13 Jul 2019

Elderly poor suffering hypothermia in Australia

Margaret Rees

A record-breaking winter in Australia’s southern state of Victoria in 2015 prompted an investigation that found alarming indications of the effect of cold on the elderly poor, who were found to be suffering hypothermia inside their homes
The study, entitled “Cold and Lonely,” examined the cases of 217 hypothermic patients at three Alfred Health hospitals in south-eastern Melbourne, Victoria’s capital, between July 2009 and September 2016.
These hospitals serve a population of about 700,000 people, about a sixth of the city’s population, so the data gives only a partial view of the extent of the underlying social crisis.
Hypothermia patients found indoors accounted for 78 percent of hospital presentations, with elderly socially-isolated people over-represented. Of these, 65 percent were on pensions and 42 percent lived alone. Moreover, 87 percent of hypothermic elderly patients were found indoors.
Exposure-related hypothermia—being found outdoors when the maximum temperature was less than 20 degrees C—accounted for 22 percent of the hospital presentations. It was significantly associated with lower age and alcohol or drug-induced intoxication.
Inpatient deaths also were significantly higher among indoor patients compared to exposure patients (16 percent against 2 percent respectively). Body temperatures recorded in the emergency departments ranged from 23.9 to 36.4 degrees C.
Dr Michelle Ananda-Rajah, one of the study’s authors, told the WSWS: “It was quite an unexpected finding. We didn’t expect the majority of people to be found indoors… The patients who were found indoors had an eight times higher rate of dying than those found outdoors.
“People vulnerable to hypothermia were especially the elderly, even inside their own homes. Their homes were not adequately heated. They were socially isolated. We defined social isolation as living alone, having very few social supports around them, no friends or family, nothing documented in their medical history…
“We found the trend was patients who lived alone had worse outcomes. Their mortality was higher. This is not a medical problem; this is a social problem... Poverty, social isolation, inability to pay heating bills are probably factors behind this observation.”
The results point to an often-hidden social crisis—the avoidance or under-consumption of heating by people who must ration their energy use so they can pay their electricity and gas bills. Power prices increased by an average of 12 percent in Victoria each year between 2006 and 2016, the same period covered by the “Cold and Lonely” study.
The Labor Party bears particular responsibility for this social blight. It has been in office in the state since 2014, presiding over the public health and housing systems.
A Victorian Council of Social Services (VCOSS) survey, “Battling On—Persistent Energy Hardship,” published in 2018, found that in 2014–2016, 1.8 percent of Victorian households (45,000 households) were persistently unable to heat their homes. Another 3.6 percent were temporarily unable to do so. Nationally, 1.6 percent were persistently unable to heat their homes.
Of those unable to heat their homes, half did not report persistent payment difficulty. They paid energy bills on time by restricting or foregoing heating. Households with persistent heating inability had especially low incomes—half were in the lowest 20 percent of incomes. Also, 60.4 percent of these households included at least one person with a long-term health condition or disability.
An earlier VCOSS study, entitled “Power Struggles. Everyday battles to stay connected,” published in 2017, said: “People make significant sacrifices to pay energy bills. This can include restricting or entirely foregoing heating or cooling … or going without lighting.”
People renting are more likely to have persistent energy hardship. Brotherhood of St Lawrence research showed that the largest cohort of households unable to heat their homes (37 percent) were private tenants.
The VCOSS study pointed out: “Under current laws, landlords are able to lease structurally unsound homes with no or inadequate insulation, old and inefficient heating (if heating is provided at all), a lack of proper ventilation and aged, expensive hot water systems.”
The study included case studies of participants living in draughty homes who use no heating in winter due to energy costs. Others went to bed early in cold weather.
One elderly male pensioner, living alone, did not replace his gas heater after it broke down. He told interviewers: “I bite the bullet… if it’s cold, I’ll put a jumper on.” If he still felt cold, he went to bed early.
A number of elderly people gave similar accounts to the WSWS.
Brian, 83, lives alone in his own home, which is in need of repair, but repairs are too expensive. He recently lost his part-pension. “Six years ago I didn’t have to worry about money the way I do now,” he said. He closed down his gas account and relies on electricity. Asked how he heats his home in cold weather, he replied: “I use the electric blanket.”
Brian suffered a heart attack three years ago, so must live close to a hospital. “I do need to be warm, because of that,” he said.
John, 76, a pensioner, lives alone in a public housing flat. There is a heater, but it doesn’t give out much heat. “I don’t put the heater on at all,” he explained. “I wear a lot of clothes. I have a big thick doona and I take a hot water bottle to bed.
“The hot water in the flat is paid for by the housing commission. I don’t use much gas. Electricity is $78 for one bill... I would like the windows to be double glazed the way they are in Europe. That keeps in the heat.”
Enrico, 75, a pensioner, lives in a rented two-bedroom house with his daughter, who is also a pensioner. He worked in the building industry for 50 years, but lost his life savings in a swindle. “Now I pay $330 a week rent,” he said. “I can’t find anything cheaper. If you’re a pensioner, they won’t give you a chance.
“I use heating only when necessary, if I’m desperate, because it costs so much money. If I’m really cold, I only put the heater on for half an hour, not even an hour. I have a lumbar problem in the spine. I stuffed up my back working in the building industry. I’m in pain 24 hours a day.”
Aged 66, Fay lives in a public housing flat, which she says is “pretty cold. It is quite draughty. The balcony door has dropped and there is a gap.”
Fay is angry about her power bills because no matter how low her usage, she still has to pay the supply charge, which is often much greater than the usage. “I complain nearly every bill. My last two gas bills were astronomical. I had a gas bill of $56.30, and my actual usage was $1.83. Once a month I put complaints on their site.
“When I’m cold I just go to bed early and use a hot water bottle. I have a little fan heater in the kitchen. My heater in the lounge was not on once... The supply charge, it’s killing me. I try and budget. I put x amount to pay it each fortnight, so I don’t have bill shock. You shouldn’t have to live like this.”
The “Cold and Lonely” report has uncovered a glaring social problem of fuel poverty affecting older people that, if compounded by poor health, can have serious outcomes for those affected. It adds to studies conducted globally showing a direct connection between intensifying social inequality and poor health under capitalism.

