China faces growing debt problems, says central bank governor

Nick Beams

A warning by the governor of the People’s Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan, that the country’s financial system faces a possible “Minsky moment” has again raised concerns over the level of the country’s debt.

Zhou, who is expected to retire soon from his position as head of the central bank, made his remarks at a sideline meeting during the Chinese Communist Party congress last week.

The term “Minsky moment” refers to a situation described by the US economist Hyman Minsky in which growth in the economy hides potential financial risks that suddenly reveal themselves and lead to a crisis. It was widely used during the 2008 global financial crisis.

Zhou clearly employed the term to ensure his comments would have maximum impact. Zhou, who has said he will “retire soon,” has been speaking increasingly candidly about the problems confronting the Chinese economy.

Zhou said asset speculation and property bubbles could pose a “systemic financial risk” that would be made worse by wealth management products and off-the-books lending. Corporate debt had reached disturbingly high levels and local governments were using tricks to evade curbs on their credit.

“If there is too much pro-cyclical stimulus in an economy, fluctuations will be hugely amplified,” Zhou stated. “Too much exuberance when things are going well causes tensions to build up. That could lead to a sharp correction, and eventually to a so-called Minsky moment. That’s what we really must guard against.”

Zhou’s remarks are particularly significant. In general commentary on the state of the Chinese economy, the prospect of a full-blown crisis is often ruled out because the banks are under government control. This control has been undermined, however, by “free market” measures introduced by the regime as it seeks to integrate the Chinese economy and financial system more deeply into the global economy.

Zhou himself has been an advocate for greater liberalisation of the Chinese financial system, including the relaxation of government controls on capital movements and increased access for foreign banks, but has faced opposition within government circles.

Zhou was the main force behind the push to have the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recognise the renminbi as an international currency last year. Without the freedom of movement of capital in and out of the financial system, however, it does not have the status of other reserve currencies.

Free capital movement is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it is seen as applying pressure to domestic financial institutions, forcing them to deal with bad debt on their balance sheets. On the other, it runs the risk of creating the conditions for a major outflow of capital, as was seen in the Asian financial crisis of 20 years ago, an occurrence which would have a major impact on the Chinese economy.

Zhou’s warnings came as the growth rate for the third quarter was reported to be 6.8 percent on an annual basis, well above the government’s target of “around” 6.5 percent. But there are concerns that this higher growth rate has been achieved largely as a result of stimulus measures, relying on the expansion of credit, particularly in the property market, which is creating risks for the future.

Eswar Prasad, economics professor at Cornell University and former head of the China department at the IMF, said the latest growth data painted a “reassuring” picture of an economy that “on the surface, is firing well on all cylinders. But beneath the surface, potential financial market stresses continue to build up but remain at bay for now.”

If growth continues at the current level, China will experience its first acceleration in growth since 2010. At that time, the economy expanded rapidly due to stimulus measures—increased government spending and credit—adopted in response to the global financial crisis, which resulted in the loss of around 23 million jobs.

In his remarks last week, Zhou said corporate debt was “very high” and household debt, while still low, was rising rapidly. While there were no plans to reduce household debt, its quality would need to be monitored as it grew.

The IMF has issued several warnings about the high level of Chinese corporate debt, describing it as “dangerous.” Last August, it expected China’s total non-financial debt to rise to almost 300 percent of gross domestic production by 2022, up from 242 percent last year.

Last month, the S&P global ratings agency cut China’s sovereign credit rating, following a similar decision by Moody’s in May. The Chinese finance ministry claimed the S&P downgrade was the “wrong decision.”

The concerns over the financial system centre on the property market, which is assuming ever-greater significance for the Chinese economy and the banking system. According to official data, 38 percent of all bank loans in the year to August were for home mortgages, while local government bought 18 percent of all residential floor space.

Last August, a senior government legislator warned of the effects of the property boom.

Yin Zhongqing, deputy director of the National People’s Congress finance and economics committee, said in a speech: “The real estate industry’s excessive prosperity has not only kidnapped local governments but also kidnapped financial institutions—restraining and even harming the development of the real economy, inflating asset bubbles and accumulating debt risk. The biggest problem currently facing the country is how to reduce reliance on real estate.”

Zhou’s remarks underscore this warning. Financial Times market columnist John Authers described them as a “startling moment of clarity,” likening them to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre. He said the term “Minsky moment” should never be used by a central banker.

Authers pointed to the timing of Zhou’s comments to coincide with the CCP congress. The installation of President Xi Jinping and his supporters for another five years could be the optimum time to take uncomfortable measures that could allow China to avoid a debt unravelling “to match the Lehman crisis.” The invocation of Minsky “was the earliest possible point to send the signal, and a sign of urgency.”

Catalan government in turmoil over Spain’s suppression of autonomy

Paul Mitchell

On Saturday, three weeks after the crackdown on the October 1 Catalan independence referendum, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy invoked Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution to suspend Catalan autonomy.

The action drew 450,000 people to a protest demonstration in Barcelona later in the day—a sign that the anti-democratic measures to be imposed under Article 155 will provoke a violent confrontation with the Catalan population.

