15 Jun 2019

Rising US “deaths of despair” driven by health care costs, lack of access to care

Kate Randall 

A new report reveals that most US states are losing ground on key measures related to life expectancy, which has declined in each of the last three years. The Commonwealth Fund’s “2019 Scorecard on State Health System Performance” shows that “deaths of despair”—premature deaths from suicide, alcohol abuse and drug overdoses—continue to rise in nearly every state. The report further shows that these deaths are tied to rising healthcare costs that are placing an increasing financial burden on families across the country.
The Commonwealth Fund’s Scorecard assessed “deaths of despair” in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as ranked states on 47 measures of access to health care, quality of care, health care usage, health outcomes and income-based health care disparities. The report found that Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act has been a central factor leading to meaningful gains in access to health care.
The reasons behind the decision of a person to take his or her own life, to take drugs resulting in a fatal overdose, or to drink alcohol in excess leading to health problems and death, are complex. But this new study shows that one of the major underlying causes of such tragedies is social inequality, in particular lack of access to health care and the associated financial struggles.

The opioid crisis, suicide and alcohol-related deaths

While the study finds that deaths from suicide and alcohol and drug abuse are a national crisis, it notes that states and regions are affected in different ways. Opioid use disorder has fueled a rise in drug overdose deaths with tragic outcomes for families across the country. The emergence of highly lethal synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, in the illicit drug supply has contributed to this national crisis.
The opioid epidemic has hit states in New England, the Mid-Atlantic and several Southeastern states particularly hard. West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Delaware and New Hampshire have the highest death rates from drug overdoses.
In Pennsylvania, Maryland and Ohio, death rates from drug overdose were at least five times higher than from alcohol abuse and about three times higher than suicide rates. In Montana, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Oregon and Wyoming, death rates from suicide and alcohol were greater than those from drugs.
Source: Commonwealth Fund. Data from National Vital Statistics System
West Virginia has been the state hardest hit by the opioid crisis, with 58.7 deaths per 100,000 residents—a staggering two-and-a-half times the national average. This was 25 percent more than the state with the next highest rate of opioid deaths, Ohio, which had 46.3 deaths per 100,000 residents. Opioid-related deaths in West Virginia increased fivefold in 12 years—rising from 10.5 deaths per 100,000 in 2005 to 57.8 in 2017.
The rate of death from drug overdose more than doubled across the US between 2005 and 2017. These deaths surged by 10 percent just between 2016 and 2017.
Suicide rates nationally have risen by nearly 30 percent since 2005. Parallel to the sharp rise in the death rate from drug overdose, the national suicide death rate rose more sharply between 2016 and 2017 than during any other one-year period in recent history. Similarly, the alcohol-related death rate rose by about 2 percent per year between 2005 and 2012 but increased by about 4 percent per year between 2013 and 2017.

Health insurance, access to care, cost

The Commonwealth Fund notes that the reductions in the uninsured population following the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) expansion of health coverage in 2014 have now stalled or even begun to erode in some states.
The ACA, commonly known as Obamacare, while expanding some access to health care coverage, has never challenged the domination of the for-profit health care industry. It required that individuals without insurance from their employer or a government program purchase insurance from a private insurance company.
Nearly all states saw substantial reductions in uninsured rates between 2013 and 2017 with the opening of the ACA’s insurance marketplaces, with fewer people citing cost as a barrier to receiving health care.
As the ACA was written, Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor jointly administered by the federal government and the states, was to be expanded to cover all US citizens and legal residents with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line. However, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that it was up to the states whether or not to expand their Medicaid programs.
Almost all those states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA saw a reduction in rates of uninsured through 2015. However, after 2015 any progress in reducing the rates of uninsured had stalled in most states. From 2016 to 2017, more than half of states were simply treading water. Sixteen states saw a rise of 1 percent in the uninsured rate, including both those that did and did not expand Medicaid.
States that adopted Medicaid expansion have seen lower rates of the uninsured. As of January 1, 2017, Massachusetts had the lowest rate of uninsured, at 4 percent. The states with the highest rates of uninsured—Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas—were among the 19 states that had not expanded Medicaid as of January 1, 2017. In Texas, 24 percent—nearly a quarter of all residents—were uninsured.
Uninsured rates were particularly high in states with large African-American and Hispanic populations. In Florida, George and Texas, about 20 percent of black adults were uninsured in 2017, compared to the US average of about 14 percent. In Texas, more than a third of Hispanic adults were uninsured in 2017. Undoubtedly contributing to the uninsured among Hispanics is the denial of Medicaid and access to the ACA marketplace for undocumented immigrants.

Health care costs

In addition to the lack of health insurance, the high cost of coverage for those who are insured is contributing to the crisis in accessing health care. The report notes that as of the end of 2018, 30 million adults remained uninsured and an estimated 44 million people had insurance but were considered “underinsured” due to the high out-of-pocket costs for health care in relation to their income.
People with individual-market plans under the ACA were insured at the highest rates. However, the cost of private, employer-sponsored health care plans is rising, exposing workers and their families to increasingly higher deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. In most states, the amount that employees contribute to their employer coverage is rising faster than median income.
A key contributing factor to the uninsured and underinsured rates is the overall rate of growth in US health care costs compared to the slow growth in US median income. Workers face rising costs as insurers increase deductibles and other cost-sharing for enrollees. As workers in both ACA and employee plans are covered by the insurance industry, these private companies raise costs for the insured to boost their bottom lines.
The Commonwealth Fund’s report explodes the myth that people’s use of health care services is the primary driver of cost and premium growth. The report notes that there is growing evidence that the prices paid by private insurers to health care providers, particularly hospitals, are responsible for this growth.
The report notes, according to the Health Care Cost Institute, that “between 2013 and 2017 prices for inpatient services paid by private insurers climbed by 16 percent while utilization fell by 5 percent. The analysis found similar patterns for outpatient and professional services as well as prescription drugs.”
In other words, while workers and their families are struggling to obtain decent health care and to pay for it, the entire system of health care delivery in America is geared toward enriching the hospitals, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies. Those succumbing to “deaths of despair” are the victims of a health care system and a society that values capitalist profit over the health and very lives of its citizens.

