30 Sept 2017

Peru cabinet shakeup exposes crisis of rule

Armando Cruz

On September 17, Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski swore in new cabinet ministers for his right-wing pro-business government. The former Wall Street banker and World Bank officer—with dual American-Peruvian citizenship—leads a crisis-ridden government isolated and obstructed by other right-wing political forces, most notably the fujimorista Fuerza Popular (FP), the right-wing party that controls the legislature with 71 congressmen.
The decision to remove and replace some ministries came in the aftermath of a powerful 71-day teachers’ strike. The strike was ignited by Kuczynski’s broken promise of raising teachers’ wages in his first year in office, but it soon became a nationwide mobilization against the abysmal state of public education and in opposition to “education reform” that in the name of “meritocracy” would lead to the firing of teachers for failing performance tests.
The government showed utter indifference toward the demands of the striking teachers, slandering them as “terrorists” and “extremists” and repressing their protests when teachers streamed into the capital from all over the country. Exposing its own complete integration into the establishment, the SUTEP teachers’ union bureaucracy joined in the government slander of their own ranks, prompting teachers to rebel against them and denounce them as traitors.
In the end, SUTEP, along with its rival organizations inside the teachers’ movement, suspended the strike without achieving any gains. However, the government’s image was badly damaged by its own incompetence in dealing with the strike. Most of Kuczynski’s government is made up of operators from the corporate world with no experience in politics.
FP then sought to reap political gains from the strike’s chaotic aftermath. During the strike, FP had, in an opportunistic fashion, presented itself as a mediator between the government and the strikers and cynically feigned support for their struggle. It announced that it would mount a congressional investigation of Minister of Education Marilú Martens over his incompetent role dealing with the strike. Eventually, it announced that it would present a motion to censure Martens, who was widely despised by teachers for his arrogant posture during negotiations.
The fujimoristas, of course, don’t care about the well being of teachers, or of any other section of the working class for that matter. The attempt to censure Martens aims to help and prop the government by getting rid of an unsustainable, despised figure in the government while doing nothing to change its policies regarding education. Furthermore, FP’s founder and former President Alberto Fujimori—jailed for the last nine years for human rights violations and corruption—imposed the free-market measures that set into motion wholesale privatizations and the pauperization of the education sector.
The pseudo-left coalition Frente Amplio (FA) and its recent split-off, Nuevo Perú (NP), also voted for Martens’s censure. “Minister Martens has provoked a very angry response from teachers. … It is evident that this conflict has reached to a level that cannot be allowed and we ask for her removal,” declared NP spokeswoman and congresswoman Marisa Glave.
The move to censor Martens sent the government into a crisis. During its first year, Kuczynki’s cabinet lost two of its ministers due to the machinations and censure motions of the FP. Losing a third minister by another motion to censure by the fujimoristas would lead to the total loss of the government’s credibility. According to the weekly journal Hildebrandt en sus trece, anonymous state sources warned that if FP brought down yet another minister, then “[FP leader] Keiko Fujimori would become the de facto leader of the country, and the government’s image would never recover.”
Kuczkynski on September 13 ordered Prime Minister Fernando Zavala to submit to Congress a confidence motion on behalf of the government to “stand up against the fujimoristas .” The following day, after a heated eight-hour debate in which congressmen traded insults and screams, the Peruvian Congress enacted a no-confidence vote. The fujimoristas and the Frente Amplio caucuses voted against the confidence measure along with other, smaller parties. Nuevo Perú, proving its conciliatory and “non-obstructionist” character, abstained from the vote, even though the party’s leader and former presidential candidate Veronika Mendoza—who has disappeared from the political scene without any explanation—tweeted: “Mr. Kuczynski, the ‘confidence’ that you must gain comes from the people. Changes are necessary in your cabinet.”
Over the following days, the government met with the opposition fujimoristaand aprista delegations in order to implement cabinet changes more to their political liking. While the fujimoristas control Congress with their disproportionate number of congressmen, the APRA party, despite being a minuscule force in Congress, has strong support from the corporate class and international investors.
Despite the demands from FP for a complete cabinet shakeup, only changes were made, along with Zavala’s withdrawal from his post as prime minister. Martens’s successor as minister of education is Idel Vexler, who was deputy minister in APRA party President Alan Garcia’s second government (2006-2011), which had an even more confrontational relationship with the teachers and helped to enact an early version of the law teachers are currently fighting. He had voiced some opposition to the performance tests but eventually retracted and declared there is no halt to the “education reform.”
Minister of Health Patricia García, who faced a parallel month-long strike by doctors and nurses, was replaced by former navy admiral Fernando D’Alessio. The doctors’ union criticized the choice, since D’Alessio is not a health professional and has never worked in the civilian state sector, adding that he was only selected for his closeness to APRA. The minister of economy, a post that had also been held by Prime Minister Zavala—leading to criticisms that he had too much power with the two cabinet seats—went to Deputy Minister Claudia Cooper, a longtime officer in Peruvian banking and finance.
The minister of justice was replaced by Enrique Mendoza, former president of the Supreme Court, who, according to some reports, had helped to terminate judicial investigations into some of the state crimes committed during the first government of Alan Garcia (1985-1990). Mendoza also gave affirmative comments regarding a possible presidential pardon for Alberto Fujimori, but these were later repudiated by the new prime minister, Mercedez Araoz.
Araoz is yet another figure close to APRA. In Alan Garcia’s second government, she was minister of commerce and tourism, leading the final negotiations to establish the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US. During her tenure, the government ordered security forces to fire on protesters who were occupying the road in the town of Bagua, Amazonas, in protest over the concession of their lands to multinational corporations.
Araoz later claimed that the protesters’ actions were jeopardizing the FTA. The contemptuous attitude toward the rights of native and indigenous groups to their lands remains intact, with Energy and Mining Minister Cayetana Aljovín declaring that there won’t be any “prior consultation” with native associations before turning over their lands to the multinationals for mineral extraction.
The Peruvian working class is currently ruled by direct representatives of big business and extreme reactionaries whose main mission is to continue their exploitation and looting of the country’s vast mineral resources. Whatever skirmishes and infighting occur in the corridors of power, it will always lead to an accord for sustaining bourgeois rule and the adoption of an even more right-wing capitalist program.

