Typhoon wreaks havoc in Japan

Robert Campion

Japan is reeling from the devastation wrought by Typhoon Hagibis earlier this month, which caused landslides and mass flooding. The official death toll has climbed to 84. Another 9 people are missing and 356 suffered injuries. While the typhoon dissipated October 20, further storms are expected over the coming days.

Last Sunday, the Fire and Disaster Management Agency reported that 56,753 homes were flooded or damaged by the typhoon, surpassing the 51,000 that were hit by last year’s torrential rains in western Japan, which killed more than 200. Over 370,000 homes suffered power outages as a result of the latest typhoon, according to the Tokyo Electric Power Company.

The government also announced that around 4,000 people have taken refuge in evacuation shelters. Some 78,000 homes are without water supply.

The storm was the most powerful to hit Japan in decades and is part of an uptick in natural disasters in the region influenced by warming seas. It has caused an estimated $9 billion in insured losses, meaning that of the 10 most expensive Japanese typhoons since 1950, four will have occurred in the past two years alone.

One of these storms, “Typhoon Faxai,” hit Chiba Prefecture only a month ago, killing three and injuring 147 others. Around 30,000 homes were either destroyed or damaged, 900,000 were left without power, and $7 billion in damages were incurred.

The same region was battered by the latest typhoon with many houses still covered in blue tarps undergoing repair when Hagibis struck.

The speed of the storm’s build-up was also significant. Dubbed “Hagibis,” meaning “swiftness” in Filipino, the National Weather Service reported that its initial formation took place south of Japan near Guam, accelerating from a tropical storm into a Category 5 in a matter of six hours. Wind speeds increased from 63km/h to over 250km/h, in one of the fastest typhoon intensification rates on record in the Western Pacific.

It also made an unusually rapid move northwest through the Mariana Islands, travelling at speeds of up to 34km/h before being downgraded to a Category 2 storm as it approached Japan.

The storm made landfall on the evening of October 12, triggering a tornado in Ichihara City that killed one and injured five others. A freak 5.7 magnitude earthquake also hit the Kanto region half an hour before the storm arrived. While no damage to buildings was recorded, it made the area increasingly prone to landslides.

Damage was also by excacerbated by poor preparations for extreme weather events. Following “Typhoon Faxai,” the Japanese government was widely criticised for failing to hold a meeting of relevant ministers before or after its landfall.

Similar concerns have been raised about the response to Hagibis. Evacuation and disaster prevention measures were not initiated until October 10, when a disaster management meeting was held involving ministers and state agencies. Over 12,600 officials were called up in Chiba to distribute free sandbags, prepare and serve in evacuation shelters as well as to assist public health nurses.

On October 11, Yasushi Kajihara, director of the Japan Meteorological Agency’s Forecast Division, announced the first evacuation warnings at a news conference. By midday, around 3.25 million people were given non-mandatory evacuation orders.

The director of the Japan Riverfront Research Centre, Nobuyuki Tsuchiya, warned that the capital was especially prone to damage from storm surges, as 1.5 million people live below sea level.

Not until the afternoon of October 12, when record breaking rains and high winds battered Tokyo, were over 432,000 residents in the Edogawa Ward told to move to emergency shelters, with 214,000 houses in the area susceptible to flooding. The government was also forced to issue its highest level of emergency rainfall warnings, advising another 8 million people to evacuate their homes due to avoid flooding.

Yukihiro Shimatani, a watershed management expert at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, said that far more people were ordered to leave their homes than poorly-equipped shelters had room for.

An evacuation center in Taito Ward, Tokyo, turned away two homeless people on the day the storm hit, prompting widespread criticism. Staff told them the shelter was reserved for ward residents only.

“The wind was strong and it was raining, and I wanted them to let me in,” a 64-year-old homeless man told the Asahi Shimbun. He was forced to spend the night outside in lashing wind and rain protected only by a plastic umbrella.

In Chiba, over 13,500 took refuge in makeshift shelters in temples, schools and municipal buildings. Norio Fukuhara, a Kyonan town official running a shelter at an elementary school, was overwhelmed with 90 people taking shelter, after expecting only 30.

“I think people really have a sense of crisis,” he said. “After the last typhoon, that’s natural. We hadn’t had such an experience before. We used to say, ‘Oh, a typhoon is coming. That’s dangerous,’ and that was all.”

The storm unleashed torrential rain as it tore northwards through Honshu with some areas experiencing more than 939.5mm of rain in 24 hours. There was widespread river flooding and flash floods, with levees breaking at 55 locations. According to weather officials, some areas received 40 per cent of their annual rainfall in just two days.

Floodwaters also rose in northern Fukushima, raising concerns over radioactive contamination from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

“There’s never been this much damage before,” Moe Kaneda, a teacher in the area told the Independent. “This is the first time ever.”

In the midst of the rising death toll on October 13, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe issued a tweet celebrating the victory of the national rugby team over Scotland, equating the “power” of the national sports team to the Great East Japan earthquake in 2011. “To those affected by the typhoon,” he said, “I think that it is very energetic and courageous.”

More than 110,000 personnel, including 31,000 troops, were involved in rescue efforts throughout the disaster as well as providing power supply vehicles. Abe promised “all-out efforts” this week to intensify search and relief efforts, pledging some 500 billion yen ($US4.6 billion) to the effort.

Meanwhile, two more storms threaten the southern end of Japan. The Japanese Meteorological Agency said Tuesday that over 300mm of rain is expected from tropical storm Neoguri, leading to further possible flooding and landslides. Another storm, Typhoon Buolai, is expected to pass by Japan’s eastern coast later this week, setting the stage for more flooding.

Mass protests spread to Bolivia after a disruption in electoral broadcasts

Andrea Lobo

Protests and strikes are shaking Bolivia after the vote tally for President Evo Morales jumped significantly during a 23-hour disruption in the broadcast of electoral results. Morales has deployed anti-riot police and declared a “state of emergency.”

