will impact hundreds of flights, involves workers in Ireland, Portugal, Belgium and Spain, and reflects sharply deepening class tensions in the airline industry and across the continent. Ryanair pilots in Germany are also being balloted for industrial action.

As with last week’s strikes by Amazon warehouse workers in Germany, Spain and Poland, the actions by Ryanair employees show the potential and necessity for a coordinated continent-wide movement of the working class in defence of jobs and living standards.

Pilots based in Ireland are holding a third 24-hour strike today, following similar actions on July 12 and 20. The one-day actions follow ballots in which 99 percent of pilots based in Ireland and directly employed by the airline voted to strike. More than 250 Ireland-based pilots are self-employed agency staff and not involved in the dispute. Sixteen flights on July 24 to and from the Republic of Ireland have been cancelled with around 2,500 passengers affected. The July 12 strike resulted in 30 flights being cancelled, while last week, pilots picketed Ryanair’s headquarters in North Dublin.

The pilots, members of the Irish Airline Pilots’ Association (IALPA), are seeking “a fair and transparent mechanism” based on seniority to allocate pilots to a particular Ryanair base, to arrange transfers between bases and for annual leave. The one-day strikes are the first ever of Irish-based Ryanair pilots, and only the second ever of Ryanair pilots anywhere.

The actions have taken place despite the best efforts of the IALPA to stop them. The IALPA is part of the Forsa trade union, which emerged last year out of a merger of a number of smaller public service unions. Forsa officials made their priorities clear to the Irish Mirror, before the July 12 strike. “We regret the fact that it’s come to this. Pilots don’t want to be on strike. They know it’s bad for passengers, for the airline, for Ireland’s economy and tourism sector and for pilots themselves.”

The strike follows a sustained push last year by Ryanair pilots across the European continent for better conditions and a means of overcoming the fragmentation imposed upon them by the company. A series of open letters sent from 60 local Employee Representative Councils, bodies with which Ryanair hitherto preferred to negotiate, culminated in a short-lived European Employee Representative Council that claimed to speak for over 4,000 Ryanair pilots across 80 bases and 30 countries.

Led by a group of senior pilots, they used a major rostering calamity at Ryanair, which resulted in the loss of as many as 700,000 passenger flights, to force the company into recognising trade unions—something opposed by Ryanair over its previous 32-year history.

Ryanair, in the end, only agreed to the recognition as it sought the assistance of the trade union bureaucracy in maintaining control of the workforce.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Ryanair cabin crew in Belgium, Portugal and Spain are also due to strike in a coordinated action—impacting some 600 flights and up to 75,000 passengers—against the brutal levels of exploitation in the industry.

Up to 400 cabin crew in Portugal held three one-day strikes this year, prompting a number of flight cancellations. Strikes took place at Lisbon, Porto and Faro airports.

Workers are striking in pursuit of demands for leave, sick pay, an end to cabin sales targets, minimum legally defined rest periods, an end to agency working, predictable working hours and a seniority system. They also want an end to the current system in which they are all forced to open an Irish bank account.

A recent Ryanair Crew Summit, organised by the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) of trade unions and its European wing, the European Transport Workers Federation, listed 34 demands, one of which is for workers’ employment contracts to explicitly recognise the national law and jurisdiction of the country in which the particular worker is based.

Currently all Ryanair cabin crew are employed under Irish law.

As result, Spanish cabin crews, for example, are forced to rely on the European Union’s health insurance, rather than the Spanish system, to receive medical treatment in Spain, despite living there. Staff also report being unable to get a mortgage in Spain because their pay was delivered in Ireland.

Workers also have complained about disciplinary measures being imposed for calling in sick more than twice a year, and of being threatened with transfers to the Lithuanian branch of Ryanair if they fail to meet the company’s notorious requirements for onboard sales of snacks, perfume and scratch cards.

The summit was attended by representatives of cabin crew from 80 percent of Ryanair bases attended and ground crew from 100 percent.

Under pressure of the growing militant mood, the ITF was forced to warn in early July, “If the company does not begin to negotiate with unions in good faith and deliver real improvements for workers across its network, it risks a summer of industrial action.”

However, as with the pilot’s action, the long warning period ahead of this week’s industrial action offered by the trade unions has given the company ample time to co-ordinate its response. Ryanair claimed that as many as 85 percent of the passenger journeys affected by the cabin crew action had already been rescheduled or been offered refunds.

In effect, the trade unions are seeking to prove their credentials in controlling a highly concentrated, highly mobile, and internationalised workforce in a crucial sector of the transport industry.

Underscoring the point, immediately after announcing the impact of the July 25 and 26 strikes, Ryanair recognised the FIT CISL union in Italy. It has also recently recognised Verdi in Germany and Unite in the UK.

Ryanair hailed its new allies and sought to use these to pressure striking workers. “Ryanair hopes that the cabin crew unions in Spain, Portugal and Belgium [where agreements have not yet been concluded] will soon follow this example by engaging in negotiations with Ryanair rather than disrupting Ryanair customers by going on unnecessary strikes.”

The company’s leading personnel officer, Eddie Wilson, also hailed the union recognition agreements as “a further sign of the progress Ryanair is making with trade unions since our December 2017 decision to recognise unions, with over 66% of our cabin crew now covered by recognition agreements.”