Sri Lankan president presents rosy picture at UN General Assembly

Saman Gunadasa

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena recently addressed the United Nations General Assembly, appealing to the international powers to back his crisis-ridden government, while denouncing those demanding democratic and social rights at home as “extremists.”
Sirisena’s and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government, now two-and-a-half years old, faces growing opposition from workers, youth and the rural poor, as well as from Tamil people whose living conditions have been devastated by the three-decade communal war in the country’s north and east. While Sirisena was addressing the UN, power workers were on strike and students and doctors were holding protests against the privatisation of education in Colombo.
Sirisena’s self-serving speech on September 19 boasted about democratic rights and reform measures to alleviate poverty. He pompously claimed to be an example in the international arena of “a leader who has shed power while holding office… [and] removing groups who use autocratic governance.”
Under his rule, Sirisena said, the country had “succeeded in our journey of re-establishing and restoring the freedom of the people, protecting human rights and nurturing fundamental rights.” He also claimed that, following the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Sri Lanka had “succeeded in initiating peace, establishing democracy and taking our country forward as a peaceful and free nation.”
These are blatant lies.
Sirisena came to office in the January 2015 presidential election, following a behind-the-scenes operation sponsored by the US. While the regime-change campaign exploited popular opposition to the autocratic rule of former President Mahinda Rajapakse, Sirisena’s claims to have “shed” presidential powers are bogus. In reality, he retains almost all the executive powers enjoyed by his predecessor.
Sirisena has broken one of his main election promises—to abolish the executive presidential system—and instead introduced a constitutional amendment. The amendment limits the number of presidential terms to two and establishes a constitutional council and independent commissions to appoint top government official and judiciary, thus preserving the executive powers.
The president, in fact, is using these powers. In July, he imposed an essential services order and deployed the army to crush the oil workers’ strike and this month he prepared similar measures against striking power workers. Early this year, Sirisena issued an essential services order against people protesting environmental pollution.
Security forces repressing striking oil workers
The US and other major powers, via the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), used the human rights violations and war crimes committed during the war against the LTTE to pressure Rajapakse to distance his government from China. The US backed the war but opposed Rajapakse’s close economic relations with Beijing and wanted Sri Lanka brought into line with Washington’s war preparations against China.
After Sirisena suspended major Chinese-financed projects and showed his allegiance to Washington and its ally India, the political pressure was relaxed. Previous UNHRC demands for an international war crimes investigation were dropped and Colombo’s proposal for a local judicial investigation was endorsed in October 2015.
After two years of delay, Colombo only recently established an “Office of Missing Persons.” Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have publicly declared, however, that it will not investigate any previous disappearances. They have insisted that no war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka and said they would not allow any international charges to be laid against military or government officials.
Sirisena cynically told the UN General Assembly that his administration was “firmly committed to strengthening national reconciliation” and to “build a society where everyone is able to live with freedom and dignity as equal citizens.”
Sirisena’s “national reconciliation” promise, which involved constitutional changes to devolve powers to the provinces, was made during the election campaign. Its purpose was to enlist the support of the Tamil capitalist parties. The recently released interim report on the new constitution, however, maintains the “supremacy” of Buddhism and Sinhala language, thus continuing the deeply anti-democratic character of the Sri Lankan state. Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have pledged to maintain the “unitary” state in order to appease Sinhala-Buddhist communalists and the military, which are being whipped up by the Rajapakse opposition and fascistic forces.
Contrary to Sirisena’s “reconciliation” posturing, the military occupation of the north and the east continues. Military and police intelligence forces maintain constant surveillance of the population in these provinces, with the ongoing oppression justified by government and media claims of a “revival of LTTE terrorism.”
In his UN speech, Sirisena lashed out against the popular discontent over his numerous broken promises. “Some expect quick action and short-sighted, short-term solutions,” he declared. “Our path forward must be stable and progressive and not one of haste that may be destabilising.”
Speaking in Sinhala, he denounced those expecting quick action as “extremists.” This was not just aimed at Tamils demanding information about the disappeared, punishment for war criminals and the return of land seized by the military during the war. It was also directed against striking workers and protesting students in the rest of the country.
Sirisena told the UN the country faced a “severe debt burden” and his government had initiated various development projects to solve this problem. In reality, Colombo is brutally implementing social austerity measures demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in an attempt to reduce the government’s fiscal deficit by half to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2020.
These measures include increasing taxes, reducing subsidies and driving up the prices of essential items. Workers and youth opposing these measures are now deemed to be “extremists” seeking quick solutions.
While in New York, Sirisena met with US undersecretary of state for political affairs Thomas Shannon, who reportedly “commended the Sri Lankan government for political, economic and social progress achieved in the post war period.”
Shannon said the government was exemplary and “committed to build peace in the Indian Ocean region.”
These comments have nothing to do with “peace” but directly related to decisions taken by Colombo over the past two years to strengthen its ties with the US military.
In July, Sirisena secured cabinet approval to renew Colombo’s acquisition and cross-servicing agreement with the US department of defence. The 10-year agreement, first signed by the former Rajapakse government in 2007 during the war against LTTE, allows US military planes to access Sri Lankan airports and sea ports for refueling and service purposes.
While Sirisena is rapidly integrating Sri Lanka into US war plans against China, he has also condemned North Korea’s nuclear tests. Sirisena has no problem with US President Donald Trump’s threats at the UN to “totally destroy” North Korea.
After meeting Trump at a dinner hosted for state leaders, Sirisena tweeted: “Very glad that Jayanthi [Sirisena’s wife] and I could meet Donald Trump and Melani Trump in New York today.”
Behind his lies about democracy, reconciliation and poverty alleviation, Sirisena and his government are lurching toward dictatorial rule and deepening involvement in Washington’s catastrophic war plans in the region against China.