Australia’s industrial tribunal maintains poverty-level minimum wage

Terry Cook

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling last month, raising the minimum wage by a meagre 3 percent, to just $740.80 a week, ensures that 2.2 million workers and their families will continue to eke out an existence on poverty-level wages.
The decision is part of a decades-long assault on workers’ pay and conditions enforced by successive governments, Labor and Liberal-National Coalition alike, and the trade unions. It follows real pay reductions over the past six years, which have resulted in wage growth falling to its lowest level since the 1930s Great Depression.
The FWC, the federal government’s pro-business industrial tribunal, has wide-ranging powers, including to set the minimum wage and penalty rate payments. It enforces Fair Work industrial laws, introduced by the previous Labor government with the full support of the unions, which ban virtually all strike action.
The FWC judges rejected raising the minimum wage to a “living wage,” openly stating that many working-class households would remain in poverty as a result. “Some low paid, award-reliant employee households have disposable incomes which are less than the 60 percent of median income relative poverty line,” they stated.
A 2018 report by the Australian Council of Social Service put the poverty line at 50 percent of median household disposable income. That means a single adult living on less than $433 a week, or $909 for a couple with two children, before housing costs.
The minimum pay decision was announced by FWC President Justice Iain Ross, a former union official. In 2017, he ruled in favour of cutting public holiday and Sunday penalty rates for thousands of low-paid workers. Ross said the minimal pay increase awarded “will mean an improvement in the real wages of employees who are reliant on minimum wages and an improvement in their living standards.”
These claims are a fraud. The paltry increase of little more than $3 a day, or an extra $21.60 a week, is not enough to buy a loaf of bread each day. It will do nothing to alleviate the deepening social crisis facing thousands of low-paid workers amid rapid increases in the costs of health, food, fuel, rent and electricity.
For their role in imposing the dictates of the corporate and financial elite for the suppression of wages, the well-heeled FWC judges themselves are well paid.
As of 2018, FWC deputy presidents, for instance, were paid $460,000 a year, while receiving a raft of other benefits such as lucrative retirement packages. Former FWC vice president Graeme Watson received a full judicial officer’s pension of $272,544 per year for life when he retired in 2017. During his reign, Watson continuously worked to hold down pay and complained that the minimum wage was too high.
Major business groups, who had pushed for an even lower minimum wage increase, still welcomed the FWC decision. The Australian Industry Group, which had argued for an increase of no more than 2 percent, said the ruling marked a return to a “more moderate level” compared to the previous two years’ rises.
In fact, the 2017 and 2018 increases were just 3.3 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively. They brought up the minimum wage to only $719.20 per week or $18.93 an hour. As with the latest ruling, they were designed to maintain the chronic low-pay regime, while acting as a sop to prevent struggles by workers for a real improvement in wages and working conditions.
While the employer groups opposed any significant wage increase for the low paid, the fortunes of the corporate and financial elite continued to rise.
The Australian Financial Review’s Rich List, released last month, reported: “The 200 wealthiest individuals or families in Australia now control wealth totaling $341.8 billion.” Their collective wealth rose 21 percent in just 12 months.
The pay of company chief executives hit the highest level in 17 years in 2018, thanks to what an Australian Council of Superannuation Investors report termed “persistent and increasing bonus payments.”
The median-realised pay for ASX 100 chief executives rose 12.4 percent to $4.36 million, while salaries for ASX101-200 CEOs jumped by 22.1 percent to $1.76 million. Bonus payments rose more than 18 percent. Nearly one in three ASX 100 chief executives were awarded at least 80 percent of their maximum bonuses.
The top ASX 200 earners in the 2017 financial year were Domino’s Pizza Enterprises chief executive Don Meij at $36.8 million, Peter and Steven Lowy of Westfield at $25.9 million, and Macquarie Group chief executive Nicholas Moore at $25.2 million.
Just after the FWC handed down its wage decision, the Remuneration Tribunal awarded massive pay increases to federal politicians, who have all supported austerity measures to cut social and working conditions. The tribunal said the rise was necessary to “provide competitive and equitable remuneration sufficient to attract and retain people of calibre.”
While minimum wage workers are obliged to live on an annual wage of just $38,521, parliamentary backbenchers’ pay will rise from $207,000 to $211,000. Prime Minister Scott Morrison will receive a $10,000-a-year increase, taking his up to $550,000, while Treasurer Josh Frydenberg will get a further $8,000, increasing his salary to $433,000.
As a frontbench Labor Party parliamentarian, Anthony Albanese would have received $259,000 a year after the increase. However, having become opposition leader, in the wake of Labor’s May 18 federal election defeat, Albanese will get $390,000 a year.
While admitting the new minimum wage was “not a living wage,” unions welcomed the pittance as a “win for workers.” Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) assistant secretary Liam O’Brien said it was “a welcome pay rise for millions of low-paid workers, especially in the face of penalty rate cuts in a few weeks.”
In February 2017, without any genuine opposition from the unions, the FWC ordered a cut to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates in the retail, pharmacy, fast food and hospitality industries of between 25 and 50 percentage points. Cuts to public holiday rates came into effect on July 1 of that year, but the reductions in the Sunday rate are being phased in over two years.
There have been years of real wage cuts, including to penalty rates, in union-brokered enterprise agreements. Analysis by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work of tax office data for 2012–13 to 2016–17 showed wages over that period rose by just 1.7 percent per annum, below the official inflation rate of 1.9 percent.
The trade unions are fully responsible for the plight of the low-paid workers and the ongoing reduction of wage levels. They fully supported the draconian Fair Work industrial laws introduced by the last Labor government in 2009 and operate as a police force of governments and the corporate elite.