After 7:50 p.m. Sunday, the day of Bolivia’s presidential elections, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) stopped reporting its preliminary results. With 83.85 percent of polling stations counted, Morales had a 7.87 percent lead over Carlos Mesa, short of the 10 percent needed to avoid a second round. Then, at 6:30 p.m. Monday, the reporting resumed, showing a 9.36 percent lead and 94.7 percent of stations. Yesterday morning, Morales proclaimed himself winner, denouncing the continued protests as “an internal and external coup.”

The latest count, including 99.58 percent of polling stations, showed a 10.48 percent Morales lead, while the TSE said it would repeat the vote at four stations in Beni due to irregularities. The turnout—which is obligatory and enforced—was about 90 percent.

The demonstrations have remained largely led by the right-wing and US-backed opposition in support of the candidate Carlos Mesa, a former vice president and president who oversaw a deadly military crackdown against mass protests led by Morales between 2002 and 2005.

However, the current protests have seen sections of workers and youth participate across Bolivia. Mass anger against Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party from below has been brewing for several years as social and labor conditions worsen. Doctors struck for 47 days last year and several times this year, while the San Cristobal mine, the largest in the country, struck for 20 days last month. Moreover, results show Morales lost over 400,000 votes since the last election in 2014 despite hundreds of thousands of new voters.

The Trump administration has exploited the suspicions of fraud, which grew further after the vice president of the TSE resigned Tuesday, to favor Washington’s preferred candidate, Mesa. On Wednesday, the US ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS) declared outright that La Paz “shut down the results so that they could steal the election.”

Under this pressure from Washington and citing “high political and social tensions,” the OAS electoral mission in Bolivia called for a second round Wednesday. This call was seconded by the European Union. Despite these neo-colonial efforts to directly manage the electoral result before the final count, Morales has continued to appeal to the OAS to legitimize the elections—the same imperialist body that provided a cover for the 2017 electoral fraud in Honduras and has aided the ongoing US coup operation in Venezuela.

The response of MAS and Morales further exposes their class character and underlines that, whatever the outcome of the elections, any future capitalist government in Bolivia will act at the behest of the local financial and land oligarchy and their imperialist bosses.

The objective basis for MAS’s popularity has quickly been erased by the crisis of global capitalism, leading it to attack democratic rights and turn increasingly to imperialism.

In 2016, Morales repudiated a referendum in which a 51.3 percent majority voted against reforming the 2009 Constitution that his own government introduced to allow a third consecutive term. The following year, the Constitutional Court ruled that a president can be reelected indefinitely.

A boom in gas, oil and other commodity prices allowed Morales to partially nationalize gas in 2006, while massive profits continued to flow to foreign corporations. State income grew 10-fold and led to a limited expansion of social spending. This was the price paid by capitalism to secure bourgeois rule after mass upheavals against water privatization and for the nationalization of gas between 2000 and 2005, which were channeled behind the election of Morales.

However, the stagnation of the global economy and geopolitical competition are pushing global finance to demand social austerity to pay back Bolivia’s debt and to regain total control and re-divide its strategic resources, from gas to silver and lithium.

Poverty continues to be among the highest in South America and has been bouncing back since 2014, encompassing 35 percent of households. Malnourishment affects one-fifth of the population. Precarious labor, which is informal and largely violates the minimum wage and basic protections, affects 80 to 85 percent of workers.

The 2019 MAS campaign was based on appeals to the ruling class that it can continue to suppress the class struggle to facilitate its right-wing agenda.

At a mass rally in late August, Morales boasted, “a group of private business-people has joined us, and what do they tell me? ‘I’m not a MAS member nor in the process of becoming one, but I’m profiting more from it than with my own party.’ They say that sincerely.”

MAS Senate president Adriana Salvatierra told the Financial Times that MAS “ha[s] shown we can run a country,” while Vice President Álvaro García Linera assured the Economist, “The absence of Evo would generate a kind of social dismemberment and convulsions that are characteristic of Bolivia’s history.”

Such warnings about the eruption of the class struggle by the western media have acquired an increasingly hysterical tone. Before the elections, the Economist warned: “After 13 years of his rule, voters are getting restless.” And, on Wednesday, the New York Times carried the headline: “‘There could be a war’: Protests over elections roil Bolivia.”

In this context, Morales’s “state of emergency” is another show of force to the ruling class that he will not hesitate in crushing social opposition. While sidelining the Constitution, which only refers to a “state of exception” that requires congressional approval, he stated ominously: “The Armed Forces have the duty to guarantee the unity of the national territory.”

After a meeting with Morales, the Bolivian Workers’ Center (COB) trade union, which constitutes an essential backbone of MAS’s bourgeois government, also declared a “state of emergency” on Wednesday to secure the “social and economic stability of the country” in open coordination with the police and intelligence services.

In fact, according to a diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, in his first meeting with the US ambassador after entering power in 2006, Morales “claimed he had demonstrated his commitment for negotiation over confrontation and that the violence in Bolivia’s immediate past had flowed either from the absence of dialogue or a lack of good faith efforts during negotiations.” He added that “the syndicates [trade unions] he led had an unparalleled track record in keeping their promises and meeting their side of the various bargains they had entered.”

NATO defense ministers meet in Brussels to call for new Middle East wars

Alex Lantier

NATO defense ministers began a two-day summit yesterday in Brussels, calling for new military escalation in the Middle East amid the debacle of their eight-year proxy war in Syria.

Since Trump withdrew 1,000 US troops deployed with US-backed Kurdish militias in northeastern Syria two weeks ago, green-lighting a Turkish attack on the Kurdish forces, the situation in Syria has shifted sharply against Washington and its European imperialist allies. Russia, Turkey and the Syrian regime have agreed to a return to the pre-war borders, while allowing Turkey to mount cross-border raids on Kurdish militias. Syrian troops are also massing to attack Al Qaeda-linked militias in northwestern Syria’s Idlib province, the last holdout of NATO-backed “rebel” forces.

Reeling from this defeat, the NATO defense ministers could only restate their commitment to waging war across Eurasia, and issue conflicting proposals for further military escalation. While US Defense Secretary Mark Esper proposed further deployments against Iran and China, there was also discussion of German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer’s call to deploy a European “peacekeeping” force to occupy northeastern Syria, consisting of 30,000 to 40,000 troops.