UN calls on Spain to free jailed Catalan nationalist politicians

Alejandro López

The United Nations (UN) Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) has called for the “immediate release” of four Catalan political prisoners currently in detention waiting for a verdict in the show trial mounted by the Spanish government, 20 months after they were incarcerated.
The UN WGAD investigates arbitrary detentions that are alleged to be in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, it has no powers to enforce its decisions. In 2016, it found that the conditions under which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London amounted to “arbitrary detention.”
Its report is a devastating exposure of Madrid’s show trial of Catalan nationalist politicians after its brutal crackdown on the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. The Catalan nationalist parties are pro-austerity parties, tacitly backing NATO wars and the EU, advancing a demand for Catalan secession that is reactionary and divides workers on the Iberian peninsula. But Madrid’s crackdown is an attack on basic democratic rights and a threat to illegalise all opposition, including workers’ strikes and protests, to the state. This is unprecedented since the fall in 1978 of the Spanish fascist regime set up by Francisco Franco.
The report considers the detention of Joaquim Forn, Raül Romeva, Josep Rull, and Dolors Bassa, all former regional ministers of the Catalan government, as “arbitrary” for violating articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among others, these articles regulate the rights to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and freedom of expression or political participation. In its report, it calls upon Madrid to undertake an independent and comprehensive investigation on the violation of the detainees’ rights.
The former regional ministers are among the 12 Catalan officials who were tried at the Supreme Court’s show trial, and are now awaiting a verdict. Nine of the defendants, charged with rebellion related to the 2017 independence referendum, face up to 25 years in prison. The three other defendants face lesser charges of disobedience and misuse of public funds.
It comes months after the WGAD published a first report on the cases of Jordi Sànchez, leader of the Catalan National Assembly, and Jordi Cuixart, president of Òmnium Cultural, as well as Oriol Junqueras, Catalonia’s vice regional premier in 2017.
The latest report concluded stating that their detention was “arbitrary” as it “aimed at suppressing political group members in order to silence their claims in favour of self-determination.” It also said the jailed politicians’ actions around the September 20-21 demonstrations in 2017, one of the core arguments of the accusation against the Catalan leaders at the trial, “were not violent and nor did they incite violence.”
Spain’s acting Socialist Party (PSOE) government has reacted frantically to the reports. In response to the first, in May, it accused the body of “impartiality” and a lack of “independence,” and called for the removal of two of the five experts composing the WGAD. To the recent report, acting Justice Minister Dolores Delgado dismissed the report outright, saying that the reports “contain distorted information on the reality” in Catalonia.
The PSOE government in alliance with Podemos has overseen the show trial that concluded last month. The verdict is expected before November. The PSOE government’s reaction to international criticism to the crackdown on the Catalan nationalists follows the same line as its predecessor, the right-wing Popular Party (PP). It shows that the Spanish ruling class as a whole backs the campaign against the Catalan nationalists.
The pseudo-left Podemos party also supports this policy. Its leader, Pablo Iglesias, currently in talks with the PSOE to form a coalition government after April’s general elections, promised “loyalty in state questions,” such as the Catalan issue. A member of its leadership told daily El País that in the talks with the PSOE, “We do not have red lines. We understand, due to the share of votes, that the government leadership in the Catalan question must be led by PSOE. We are going to be loyal.”
If the crackdown on the Catalan nationalists enjoys near-unanimous support in the political establishment, it is because, amid mounting social anger after a decade of EU austerity, the Catalan issue has become the vehicle through which the ruling class is seeking to attack democratic rights and rehabilitate authoritarian forms of rule and fascist politics.
After four months and the testimony from 422 witnesses on the events leading up to the unilateral independence referendum on October 2017 and the Catalan parliament’s subsequent declaration of independence, the case has revealed that the prosecution has no evidence to show the accused instigated violence to achieve independence.
Since the beginning, the case has been a fraud. The judicial panel is presided by Justice Manuel Marchena and is composed of six other justices, most of them having close ties with the PP.
Lacking any concrete evidence, the prosecution has resorted to falsifications to back up accusations of “use of violence” required by the charges of rebellion and sedition. Several police officers and civil guards claimed they saw “hatred reflected in the eyes” of demonstrators. One went so far as to say that “in the years of struggle against drug trafficking” he had not felt “as much fear” as he had felt before those eyes. Unsurprisingly, presiding Judge Marchena refused to allow the defence to show videos that would have challenged the narrative of the police officers.
The prosecutors also tried to demonstrate that the nationalists used the Mossos d  Esquadra regional police to back up their secessionist aims. They were accused of foot-dragging on referendum day, and failing to do their part to enforce a court order to stop the vote, thereby forcing the unleashing of mass violence that led to more than a thousand injured by national police and civil guards.
One of the trial’s surprises was the assertion by former Catalan police chief Josep Lluís Trapero that he was ready and willing to arrest separatist politicians after the regional parliament approved any unilateral independence declaration.
Coinciding with the end of the trial, repression against the Catalan nationalists has only intensified. The PSOE-controlled Prosecutors Office is now prosecuting several top officials of Catalan public television TV3 and Catalunya Ràdio, Catalonia’s main public radio station, charged with belonging to a criminal organisation.
The Prosecutors Office has also asked this week that regional Catalan Premier Quim Torra be barred from public office for a year and eight months and face a €30,000 fine for refusing to take down yellow ribbons on government buildings before April’s Spanish elections. These ribbons have come to symbolise support for jailed and exiled Catalan-nationalist leaders.
Madrid also enjoys the full backing of the European Union (EU), which has recently appointed Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Borrell, a Catalan, is a rabid anti-secessionist. The PSOE named him after he participated in demonstrations against Catalan nationalism called by Sociedad Civil Catalana (Catalan Civil Society), a group tied to the far right.
The European Parliament has also de-facto supported barring Puigdemont, Junqueras and former regional minister in exile Toni Comin from taking their seats, as Madrid has not recognised them as members of the EU body after elections in May. All were elected. However, Madrid has barred them from pledging allegiance to the Spanish constitution, a necessary requirement to be recognised as a Member of the European Parliament.
The European Court of Human Rights also recently rejected by a unanimous vote a case brought by Catalan separatist politicians alleging violations of their freedom of expression and assembly over the 2017 independence referendum. It defended the Spanish Constitutional Court’s suspension of a plenary session of the Catalan parliament, arguing it “pursued legitimate goals” such as “maintaining public safety, defending public order and protecting the rights and freedoms of others.”

