21 Aug 2018

European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) Career Development Fellowships for Researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa 2019

Application Deadline: 27th November 2018

Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan African countries

About the Award: Application for a Career Development Fellowship must be submitted by an organisation with an established legal entity in sub-Saharan Africa (‘the applicant legal entity’) on behalf of the prospective fellow employed by that organisation.
The grants are awarded to the host organisation with the explicit commitment that this organisation offers appropriate conditions for the fellow to direct and manage its funding for the duration of the fellowship.
The purpose of this Call for Proposals is to provide funding to actions that aim to support junior to mid-career researchers (‘fellows’) to train and develop their clinical research skills.
The objectives are:
  1. To promote career development and retention of postdoctoral researchers and postgraduate medical researchers in the research field and in sub-Saharan Africa;
  2. To equip the fellows with the ability to establish themselves as independent researchers and with the skills to initiate and manage their own research at host organisations in sub-Saharan Africa.
Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • The applicant must be an organisation with an established legal entity in sub-Saharan Africa (the applicant legal entity)
  • The fellow must be employed or have guaranteed employment by the applicant legal entity (the host organisation) where they intend to remain working for a minimum of two years after the expiration of the grant
  • Fellows must:
    • be resident of or be willing to relocate to a sub-Saharan African country;
    • be either a graduate in a subject relevant to the EDCTP2 programme, with a PhD and up to five years’ relevant postdoctoral research experience, or a medical doctor with up to five years’ research experience;
    • have at least one publication in an international peer-reviewed journal;
    • not have been funded under this fellowship scheme before.
  • The requested EDCTP contribution per action shall not exceed € 150,000.
  • The maximum fellowship duration shall be 36 months.
Selection Criteria: Following an admissibility and eligibility check, letters of intent and full proposals are evaluated by external, independent experts. Proposals are evaluated according to the criteria Excellence, Impact and Implementation. Each criterion is scored between 0 and 5.
The following aspects are considered under the evaluation criteria:
  1. Excellence
  • Fit with the scope and objectives of the EDCTP2 Programme, the EDCTP strategic research agenda and the call topic description.
  • Importance, relevance/pertinence and clarity of the objectives.
  • Soundness of the concept and credibility of the proposed approach/methodology.
  • Suitability of the candidate, considering their track record, degree of independence and/or potential, and how the fellowship will further the individual’s career.
  • Quality of the project and its fit with the fellow’s expertise and career development plan, including acquired competencies and skills to be developed further.
  1. Impact
  • The extent to which the outputs of the proposed work would contribute, at the European, African and/or International level, to each of the expected impacts listed in the work plan under the relevant topic.
  • Likelihood to result in major advances in the field.
  • Contribution of the fellowship to the fellow’s clinical research skills and career development.
  • Contribution to strengthening clinical research capacity at the home or host organisation.
  • Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate results generated during the fellowship (including management of IPR), to communicate the fellowship activities, and, where relevant, to manage clinical data.
  • Sustainability and retention of capacity post-award.
  1. Quality and efficiency of the implementation
  • Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which the resources assigned to work packages are in line with their objectives and deliverables;
  • Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management, and how responsibilities for research data quality and sharing, and security will be met.
  • Complementarity of the participants within the consortium, and the extent to which the consortium as whole brings together the necessary expertise.
  • Appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources, ensuring that all participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfil that role.
  • Feasibility and appropriateness of the methods and project management to achieve the objectives within the timeframe of the grant.
  • Compliance with national and international standards of research, Good Clinical Practice, ethics and safety related issues.
  • Participants have the operational capacity, to carry out the proposed work, based on the competence and experience of the individual participant(s).
  • Suitability of the fellow’s home organisation to support the fellowship project.
  • Intention of the fellow’s home organisation to develop and commit to a career post-fellowship or re-integration plan.
Number of Awards:  16-17

Value of Award: 
  • Call budget: €2.5 M
  • Maximum funding: €150,000
  • Funding level: Up to 100% of eligible costs
How to Apply: This is a single-stage application procedure. Proposals must be submitted by 27 November 2018 via EDCTPgrants. Evaluation results are expected to be made available by 19 April 2019.
The host organisation (applicant) must provide a support letter confirming that the organisation is supportive of the proposed action and willing through its financial and administrative systems to enable the fellow to direct independently the proposed action and manage its funding for the duration of the fellowship.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: EDCTP

$150,000 Google Faculty Research Awards for Academic Research Institutions 2019

Application Deadline: 30th September 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): respective institutions worldwide

Eligible Fields of Research: The intent of the Google Research Awards is to support cutting-edge research in Computer Science, Engineering, and related fields. Applicants are to categorize their proposals into one of the following broad research areas of interest to Google:
  • Economics and market algorithms
  • Geo/maps
  • Human-computer interaction
  • Information retrieval, extraction, and organization
  • Machine learning and data mining
  • Machine perception
  • Machine translation
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • Networking
  • Policy and standards
  • Privacy
  • Security
  • Social networks
  • Software engineering
  • Speech
  • Structured data and database management
  • Systems (hardware and software)
About Google Research Award: Google is committed to developing new technologies to help users find and use information. As part of its vision to maintain strong ties with academic institutions worldwide pursuing innovative research in core areas relevant to our mission, the Google Research Awards program aims to identify and support world-class, full-time faculty pursuing research in areas of mutual interest.
Google is excited to support the university research, academic development and technological innovation that happens across the globe. Google has teams in China, EMEA, Australia, New Zealand, India and North America who build and maintain relationships with university research and faculty in their regions and support continuing innovation in computer science education.
In EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), the focus is on top computer science research across all EMEA universities.
Similarly, the group in Japan concentrates on extending Google’s global programs to the top universities in Japan.
The focus is on academic development and research through a variety of programs in China, including curriculum development, the student entrepreneurship program, and computer science education outreach program.
In Australia and New Zealand the focus is on excellence in research at leading universities, academic development programs, and STEM outreach initiatives.
The programs in India focus on promoting state-of-the-art research at Indian universities and academic development programs that use the Internet to reach a large number of students and faculty.

Type: Research

Number of Awards: Several

Value of Award: Faculty members can apply for up to 150,000 USD in eligible expenses, but actual award amounts are frequently less than the full amount requested. Most awards are funded at the amount needed to support basic expenses for one graduate student for one year.