In a brief public statement before talks began, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg hailed “all NATO’s missions and operations, from the Balkans to Afghanistan.” He also pledged that he would today press Europe to boost its military spending: “I will once again highlight the importance of burden-sharing, both when it comes to spending, but also contributions and capabilities, and I will prepare a report for the Heads of State and Government when they meet in London in December.”

Asked about Kramp-Karrenbauer’s proposal, the first German government proposal for aggressive overseas military action since the fall of the Nazi regime, Stoltenberg endorsed it: “I have discussed this proposal with Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer. It is positive that NATO allies, in this case Germany, have proposals and ideas of how we can move forward.”

Stoltenberg underlined NATO’s preparations for large-scale military action, including the Defender 2020 exercise to test the Pentagon’s ability to rapidly transport tens of thousands of US troops from America to Europe and participate in all-out NATO mobilization for war with Russia. The exercise will also have a Pacific component, with provocative naval maneuvers off the Chinese coast, in the South China Sea. However, Stoltenberg declined to immediately speculate about a NATO or European invasion of Syria as proposed by Kramp-Karrenbauer.

Stoltenberg added, “If I started now to speculate about all possible and impossible options, I would only add to the uncertainty… There has been no call for a NATO mission in northeastern Syria.”

After yesterday’s meeting, Stoltenberg again appeared in the evening to make a terse statement to the press. He noted that there were “differing views” among the countries in the NATO alliance, adding that these were in line with conflicts that are “publicly known.” While calling the situation in northeastern Syria “very serious,” he said he recognized that “Turkey has legitimate security concerns” in the region and evaded a question from the press whether Turkey would agree to German or European troop deployments to Syria.

While he said that Kramp-Karrenbauer had briefed her fellow NATO defense ministers on Berlin’s proposal, Stoltenberg said it would be “wrong” for him to try to summarize it himself.

The military debacle in the Middle East and the deep discrediting of war among workers in the Middle East and in the NATO countries has staggered the alliance. Beyond criticisms voiced by both Washington and the European imperialist powers of Turkey, there are clearly conflicts between the ruling elites of America and Europe, related to the foreign policy conflicts in the US ruling class underlying the drive to impeach Trump. All the various factions are proposing strategies for military escalation against nuclear-armed powers, however, with disastrous consequences for workers.

While Kramp-Karrenbauer’s plan entails NATO launching a confrontation with Russia in Syria, Esper spoke for factions of the American bourgeoisie focused on preparing war firstly with China. “The National Defense Strategy prioritizes China first and Russia second, as we transition our primary focus to great power competition,” the US defense secretary said yesterday at a speech to the German Marshall Fund in Brussels.

On this basis, Esper did not mention further wars in Syria, instead calling for the European powers to join the Trump administration’s escalation against Iran. Raising the plans to send thousands of US troops to Saudi Arabia as part of a military buildup against Iran, he added: “We urge our allies in Europe to follow our lead and contribute their own support to help deter Iranian aggression, promote stability in the region, and defend the international rules-based order.”

In a further sign of the Trump administration’s disinterest in waging further war in defense of the Kurds in northeastern Syria, moreover, Trump canceled Wednesday sanctions he had briefly imposed on Turkey for attacking the Kurdish militias.

Kramp-Karrenbauer continued to push ahead with her plan to confront Russia over Syria, however. After she left the defense ministers meeting, she said the support for her plan inside NATO is “very encouraging.” However, she added, “It will still be a longer process, and a difficult path.”

In the German media, who have campaigned aggressively for German remilitarization for six years, several outlets also wrote that Kramp-Karrenbauer’s plan would require time to develop. Her plan, Merkur wrote, “did not trigger international enthusiasm—the reactions were restrained. In Brussels she received recognition for her initiative at a NATO defense ministers’ meeting. But none of the countries promised definite support.”

Munich Security Council president Wolfgang Ischinger told Der Spiegel that her plan “presupposes however that all sides pull together on militarily relevant issues. After this, it does not look like it is the situation at the moment.”

Indeed, examining Kramp-Karrenbauer’s proposal, it appears to be more a call for a military buildup and to whip up a militarist atmosphere inside Germany than a plan for immediate military action. It is a warning as to the direction of the policy of the European bourgeoisie. Berlin is planning a vast escalation of European and German military capabilities, which would in turn entail massive military spending increases and correspondingly massive attacks on workers across Europe.

Given that deploying NATO troops to wars in Afghanistan or Iraq cost on the order of $1 million per soldier per year, deploying 40,000 European troops would require an expansion of European military budgets by tens of billions of euros per year. However, whether or not the European powers are capable of independently deploying such a force to Syria and resupply it amid a US retreat from the country, it is unclear what such a force would do.

The coalition that defeated the NATO proxy militias in Syria—allied to Russia and provided with Russian air cover and antiaircraft missiles—is a formidable force that would decisively outnumber the European force. It includes not only the 200,000 surviving soldiers of the Syrian army and 80,000 allied Syrian irregulars, but approximately 40,000 Iranian troops who have served in Syria, tens of thousands of fighters of the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, and around 20,000 members of pro-Iranian Afghan, Iraqi or Pakistani militias such as the Liwa Fatemiyoun serving in Syria.

To this must be added not only thousands of Russian troops and associated warplanes and warships, but also Chinese “Night Tiger” special forces who have deployed to Syria to fight Uighur Islamist “rebels” allied to NATO, amid growing military collaboration between China and Syria.

Yesterday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov again restated Russia’s opposition to the deployment of more foreign troops to Syria. He said, “As for the presence of American soldiers in Syria, our position is well known—only the Russian units are present in Syria legitimately at the invitation of the Syrian leadership. Of course, the final goal is a full withdrawal of any foreign armed forces, foreign military from the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.”

The decision of Washington and Berlin to call for military operations to confront such forces is yet another warning of the escalating danger of world war.

Reports highlight rising methamphetamine health crisis across US Midwest

Jacob Crosse

Data compiled by the Wisconsin State Crime Lab highlights the staggering rise in the use of methamphetamine across the state. Over a 10 year period the agency recorded over a 450 percent increase in meth related cases, from 314 in 2008 to 1,452 in 2018. This follows an earlier report that revealed that 3,800 people died in Wisconsin from 2014-2018 due to meth related overdoses.