Since its foundation, Ryanair has championed a particularly brash and sneering tone towards its millions of passengers and its workforce staff. The company’s business model relies on low pay and using large numbers of a single aircraft, the Boeing 737, to keep maintenance costs lower than its rivals. As a result, the company is now the largest airline in Europe and one of the largest in the world. It flies to 33 countries and has over 80 bases.

On a daily basis, the efforts of its European-wide workforce provide an example of coordination and advanced organisation that could be of an enormous benefit to society.

Instead, under capitalism and the division of workers along national lines, the benefits accrue only to the CEOs and their financiers. Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary recently purchased a €10 million Baroque palace in Majorca in Palma’s Old Town. O’Leary’s net worth is estimated at around €850 million. Last year, the company reported that its 37.6 million passengers pushed revenue up to €2.1 billion, although fuel and labour costs forced a 20 percent slump in pre-tax profits over the first three months of this year to €319 million.

French presidential scandal: Mélenchon defends the riot police

Francis Dubois & Alex Lantier 

On Saturday, Unsubmissive France (LFI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon sharply attacked French President Emmanuel Macron in an interview with Le Monde. Discussing the illegal attack on peaceful protesters by a top Macron aide, Alexandre Benalla, who was captured on video beating an anti-austerity protestor while wearing a riot police uniform. In his comments, Mélenchon made no appeal to mass anger among workers against austerity and police repression. Instead, he advanced the demands of the police forces against Macron.

Mélenchon told Le Monde that the main issue behind the public outcry which has erupted over the publication of the video is that the police hierarchy has lost confidence in the president after Macron approved disciplinary action against police officials. “A political crisis has erupted,” Mélenchon said. “The National Assembly is paralyzed. The police hierarchy is also, because three dismissals have upended a rule that is as old as the high public service itself: officials serve and obey, but it is politicians that take the blame.”

Mélenchon added more specifically that Interior Minister Gérard Collomb, the civilian official charged with overseeing the police, had lost the confidence of the security forces: “The Interior Minister is already disqualified. He has lied, a lot! No policeman can believe him anymore. Of course he will resign, and many more, as well.”

Workers must be warned: a class gulf separates Mélenchon from masses of workers hostile to Macron’s austerity and militarist policies. The Benalla Affair has exposed the illegal and gratuitous character of the police forces’ repression of peaceful protests, but Mélenchon is not trying to mobilize working class opposition to the rising police state machine. He is making himself the spokesman for anti-democratic police agencies that are increasingly trying to overcome all limits placed on their vast repressive powers.

For a number of years, and above all since the imposition in 2015 of a state of emergency suspending basic democratic rights, the ruling class has cultivated the security forces as a chief base of political support. Mélenchon postures as the defender of the legitimate interests of the police hierarchy but there is nothing progressive in the anger and complaints of police commissaries and Interior Ministry functionaries. This social layer, largely won to neo-fascism, is comprised of professionals of repression and the most aggressive defenders of the financial aristocracy.

Now, politicians who are trampling workers’ social demands underfoot are all rushing to defer to the security forces. The prosecutor’s office and the General Inspectorate of the National Police have all launched investigations and the National Assembly has launched a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the matter. They are not opposed to Benalla’s brutality, which is commonplace in the riot police, but his decision to “illegally” take over the police’s role, which he “usurped,” according to Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet.

All the official opposition parties are rallying to defend the police. On Twitter, neo-fascist deputy Sébastien Chenu complained that the video of Benalla “harms the image of the security forces” while conservative deputy Eric Ciotti said: “The courts must urgently investigate this affair, which harms the rule of law.” Socialist Party (PS) secretary Olivier Faure complained that the scandal is undermining the image of an “exemplary Republic” that he wanted Macron to defend.

On Friday, the opposition in the National Assembly demanded that Collomb and Prime Minister Edouard Philippe testify in person. Philippe came, referred to the judicial proceedings that have been launched, and said he was pleased that the affair is “now in the hands of the judiciary.”

Mélenchon is swimming in this stream of political forces demanding that people “understand” the legitimate anger of the police. Asked by Le Mondewhether he would now take back his occasional criticisms of the press corps, Mélenchon laughed and replied that the press is “a system that is usually hostile to us, except now, but this is an exception (laughter).”

In fact, LFI and Mélenchon are closely enmeshed in the army, intelligence and police machine. Their defense of the police is of a piece with the petty bourgeois, anti-Marxist populism promoted by Mélenchon. In the decades that have elapsed since he arrived in a bourgeois government as a member of the PS under François Mitterrand in 1981, and since the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the USSR in 1991, LFI’s different political components have all become parties of the capitalist state.

Mélenchon’s security and foreign policy advisors—retired officer Djordje Kuzmanovic and Alexandre Langlois, an official of the General Intelligence (RG) domestic spy agency and leader of the Stalinist General Confederation of Labor’s (CGT) police union—are integral parts of the repressive apparatus the state aims at the working class.

LFI is intervening in a deepening crisis of the police machine itself. The state of emergency was first imposed in 2015 and the vast repression of social protests like the 2016 movement against the PS labor law and the 2018 strikes against rail privatization have stretched France’s vast police apparatus to the breaking point. One sign of the crisis is the suicide rate among policemen, which is three times the national average.