Germany’s Grand Coalition intensifies war policy in the Middle East

Johannes Stern 

The German government intends to continue the war mission of the Bundeswehr (Germany‘s Armed Forces) in Syria and deploy the Air Force in the entire region beyond October 31, contrary to the provisions of its current parliamentary mandate. This was announced by government spokesman Steffen Seibert at a press conference in Berlin earlier this week.
For years, Germany has made “a considerable and internationally recognized contribution to the anti-IS coalition,” explained Seibert. The Bundeswehr was “active in aerial reconnaissance, in aerial refuelling and also in the training of Iraqi units.” Now the German government “together with our allies, with the American side, is talking about how the engagement in the region should develop further.”
The deployment of German ground troops, as formally requested by the US government and its special envoy for Syria, James Jeffrey, for the training of Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, is allegedly not planned, according to Seibert. At the same time, he made it clear that the German government was preparing to expand its involvement in the US-led anti-IS coalition behind the back of the population.
This would involve “a whole series of both military and civilian components that could be suitable for achieving stabilization on the ground in the region.” The German approach was that “we want to continue our previous measures as far as possible.” For one thing is clear: “The challenge posed by the so-called Islamic State has by no means disappeared. The coalition has succeeded in taking over areas that ISIS previously held in Syria and Iraq. But the danger of the Islamic State continues.”
That's the familiar propaganda. In reality, the main concern of the imperialist powers is not the struggle against ISIS, which itself is a product of the brutal war for regime change in Syria, which cost 400,000 lives and destroyed large parts of the country. The actual war aim was and is the overthrow of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the installation of a pro-Western puppet regime in Damascus.
In contrast to the attack on Iraq in 2003 and the Libyan war in 2011, Germany participated in the Syrian intervention from the very beginning. As early as 2012, the Federal Foreign Office, together with the government-linked think tank Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) and part of the Syrian opposition, launched the project “The Day after” and published a “Vision for a Post-Assad Order.”
Now that Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies are nearing a military victory and the United States is escalating its war preparations against Iran, the European powers are increasing their own military presence in the region to assert their economic and geostrategic interests.
According to media reports, France and Great Britain have responded to the US government's request and agreed to send additional soldiers to Syria. Paris and London would increase their troops by 10 to 15 percent, a US government representative told Foreign Policy magazine on Wednesday. Italy is also on the verge of sending additional armed forces. Similarly, a number of Balkan and Baltic states are “almost certain” to send soldiers to replace US troops, the magazine writes, citing another source.
In Germany, too, leading politicians of the governing parties are pleading for the deployment of ground troops to Syria. CDU chairman Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said in an interview that German ground troops in Syria were “a big leap for us.” But one must “always be aware: it is also a matter of our own security in Germany, not just what the United States wants.”
The deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Johann Wadephul, told representatives of the German Press Agency that the request from Washington should not be “reflexively rejected.” After all, “this region is about our security and not American security.”
The CDU defence expert and chairman of the Bundestag's reservist working group RAG, Patrick Sensburg, emphasized in an interview with Focus that the US demand for ground troops was by no means off the table. It was also “our obligation to ensure peace in the region” and “to assume greater responsibility.” After all, “the fight against the IS is far away from the USA and close to Europe … You can't always say, 'Let the Americans do it'.”
Leading social democrats, who had already strongly condemned US plans to withdraw from Syria last December, have also made it clear that they essentially support Washington’s request.
The USA had “moved away from its withdrawal plans because of international criticism, among other things. Because the IS is still a real danger in the region,” said Fritz Felgentreu, defence policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag. “Now the U.S. expects support from the same countries. That's understandable.” One should “therefore evaluate with the other countries of the anti-IS coalition what is still necessary now and which country can take over which task.”
Even the opposition parties in the Bundestag are not fundamentally opposed to an expansion of the mission and the deployment of ground troops. However, they stress that it must serve German and European interests in the region to a greater extent.
Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, deputy leader of the FDP parliamentary group, told the German daily Die Welt: “As long as there is no political solution for Syria, we don't need to talk about German ground troops.” The US inquiry, however, showed that it would not work in the medium term without a European contribution. “The condition for this must be that Europe be equally involved in the development of a new political order in Syria. It can't continue with the previous approach.”
Tobias Lindner, the Greens' spokesman on defence policy, made similar remarks according to Die Welt. “German ground troops in Syria would only be conceivable at all if there were a mandate from the UN Security Council and a credible peace perspective,” he said.
Most aggressively, the Left Party, which from the beginning has been pursuing a policy of war in Syria, is pushing for greater foreign policy independence from the USA. Dietmar Bartsch, leader of the parliamentary group of the Left Party in the Bundestag, demanded that Germany should not be a “recipient of orders from the United States.” Tobias Pflüger, the Left Party's spokesman on defence policy, warned that the US administration was “concerned only with replacing its soldiers, so that they also have a free hand in other fields.” Germany should “not allow itself to be drawn further into the Syrian war.”
In fact, German-European military planning is not limited to Syria. On Thursday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a comment calling upon the German and European powers to join the anti-Iranian military coalition to secure the Strait of Hormuz that US President Donald Trump is seeking to establish. “Freedom of navigation is a great good, especially for a nation as dependent on exports as Germany. It must also be defended in crisis regions such as the Persian Gulf.”
The newspaper's proposal: “Warships from Europe or Asia” should “secure the bottleneck from the Gulf of Oman to the Persian Gulf”, through which “40 percent of the world's oil exports” passes, and the Bab el-Mandab Strait, the entrance from the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea.
European ships “would be less provocative for Iran than American or Saudi patrol boats” and at the same time “a further signal to Tehran that Europe wants to maintain the nuclear agreement but does not accept the aggressive regional policy of the Islamic Republic unopposed.”
The Süddeutsche Zeitung claim that another armada of warships in the powder keg of the Middle East would be “a contribution to crisis prevention” is obviously absurd. It would rather increase the danger of a direct military confrontation with Iran, which could quickly ignite the entire region and lead to a possible confrontation with the nuclear powers Russia and China and thus to a third world war.