The unprecedented measures allow the Spanish Popular Party (PP) government to sack Catalan Premier Carles Puigdemont and his ministers, assume the right to call regional elections, and take control of Catalonia’s economic institutions, the regional Mossos d’Esquadra police force and Catalan public media. Plans have been finalised to send in Civil Guards and troops to establish a de facto police-military occupation.

This Friday, Rajoy’s measures will be put to the Spanish Senate, where the PP has an absolute majority, for approval. They have the support of the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) and Citizens Party, as well as the European Union and the Trump administration.

In the face of the PP onslaught, the Catalan regional bourgeoisie is in turmoil. In an attempt to prevent the response to Rajoy erupting outside of official channels, it has pursued a policy of appealing to the PP and PSOE for dialogue and to the Spanish judiciary and the EU to intervene. On Monday, the European Commission reiterated that its attitude to Catalonia had not changed. “The position is well known,” a Commission spokesman declared. “We’ve always said we respect the constitutional and legal arrangement of Spain.”

Also on Monday, Catalonia’s parliament indicated that it will hold a full session on Thursday morning to lay out its response to Madrid. Catalan Republican Left (ERC) spokesman Sergi Sabrià accused the PP, PSOE and Citizens of “squandering” the “opportunity for dialogue” afforded by Puigdemont’s suspension of a declaration of independence last week. He said the best answer “to Article 155 and the coup d’état” is to declare independence.

The petty-bourgeois secessionist Candidatures of Popular Unity (CUP) party is demanding that independence be declared immediately, threatening “massive civil disobedience” otherwise.

Catalonia’s minister of foreign affairs, Raul Romeva, told the BBC that Catalan institutions would respond with defiance. He said, referring to the region’s population: “It is not a personal decision. … It is a 7 million-person decision.”

He continued: “I have no doubt that all civil servants in Catalonia will keep following the instructions provided by the elected and legitimate institutions that we have right now in place.”

Albert Donaire, a spokesman for a section of the regional police force called the “ Mossos for Independence,” urged the regional government to declare a Catalan republic before Article 155 takes effect and the Spanish Interior Ministry takes control of the Mossos. The Mossos will remain “loyal to the [Catalan] parliament and government,” Donaire said.

A student strike has been called for October 26 by the “Universities for the Republic” group to demand the “immediate” release of imprisoned Catalan activists Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart.

The invocation of Article 155 has caused a crisis in the PSOE’s Catalan section, the Socialists’ Party of Catalonia (PSC). In its heyday in the 1990s, the PSC held 52 of the 135 seats in the Catalan parliament and polled around 38 percent. In the last election in 2015, however, the number of PSC deputies slumped to 16 on 13 percent of the vote, largely due to anger over austerity measures it imposed as part of a regional coalition government.

The PSC is divided over the PSOE’s support for Article 155. PSC leader Miguel Iceta has rejected calls from within the party to oppose “frontally” the imposition of article 155. Instead, he met with Puigdemont, pressuring him to call new elections and claiming this would halt the dissolution of the government and the holding of forced elections. “We turn to President Puigdemont with a double option: to call elections based on the current legality or to use the process of a hearing in the Senate to offer a dialogue. This is our position,” Iceta explained.

However, the Catalan Republican Left (ERC) is calling for more municipalities to break their coalition arrangements with the PSC. ERC deputy Gabriel Rufian said, “You cannot govern with those who participate in the savagery of the state. We have to end the municipal pacts with PSC/PSOE.”

On Sunday, a communiqué signed by seven current and former leaders of the PSC rejected the “abusive and absolute” application of Article 155, saying that with the Spanish PSOE’s support for the PP’s hardline policy, the PSC “can already bid farewell to building an alternative majority government for many years.”

Joan Majó, PSC co-founder and ex-industry minister under PSOE Prime Minister Felipe González (1982-1986), resigned, saying that without aligning himself with the Catalan independence movement, he has “increasingly disagreed with” many of the policies of the PSC “regarding the relationship between Catalonia and the State.”

PSC support for Article 155 has also caused problems for Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau, who relies on the PSC to keep her Barcelona en Comú coalition in power. Seeking to deflect criticism over her close relations with the PSC, Colau said she was “worried” by the “drift” of PSOE leader Pedro Sánchez. The deputy mayor, Jaume Asens, promised that BComú will undertake to analyse “the implications of the application of Article 155.”

The application of article 155 has also been threatened in the Basque country. The former minister of health and regional PP party president, Alfonso Alonso, has warned that the region has “all the ingredients” to end up in “the same situation” as Catalonia. He declared that it was his party’s responsibility to “prevent” these “ingredients” from becoming mixed.

Alonso was speaking during celebrations to mark 40 years of “democracy” in Spain and the sixth anniversary of the moment when the Basque terrorist organisation ETA “recognised its defeat” and abandoned its weapons.

During his speech, Alonso declared that, as in Catalonia, so also in the Basque country “nationalism is in power,” referring to the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV). There are “radical forces that still justify violent positions,” he continued, alluding to EH Bildu (a reincarnation of the ETA political wing Batasuna.” He added that ”the Podemos populists are the third force,” and the platform Gure Esku Dago is an “incipient” Basque National Assembly.

The general coordinator of EH Bildu, Arnaldo Otegi, declared that “the authoritarian drift of the state” in relation to Catalonia “will certainly reach” the Basque Country. He called for an “urgent political responsibility exercise” to defend “national and democratic unity” among the parties opposed to the application of Article 155.