The mock indignation, disarray or outright panic in the political establishment in this affair reflects their fear that the police agencies directed against the workers could collapse amid growing social struggles and amid deep conflicts between the Elysée and the police.

When asked by Le Monde about the potential existence of a “secret illicit security cabinet at the top levels of the state,” Mélenchon signaled that powerful factions of the ruling class would use this crisis to exert enormous pressure on or even get rid of Macron. He insisted that the crisis is “at Watergate levels. The entire world is now aware of this. … Mr. Macron thought the affair would stop by itself. He committed a grave error. Now no one will let this go.”

Developing the parallel between the Benalla affair and the crisis that led to the resignation of US President Richard Nixon, and posturing as a “democratic” opponent of Macron, Mélenchon provocatively insisted that Macron “is organizing a personal militia. … We live in a Republic! We should remember it.”

He continued, “A crisis is a crisis, its outcome is unpredictable. We will have done what we should do as a democratic opposition. You have seen no provocations or exaggerations from us. We are working in the limits of parliamentarism. These are institutions that we disapprove of, but that we respect. But if they destroy them, they will have done out work.”

These musings of Mélenchon are reactionary. A “destruction” of parliamentary institutions by one or another faction of the ruling elite and its allies in the police establishment, whether or not they are tied to LFI, would not represent the opposite of a revolutionary struggle to free the working class from capitalist exploitation. All the factions of the police—those tied to Mélenchon, to Macron, or to the neo-fascists—are hostile to the working class and the youth, and the fact that Mélenchon speaks for the riot police exposes the anti-working class politics of his party.

UCSF Preterm Birth Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme for International Researchers 2019/2021 – USA

Application Deadline:15th September, 2018 11:59 PM PST.

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

About the Award: The UCSF Preterm Birth Initiative (PTBi) is a multi-year, transdisciplinary and multi-sector research effort aimed at reducing the burden of prematurity.
Philanthropically funded by Marc and Lynne Benioff and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the PTBi applies scientific, clinical, and community expertise to address prematurity, the leading cause of childhood death worldwide. We have two parallel arms that are geographically focused in California and East Africa and conduct place-based discovery and implementation science research across the reproductive life course.
Postdoctoral scholars from a variety of disciplines come together to acquire skills necessary to conduct powerful, collaborative research that is place-based, stakeholder-engaged, relevant, and likely to haveimpact on a critical health epidemic affecting millions of familiesacross the world

Type: Fellowship (Academic)

Eligibility: This Fellowship is open to US and non-US citizens. Fellows cannot hold concurrent active faculty positions. Candidates are eligible if they have completed any one of the following:

• MD with or without residency training in obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, medicine, family and preventive medicine or another relevant specialty
• PhD, ScD or DrPH in biomedical or social sciences
• Nursing degree with completed doctoral training PhD, DNP

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The fellowship offers the following:

• Salary support based on UCSF equity rules and travel/supplies stipend
• Access to research and education funds through an intramural application process
• Research and career guidance from highly regarded UCSF investigators
• Fellows seminars with a rotating schedule of didactic content, works in progress, and journal clubs
• Leadership opportunities and network building through PTBi sponsored events (e.g., Collaboratories, Annual Symposium)
• Professional development curriculum in conjunction with the UCSF Center for AIDS Research

Duration of Programme: 2 years

How to Apply: Please submit the Fellowship application materials listed below as a single PDF to fellowship manager Nicole Santos (Nicole.Santos@ ucsf.edu) by 11:59 PM PST, September 15, 2018. Interviews will take place in November and December 2018 with notification of final decision no later than January 15, 2019.

• Current NIH-style biosketch or CV
• 1-page personal statement
• 2-3 page research concept focused on decreasing the burden of preterm birth, including significance, proposed aims and methods, and community/location of interest
• 1/2 page description about why you want to train at UCSF, including any educational courses or training opportunities you would like to pursue
• Copy of medical, nursing or other clinical degree (if applicable)
• A recent writing sample
• Proof of US citizenship or residency, or visa status/eligibility for non-US citizens or residents
• Three letters of reference (sent separately)

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Marc and Lynne Benioff and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Czech Government Scholarships for Developing Countries 2019/2020 – Undergraduate, Masters and Doctorate

Application Deadline: 30th September 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries. See list below

To be taken at (country): Public Universities in Czech Republic

Eligible Fields of Study: Students who are applying for study in Economics, Agriculture, Informatics, Environment and Energetics at public universities in the Czech Republic.

About the Award: Thanks to a generous contribution from the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, the Faculty of Social Sciences is able to offer a limited number of partial scholarships for students of all fee based programs in academic year 2019/20. A total of five scholarships are available, ear-marked for students from developing countries and/or countries going through a process of political and economic transition.
Upon a Decision of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, scholarships of the Government of the Czech Republic are granted to promote specific Bachelor’s, Master’s, follow-up Master’s and/or Doctoral study programmes in the full-time mode of study of a specific study programme pursued by a university (or its Faculty) for a period that equals the regular duration of studies. Scholarships are not transferable to other persons or other academic years. Once a scholarship is granted, neither the university nor the study programme and/or field of study may be changed.