Few refugees leave Australian detention camps under US “swap” deal

Max Newman 

This week 25 refugees detained for years in an Australian-run camp on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea left for the US under what is essentially a cruel swap deal struck with the Obama administration last November. Another 29 detainees from a similar facility in Nauru are expected join them.
The refugees, heavily-vetted for months by US authorities, are drawn from the more than 2,000 men, women and children imprisoned indefinitely in the two remote Pacific island camps. They are being flown to be “resettled” in unknown US locations, with no guarantees of any permanent residency or basic civil rights, in return for unspecified numbers of refugees being flown to Australia from US camps in Central America.
On both sides of the Pacific, refugees who have fled oppression and persecution are being transported thousands of kilometres from the countries in which they sought asylum, and from the families and communities many wished to rejoin.
Much secrecy surrounds all the arrangements, including the vetting process applied by the US government. Interviewed on television, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said: “It’s all subject to the United States’ very, very thorough vetting, their extreme vetting.”
When US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials began the vetting interviews in May, Reuters reported that interviewees had to swear an oath to God to tell the truth before a gruelling six-hour interview. Refugees were asked in-depth questions about their family, friends and associates, as well as any interaction with Islamic State.
In a document given to refugees imprisoned on the islands, the DHS detailed a stringent medical check, including chest x-rays, to assess their “public health significance.” The document made no mention of where those refugees selected would be living or if they would be eligible for US citizenship.
Instead the document indicated they would be passed to a non-government resettlement agency which would provide minimal housing, medical and job seeker support for 30 to 60 days. While they would “have the legal right to work,” they were “expected to seek employment and become fully self-sufficient as soon as possible.”
With no guarantee of citizenship, these refugees could remain in a similar situation to those living in “community detention” in Australia—constantly monitored by the government with the ongoing threat of deportation. Even if they were able to become US citizens, they would still be barred from living in Australia.
In 2013, the Greens-backed Australian Labor government enacted legislation to prevent all asylum seekers who arrived by boat from ever settling in Australia. The current Turnbull government attempted to extend this draconian legislation last November to block asylum seekers even entering the country. This legislation has yet to be put to the Senate.
No official information has been provided about how or where the refugees will be consigned in the US. Australian Immigration and Border Control Minister Peter Dutton maintained the wall of secrecy around all the government’s anti-refugee measures. “I repeat that we will not be providing running commentary on this matter,” he said in a media release.
The arrangement was a quid pro quo, in which the Australian government would take an undisclosed number of refugees languishing in refugee camps in Costa Rica. The Obama administration set up these camps ostensibly as a humanitarian response to the increasing numbers of people fleeing gang-related violence in Central America. Their real purpose was to curb the influx of refugees in the US, by funnelling them into camps in which they could be “heavily vetted” by the DHS.
In line with his reactionary anti-immigrant policy, President Donald Trump branded the deal as “stupid” and “disgusting” in a leaked phone call with Turnbull in late January. Turnbull assured Trump he had no obligation to take a single refugee. “Every individual is subject to your vetting,” Turnbull said. “You can decide to take them or to not take them after vetting.” Turnbull also indicated that the vetting process would “comply” with the anti-Muslim ban that Trump had sought to impose via an executive order just days earlier.
Twenty five of those currently approved for transfer are reportedly from Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma. Somalia is on the Trump administration’s latest travel ban list, making refugees from that country especially vulnerable in the US.
As of September 20, there were still 928 men detained on Manus Island and 1,135 detainees on Nauru, including 169 children. They face ongoing degrading conditions.
On Manus Island, the conditions are worsening. Earlier this year, the Turnbull government announced the closure of the detention centre by October 31. The PNG Supreme Court ruled last year ruled that the facility violated the country’s constitution, which bars deprivation of liberty without charge or trial. Hundreds of asylum seekers are being transferred, under the threat of police violence to less secure facilities, from where they can be easily left permanently in the impoverished country.
In Australia, both Labor and the Greens welcomed the swap deal. Labor’s immigration spokesman Shayne Neumann, expressed “gratitude” to the US for accepting the refugees. Greens immigration spokesman Nick McKim said: “We wish the people heading to the United States the very best.”
Both criticised the current Liberal-National government for turning Manus Island and Nauru into indefinite detention camps. But it was the last Greens-backed Labor government that reopened the camps in 2013, forced thousands of refugees into them and enacted legislation to prevent them ever settling in Australia.
Likewise, Ian Rintoul, a leader of the pseudo-left group Solidarity and the Refugee Action Coalition (RAC), said the resettlement news was good for those approved. He told reporters the refugees were “very happy at the possibilities of having a safe life and rebuilding.”
In reality, the Trump administration, like the Australian governments and governments around the world, is demonising refugees and seeking to make them scapegoats for deteriorating living conditions and growing social inequality.
The life of the handful of refugees being resettled in the US will be anything but safe and economically secure.