Trump, Pentagon shaken by mounting crisis over Niger deaths

Patrick Martin

Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a televised press briefing Monday afternoon on the US military presence in the West African country of Niger. His hour-long appearance came in the midst of a mounting clash between the White House and the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, one of the four US soldiers killed in Niger on October 4.

Myeshia Johnson appeared early Monday on the ABC program “Good Morning America,” following nearly a week of public acrimony between the Trump administration and her family and friends, including Democratic Representative Frederica Wilson, over Trump’s arrogant and callous phone call October 17, in which he told the widow that her husband “knew what he signed up for” when he enlisted in the US Special Forces.

In her interview, Johnson refuted the lies told by Trump about his “condolence” call and confirmed the account given by Wilson in a series of media interviews last week, saying that Wilson’s remarks were “100 percent true.” She added that Trump appeared not to know her husband’s name, stumbling over it even though he said he had the military report on his death in front of him.

Johnson said the condolence call “made me cry because I was very angry at the tone of his voice.” The widow added that Pentagon officials had told her nothing about the circumstances of her husband’s death or why it took 48 hours to recover his body. The bodies of the other three US soldiers killed in action were recovered in the course of the firefight with Islamist militants.

Nor would the Pentagon allow her to view her husband’s remains, she said, even after the coffin was turned over to the family for burial. “There could be an empty box,” she said. Pentagon rules supposedly give the family final say in whether to see the remains.

She concluded the interview by declaring that she had nothing further to say to the president. Johnson is six months pregnant with the couple’s third child, who will never know her father. Her husband was buried Saturday in Hollywood, Florida, attended by relatives and members of Johnson’s military battalion.

Trump compounded the political damage by responding to Myeshia Johnson in a series of tweets that all but called her a liar, claiming that he had spoken the name of her husband during the call, “from the beginning, without hesitation,” while denying that anything he said was of a demeaning or dismissive character.

Dunford’s press conference had the character of a damage-control operation, with the highest-ranking US military officer, a highly political general who was appointed to a two-year term by Barack Obama and reappointed last month by Trump for a second term, intervening to pull the White House’s chestnuts out of the fire.

Dunford was also responding to comments by an array of senators and congressmen who have claimed they knew little of the US deployment in Niger and were surprised to discover, in the wake of the October 4 debacle, that there were 800 US soldiers protecting a US drone base and engaged in training and reconnaissance missions with the Nigerien military. The deployment in Niger—clearly a war zone—is the third largest US active combat mission, after Afghanistan and Iraq, but larger than Syria, at least in the number of troops deployed on the ground.

A map with Niger indicated by red border

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs noted that US troops have been operating in Niger off and on for two decades, and permanently since 2013, when the Obama administration prevailed on the government in Niamey to permit the establishment of the drone base, from which US Special Forces and intelligence agencies conduct surveillance throughout the Sahara and Sahel regions from a central location.

Dunford gave few details of the October 4 raid that ended with five Nigerien and four American soldiers killed and two more Americans wounded. He was unable to state how many Islamists had been killed, if any, thus confirming indirectly that the US forces and their allies had been forced to leave the battlefield in the hands of their opponents.

The general revealed that roughly equal numbers of fighters were engaged on both sides, with 30 Nigerien and 12 American soldiers confronted by 50 or so Islamists. Given the disparity in weaponry and the US ability to call in airstrikes, the protracted character of the combat and its bloody outcome suggest that the Islamists took the US-Nigerien force by surprise.

Dunford disputed accounts circulating online suggesting that there was an undue delay in the arrival of air support, in the form of French Mirage jets. The US-Nigerien force did not call for air support until an hour after the firefight began, he said. It took half an hour for the Mirage jets to be prepared for takeoff, and another half an hour to reach the battlefield, at which point they did not drop any bombs because they could not find the Islamist fighters.

Dunford added that the ground rules in Niger were that the US troops were to accompany Nigerien forces on missions only where no resistance was expected, let alone full-scale combat, thus confirming that the operation was carried out on the basis of faulty intelligence.

The main purpose of the press conference was not so much to convey new information, as to take a step back from the confrontational posture of Trump and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, a retired four-star general, and from the suggestion by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders that any questioning of the Niger operation or Trump’s handling of the condolence calls was “inappropriate,” i.e., illegitimate.

General Dunford was at pains to declare that the American people had a right to get answers about the Niger operation. “I think we owe the families and American people transparency,” he said. He conceded that there was a “perception that the Department of Defense has not been forthcoming,” and repeatedly reassured the press representatives that they were asking “fair questions.”

At the same time, the top US general provided precious little information, only appealing for patience while the military continues its internal investigations. The Pentagon has not released many of the basic facts nearly three weeks after the battle. That did not stop the press from making a fawning show of prostration before the military chieftain. A number of reporters began their questioning by thanking the general for deigning to appear before them.

Congressional Democrats pressed ahead with criticism of Trump’s phone call and the overall conduct of the Niger operation, as always, seizing the opportunity to attack the Trump administration from the right and portray Trump as insensitive to the needs of the troops. Following the lead of Representative Wilson, they also sought to characterize Trump’s attitude to Sgt. Johnson and his widow, as well as Kelly’s criticism of the congresswoman herself, as racist.