How to Apply: The application process for the Research Awards includes filling out an online form requesting basic information and uploading a proposal via the form. As part of the online form, you will be asked to select a topic area from among the areas listed above. Please select carefully, as this will determine which of the review committees will review your proposal.
Before submitting a proposal, please carefully review all the instructions in the link below, including FAQs and proposal advice.

To apply for a Google research award, faculty members should use the general guidelines on this link for proposal.

Award Provider: Google

Japan: Tens of thousands on Okinawa denounce US base relocation plan

Ben McGrath 

On August 11, 70,000 protesters gathered on Okinawa, Japan to denounce the central government’s relocation of a US military base on the island. The demonstration took place to also mark the death of Okinawa prefectural governor, Takeshi Onaga, who died from pancreatic cancer on August 8 at the age of 67. Other rallies took place around the country, including in Tokyo.
The demonstration took place in Naha, the capital of Okinawa Prefecture. Protesters held signs that read “New Henoko Base, No!” and other slogans to denounce Tokyo’s plan. They also adopted a resolution demanding the central government cancel its plans to relocate the US base.
Okinawan residents and others opposed to the US military presence in Japan have demonstrated for years against the central government’s plan to relocate the US Marine Corps Air Station Futenma base from the center of the crowded Okinawan city of Ginowan to a new facility being constructed at Henoko on the island’s coast.
Governor Onaga, who came to office in November 2014, fought against the base relocation, having made it a central issue of his gubernatorial campaign. However, he consistently worked to channel opposition to the base along parochial lines, exploiting locals’ legitimate anger towards crimes committed by US soldiers and contractors, from drinking and driving to rape and murder.
In order to block a wider political struggle against Japanese and US militarism, Onaga claimed that the base relocation issue stemmed from Japan’s mainlanders looking down upon and taking advantage of Okinawans, who had to bear the brunt of hosting US troops.
Onaga had been a member of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) until he ran as an independent for mayor of the prefecture’s capital Naha in 2000, an office he held for 14 years. He remained a conservative heavyweight in prefectural politics and did not oppose the US-Japan security treaty. In fact, he stated in 2015, “I have served as a politician for over 30 years, and I have consistently supported the US-Japan security arrangement.”
The anti-war sentiment of those who backed Onaga often went further and included the demand for the removal of US bases from Japan altogether. The protesters have often coupled their struggle against US bases with opposition to the government’s agenda of remilitarization, which includes the revision of the country’s constitution to remove any barrier to the expansion and overseas deployment of the Japanese military.
Given that Okinawa is a major staging pointing for US military action in Asia, opposition to the base is intimately bound up with the struggle against militarism. On July 30, during another rally in front of Abe’s residence in Tokyo, one of the participants, an 81-year-old woman, drew this connection. “I want to go to Okinawa, but I can’t make it, so I will raise my voice against base construction here. Having a base comes down to being complicit in war,” she stated.
Onaga’s tactics, however, represent a dead end for the struggle. The governor spent his last years working to ensnare the base issue in court and convince the population that this could block construction at Henoko.
In October 2015, Onaga withdrew the approval given by his predecessor Hirokazu Nakaima for land reclamation on the coast. This was quickly overturned by the Defense Ministry’s Okinawa Defense Bureau. A fight in the courts ensued and in December 2016, Japan’s Supreme Court ruled that Onaga’s actions were illegal.
For more than year after that, the governor threatened to withdraw approval for reclamation on a new basis. This was a stalling tactic Onaga used as he negotiated with the central government. Only as anti-base opponents grew frustrated with the delay, staging sit-ins at prefectural offices, did he once again announce he would revoke the reclamation project’s approval.
Onaga stated on July 27, “Facts that were not yet known when land reclamation approval was given have come to light, and the appropriate and rational conditions in terms of land usage (that are required for land reclamation approval) are no longer being met.”
This new revocation was meant to stop planned reclamation work from beginning on August 17, though Tokyo is holding off on the construction project in the run up to a September 30 election to choose Onaga’s successor.
Ultimately, Onaga, local businesses and others with commercial interests on Okinawa sought to have the base removed from the island in order to use the territory for land development that would attract businesses and tourists. At the same time, they highlighted its cheaper cost of labor compared to other areas of Japan.
The US military’s constant presence in Okinawa since the end of World War II has impeded commercial development as one-fifth of the main island in the prefecture is covered with US bases which are home to half of the 50,000 US troops in Japan.
Other establishment parties, including from the so-called left, lent political credibility to Onaga while he was in office. The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP), the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) and Social Democratic Party (SDP) all praised him after his death.
Seiken Akamine, a JCP member of parliament in the Lower House, stated, “The asset that Onaga left is the idea that we must stop the conflicts between conservatives and liberals and prevent [US military] bases from staying in Okinawa for the future of the prefecture.” That the JCP attempts to build illusions in not only so-called liberal politicians, but in conservative ones as well, is an indication that the party long ago abandoned its anti-capitalist posturing.
In fact, the conservative LDP is looking towards the special election to choose Onaga’s replacement as a means of putting the base dispute to rest legally speaking. The party intends to run Ginowan Mayor Atsushi Sakima as its candidate. Deputy Governor Kiichiro Jahana will take over as interim governor until the September 30 election.

Leaked tapes confirm collusion of Peruvian justice system with drug cartels and state corruption