This is a region-wide issue, with the Missouri State Highway Patrol reporting a similar spike in drug seizures over the same period. Iowa and Illinois have also seen a surge in meth related cases. Morbidly dubbed the “meth capital of the Midwest,” Michigan saw 220 meth seizures by police in 2018. The increase in drug seizures has lead to more meth related arrests and fueled higher rates of incarceration.

To the west of Wisconsin, the Drug Enforcement Agencies’ Omaha Division, which oversees Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota has seen a similar jump in meth cases or seizures. According to the DEA, more meth-related drug seizures have occurred in the region in the first half of 2019 than in all of 2018.

A “seizure incident” includes scenarios in which state or federal authorities discover drug paraphernalia or equipment used to make illicit substances, including chemical tubing, glassware, beakers, or dumpsites.

The introduction of methamphetamine into the general population began in World War II with the War Department issuing amphetamine and methamphetamine to US bomber pilots on long flight missions to keep them alert before they dropped their deadly payload. Meanwhile, US infantrymen were issued the drugs, less for any actual combat effectiveness, but instead to boost “morale” while also increasing “confidence and aggression.”

Following the war, and throughout the 1950s, doctors heavily prescribed amphetamines under the name Benzedrine. Colloquially known at the time as “bennies” or “pep pills,” Benzedrine was used to primarily treat sinus-related issues. In 1960 the FDA approved a new “diet pill” known as Obetrol, manufactured by American pharmaceutical company Obetrol Pharmaceuticals, a mix of amphetamine salts, including methamphetamine, that made up the chemical compound of the drug.

While marketed as treatment for obesity, the drug was used most notably by artist Andy Warhol, but also extensively by long-haul truck drivers, forced to stay awake an unhealthy amount of hours in order to meet their delivery schedules. After widespread abuse throughout the 1960s the drug was eventually pulled from the market in 1973.

After a reworking of the formula and the elimination of methamphetamine the drug was rebranded as Adderal and introduced onto the market by pharmaceutical giant Richwood-Shire, following their 1995 acquisition of the Rexar Pharmacal Corporation, which had slowly absorbed Obetrol Pharmaceuticals throughout the 1980s and 90s. It was given FDA approval in 1996 to treat “hyperactivity.”

While recent media attention has shone a much needed spotlight on the opioid crisis, meth use among Americans has become more prevalent in recent years as opioids have become harder to obtain and more expensive. As more people turn to meth, possibly as they are experiencing heroin or opioid withdrawals or just to stay awake while working multiple jobs to survive, a corresponding increase in the amount of meth related deaths has also occurred.

Nearly 60 percent of meth users relapse within the first year while going through rehabilitation treatment. This relapse is a particularly deadly period for older meth users, as the strong chemical effects of the drug can have a deadly effect on an aging user’s heart and brain. Unlike opioids, there is no medical treatment for meth addiction.

According to national government statistics compiled by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, among all ages, 10,333 people died in 2017 due to methamphetamine overdose. This is out of 70,237 total drug overdose deaths in 2017, accounting for nearly 14 percent of all overdose deaths that occurred in the United States.

While a rise in cases and seizures doesn’t necessarily correspond to a rise in usage, statistics compiled from various state and federal agencies confirm that meth use has not subsided from its alleged highpoint in the mid-2000’s, which saw the passage of the 2005 Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act.

The 2005 bill, signed by George W. Bush and passed with bipartisan support, sought to criminalize over-the-counter medications such as Sudafed that were used in the manufacture of methamphetamine as well as for treating common allergies. The legislation, while funneling money to police departments and federal drug and immigration agencies, did little to actually stop meth production and use.

While the bill did force out and shut down many smaller local labs, while also incarcerating thousands of people across the country for a medical problem, large scale production continued in the US southwest and across the border in Mexico. Powerful drug cartels took over production, and using industrial methods, began producing more potent and pure methamphetamine that was trafficked into large cities and then distributed throughout rural communities.

This shift in production is expressed in the arrest reports of the various state agencies. There were only eight “seizures” of 11 pounds of meth or more throughout all of 2005. The largest of these raids occurred in Omaha, Nebraska which netted 29 pounds of the drug. This amount is dwarfed by raids completed in the beginning of 2019 in Minnesota and Iowa, which have seized 250 and 119 pounds of the drug respectively.

This hasn’t stopped politicians and law enforcement officials from loudly proclaiming the need for more money to be poured into state police forces and federal drug and immigration agencies, while also blaming the legalization of recreational marijuana in a number of states for an increase in alternative drug production and use.

While police departments and federal agencies such as the DEA and ICE have been flooded with billions of dollars in funding for drones, urban assault vehicles and military weaponry, funding for treating substance abuse as a public health issue has been relatively sparse and surrounded by layers of bureaucratic red tape, making it nearly impossible for those seeking treatment to get the help and resources they need.

The federal government did recently make $6 billion available for opioid treatment throughout the United States, however, this money is limited to opioid related treatment only. This means that many users who might have previously used opioids but recently switched to the more available and cheaper meth, are no longer eligible for opioid specific treatment options and funding.

In an article published by Urban Milwaukee, Jess Przybylski, a Wisconsin mother of two, related that it was easier for her to get treatment for her addiction after she was arrested for meth related charges as opposed to before. In a testament to the backwardness and illogical character of capitalism, Przybylski was forced to sit in a jail cell for four months, waiting for a bed to open up at a local treatment facility before she could begin her recovery process.

While Przybylski says she is thankful that after getting out of jail she had access to the longer care treatment program she needed, she recognizes that many don’t, and without will likely fall back into old patterns. “If you get out and you don’t have anywhere to go, where are you going to go? Back to what you’re comfortable with and back to where you were using,” she noted.

In states such as Wisconsin, where $63 million was made available to combat opiod addiction, very little of it will actually get spent on those who need it the most. According to the latest survey by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, of the 397,000 people in the state with addictions related to substance abuse, less than 10 percent actually received any medical treatment.