French prime minister announces further social cuts and attacks on immigrants

Will Morrow

In an address to the National Assembly last night, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe announced a series of far-reaching austerity measures, particularly targeting pensions and unemployment payments, as well as new attacks against immigrants and Muslims.
That such a speech would take place was announced in the immediate aftermath of the European election vote May 26. It would signal “Act II,” corresponding to the second half of President Emmanuel Macron’s five-year term. Macron’s party narrowly lost the European vote to the far-right National Rally (RN) of Marine Le Pen, which was able to exploit social anger over inequality and the austerity measures imposed by Macron and his Socialist Party (PS) predecessor, François Hollande.
Philippe’s statements made clear that the response of the Macron government will be to shift further to the right. While it faces growing left-wing opposition in the working class, expressed in a growth in strikes and protests by hospital workers and teachers in recent months, as well as the “yellow vest” protests against social inequality, the Macron government is determined to meet the demands of the financial elite for the funneling of ever greater wealth into its pockets. The policy outlined by Philippe yesterday consisted of continuing the destruction of the social entitlements won by the French working class in the 20th century.
His government is also adopting the RN’s anti-immigrant policies to whip up xenophobic hysteria and divert social anger produced by its policies.
The most significant measure announced by Philippe is the effective lengthening of the retirement age by two years. The government will introduce a new “equilibrium age” of 64 while keeping the legal minimum retirement age at 62, with “inducements to work longer” by cutting benefits for those under 64. This will force already retired workers to return to poverty-level jobs to survive.
“Everyone will be able to make their own choice, in freedom and responsibility,” Philippe said, with all the grandiloquent hypocrisy of the French bourgeoisie. The elderly will be driven to labor for longer, with the announcement of a “great plan of employment for seniors.”
Philippe also referred to a restructuring of the national pension system scheduled to be announced this year. It will abolish the 42 different pension entitlements according to industry and employer, and replace them with a single national retirement system. This will tear up the more generous retirement benefits won by certain sections of workers, including national railway workers, teachers and other public employees. These plans are to be replaced by a system of retirement “by points,” whose value the state can arbitrarily modify according to its financial interests up until the time a worker takes his or her retirement.
Unemployment benefits will also be slashed. “The second objective of this reform is to ensure that work pays more than inactivity,” he said. While this is “in general [already] the case,” there are “situations where the monthly unemployment payment is more than the monthly salary. We must put an end to it.”
On June 7, Les Echos published an exclusive report on the government’s plans to slash unemployment benefits, based on comments by unnamed government officials. The full details are to be revealed June 17. The plan will reportedly include raising eligibility requirements for receiving payments: whereas presently a worker must have been employed for the equivalent of four months over the previous 28 months, this will be increased to at least six months over the previous 24 months.
The National Union for Employment in Industry and Commerce (Unédic) stated that even without changing the time-frame from 28 to 24 months, the increase from four months to half a year in work requirements will automatically cut off benefits for 236,000 unemployed people, or 11 percent of the total.
These social attacks are being combined with tax cuts totaling some 5 billion euros [$US5.6 billion] per year. The full details are yet to be announced, and they will no doubt provide further concessions to the rich and sections of the upper middle class. Philippe stated only that for those in the first- and second-lowest income brackets, the cuts would lead to derisory reductions of 350 euros and 180 euros, respectively. At the same time, the property tax, calculated by property value, is being eliminated, disproportionately benefiting the rich.
At the same time spending that benefits the most vulnerable sections of the working class is to be slashed, Philippe reaffirmed his government’s commitment to provide billions of euros to fund the military and the police forces tasked with repressing working-class opposition. “To keep control means above all to guarantee public order,” Philippe said, “and one of our first decisions was to launch a great recruitment and equipment program for the police.” Macron’s pledge to raise military spending to two percent of GDP in line with European Union targets is “a massive effort,” he said, “but it is necessary to be consistent.”
The authoritarian content of Philippe’s speech emerged most clearly when he launched into a rant against immigrants, asylum seekers and the growth of “Islamism.”
His statements were in line with the lies of the Trump administration and extreme right-wing parties internationally that immigrant workers fleeing war and poverty caused by the policies of European and US imperialism and exercising their legal right to seek asylum are “abusing” the “system.”
“The number of asylum seekers had dropped by 10 percent in Europe last year, but continues to go on in France on the order of 22 percent.” France must “get control over this immigration flow,” he declared. “The right to asylum is a treasure,” Philippe said, “but we must fight with firmness against abuses… We must be sure that asylum seekers choose France for its values, for its history, for its language, and not because our system is more favorable than those put in place by our neighbors in Europe.”
This suggests that the government will further attack the conditions for immigrants in France, which Macron had already suggested in the wake of the European elections. Le Monde published a report on Monday headlined “New offensive by the executive on immigration,” based on anonymous statements from Macron government officials. It noted that at an internal meeting last week the interior minister spoke “about the too great attractiveness of France” for immigrants.
Macron held a meeting with ministers on April 30, during which he declared that the “question of immigration is once again before us.”
Philippe announced that the Macron government will organize an annual debate in parliament on “asylum and immigration,” the first edition of which will be held in September, because it “goes to the fundamentals of our sovereignty and our principles.” This will be little more than a platform for denunciations of immigrants and the whipping up of xenophobia by the entire political establishment.
Philippe’s speech was a demonstration of the far-right trajectory of the political establishment in France and internationally. Terrified by the growing struggles of the working class against more than a decade of social attacks and preparing for major wars, the ruling class is building up the forces of a police-state and promoting nationalism and anti-immigrant scapegoating.