Bill Van Auken

A new state corruption scandal has shaken Peru in recent months, this time involving a vast network of judges, prosecutors, attorneys and other high-ranking personnel in the justice system. Many of them have been caught on tape negotiating bribes with businessmen, congressmen and others in exchange for light sentences, the stonewalling of investigations, the complete rescinding of verdicts or other favors.
The new scandal is yet another blow to a political and state establishment already massively discredited after the revelations of the Lava Jato scandal, which implicated politicians in Peru and throughout Latin America in bribes and payoffs from Brazilian corporations, including former president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, who was forced to resign in March.
His successor, President Martin Vizcarra last month announced in his Independence Day message to the nation a plan for referendums, one of which proposes the reform of the Justice System, specifically the National Council of Magistrates (Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura, CNM), the state entity tasked with appointing judges and prosecutors throughout the country. The measure is aimed at assuaging rising popular anger against the government.
The leaked tapes stem from an investigation prosecuted by the Organized Crime Unit of Callao, a “constitutional province” inside the capital of Lima that includes the country’s most important maritime port for exports and imports. It is also the epicenter for the trafficking of cocaine to Europe and the US; an illegal and extremely lucrative enterprise that binds together local drug gangs, corrupt port officers and, as the scandal has revealed, Callao’s judiciary system.
Corruption cases and high levels of crime—due to drug gangs—had already left their mark on the province’s recent history. Two former Callao mayors—Alex Kouri and Felix Moreno—are behind bars and face trials for embezzling and bribes.
The Organized Crime Unit was investigating a drug gang known as “Castañuelos del Rich Port” for its connection with a well-known drug lord, Gerson “Caracol” Galvez, whose prison sentence was abruptly and suspiciously nullified in 2014. There were reports that such was his dominion over Callao that he offered to the Ministry of Justice to stop local gang turf wars in the province in exchange for his release from prison.
The Unit discovered through wiretapping that “Caracol” was the link between the “Castañuelos” and the Justice System in Callao. They solicited a wider wiretapping of the gang’s lawyers and confirmed that they were bribing Callao judges. Soon the wiretapped conversations of the judges, attorneys and advisors made it so abundantly clear that Callao’s judiciary system was a platform for obtaining favorable sentences and beneficial public offices in return for money and other favors that the Unit shifted the investigation’s focus to Callao’s justice system and renamed it the “Port’s White Collars”.
As they were reviewing the wiretaps, it became clear that Callao’s Supreme Court Justice Walter Rios was the main decision maker inside the justice system. Recordings of his conversations with Supreme Court member Cesar Hinostroza—a major figure in the country’s legal system—indicated that the two were accomplices, thereby expanding the scope of the investigation into Peru’s entire judicial system.
Then on July 7, IDL Reporteros, a team of independent online reporters, began to publish on its web site leaked audios from the investigation.
Rios’ audios give a taste of the corrupted mentality provided by a position of immense power: he demands that state cleaning workers go to his home and do seemingly unpaid labor, and that “attractive ladies” be assigned to one of his work trips, all the while verbally abusing his close subordinates. In the audio that prompted his eventual arrest, he boasts to his driver—and collector—about the valuable bribes he is receiving.
Rios was arrested on July 15 and is serving 18 months of preventive detention. Hinostroza was suspended from his duties as a Supreme Court member, and, although the State Attorney’s office presented to Congress a petition to charge him, he has been defiant and claimed he’s done nothing wrong; even when one of the leaked audios—in which he favored the release of a presumptive child rapist—caused public outrage.
Another principal accomplice and benefactor of a relationship with Rios was automobile businessman Antonio Camayo. He had lucrative car contracts with the judiciary when Rios was in office and seemed to have been a link between Rios, Hinostroza and the right-wing party Fuerza Popular (FP) that has controlled Congress with 66 seats. In one audio, Camayo asks Hinostroza for a meeting with “Madame K of the number one Force”. This is a clear allusion to FP and its leader Keiko Fujimori. Her claim that she was not “Madame K” was treated by the population with skepticism and mockery.
Camayo was arrested along with others in a raid against the “White Collars” the night of July 29, one day after Vizcarra delivered his message to the nation proposing the referendums.
In a conversation with Hinostroza, Camayo claimed that he could serve as an intermediary with President Vizcarra himself. He had already visited Prime Minister Cesar Villanueva as part of a delegation from the National Society of Industries. Vizcarra denied having ever met him, and the media did not investigate further. This is part of their attempt to promote Vizcarra—a previously unknown politician—in order to secure the stability of his presidency.
When an audio surfaced that showed an amicable relationship between Hinostroza and Minister of Justice Salvador Heresi, President Vizcarra himself solicited Heresi to resign via Twitter, which he accepted “in order that the President can lead the reform of justice”.
Other audio shows Edwin Oviedo, chairman of the Peruvian Federation of Football, offering Hinostroza tickets for World Cup matches in Russia, where Peru’s team played. Oviedo is also the owner of a sugar business located in the northern region of Lambayeque, and local attorneys have accused him of ordering the murders of two sugar workers’ leaders. Oviedo’s gifts to Hinostroza hints that the Supreme Court member was delaying the investigation, the attorneys charged.
High-ranking members of the country’s judiciary began to resign as new audios surfaced every day linking them in one way or another to either Rios or Hinostroza. Even the state attorney had to be supplanted by a new one—Pedro Chavarry, who declared that he had no connection whatsoever to Rios or Hinostroza. Then IDL presented audios of him talking to both of them.
Jose Domingo Perez, an anti-money laundering attorney, publicly criticized Chavarry’s nomination, labeling him “unethical”. Furthermore, as part of the legal delegation sent to Brazil for questioning Jorge Barata—Odebrecht’s top operative in Peru—over the construction giant’s bribing of former presidents, he revealed that his superiors had deliberately hindered this investigation. He claimed that one of them forbid him asking Barata who was the man behind the initials “AG” on one of his bribing notebooks. The initials are, of course, the same as those of former president Alan Garcia who, during his second government of 2006-2011, granted Odebrecht their most overpriced construction contracts in Peru.
Perez also claimed that after he ordered a raid into the offices of the fujimoristaFP (whose leader Keiko Fujimori is also accused of receiving money from Odebrecht) he was told by the former state attorney: “You don’t know who you are dealing with”.
Both Garcia and Fujimori have massive influence within Peru’s judiciary. Garcia during his last government replenished the justice system’s top posts with members from his party, while Fujimori’s influence comes from being the “number one force” in having major businessmen inside her party’s ranks and enjoying the sponsorship of most of the entrepreneurial circle.
It is precisely Hinostroza’s intervention in annulling two cases that could gravely damage FP that explains his survival thus far. Last year, he issued a procedural resolution which stopped an investigation into alleged money laundering by Joaquin Ramirez—the FP’s former general secretary. He likewise accepted a legal appeal by Fujimori over another investigation of her alleged money laundering. It is Congress—dominated by FP—that has the power to override any legal accusations against him.