Spain’s crackdown on the Catalan secessionist referendum: Podemos looks for its “Syriza moment”

Alejandro López

As the day of the Catalan independence referendum approaches, October 1, the Spanish pseudo-left party Podemos has stepped up efforts to present itself as the party most capable of resolving the secession crisis without sparking social opposition.
Podemos sees the crisis as a “Syriza moment” in its efforts to join a bourgeois government and save Spanish capitalism precisely at the point the ruling elite’s fear of mass protest and social revolution has reached new heights.
On Sunday, Podemos held an “Assembly of Coexistence” in Zaragoza to discuss and draft a manifesto urging the right-wing Popular Party (PP) government to “initiate dialogue [with the Catalan separatists], cease exceptional measures and respect the democratic principles, so that Catalans can express themselves.” Podemos was “defending democracy against the Popular Party,” party leader Pablo Iglesias declared.
The PP government, backed by the Socialist Party (PSOE) and Citizens, has initiated the largest security operation since the end of the fascist regime of General Francisco Franco in 1978 in an attempt to prevent the referendum. Police have raided offices, seized ballot papers and posters, closed down websites and arrested Catalan officials. Thousands of extra police are being dispatched to the region.
These repressive measures have sparked protests in Barcelona and throughout Catalonia. As anti-secessionist Lluís Bassets warned in his daily opinion piece for El País, “There is a week left [for the referendum] and the omens could not be worse. The worst is yet to come. […] The judicial machine is under way and there is no doubt that it will overwhelm everything that it finds in its path. Uncontrollable street mobilisations have only just begun and can lead to a general strike. Both dynamics converge in a poisonous concept of our history [...] that now takes shape with the masses on the street: sedition.”
The Assembly of Coexistence was attended by mayors, regional and national parliamentarians and spokespersons of 10 political parties: the Stalinist-led United Left (IU), the Catalan European Democratic Party (PDeCAT), the Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC), the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) and the five parties linked to Podemos (Equo, Mès, Compromís, En Comú Podem, En Marea).
The manifesto signed by the participants calls on the “the Government to talk with the Generalitat [Catalan regional government] and all political actors to seek democratic solutions to the conflict in Catalonia, solutions that allow Catalan citizens to decide their future in a referendum agreed with the State.”
It adds that the Spanish government should “cease its policy of exceptionality and repression, since this policy threatens the fundamental freedoms that constitute democracy. The government should not prevent Catalan citizens from expressing themselves on October 1 as they see fit.”
The manifesto deliberately omits any endorsement of the results of the referendum if it finally goes ahead. This is because Catalan leaders have threatened to declare independence if the majority of voters, regardless of the turnout, support independence. Podemos’ position, which opposes separatism and staunchly defends the unity of the Spanish state and its geopolitical interests worldwide, is that the referendum is a “mobilization” and is not legally binding as its authors maintain.
The central theme of the conference was an appeal to the PSOE to stop backing the PP’s repression for fear this will strengthen the separatists and undermine Spain.
Barcelona mayor Ada Colau urged PSOE general secretary Pedro Sánchez and his party to support a negotiated referendum instead of “allying themselves with a bunkerised PP.”
Antonio Maíllo for the United Left said that “the PSOE should decide if they want to join the reactionary bloc or the bloc in favour of fraternity.”
Iglesias declared, “We need a Socialist Party that finds its own path, far away from the reactionary and authoritarian one of the PP. Comrade [PSOE leader Pedro] Sánchez, don’t fall into the trap of a common front with the PP. That is the route to the destruction of democracy and Spain as a collective project.”
Iglesias’s ludicrous plea to “comrade” Sánchez is aimed at stoking illusions in the PSOE, around which Podemos has built its hopes of coming to power through a so-called “Government of Change.” Sánchez, who was ousted as general secretary last October for refusing to abstain in the congressional vote to allow the PP to form a new government, was re-elected earlier this year. During his campaign, Sánchez, who has no programmatic differences with those who plotted against him, promoted himself as a born-again party dissident who should have done more to reach an agreement with Podemos.
Podemos is virtually indistinguishable from the PSOE in terms of its pro-capitalist programme and its imperialist foreign policy. Since its foundation three years ago, it has assiduously promoted itself as a party capable of serving the bourgeoisie. It has modelled itself on Syriza in Greece, which was swept into office in 2015 on a wave of working-class militancy based on its pledge to oppose European Union dictated austerity policies. Once in office, Syriza betrayed its anti-austerity mandate and rammed through a far more draconian program of cuts and privatisations than had been attempted by even its right-wing predecessors.
Podemos has already shown in practice that it is following the same path. In the local administrations it controls or backs, the party has imposed austerity, broken strikes and supported police measures against migrants. Last month, Podemos joined a regional coalition government with the PSOE in Castilla la Mancha in order to pass the budget. It is seen as a template for a national agreement.
Podemos’ appeal aims to create a PSOE-Podemos “left government” that would be in a better position to stabilize Spain once the PP government discredits itself further through its police-state measures. Such a possibility exists if both the PSOE and Podemos, backed by the nationalists and separatists, remove the minority PP government through a no-confidence vote in parliament.
The PSOE has so far rebuffed Iglesias’ moves. It is one of the main parties of the post-Franco era, refounded in the 1970s under Felipe Gónzalez. During the past four decades, the PSOE has implemented militarist and free-market policies. It is the party that has taken the main decisions for Spain’s ruling class, including leading Spain into the European Union, NATO and the euro currency, and implemented the first attacks against the working class following the 2008 crash through labour and pension reforms, deindustrialization policies, privatisation and crackdowns on democratic rights.
Not surprisingly, the PSOE has so far aligned itself with the PP to prevent Spain losing a fifth of its economic output and a quarter of its exports to the Catalan nationalists.
However, this could change given that Podemos’ perspective has support in significant sections of the international media who speak for factions of the various ruling elites. Like Podemos, most are blaming the Spanish government for intransigence, arguing that Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s PP should be able to work out a deal with the Catalan nationalists.
Last Friday’s Guardian editorial accused Rajoy of being “oblivious to public sentiment in Catalonia,” warning that “If nothing is done to work towards a compromise, a political train wreck threatens in the EU’s largest southern member state.” It concluded by calling on Madrid and Barcelona “to start a dialogue.”
The New York Times followed suit, warning, “As the referendum date nears, Mr. Rajoy, who leads a minority government, finds himself under increasing pressure in Madrid to explain how the conflict over possible Catalan secession spun out of control.”
In Germany, Der Tagesspiegel ran a headline reading, “Madrid fuels the conflict with the Catalans.”
Such positions reflect rising concern among the ruling classes internationally that the conflict between Madrid and Barcelona will spark a crisis that could rapidly engulf Spain, the euro zone’s fourth-largest economy and a key NATO member, and the whole EU.

