Algerian army purges intelligence agencies as anti-regime protests grow

Alex Lantier

After seven weeks of mass protests demanding the fall of the Algerian military dictatorship and the army’s announcement last week of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s resignation, the gulf separating the officer corps from millions of protesting workers and youth is coming to the fore.

Large sections of the Algerian population have correctly concluded that Bouteflika’s resignation by itself is not the victory they were hoping to obtain. It is plainly obvious that Bouteflika, who was confined to a wheelchair and could not speak since suffering a stroke in 2013, was no longer leading the dictatorship. Now, there are growing demands for the ouster of officials who are to oversee the transition while a new president is elected, including speaker of the house Abdelkader Bensalah, and growing opposition to army chief General Ahmed Gaïd Salah.

After last Friday’s protests—where workers chanted slogans like “Gaïd Salah, the people are not fooled” and “No repeat of the Egyptian scenario,” referring to the 2013 military coup that crushed a wave of revolutionary struggles in Egypt that toppled Hosni Mubarak in 2011—the National Liberation Front (FLN) regime and the army are preparing the ouster of other top officials.

On Sunday, the pro-regime daily El Moudjahid carried an article and an editorial that raised the possibility of removing Bensalah. “Bensalah must go,” constitutional law specialists were quoted as saying in the paper according to RFI, while the daily’s editorial, titled “Nothing is impossible,” said that a presidential transition without Bensalah is “neither unreasonable nor impossible to do.”

The most prominent target within the upper ranks of the regime was intelligence chief Major General Athmane Tartag, the director of Algerian domestic intelligence. After rumors that Tartag had been removed on April 5, on April 7 it was announced that Gaïd Salah would replace him as head of the powerful Directorate of the Security Services (DRS) agency.

This was followed by Gaïd Salah’s firing of Major General Boura Rezigue Abdelkader, who led the Directorate of internal Security (DSI), and General Abdelhamid Bendaoud, who led the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE). Gaïd Salah is concentrating power in his own hands, reorganizing the chain of command so that the DGSE and DSI now report directly to the general staff of the army.

Through the purge of the intelligence services, the army is above all trying to limit popular opposition to the regime and prevent the regime’s crimes during the 1992-2002 Algerian civil war from becoming a focal point for working-class opposition to the army. There is already speculation in the Algerian press that Tartag’s dismissal could lead to his facing charges related to his bloody record during the civil war.

Last week, relatives of prisoners disappeared during the civil war held a rally outside the main post office in Algiers, holding up pictures of their loved ones and demanding full investigations. Mondafrique commented, “President Bouteflika always refused to open investigations on these ‘disappearances;’ This protest certainly did not escape the attention of Ahmed Gaïd Salah, the head of the general staff, who is trying to ride the waves of anger and popular demands in order to lead the transition.”

Relatives of the disappeared have denounced Tartag as “the monster of Ben Aknoun,” one of the main centers where prisoners suspected of Islamist or other oppositional politics were taken, tortured and often shot. He directed the Ben Aknoun facility, formally known as the Principal Military Investigation Center (CPMI) from 1990 to 2001. He is suspected of personal involvement in the murder of FLN veteran Kasdi Merbah, who was killed in 1993 as he tried to negotiate a truce with Islamist forces. Tartag’s name has also come up as one of French intelligence’s main contacts in Algeria.

As workers and youth move into struggle against the Algerian regime, the critical question raised by the history of the Algerian military dictatorship in the civil war is the need for the independent political organization and the revolutionary mobilization of the working class.

No confidence can be given to Gaïd Salah or to the Algerian officer corps to lead a “democratic transition.” They serve a regime that has for decades plundered Algeria’s oil and gas wealth, which they sent overseas to bank accounts in France and beyond, while workers were left in poverty and unemployment and repressed by a bloody military regime. The generals are terrified of what they would have to answer for if trials could be freely held and will do all in their power to maintain a dictatorship in Algeria.

The 1992-2002 Algerian Civil War emerged from the last failed attempt to democratize the Algerian military regime, the 1988 reforms and transition to multiparty democracy. The regime suspended the Islamic Salvation Front’s (FIS) 1991 electoral victory, plunging Algeria into a 10-year civil war costing 200,000 lives. While the army’s ostensible targets were Islamist terrorist groups, it also infiltrated the Islamist organizations to carry out attacks and murdered a range of workers and political figures to suppress opposition to the FLN’s right-wing economic and social policies.

A 2005 report issued by the Movement of Free Algerian Officers (MOAL) and Algeria Watch, titled “Algeria: the Death Machine,” gives a detailed and gruesome picture of this bloody military repression and, in particular, of the operations Tartag oversaw at Ben Aknoun.

It writes, “As early as spring 1992, Tartag received orders from his chief, General Kamel Abderrahmane, to not hand over ‘unredeemable fundamentalists’ to the courts: this was clearly a license to kill. But before that, they were systematically tortured. There followed punitive expeditions in 1993-1994 that claimed between 10 and 40 victims per day. All-out death squads were trained in this center, that were tasked with pursuing Islamists, liquidating them, and terrorizing the population.”

Another important part of Tartag’s operations, according to this report, was killing top officers suspected of opposition to the FLN and the army. It describes how Tartag and his assistant, “Lieutenant Mohammed,” tortured Navy Commander Mohammed Abbassa, who was electrocuted, beaten, stabbed and burned. Finally, it reports, “On the evening of the second day, it was a barely recognizable body, swollen and burned even on the eyes that passed away, murmuring a few barely audible words. The corpse was denied the right to a decent burial.”

Attempts to present the Algerian military dictatorship as a democracy waiting to flourish, through the intervention of Gaïd Salah or perhaps of the FLN’s state-controlled General Union of Algerian Labor (UGTA), are reactionary political frauds.

The only way to establish a democratic regime in Algeria is through a struggle led by the working class to take power, expropriating the regime’s ill-gotten wealth in the context of a broad international struggle of the working class against capitalism and for the building of socialism.

US labels Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group

Barry Grey

In an unprecedented move, the Trump administration on Monday took the US closer to military conflict with Iran by designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization.

It marked the first time ever that the US government has officially listed a foreign state entity as a terror group. The move, which came after months of internal debate and over the objections of top Pentagon and CIA officials, sets a precedent that, opponents within the state fear, could rebound against US forces around the world.