Court orders UK to suspend Saudi Arabia arms sales over Yemen war

Jean Shaoul

The UK Court of Appeal has ordered the Conservative government to suspend the issuance of new licences for arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
The court found last month that the government had failed to assess whether British-supplied weapons would be used in Riyadh’s murderous war in Yemen, now in its fifth year, in breach of both international humanitarian law and Britain’s own laws.
The case confirmed that the British government had sought to evade international law, including a 2014 European treaty on arms sales, by selling arms knowing they would be used in war crimes.
Air strikes and other combat operations in Yemen have caused the deaths of an estimated 80,000 people, including at least 17,700 civilians, while at least 3.2 million people now need treatment for acute malnutrition, including 2 million children under the age of five. The charity Save the Children reported at the end of last year that as many as 85,000 children under the age of five have died from hunger and disease since the beginning of the Saudi-led slaughter in 2015.
A spokesperson for the Department of International Trade (DIT), which grants licences for arms sales, downplayed the significance of the judgement, saying that only its decision-making process and not the sales of arms was unlawful, and that the government would appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.
The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), a British-based NGO, had sought to overturn a previous High Court ruling permitting the export of arms to Saudi Arabia. It argued that the arms sales breach international humanitarian law (IHL) because of the disproportionate harm the military equipment causes to civilians. Moreover, British-built aircraft, bombs and missiles were being used to target civilians in breach of UK arms export law that bans the sale of arms or munitions to a state that is at “clear risk” of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law.
According to the Ministry of Defence’s own data, the number of alleged IHL violations had reached a staggering 350 by March 2018.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both warned that cluster bombs “made in Great Britain”—proscribed under international law—have been used against civilian targets such as farms in the north of the country. Despite this, the government maintains that it has received assurances from the Saudi-led coalition that the bombing campaign adheres to international law.
While the court rejected the CAAT’s argument, it found that the DIT, in approving the sales, had failed to consider the Saudi-led coalition’s attitude to previous breaches of humanitarian law. It thereby shot to pieces the government’s claim that it has “one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world.”
According to evidence heard in secret but referred to in an open judgement, the DIT decided to change its methodology for approving arms sales in early 2016. This was at a time of growing international concern about civilian casualties caused by the coalition’s aerial bombing campaign that had destroyed a hospital in Saada province and a mobile clinic run by the charity Médecins Sans Frontières.
The government argued in the earlier High Court case in 2017, opposing the CAAT’s request for a judicial review of Saudi arms sales, that hospitals and schools could serve as “arms dumps” and could therefore be considered as “dual-use” targets, making them legitimate targets. It also claimed that sales were approved after taking expert advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence, both of which are staffed or “advised” by former defence industry personnel.
The department’s counsel, James Eadie QC, even had the gall to say said the evidence showed that Saudi Arabia is “not a state flagrantly and wantonly violating IHL [international humanitarian law]. It knows the eyes of the world are on it.”
The DIT simply stopped recording whether or not suspected violations had occurred. It amended the database used to keep track of air strikes “to remove the relevant column or box” in which any suspected violation would be recorded. “Hence there is no document or documents...setting out the rationale by which it was thought right that no assessment of past violations should be made or even attempted.”
The case testifies firstly, to the government’s deliberate disregard for the evidence that the barbaric House of Saud—its close ally—was violating the law; secondly, to the evasion and subversion of its own rules; and thirdly, to its shameless lying to the public that it had a rigorous arms control mechanism in place.
Such lies, deceit and obfuscation are necessary because only a tiny minority of the British public—a mere 6 percent, according to a survey carried out last year—support arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The government knows full well there is mass opposition in the working class to militarism and war, as well as to social inequality and poverty.
The British government has adamantly opposed any arms embargo against its ally, claiming there is no conclusive proof of human rights violations. It has also opposed an investigation by an impartial tribunal. In October 2016, the UK blocked a proposal by the Netherlands that the EU should ask the UN Human Rights Council to set up an independent inquiry into war crimes in Yemen.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling argued that even if it was impossible to ascertain whether there had been a potential breach of international humanitarian law by the coalition and Saudi Arabia in particular, “at least the attempt had to be made.”
The British government has licensed the sale of at least £4.7 billion (US$6.1billion) worth of arms to Saudi Arabia since the start of the Saudi-led war in March 2015, after Houthi rebels drove out the corrupt government of President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, a puppet of Riyadh and Washington. It has created the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet in what was already the poorest country in the Arab world.
The licence includes £2.7 billion (US$3.4 billion) worth of aircraft and £1.9 billion (US$2.4 billion) worth of missiles, bombs and grenades. But the real level of arms sales is probably much higher, as many are transferred under the opaque system of “Open Licences” that is used to sanction arms sales to blood-soaked regimes in the Middle East, such as el-Sisi’s Egypt and Saudi Arabia. According to Middle East Eye, there has been a 22 percent rise in the use of secretive open licences since ministers pledged to increase Britain’s arms exports after the Brexit vote.
In addition, there are more than 80 Royal Air Force personnel serving in Saudi Arabia, some within the command and control centre that selects targets in Yemen for bombing, while others are training the Saudi air force, according to the Independent. There are believed to be 6,200 British contractors working at Saudi military bases, training pilots and maintaining aircraft.
As well as supporting the slaughter in Yemen, there have been reports that British troops have a combat role on the ground, with the Mail on Sunday reporting in March that at least five British Special Forces commandos were wounded in gun battles as part of a top-secret UK military campaign in Yemen.
The troops from the elite Special Boat Service (SBS), whose activities are never reported to parliament, suffered gunshot injuries in fierce clashes with Houthi forces in the Sa’dah area of northern Yemen, where up to 30 British troops are based. British Special Forces are thus fighting on the same side as jihadis and militia linked to al-Qaeda that are part of the Saudi-led coalition and use child soldiers as young as 13 and 14 years old.