29 Sept 2017

German election: Where the far-right AfD won—and why

Sven Heymanns

The entry of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) into Germany’s parliament last Sunday was cause for great concern, fear and anger for many people, both in Germany and beyond. While there were spontaneous protests against the AfD in numerous cities, the establishment parties and leading media outlets are trying to wash their hands of their own responsibility, placing the blame for the rise of the right on those who voted for them.
The feigned consternation of the Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Green Party, Free Democrats and the Left Party, and the dismissive media commentaries, however, cannot conceal who bears the real responsibility for the success of the AfD. It is significant that the AfD found important support, especially in those parts of the country and cities in which the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Left Party had previously been, or are currently, responsible for implementing massive social cuts.
A closer look at the election results of the AfD reveals two things: on the one hand, the AfD gained votes, above all where the SPD and the Left Party also suffered massive losses. On the other hand, the vote for the AfD was, in many respects, an expression of a protest against the anti-social policy of the supposed “left-wing” parties. Under conditions of the political bankruptcy of the SPD and the Left Party, and the lack of a truly progressive alternative, this could only take a right-wing form.
Where did the AfD win?
Just a glance at the AfD’s national stronghold in Saxony confirms this assessment. Twenty-seven years after the reintroduction of capitalism by the Stalinist bureaucracy, a right-wing extremist party has garnered the most votes in the most populous east German state. The AfD received 27 percent of the vote there on Sunday, putting it just in front of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) with 26.9 percent. It is the result of a quarter-century of social cutbacks, de-industrialisation, unemployment and poverty organised and enforced by all the bourgeois parties.
In Saxony, the AfD also won three directly elected constituency seats with Frauke Petry, Tino Chrupalla and Karsten Hilse. At the same time, the SPD, largely hated for introducing the Hartz IV labour and welfare “reforms”, lost almost a quarter of its support, winning just 10.5 percent of the vote. The Left Party, which is often responsible for implementing the SPD’s social cuts at municipal level, lost one-fifth of its voters, winning 16.1 percent. During the last Bundestag (federal parliament) election in 2013 it had won 20 percent.
The result in neighbouring Thuringia was similar. The federal state with the first Left Party premier, Bodo Ramelow, Thuringia has the second-highest deportation rate for rejected asylum seekers in Germany. It saw both a slump in the vote for the Left Party and a massive increase in that of the AfD. The Left Party lost almost a third of its voters, winning 16.9 percent, while the AfD quadrupled its previous result. It now stands at 22.7 percent in Thuringia and has replaced the Left Party as the second-strongest force in the state. The SPD lost nearly 3 points, winning just 13.2 percent and is only the fourth-strongest party.
But the rise of the AfD is not limited to east Germany. In the west, too, it won more than 20 percent in individual electoral districts. This was particularly the case in the Ruhr area, where one in five are now regarded as poor. The SPD, responsible for organising the social decline in recent decades with the help of the trade unions, has collapsed completely in its former stronghold.
This is especially evident in Gelsenkirchen, a city in which about 40 percent of all children now live in households dependent on Hartz IV welfare handouts. Here, the AfD won 17 percent on Sunday, the party’s highest result in a constituency in the former West Germany. Four years ago, just 4.7 percent had voted for the AfD. At the same time, the SPD’s vote dropped sharply. It lost more than 10 points, finishing with 33.5 percent of the vote.
At 68.2 percent, turnout in Gelsenkirchen was relatively low for a German general election. Almost a third of the city’s voters felt unable to support any of the parties. In some of the city’s working-class neighbourhoods, turnout was much lower. For example, in the Schalke-Ost electoral district, only a little more half bothered to vote (55.4 percent). Here, the SPD lost 13.4 points and came in at only 34.3 percent. Under these conditions, the AfD won 18.8 percent of the vote.
Similar developments can be found in most other cities in the Ruhr area. Especially in Duisburg, the AfD was able to take advantage of the plight faced by many people as a result of the policies imposed by the SPD. In the Obermarxloh electoral district, the AfD won more than 30 percent of the votes.
Who voted for the AfD—and why?
For the most part, the majority of AfD voters do not feel they have been represented by any of the major parties for years and now see the AfD as the only way to express their resentment. Thus, about 1.2 million AfD voters in 2013 did not even go to the polls. According to a survey by Infratest Dimap, about half of AfD voters (51 percent) already knew they would vote for this party before the start of the election.
The AfD also benefited from a large number of former Christian Democrat voters, about 980,000 of whom now voted for the AfD. The SPD lost 470,000 former voters to the AfD, and 400,000 former Left Party voters voted for the right-wing extremists in the recent poll. SPD and Left Party votes were lost to the AfD rather than to any other party.
As the Infratest Dimap survey shows, there are reasons for this electoral behaviour. Asked about their motives for casting a ballot for the AfD, 60 percent of its voters said that they had cast a ballot for the party out of “disappointment with the other parties.” Thus, the AfD is the only party now represented in the Bundestag that owes most its support to protest voters.
A total of 85 percent even said that the AfD was “the only party with which I can express my protest.” On the other hand, only 31 percent of AfD voters said that they had voted out of “conviction for the party.”
Many also took the decision to vote AfD just before the election. Almost one in four AfD voters (24 percent) said they had decided to vote for the party only in election week, or even on election day. And remarkably, more than half of AfD voters (51 percent) said that more must be done for the integration of refugees!
These figures show that the AfD’s electorate is not simply a uniformly right-wing extremist one, despite the danger the party’s entry into the Bundestag represents. On the contrary, the party is benefiting from the fact that all the other parties, including the SPD and the Left Party, are part of a united bourgeois political setup characterised by completely anti-working-class policies.
Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the AfD was able to achieve especially high results among workers and the unemployed. With a total share of 12.6 percent of the vote, the AfD won 22 percent among the unemployed and 21 percent among workers. It is also significant that 26 percent of AfD voters described their economic situation as “bad.” Such a high response was not found in any other parliamentary party.
The extent of the awareness of the right-wing policies of the last federal government is shown by a different figure, which resulted from a question put to all voters. When asked: “Has the federal government made a serious effort to distribute prosperity in Germany more fairly?”, 88 percent said: “No, it did not.”