Type: Doctoral, Undergraduate and Masters

Selection Criteria and Eligibility:

• The scholarships are intended solely to promote the studies of adults who are foreign nationals from developing third countries in need. Neither a citizen of the Czech Republic, nor a citizen of a member state of the European Union, nor any other foreign national with a permit to permanent residence on the territory of the Czech Republic may, therefore, be granted this type of scholarship. Furthermore, the scholarships may not be granted to persons under 18 years of age. (The applicants have to turn 18 as of 1 September of the year when they commence studies in the Czech Republic at the latest.)
• In Bachelor/ Master/ Doctoral Study Programmes plus one-year Preparatory Course of the English language (Which is combined with other field-specific training): Government scholarships of this category are awarded to graduates from upper secondary schools, or Bachelor’s / Master’s degree courses, as applicable, Who can Enroll only in Study Programmes in which instruction is given in the English language. Depending on the subject area, Applicants are normally required to sit entrance Examinations at the higher education institution Concerned. Successful passing of Entrance examination constitutes a precondition for the scholarship award; or
• In follow-up study Programmes Master or Doctoral Study Programmes: Government scholarships of this category are awarded to graduates of Bachelor or Master Study Programmes, respectively, Enroll in the WHO study Programmes with instruction in the English language.

In addition, the Scholarship Review Board will take into consideration applicants’ results from their earlier studies. Priority will be given to students who have not previously had the opportunity to study abroad.

Number of Scholarships: A total of seven (7) scholarships are available.

Duration of Scholarships: These Government Scholarships are designed to cover the standard length of study plus one-year preparatory course of the Czech language(which is combined with other field-specific training).

Value of Scholarships: 

• The scholarship covers the necessary costs related to staying and studying in the Czech Republic. The scholarship amount is regularly amended.
• Currently the amount paid to students on a Bachelor’s, Master’s or follow-up Master’s study programme stands at CZK 14,000 per month
• Whereas the amount paid to students of a Doctoral study programme stands at CZK 15,000 per month.

The above scholarship amounts include an amount designated for the payment of accommodation costs. Costs of accommodation, food and public transport are covered by scholarship holders from the scholarship under the same conditions that apply to students who are citizens of the Czech Republic. Should health services exceeding standard care be required by the student, s/he shall cover them at his/her own cost.

Eligible Countries: The students from the following developing countries are eligible: Afghanistan, Gambia, Mozambique, Bangladesh, The Guinea, Myanmar, Benin, Guinea-Bisau, Nepal, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Niger, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Cambodia, Korea, Dem Rep., Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Kyrgyz Republic, Somalia, Liberia, Tajikistan, Comoros, Madagascar, Tanzania, Malawi, Togo, Congo, Dem. Rep, Eritrea, Mali, Uganda, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Zimbabwe, Albania, Indonesia, Samoa, Armenia, India, São Tomé and Principe, Belize, Iraq, Senegal, Bhutan, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Bolivia, Kosovo, South Sudan, Cameroon, Lao PDR, Sri Lanka, Cape Verde, Lesotho, Sudan, Congo, Rep., Marshall Islands, Swaziland, Côte d’Ivoire, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Syrian Arab Republic, Djibouti, Moldova, Timor-Leste, Egypt, Arab Rep., Mongolia, Tonga, El Salvador, Morocco, Ukraine, Fiji, Nicaragua, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Nigeria, Vanuatu, Ghana, Pakistan, Vietnam, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, West Bank and Gaza, Guyana, Paraguay, Yemen, Rep., Honduras, Philippines, Zambia, Angola, Ecuador, Palau, Algeria, Gabon, Panama, American Samoa, Grenada, Peru, Antigua and Barbuda, Iran, Islamic Rep., Romania, Argentina, Jamaica, Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Serbia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Seychelles, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Latvia, South Africa, Botswana, Lebanon, St. Lucia, Brazil, Libya, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Suriname, Chile, Macedonia, FYR, Thailand, China, Malaysia, Tunisia, Colombia, Maldives, Turkey, Costa Rica, Mauritius, Turkmenistan, Cuba, Mexico, Tuvalu, Dominica, Montenegro and Uruguay

How to Apply: All applicants shall fill in the electronic application form available on the website and successfully register (i.e., obtain an application identification number by sending a completed application form to the pertinent authority electronically). The applicant shall send the completed application form to the Mission in electronic form, i.e., by completing online registration.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, the Faculty of Social Sciences

Women Techmakers/Firebase Travel Grants to Attend 3rd Firebase Summit 2018 in Prague, Czech Republic

Application Deadline: 20th August 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Cubex Centre, Prague, Czech Republic.

About the Award: At Google, we believe a diversity of attributes, experiences, and perspectives are needed to build tools that can change the world. Everyone deserves the opportunity to pursue a career in computer science and technology, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, ability or military service. We understand that, for some folks who are underrepresented in computer science and technology, there are barriers to attending leading tech conferences. We are committed to breaking those down. As such, we’re excited to offer the Women Techmakers & Firebase Travel Grant for the Firebase Summit on 29th October 2018 in Prague, Czech Republic.
Join to learn how Firebase helps mobile app teams of all sizes across the entire development lifecycle, from building your app, to improving app quality, to growing your business. You’ll also get the opportunity to ask questions and give feedback directly to the team that builds Firebase.