17,000 Walmart workers strike in Chile

Andrea Lobo

More than 17,000 workers at Walmart Chile began the largest private-sector strike in the country’s history Wednesday.
The walkout is in response to mass firings and the expansion of a “multifunctional” work regime for the remaining workers. A total of 124 of the company’s stores will be closed indefinitely, while intermittent strike action will take place in the other 276.
The introduction of automated cashiers and other equipment by Walmart has already left at least 2,000 families in Chile this year without a living, while delivering major profits for the company’s wealthy investors. With the thuggery that characterizes the American financial and corporate aristocracy, the company immediately and openly offered “a major contribution to the union for the investment in the training of its associates.”
Keep up the struggle for decent salaries. They make millions, we get crumbs. [credit Chillan Viejo]
This bought the company a temporary reprieve. Since June 25-27, workers had voted overwhelmingly—91.75 percent—to strike, but the Inter-company Leader Union (SIL) agreed to prolong the legally mandated five-day “conciliation period” until the strike began yesterday.
Amid growing outrage among workers, with many online charging that the union would “keep all the money,” the president of the SIL, Juan Moreno, felt compelled to initiate the strike and note, “when we speak of training, it has to guarantee actual employment,” on top of the union’s demand for a meager 4 percent raise.
Despite the enormous support for the strike, the workers’ chief concern is the role of the union, which is seen as subservient to the company. The SIL had already cancelled a strike after a similar vote in 2017 and imposed a miserable 7 percent raise over two years.
Workers have also correctly expressed little to no trust that the union will prevent retaliation from a company that infamously hands its managers US-written scripts for the summary firings of strikers that begin, “Thank you for visiting with us.”
Marco, a warehouse worker who spoke with the WSWS, noted that he distrusts the intentions of Juan Moreno and the union because he thinks that they “have political interests in mind.”
Lorena, a former Walmart worker in the center-south province of Bío Bío, told the WSWS that she had to quit six months ago after falling ill and receiving no compensation or help from the union. “I’ll only tell you this: the company as much as the union disappointed me. I lost almost five years of my life,” she said.
These are concerns and experiences shared by countless workers on social media, some of whom charged Moreno with only seeking to rise up the hierarchy of the Stalinist Communist Party-led Chilean Workers’ Union Central (CUT), to which the SIL belongs. Several other workers charged that Moreno makes 4 million pesos (US$5,847) monthly, a figure that couldn’t be confirmed independently but would place him comfortably in the top 1 percent in Chile.
Striking Walmart workers outside of an Acuenta supermarket in Valdivia
Walmart is the largest private employer and the largest company by revenue on the planet. Operating 11,368 stores in 27 countries, Walmart has 2.3 million employees—1.5 million in the US alone—and had a record revenue last year of US$500 billion. This figure compares to Chile’s annual GDP of US$298 billion and is nearly 10 times its tax revenue.
The Walton family, heirs of the multinational, have a net worth of $175 billion, according to a February report by Bloomberg that found that the company had made $14 billion dollars in profit since the beginning of the year. This is the result of an increasingly aggressive quest for cash by finance capital that seeks to extract profits by further destroying the living standards of workers everywhere.
Anthony, who works at a Walmart supermarket named Acuenta in southern Chile, described to the WSWS the labor conditions of “multifunctionality” that are being imposed under the threat of firings. “A worker who is a cashier is taken from her post to work in restocking on the floor, picking up boxes of products, working under pressure because of the lack of existing personnel. Many young workers end up asking for leave due to stress.
“The people assigned to cleaning have to work as cashiers and leave the cleaning undone, being forced to cover areas without personnel. Sometimes the store and the bathrooms are left in unusable conditions.
“Workers have to move shopping carts from the parking lots, to clean the floor because there is no cleaning personnel, which goes against the law. There are currently three workers with medical leaves due to stress and back and muscle injuries from overwork. The appropriate clothing is not offered, and we have to buy it ourselves in order not to get sick from the cold.”
Walmart, get it, Acuenta doesn't sell out [Credit La Unión Informa]
Among other conditions, Anthony said that “the half hour for shift changes doesn’t even finish and they are already calling on the speaker for workers to be in their place. We have to eat in a rush since there is only one person in charge of the cafeteria and sometimes there is a line of workers waiting for food.”
He explained, “Of course, what happens is that the firings in the stores force those left to do twice or three times the work. The worst thing is that if you don’t do what they ask, they threaten to fire you. In terms of the negotiation, we get WhatsApp messages on some results with empty warrantees…
“I’ve been working there for almost one year and lately with the firings and little personnel things, the stores are in chaos because of the influx of customers. Sadly, it seems Walmart is only interested in numbers and not much in the workers. Being an international company with so much money, their workers should have excellent conditions. Where I live, it’s a small town, but daily profits surpass 10 million pesos [$14,575].”
His monthly income is 360,000 pesos ($525). “It’s not enough,” he says, “for light bills, water, rent, food; I have an eight-year-old daughter on top of the bus passes.” The median salary in the commercial sector is 300,000 pesos ($437), while the official poverty line for a household in 2012, which has not been updated since, was 368,000 pesos ($536).
When the interviewer pointed out that conditions of Walmart employees and workers internationally are the same, Anthony said: “That is right…the struggle must be one because Walmart is a huge company. … At every company, all the money that they make is only thanks to the workers, and a worker needs good pay to be able to work at least without having to worry about costs that he will not be able to afford at the end of the month!”