This is a cover-up and a political diversion. Trump’s callous indifference towards the tragic fate of Sgt. Johnson is a class issue, not a race issue. It expresses the attitude of the financial aristocracy as a whole to the impact of the profit system on working people: whether it is young men and women sent into battle as cannon fodder, or workers maimed and killed on the job, or families whose livelihoods were destroyed by the financial looting that led to the 2008 Wall Street crash.

US prepares to put nuclear bombers on 24-hour alert

Andre Damon

Amid a deepening standoff with North Korea and rising tensions with Russia and China, the United States is preparing to place its fleet of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers on 24-hour alert for the first time since 1991.

“This is yet one more step in ensuring that we’re prepared,” Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, told Defense One in an exclusive interview.

During the Cold War, the US Air Force Strategic Air Command maintained a series of so-called “Christmas tree” alert areas at bases throughout the United States in which B-52 nuclear-capable heavy bombers would be stationed in a permanent state of readiness, with crew accommodations on site.

Touring Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, Goldfein made clear that such facilities, mothballed since the end of the Cold War, were being renovated.

“Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale,” reported Defense One “to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building—where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment’s notice—is being renovated. Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside.”

B-52 bombers at the Christmas-Tree shaped tarmac at Miniot Air Force base, photographed in 1991

Defense One noted that “Goldfein and other senior defense officials stressed that the alert order had not been given, but that preparations were under way in anticipation that it might come.”

Responding to Defense One’s story, the Air Force issued a “denial” consisting merely of a reassertion that such an order had not been issued. The Air Force did not specifically deny the allegation that facilities that are only useful for 24-hour readiness were being renovated.

In many ways, Goldfein’s statements raise more questions than answers. B-52 bombers are huge, slow and vulnerable to the advanced anti-aircraft missiles deployed by Russia, China and their allies. During the Cold War, these bombers were maintained on permanent alert to respond massively to an unforeseen launch of nuclear weapons. The “Christmas trees” were designed to allow the bombers to launch as quickly as possible once nuclear weapons were already in the air. By the time they had gotten a fraction of the way to their targets, one or more volleys of nuclear ICBMs, which reach their destination in under an hour, would have already been launched and detonated, leaving dozens of major cities in ashes.

The most straightforward interpretation of Goldfein’s remarks is that the United States is preparing for a world in which a full-scale thermonuclear exchange with either Russia or China, the only nations with nuclear arsenals whose size could possibly warrant such a build-up, can take place at the drop of a hat: in response to an accidental exchange of fire during a border stand-off or at the late-night whim of the notoriously impulsive President Trump.

Along those lines, Goldfein told Defense One, “I look at it more as not planning for any specific event, but more for the reality of the global situation we find ourselves in.”

But there are other questions. Given the quick “retraction” by the Air Force, did the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorize Goldfein to discuss the plans? If the Air Force is not planning to return to 24-hour readiness, who authorized the renovations, whose existence the Air Force did not deny?

In this light, it is worth noting the involvement of Barksdale Air Force Base in a still-unexplained incident in August 2007, when a B-52 “accidentally” flew to the base from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota armed with six AGM-86 cruise missiles, each loaded with a W80 nuclear warhead. The incident led to the resignations of multiple high-ranking Air Force officers, including Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Moseley.

In this regard, Goldfein’s further comments are chilling. Defense One reports he is “asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat.” In other words, the head of the Air Force is taking his own initiative to push for the combat use of nuclear weapons for the first time since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and making preparations for the deployment of new weapons systems ahead of the decision to actually field them.

In this regard, the aggressive development of US nuclear forces being pushed by Goldfein dovetails with the positions advanced by President Trump in fractious debates with members of his cabinet and military officials about the future of the US nuclear arsenal. In the notorious July 20 Pentagon meeting after which Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a “moron,” the president called for a tenfold increase in the number of US nuclear weapons, a move that would place the United States in flagrant violation of numerous treaties.

Trump’s bluster about expanding the US nuclear weapons arsenal marks, albeit in his own crude way, a continuation of the policies pursued under Obama, who helped set in motion a massive, $1 trillion plan to modernize Washington’s nuclear arsenal through the commissioning of a new class of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, a new type of ICBM and the creation of a new nuclear-armed cruise missile.

The revelation that the Air Force is preparing to place strategic bombers in a permanent state of readiness comes amid a continuation of US provocations against North Korea, as well as Russia and China.

On the heels of last week’s joint military exercise between the US and South Korean navies, the US has announced that it will imminently test plans for evacuating personnel from South Korea in anticipation of a possible war.

Reporting from an aircraft carrier engaged in the exercises, ABC’s Martha Raddatz noted on Sunday’s “This Week” program, “ The Sea of Japan is bristling with warships.” Concluding the segment, Raddatz declared that the sailors “have to be ready to fight tonight.”

NATO, meanwhile, is simultaneously beefing up its presence in Eastern Europe in preparation for a conflict with Russia. Writing about the contents of an internal NATO white paper calling for a further expansion of NATO’s military forces, Germany’s Der Spiegel reported, “ The period of the so-called ‘peace dividend’—a term referring to the years following 1989 when Western countries felt they no longer needed to spend as much money on their defensive capabilities—is over and Cold War command structures have returned. Once again, NATO should be prepared for a large military conflict.”