Type: Grants

Eligibility:

• Applicants must be a university student or a technology industry professional.
• Eligibility for each group is as follows:
  • University Students: A student enrolled in a bachelors, masters or PhD program (or equivalent) for the 2018-2019 academic year or a current student who is graduating in 2019 or later.
  • Technology Industry professionals: A professional software engineer working in the industry.
• Persons who are (1) residents of Italy, Brazil, Quebec, or embargoed countries, (2) ordinarily reside in embargoed countries, or (3) otherwise prohibited by applicable export controls and sanctions programs are not eligible to apply for the Women Techmakers & Firebase Summit Travel Grant.  
• Applicants must be available to attend the conference in its entirety, meaning they must be available to travel to the conference on October 29th in Prague, Czech Republic.
• Current Google employees, aside from interns, are not eligible to apply for this travel grant.  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age or older as of July 17, 2018

Selection criteria: All eligible applications will be reviewed by both the Women Techmaker & Firebase teams. Recipients of the Women Techmaker & Firebase Travel Grant will be selected based on the overall strength of their application materials compared to the entire applicant pool.

Number of Awards: Not Specified

Value of Award: To encourage attendance at our Firebase Summit, Women Techmakers will provide selected recipients airfare or train travel fare to and from the summit and/or hotel accommodations as a travel stipend of up to $500 USD offered through our travel agency partner.

Duration of Programme: 29 October 2018 (8:00am – 10:00pm)

How to Apply: Please complete the below application by August 20th, 2018. We’ll be notifying accepted applicants by September 5th, 2018. If you have any questions, please email firebase-summit@google.com with “travel grant program” in the subject line and our team will be in touch shortly.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details   and   Google WebPage Here

Award Providers: Women Techmakers, Google

Important Notes: Please note that payment for visas and/or expenses outside of travel (air/train/hotel) will not be covered. In addition, costs for travel (air/train/hotel) above $500 USD will not be eligible for reimbursement.

Ecuador’s Agenda: Squeezing and Surrendering Assange

Binoy Kampmark

It is perhaps typical in a time where a star of the fleshy celluloid wonder Baywatch, heavy in bust and known for her sexual adventures, should feature as a political voice.  Pamela Anderson’s views are treated with judicious seriousness – at least in some quarters.  Her association with Julian Assange has given needless room for columns on what, exactly, their relationship constitutes.

Having such defenders as Anderson has added to his conspicuous support base, but it will not move those bureaucrats who are chewing pens in anticipation and pondering options as to how best to eject him from the Ecuadorean embassy (compound would be more fitting) in London. Easily missed amidst the titter of celebrity gossip is the plight of an ailing Assange, who is facing the next critical stage of his stay at the Ecuadorean embassy.

Since the changing of the guard in Ecuador, President Lenín Moreno has shown a warmer feeling towards the United States, and a desire to raise the issue of Assange’s stay in the embassy with US Vice President Mike Pence with the urgency of man desiring to be rid of a problem.  The UK government has also been brought into the mix. The forces against Assange are marshalling themselves with a renewed impatience.

A squeeze evidently designed to break the will of WikiLeaks’ publisher-in-chief was commenced in March, with a change of the embassy’s Wi-Fi password effectively blocking his use of the Internet.  Phone calls and visitations have also been curtailed. The bill of Ecuadorean hospitality, if it can be termed that, also became a subject of discussion – some $5 million expended on security and Assange’s various activities.  Attitudes to a troublesome guest have hardened.

The press circuit has increasingly thickened in recent days with speculation about a round of high-tier discussions being conducted by Ecuador and the UK government on Assange.  The Ecuadorean paper El Comercio has remarked upon the talks. It was a turn that was unsurprising, with Moreno unimpressed by Assange’s feats and credentials, the Australian being viewed back in January as an “inherited problem” who had created “more than a nuisance” for his government.

According to Glenn Greenwald, the report that those discussions did more than touch on the matter of handing Assange over to UK authorities “appears to be true”. This might trigger an indictment from US authorities and possible extradition proceedings, a point made acute by the promise of US Attorney-General Jeff Sessions back in April to “seek to put some people in jail”, with Assange’s “arrest” being a priority.  “Can’t wait to see,” quipped Greenwald, “how many fake press freedom defenders support that.”

RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan smells that something nasty is brewing.  “My sources tell [Julian] Assange will be handed over to Britain in the coming weeks or even days.  Like never before, I wish my sources were wrong.”

That particular process, it would seem, is being headed by Sir Alan Duncan of the Foreign Office, the same individual who had an impulse back in March to call Assange that “miserable little worm” before fellow parliamentarians.

The line that Assange has been in arbitrary detention has never quite cut it in Duncan’s circles and he has been dangling a carrot with spectacular condescension. “It is our wish,” he told Parliament last month, “that this can be brought to an end and we’d like to make the assurance that if [Assange] were to step out of the embassy, he would be treated humanely and properly and that the first priority would be to look after his health, which we think is deteriorating.”