US Department of Homeland Security to track all immigrants’ social media accounts

Jake Dean

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) quietly announced this week that it will begin collecting social media information and search results from all immigrants’ social media accounts and internet searches, including popular sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. The policy expansion will take effect on October 18th, the same day President Donald Trump’s indefinite travel ban is slated to go into full effect.
The DHS’s invasive surveillance and data gathering operation will cover all immigrants, including green card holders and naturalized citizens. This represents a gross violation of the First and Fourth Amendments which guarantee the right to free speech and protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The policy was made public last week in the Federal Register and first reported by BuzzFeed News. It provides detailed guidance on what information DHS agents are allowed to gather, including “social media handle, aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results.”
Any past political speeches or posts, many of which may have been made under pseudonyms that were intended to maintain privacy out of fear of backlash, will now be collected and used to judge eligibility for citizenship. A journalist that published an article about war crimes or other controversial subjects under a pseudonym out of fear of retaliation will now have to disclose that information. Intimate details of immigrants’ personal lives will be sifted and scrutinized by government agents.
It is not known to what extent the DHS will have access to “search results”—if the agency has direct access to popular search engine sites such as Google and Yahoo or if it is limited to social media accounts. However, it has been made clear through documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, that the NSA works directly with the major internet companies, including Google and Yahoo, to sweep up all electronic communications and funnels that information to other federal agencies.
Responding to a request by Gizmodo for more information on the new surveillance initiative, Joanne F. Talbot from DHS Office of Public Affairs admitted that the agency has been tracking and searching through immigrants’ social media accounts for at least the last five years. The statement makes clear that the unconstitutional dragnet surveillance operation, which is being expanded under Trump, was established under the Obama administration.
“The notice did not announce a new policy,” Talbot insisted. “The notice simply reiterated existing DHS policy regarding the use of social media. In particular, USCIS followed DHS Directive 110-01 for the Operational Use of Social Media. This policy is available on DHS’s public website and was signed on 6/8/2012.”
Adam Schwartz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) spoke to BuzzFeed News: “We see this as part of a larger process of high-tech surveillance of immigrants and more and more people being subjected to social media screening. There’s a growing trend at the Department of Homeland Security to be snooping on the social media of immigrants and foreigners and we think it’s an invasion of privacy and deters freedom of speech.”
Earlier this month, the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the DHS after 11 travelers had to turn over their laptops and phones and reveal their social media passwords at the US border without any warrants.
It has become common practice that border agents check individual Facebook profiles. Customs and Border Protection, which operates under the umbrella of DHS, initiated the practice near the end of Obama’s second term by requesting social media accounts from all foreign travelers.
The Trump administration approved a new questionnaire for visa applications in May that requests social media handles and information for the past five years, expanding on the policies set under Obama.
The surveillance operation that was revealed this week goes even further, however, allowing the DHS to collect the data of immigrants’ social media, including private messages, years after they have crossed the border, and including anyone that they interact with.
Faiz Shakir, national policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a statement explaining the intent of the updated regulations: “This Privacy Act notice makes clear that the government intends to retain the social media information of people who have immigrated to this country, singling out a huge group of people to maintain files on what they say.”
While it is targeted at immigrants, in effect the surveillance operation will collect the social media data of anyone who communicates with an immigrant, US born citizen or otherwise.
Jill Bronfman, privacy law expert at UC Hasting College of Law expressed concern that naturalized citizens, who have the full rights of natural born citizens, would also be targeted by DHS. “That just seems crazy to me. I don’t know of very many incidences in the law in which we make a distinction between naturalized citizens and [native born citizens],” she told CNET.
According to Schwartz all the information collected by the DHS will be stored in what are called “Alien Files” or “A-Files.” In these files, “all manner of high tech surveillance, including facial recognition and cell site simulators” are also kept, the EFF attorney reported.
In other words, not only does the DHS want complete facial recognition of every person who applies for citizenship but wants access to every website they may have visited, every comment they ever posted online, every private message they sent, and then access to those whom they had the private message with.
Attacks on immigrants have been ramped up under the Trump administration. The number of refugees that will be allowed into the US next year will be capped by Trump at 45,000, the lowest number since 1980, when legislation was passed allowing the White House to set the limit.
Earlier this month Trump announced his decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Nearly 80,000 youth who have spent most of their lives in the US will be left to the will of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the next six months when the program expires.