President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other officials placed the step within the context of the administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, which was launched last year with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear accord and re-impose harsh economic sanctions.

In their statements announcing the move, Trump and Pompeo made a point of threatening other foreign countries, officials and businesses with retaliatory sanctions and possible criminal prosecution for engaging in financial transactions or other contact with entities linked to the IRGC. Since the powerful paramilitary organization exerts strong influence over critical sectors of the Iranian economy, including construction, auto, telecommunications and energy, this is tantamount to a demand for ending business relations with Iran.

In announcing the action Monday morning, Trump said, “The IRGC is the Iranian government’s primary means of directing and implementing its global terrorist campaign.” He then declared that the terrorist designation, which takes effect on April 15, “makes crystal clear the risks of conducting business with, or providing support to, the IRGC.”

In his statement, Pompeo called Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terror” and said: “Businesses and banks around the world now have a clear duty to insure that companies with which they conduct financial transactions are not connected to the IRGC in any material way.”

Brian Hook, the State Department’s principal adviser on Iran, who claimed that the IRGC controls 50 percent of Iran’s economy, said, “[W]e’re adding an additional layer of sanctions on the IRGC to make radioactive those sectors of Iran’s economy that are influenced or controlled by the IRGC.”

This economic blackmail is directed in the first instance against Russia and China, which have extensive economic relations with Iran, but also against Europe. The European powers continue to support the nuclear accord, which they had hoped would provide an opening to gain control of Iran’s energy resources and develop new markets for their exports.

The US previously imposed heavy sanctions on the IRGC as a supporter of terrorism, but with this designation it declares the military force itself to be a terrorist organization. Any material support for it carries a potential punishment of up to 20 years in prison.

Iran issued an angry response. The state news agency IRNA reported that the Supreme National Security Council of Iran had designated “the government of the United States as a supporter of terrorism and the Central Command, also known as Centcom, and all of its affiliated forces as terrorist groups.”

The Syrian Foreign Ministry joined in condemning the decision, declaring: “Syria strongly condemns the US decision on the IRGC, which is a flagrant violation of Iran’s sovereignty. The irresponsible step of the US administration was taken in the framework of the US unspoken war against Iran…”

The announcement by the Trump administration was timed to provide a lift to the reelection campaign of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the eve of Tuesday’s poll. It follows last month’s announcement of support for Israeli annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Netanyahu, in a tight race with former Army Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, has lurched ever further to the right in an effort to whip up anti-Iranian and anti-Palestinian hysteria. Last week he declared that if reelected, he would begin annexing the West Bank. In a tweet on Monday, he thanked Trump for the action against Iran and stressed that it had come at his own request: “Thank you for responding to another one of my important requests, that serves our interests and the interests of regional countries.”

Among those governments opposing the move is the Iraqi regime, which maintains close relations with the IRGC and its foreign fighting arm, the Quds Force. It is unclear what impact the decision will have on Baghdad’s relations with pro-regime Shiite militias that work with the IRGC. Iraq has also been seeking to import electricity from Iran to bolster its power system, which remains crippled by the impact of US sanctions, invasion and occupation. The IRGC is said to largely control Iran’s energy industry.

Within the administration, the move was pushed by Pompeo and White House National Security Adviser John Bolton. It was reportedly opposed by the military Joint Chiefs of Staff and top intelligence officials who have warned of the consequences for the 5,200 US troops stationed in Iraq, the 2,000 who remain in Syria, the US 5th Fleet, which operates in the Persian Gulf from Bahrain, the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and the many hundreds of Special Operations forces and CIA paramilitary elements who operate clandestinely in the region.

While former Obama administration national security officials have denounced the move, there has been general silence from congressional Democrats. In the past, Democrats have pushed aggressively to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. In 2007, when the Bush administration imposed sanctions on the Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism, then-senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto a bill urging Bush to extend the terrorist designation to its parent organization, the IRGC.

Trita Parsi, the founder of the National Iranian American Council and a supporter of the Iran nuclear accord, warned of the international implications of Trump’s decision, writing: “This move closes yet another potential door for peacefully resolving tensions with Iran. Once all doors are closed, and diplomacy is rendered impossible, war will essentially become inevitable.”

Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post’s correspondent in Iran from 2012 to 2016, wrote of the domestic considerations behind Trump’s escalation against Iran in a Post column Monday: “The signs of a coordinated push to prepare the public for an unnecessary military confrontation with Iran are growing. As the 2020 election campaign starts to heat up, we should all brace ourselves for a carefully orchestrated administration threat of war with Iran. This is the first installment.”

In fact, the American public is overwhelmingly opposed to war with Iran or any other country. But the broad anti-war sentiment can find no expression within a political establishment controlled by the corporate elite and monopolized by two pro-war imperialist parties.

The Trump administration’s reckless assault on Iran must be seen within the broader context of the national security and defense strategies announced at the end of 2017 and beginning of 2018, in which the military/intelligence apparatus declared that the axis of US foreign policy was no longer the “war on terror,” but rather the struggle against “revisionist” countries (China and Russia) and “great power” competition.

Washington’s campaign against Iran has the potential for rapidly implicating nuclear-armed Russia or China, or both. It is, moreover, part of a broader struggle for global hegemony that leads inexorably, if not prevented by the international working class, to nuclear world war.

Libya on the brink of all-out civil war

Bill Van Auken

As troops and tanks of the so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) of “Field Marshal” Khalifa Haftar advance on the capital of Tripoli, the internal conflicts that have been ripping the North African country apart are dramatically intensifying.

Advancing from its base in the east, the LNA has captured the abandoned international airport south of the capital. On Monday, it carried out bombing raids against the country’s sole functioning airport in Tripoli’s eastern suburbs.

The Pentagon responded on Sunday to the threatened siege of the city of 1.2 million people by withdrawing its military personnel by sea. The chief of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM), Marine Corps Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, said that the “security realities on the ground in Libya are growing increasingly complex and unpredictable.” He added that the US military command in Africa would “continue to remain agile in support of existing US strategy.”

Whether the withdrawal signals US acquiescence to Haftar's offensive or the preparations for American airstrikes against his forces remains to be seen.