Such comments are always rounded up by that fanciful notion that Assange is “in the embassy of his own choice”.  That line on inventive volition was reiterated by Britain’s new foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt, who issued a statement of praise for Britain as “a country of due process” keen to see that Assange “face justice for those [serious] charges”: “At any time he wants to he is free to walk out onto the street of Knightsbridge and the British police will have a warm welcome for him.”

Such grotesquely insincere concerns about health, fashioned as a weapon and an incentive by Duncan, would be academic should Assange find himself on the dismal road to US custody, where promises of a firm and icy welcome have been made.  He would be merely nourished and fattened for a notoriously cruel prison system, analogous to the doctor healing a person on death row.

Anderson herself makes the relevant point about her urgent advocacy for Assange. “My role is to let people know that he’s a human being and not just a robot or a computer, and that he’s really sacrificing a lot for all of us. He hasn’t seen sunlight in six years. His skin is transparent.”

In what is nothing less than a war about what we can see, know and interpret, those who wish to preserve the traditional models of power and the clandestine state remain adamant: Assange is a trouble maker who must disappear.

Saudi-UK media tie-up: Targeting the non-Arabic-speaking Middle East

James M. Dorsey

Long satisfied to attempt to dominate pan-Arab media and battle it out with Qatar’s state-owned Al Jazeera television network, Saudi Arabia has now set its hegemonic sights on influencing the media landscape of the non-Arabic speaking greater Middle East.

In the wake of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s concentration last year of control of Saudi-owned pan-Arab media in an anti-corruption power and asset grab, Saudi Research and Marketing Group (SRMG) this week announced a tie up with Britain’s Independent news website to launch services in Urdu, Turkish, Farsi and Arabic.

The announcement provided no details of the business model or whether and, if so, how the SRMG-owned, independent-branded websites would become commercially viable. That may not be an issue from the Independent’s perspective, given that the deal amounts to the British publication licensing its brand and content to a Saudi partner.

The bulk of the content of the new websites is slated to be produced by SRMG journalists in London, Islamabad, Istanbul and New York, with the Independent contributing only translated articles from its English-language website.

The sites, operated out of Riyadh and Dubai, would produce “highest-quality, free-thinking, independent news, insight and analysis on global affairs and local events,” the Independent said.

SRMG publishes the English-language Arab News and Arabic-language Ash-Sharq al-Awsat, newspapers operating within the constraints of tight Saudi censorship that do not challenge Saudi policies.

SRMG was chaired until he recently was appointed minister of culture by Prince Bader bin Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Farhan Al Saud. An unknown member of the Saudi ruling family, Prince Bader made headlines last year when he paid a record $450m for a Leonardo da Vinci painting of Jesus Christ, allegedly as a proxy bidder for Prince Mohammed.

Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel, a Saudi banker with no track record in media acquisitions, last year bought a 30 percent stake in the Independent. An executive of NCB Capital, a subsidiary of government-controlled National Commercial Bank, Mr. Abuljadayel said at the time he was investing on his personal account.

A cache of Saudi diplomatic cables leaked in 2015 documented a pattern of Saudi chequebook diplomacy that aimed to buy positive coverage of the kingdom by European, Middle Eastern and African media who were encouraged to put “learned” Saudi guests on talk shows and counter “media hostile to the kingdom.”

Cables by the late Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al Faisal, suggested that Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat, and another Saudi-owned pan-Arab daily, Al Hayat, refrain from criticizing Lebanon and Russia.

Saudi funding ranged from the bailout of financially troubled media to donations, the purchase of thousands of subscriptions, and all-expenses paid trips to the kingdom. It was often driven by Saudi Arabia’s covert public diplomacy war with Iran.

Saudi Arabia’s near monopoly on staid pan-Arabic media was broken in 1996 with the launch of Al Jazeera and its free-wheeling, hard hitting reporting and talk shows. Al Jazeera’s disruption of conservative, Arab state broadcasting prompted Waleed bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim, a brother in law of the late King Fahd, to launch Al Arabiya as an anti-dote.

The rise of Al Jazeera cemented a realization in the kingdom that it needed to expand from print media into broadcasting. The need for broadcasting was initially driven home six years earlier when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saudi authorities banned Saudi media from reporting the invasion only to discover on the third day that Saudis were getting their news from foreign media outlets, among which CNN.

The Saudi-Qatari battle for control of the air waves escalated in the run-up to this year’s World Cup in Russia. With Al Jazeera and beIN, the network’s sports franchise, blocked in the kingdom as part of the 13-month-old Saudi-UAE-led economic and diplomatic boycott of Qatar, Saudi Arabia initially turning a blind eye to beOutQ, a bootlegging operation operating out of the kingdom that used a satellite that is co-owned by the Saudi government.

Threatened by FIFA with punitive action, Saudi Arabia began cracking down on beOutQ and said it welcomed legal action in the kingdom being initiated by the world soccer body. At the same time, Saudi Arabia explored ways to challenge beIN’s broadcasting rights.

The choice of languages for the Independent websites suggests that SRMG sees the deal as strengthening its brand while supporting the kingdom in its battles with Qatar and Iran and quest for regional hegemony.