German federal and regional governments extend refugee camp system nationwide

Marianne Arens

Since August 1, there are officially eight “anchor centres” in Bavaria and Saxony where refugees are quartered. According to the federal government, the camps are to be extended to the whole of Germany. Although several federal states officially oppose them, they already operate similar facilities.
The construction of anchor centres with 1,000 to 1,500 refugees each had already been stipulated by the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD) in the coalition agreement. The name “AnkER” stands for arrival, asylum decision, repatriation. The federal and state governments are thus establishing a sealed-off and guarded system of camps in which tens of thousands of people are being locked up without a court decision.
The Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) claims that the anchor centres are “not detention facilities,” and that “no one is imprisoned.” But that is a lie. The camps are sealed off with walls and barbed wire, and the entrances are guarded by security personnel. They can be closed at any time, as happened in Ellwangen in a police raid.
The people living in the camps can only leave and re-enter with a special pass and are subject to an “enhanced residency requirement.” This means they are only allowed to leave the district where their facility is located with the consent of the authorities, otherwise their asylum claim can be suspended. If someone spontaneously stays somewhere else, they lose all rights and claims and are considered as having gone “underground” and as fair game for the police.
In addition, the camps either have an integrated closed prison area—such as the anchor camp in Hamburger Street in Dresden, where a strictly sealed-off detention centre is being built—or they cooperate with a detention centre. Almost all state governments operate detention centres, such as the one in Buren, North Rhine-Westphalia. The SPD-Left Party-Green Party state government in Berlin is just about to build one.
Even the federal states that still officially oppose anchor centres have long operated similar facilities, which are usually called by a different name. The master plan of Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) envisages a total of 40 anchor centres distributed across all federal states.
Originally, 11 camps were to be launched as part of the “Anchor Centres Pilot Project” from August 1. This emerged from an internal job advertisement by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). It was looking for “interested” BAMF staff who were “prepared to work in an anchor centre as part of a pilot project” from August 1.
As well as the known centres in Bavaria (Bamberg, Deggendorf, Donauwörth, Manching, Regensburg, Schweinfurt and Zirndof) and the centre in Dresden, Saxony, the BAMF advert also names Heidelberg (Baden-Württemberg), Giessen (Hesse) and Lebach (Saarland). The BAMF branch office in Donauwörth is also mentioned as the twelfth place of deployment.
Publicly, the state governments of Baden-Württemberg and Hesse attach great importance to maintaining a distance to the anchor centres. In Hesse, ruled by a coalition of the Christian Democrats and Greens, state Premier Volker Bouffier (CDU) declared, “It remains the case that we have our own way of doing things here in Hesse.”
What Hesse’s “own way” looks like can be seen at the Hesse Initial Reception Centre (HEAE) in Giessen. On June 21, city councillors from all parties, including the Left Party, decided, at the request of the neo-fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD), to reject Seehofer’s anchor centres on the grounds that there was already the “successful model in Giessen of the initial reception centre,” making the anchor concept unnecessary.
The HEAE, with 800 places, is the focus of a widespread camp system in Hesse, in which the treatment of refugees is just as inhumane as in Bavaria. This is shown by the fact that in the first four months of 2018, almost 600 men and women were deported from Hesse alone—twice as many as in the previous year.
Refugees in front of the Patrick Henry Village in Heidelberg
The state premier of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann (Greens), has officially distanced himself from the concept of anchor centres and promised that there will be none in Baden-Württemberg under the Greens. His deputy, Interior Minister Thomas Strobl (CDU), clarified, saying that Baden-Württemberg already had a “successful model” in Heidelberg that would speed up registration and asylum hearings and “return refugees with no right to remain as quickly as possible.”
According to Markus Rothfuss, head of the Patrick Henry Village Arrival Centre in Heidelberg, the only difference to anchor centres was that “only rarely” did deportations take place directly from this facility.
However, the Green-CDU state government deported almost 3,500 people in 2017 alone, writes the Baden-Württemberg Refugee Council. “In addition to the high number, drastic individual cases continually shock,” it says. “Families are separated, people undergoing education have been deported, and the state government does not want people who have been living in Germany for decades anymore.”
This development shows that none of the parties represented in the Bundestag (federal parliament) and the Landtag (state legislatures) defend elementary fundamental democratic rights. This also applies to the Greens and the Left Party. They are all involved in locking people away without a court judgment and isolating them from the population simply because they lack certain German papers.
The SPD had signed up to the anchor centres in the coalition agreement and gave its blessing to Seehofer’s “accelerated border procedures” at the beginning of July. In Brandenburg, the Social Democrat state premier Dietmar Woidke pushed strongly in spring 2018 for the establishment of an anchor centre.
In Hamburg, the hypocrisy is breath-taking: While the Interior Senator (state minister) Andy Grote (SPD) criticized the concept in public, the arrival centre in Hamburg’s Rahlstedt district is currently being expanded into a deportation detention centre for Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein, with places for over 2,000.
In Berlin, ruled by a coalition of the SPD, Greens and Left Party, Senator Andreas Geisel (SPD) and the integration commissioner, Elke Breitenbach (Left Party), are jointly responsible for the arrival centre at Tempelhof central airport. The largest institution in Germany and its structures are similar to the anchor centres, which does not prevent Breitenbach from claiming that there will be no such centres in Berlin.
In Thuringia, under Left Party state premier Bodo Ramelow, the authorities are brutalizing people in the camps. For example, residents at the Rudolstadt collective accommodation facility cannot sleep through the night because the authorities have ordered regular room inspections. Night after night, at 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., checks are carried out to see who is present.
Of course, residents fear each time that it could be the police who want to deport them. According to the Thuringia Refugee Council, refugees who sought to escape this grueling tactic and slept in a safe and undisturbed place outside the accommodation facility had their benefits immediately cut by the district.
Nightly terror and the threat of deportation are also constant in the Bavarian camps. The mother of a Roma family from Serbia who was forced to move to the Bamberg anchor centre told the Bavarian Refugee Council, “Last week, the police were there and picked up our neighbours. Since then, we no longer sleep, but are only afraid.”
In the camp system currently being built in Germany, refugees are isolated from the rest of the population and are cut off from normal life. Access to impartial legal advice and medical assistance is made much more difficult and children’s school attendance as well as social contact with German children are prevented. Officially, families with children can be housed for up to six months in the camps.
According to UNICEF, almost one third of the refugees in Germany are minors. An open letter from 24 refugee associations and organizations last year said it was as high as 45 percent. The letter, published by the Berliner Tagesspiegel, states, “Anchor centres are not suitable places for children and adolescents.”
Even for adults, a decent life in the camps is impossible, especially because they are not allowed to work and are condemned to doing nothing for months. Shopping malls and public places are often miles away. Conversely, access to the camp is severely restricted for friends, volunteers, medical professionals and private legal advisers.
“We all suffer under the circumstances,” reported Jennifer, a spokeswoman for the women in Bamberg centre, to the student radio “Uni-Vox.” Four families shared an apartment with a toilet and a kitchen. There was no privacy and the guards treated people like garbage, she said. One yelled at her boyfriend, “You are slaves, and that’s how we treat you.”
The worst thing, according to Jennifer, is being locked up with nothing to do. “The government is depriving us of identity cards so that we cannot move freely, and we are not allowed to work.” People were deported in the middle of the night.
The camp system seeks to establish “accelerated asylum procedures.” All state authorities are represented locally, from the judiciary and BAMF to the youth and employment office, to the health authority. Inmates, however, are denied basic rights.
The camp system is not limited to Germany. Seehofer’s master plan includes not only the Anchor Centres Pilot Project but also the development of a “hotspot standard model” for the European Union and North Africa. Some “hotspots” already exist—in Libya, in the southern Sahara and on the border between Eritrea and Sudan. Brutal dictators and civil war militias, who are notorious for their human rights violations, take on the task of holding refugees, with financial support from Germany and the EU.
This gigantic camp project is directed against the entire working class. It creates a precedent. First, tens of thousands of refugees who have done nothing wrong are crammed into camps. Who is next? Protesters, striking workers, rebellious youth, opponents of the government?
If a nationwide, potentially sealed-off camp system is created, in which perfectly innocent people are “concentrated,” this is aimed at all class-conscious workers in the long-term. The Anchor Centres Pilot Project is also the reaction by those in power to the mass demonstrations against the neo-fascist AfD and against anti-refugee agitation, poverty and war.