This red tape has resulted in treatment homes being forced to turn away those looking for help lest they lose their funding. Nearly 40 percent of all substance abuse treatment funds in the state come from the federal government, and without those funds a majority of them would cease to operate.

After decades of the drug war, which has torn apart millions of homes, and incarcerated millions of people, the solution to the continued epidemic of drug abuse and death is not in more policing, jailing or profit-driven “addiction centers.” The root cause of drug abuse lies in the capitalist system. The continued existence of the profit motive has incentivized global corporations to continue to manufacture and profit off of deadly drugs, overseen by a bought and paid for government of the oligarchy willing to turn a blind eye as entire communities are destroyed by their “medicine.”

WeWork CEO walks away with $1.7 billion as mass layoffs planned at failing office rental company

Harvey Simpkins

Adam Neumann, the former CEO and co-founder of WeWork, has agreed to accept an outrageous $1.7 billion severance package to walk away from the company after the collapse of a highly anticipated initial public offering last month. While the former CEO receives his billion dollar “golden parachute,” mass layoffs are expected, with at least 2,000 of the company’s 15,000 employees to be let go as the company seeks to avoid complete financial collapse.

WeWork, widely heralded as a “unicorn startup” along the lines of Uber, Lyft and similar tech-based companies, is an office rental company—in essence, a very large landlord renting from other landlords. The company rents buildings on long-term leases, remodels the layout to provide communal spaces and tiny workplaces and then rents out the workspaces on a short-term basis.

The company has grown at a breakneck pace, expanding particularly fast in the lead up to the expected stock offering. According to an August filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, WeWork went from two locations in New York City and 450 tenants in 2010 to 528 locations in 111 cities across 29 countries, with 527,000 tenants by the second quarter of 2019. The workforce nearly quadrupled from 4,000 employees at the end of 2017 to the current 15,000.

However, new leases have nearly stopped in the company’s two largest markets, New York and London. According to the Financial Times, two large London landlords will not sign new leases with WeWork for the foreseeable future. WeWork had leased about 3.7 million square feet from these landlords since 2014. In addition, WeWork employees reported to the Guardian that little or no work is now being done.

The company is also set to run out of cash by the second quarter of next year. It is currently losing about $700 million a quarter and, as of June 30, had $2.5 billion remaining. Last year, it lost $1.6 billion. From 2016-2018, it lost $2.9 billion.

The $1.7 billion in stock, cash and credit received by Neumann amounts to $850,000 per employee to be laid off, if the 2,000-layoff figure holds true. However, this is likely only the beginning of a jobs massacre: the technology-industry publication the Information, reports that as many as 5,000 layoffs could be forthcoming.

Neumann’s payout includes about a billion dollars toward buying out his share of the company, a $185 million “consulting” fee, and a $500 million credit line to help him repay debts he owes to JPMorgan Chase, UBS and Credit Suisse.

Even by the standards of modern CEOs, Neumann’s buyout stands out for its grotesqueness. According to Equilar, Inc., an executive compensation analysis firm, the 200 highest-paid CEOs at public companies had a median salary of $18.6 million in 2018. Neuman’s consulting fee alone is about ten times that amount.

While lavishing riches on Neumann, the company nonetheless required a takeover from SoftBank, a Japan-based conglomerate and WeWork’s largest investor, to afford to pay severance packages for those employees to be laid off.

On the company’s Slack network, workers noted the irony that WeWork could not afford severance payments for the planned job cuts but could give the disgraced CEO such a huge payout. One employee posted a photo of the orphan from “Oliver Twist” with the caption: “Please, Masayoshi Son, can I have some severance?” Son is the founder of SoftBank.

On Wednesday, SoftBank took control of WeWork, with SoftBank’s chief operating officer, Marcelp Claure, appointed as executive chair. At a staff meeting Wednesday, Claure confirmed that more layoffs would be coming but declined to say how many, stating in corporate-speak that the layoffs will “right-size the business to achieve positive free cash flow and profitability.” He also did not elaborate on the amount of any severance, telling anxious employees only that “I will guarantee you that whoever leaves is going to leave with dignity.” No doubt those to be laid off will receive, all combined, only a tiny fraction of what Neumann will get.

An anonymous employee told Vox that at the meeting, “Very little additional information was given about the things that employees care about: layoffs, severance, retention, and equity packages. It was a lot of the same ‘trust us, wait and see’ responses we’ve been getting the last month.”

The company, valued at $47 billion in January 2019, was valued at only $8 billion under the terms of SoftBank’s takeover. As a result, employee stock in the company is now worth very little. Over the last two years, Softbank poured more than $11 billion into the company, more than its current value.

Compounding WeWork’s dubious financial position, last week the company shut down 2,300 “phone booths,” used as private rooms in the company’s open-plan offices, due to concerns about elevated levels of formaldehyde, a potential carcinogen.

Thirty-nine migrants found dead in lorry trailer in UK

Laura Tiernan

The bodies of 39 migrants were found yesterday in the back of a freight lorry parked in Grays, Essex, in the United Kingdom. The deaths have evoked public outrage and revulsion toward the British government’s brutal “deterrence” regime against migrants and refugees.

Police were called to the Waterglade Industrial Park in Essex by East of England Ambulance Service at 1.40am. All 39 people—adults and a teenager—were pronounced dead at the scene.

The victims’ identities are not known. Police forensic teams last night transported the truck’s cabin and trailer to Tilbury Docks to begin the process of formal identification. Deputy Chief Constable Pippa Mills told reporters this would be “a lengthy process”.

Police escort the truck, that was found to contain a large number of dead bodies, as they move it from an industrial estate in Thurrock, south England, Wednesday Oct. 23, 2019. Police in southeastern England said that 39 people were found dead Wednesday inside a truck container believed to have come from Bulgaria. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

Details of the truck’s movements remain unclear. Police have confirmed only that the trailer arrived via ferry from Zeebrugge, Belgium, docking at Purfleet on the River Thames at 12.30am. The truck cabin and trailer left the port shortly after 1.05am.