The launch of a Farsi website targets the kingdom’s arch rival Iran. Leaving politics aside, Iranians, confronted with an economic crisis that is being exasperated by harsh US sanctions, are unlikely to subscribe or advertise on the website. The same is true for Saudi businesses in the absence of diplomatic relations and given Saudi backing for the sanctions.

The Independent’s Turkish website will have to compete in a heavily populated media landscape that has largely been muzzled by President Recep Tayeb Erdogan. The website’s significance lies in the fact that Turkey supports Qatar in the spat that pits the Gulf state against Saudi Arabia and its allies, maintains close ties to Iran, and challenges Saudi regional ambitions in Palestine as well as the Horn of Africa.

In many ways, Urdu-speaking Pakistan, one of the world’s most populous Muslim nations that borders on Iran, has long supported the kingdom militarily, and is home to the world’s largest Shia Muslim majority, could prove to be the most lucrative element of SRMG’s tie up with the Independent.

In contrast to Turkey, Saudi Arabia enjoys empathy in major segments of Pakistan’s population, hosts a sizeable Pakistani community, has strong support among the country’s religious scholars as well as ties to influential militants whom the military is seeking to ease into mainstream politics, and funds religious media outlets.

At the bottom line, the SRMG-Independent tie-up may be for the kingdom less about business and more about soft power.

“A channel is a very economical way to influence people. Bang for your buck, it’s much cheaper than guns. It is about controlling the discourse, and for Saudis about being in charge,” said Hugh Miles, author of Al-Jazeera: How Arab TV News Challenged the World. Mr. Miles’ analysis applies as much to broadcasting as it does to online media.

Photo Essay – Farmers Express No Confidence In Modi’s Government

Nilesh Jain

As the Lok Sabha debates the No confidence motion against the Modi government thousands of farmers from across the country marched from Mandi House to Parliament Street. The foot march was organized by All India Kisan Sangarsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC), which is an alliance of more than 201 farmers organizations across the country, formed in late June 2017. The main two demands of the alliance are debt relief and guaranteed remunerative for their farm produce.

Farmers all over the country are protesting against the policies of the government. The crisis in the farming community is a direct response of years of neglect from governmental side, but Modi government harmed so much so that, from Tamil Nadu and Panjab, famers are protesting against low prices of farm produces, farm loan, farmers suicides, land acquisition and encroachment of forest land by corporations and the government itself. Increasing crony-capitalist policies of the government, land acquisition for worthless projects like Bullet Train etc., no ownership land to the tribal community in the forest land are some of the most effective causes of farmers protest.

AIKSCC on its own prepared two draft Bills – The Farmers’ Right to Guaranteed Minimum Support Prices for Agricultural Commodities Bill, 2018 and The Farmers’ Freedom from Indebtedness Bill, 2018. Both the Bills were tabled in the Monsoon Session of the Parliament as Private Member’s Bill by Raju Shetty and K.K. Rajesh in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively.

These Bills are aimed to rescue farmers from the debt-trap in which they are presently stuck and to secure remunerative and guaranteed prices and off-take of their produce, so that they are not pushed to committing suicide in upcoming days and years to come. The drafts of the Bills have then been thoroughly vetted and approved by a committee comprising of keys leaders of AIKSCC and senior leaders representing 21 political parties including Indian National Congress and left parties.

This Farmers No-confidence motion against the government is organised in a series of events organised by AIKSCC in last few months to lobby for the Bills including the consultation with Opposition parties, meeting with the President of India, Kisan Mukti Yatra (11,000 KM March across the Country), Kisan Mukti Sansad, some small and big protests in most backward parts of India.

Under the banner of AIKSCC thousands of farmers marched today with black flags, placards carrying “Happy Farmers, Happy India”, “MSP (Modi Style Propaganda)”, “Kisan Virodhi Modi Sarkar Nahi Chalegi (Anti-farmer Modi Government Will not function)”, “Farmers Expresse No-confidence In Modi Government” and many more were carrying MSP rates of Modi government and C2 rates of MSP, proposed by Swaminathan Committee in 2006.

One enthusiast marcher is standing on the backend Auto Guard.

Medha Patkar, Archana Shri Vastava and other women protesters carrying the banner with the slogan “Khushhali ke do Ayam, Karja Mukti.

Some farmers from Jalandhar, Punjab with the placard stating the two MSPs of Arhar. Modi’s MSP@5675 and C2 MSP @7471.

One farmer with the placard with the slogan “Kisan Mukti Kanoon, Lekar Rahenge, Lekar Rahende (Farmer’s Freedom Legislation, we will take, We Will take)”.

Two placards titling ‘Modi’s MSP Cheats Farmers!’

A group of Farmers from Jalandhar, Punjab with the placard ‘MSP (Modi Style Propaganda)’.

Police and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in an appropriate gear ahead of the March for the protection and dispersal of the marchers.

Some more enthusiast farmers and protestors on back of the Auto.

Some tired marchers sitting on the bare road after the conclusion of the March at Parliament Street.

Member of Rashtriya Kisan Mazdoor Sangathan with the placard ‘I am son of the Farmer too’.