Pentagon report targets China’s “expanding global influence”

Peter Symonds

The Pentagon’s annual report on China’s military and security released last Thursday underscores the intense drive by the United States to contain and undermine the country that it regards as the major threat to its global domination. While the report focuses on China’s growing military capabilities and international reach, its build-up, which is dwarfed by the US military and its world-wide system of alliances and bases, is in response to Washington’s menacing stance.
The US attitude was summed up in January in its National Defence Strategy, which declared that “inter-state strategic competition,” not the “war on terror” is “now the primary concern.” It prioritised “preparedness for war” against the “revisionist powers” China and Russia. The targeting of China began under the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” involving a massive expansion of the US military in the Indo-Pacific aimed at encircling and preparing for war against China.
Trump has increasingly targeted China as the chief threat to US interests both economically and militarily. Embroiled in allegations about “Russian influence” in the US elections, Trump lashed out with a tweet last weekend, declaring: “All of the fools that are so focussed on looking only at Russia should start also looking in another direction, China.” The political infighting in US ruling circles involves bitter divisions over which rival to confront first—Russia or China.
The Pentagon report reflects the preoccupations and calculations of the US intelligence and military establishment about China’s rising economic and military capabilities. While the international media has dwelled largely on a small aspect—drills involving long-range Chinese nuclear bombers—the report’s overriding focus is on China’s ongoing restructuring of its land-based army to modern, integrated air, land, naval and missile forces able to counter threats, not only near China, but in Asia and internationally.
The report pays significant attention to China’s “expanding global influence,” including its strategic and military relations, as part of President Xi Jinping’s “dream of national rejuvenation.” It identifies China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), formerly known as “One Belt, One Road”—a huge infrastructure program aimed at linking the Eurasia in particular by land and sea—as a top concern.
The Pentagon states that Beijing will exploit BRI projects to align the interests of recipient countries with China as well to “deter confrontation or criticism of China’s approach to sensitive issues.” It also declares that some BRI investments “could create military advantages for China,” including by allowing the pre-positioning of supplies necessary to sustain naval deployments in distant waters.
China’s development of a blue-water navy and the consolidation of safe maritime corridors is hardly surprising given its heavy dependence on the importation of energy and raw materials. Even the Pentagon notes that “the growth of China’s global economic footprint makes its interests increasingly vulnerable to international and regional turmoil.” Beijing is also well aware that US war plans include the use of naval power to cut off vital supplies, blockade China and thus strangle it economically.
The report highlights the opening of China’s first overseas military base last year in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, adjacent to key shipping routes and that it may seek additional bases elsewhere. It points to the expansion of China’s joint military exercises, including with Russia, Pakistan, Vietnam and various other mainly Asian countries and the growth of its arms exports. None of this remotely compares to the global activities of the US military—not least of which is its involvement of a succession of illegal wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
The Pentagon reviews key flashpoints in the region, including North Korea, Taiwan and territorial disputes involving China in the South China and East China Seas as well as the border area with India, where a dangerous standoff between Chinese and Indian troops continued for months. Washington, under Obama and now Trump, has deliberately stoked tensions by encouraging allies and partners such as Japan and India to take a more aggressive stance towards Beijing’s claims.
The report also emphasises China’s developments in the area of military technology, paralleling the accusations made by the Trump administration that China is “stealing” technological secrets from the United States. “To support this [military] modernisation,” it claims, “China uses a variety of methods to acquire foreign military and dual-use technologies, including targeted foreign direct investment, cyber theft and exploitation of private Chinese nationals’ access to these technologies.”
The Trump administration is exploiting these allegations to justify an escalating barrage of trade war measures against China, not only over its trade surpluses with the US but its “Made in China 2025” program to accelerate Chinese advances in key areas of technology. Earlier this month, Trump signed this year’s massive $716 billion defence bill containing several clauses directed against China, including controls on government contracts with the Chinese companies ZTE and Huawei.
The Chinese foreign ministry declared that it was “strongly dissatisfied” with Trump’s signing of the defence bill, which also provocatively includes a call for the US to “strengthen defence and security cooperation with Taiwan”—regarded by Beijing as part of China. The US, it said, should “abandon its cold war mindset and zero-sum philosophy” and warned that the bill could damage Sino-US relations if its negative aspects were implemented.
Likewise, China criticised the Pentagon report released last week declaring that its claims about China’s military reform, weapons development and defence capabilities were “pure guesswork.” The defence ministry called on the US to view China’s military “objectively and rationally” and take “actual steps to promote and protect the stable development of military-to-military relations.”
In fact, relations are becoming increasingly unstable as the US seeks to use its military might around the world to shore up its global dominance. Having launched into one disastrous war after another over the past 25 years, the US is now preparing for a conflict with China under conditions in which its military superiority is being eroded. The danger is that Pentagon planners are drawing the conclusion that a confrontation with China should take place sooner rather than later.