28 Sept 2017

Nuffic Fellowships at the Hague Academy for Local Governance 2018

Application Deadline: 24th October 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
To be taken at (country): The Netherlands
About the Award: The Netherlands organisation for international cooperation in higher education (EP-NUFFIC) offers fellowships to participate in training courses in The Netherlands. The aim is to promote capacity building within organisations in eligible countries via training and education for professionals. This is initiated and (almost) fully funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the budget for development cooperation.
  • The Netherlands Fellowship Programme (NFP) offers scholarships to participants living and working in one of the following 30 eligible countries (See list n Program Webpage link below).
  • The MENA Scholarship Programme (MSP) aims to contribute to the democratic transition in one of the 10 participating countries (See list n Program Webpage link below) in the Middle East and North Africa region. It seeks to build capacity within organisations by enabling employees to take part in short courses offered in various fields of study.
As a result of the changes, The Hague Academy is now accepting Nuffic applicants to the following four open-subscription courses in 2018. The deadline for Nuffic applications is 24 October 2017.
  • Fiscal Decentralisation and Local Finance (12 – 23 February 2018)(not eligible for MSP Scholarships)The Hague Academy for Local Governance will convene a two-week, practice-oriented training on how to effectively organise public finances in your local government. As a participant, you will visit Dutch institutions and local municipalities to learn about financial accountability, gender budgeting, and local government spending and monitoring.
  • Citizen Participation and Inclusive Governance (5 – 16 March 2018)Inclusive development requires responsive governments and empowered citizens. But what can local officials and civil society organizations do to ensure all voices are heard? In this training, you will discuss ways to involve fellow citizens – especially minorities and marginalised groups – to create a culture of inclusive governance.
  • Integrity and Anti-corruption (9 – 20 April 2018)
    Corruption is one of the root causes of extreme poverty, conflict and state fragility. This course will help you understand and identify the drivers of corruption. The course is geared towards strengthening your analytical skills and providing you with instruments to develop anti-graft policies and programmes in line with recent international initiatives and agreements.
  • Local Service Delivery (18 – 29 June 2018)Local public services, including access to health, waste management and social services, have a huge impact on our daily lives and well-being. Unfortunately, the poor often lack access to these important services. Local governments have an important role in ensuring access and quality of these services for all citizens. This course equips you with practical and analytical tools to help you conceive and implement policies and projects aimed at pro-poor local service delivery.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: In order to qualify for a NFP Scholarship, you need to meet the following selection criteria. You must:
  • be a national of, and working and living in one of the countries on the following
    NFP country list (in link below);
  • not be employed by an organisation that has its own means of staff-development, for example:
    • multinational corporations (e.g. Shell, Unilever, Microsoft),
    • large national and/or a large commercial organisations,
    • bilateral donor organisations (e.g. USAID, DFID, Danida, Sida, Dutch ministry of Foreign affairs, FinAid, AusAid, ADC, SwissAid),
    • multilateral donor organisations, (e.g. a UN organization, the World Bank, the IMF, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IADB),
    • international NGO’s (e.g. Oxfam, Plan, Care);
  • must have an official passport that will still be valid for at least three months after completion of the training;
  • must not receive more than one fellowship for courses that take place at the same time;
  • English Language skills: The short courses are taught in English. Therefore, it is important that your English language skills (writing and speaking) are good.
  • Work experience: Minimum of 2 years of experience required, working with or for local or regional authorities. It is to your advantage if the work/experience is related to the content of the training.
To be eligible for a MSP Scholarship you must meet some of the selection criteria mentioned above. Furthermore you must:
  • be a national of, and working and living in one of the countries on the following MSP country list  valid at the time of application;
  • have an official passport that will still be valid at least three months after completion of the training;
  • not be over 45 years of age at the time of the grant submission
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The Nuffic Fellowship programmes covers cost of tuition fee, travel costs, accommodation and living expenses in The Netherlands.
How to Apply: To apply for a fellowship, You will have to answer the following 3 questions to support your application:
  • Question 1: What is the issue or problem you want to address in your country?
  • Question 2. How will this training course enable you to address this issue?
  • Question 3. How will you address this issue with your position within your organisation?
It is very important to go therough the Application Guidelines before applying.
Award Provider: The Hague, The Netherlands
Important Notes: You can only apply for one Fellowship per deadline.