Seen in this context, the US Air force is preparing for such a “major war” to go nuclear.

New reports document declining life expectancy and worsening health of US workers

Jerry White

Three recent reports provide new data on the worsening social crisis in America.

According to the annual update of the Society of Actuaries’ (SOA) mortality improvement scale, released last Friday, life expectancy for 65-year-old men and women declined from 85.8 and 87.8 years to 85.6 and 87.6 years respectively between 2014 and 2015, the most recent years available. The 1.2 percent jump in the mortality rate was the first year-over-year increase since 2005, and the first by more than one percentage point since 1980.

Previous reports noted that life expectancy at birth also declined in the US between 2014 and 2015, the first decline since 1993, at the height of the AIDS epidemic. Someone born in 2015 is expected to live to 78.8, down from 78.9 in 2014.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the decline was due to an increase in eight of the ten leading causes of death in the US, including heart disease, chronic lower respiratory diseases, unintentional injuries, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, kidney disease and suicide.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). Note: CLRD stands for Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases

Another study by a team of researchers from the University of Michigan found that middle-age workers ten years away from collecting Social Security retirement benefits are in poorer health than prior generations when they were in their 50s. This includes higher rates of poor cognition, such as memory and thinking ability, and at least one limitation on the ability to perform a basic daily living task such as shopping for groceries, dressing and bathing, taking medications or getting out of bed. The percentage with such limitations jumped from 8.8 percent of people who retired at 65 to 12.5 percent of current Americans ages 56 to 57 who will retire in a decade.

Americans born in 1960 will not be able to collect their full Social Security benefits until they reach 67, instead of 65, because of the increase in the retirement age enacted by the Reagan administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress in 1983. At the time, they claimed the change was necessary because Americans were living longer and would see continual health improvements in their old age.

The opposite is now the case. “We found that younger cohorts are facing more burdensome health issues, even as they have to wait until an older age to retire, so they will have to do so in poorer health,” said Robert Schoeni, an economist and demographer who co-authored the University of Michigan study.

Inequality among seniors in the US is among the worst in the developed world, according to a report issued last week by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which found that the gap between wealthy and low-income seniors is wider in the US than in all but two of the thirty-five OECD member nations—Mexico and Chile. While the rich in America live longer and very comfortably, the poor are working longer, dying younger and increasingly living with pain and ill health.

These are but the latest in a succession of reports documenting higher death rates, higher infant and maternal mortality and declining life expectancy for broad sections of the working population. Meanwhile, Donald Trump routinely hails the record-setting stock market boom as proof of the “success” of his administration.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System

There is, in fact, an intimate connection between the spectacular rise in the Dow, the ever-greater enrichment of the top 5 and 1 percent of the country, and the destruction of decent-paying jobs, the lowering of wages and the gutting of social programs. The corporate-financial oligarchy is benefiting from the impoverishment of broad sections of the population.

As CNN Money reported, “Declining health and life expectancy are good news for one constituency: Pension plans, which must send a monthly check to retirees for as long as they live.” In fact, the health care policies of both political parties are designed to lower life expectancy for the working class and thereby decrease the sums “wasted,” in the eyes of the ruling class, on retirement benefits and health care for workers who have ceased to be a source of profit.

As the World Socialist Web Site wrote in November 2013, citing think tank studies on the “crisis” resulting from America’s aging population, underlying the health care counterrevolution set in motion by Obamacare “is a basic concern of the American ruling class, a concern that is generally left unstated—namely, that people in the end are simply living too long. The advances of modern medicine have extended lives, often significantly beyond the age of retirement.

“For the political strategists of the corporate and financial elite, these years of retirement and medical care are not seen as a good, but as a source of costs that must be slashed, so that they can take that money. This is to be accomplished either by raising the retirement age, by lowering life expectancy so that people die earlier, or both.”

The scenes of hundreds of low-wage workers and retirees lining up in Charleston, West Virginia over the weekend for free dental and vision care—in some cases for their first treatment in years—underscores the scale of the social crisis. In McDowell County, part of the depressed coal mining region of southern West Virginia, life expectancy for males is 63.9 years, only slightly ahead of Haiti, Ghana and Papua New Guinea, due to chronic poverty, ill-health, suicide and drug and alcohol abuse.

The reports on life expectancy, health, etc. provide a measure of the drastic social retrogression resulting from the crisis of the capitalist system—a system that is incompatible with the satisfaction of basic social needs.

The working class must take matters into its own hands. What is necessary is a frontal assault on entrenched wealth and the political monopoly exercised by the corporate-financial oligarchy through its two right-wing political parties. The wealth of the financial parasites must be expropriated and the major corporations and banks turned into publicly-owned and democratically controlled utilities, so that the wealth produced by the working class can be used to provide jobs, education, housing and free, high-quality health care for all.

Will the US' Pressure on Pakistan Deliver Results?

Shalini Chawla

The US-Pakistan relationship has been strained over the last six years. It  took an unyielding shift with the announcement of US President Donald Trump’s Afghanistan policy, which comprises four pillars and also touches upon Washington’s dealings with Islamabad. Trump’s announcement carried a firm message for Pakistan. While Trump acknowledged that “Pakistan has been a valued partner,” he excoriated Pakistan for harboring criminals and terrorists. Washington has been quite unhappy with Islamabad’s support to the Taliban and the Haqqani Network, who have been targeting US soldiers in Afghanistan.