Haftar, a former general in the Libyan army, turned against the government of Muammar Gaddafi in the late 1980s after becoming a prisoner of war during a conflict with neighboring Chad. He was quickly picked up by the US Central Intelligence Agency and remained a CIA “asset” for decades, taking up residence near the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia and becoming a US citizen.

Sent back to Libya in advance of the 2011 regime-change operation mounted by Washington, Paris and London, he was overshadowed by the Islamist Al Qaeda-linked forces that served as ground troops for the US-NATO air war, which ended up claiming the lives of as many as 50,000 Libyan civilians.

Unable to find a path to power, Haftar went back to the US, returning to Libya to mount a bloody campaign in 2014 to seize control of the eastern city of Benghazi from Islamist militias. He formed a military force comprised of various militias, which became the backbone of a regime based in the eastern city of Tobruk. His government has rivaled the US- and UN-recognized Government of National Accord in Tripoli, chaired by wealthy businessman Fayez al-Sarraj. A third rival for state power is the Islamist-dominated General National Congress, which proclaimed itself a Salvation Government and rejected Sarraj’s authority.

Before his advance on Tripoli, Haftarmanaged to establish control in the summer of 2018 over oil facilities in central Libya, and, earlier this year, over a swathe of southern Libya that includes one of the country’s major oil fields.

Casualties in the latest fighting reportedly include nearly 50 dead and over 80 wounded, while thousands of civilians have been forced to flee their homes. If Haftar's forces enter the city, there is danger of a bloodbath and massive destruction, as disparate militia groups have vowed to resist Tripoli’s takeover.

Humanitarian aid groups have warned of the threat to civilian lives and called particular attention to the fate of thousands of refugees being held against their will under appalling conditions in detention camps run by the militias that back Sarraj’s regime. The Libyan Coast Guard is lavishly funded and advised by the European imperialist powers, who utilize it in their efforts to halt the flow of refugees to Europe. It turns migrants over to the militias, which subject them to torture, rape, abuse and summary execution, while attempting to extract ransoms from their relatives.

Haftar has enjoyed open support from Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, while France has provided covert backing, including military advisers. Italy and Qatar have backed the Tripoli-based regime.

While US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement declaring that “we oppose the military offensive of Khalifa Haftar's forces and urge the immediate halt to these military operations against the Libyan capital,” Washington has established the closest alliance with the general’s principal backers in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The latter’s dictator, Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, is to receive a red-carpet welcome at the White House today.

On Friday, the United Nations Security Council, following a closed-door meeting, issued a statement to the press calling for Haftar's LNA to “halt its military activity” near Tripoli. When Britain proposed a formal resolution along these lines, however, Russia opposed it, no doubt fearing that it could become the pretext for a fresh Western intervention in Libya.

The British draft included a passage calling “for those who undermine Libya’s peace and security to be held to account.”

What hypocrisy! There was no such call when the UK joined with France and the United States to overthrow the country’s government and inflict death upon its population and destruction upon its infrastructure. No one, from Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron on down, was ever held accountable for a criminal war of aggression that turned the country into a living hell.

Launched under the pretext of a UN resolution authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya to halt the supposed (but non-existent) threat of a massacre in the eastern city of Benghazi, the war saw money and arms poured into Islamist militias and lavished on Al Qaeda operatives, who were backed by a relentless bombing campaign, which included nearly 30,000 sorties in the course of seven months.

A war launched on the pretext of protecting civilians culminated in the carpet bombing of Sirte, a bastion of popular support for Gaddafi, and the lynch-mob torture and murder of the Libyan leader, over which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughingly gloated, “We came, we saw, he died.”

In the intervening eight years, the attempts to install a pro-Western puppet regime in a devastated country controlled by clashing Islamist, tribal and other militias have failed miserably. The regime headed up by Sarraj, recognized as Libya’s “legitimate” government, barely controls even Tripoli. Under its supposed rule, the country’s education and health systems have collapsed, while inflation is ravaging living standards, the unemployment rate has reached 30 percent, and fully a third of the population lives below the poverty line. Conditions of life for masses of Libyans have deteriorated dramatically since the overthrow of Gaddafi.

In addition to the leaders of the major imperialist powers, which intervened to assert control over the largest oil reserves on the African continent, those who should be held to account include a whole layer of pseudo-left parties and spokesmen who echoed and amplified the imperialist pretexts of intervening to save lives (code-named R2P: Responsibility to Protect) and even to defend a “Libyan revolution.”

Thus, Gilbert Achcar, the academic and prominent member of the French New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA), insisted that the defense of the “Libyan revolution” was the paramount issue, and declared that “You can’t in the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians.”

Similarly, the University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, whose “left” credentials stemmed from his limited opposition to the Iraq war, declared, “To make ‘anti-imperialism’ trump all other values in a mindless way leads to frankly absurd positions.” He added, “If NATO needs me, I’m there.”

Similar arguments were advanced by, among others, the recently dissolved International Socialist Organization (ISO) in support of the even more bloody US regime change-operation in Syria.

These forces, expressing the interests of privileged layers of the middle class, are totally exposed by the reality of Libya eight years after an intervention that was supposed to protect lives and promote “revolution.”

As the World Socialist Web Site wrote at the time: “Far from a ‘revolution’ or struggle for ‘liberation,’ what the world is witnessing is the rape of Libya by a syndicate of imperialist powers determined to lay hold of its oil wealth and turn its territory into a neo-colonial base of operations for further interventions throughout the Middle East and North Africa.”

With the latest escalation of Libya’s protracted civil war—between rival forces that are all the products of CIA conspiracies and imperialist interventions—the consequences of this rape and the political criminality of those who justified and promoted it have become all the more evident.

Mohammad Bin Salman & Imran Khan: An Emerging Alliance of Convenience

Sarral Sharma & Pieter-jan Dockx


On 17 February, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad Bin Salman (MbS), began his South Asia tour with a two-day visit to Pakistan. He was accompanied by a 1000-member strong high-level delegation comprising members of the Saudi royal family, ministers, and businessmen. In Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan received the Crown Prince with a grand welcome, akin to Xi Jinping’s visit to the country in 2015. The magnitude of the visiting delegation and the grand reception given to MbS illustrate the burgeoning bilateral relations between the two countries. However, in addition to the stated shared objectives or beliefs, in the present geopolitical scenario, the current Saudi-Pakistan relationship is largely based on self-interests.