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) Tourism for Tomorrow Awards 2018

Application Deadline: 14th November 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): Buenos Aires, Argentina.
About the Award: WTTC’s Tourism for Tomorrow (T4T) Awards are the world’s top accolade in sustainable tourism; they recognise the highest ethical standards in the sector and are respected by industry leaders, governments and international media alike. The Awards are aimed at recognising best practice in sustainable tourism within the industry globally, based upon the principles of environmentally friendly operations; support for the protection of cultural and natural heritage; and direct benefits to the social and economic well-being of local people in travel destinations around the world.
Type: Contest
Eligibility: 
  • There is no charge to enter the WTTC Tourism for Tomorrow Awards
  • All applications must be in ENGLISH
  • Applications must reach the World Travel & Tourism Council by 14 November 2017
  • All companies/organisations must have been in operation for at least THREE full years and the sustainable tourism project/initiative submitted for consideration must be in operation for at least ONE full year. There is no minimum length of time for applicants to have been in operation who are applying to the Innovation category.
  • Only complete entries will be considered
  • Companies/organisations may only submit ONE entry in any given year
  • Entries must be for ONE category only
  • Applications must provide full contact details for two independent references not directly associated with the business or project. References for all applicants may be contacted.
  • During the 2nd judging phase, finalists will be visited by on-site evaluators. WTTC will cover the evaluator’s expenses; however, any assistance in facilitating the on-site visit and hosting would be appreciated
  • Applicants should contact WTTC in regards to any questions they may have about the judging process
  • The Award applicants may not contact any individual members of the judging panel prior to the Awards ceremony without the approval of the Lead Judge.
  • Finalists will be asked to provide supporting materials including photos, videos, newspaper articles, brochures for marketing purposes. Do not include such supporting materials with your application
  • Previous winners and finalists may reapply in any category but must clearly demonstrate sustainable tourism initiatives that are new, and expand above and beyond what they have been previously recognised for by the Tourism for Tomorrow Awards
  • Finalists and winners of the Awards may not disclose any of the judging material developed by a member of the judging panel throughout the judging process to the general public, including media, industry partners and associates, without prior consent from WTTC.
  • By applying for the WTTC Tourism for Tomorrow Awards, the applicant agrees that in the case of being selected a finalist of the 2018 Tourism for Tomorrow Awards, a company representative of appropriate level will attend the Awards ceremony at the Global Summit on 18 and 19 April 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Value of Award: T4T Awards finalists are hosted at WTTC’s Global Summit when the winners are announced at a prestigious gala ceremony. WTTC will cover the travel costs for one representative for each finalist organisation including airfare and hotel accommodation.
Duration of Program:  In 2018, this will be held on 17-19 April
How to Apply: Apply here
Before applying, It is important to go through the Rules and guidelines, Tips for applying as awell as the FAQ
Award Providers: World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC).

Mo Dewji Foundation Scholarships for Tanzanian Undergraduate Students 2017

Application Deadline: 20th October, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Tanzania
To be taken at (country): University of Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania
Eligible Field of Study: Education
About the Award: The Mo Dewji Foundation provides scholarships to outstanding high school students planning to pursue higher education, which cover four years of undergraduate college. The scholarship program, offered in collaboration with the University of Dar es Salaam, is intended to create a community of passionate students and provide them with the capacity to achieve their greatest potential.
mikocheni1-600x450
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: To be eligible:
  • Recipient must be a citizen of the United Republic of Tanzania (at the time they apply for the scholarship).
  • Recipient must have attended a secondary school in Tanzania to be eligible for this scholarship. Home-schooled students are not eligible.
  • Recipient must be fluent in both English and Kiswahili at the time of their application.
  • Recipient must be entering their first year of undergraduate education.
  • Recipient must declare their intent with a major / degree program of his/her choice.
  • Recipient should not have studied for, or hold a degree or degree-equivalent qualification from a tertiary institution within Tanzania or outside the country.
Selection Criteria: 
High Academic Achievement: Recipient must have obtained a grade point average of not less than 3.8 on their A-Levels. This will be judged based on their academic transcript, and by testimony to your scholarly excellence that is provided by a letter of recommendation by a teacher.
Financial Need: Recipient must demonstrate financial need and submit documentation in the form of a written statement explaining need plus any available reinforcing narrative in the form of references that will be vetted by the committee.
Leadership Potential: Recipient must demonstrate leadership potential as demonstrated in extra-curricular activities, projects, and/or duties upheld prior to commencing their undergraduate studies. Applicants are required to provide evidence of this in the form of a written recommendation letter, awards received etc. as and where applicable.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship:
  • Scholarship will be applied to the following expenses only:
    • Tuition Fees = TZS 1,000,000 – TZS 1,500,000 depending on the academic program of the scholarship recipient.
    • Direct University Fees = ID fees, registration fee, examination fees, medical capitation fees, student union fees, books and stationary allowance. A maximum amount of TZS 80,000 per scholarship recipient.
    • Housing and meals allowance = TZS 1,500,000 per annum per scholarship recipient.
  • Scholarship award is a non-cash award to recipient’s UDSM account as outlined on the scholarship application. No check or other cash monies will be disbursed at any time. No exceptions.
Duration of Scholarship: 4 years
How to Apply: Before applying, make sure that you have all the required documents:
  • MoScholars Program application form
  • Official un-conditional acceptance letter to UDSM
  • Official secondary/high-school transcript
  • Teacher recommendation letter
  • Letter and supporting evidence demonstrating financial need
  • Letter and supporting evidence demonstrating leadership potential
You may download and complete the application form. Send this form and all other application materials (listed on the application) to moscholars@modewjifoundation.org
Award Provider: Mo Dewji Foundation will notify all successful scholarship recipients by email of their scholarship. As a courtesy, applicants who are unsuccessful in the scholarship application will also be notified by email.