It is not known where or at what time the 39 victims entered the truck’s freight container. Richard Burnett, chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, told the BBC the container appeared to be a refrigerated unit and that temperatures could reach as low as -25C. Conditions for anyone inside would be "absolutely horrendous". Even if the container was not refrigerated, trucking experts explained that such cabins are sealed tight and lengthy confinement can lead to suffocation.

The truck’s cabin is registered in Northern Ireland. The driver, 25-year-old Mo Robinson from a village in County Armagh, was immediately arrested on suspicion of murder.

But the real authors of this immense crime reside in 10 Downing Street, along with the government and opposition parties in Westminster Palace and their accomplices in every European capital.

Their statements of condolence and crocodile tears are rank hypocrisy. Conservative Party Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s statement was issued via Twitter: “I’m appalled by this tragic incident in Essex… My thoughts are with all those who lost their lives & their loved ones.”

Home Secretary Priti Patel, whose entire career is built on anti-immigrant xenophobia, told parliament, “I’m shocked and saddened by this utterly tragic incident in Grays. My heart goes out to all those affected.”

Only last month, a smirking Patel told the Tory Party conference she was proud to be part of a Brexit government that was “taking back control of our borders” and “ending the free movement of people once and for all.” Johnson has described veiled Muslim women as “bank robbers” and “letter boxes”, deliberately stoking anti-immigrant racism.

The latest horrifying deaths are the direct outcome of a regime of deterrence that has involved a police-military operation on the English Channel and at key ports including Dover.

The truck allegedly driven by Robinson is believed to have arrived at Purfleet to avoid increased police checks and anti-migrant measures put in place at Dover in the leadup to Brexit. Five people have drowned in the English Channel this year.

Seamus Leheny, Northern Ireland policy manager for the Freight Transport Association, told the press, “People have been saying that security and checks have been increased at places like Dover and Calais, so it might be seen as an easier way to get in by going from Cherbourg or Roscoff, over to Rosslare, then up the road to Dublin. It’s a long way around and it’ll add an extra day to the journey.”

In recent months, migrant rights organisations have warned that the British government’s harsh deterrence regime is forcing refugees to resort to riskier methods of entry to the UK, including lorries. In December 2017, a 15-year-old Afghani boy was crushed by a truck he tried to jump on board at Calais, while an Iraqi man’s legs were severed by a train near Dunkirk. In June this year, the frozen body of a stowaway from Kenya fell from a plane onto a London garden. An investigation last November by BBC South East found there was a “pre-Brexit rush”, with people-smugglers warning migrants to enter now before “the borders shut properly.”

In January, former Tory Home Secretary Sajid Javid met with his French counterpart to agree new anti-migrant measures along the English Channel including £3.2 million for drones, radar, night goggles and number plate recognition along with additional border patrol boats.

One year earlier, the Sandhurst Treaty was negotiated by then Prime Minister Theresa May with French President Emmanuel Macron. Signed at Britain’s premier military academy, the treaty saw the UK commit an extra £44.5 million for fencing, CCTV and detection technology in Calais and other Channel ports.

The police measures agreed by the French and British governments were aimed at bolstering the European Union’s “Fortress Europe” policy against desperate migrants and refugees fleeing wars in the Middle East and North Africa and economic deprivation across large parts of Eastern Europe.

Yesterday’s atrocity was the worst in Britain since 2000, when the bodies of 58 Chinese people were found in a sealed airless container at Dover, Kent. An inquest was told the migrants banged frantically on the inside of the container as they suffocated.

More recently, in August 2015, 71 bodies were found decomposing in an abandoned lorry on the A4 motorway in Austria, near Parndorf. This produced a mass outpouring of sympathy for refugees across Europe. Overnight, thousands of ordinary people organised accommodation, transport, food, clothing and medical supplies, turning out to greet and welcome the convoys of refugees arriving from across the Mediterranean, from Turkey and North Africa.

It was this public sentiment which forced Angela Merkel’s government to open Germany’s borders and allow refugees right of entry. But the sympathy for refugees cut across the plans of the German ruling class for remilitarisation and for deepening austerity. Powerful forces in the government and intelligence services set about smothering and reversing this social opposition through the promotion of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and manufactured scares such as the Cologne New Year’s Eve “sex attacks”.

Yesterday’s events in Britain are not only a tragedy for the family and loved ones of the 39 people who have perished. They are a crime perpetrated by the capitalist governments of Britain and Europe against the international working class. Over 19,000 people died or went missing in the Mediterranean between 2014 and October this year. A total of 92 migrant deaths were recorded on land in Europe in 2018. The 39 people murdered yesterday brings this year’s total to 91.

Professional Fellows Program (PFP) for Economic Empowerment, Middle East and North Africa – Fall 2020

Application Deadlines:
Deadline for Morocco & Tunisia: 30th November, 2019
Deadline for Algeria, Egypt, Libya & Lebanon: To come up in January 2020

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: The Professional Fellows Program (PFP) for Economic Empowerment, Middle East and North Africa is a two-way exchange program sponsored by the U.S. Department of State and designed to promote mutual understanding, enhance leadership and professional skills, and build lasting, sustainable partnerships between mid-level emerging leaders committed to strengthening their communities through social entrepreneurship and workforce development.
PFP Fellows are placed in intensive fellowships in non-profit organizations, private sector businesses, and government offices for an individually tailored professional development experience.  They build a broad network with American and other program participant colleagues as they develop a deeper understanding of U.S. society, enhance their professional skills.  American participants who have hosted foreign fellows travel overseas for participant-driven reciprocal programs.

Type: Fellowship, Short course

Eligibility: Who Should Apply?

• Entrepreneurs, and Social Innovators.
• Small & medium business Owners and Managers who are investing in innovative socially conscious products and programs.
• Individuals working in Civil Society/NGOs working on youth workforce training and development, increasing the role of marginalized populations in the economy, building financial literacy, training in technology use and IT development, and other efforts around economic empowerment.
• Individuals working in  University incubators, accelerators, and job-readiness programs, and programs focusing on business development, financial literacy, sustainable tourism, or economic development.
• Individuals working in Government Agencies/Ministries, national policy offices, think-tanks, and offices working to increase the presence of underrepresented citizens in the economy.