Khan’s Need for Economic InvestmentSince taking office in August 2018, Khan’s foremost challenge has been to improve Pakistan's floundering economic situation. His administration has attempted to address the issue by seeking financial assistance from friendly countries and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In this context, the MbS’s recent visit to Pakistan could be seen as a step in the right direction.

Islamabad considers Riyadh as a “brotherly” Muslim nation and an important player in the South and West Asian regions. Pakistan’s foreign policy ambitions are seemingly connected with maintaining close and stable relations with the Kingdom. It is therefore no wonder that Khan chose Saudi Arabia as the destination of his maiden foreign visit after taking office as the new civilian leader of Pakistan in 2018.

Several promises were made during MbS’s visit to Pakistan. For example, Memorandums of Understandings (MoUs) worth US$ 20 billion were signed in a wide variety of sectors including in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), renewable energy, and oil refining and mineral development among others. The proposed Saudi investment could be seen as Khan's foreign policy success. On the domestic front, the outcome(s) of the visit could help Khan deflect the attention of the public and the opposition parties from the ongoing discussion regarding the dire economic situation in Pakistan.

Under present circumstances, the announced investment seems attractive to the debt-ridden Pakistan. In October 2018, Riyadh offered to provide US$ 3 billion in foreign currency support for a year and a credit line worth up to US$ 3 billion for the import of petroleum products on deferred payment. Other Gulf states such as the United Arab Emirates followed Saudi footsteps and announced an aid package worth US$ 6 billion to help Pakistan.

In a possible attempt to avoid the strict IMF bailout guidelines—which might put the spotlight on the unrevealed CPEC investments—Pakistan has sought monetary assistance from its Arab friends and China. Additionally, Islamabad seems to be under pressure from the US as US Secretary of State Pompeo warned in 2018 that Washington will not allow IMF money be used to pay off Pakistan's Chinese loans. In view of this, Saudi Arabia’s (a close US ally) investment announcement comes as a relief for the Khan government.

Apart from apparent economic interests, both countries seek to further improve their bilateral security cooperation. In a positive development for Pakistan, former Chief of Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif was elected to head the Saudi-led Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC). Pakistan is a member of the IMCTC which was launched by the Crown Prince in 2017. The multilateral forum would help strengthen military-to-military and security cooperation between the two countries.

MbS’s Political ObjectivesWhile economic investment was Khan’s primary motivation, economics is not what led MbS to visit Pakistan. For the Saudi Crown Prince, international politics superseded economics.

Pakistan has traditionally been a central component of Riyadh’s Tehran policy. Herein, two developments are crucial. On one hand, MbS, the de facto decision-maker in Saudi Arabia, opted for an increasingly assertive policy vis-à-vis Iran. This made their relationship with Islamabad a matter of even higher priority than before. However, on the other hand, the election of Imran Khan brought to power a figure who has been critical of Saudi Arabia’s anti-Iran agenda and its influence over the previous Pakistani government. Thus, faced with the prospect of resistance in Pakistan, MbS capitalised on the country’s economic issues to assert influence over Khan’s discourse and policy regarding the Gulf rivals.

Similarly, MbS also seeks to prevent the development of closer ties between Islamabad and Doha. Since the June 2017 Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, for Riyadh, the containment of the latter has become a policy objective equal in importance to countering Tehran. With Pakistan in need of foreign assistance and Qatar eager to fill any vacuum left by Saud Arabia, it is likely that competition with Qatar has guided MbS’s current Pakistan policy.

Islamabad’s failure to support MbS’s crucial foreign policy decisions has further strengthened Riyadh’s resolve to curb Pakistan’s autonomy with regard to its rivals. In 2015, the Pakistani parliament rejected Saudi Arabia’s request to join its purported anti-Iran intervention in Yemen. In 2017, following the blockade of Qatar, Islamabad did not limit its engagement with Doha. Instead, Pakistan increased its food exports to the country, aiding Doha and obstructing Riyadh’s plans. Moreover, Qatar’s transformation from a close ally to a regional competitor also serves as a reminder for Riyadh to not let Pakistan drift away from its sphere of influence. Given how it was the civilian arm of the Pakistani state in particular that hindered Saudi plans in both instances, these institutions have been at the center of MbS’s strategy.

Meanwhile, the murder of Saudi critic, Jamal Khashoggi, which has largely been attributed to MbS, is also likely to have impacted the Crown Prince’s Pakistan policy. Since the incident in October 2018, the US Congress has been working towards restricting American support for the war in Yemen and the nuclear deal between both countries. It is precisely in these two spheres that MbS believes Pakistan could be of value. Moreover, the Khashoggi affair has also strengthened the already-growing domestic opposition against the Crown Prince. By stepping up support for a Sunni-majority country, MbS is trying to appeal to the previously-alienated, yet important, conservative clerical and popular constituency.

Looking AheadThe current Saudi-Pakistan relationship can be seen as an alliance of convenience based on both countries’ self interest, against a history of common geopolitical interests. Khan needs MbS to help stabilise Pakistan's struggling economy. On the other hand, the Saudi Crown Prince needs Pakistan to do more to fulfil Riyadh's politico-military objectives in the region, especially to counter Iran and Qatar. However, individual interests could strain the relationship in the long term. It would be interesting to see the extent to which Khan will be willing to accommodate MbS’ foreign policy vis-à-vis Iran. Pakistan will try to avoid direct military intervention in Yemen or similar operations in West Asia. A possible mismatch between MbS’ expectations and Khan’s manoeuvring space could lead the Crown Prince to withdraw promised aid and investment.

Polish teachers launch nationwide strike

Clara Weiss

As part of an international rebellion by teachers, on Monday April 8, over 80 percent of Poland’s 400,000 teachers joined an indefinite, nationwide walkout. This is the first national strike by teachers in the country in 25 years, and one of the biggest strikes in Poland over the past several decades.

The strike was declared by the trade union ZNP (Związek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego, Union of Polish Teachers) after month-long negotiations with the government of the extreme right-wing Law and Justice Party (PiS) broke down on Sunday. The other teachers’ trade union, Solidarity, had accepted a government offer on Sunday for a gradual 15 percent wage increase, and had called upon its members not to join the national walkout. The union signed the deal with the government without any consultation with the membership and has still not disclosed its exact contents.