UK police seek to prosecute 1,130 Extinction Rebellion climate change protestors

Alice Summers

The London Metropolitan Police are pushing to prosecute every single one of the 1,130 protestors arrested during climate change demonstrations organised by Extinction Rebellion (XR) in April.
In the face of a massive police operation to intimidate and disperse them, protestors had peacefully occupied prominent public spaces across London, including Parliament Square, Piccadilly Circus, Waterloo Bridge, Oxford Circus and Marble Arch.
Hundreds of extra police officers from neighbouring forces were drafted into the city, with the heavy police presence at times outnumbering the demonstrators. At the height of the protests, Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick declared, “Every day we have had over 1,000 officers—and now over 1,500 officers.”
Oxford Circus Extinction Rebellion April 2019 [Credit: Andrew Davidson]
In fact, a staggering 10,000 police officers were deployed over the two weeks of protests.
Many videos were circulated on social media showing police officers forcibly removing peaceful protestors and dragging them through the streets by their wrists. But despite police surrounding their targets, sticking video cameras in their faces and dragging them to police vans, there was no violence from the demonstrators.
According to Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor, more than 70 XR protestors have already been charged with various offences, including breach of a Section 14 Notice of the Public Order Act 1986, for obstructing a highway and police.
A dedicated unit of around 30 police officers has been set up to investigate the alleged “offences” committed by the demonstrators during the XR protests, Taylor told journalists at Scotland Yard. “It is our anticipation that we are putting all of those to the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] for decisions,” he continued.
The mass arrests at the XR protests constitute the largest act of state repression against peaceful protests for at least 37 years. The number of arrests far surpassed that at the anti-nuclear protests at RAF Upper Heyford in 1982, where 752 were detained, and at the poll tax riots in 1990, where 339 were arrested.
The arrests of over 1,000 came amidst vitriolic denunciations from politicians and the bourgeois media of the XR demonstrations and calls for stepped-up police repression.
“No one should be allowed to break the law without consequence,” Conservative Home Secretary and now leadership contender Sajid Javid tweeted during the protests. He called on police to “take a firm stance” against “any protestors who are stepping outside the boundaries of the law” and “significantly disrupting the lives of others.”
In April, former Labour Home Secretary, now Sir David Blunkett, also wrote an opinion piece in the right-wing Daily Mail demanding: “Why hasn’t the full force of the law been used against these eco-anarchists who fill me with contempt?”
Sky News presenter Adam Boulton attacked protestors for “fascistic disruption” in a clear attempt to redefine and criminalise the right to protest.
Speaking about the moves to prosecute all the detained protestors, deputy assistant commissioner Taylor called for stronger punishment for protestors who apparently commit “unlawful” activities.
“I’m not saying going to jail,” Taylor said, “but we would like to see consequences for any activity at these events that is unlawful.
“Protest is not illegal. There is nothing unlawful about protest,” he conceded grudgingly. “[But the] activity of some individuals at a protest can be unlawful… [At] the moment there doesn’t seem to be much of a criminal deterrent for doing that and therefore, it doesn’t legitimise it but it does make it easy for that unlawful activity to take place.
“And what we would like to see is consequence, where the law is clearly broken and it goes beyond what is reasonable and a legitimate aim for a protest, for that to be recognised and for appropriate sanctions [to be imposed].”
Precisely what constitutes a “reasonable and… legitimate aim for a protest” in Taylor’s book is left unsaid.
In keeping with the demands from journalists and politicians, the Met Police are calling for the effective criminalisation of protest. This was made doubly clear back in April by Metropolitan Police Commander Adrian Usher, who called on the government to change “outdated” protest laws to criminalise even peaceful demonstrations.
“We need to move away from the language of ‘peaceful protest’ to talk about ‘lawful protest,’” Usher told the Human Rights Committee in parliament.
“A protest being peaceful is only one of the attributes police would assign to a protest to make it lawful,” he continued. “We will conduct a sober review of our tactics against recent protest but I think it’s likely to say the legislation associated with policing protest is quite dated.
“Policing and protest has moved on and legislation should follow suit,” Usher added.
The calls by police, politicians and the media to criminalise demonstrations are a massive upscaling in attacking democratic rights.
What is being prepared are police state conditions, whereby any demonstration, no matter whether violence has been used by protestors, can be declared “unlawful” by an arbitrary decision of the police, leading to legal charges against anyone who opposes the government’s policy.
Usher’s demands that protest laws be changed ostensibly come in response to verbal “abuse” of MPs such as Tory Anna Soubry, who was verbally confronted by right-wing pro-Brexit protestors outside parliament earlier this year.
But while the targets of calls for police repression have so far been isolated protestors outside parliament, and the largely middle class XR demonstrations, the real purpose of this stepped-up authoritarianism is to combat unrest from an increasingly restive working class.
The statements by the Met police are only a foretaste of how the state will respond to any large-scale movement of workers. The arguments being deployed to justify police repression against environmental protestors—including “disruption” and “inconvenience” to the public—will be used tomorrow to demand mass arrests and repression against striking railway workers, bus drivers, pilots and cabin crew, or National Health Service staff.