Eligible candidates must be:

• 25-40 years old
• A current citizen and resident of: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, or Lebanon
• Speak fluent to English (enough to work full-time in a US fellowship)
• Have at least two years‘ work experience in their field 
• Currently employed
• Interest in hosting reciprocal program for Americans in your country
• Able to convene 25 or more colleagues for post-trip briefings
• Have demonstrated strong leadership skills and commitment to community
• Demonstrates initiative, teamwork, and openness 
• Preference will be given to those who have not previously traveled on a U.S. government funded program.

Number of Awards: 38 

Duration and Value of Programme: 

• Spring Program: 18 April  – 29 May, 2020.  Open to applicants from Morocco & Tunisia. 
• Fall Program: 10 October – 19 November, 2020.  Open to applicants from Algeria, Egypt & Lebanon.

Fellows will participate in a 6-week program, (Spring and Fall, 2020) each with:

• A one-week host family stay
• A one-week business development and social entrepreneurship intensive with University Partner
• A one-month fellowship placement in individual businesses and/or offices in Washington, D.C.
• 4- days Participation in the Professional Fellows Congress
• Design and development of a complete proposal for a follow-on projects to be carried out by PFP fellows, supported by mini-grants

How to Apply:  Apply Here

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

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Swedish Institute Scholarships 2020 for Global Professionals (SISGP) from Developing Countries

Application Deadlines:

1. To begin with, apply for a master’s programme at universityadmissions.se, between 16 October 2019 – 15 January 2020.
2. Apply for an SI scholarship between 10-20 February 2020, follow the instructions below.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible countries: International students (especially from developing countries)

To be taken in (country): Sweden

Accepted Subject Areas: SISGP offers scholarships to a large number of master’s programmes starting in the autumn semester 2020. Check the list of master’s programmes that are eligible for SISGP.

About Scholarship: The Swedish Institute Scholarships for Global Professionals (SISGP) programme is part of the Swedish government’s international awards scheme aimed at developing global leaders who will contribute to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden and administered by the Swedish Institute (SI).
The programme offers a unique opportunity for global professionals to develop professionally and academically, to experience Swedish society and culture, and to build a long-lasting relationship with Sweden and with each other.
The goal is to enable the scholarship holders to play an active role in the positive development of the societies in which they live. Ideal candidates are ambitious young professionals with academic qualifications, demonstrated work and leadership experience, ambition to make a difference by working with issues which contribute to a just and sustainable development in their country in a long term perspective, and a clear idea of how a study programme in Sweden would benefit their country.
Priority will be given to applicants with a strong and relevant professional background and demonstrated leadership experience.

Eligibility/Criteria: Applicants must

• have minimum of 3,000 hours of demonstrated full-time or part-time employment, voluntary work, paid/unpaid internship, and/or position of trust.
• be from an eligible country
• display academic qualifications and leadership experience.
• be required to pay tuition fees to the universities, have followed the steps of university admission, and will be admitted to one of the eligible master’s programmes..
• have demonstrated leadership experience from employment, voluntary work, and/or internship after high school studies.
• Read more about the selection criteria, target countries, and eligible master programmes (in link below) before applying.

Number of Scholarships: Approximately 300 scholarships will be awarded

Scholarship Value: 

• Tuition fees: directly paid to the Swedish university by us
• Living expenses of SEK 10,000/month
• Travel grant of SEK 15,000 *
• Insurance against illness and accident
• Membership of the SI Network for Future Global Leaders(NFGL) – a platform to grow professionally and build your network while in Sweden
• Membership of the SI Alumni Network after your scholarship period – a platform for continued networking and further professional development

* The travel grant is a one-time payment for the entire study period. The grant is not applicable to students already living in Sweden.

The scholarship does not cover:

• Additional grants for family members
• Application fee to University Admissions

Duration of Scholarships: The Swedish Institute Study Scholarships is intended for full-time master’s level studies of one or two years, and is only awarded for programmes starting in the autumn semester. The scholarship is granted for one academic year (two semesters) at a time. It will be extended for programmes longer than two semesters, provided that the student has passed his/her courses/credits.

How to apply: The application process consists of these steps.

1. Apply for a master’s programme at universityadmissions.se
2. Apply for a SISGP scholarship
3. Notifications from University Admissions
4. Announcement of 300 successful SI scholarship recipients

It is important to go through ALL Application requirements before applying for this scholarship

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

French Government Eiffel Excellence Masters and PhD Scholarships 2020/2021 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 9th January 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Emerging economies

To be taken at: France

Accepted Subject Areas: Eiffel scholarships are available in three main fields:

• engineering science at master’s level,
• science in the broadest sense at PhD level (engineering science; exact sciences: mathematics, physics, chemistry and life sciences, nano- and biotechnology, earth sciences, sciences of the universe, environmental sciences, information and communication science and technology);
• economics and management;
• law and political sciences.

About the Award: The Eiffel Excellence Scholarship Programme was established by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development to enable French higher education establishments to attract top foreign students to enrol in their master’s and PhD courses.
It helps to shape the future foreign decision-makers of the private and public sectors, in priority areas of study, and encourages applications from emerging countries at master’s level, and from emerging and industrialized countries at PhD level.