Studies: US life expectancy drops as mortality rises among younger adults

Kate Randall 

While most high-income countries experienced a drop in life expectancy in 2015 for the first time in decades, only the United States and the United Kingdom saw that disturbing trend continue into 2016.
The recent declines in American life expectancy are due in part, but not exclusively, to drug overdoses, suicides and alcoholism. Deaths among middle-aged Americans over the past decade and a half were also attributed to heart, lung and other organ diseases, as well as to mental and behavioral disorders.
These were the findings of two studies published last week in the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal). The continuing decline in US life expectancy—and the increase in mortality among younger adults and across all ethnic groups—points to systemic social causes driving this crisis.
The first study, by sociologists Jessica Ho of the University of Southern California and Arun Hendi of Princeton University, examined trends in life expectancy across 18 so-called high-income countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the US and the UK.
The study focused on 2014 to 2016, because previous research has shown life expectancy dropping significantly between those years. Ho and Hendi found that 14 of the countries experienced declines in life expectancy for both men and women from 2014 to 2015. Only Australia, Japan, Denmark and Norway did not.
Source: BMJ
The decline in life-expectancy was generally attributable to an unusually severe influenza season in 2014–2015. Leading causes of non-US deaths in this period included influenza and pneumonia, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease, as well as mental and nervous system disorders. Most of these deaths occurred in the over-65 population.
But while many of the countries saw a rebound in life expectancy in 2016, the US and the UK saw declines for two consecutive years. While the opioid epidemic—along with alcohol-related liver disease and suicides—were seen as key contributors to these declines in the US, mortality rates increased across a broad spectrum of diseases involving multiple body systems. Injuries involving motor vehicles were also key contributors.
While the study was not designed to determine the reasons for the decline in life expectancy in the US and UK, the authors speculate that increasing social and economic inequality and declining access to quality health care among some groups in the population may be strong contributing factors. Ho and Hendi write, “It is possible that greater inequality within a country renders that country more vulnerable to declines in life expectancy.”
While other high-income countries are also experiencing income inequality, it has been growing at a far more rapid pace in the US. The authors add that this burgeoning inequality may explain why the US “has the lowest life expectancy among high income developed countries, and Americans fare poorly across a broad set of ages, health conditions, and causes of death compared with their counterparts in these countries.”
The second BMJ study was led by Dr. Steven Woolf, a social epidemiologist at Virginia Commonwealth University. This study examined death rates among Americans aged 25 to 64 across racial and ethnic groups between 1999 and 2016.
Previous research has shown “deaths of despair”—from overdoses, alcoholism and suicides—were the main drivers over the past decade and a half of an increase in mortality among middle-aged Americans. However, Woolf’s research also found a significant increase in deaths of heart, lung and other organ diseases, as well as from mental and behavioral disorders. Woolf said in a statement released by the BMJ: “The opioid epidemic is the tip of an iceberg.”
The researchers found that between 1999 and 2016, midlife all-cause mortality in the US increased by a statistically significant 5.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites. All-cause mortality rates showed a decline during the first half of this time period: declining until 2009 among Non-Hispanic American Indians and Pacific Islanders; until 2010 among non-Hispanic blacks, until 2011 among Hispanics, and until 2012 among non-Hispanic whites.
These mortality rates then began to plateau or increase among all groups. The progress made in reducing midlife mortality from heart disease, cancer, HIV and other diseases was offset by statistically significant increases in deaths from external causes: drug overdoses, alcohol poisoning, suicides and a variety of organ diseases.
Woolf’s team notes: “The unfavorable mortality pattern that began for some groups in the 1990s is now unfolding among Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks, a development made more consequential” by the fact that Hispanics and blacks have had higher death rates to begin with.
The researchers also found that the gender gap is narrowing. While middle-aged men still have higher overall death rates than middle-aged women, the relative increase from fatal drug overdoses and suicides was higher among women.
Research on life expectancy has focused recently on white mortality in depressed rural areas. However, the BMJ study documents that non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics experienced the largest proportional increases in drug overdose deaths in suburban fringe areas, while the largest increases for non-Hispanic blacks occurred in small cities. American Indians and Alaska natives living in metropolitan areas experienced a larger relative increase in suicides than those in rural areas.
The researchers warn that the increasing death rate among middle-aged Americans “signals a systemic cause and warrants prompt action by policy makers to tackle the factors responsible for declining health in the US.” The authors of the first BMJ study correctly note that “it is possible that greater inequality within a country renders that country more vulnerable to declines in life expectancy.”
They suggest that solutions to the drug overdose epidemic could include better prescription drug monitoring programs, expanding access to substance misuse treatments, establishing supervised injection centers and needle-exchange programs, and increasing the availability of naloxone to counter overdoses.
The researchers also say corrective social policies should address “the underlying social and economic conditions that may underpin drug use.” It is precisely these underlying conditions that have worsened under successive US administrations and through a bipartisan assault on social programs upon which millions of workers and their families depend.
Cash welfare assistance was all but eliminated under Bill Clinton. Cuts to food stamps, intensified under the Obama administration, have continued under Donald Trump. The current president, while declaring the opioid epidemic a “public health emergency,” has allocated no new funding to the states to address the crisis.
It is notable that the first BMJ study found that between 2010 and 2016 life expectancy in the US stagnated and decreased, while other high-income countries saw modest but steady increases. In the wake of the Great Recession, the working class continued to see its living conditions worsen while the two big business parties bailed out the banks and the super-rich continued to pad their bank accounts at the expense of the vast majority.
While new declining US life expectancy rates should sound the alarm bells, no such response has been elicited from the White House or Congress. They remained similarly silent at the recent release of a CDC report that estimated 72,000 people died from drug overdoses in 2017 in the US.
Life expectancy is one of the most important measures of the social health of society. An increase in mortality rates—unheard of in modern times except from disease epidemics or world war—is a warning to the working class that it must develop a socialist response to this health emergency.
The hundreds of billions of dollars allocated to the US military for its myriad wars must be diverted to fund rehabilitation centers, mental health centers, and hospitals and clinics utilizing the latest scientific methods and treatments. The wealth of the pharmaceutical corporations, giant hospital chains and private insurance companies should be expropriated and placed under workers’ control. A socialized health care system must be established that provides free health care of the highest quality for all.