Outraged over the union leadership’s deal with the government, teachers from the Solidarity trade union joined the walkout across the country. Many nonunionized teachers also joined the strike.

According to the ZNP, over 86 percent of Poland’s teachers participated. Polish media reports suggest that even these numbers might be an understatement. As one newspaper remarked, “silence in the class rooms” reigned in most of the country’s schools.

The strike has already badly shaken the PiS government ahead of the European elections in May, and the Polish parliamentary elections in the fall. For the first time since 2015, when PiS received the majority of votes in the parliamentary elections, there is a real possibility that it will lose its majority in the country’s parliament and suffer major losses in the European elections.

Behind the strike lies enormous social and political anger. Thirty years after the restoration of capitalism in Poland, teachers and their families are forced to live on poverty wages. The starting salary for a teacher in Poland is 2,538 Zloty ($666), and the maximum salary is around 5,603 Zloty ($1471). Meanwhile, prices in Poland for basic food items and clothing are similar to those in Western European countries.

The past years have also seen a massive reduction in the teaching workforce. Just a few years ago, there were about 670,00 teachers in Poland; now they number just around 400,000.

There is also widespread anger over the PiS’s education policies and reforms. Teachers are under enormous pressure to comply with the government’s nationalist and historical revisionist agenda, which includes the whitewashing of the crimes of Polish nationalists against the country’s Jewish population. Any mention of the latter was banned by law last year.

In recent months, there have been numerous signs that anger among teachers is reaching the boiling point: In December, some 10,000 teachers handed in sick-notes to protest their low wages; in March, teachers in Cracow occupied the school board’s building and went on a hunger strike for weeks.

Although the national walkout comes just days before high school exams, it enjoys broad support within the population. In cities like Lublin, in the east of Poland, high school students have announced protests in support of their teachers. Protests and meetings are also being held at institutions of higher education, including Warsaw University.

Students and workers throughout Poland and the world have declared their solidarity with the teachers on social media. Thus, one twitter user wrote, “I am proud of my mum—today she is protesting alongside other Polish teachers over low pay and funding issues in the education sector. Teachers are the backbone of society and they deserve our respect and better pay.” A resident of Warsaw tweeted, “I've seen too many teachers among friends and family take second jobs, get burnt out, quit, or all three. Teaching is too important and teachers don’t deserve poverty wages. So it’s good to hear reports of 80 percent schools closed in Warsaw, 90 percent in some other parts.

One teacher from Connecticut wrote on Twitter, “Jesteśmy z wami! [We are with you!] You all have always had our back, after all!:) Solidarity from a teacher in CT, USA. Down with austerity, up with workers!!”

The Polish teachers’ strike is part of a global upsurge of the class struggle, which has found particularly sharp expression among teachers and educators. Over the past year, hundreds of thousands of US teachers and educators have gone on strike in multiple states; educators have struck in Britain, Mexico, Brazil and many countries in Europe, Africa and Latin America. Most of these strikes were organized in defiance of the unions. Whenever the unions regained control over the movement of workers, they betrayed the strikes and shut them down as soon as possible.

The Polish trade unions are no different, and Polish teachers must place no confidence in the ZNP. In talks with the government, the ZNP has already made numerous concessions, reducing its initial demand of a 1,000 Zloty wage increase across the board to a 30 percent wage increase. Throughout the talks, the ZNP has pursued the reactionary strategy of demanding to gut other social programs in order to fund wage increases for teachers. As of this writing, the ZNP has not declared whether or not it will accept the government’s offer to re-enter negotiations and immediately end the strike.

In talks with the ZNP, the government has remained intransigent, arguing that there “is no money” and offering an insulting maximum 15 percent wage increase. The main motivation for this “zero compromise” line has been the government’s fear that any concession to the teachers would trigger unrest among broader sections of the working class.

The argument that “there is no money” is a blatant lie. Working in close alliance with the imperialist war planners in Washington and NATO, the PiS government has been pursuing a massive military build-up against Russia. In March, the Polish government announced that it would spend $48 billion by 2026 to expand and equip its armed forces. By 2030, the government is planning to raise military spending to 2.5 percent of GDM. Just a few weeks ago, Poland ordered 20 mobile missiles from the US, worth $411 million. In March 2018, the government ordered a US Patriot missile defence system worth $4.7 billion.

While harbouring differences of a tactical nature over foreign policy alliances with PiS, the main bourgeois opposition party “Civic Platform” (PO) has likewise pursued a policy of austerity when in power. Throughout the past decades, the PO has supported the US-led military build-up against Russia and has helped transform Poland into a potential staging ground for a Third World War.

The striking teachers face important political issues. The struggle to defend public education and fight for decent wages is inseparable from the struggle against the growing danger of war, and attacks on democratic rights. In order to carry out this fight, teachers must break from the nationalist and pro-capitalist unions, form rank-and-file committees and appeal to the broadest possible support among the working class in Poland and internationally. This strategy requires a socialist and internationalist program, and the building of a revolutionary leadership in the working class. 

UK Government Agri-tech Catalyst Funding Competition 2019 for UK and African AgriBusinesses

Application Deadline: 29th May 2019 12:00pm

Eligible Countries: UK businesses in partnership with African businesses.

About the Award: There is up to £3 million of funding available from the Department for International Development (DFID) for early stage feasibility studies, mid stage industrial research and late stage experimental development. Projects must work on agri-tech and food chain innovations with partners in eligible African countries.