Offered Since: 1999

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility

• Only foreign nationals are eligible to apply for a scholarship from the French Government.
• In the case of dual nationality applicants, those with French nationality are ineligible.
• for master’s courses, candidates must be no older than 30 on the date of the selection committee meeting,March 2020; at PhD level, candidates must be no older than 35 on the date of the selection committee meeting, March 2020.
• only applications submitted by French educational establishments are accepted. These establishments undertake to enrol scholarship holders on the course for which they have been selected. Applications submitted by any other means shall not be considered. Furthermore, any candidate nominated by more than one establishment shall be disqualified.
• scholarships are for students wishing to enrol on a master’s course, including at an engineering school, and for PhD students. The Eiffel Programme does not apply to French-run master’s courses abroad, as non-PhD scholarship holders must complete at least 75% of their course in France. It does not apply to training under an apprenticeship contract or a professional training contract either.
• Educational establishments that shortlist non-French speaking applicants must ensure that their level of French is sufficient to enable them to integrate satisfactorily into the anticipated course
• Combination with other scholarships: foreign students who, at the time of application, have already been awarded a French government scholarship under another programme are not eligible, even if the scholarship in question does not include social security cover.
• Eiffel PhD scholarships: Establishments may nominate a candidate who was previously awarded an Eiffel scholarship at master’s level for a scholarship at PhD level. Candidates who have already been awarded an Eiffel scholarship once during their PhD cannot be awarded it for a second time. No application will be accepted for any student who applied previously but was rejected, even if the application is submitted by a different establishment or in another field of study.
• Eiffel master’s scholarships: no application will be accepted for any student who applied previously but was rejected, even if the application is submitted by a different establishment or in another field of study. Students who have already been awarded an Eiffel scholarship at master’s level are not eligible to re-apply at master’s level.
• Language skills: when pre-selecting non-French-speaking candidates, establishments must make sure that their language skills meet the requirements of the relevant course of study.

Number of Scholarships: Not Specified

Selection Criteria: The selection criteria are as follows:

• the excellence of the candidate, as demonstrated by his or her university career so far and the originality of his or her research subject;
• the international policy of the establishment nominating the candidate, its action in the geographical area in question, the excellence of the host department, the establishment’s compatibility with the candidate being nominated, its efforts to publicise the Eiffel Programme and its continued support of scholarship holders, especially through a partnership with France Alumni (https://www.francealumni.fr/en);
• the cooperation and partnership policy of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, and in particular, the priority given to certain countries for this Programme.

The committee marks each candidate for these three criteria and calculates a total score out of 50. It sets a minimum threshold for admissibility and distributes the scholarships as follows, depending on the number available:

• at least 70% of the scholarships are awarded to the highest-scoring candidates;
• the remaining scholarships are distributed among the establishments that have not received one, for candidates who achieved scores above the minimum threshold.

These selected applications represent the definitive list of successful candidates.

Scholarship Amount:
Master’s level:

• The Eiffel scholarship includes a monthly allowance of €1,181 (a maintenance allowance of €1,031 and a monthly stipend of €150).
• In addition, the following expenses are directly covered: – one international return journey; Page 3 of 6 – social security cover; – cultural activities. Scholarship holders may also receive an additional housing allowance, under certain conditions.

PhD level:

• The Eiffel scholarship includes a monthly allowance of €1,400.
• In addition, the following expenses are directly covered: – one international return journey (for students in law or political sciences who may make several trips, only one return journey shall be covered); – social security cover; – cultural activities. Scholarship holders may also receive an additional housing allowance, under certain conditions.

Duration: The scholarship is awarded for:

• a maximum of 12 months for entry at M2 level,
• a maximum of 24 months for entry at M1 level,
• a maximum of 36 months for an engineering degree.

A 2-month preliminary intensive language training course. The total duration of the course undertaken (including compulsory work experience or internships in France or abroad) must be clearly indicated by the educational establishment in the application form. Optional placements are not covered by the grant.
For PhD: The Eiffel scholarship is awarded for a maximum of ten months. For scientific and economic disciplines, no language course is provided for and the scholarship duration cannot be divided up. For law students, the ten-month scholarship can, with the consent of the selection committee, be split into two or three stays in France, of three or four months each. These stays must take place over a maximum of three calendar years. Only law students have the option of taking French lessons alongside their studies. This must be clearly requested in the application.

How to Apply: Only applications submitted by French higher education institutions are accepted.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details to apply

How the Tax System Rewards Polluters

Charlie Simmons

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist who sparked student protests across the globe, had this to tell the UN General Assembly in New York: “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.”

As a retired businessman and engineer, I can’t help but look at Greta with admiration. Yet I shudder to think that my generation has abdicated our duties to such an extent that we are leaving the mess of climate change on the shoulders of high schoolers.

Lawmakers and business leaders in my generation have a responsibility to act today to mend our planet before these young people have to inherit it. Some of the most straightforward, yet least discussed solutions, lie in our tax system.

Unfortunately, the man-made crisis of climate change is made worse by our man-made tax system. In 2018, many of the biggest fossil fuel companies paid zero dollars in taxes — and actually received billions in rebates. 

These shocking facts, uncovered by the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policy, flew under the radar of mainstream media.

In total, ITEP found that at least 60 of the biggest American corporations didn’t pay a cent in federal taxes in 2018. Of those, 22 are power utilities and oil and gas corporations, including famous names such as Chevron, Halliburton, and Occidental Petroleum — and that was only in 2018.

How is this possible?

In part, it’s because there are a mind-boggling number of tax incentives offered to fossil fuel companies. There are deductions for domestic fossil fuel production, tax credits for vague “intangible drilling costs,” and deferred federal tax payments.

In 2016, the Wall Street Journal estimated that these provisions amounted to $4.76 billion per year given out to fossil fuel companies from the federal government.

That was before GOP corporate tax cuts worsened the problem in 2017 by slashing the industry’s already low tax rate and offering a new deduction for capital expenditures — while simultaneously opening up half a million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to new drilling.

Companies like Chevron will tell you they’re committed to preventing climate change, pointing to their $100 million pledge to the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, an industry-led organization allegedly dedicated to fighting climate change.

This is a paltry amount compared to the $4.5 billion in profit they made in 2018 — or even to the $955 million they avoided in taxes thanks to the Republican tax cuts. Chevron received a $181 million rebate on Tax Day.

Essentially, American taxpayers lost $955 million, funded a $100 million PR stunt, and paid $81 million directly to the corporation to fund more drilling and exploration our planet literally cannot afford. Chevron’s not unique, either — Occidental did the same thing.

While the current administration lets fossil fuel companies raid America’s natural resources and its coffers, the rest of us can’t sit back and wait for change. Greta certainly isn’t, and she’s only 16.

Tax incentives should encourage better behavior from corporations, not pay polluters to profit from environmental degradation.

Forcing our elected officials and 2020 candidates to introduce incentives for fixing climate change — and remove those that accelerate it — should be on the top of the agenda. our economy and the health of our environment ultimately go hand-in-hand, and it’s long past time our tax system reflected that.