 

Islamabad has received lavish financial and military assistance from the US, amounting to approximately $33 billion between 2002 and 2017. However, there has been a steady decline in US aid post the 2011 killing of al Qaeda Chief Osama bin Laden killing, which convinced a majority of Americans that Islamabad was not sincere in its efforts to counter terrorism. Taking a taut stance, Washington has slashed its foreign military financing (FMF) to Pakistan from US$ 255 million to US$ 100 million for the 2018 fiscal. The new US policy is likely to further impact US assistance. The likely US responses being discussed at present include expanding US drone strikes and eventually revoking Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally. 

 

Washington has blatantly warned Pakistan against its actions of supporting terror to serve its strategic objectives, but what has probably hit Islamabad  more is that Trump’s policy supports New Delhi’s extended role in Afghanistan. The Pakistani leadership and media have reacted strongly to the US position and have been upset about the US not recognising Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts. Pakistan has been extremely agitated with the growing US-India ties, Washington’s support to India in Afghanistan, and its support to India’s position on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Washington has questioned the legitimacy of the CPEC, which passes through a disputed territory. 

 

Pakistan has always welcomed the US' financial and military assistance as - with its singular focus on its disputes and problems with New Delhi - it has looked towards US for modern defence equipment to counter India’s military modernisation. On the other hand, the US’ alliance and interests have been shaped primarily by Pakistan’s geographical location and (over the last 18 years) its expanding nuclear arsenal. Post 9/11, the alliance, which was rather timely for Pakistan’s dwindling economy, allowed Islamabad to swing a substantive amount of US aid and desired military equipment (including F-16s) in the last 16 years. 

 

In response to the US’ decision of slashing military aid, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi claimed that it is no more reliant on US military equipment as it has managed to diversify its sources of weapons supply. Pakistan’s military inventory includes systems from China (significant portions), Europe and now, also Russia. Although the growing Sino-Pak alliance has invariably added to Pakistan’s confidence and reduced its reliance on US equipment, Pakistan's military is irked about losing its major non-NATO ally status which allows it to be a recipient of Excess Defence Articles (EDA), speedy arms sales process, and access to a US loan guarantee program.

 

The relationship with the US continues to be critical for Pakistan because it its largest export destination country; a source of foreign remittance; and one of its top sources for Foreign Direct Investment. Moreover, the US has a dominant influence in international financial organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. On the other hand, Pakistan's external debt is estimated to grow to US$ 110 billion in four years, which is likely to force Islamabad to go back to the IMF in the future.

Amidst the stressed US-Pakistan situation, in a positive move, Pakistan forces rescued an US-Canadian couple and their three children, who had been abducted in 2012 and held hostage by the Haqqani Network. The US appreciated the effort and this might provide a short term opening for engagement between the two countries. Enough instances in the past have shown that whenever the US' threshold of patience is about to be breached, Pakistan's military has tried to pacify the situation. The rescue operation of the US-Canadian couple appears to be a step to appease the US administration. The Pakistani military's ability to counter the terror network cannot be questioned and it has been very proud of its counter-terrorism operations, but it is the will of the military which is under question. 

The US' positioning might help in the short term to see some change in Pakistan's military’s behavior but the bigger question remains - is Pakistan truly willing to alter its strategic calculus? 

Islamabad’s deep strategic interests in Afghanistan - that have caused it to seek control of Kabul with an objective to counter Indian presence; deal with the lingering border issue with Afghanistan; and control Pashtun nationalism on its tribal borders - are unlikely to change. If Pakistan wants to establish its credibility as a responsible state and wants recognition from the US for its counter-terrorism efforts and sacrifices, it needs to be consistent in fighting militants without making a distinction between ‘good terrorists’ and ‘bad terrorists’.

Meaningful Disarmament, Not Unnecessary Distractions

Manpreet Sethi


The annual General Debate of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly provides a good forum for countries to reflect on relevant developments in the past year and to spell out their priorities or vision of action for the next year. In performing this task for India, the country’s Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament (CD), Mr Amandeep Singh Gill, in his statement to the 72nd Session of the UNGA on 9 October 2017, flagged several issues. He referred to the vitiation of the international security environment and aggravation of the existing complexities of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation by DPRK's nuclear and missile tests; the frustration with the CD owing to the narrow views of national security and misguided notions of parity that were not allowing the organisation to even adopt a programme of work; technology push towards weaponisation of outer space; and, the growing rift between those who sought to delegitimise nuclear weapons and those that were increasing their reliance on them for national security. 

Outlining a vision on how to get out of this conundrum, Amandeep Singh Gill emphasised the need to “bridge the growing divide on disarmament through dialogue and a renewed commitment to multilateralism.” His entire statement was peppered with an insistence on “universal commitment”, “agreed global and non-discriminatory multilateral framework”, and “build trust and confidence." Despite eschewing the recently concluded Ban Treaty, he nevertheless highlighted that India would “remain willing to work with its signatories in disarmament forums to reduce the role and military utility of nuclear weapons, prohibit their use under any circumstances and to eliminate them globally under international verification.”  As is amply evident, the emphasis is firmly on consensus and multilateralism, or in other words, on the need for inclusivity.