The aim of this competition is to increase the pace of development of agricultural and food systems innovation and its uptake by farmers and food systems actors in Africa. Actors can include manufacturers, processors, retailers, distributors and wholesalers.
All projects must be collaborative and must include at least one partner from the UK and one from an eligible African country. All funding for businesses and research organisations will be sent through the administrative lead organisation.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Any UK business claiming funding must be eligible to receive state aid at the time we confirm you will be awarded funding.
Early stage feasibility studies must last between 12 and 18 months. Mid stage industrial research can last up to 3 years. Late stage experimental development can last up to 18 months.
If your project’s total eligible costs or duration fall outside of our eligibility criteria, you must provide justification by email to support@innovateuk.ukri.org at least 10 days before the competition closes. We will decide whether to approve your request.
All projects must:

• be collaborative
• include a partner from an eligible African country from the list below
• include a technical lead from any country
• include a UK-based administrative lead
• implement significant activity in the eligible African country
• include at least one business

See the table in the guidance for applicants to fully understand the different international collaboration options.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Your project’s total eligible costs must be between:

• £100,000 and £500,000 for early stage feasibility studies
• £250,000 and £1 million for mid stage industrial research
• £150,000 and £800,000 for late stage experimental development

How to Apply: 

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see link below) before applying

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Nokia Bell Labs Prize Call for Entries 2019

Application Deadline: 26th April, 2019.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: A prestigious competition that aims to provide a unique opportunity for innovators to change the world with big ideas, following in the great tradition of Bell Labs.
The Bell Labs Prize is a competition for innovators from participating countries around the globe that seeks to recognize proposals that ‘change the game’ in the field of information and communications technologies by a factor of 10, and provides selected innovators the unique opportunity to collaborate with Bell Labs researchers to help realize their vision.

Categories: Web Applications, Cloud Services, Information Theory, Coding Theory, Computational Sciences, Cryptography, Distributed Systems, Data Privacy, Mathematics of Networks, Modulation Schemes, Optical Systems or Components, Communications Systems, Network Protocols, Security, Network Architecture, RF design, Sustainability, Wireless, Fixed Network technologies, Software-Defined Networks, Virtualization Technologies, Real-time Analytics, Search algorithms, Self-Optimizing Networks, Inference systems.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Ideas will be evaluated by Bell Labs researchers based on the following 3 criteria:

• 10x Innovation Potential – How is your proposal novel – what has not been done before, what is the “out of the box” thinking that could result in a 10x change in performance (e.g., speed/throughput, distance, latency, cost, energy efficiency or simplicity)?
• Technical Merit – How technically sound is your proposal? On what current principles and capabilities does it depend versus further/future advancements and innovations?
• Feasibility – Can a proof of concept, simulation or demonstration be built in the course of the competition? What is required to do so? In order to build a commercially viable (revenue and profit-generating) solution, what more would be required?

The finalists who present to the Judging Panel will also be evaluated on a 4th criterion, which focuses on the commercial value proposition:

• Business Impact – What is the magnitude of the new ICT-related business created by the proposal? How soon could it be brought to market and how differentiated/unique is the proposition?

Number of Awardees: Three

Value of Award:

• Bell Labs will be awarding a 1^st prize of $100K, 2^nd Prize of $50K and 3^rd prize of $25K.
• All three winners will also be considered for the unique opportunity to work within the world-renowned Bell Labs to further explore their ideas, following the end of the competition.

Register

Visit Program Webpage for details

CDT-Africa MSc in Clinical Trials Fellowship 2019 for African Students – Ethiopia

Application Deadline: 15th May 2019.

To be taken at (country): Lectures will be held at the College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, while students will have hands-on teaching-learning experience at different research projects of the Center as well as partner institutions.

About the Award: The program’s overall aim is to prepare competent individuals who would work in research institutions, academia, pharmaceutical industries, regulatory agencies, contract research organizations, and other study centres, with the primary objective of assisting with the designing, execution and reporting of clinical trials pertaining to drugs, diagnostics, vaccines, behavioural interventions and medical devices commensurate with good clinical practice, legal, ethical, and regulatory requirements.

Type: Masters

Eligibility:

• A candidate must have a Bachelor Degree in healthcare or life sciences, such as pharmacy, public health, nursing, biology, doctorate degree in medicine or equivalent, doctor of dental medicine, and doctor of veterinary medicine. Those with Bachelor of Statistics are also eligible.
• Others with additional qualifications with or without Bachelor Degree in the life sciences may be eligible if relevant further qualifications are obtained. Examples of such qualifications are Master of public health, MSc in pharmacy, MSc in pharmacology, MSc in statistics, and doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD).
• As this is a needs based program, it is desirable for applicants to have one or two years of service after last graduation with relevant program to have the exposure to real-life challenges prior to joining the program.
• Applicants may need to submit a sponsorship letter from their institution once they are selected, unless they are private applicants.
• Applicants need to meet also the general requirements laid down by the School of Graduate Studies, Addis Ababa University (www.aau.edu.et)
• English is the medium of education and candidates should demonstrate sufficient knowledge of English.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• The Center will pay for any required registration fee.
• The Center will have a modest funding to support research projects of all students.
• Any student coming from countries outside Ethiopia will have a dormitory within Addis Ababa University and a monthly living allowance of net 10, 000 Ethiopian birr for male and 13,000 for female students.
• Other national students are required to have sponsorship from their institutions.

Duration of Award: 

• The MSc program is designed to meet the highest international standards of training for MSc in Clinical Trials. It is a two years program with 96 ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) consisting of 59 ECTS general and specialized subject area modules, 2 ECTS seminar works, 5 ECTS attachments, and 30 ECTS MSc research project work.
• The program will be delivered in full time mode in a modular block teaching approach.

How to Apply: 

• Application document (CV, copy of official transcript, copies of degrees, motivation letter) must be submitted in electronic copy via email to Dr Tsegahun Manyazewal (email: tsegahunm.cdtafrica@gmail.com) copying Ms Samrawit Ketema (email: samryket@gmail.com)
• The deadline for applications is 15th May 2019.
• Interview may be conducted as appropriate.
• Selected candidates will be communicated by 15th June 2019.
• Class will start by late September 2019.
• Female applicants are highly encouraged to apply.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

German Government Green Talents Award 2019 for International Graduate Students (All expenses paid to Germany)

Application Deadline: 22nd May 2019, 2 p.m. CEST.

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

About the Award: The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) hosts the prestigious ”Green Talents – International Forum for High Potentials in Sustainable Development” to promote the international exchange of innovative green ideas. The award, under the patronage of Minister Anja Karliczek, honours young researchers each year.
The winners come from numerous countries and scientific disciplines and are recognised for their outstanding achievements in making our societies more sustainable. Selected by a jury of German experts the award winners are granted unique access to the country’s research elite.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Applicants must meet the following requirements:

• Enrolment in a master’s or PhD programme or a degree (master’s/PhD) completed no more than three years before the end of the application process
• Strong focus on sustainable development and an interdisciplinary approach
• Proven excellent command of English
• Significantly above-average grades
• Not a German citizen nor a resident of Germany (individuals therefore not eligible to apply: German passport holders as well as anyone living in Germany at the time of application even if the residence is temporary)

No exceptions to these requirements can be accepted. Ineligible applications will automatically be disqualified.
The Green Talents Competition focuses on outstanding young scientists who are active in the field of sustainable development. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) fosters interdisciplinary approaches in this regard. Applicants can therefore come from any scientific field closely related to sustainability research.

Number of Awards: 25

Value of Award: The prestigious Green Talents programme offers you the unique opportunity to become part of an exceptional world-wide network of outstanding young minds and leading German institutions.

• The first part of the prize consists of an invitation to a two-week Science Forum in Germany, where you will be introduced to renowned research facilities and have individual meetings with experts (individual appointments). Here you will learn about potential collaborations and experience the country’s excellent research infrastructure at close hand.
• In addition, a workshop on research and funding opportunities will provide you with further information for your future research stay in Germany.
• The journey will culminate within a festive award ceremony hosted by a high-level representative from the BMBF.
• You will have the opportunity to return to Germany for up to three months to conduct a research stay at an institute of your choice the year after the Science Forum.

How to Apply: Apply now!
It is important to go through the FAQs for application procedure and requirements before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

The Crippling of Britain in the Age of Brexit

Patrick Cockburn

Future historians will look back at Britain in the age of Brexit and seek to explain why its people reduced their power and influence in the world in the belief that they were doing the exact opposite.

But historians will have to move quickly if they are to have a say because the most important consequences of Brexit are already with us. People do not see this because UK membership of the EU is wrongly discussed as an economic issue when it is primarily a political one.

This is a traditional mistake by the British who have been making it with varying degrees of intensity ever since the French politician Robert Schumann put forward his plan for the French-German Coal and Steel Community on 9 May 1950 – a pact that eventually turned into the EU. Enhancing the political power of European states, particularly France and Germany, was always the chief objective.

The misperception has meant that the outcome of the Brexit crisis is talked about with alarm or enthusiasm, depending on the views of the speaker, but generally on the supposition on all sides that this is something good or bad that lies in the future. There is ceaseless discussion about custom unions and single markets which masks the devastating loss of UK power and influence that has already occurred in three crucial areas.

There is greater political division in Britain than at any time since the 17th century and this is not going to go away. Even if parliament is finally forced to swallow Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement at least half the population is going to feel that they have been betrayed or, at best, are the victims of an act of self-destructive idiocy. Theresa May has systematically made these divisions deeper by pretending that there was national unanimity about the referendum decision.

Secondly, the UK as a state is more divided than it has been since the Scottish Act of Union in 1707. Scottish nationalists and Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland – half the population – are strengthened because Scottish independence and Irish unity can be presented as a jump into the future with the EU rather than staying put with a regressive and xenophobic England. Through resurrecting Irish partition as an issue, Britain will be permanently at odds with the Irish government, something which might not have mattered much in the past, but does now when Ireland is empowered by the rest of the EU. Angela Merkel was in Dublin this week telling Leo Varadkar that Germany would “stand by Ireland” and earlier the Irish taoiseach was seeing Emmanuel Macron in  Paris. This used not to happen.

The third area in which the balance of power has swung against the UK over the last three years is that, as Britain becomes more divided, the EU becomes more unified. This was not inevitable: remember how there was talk in 2016 of the EU shedding more members and possibly even breaking up. Having seen what is happening to Britain, dissident members of the EU are these days keeping secessionist thoughts very much to themselves.

Evidence of the swing in the balance of power away from Britain has become more apparent over the course of the Brexit negotiations. Retreat on one side and advance on the other was the inevitable consequence of Brussels having much the strongest hand of cards. Nothing is more absurd, and a sign of a frightening detachment from reality, than the claim of prominent Eurosceptics that Britain would have got what it wanted in negotiations if only it had been firmer, something it failed to do because the British negotiators were weak-willed, incompetent or treacherously sabotaging their own side.

At one level, the explanation for the crisis gripping Britain is not a mystery: globalisation has produced political crises all over the world which differ in some respects but have certain common themes such as de-industrialisation, increased inequality, immigration, and the alienation of large parts of the population. There are obvious parallels between Trump supporters in Pennsylvania and Leave voters in the Labour strongholds in the Welsh Valleys. The same pressures were long visible in the Middle East where kleptocratic elites clustered around authoritarian rulers and their families, leaving the rest of the population to rot.

But this does not tell us why it is that the political crisis in the UK looks worse than elsewhere in Europe. Unsurprisingly, the historically minded have sought guidance from past precedent and, more particularly, from crises that revolved around the UK’s relations with continental Europe and, equally important, those that threatened the integrity of the UK itself.

Jacob Rees-Mogg caused some hilarity by plunging deep into the Middle Ages for an analogy, pillorying May’s withdrawal agreement as a sell-out by claiming that it was “the greatest vassalage since King John paid homage to Phillip II at Le Goulet in 1200”. Academic historians immediately pounced to call his history wrong, but there was nothing wrong with taking the longer view.

One could even go back a further 800 years and look at Roman Britain’s departure from the empire at the start of the fifth century. The circumstances are murky and ill-recorded, but there is evidence that the Romans did not pull out unilaterally but were encouraged to go by the local inhabitants. According to the sixth century historian Zosimus, quoted in The Anglo-Saxon World by Nicholas J Higham and Martin J Ryan, they were reduced “to such straits that they revolted from the empire, no longer submitted to Roman law, and reverted to their native customs. The Britons, therefore, armed themselves and ran many risks to ensure their own safety and free their own cities from attacking barbarians.”

This early example of Brexit did not end happily, though it would be interesting to imagine some Romano-British version of Liam Fox trotting off to sign trade deals with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes on behalf of “global Britannia”.

A constituency has always existed in Britain open to the idea that continental entanglements are a costly waste of money and are undertaken with the complicity of simple-minded or corrupt British politicians. Jonathan Swift wrote a devastating pamphlet, The Conduct of the Allies, making such charges three hundred years ago that would not look out of place in Leave campaign literature.

Britain has traditionally tried to avoid having a crisis in relations with continental Europe powers at the same time as a crisis threatening the unity of the UK. But Brexit was guaranteed to produce both simultaneously. Eurosceptics denigrate the EU as a leviathan and then seem shocked when it behaves like one. “Splendid isolation” was a dangerous idea for Britain even when it was at the height of its power at the end of the 19th century and looks like an even worse one today. Even so, Leavers are blithely confident that it does not much matter that Britain is now more isolated in Europe than at any time since the five-year period before Napoleon marched on Moscow in 1812.

The failure of historians to find a convincing parallel between events in Britain’s past and the Brexit crisis may have a simple explanation: never before has the nation embarked on a project likely to make it poorer, weaker and less able to control its own future.

Rising number of Michigan and US households unable to afford basic necessities

Debra Watson

The number and percentage of households in Michigan without sufficient income to pay for even the most basic necessities has continued to rise relentlessly in Michigan, years after the Great Recession of 2008-2010 was officially declared over.

At the end of 2017 there were 1,664,606 households in Michigan without enough regular income to meet the most basic monthly costs. This is up from 1.5 million households in 2010, an increase of six percent in seven years. The percentage of distressed households in the state also increased, from 40 percent in 2010 to 43 percent at the end of 2017.

These alarming increases are presented in the latest ALICE report released at the end of March 2019 by the United Way in Michigan. The acronym ALICE stands for Asset Limited Income Constrained-Employed.

The Michigan report is one of 20 covering other US states that were released last month. They gather data that expands the understanding of what growing inequality means: social deprivation is impacting ever-broader sections of the population. Even under conditions of a low official unemployment rate, rising numbers of families are in distress. With little or no resources to act as a cushion against unemployment, a new recession will throw even greater sections of the working class into dire poverty.

The 43 percent of distressed households in Michigan are divided into two portions. One is households formally designated ALICE by the authors of the report. They have incomes that place them above the official US Census official poverty threshold but still cannot cover basic living costs each month. They make up 29 percent of households with income below the ALICE threshold.

The other 14 percent of households that fall under the ALICE threshold are barely surviving on incomes below the grossly inadequate official poverty level. More than half a million households in the state fall into this category.

This is the third ALICE report for Michigan. The 2017 report also showed a rise in households below the ALICE threshold, from 38 percent in the state before the recession, to 40 percent at the end of 2015, even as unemployment had fallen.

The ALICE budget takes into account that households living in higher cost urban areas pay more for basics, especially housing, than rural areas. Statewide, on average, an annual income of about $21,000 is needed for an individual living alone to make ends meet and a little over $61,000 is needed for a family of four, far above the respective figures of $12,060 for a single adult and $24,600 for a family of four attached to the official Federal Poverty Level.

The authors describe a combination of low wages, precarious work hour arrangements, and the dramatically rising cost of the most basic necessities as factors impacting the size of ALICE in the state. These factors are putting more and more working class families in a vise.

Those that are impacted include nearly 400,000 families with children in households below the ALICE threshold. Thus children are being severely impacted by the growth in social inequality.

The federal government determines poverty on the bases of an inflation-adjusted figure originally calculated in the early 1960’s. The utter inadequacy of the official federal poverty level, used to determine eligibility for social supports such as food assistance (Bridge Cards in Michigan), comes into focus with this report.

Two years ago, the United Way report estimated that only nine percent of the population made an hourly wage of the $40 to $60 an hour needed to reach the more generous “Household Stability Budget.” That budget allows a family to pay premiums for employer-based healthcare, for example.

The Michigan report seeks to address why so many are unable to live even paycheck to paycheck, and why so many are exhausting savings and spiraling into deeper debt.

Though unemployment is down to four percent this month, from a high of 17.5 percent in Michigan in the immediate aftermath of the 2008-2010 recession, the number and percentage of households living below the ALICE threshold has not fallen proportionately. In fact there has been a substantial rise.

The report notes current and future structural changes in employment conditions and wages that have kept incomes low. References to the gig economy and precarious work hours, along with the proliferation of traditionally low-wage jobs in a state still highly dependent on manufacturing, are included.

Assemblers and fabricators are the third-largest group of workers in the state, but this report does not address the dramatic fall in wages that has impacted industrial jobs related to auto in recent decades.

In Michigan, the report notes that 61 percent of jobs pay less than $20 per hour, with almost two-thirds of those jobs paying less than $15 per hour. Another 29 percent of jobs pay from $20 to $40 per hour. Only 8 percent of jobs in the state pay from $40 to $60 per hour.

The typical ALICE budget highlights the inadequacy of the ALICE figure itself. For example, health care cost is based on the penalty for not buying health care under Obamacare, and not on the cost of buying health care itself, which is much higher. Not even the high-deductible bronze plan under Obamacare is affordable for most.

Details relating to the rise in households made up of families, individuals living alone, seniors, millennials and workers in their prime years living in distressed economic circumstances are outlined in the report. The authors note, “The number of senior households with income below the ALICE Threshold grew by 17 percent between 2010 and 2017. By 2017, 41 percent of senior households had income below the ALICE Threshold.

“The next oldest age group, households headed by 45- to 64-year-olds, remained flat between 2010 and 2017, yet the number of these households with income below the ALICE Threshold increased by 6 percent—a surprising drop in income for those in their prime earning years (American Community Survey, 2010, 2017).”

Millennials, they note, are less likely to form households now than in years past and 76 percent of those under 25 who do, have incomes below the ALICE threshold.

The cost of the average Michigan family budget increased 27 percent from 2010 to 2017, more than twice the rise in the official inflation rate of 12 percent. One driver of this increase was a 59 percent increase in out of pocket costs and even larger increases in health care premium costs used in their calculations.

Health care disparities result in a reduction of 13 years of life for men and 14 years less for women in the lowest quintile of income.

Astronomical costs for prescription drugs are a significant factor driving health care costs. An obstetrician interviewed by the World Socialist Web Site pointed to the cost of new drugs available in her field. The new treatment for postpartum depression has been priced at $35,000 for one infusion. A new drug for endometriosis pain is $10,000 for a year. Cost sharing in health care plans will immediately put these out of reach for many, if they are covered at all.