Police crackdown against Hong Kong protesters opposing extradition bill

Ben McGrath

Tens of thousands of people protested in Hong Kong Wednesday against a bill, backed by Beijing, that would allow extraditions to any country, including mainland China. Debate on the legislation, which was slated to take place, was postponed. The demonstration took place three days after more than one million people marched Sunday against the bill.
Wednesday’s demonstrators, largely youth and students, blocked streets surrounding Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo). The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions also called a strike for the day. With lawmakers unable to enter the building, the government announced that debate would resume at a “later time to be determined.” Andrew Leung, LegCo chairman, said Tuesday that the vote would take place on June 20.
To protect themselves against teargas, protesters carried umbrellas, reminiscent of the so-called Occupy or Umbrella Movement in 2014. Those protests led to the protracted occupation of key sections of the city as people demanded the right to directly elect the chief executive, the head of Hong Kong. Currently Beijing effectively appoints the top official.
This week’s protests represent a sharp condemnation of both the Hong Kong and Beijing governments, with youth rightly concerned that the Stalinist Chinese Communist Party is preparing further measures to restrict democratic rights in the city.
Jeremy Lau, a 26-year-old bank worker, criticized Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam, and the government’s dismissal of the concerns of broad layers, telling the South China Morning Post: “More than a million people have taken to the streets and she still considers our demands trash. Isn’t she, as the leader of Hong Kong, supposed to take citizens’ interests into consideration?”
The Beijing regime fears the spread of social discontent and demonstrations from Hong Kong to the mainland, which also motivates its desire to have the extradition bill passed. The CCP wants to be able to silence and intimidate individuals and organizations on its doorstep in Hong Kong that are critical of its police-state methods on the Chinese mainland.
The Hong Kong police responded to yesterday’s protests with violence, using water cannons and pepper spray before firing tear gas and rubber bullets into the crowd, injuring at least 22. Witnesses stated that officers targeted journalists. Lam denounced protesters for holding an “organized riot.”
Police Commissioner Stephen Lo threatened demonstrators, saying: “If they are peaceful protesters, please leave. If they are violent protesters, then please think twice because you might regret your decision for your entire life.” In other words, the mere act of protesting is considered violent and subject to repression.
As pro-Beijing lawmakers control the LegCo, passage of the bill is assured under current conditions. The opposition grouping known as the pan-democrats offers no genuine opposition. Instead, it attempts to win concessions to smooth over the concerns of business interests wary of the city growing too close to Beijing. Claudia Mo, a member of the pan-democrats, attempted to give these opposition parties a radical veneer, telling protesters Wednesday: “During Occupy Central 2014, we had said, ‘We will be back.’ Today, we say, ‘We are back’.”
None of the issues has been resolved since 2014; they have only intensified. An Oxfam report last September revealed economic inequality is at its worst levels in 45 years. The top 10 percent in the city takes home 43.9 times the amount of the bottom 10 percent. Billions in stock dividends go untaxed in the name of a “free economy.” The minimum wage of $HK34.50 ($US4.41) an hour has less purchasing power than it did eight years ago. It stands well below the living wage of $HK54.70. One in four children and one in three elderly live in poverty.
Where, then, have Hong Kong’s democrats been since 2014? The pan-democrats’ purpose is to corral social discontent by leading workers and students into political dead ends. No major gains or reforms were won in 2014. No movement uniting the oppressed in Hong Kong was launched. One university student, Sean, told CNN: “We don’t have any leaders this time. This is our last hope.” That students and workers do not see the pan-democrats as leaders is an indictment of these politicians’ failure to address their real concerns.
Under conditions of growing inequality around the globe, genuine democracy is impossible as countries compete to slash workers’ jobs and wages for greater profits. Governments can respond only with the sort of repression on display in Hong Kong yesterday.
Hong Kong workers and youth therefore will find in the mainland Chinese working class powerful allies in their fight for democratic rights. They must turn to these allies and the working class around the globe.
Instead, politicians like Mo spread the poison of Hong Kong parochialism to isolate workers and defeat their struggles. She is the founder of Hong Kong First, a political party within the pan-democrats that claims Hong Kong’s “culture and lifestyle” must be defended from an “invasion” by mainland Chinese people, including tourists and children attending schools.
Other politicians like Martin Lee make open appeals to United States imperialism. Lee, whose involvement in Hong Kong politics goes back decades, met with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in May. The US State Department released a statement at the time saying Pompeo was concerned over the extradition bill as it threatens the “rule of law.” Washington and its allies regularly accuse Beijing of violating the “rule of law” in the South China Sea, as they invent pretexts to bring military and economic pressure on China.
State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus pointed to Washington’s real concerns on Monday. After making empty references to “democratic values,” she stressed: “We are also concerned that the (extradition) amendments could damage Hong Kong’s business environment, and subject our citizens residing in or visiting Hong Kong to China’s capricious judicial system.”
A letter to Chief Executive Lam from the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China in May made clear Washington’s hypocrisy on democratic rights. The commission is headed by Representative James McGovern and Senator Marco Rubio. They declared that the new legislation could be used by Beijing to target “business persons, journalists, rights advocates and political activists residing in Hong Kong.”
What hypocrisy! One has only to look at the US-led efforts to extradite journalist Julian Assange to the United States, to face retribution for exposing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, to see what Washington really thinks about journalists, activists and democratic rights.
Workers and young people should oppose the oppressive legislation and repressive police methods against unarmed protesters by Hong Kong authorities, acting on behalf of Beijing. At the same time, however, they should reject with contempt the efforts of the pan-democrats to seek the support of US imperialism, which is notorious for exploiting “human rights” to further its own predatory interests.
The fight for the political independence of the working class means, above all, the building of a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International to lead the fight to unite all Chinese workers as part of the struggle for socialism internationally.