Prime minister barely survives leadership challenge in Australia

Mike Head & James Cogan 

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull barely survived a Liberal Party leadership ballot against Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton this morning, holding on by 48 votes to 35. Dutton immediately resigned as a cabinet minister, and others may follow, forcing Turnbull to reshuffle his ministry and further weakening his position.
The size of the vote for Dutton, a more openly right-wing, anti-immigrant and protectionist figure from the party’s “conservative” faction, indicates that the move against Turnbull is far from over. With Dutton now free to attack government policy publicly, media commentators are predicting either another leadership challenge in the weeks or months ahead or Turnbull’s resignation as prime minister.
The immediate trigger for the move against Turnbull was a rebellion, within both the Liberal and National parties that make up the Coalition government, against one of his signature policies, the so-called National Energy Guarantee (NEG).
After two earlier abrupt reversals on central features of the NEG, Turnbull yesterday abandoned plans to legislate his policy, admitting that he would be defeated on the floor of parliament by backbench members of his own government.
Under conditions in which the Coalition only holds office by a one-seat majority, such an outcome would have been tantamount to an open split and would have led to strident calls for an election—which must be held in any case no later than May 2019.
Further undermining Turnbull’s position, it was also confirmed last night that his other core policy—a multi-billion dollar corporate tax cut for big business to try to match US tax cuts—is headed for certain defeat. He has failed to win support from various right-wing minor parties that control the necessary votes in the Senate, because the cuts are viewed with immense popular hostility. The Coalition’s advocacy of the policy contributed to a significant vote swing against Liberal candidates in recent by-elections in vacant lower house parliamentary seats.
With an election looming, immediate electoral calculations have played a part in the rebellion against Turnbull. Consistent opinion polling has underscored that the Coalition is headed towards a devastating defeat.
The faction that backed Dutton, which includes former prime minister Tony Abbott, want to shift the Coalition even more explicitly into trying to win re-election with a campaign modeled on Trump-style nationalist demagogy, crass populism and anti-immigrant xenophobia. The NEG was denounced by this layer because Turnbull sought to include a commitment to the international Paris accord limiting carbon emissions.
Confronted by opposition from coal industry-supporting members of the Coalition, led by Abbott, Turnbull dropped plans to legislate a reduction target of 26 percent by 2030. Two days earlier, he infuriated the sections of big business that backed the NEG by seeking to appease public anger over soaring electricity prices.
The reset means Turnbull’s energy policy will feature rules to cap default electricity prices for customers and potentially penalise breaches by the country’s major energy suppliers—AGL, EnergyAustralia and Origin—which have just announced record profits on the back of sky-rocketing prices. The latest twist would also leave the door open to subsidising new coal-fired electricity plants, cutting across corporate demands for a more certain investment regime that includes the promotion of renewable energy.
Turnbull now appears likely to become the fourth prime minister to be ousted by their own party in just eight years. He is considered a lame duck by a large faction of his government and does not have the confidence of key sections of the corporate establishment.
No elected prime minister has lasted a full parliamentary term since Labor leader Kevin Rudd was removed in an overnight political coup on June 23-24, 2010.
The constant factor in the ongoing eruption of turmoil in official Australian politics has been political tensions arising from ever more volatile international geo-strategic and economic conflicts since the 2008 global financial crisis. Rudd was ousted with the backing of the American embassy because he was hesitant to fully align with a confrontational US stance towards China—Australia’s largest trading partner and export market.
The turn by the United States under the Trump administration to open trade war against China has only raised the dilemma of foreign policy alignment to a new pitch of intensity.
Australian, which is economically dependent on international borrowings and Chinese markets, is one of the most vulnerable countries to the slump in world trade and a potential second financial crisis that Trump’s agenda could trigger. Its currency is falling and pressure is growing for both deeper cutbacks to government spending and increases in interest rates
The entire ruling elite is acutely aware, and terrified, that an economic downturn will fuel to breaking point the immense political anger and disaffection over housing costs, falling wages, and the crisis-stricken state of public health and education and other services. Internationally, 2018 has seen a sharp upsurge in strikes and other manifestations of working class struggle against the failure of the capitalist system. Australia is no less on the verge of a social explosion.
Ten days ago, Turnbull gave a speech that pointed to the nervousness wracking his government and the Australian capitalist class over the Trump administration’s “America First” drive into trade war and towards war against China. After two years of closely continuing the militarist alignment with the US, Turnbull attempted to re-stress ties with China, speaking of “a very deep relationship, one of great opportunity and potential and it gets deeper and stronger all the time.”
Turnbull’s remarks would have been noted in Washington and the Australian military-intelligence apparatus, where he has always been viewed with a degree of suspicion because of his past public criticisms of confrontation with China.
Under conditions in which class tensions are growing in Australia, and US-led strategic conflicts are growing with China, the fact that Peter Dutton was selected to try and oust Turnbull is highly significant.
A former police officer, Dutton exudes autocratic tendencies. Turnbull last year elevated him to a new Home Affairs “super-ministry,” placing him in charge of many of the powers exercised by the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Border Force and the immigration department.
Over the past year, Dutton has presided over major cuts to the migration intake and accused “African” immigrant “youth gangs” of terrorising the population of Melbourne. He has insisted on maintaining the most severe policy towards asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia and has coldly defended the brutal detention of refugees in concentration camps on remote Pacific islands.
With figures like Dutton playing a key role, the Turnbull government has gone further than any of its predecessors in introducing police-state style measures to combat the anticipated working class opposition to social inequality and Australia’s front-line role in any US confrontation against China.
Laws introduced in the name of fighting “terrorism”, and the sweeping xenophobic legislation passed in July against purported Chinese and other “foreign interference,” have created unprecedented powers to outlaw many forms of political dissent, particularly anti-war opposition.
The Coalition, one of the major two parties of the parliamentary system, is rent by intractable factional conflicts and could disintegrate over the coming months. The choice of Dutton is a further warning that sections of the ruling class are prepared to throw their weight behind stepped-up efforts to cultivate an extreme right-wing movement against the working class, as part of open moves towards authoritarian rule.
At the same time, the Labor Party is offering its services to the financial and corporate elite to retake government and continue the big business and militarist agenda that it imposed when last in office between 2007 and 2013.
While making pseudo-populist appeals to social concerns, Labor is above all preparing for the upcoming election by pledging to the financial markets that it will implement the necessary measures to slash government spending and vowing its commitment to the US-Australia military alliance.

As Greece exits bailout, EU demands further austerity

Robert Stevens

At midnight Monday, Greece formally exited eight years of European Union/International Monetary Fund (IMF) austerity programmes.
Since 2010, four Greek governments have overseen three savage austerity programmes in return for receiving loans ostensibly to pay off Greece’s national debt, which stood at €330.57 billion in 2010. Not a single cent of the €289 billion spent in bank bailouts has gone towards reducing Greece’s debt, however. Nearly a decade later, Greece’s debt has increased to almost €350 billion—over 180 percent of Greece’s GDP. The loans went to pay off Greece’s creditors, particularly banks in Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
Predictably, European Union (EU) officials tried to present the occasion as a promise of better days to come thanks to the generosity of the EU. European Council President Donald Tusk tweeted: “You did it! Congratulations Greece and its people on ending the programme of financial assistance. With huge efforts and European solidarity you seized the day.”
Pierre Moscovici, EU commissioner for economic and financial affairs, said, “Greece can finally turn the page in a crisis that has lasted too long. The worst is over.”
The plain truth is that the banks are calculating that Greece will still be paying off these hundreds of billions of euros in debts 42 years from now, in 2060. The exit from the bailout programme only signifies that the EU expects that the Greek government will be able to borrow money from private lenders to finance its debts, as opposed to relying on the EU. In effect, it is a vote of confidence from the financial markets that the Syriza (“Coalition of the Radical Left”) government can be relied on to loot Greek workers to pay off the banks.
Any improvement in the conditions of workers in Greece will depend, now as before the bailout, on mobilizing the working class against the EU and the reactionary pseudo-left Syriza government.
Syriza Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is slated to give a speech today promoting the EU bailout exit. Significantly, he did not make any public statement yesterday on the exit or attempt to present it as a step forward for Greece.
Greece’s central bank governor, Yannis Stournaras, told Kathimerini, the way forward was to continue EU austerity as far as the eye can see. “Greece still has a long way to go,” he said, warning that if there was any retreat “on what we have agreed, now or in the future, the markets will abandon us and we will not be able to refinance maturing loans on sustainable-debt terms.”
Some figures give an indication of the brutal conditions imposed in Greece:
  •  Since 2010, €72 billion in austerity measures have been enforced against a small population of only around 11 million people—the equivalent of about 40 percent of Greece’s entire annual economic output. Greece’s real GDP has fallen by 25 percent and is almost €64 billion lower than before the onset of mass austerity.
• Household incomes declined by over 30 percent, with more than 20 percent of people unable to afford basic expenses such as rent, electricity and bank loans.
• Today, the average Greek worker receives 23 percent less in wages than they did eight years ago. One in three of those with jobs is in part time employment, with Greece’s minimum wage reduced by 22 percent—from an already paltry €751 to €586 and by 32 percent to €511 for workers below the age of 25.
• Pensions were slashed by up to 50 percent and thousands of workers sacked as state spending and provision were decimated.
• Public sector spending has been reduced by 26 percent, with the public health budget reduced by 50 percent, public education spending cut by nearly 36 percent and welfare spending cut by 70 percent.
• More than a third of the population are officially at risk of poverty or social exclusion. By 2012, an estimated 400,000 Greeks were visiting a soup kitchen daily.
• From September 2009 to July 2013, nearly 1.1 million jobs were lost. Today, 740,000 Greeks remain out of work since the crisis began. Twenty-five percent of public sector workers were sacked. One third of families have at least one unemployed member. Nearly seven out of 10 unemployed people have been unemployed for more than one year and a quarter of a million people are classed as “underemployed” and cannot find regular full-time employment. Some 122,000 workers are classed as “discouraged” and have given up looking for jobs. Most new jobs are in part-time employment on poverty level pay. Nearly 360,000 jobs part-time jobs exist today, up 100,000 since the beginning of the crisis.
• Around 500,000 young people have fled the country under conditions in which official unemployment still over hovers at around 20 percent, the highest rate in the eurozone, and is double that for youth.
Klaus Regling, the managing director of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to which Greece owes much of its debt, pledged to continue closely overseeing austerity in the country: “The ESM member states and the ESM as an institution take living up to commitments very seriously. We are a very patient creditor. But we do want to be repaid. So we will follow the developments in Greece very closely.”
That is, EU inspectors will continue regular visits to the Tsipras government to impose austerity policies and ensure that Greece extracts massive budget surpluses from the population for decades to come.
While Syriza is hated by Greek workers, for the global financial aristocracy, the Tsipras government is an unparalleled success story. It has carried out tens of billions of euros in additional cuts that even previous right-wing governments were unable to implement.
Three years have passed since Syriza came to office in January 2015 with mass support because they had pledged to end EU austerity. Syriza trampled these electoral promises underfoot. Ever since July 2015, they have been planning and imposing EU austerity. Last month, the Syriza-led government signed off on a further round of social cuts in exchange for a loan tranche of around €15 billion that will barely cover Greece’s debt obligations for the next two years.
As well as carrying out new pension cuts, with some pensions facing additional cuts of €314 a month from next year, this monstrous party of the ruling elite mapped out a massive bonanza for the richest in society. These include a €700 million tax cuts package for businesses, while the tax rate on profits will be reduced from 29 percent to 26 percent. The reduction in the highest income tax bracket for individual taxpayers will result in a €877 million tax break for 2020, and €997 million in tax breaks for 2021 and 2022.
Syriza has carried out the diktat of the super-rich so thoroughly that discussions are now being held in ruling circles on how to keep them in power at all costs, despite their rapid collapse in the polls.
The Greek daily To Vima reported last Friday the comments of New Democracy European Parliament member Giorgos Kyrtsos who said EU officials who are influential on matters concerning Greece are examining a post-memorandum collaboration of the two largest parties. The paper reported, “Kyrtsos said that a question repeatedly raised by his colleagues in Brussels is, ‘How can there be collaboration between New Democracy and SYRIZA?’”
He revealed, “One of the scenarios that our European partners are examining as a solution to many problems regarding the Greek programme is a ruling coalition.”