At the end of the march at parliamentary street, farmer’s leader like Yogendra Yadav, V. M. Singh, Raju Setty, Sarad Yadav, Sitaram Yechury, Kavitha Kurugunti and Medha Patkar gave speeches describing the crisis in farming community across the country and urged the parliament to pass to Bills, introduced as Private Member’s Bill in the Monsoon Session of the Parliament.
The Government may have won the No-Confidence Motion in the parliament, but she lost it on streets, farms, houses of farmers and hearts of the farmers. Now, the only way out for the Modi Government is to win back farmers by passing two bills or lose the upcoming election.

Leaked report reveals plans for martial law in South Korea

Ben McGrath

During last year’s mass protests against former President Park Geun-hye, South Korea’s military planned to enforce martial law, according to a report leaked to the public on July 5. The Defense Security Command (DSC), a military intelligence agency, finalized the plans in March last year, shortly before the country’s Constitutional Court removed Park from office on corruption charges.

Lawmaker Rhee Cheol-hee of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) released the document, entitled “Wartime Martial Law and Joint Action Plan.” Supposedly, the document was not reported to Defense Minister Song Yeong-mu until this March 16. Song subsequently kept it hidden from President Moon Jae-in, also of the DPK, until June 28.

On Friday, President Moon’s spokesman Kim Eui-gyeom tried to play down the revelation and claim that such plans had since been modified. He told a press conference: “Usually, the military renews its martial law plans every two years. Cheongwadae [the Blue House or presidential office] has confirmed the submitted documents are completely different from the existing plans.”

In the event that last year’s protests did not subside after Park’s trial, the plans called for mobilizing 200 tanks, 550 armoured vehicles, 4,800 soldiers, and 1,400 special warfare command troops. Brigades would seize the presidential offices, the Constitutional Court and the National Assembly, as well as other government offices. The DSC would censor the media to prevent the public from learning what was taking place. The military also intended to arrest opposition lawmakers who took part in the anti-Park protests, while “banning rallies and anti-state activities.”

The DSC denounced the millions of protesters who took part in the demonstrations as “North Korea followers,” a common slander long used against opponents of the South Korean regime to justify the brutal suppression of democratic rights.

The Military Human Rights Center for Korea, a civic group allied with the DPK, stated on July 6 that the DSC document “is clearly a coup d’état plan and all involved in this are believed to have committed the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion.”

However, Moon’s administration responded in a muted tone. The president ordered an investigation into the DSC on July 10, almost two weeks after he supposedly was made aware of the document. When questioned on the slow response, the presidential office claimed that officials only “gradually” began to understand the significance of the document.

An anonymous presidential official told the media the presidential palace would respond “responsibly” and “needs time to look into the issue in a serious manner.”

For a country that endured nearly three decades of military dictatorship, the seriousness of a military threat to seize power is obvious. However, no arrests have been made. Moon waited until July 16 to demand the Defense Ministry hand over documents on the martial law plans.

Defense Minister Song also tried to justify not reporting the document to the president earlier. “I judged that this document needed legal analysis, and thought at the same time that regarding the issue of whether to disclose it, there should be a political consideration,” he said.

This is a marked contrast to the Democrats’ reaction to the arrest of a group of Unified Progressive Party members, including a lawmaker, in 2013 on trumped-up charges of conspiring to aid North Korea. The Democratic Party backed the arrests and accepted the phoney basis of the charges. Now, confronted with a genuine state conspiracy, its leaders offer nothing more than mild criticisms.

There are deeper political issues involved in the leaking of this document. Different factions of the South Korean bourgeoisie are struggling to gain the upper hand as the global capitalist crisis continues to deepen.

Rhee declined to state how he came by the report. However, the DPK is now using it to further discredit the conservative main opposition Liberty Korea Party (LKP), which was known as the Saenuri Party when Park was in office.

In particular, the LKP has opposed the Democrat’s stance on North Korea, instead pushing a hardline position toward Pyongyang. While both parties agree on turning the North into a platform for exploitation by South Korean big business, they differ over the method of bringing Pyongyang under Seoul’s control.

DPK leader Chu Mi-ae recently sought to deflect criticism from Moon over the DSC document, while distancing himself from high-ranking members of Park’s administration: “The probe must investigate thoroughly not only former head of the DSC Jo Han-cheon but former Defense Minister Han Min-gu, former national security office chief Kim Kwan-jin, former prime minister Hwang Gyo-an who served as acting president, and of course, former president Park Geun-hye.”

The government’s campaign against former Park administration officials is also meant to redirect growing working class anger away from Moon. Last year’s mass demonstrations were not just the result of Park’s personal corruption. Hostility toward the ruling capitalist class has built up over years of attacks on working and living conditions carried out by all the major parties.

The bourgeoisie recognizes that as Moon’s anti-working class agenda becomes clearer, public anger could be directed at the political establishment as a whole, including the Democrats, the pseudo-left and the trade unions.

The supposedly “militant” Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and pseudo-left organizations claimed last year that Park’s removal and the election of a Democrat could somehow complete the “democratization” process left unfinished since the end of the military dictatorship in 1987. Moon’s accommodation to United States imperialism in foreign policy and big business at home demonstrate the fraud of this pro-capitalist conception.

The leaked document makes clear that the danger of martial law or a military dictatorship is not relegated to the past. For all the talk of “democratization,” the framework of the police state continues to exist, supported by the entire bourgeoisie.