US gears up for World War III with largest defense contract in history

Andre Damon

The Pentagon announced Monday the single largest arms purchase in its history, agreeing to buy nearly 500 F-35 fighter aircraft at a total cost of $34 billion.
This purchase is only a down payment on the Pentagon’s acquisition of the notoriously wasteful and failure-prone aircraft, whose design is based on two overarching priorities: fighting a war with a “great power” such as Russia and China and lining the pockets of Lockheed Martin and the horde of former congressmen and retired generals on its payroll.
The agreement covers the 12th, 13th and 14th batches of F-35s ordered by the Pentagon, which eventually plans to field thousands of the aircraft. Billed in 2001 as a program to save money, each plane eventually ended up costing four times the initial estimate.
A US Air Force F-22 aircraft [Credit: US Air Force]
At a projected total program cost of $1.5 trillion, this one weapons system alone would finance the US Department of Education for a quarter-century.
The F-35 has no greater advocate than President Donald Trump, who promotes it like one of his golfing properties. Trump turned a Wednesday afternoon joint press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda into a photo-op to promote the war plane. As an F-35 carried out a low-speed flyover of the White House, he praised Poland for its agreement to purchase 32 of the aircraft.
At speeches before military audiences, Trump routinely brags about the massive military budgets he has pushed through Congress, touting in particular the Pentagon’s vast spending on the F-35. Speaking at the Air Force Academy commencement ceremony last month, the American president responded to resounding applause from the graduating officers by declaring, “You just like all those brand new, beautiful airplanes that we’re buying.”
Trump continued: “Last year… we secured $700 billion to support our war fighters, followed by another $716 billion—not million—billion. That’s with a ‘B.’”
Both of these Pentagon budgets, entailing the largest increases in defense spending since the end of the Cold War, were passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Eighty-nine percent of Senate Democrats voted to pass the most recent defense budget, whose explicit aim is to prepare the US military for “great power” conflict with Russia and China.
This year the White House is aiming even higher. Next Monday, the administration plans to submit a $750 billion Defense Department budget proposal, a figure $18 billion higher than the amount requested by the Pentagon.
A small army of defense industry executives, former generals serving as “consultants” and congressmen turned lobbyists for the military-industrial complex is salivating at the infusion of cash into a military notorious for paying $7,622 for coffee makers and $640 for toilet seats.
Even by the normal standards of US war profiteering, the F-35 program takes the cake for sheer corruption—so much so that the warmonger and military yes man John McCain called it a “poster child for acquisition malpractice,” a “scandal” and a “tragedy.”
According to the Project on Government Oversight, “By design, the [US military] services can’t independently perform many of the most basic functions needed to properly employ the most expensive weapon system in history.” It added that Lockheed Martin “keeps the government from even knowing the costs of any of the spare parts it has to buy from the company.”
The hundreds of aircraft already delivered are plagued with failures that make them largely inoperable. As Defense News recently reported, “F-35B and F-35C pilots [are] compelled to observe limitations on airspeed to avoid damage to the F-35’s airframe or stealth coating,” while the aircraft remains prone to “cockpit pressure spikes” that cause “excruciating ear and sinus pain.”
But the graft, incompetence and corruption that mark the F-35 program should not distract from its fundamental purpose: to fight a “near-peer” competitor in the form of Russia or China.
Earlier this month, Vice President Mike Pence, addressing the graduating class at West Point, predicted war in the Pacific, Europe and the Americas within the graduates’ lifetimes.
“It is a virtual certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in your life,” he declared. “Some of you will join the fight on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific, where North Korea continues to threaten the peace and an increasingly militarized China challenges our presence in the region. Some of you will join the fight in Europe, where an aggressive Russia seeks to redraw international boundaries by force. And some of you may even be called upon to serve in this hemisphere.
“And when that day comes, I know you will move to the sound of the guns and do your duty, and you will fight, and you will win.”
These blood-curdling sentiments, far from being unique to the Trump administration, are broadly shared on a bipartisan basis. Speaking in Iowa on Tuesday, former naval intelligence officer-turned-Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said: “Our military capabilities exist for a reason… we stand ready to use force.” He added that the US must prepare for the “wars of the future.”
Even as Trump rips up fundamental constitutional protections, imprisoning immigrant children on military bases and ruling by executive fiat, the Democrats hail the value of an external enemy to enforce political unity at home, with Buttigieg declaring: “The new China challenge provides us with an opportunity to come together across the political divide.” This is essential, he suggests, since, “At least half the battle is at home.”
Some three decades after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the proclamation of a “unipolar moment” of US dominance, America’s efforts to preserve its global hegemony through military means have produced a debacle. In the lead article in the current edition of Foreign Affairs, Fareed Zakaria writes of “The Self-Destruction of American Power,” concluding that, “Sometime in the last two years, American hegemony died.”
But every failure, setback and disaster has only led the United States to double down on its economic bullying and military aggression. After the debacles of the “war on terror,” including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the wars in Libya and Syria, Washington has set its sights on a conflict with Russia and China. The results of such wars will be a disaster on an incomparably greater scale than the bloodletting in the Middle East, threatening a nuclear Third World War.
The homicidal eruption of American militarism that began with the first Gulf War, coinciding with the Stalinist regime’s dissolution of the Soviet Union, will not simply peter out. Unless halted by the emergence of a mass socialist movement of the working class, it will only intensify.

12 Jun 2019

African Women’s Development Fund (AWDF) African Women Writers Workshop 2019 – Fully-funded to Ghana

Application Deadline: 24th June 2019.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Ghana

About the Award:  This workshop is targeted at women writers, journalists and activists who wish to step-up their involvement in highlighting issues around women’s rights and social justice and who wish to improve and practice their personal writing skills. Participants will be expected to read widely from assigned selected texts, and to complete daily writing exercises. After the workshop, the participants are expected to use the knowledge acquired to write widely about social justice issues in and beyond their communities. Participants will also be required to produce at least two articles, blogs or longer pieces for use by AWDF.