These are not empty words. India is particularly suited to carry forward the agenda of universal nuclear disarmament for at least three reasons. Firstly, since India’s nuclear weapons are premised on the narrow, though critical, requirement of its security, if this situation could change as a result of universal nuclear disarmament, India would have little reason to keep these weapons. It looks upon them as a necessary evil owing to its security compulsions. 
Secondly, as a non-NPT state, India has an appeal and reach to both the nuclear weapon states (NWS) and non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS), both of whom are increasingly divided on non-proliferation and disarmament today. NNWS have long complained of their being subjected to more stringent non-proliferation measures such as the Additional Protocol and restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing, even as the NWS have refused steps towards disarmament. India, which has strategic partnerships with nearly all major countries on both sides, could play the bridge to bring them together with some concrete suggestions to push the disarmament agenda. 

Thirdly and most significantly, India has a doctrine that professes credible minimum deterrence and no first use (NFU) of nuclear weapons. Both these principles underwrite a narrow and precise role for nuclear weapons. The universal acceptance of a reduced role for nuclear weapons would be one effective way of achieving their eventual elimination. As a practitioner of both these attributes, India has the moral strength and practical experience of deterrence that can enable a shift to disarmament if conditions become conducive. 

In fact, in response to a call made recently by the countries of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) asking India to join the NPT as an NNWS, India has once again presented two draft resolutions - ‘Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear weapons’ and ‘Reducing Nuclear Dangers’ - as meaningful steps towards the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. This is where the real focus of countries should be, instead of causing distractions about the universalisation of the NPT. The treaty is as universal today as it can ever get. A nuclear weapons possessing state for the last 20 years, India cannot join the NPT now as an NNWS. Yet, as repeated by many Indian official and non-official voices, the country remains committed to the principles and objectives of the treaty. The focus, therefore, of all states must be on improving the security situation for all, lest other NNWS find it necessary to walk out of the NPT. 

Despite not being a member of the NPT, India is keen to have the treaty sustain itself for the sake of global security. The Indian Permanent Representative gave a befitting response to the current situation when he called back upon “our friends” to “renew” their agenda and “focus on the real implementation deficits on non-proliferation and disarmament.” Indeed, all like-minded countries that are really serious about nuclear disarmament would do well to mobilise global opinion and support for real measures that can help realise a nuclear weapons-free world. Calls such as those made by the NAC tend to divide countries, and are not only unnecessary but also unhelpful digressions. 

Australia Awards Scholarships for 1,000 African Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 15th December 2017 | Application for Short Courses closes 15th January 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroun, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo(Republic of), Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia etc

In addition to the above, the following countries are eligible for Short Course Awards (SCAs)

Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mauritania, Niger, North Sudan, Republic of Guinea, South Sudan

To be taken at: African or Australian Universities.

Priority Fields (varies by African country)

• Agriculture/Food Security
• Education
• Health
• Public Policy (including public sector management, public sector reform, trade, international diplomacy)
• Environmental Management
• Natural Resource Management (including mining related subjects)
• Technical and Vocational Education & Training (available for Short Courses only)
• Energy (including Natural Gas and Oil Technology)
• Infrastructure
• Natural Resource Management
• Transport (including Ports, Roads and Airports Management)

About the Award: Australia Awards, a cornerstone of the Australian Government’s development assistance program for Africa, provide access to postgraduate education, training and professional development opportunities for suitably qualified Africans from eligible countries. On their return to the workplace, Australia Awards Alumni are expected to contribute actively to development in their home countries.

Offered Since: 1980

Type: Masters taught degrees and short courses

Eligibility: Varies by country (see link below for specific country eligibility criteria)

• You must be at least 25 and not more than 50 years of age at the date of your application.
• You must have at least three (3) years’ relevant post graduate work experience. This work experience must be in a role relevant to your proposed field of study and to your employment organisation type (e.g. public sector applicants should demonstrate public sector work experience, and so on). Preference will be given to candidates with greater periods of experience.
• You possess, as a minimum, a Bachelors degree (or the equivalent) from a recognised Institution of at least 4 years in length with at least a 3rd Class Pass.
• Public sector candidates must comply with Government of Nigeria regulations for government employees wishing to apply for scholarships.
• Public sector, private sector and civil society candidates must provide evidence of completion of the National Youth Service Corp (NYSC) when they apply.
• You must not already hold, or be studying for, a Masters degree.
• You must be willing to make a formal commitment to return to your current employment following completion of the award.
• You must meet the general minimum eligibility criteria for Australia Awards Scholarships – refer to the Australia Awards Scholarships policy handbook.

Target Group

• You are a national of an African country. See country list below
• You are an early or mid-career professional working in the Public Sector, the Private Sector or a Non-Government Organisation (Civil Society) in one of the listed priority fields of study.
• You wish to undertake a Masters degree in Australia in one of the listed priority fields of study. You cannot study a Masters of Business Administration.
• You have a clear vision for how you will use the knowledge gained through the Masters degree to improve policy, practice or education in the proposed field of study.
• Gender Equality: Australia Awards target equal participation by women and men. Applications from women are strongly encouraged, and mechanisms are in place to support women applicants and Awardees.
• Disability Inclusion: Australia Awards aim to ensure that people with a disability are given fair and equal opportunity to compete for and obtain a scholarship. Applications from people with a disability are strongly encouraged. Mechanisms are in place to support applicants and Awardees requiring specific assistance.