The Walmart workers have walked out as 80,000 teachers are continuing a six-week strike across Chile. On Wednesday, the union Colegio de Profesores (CdP—Teachers’ Association) had striking teachers vote on the same rotten contract that they had rejected a week earlier, while pleading with them to “end the strike.” Last month, the unions at the state-owned Chuquicamata mine sent about 6,000 workers back to work after a 14-day fruitless strike using the same strategy as the CdP.
Workers at Walmart face the same fate if their strike remains isolated from the growing resurgence of militancy in the working class in Chile and internationally.
As one of the most exploited layers of the working class, grocery workers internationally are standing up in larger numbers. Last week, 10,000 workers at several supermarket chains in Portland, Oregon, voted in favor of a strike, while another 31,000 Stop & Shop workers struck in April in New England. Among Walmart workers across the US, there is growing anger toward the company.
Antonia, with 10 years’ experience at Walmart in the US described to Eater that due to cuts in personnel she is ordered to unload 11 pallets by herself. She explained: “I have three kids and I have to take whatever I have. Almost everybody, if they pay the rent, they don’t have money to buy groceries. If they have car problems, they have to borrow money from everybody.”
The globalization of production, finance and distribution since the 1990s has resulted in an enormous concentration of wealth by a handful of oligarchs in every country, but it has also merged the standard of living and levels of exploitation of workers across the world, increasingly by the same employers.
The global character of the class struggle constitutes the single greatest advantage for workers, especially in a time of Internet, social media and smartphones, to fight against the continued attacks against their social rights by the ruling financial aristocracy.
However, this objective unity must be organized consciously and independently of every nationalist and pro-capitalist organization and party, including the trade unions and their pseudo-left apologists and operators.
The crucial and immediate task for Walmart workers, teachers, miners and every sector entering struggle in Chile and internationally is to democratically elect rank-and-file committees to take each of these struggles into their own hands, to formulate both (1) their own demands, which must include workers’ control over the workplace, and (2) the path to win them, including an immediate appeal to mobilize the most powerful social force on the planet, their working-class brothers and sisters internationally.

The Spectacle and Substance of the Trump-Kim Meeting

Sandip Kumar Mishra

US President Donald Trump walked into North Korean territory alongside North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on 30 June 2019. The summit meet between the two leaders in the southern side of the DMZ followed. In this episode of spectacle, several historic firsts were achieved: it was the first time a sitting US president entered North Korean territory, a US president crossed the DMZ, and finally, the first time top leaders from the US, North Korea, and South Korea met trilaterally.
The frequency and fanfare of US-North Korea exchanges in the past few years may give the impression of a similar movement in bilateral relations and North Korea's denuclearisation. On the contrary, there has been little to no movement on the ground. In fact, many critics allege that these theatrics distracts from the real issue and creates the false premise of forward movement. Working level official meetings held in good faith as a replacement for summit meets, in order to work towards substantially ironing out differences and lay the foundation for eventual denuclearisation, have been suggested as an alternative. Observers have argued that some important changes were visible in the first half of 2018, until the first US-North Korea summit in Singapore when both countries finally agreed to talk to each other. However, there has been no real progress since, including during their second summit in Hano, both on the bilateral front as well as nuclear talks. In this backdrop, Trump and Kim's recent hour-long meeting has been evaluated in a negative light.
Indeed, it is true that Trump and Kim are both prone to pomp and spectacle. It is not quite accurate, however, to suggest that these displays are completely devoid of substance. The US-North Korea relationship and the issue of North Korea’s denuclearisation are complicated and multifaceted. They will not be resolved in a linear manner, or overnight, and several rounds of back and forth must be expected along with phases of impasse. The Singapore meeting was followed by talks between officials from both countries at various levels and locations. These officials offered their redlines and points of view, which were not acceptable to the other side. In fact, the attempt to cinch a deal during the Hanoi Summit failed because the US reportedly asked for more than the denuclearisation of the Yongbyon nuclear facility. In return, North Korea demanded the removal of all sanctions imposed on it.
The end of the Hanoi meeting was prophesied by many as the end of US-North Korea engagement. It is encouraging that at least the top leaders of both countries have apparently maintained some hope despite the Hanoi episode. The recent meeting is important as it is a clear indication from both the sides of their interest in working towards a deal, although at present they are not in agreement on the content. Another important step is that both the US and North Korea have instituted negotiating teams consisting of officials to go over, in greater detail, the technicalities of their respective positions. While it is true that the US and North Korean negotiating teams both contain some hardline officials, they are being deployed strategically by the leadership of the two countries. For example, US National Defense Advisor Jonh Bolton was with Trump in South Korea a few hours before his meeting. However, when Trump finally met Kim at the DMZ, Bolton was nowhere to be seen.
On this basis, it would be premature to write-off the Trump-Kim meeting as just spectacle. It may not appear sufficient at this point, but it still forward movement after the Hanoi Summit. It is now up to the two leaders to demonstrate a degree of compromise and generosity towards each other. They should also be aware, at all times, that these meetings are only the means to the final goals, that is, a better calibrated US-North Korea relationship, and North Korean denuclearisation.  

10 Jul 2019

Westerwelle Young Founders Program 2019 for Young Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Germany)

Application Deadline: 31st July 2019 11pm CEST

Eligible Countries: All African and Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany/Applicant’s Home Country

About the Award: The Westerwelle Young Founders Programme Autumn 2019 will start with the Young Founders Conference from 22nd to 26th of October, 2019 in Berlin. During this time, the 25 participants have the unique opportunity to meet and interact with successful entrepreneurs, investors and political decision makers. Throughout the programme, the Young Founders will have the chance to develop their businesses and discuss challenges with a personal mentor as well as with fellow Young Founders in a peer mentoring group. Moreover, Young Founders will receive further support through regular expert webinars that cater to their needs.

Type: Entrepreneurship; Career Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants should:
  • Have recently (in the last 5 years) started a for-profit company with a scalable business model
  • Be based in a developing or emerging country or have a strong business focus on developing and emerging economies
  • Possess a good working knowledge of English
  • Foreign applicants must possess valid travel documents (including a visa, if necessary) to enter Germany, and valid travel medical insurance.
Selection: Applicants will first be shortlisted according to their written application. The shortlisted candidates will then be invited for a Skype interview. Results of written application and Skype interview will be discussed by a jury and the selected candidates will be invited to participate at the Young Founders Programme.

Value of Program: During the year-long programme, all fellows will get access to:
  • Westerwelle Young Founders Conference in Berlin taking place from 22 to 26 October 2019.
  • A mentoring programme: monthly mentoring calls with an experienced entrepreneur and with the group of Westerwelle Young Founders
  • Invitations and scholarships for entrepreneurship conferences
  • An international alumni network
Travel and accommodation for the Young Founders Conference will be covered by the Westerwelle Foundation. All fellows are expected to actively participate in the Young Founders Conference as well as in the scheduled mentoring calls.

Duration of Programme:
  1. Application deadline (31st of July 2019, 11pm CEST)
  2. Skype interviews with shortlisted candidates (14th of August to 9th of September 2019)
  3. Jury decision and selection of participants (10th of September 2019)
  4. Notification of all applicants (11th of September 2019)
How to Apply: Applications are open via the online form.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

CAA-Getty International Program 2019 for Art Historians (Fully funded to Conference at Chicago, USA)

Application Deadline: 23rd August 2019

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Chicago, USA

About the Award: The 2020 CAA-Getty International Program will support fifteen art historians, museum curators, and artists who teach art history to attend the 108th CAA Annual Conference in Chicago from February 12-15, 2020.
Since it began in 2012, the program has brought 120 scholars to the conferences, from forty-six countries located in Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and South America. Each year, a preconference colloquium on international topics in art history inaugurates the week, kicking off four days of conference sessions, meetings with new colleagues, and visits to museums and galleries. Subsequent to these events, the program has generated many scholarly collaborations, including publications, conferences, and exhibitions.

Type: Conference

Eligibility:
  • Applicants must be practicing art historians who teach at a university or work as a curator in a museum, or artists who teach art history.
  • They must have a good working knowledge of English, be able to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, and be available to participate in CAA events.
  • Only professionals who have not attended a CAA conference previously, and who are from countries underrepresented in CAA’s membership are eligible to apply.  
  • The grant excludes scholars from North America, Western Europe, Israel, and Australia, whose countries are well represented in CAA. It further excludes scholars who have received funds from American foundations or research institutes to participate in conferences or residencies in the United States.
  • Applicants do not need to be CAA members.
  • This grant program is not open to graduate students or to those participating in the CAA conference as chairs, speakers, or discussants.
Number of Awards: 15-20

Value of Award:
  • The program includes a one-day preconference colloquium on international issues in art history on February 11, at which grant recipients will present and discuss their common professional interests and issues.
  • The grant will also fund five alumni from the CAA-Getty International Program to participate in the preconference colloquium and speak at a session during the conference. As they have in previous years, representatives from CAA’s hosted program participants during the conference week.
Duration of Award:  February 12-15, 2020
How to Apply: Please review the application specifications and complete the application form. PLEASE NOTE: In order to apply, you need a temporary Member Number, which you get by contacting Member ServicesIn your email, please indicate that you need this temporary number in order to apply for the CAA-Getty International Program. No payment is necessary. If you have questions about the process or are unsure of your eligibility, please email Janet Landay, project director of the CAA-Getty International Program.

Applications should include:
  • A completed application form
  • A two-page version of the applicant’s CV
  • A letter of recommendation from the chair, dean, or director of the applicant’s school, department, or museum
2020 APPLICATION FORM

Visit Award Webpage for Details

BlackBird Books Writer’s Residency 2019 for Young African Women

Application Deadline: 31st August 2019 

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country): Pretoria, South Africa

Type: Short course

Eligibility:
  • Young black womxn from any African country who are starting their careers as writers and are between 18 and 40 years old.
  • The residency is open to writers of all literary genres: novel, poetry, essay, storytelling, narration, theatre, etc.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Accommodation during up to 4 weeks in Brooklyn, Pretoria, during October (2019) or February (2020). Breakfast and basic expenses included (toiletries, unlimited wi-fi).
  • The residency does not include transport costs to Pretoria, but it does include R5,000.00 (five thousand) for basic expenses during your stay.
  • Private bedroom and private bathroom inside Casa Lorde, a collective working space.
  • Meeting and working sessions with professional writers from South Africa.
  • Production of a text is mandatory, although BlackBird Books is not obligated to publish it.
Duration of Award: up to 4 weeks

How to Apply:
  • A letter of motivation specifying how you would benefit from your stay at Casa Lorde
  • A description of the project you plan to develop during the residency
  • Your Curriculum Vitae and a short biography (500 words)
  • A sample of your writing (this can be something that has been published or not)
  • Please indicate if you would be available during October 2019 or February 2020 (or either).
Send your application to the two following addresses with the subject line Casa Lorde Writer’s Residency application:
  1. info@everapublishing.co.za
  2. na.floresga@gmail.com
Visit Award Webpage for Details

International Society for the Performing Arts (ISPA) Global Fellowship Programme 2020

Application Deadline: 12th July, 2019

Eligible Countries: All (with particular attention paid to applicants from developing economies)

To be taken at (country): Home country and New York, USA.

About the Award: The International Society for the Performing Arts’ (ISPA) Global Fellowship Program provides one-year access to ISPA’s extensive international network of arts professionals to emerging and mid-career leaders from the global performing arts community, with particular attention paid to applicants from developing economies.
Participants join the ISPA membership and attend the New York ISPA Congress where they engage in the development and exchange of ideas with leaders from some of the world’s most significant presenting
organizations, performing arts organizations, artist management agencies, cultural policy groups, foundations, festivals and related professionals.

In considering applying, please be aware that the ISPA Congress is not a traditional arts market and opportunities for self-promotion are limited. This opportunity is intended for those working in the management of the performing arts. Performing arts professionals who are deeply committed to increasing the global connectivity of the performing arts industry, as well as those who take initiative in their own professional development, are most likely to benefit.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: ISPA accepts applicants from all regions of the world, with priority given to applicants from developing economies.
Applicants must:
  • Be currently employed/working in the professional performing arts
  • Have a minimum of 5 years professional experience in the performing arts field
  • Demonstrate a need for financial assistance
  • Ability to attend and fully participate in the 2020 ISPA Congress, including the one-day Fellows-only Seminar.
  • Have received no more than two ISPA Fellowships in the past
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Fellows receive:
  • One-year ISPA membership with access to all member benefits
  • Full Pass registration to the New York 2020 Congress
  • One-day Fellows-only Seminar prior to the New York Congress (January, 2020)
  • Subsidy to assist with travel and accommodation expenses related to attending the Congress (subsidies do not generally exceed 2,500 USD)
  • Introduction to a current ISPA member who will welcome the Fellow to the Congress and help facilitate their participation as part of ISPA’s Community Building Program
Duration of Fellowship: 1  year.

How to Apply: To apply to the Global Fellowship Program, please download and review the application instructions and submit the online application form. Applications are reviewed and selected by the Fellowship Review Committee which consists of ISPA members and staff.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Deutsches Museum Scholar-in-Residence Scholarship Programme 2020 for International Researchers

Application Deadline: 11th October 2019

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

About the Award: Applicants are invited to base their projects on the collections of the Deutsches Museum and to cooperate closely with museum staff on site when formulating their research proposals. Projects involving innovative approaches to artefact-oriented research are especially welcome.
During their stay, visiting scholars will have daily contact with the museum´s curators, archivists and librarians (approx. 50 staff members) as well as members of the Münchner Zentrum für Wissenschafts- und Technikgeschichte (Munich Center for the History of Science and Technology; approx. 50 staff members).
Scholarship holders will have their own workplace with a desktop computer and telephone, and the opportunity to reside temporarily in subsidized apartments of the museum complex insofar as these are available. They will present their research projects to colleagues at the beginning of their stay and will be expected to participate regularly in the museum’s and the Munich Centre’s Monday colloquium series and workshops.

Type: Research

Eligibility:
  • Scholars at any level of seniority are eligible to apply, provided they have at least one university degree.
  • There are no restrictions regarding nationality.
  • All scholars are requested to make their own provisions for health insurance.
  • The ability to read German is a prerequisite for the application (passive language skills).
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Pre-doctoral stipends: € 7,500 (six months) / € 15,000 (full year). Post-doctoral stipends: € 15,000 (six months) / € 30,000 (full year).

Duration of Program: 6 or 12 months

How to Apply: Please send applications, including:
  • completed application form (pdf-file, 20 kB or rtf-file 60 kB)
  • curriculum vitae
  • project description (3 to 5 pages)
  • two confidential references (can be sent directly by the referees)
to the following address:
Andrea Walther
Coordinator of the Research Institute
Deutsches Museum
80306 Munich
Tel.: 00 49 (0) 89 2179-280
Fax: 00 49 (0) 89 2179-239
E-Mail: a.waltherdeutsches-museum.de


Visit Programme Webpage for Details


Award Providers: Deutsches Museum