Type: Workshop

Eligibility: Applicants must meet the following requirements
  • Be from the African region, or the diaspora.
  • · Be a feminist or women’s rights activist
  • · Have high proficiency in English (verbal and written)
  • · Be an experienced writer (published or unpublished)
  • · Be available to travel to Ghana and stay for the entire 10-day session Young women writers between ages 21-35 are especially encouraged to apply.
Priority will be given to interested women writers (fiction & non fiction) journalists, academics who wish to actively engage in women’s rights activism.

Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: AWDF will provide the following to successful applicants · Round trip fare. Participants from the diaspora may be required to pay part of the cost of air fare depending on the budget · Full accommodation and meals · Workshop material and stationary

Duration of Award:  October 21 – 30 2019

How to Apply: To apply, send an e-mail to communications@awdf.org with the following:
· Contact details including name, email address, telephone
number
· A short bio (maximum 200 words)
· A sample article written by the applicant, about women’s rights or social justice -between 500 and 1000 words. The
sample maybe unpublished or published on any media. AWDF will not be responsible for any cases of alleged plagiaris


Visit Award Webpage for Details

Government of Korea K-Startup Grand Challenge 2019 for Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 14th June 2019 at 13:00 GMT +9

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Startup Campus in Pangyo Techno Valley, 14 minutes south of Gangnam, South Korea.

About the Award: The Korean government is working to transform the country’s economy for another century of success, ultimately raising employment, the GDP and Korea’s place in the world. In order to do this, the government is supporting talented entrepreneurs and promising startups to turn Korea and Pangyo Techno Valley into a global startup hub in Asia. The top ranked 50 teams selected by the accelerators will be invited to stay in Korea to participate a four-month accelerating program in Pangyo, located south of Seoul. At the end of the accelerating program, the government will host a Demo Day to select the top 25 startups from the program. They will get additional financial incentives, and if they establish their businesses in Korea, they will get additional support from the government.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Selection Criteria: The selection panel will give priority to startups working on disruption in the following criteria, but they will also consider startups with brilliant ideas in any sector:

Number of Awards: 4

Value of Program:
  • The top 40 startups selected will be eligible to receive a total of $22,727 each in funding for settlement in Korea
    based on their performances at the ‘Demo Day’ and according to the Settlement Evaluation.
  • All 80 startups in the program wil each receive about $11,136 (12,250,000 KRW) to cover living expenses in equal installments over 3½ months.
  • State-of-the-Art R&D Labs: Prototyping and testing facilities, expert support.
  • Brand New Startup Campus: Global Startup Campus is purposely built 14 minutes from Gangnam and next to Korea’s tech giants.
  • Expert Support: Experts from some of the world’s top tech companies with experience taking companies global.
  • Corporate Partnerships: Meet Korea’s top tech companies with expertise ranging from smartphones to software to semiconductors.
  • Break into Asia: Korea is safe, developed and two-hour flight away from over 1 billion potential customers.
  • Grant for Top 25 Startups: The top 25 startups selected at the final Demo Day will be eligible for an additional $27,000 (32,000,000 KRW) grant in equal installments over six months if they establish a legal entity in Korea.
  • Grants for Top 4 Startups:
    • Top Prize: $100,000 (120,000,000 KRW)
    • Second Prize: $40,000 (48,000,000 KRW)
    • Second Runner-up: $20,000 (24,000,000 KRW)
    • Third Runner-up: $6,000 (7,200,000 KRW)
  • Additional Investments The five accelerators will make equity investments in the most promising startups. Startups will have access to other VC’s and investors who may choose to invest.
How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Unilever Young Entrepreneurs Awards for Sustainable Solutions 2019

Application Deadline: 30th June 2019 at 23:59 BST

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): London, UK

About the Award: The Unilever Young Entrepreneurs Awards are all about supporting and celebrating inspirational young people from all over the world with existing initiatives, products or services that are tackling some of the planet’s biggest sustainability challenges.
This year, the Awards will recognise initiatives in three key areas:
  • Improve people’s health and wellbeing
  • Improve the health of the planet
  • Contribute to a fairer and more socially-inclusive world
Whether it’s with an initiative, product or service, if you’ve gone beyond the idea stage and started to make an impact, we want to hear from you.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Anyone from around the world (excluding Russia), aged between 18 and 35 (as of 29 June 2019).

Selection Process: The Unilever Young Entrepreneurs Awards will recognise up to eight winners, including the HRH Prize Winner, in 2019. The eight winners will be selected from a rigorous assessment process led by The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, culminating in video interviews with our finalist selection panels. All eight winners will be invited to an Accelerator Programme in Cambridge, before making their final pitches in person to a guest judging panel who will decide on the HRH Prize Winner of the 2019 competition.

Number of Awards: 8

Value of Program: The overall winner will receive the ‘HRH The Prince of Wales Young Sustainability Entrepreneur Prize.’
All winners will attend a special prize event hosted in London.
  • The overall winner of the ‘HRH The Prince of Wales Young Sustainability Entrepreneur Prize’ will receive a €50,000 cash award and one-to-one mentoring support tailored to their specific needs for a duration of 12 months.
  • The remaining winners will each receive a €8,500 cash award and one-to-one mentoring support tailored to their specific needs for a duration of 12 months.
How to Apply: To submit your entry, you’ll need to create a profile and complete the application form. You’ll need to tell us all about your initiative’s story so far, and your vision for its future. The more you can share, the better.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

HiiL Innovating Justice Challenge 2019 for Entrepreneurs in Africa and Middle East

Application Deadline: 15th August 2019

Eligible Countries: The HiiL Justice Accelerator particularly encourages applications from Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ukraine, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and the Netherlands.