Number of Scholarships: Up to 1,000

Value of Scholarships: This is a Full government sponsored scholarship

Duration of Scholarship: For the duration of the programme

How to Apply: Go to the following link: australiaawardsafrica.org/africa-map/

Select your country of origin. Follow the specific instruction on the page.

Sponsors: Australia Awards in Africa (AAA), an initiative of the Australian Government.

Yale Young African Scholars (YYAS) Program for African Secondary School Students 2018

Application Deadline: 6th February, 2018, at 11:59pm EST.

All applicants will receive an email with final admission decisions approximately 6 weeks after the application deadline.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Summer 2018 YYAS will be held in two locations, Rwanda and Ghana, and take place between late July and end of August.

Eligible Field of Study: Any

About the Award: The application for the 2018 Yale Young African Scholars (YYAS) Program is now available! Entering its fifth year, this intensive program brings together African secondary school students between the ages of 14–18 for a cost-free, intensive academic and residential program.

Administered by the Yale Young Global Scholars Program and building off that model of interdisciplinary academic curriculum, YYAS participants will attend lectures led by prominent Yale faculty, seminars developed by Yale student instructors, and experiential exercises designed to augment their leadership skills. Participants will engage in robust intellectual exchanges that are crucial to understanding Africa’s most pressing challenges and opportunities. In addition to the introduction to university application processes, Yale student-led courses and leadership training, YYAS also offers students standardized test preparation sessions at no cost to the students.

Type: Training/Short Courses

Eligibility: 

YYAS does not accept applications from students in their final term of secondary school, from secondary school graduates, or from university students.

YYAS cannot accept applications from students who are younger than 14 years old by the application deadline.

Students who have attended YYAS previously are not eligible to reapply, but are encouraged to consider applying for the Yale Young Global Scholars Program. Click here to learn more.

A typical YYAS participant has:

• Excellent academic records
• Demonstrated leadership potential
• Strong written and verbal communication skills
• A desire and ability to work cooperatively with peers
• Persistence and determination when facing challenges
• High standards of personal and professional conduct
• The ability to read, analyze, and reflect on large quantities of difficult material in English
• Interest in engaging in discussions about intellectual, moral, and political issues in Africa

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Award: Fully-funded. To make the program accessible to students of all financial backgrounds, there is no cost for students to participate in YYAS. In addition, YYASoffers a limited number of travel grants for admitted students from low-income backgrounds and who demonstrate the need for financial assistance to offset the costs of airfare between African countries.

Duration of Program:

Rwanda: 29th July – 7th August 2018
Ghana: 11th – 20th August 2018

How to Apply: Access the 2018 online application

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Higherlife Foundation, Yale University

Erasmus+ Masters in Digital Communication Leadership (DCLead) Scholarship Program for International Students 2018

Application Deadline: 1st December 2017

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries:  

• Programme Countries are member states of the European Union (EU): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the following Non-EU programme countries: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Turkey.
• Partner countries are all the other countries that are not Programme Countries.

To Be Taken At (Country): The “DCLead: Digital Communication Leadership” is carried out as a EMJMD Programme coordinated by the Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg, Department of Communication Studies together with the Aalborg University (AAU), Denmark and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium.

About the Award: The Erasmus+ programme of the European Union has granted over 40 scholarships to the Consortium. About 12 to 15 scholarships will be available every year, for three years, starting from the academic year 2016-2017. Only applicants who will submit all required documents will be eligible for consideration. The final decision lies with the Agency of Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of the European Union based on the evaluation provided by a selection committee of the DCLead consortium.

The Master in Digital Communication Leadership (DCLead) approaches the vast and recent field of digital communication from an interdisciplinary and international point of view bringing together advanced academic discussion with practical knowledge and skills. The programme promotes a non-techno-deterministic, social and ethical reflection on digital communication for future leaders of the field.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

• Candidates of all nationalities are eligible for Erasmus + Scholarship, although 75% of these scholarship are Partner Countries scholarships.
• Candidates are not allowed to apply for scholarship for more than 3 Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Programmes for the same academic year.
• Candidates should note the existence of a 12-months rule: any candidate from a partner country, who has lived for more than 12 months in a programme country within the five years’ period prior to submission deadline, can only apply for programme country scholarship.

Selection Criteria: 

• very good/outstanding study results (= academic excellence) in the relevant study areas
• academic potential
• level of language skills
• motivation
• recommendations
• work experience and professional qualifications (if applicable)
• results of interviews (if applicable)

Number of Awards: 12-15

Value of Award: Partner Countries E+ Scholarship grantees receive a stipend of 1.000 EUR per month for the maximum duration of the 24 month, 1.000 or 3.000 EUR for travel costs depending on the distance of the home country to the coordinating university (University of Salzburg), and 1.000 EUR for installation costs. The grant also covers the participation costs.

How to Apply:  Please use this form.

It is important to go through the Admission requirements and procedures on the Program Webpage (See Link below) before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: European Commission