To be taken at (country): The Hague, The Netherlands

About the Award: The HiiL Justice Accelerator finds and supports the world’s best justice entrepreneurs in order to create access to justice for all.
Between 40-50 startups, selected as semi-finalists, will be invited to pitch at local Boostcamps. This year’s Boostcamps will take place in Johannesburg, Lagos, Nairobi, Kampala, Kyiv, and The Hague. In some cases, startups may pitch by Skype or be brought to the nearest Boostcamp. Additionally, these semi-finalists will be guided through a “market validation” process.

Eligibility: We look for ventures with strong potential to prevent or resolve pressing justice needs. Examples of such eventures are those that deliver concrete justice solutions for many people, including micro, small and medium-sized businesses, and initiatives within existing justice systems or public institutions, spearheaded by driven intrapreneurs.
  • Innovative justice initiatives who can make significant social impact
  • Ventures that have a business model and the ambition to scale across a country or internationally
  • Ventures that have a business model that enables them to become financially sustainable
  • Ventures led by a motivated and strong team that includes experienced and inspiring founder(s)
Criteria: who can apply?
  • The founder and applicant should be 18 years of age or older.
  • The venture must be committed to providing access to justice underpinned by evidence showing justice needs.
  • The person(s) with whom we engage should be the founder or a co-founder of the organization and should be able to make key, high-level, and direction-shifting decisions (such as whether or not to take investments and who to partner with) on behalf of the entire organization.
  • We can only accept innovations to be incorporated with a bank account in the name of the legal entity by the time they receive our grant funding.
Selection Criteria:
  • Scope (is it a justice innovation? is it solving pressing justice problem)
  • Impact
  • Uniqueness
  • Sustainability
  • Scalability
  • Team
Value of Award: Apply to receive seed funding, training and acceleration support, access to an international expert network and potential further investment opportunities.

How to Apply: Click here to apply

Visit Program Webpage for details

DAAD/NELGA Research Fellowships in Land Governance 2019 for African Students

Application Deadline: 30th June 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Ghana

About the Award: NELGA’s research fellowship programme aims to support junior researchers in conducting a specific research projector field study at a NELGA partner institution and encourage them to pursue successful scientific careers. Through the programme, research fellows contribute to the development of African scientific collaboration and promote academic excellence in the field of land governance.

Field of Study: Research proposals are eligible for funding if they are conducted in the area of land governance or other related fields. Research proposals covering the following cross-cutting issues will be given special consideration:
  • Women’s legal land rights and law enforcement mechanisms
  • Access to land resources and land titles (de jure and de facto)
  • Women’s role in land tenure governance and land reform – i.e. their participation in decision-making bodies and community governance
  • Property rights within marriage and on inheritance
Type: Research

Eligibility: We invite staff members or students of NELGA partner institutions with a background in land governance or gender studies to apply for funding for NELGA research fellowships on Land and Gender. This is part of the general open call for NELGA research fellowships as attached.

Applicants must:
  •       Have completed at least a first university degree (undergraduate) at a state or state-recognized institution of higher education;
  •       Return to their studies at the end of the fellowship;
  •       Be nationals of an African country;
  •       Be granted leave of absence by their home institution for the purpose of conducting a field study.
Female applicants and candidates from less privileged regions or groups are especially encouraged to participate in the program.

Number of Awards: up to two scholarships for Master studies and up to four for scholarships for PhD studies at KNUST

Value of Award: The fellowship can be granted for field research conducted in any NELGApartner university or research institute. The grant is non-renewable. The fellowship does not provide financial support to research at the applicant’s host institution.
The fellowship consists of:
  • A flat-rate travel allowance: EUR 280.- for in-country, EUR 430.- for neighbouring countries, EUR 630.- for in-region, EUR 980.- for out of region;
  • A monthly research/study allowance of EUR 460.
The fellowship does not cover living expenses. It can only be awarded once per year.

 Duration of Program: The Fellowship covers a research period from one month to a maximum of three months.

How to Apply: Applicants will be required to:
Applications for the NELGA research fellowships may be submitted throughout the year. For this specialized call we invite you to apply before June 30, 2019. The fellowship cannot start earlier than 3 months after the application.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) Training Programme 2019/2020 for Developing Countries (fully-funded)

Application Deadline: Applications should be submitted preferably 3 months before the commencement of the course.

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): India

About the Award: The ITEC Programme, fully funded by the Government of India, has evolved and grown over the years. Under ITEC and its sister programme SCAAP (Special Commonwealth African Assistance Programme), 161 countries in Asia, Africa, East Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean as well as Pacific and Small Island countries are invited to share in the Indian developmental experience acquired over six decades of India’s existence as a free nation.
As a result of different activities under this programme, there is now a visible and growing awareness among other countries about the competence of India as a provider of technical know-how and expertise as well as training opportunities, consultancy services and feasibility studies. These programmes have generated immense goodwill and substantive cooperation among the developing countries.

Fields of Study: Topics for this period include courses in the themes of power, renewable & alternative energy; agriculture and rural development; environment & climate change; and others.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 
  • Academic qualifications as laid down by the Institute for the Course concerned.
  • Working knowledge of English required to follow the Course.
  • Age between 25 to 45 years.
  • Medically fit to undertake the training.
Selection Criteria: 
  • Officials in Government, Public and Private Sectors, Universities, Chambers of Commerce and Industry, etc.
  • Candidates should possess adequate work experience.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: The program covers transportation and visa costs, course fees, accommodation, and living and book allowances for course participants.

How to Apply: Find information on how to apply

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation