Macron’s Labor Law in France: Unions organize 3,000 layoffs at Carrefour supermarket chain

Anthony Torres

With the support of the trade unions, the Carrefour supermarket chain in France is set to destroy up to 3,000 positions over the next year, utilizing measures contained in the Labor Law imposed by the Macron government at the start of its term in 2017. The company signed a so-called Collective Breaking of Contract (rupture conventionelle de collective—RCC) with the Workers Force (FO) and the CFE-CGC union federation this week, allowing it to force through thousands of “voluntary” redundancies.

The agreement was negotiated over many weeks between the company and the unions. While 1,230 jobs are to be destroyed, the company and unions clearly anticipate pressuring far more workers to resign, with an upper limit of 3,000 layoffs as part of the agreement. The General Federation of Labor (CGT), the third union covering Carrefour workers, did not sign the RCC—not because it did not support it, but because its signature was not needed to push it through, given that it had already been passed by FO and the CFE-CGC. The CGT has therefore fraudulently postured as an opponent of the destruction of jobs.

All the unions have worked to sabotage any struggle by Carrefour workers, who mobilized last year in opposition to the company’s cost-cutting plans. They are creating the conditions for further attacks, not only on Carrefour workers internationally, but on workers at Auchan and Casino, which are also carrying out major restructuring operations. The urgent task confronting supermarket workers is to organize a struggle independently of the unions on an international scale.

The redundancies at Carrefour will particularly affect workers in jewelry departments, multimedia, payroll, administration and service stations, which are subject to competition from online commerce and specialized retailers. The company will seek to reduce 15 percent of staff in its 46 supermarkets, in addition to attrition from retirements.

The management is seeking to increase the profitability of the chain as rapidly as possible by laying off staff.

With the disguised layoffs of 3,000 Carrefour workers, the Macron government is collaborating in a major offensive against jobs taking place on an international scale—including hundreds of job cuts announced at Ford on Monday, and the liquidation of British Steel this week, eliminating 5,000 jobs and threatening 20,000 more. These attacks underscore the pro-business character of the unions’ “social dialogue” with the corporations.

The negotiations have nothing to do with improving the conditions of the working class but are aimed at organizing the destruction of jobs and lowering labor costs in order to boost profits and competitiveness of the giant corporations against their global rivals. The RCC, introduced as part of the Labor Law as a new mechanism for mass layoffs, and requiring that the unions sign off on any restructuring, demonstrate the ever more direct incorporation of the unions into the attacks on the working class.

In an interview with the newspaper Les Echos, Macron’s minister of labor, Muriel Pénichaud, declared that the Labor Law “is beginning to yield its fruits, we are in a good dynamic with the new measure, which meets our twin objectives of developing the social dialogue and juridically protecting it.” Since the decrees that created the RCC came into force in December 2018, 96 RCCs have been initiated, and 60 signed by the unions. More than half have involved large corporations, according to the Ministry of Labor.

The labor minister added that 142 supplementary collective agreements on pay and working time, which can take precedence over employment contracts, had been concluded by March 31.

At Carrefour, the RCC is part of a transformation plan seeking to increase the exploitation of an already super-exploited workforce. To justify this action, CEO Alexandre Bompard announced that “after a year 2017 that was globally difficult because of market competition, 2018 will be a year of struggle, because it will be the first stage of the Carrefour 2022 plan.”

Under this plan, begun at the start of last year, the company expects to save €2 billion off the backs of its workforce. As Bombard announced his plan, Carrefour posted an enormous profit of €773 million.

The allies of the workers in France in their struggle are workers internationally. Carrefour initiated its assault on workers in Asia and Latin America, before beginning its restructuring in Europe. It has already destroyed 4,400 positions, through so-called voluntary redundancies in multiple countries and the closure of Dia stores in France.

These attacks are only possible due to the complicity of the trade unions, which have isolated the Carrefour workers who went on strike last year from other sections of the working class, including railway workers in France and their fellow Carrefour workers around the world. While the year 2018 was marked by an upsurge of working-class struggle around the world, including the “yellow vest” protests in France, the unions have been even more determined to sign off on further layoffs in order to prevent any united fight against the company.

The RCC, as opposed to previous mechanisms for corporate restructures, does not require that the company even formally invoke a difficult economic situation, present or in the future, as justification.

Jean-Phillippe Dubs, of Alès Group, a specialist provider of cosmetics that laid off 80 workers using an RCC, described its advantages to Le Monde: “It permits us to improve our accounts internally in a less traumatic way than a social plan. We carried out our restructure as a family, without any experts or procedures of consultation, as it should have been the case for the Plans for Saving Jobs or Plan for Voluntary Departures.

The unions adopt without any ambiguity the point of view of the corporations. The FO and CSC-CGE declare in the letter announcing the RCC that the “workers are aware of the necessity of transforming the supermarkets.” They propose certain symbolic measures, including the “putting in place of a commission of local follow-ups” and a “procedure of prevention and evaluation for the organization and workload.” But it is the unions’ own policies that will lead to the increase in workload.

To fight against Carrefour’s restructuring, workers must organize independently of the union apparatuses that are orchestrating this offensive. Workers need their own independent rank-and-file action committees to coordinate a fight with their co-workers, including internationally. This requires a political struggle against the Macron government and its political allies, waged on the basis of a socialist and international perspective.

British Steel collapse threatens 25,000 jobs

Robert Stevens

Nearly 5,000 steelworkers’ jobs and another 20,000 in supply industries could be wiped out after Tuesday’s announcement that British Steel is insolvent.

The company, owned by “vulture fund” Greybull Capital, is the second largest steel producer in the UK after Tata. Its main plant is in the town of Scunthorpe in the Northeast of England where steel production goes back 150 years and where more than 3,000 workers are employed. Other jobs are threatened at the company’s plants in Skinningrove, north Yorkshire and at Blaydon, in Gateshead. The firm also has a research and development facility in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

British Steel was declared insolvent after talks with the Conservative government broke down Tuesday evening over an emergency state loan of around £30 million. The High Court ordered the “compulsory liquidation” of British Steel, appointing the Official Receiver to oversee the process along with the accountancy firm EY.

Steelworks at Scunthorpe [Credit: Ashley Lightfoot]

Every job lost will be a tragedy for workers and their families in the areas of the country, long blighted by deindustrialisation, joblessness and low-paid work. Scunthorpe, with a population of just 83,000, is heavily reliant on employment at the plant. Unemployment in North Lincolnshire stands at 4.8 percent and would almost double to 8.4 percent (twice the national average) with the closure of the Scunthorpe plant. Workers at present earn around £36,000 ($45,528), compared to the average wage in Scunthorpe of just over £22,000 ($27,827).

Employees turning up for work on Wednesday were uncertain whether they would still be in a job in 24 hours. Those who spoke to the media said they were being kept in the dark about what was happening. A 19-year-old employee expressed the fears of many, “It's going to be terrible for the town, everyone in Scunthorpe has a family member who works here so the effect will be huge.”

One of British Steel’s main suppliers, Hargreaves Services, a logistics firm based in the northeast of England, said that 170 jobs could be impacted if British Steel closes.

The Scunthorpe mill is one of only two integrated steel producers in the UK, the other being Tata’s plant in Port Talbot, South Wales that employs more than 4,000 workers.

British Steel’s insolvency threatens to be a virtual coup de grâce against a once powerful section of the working class. The steel industry was nationalised by the post-World War II Labour government and then renationalised by Labour in 1967, after the 1953 Tory Churchill government took it back into private hands. In 1967, the nationalised British Steel Corporation employed a workforce of 268,000, with steel producing plants such as Consett, Corby and Ravenscraig becoming household names. Sheffield was once world famous as “Steel City,” with 150,000 workers employed there in the industry.

The death knell of the steel industry was sounded by the Thatcher Conservative government that privatised it in 1988, followed by one plant closing after another. The Tories and steel corporations could not have decimated thousands of jobs were it not for the trade unions, which sold out the 1980 national steel strike and have never lifted a finger to defend a single job since then.

According to the GMB trade union, more than 150,000 steel jobs have been lost in the UK since the 1980s. In 1981, steel still employed 186,000 workers. Only 32,000 remain today. Entire regions were economically and socially devastated by steel plant shutdowns and the parallel closure of the coal industry—following the defeat of the year-long miners’ strike of 1984-85 that the unions were also responsible for.

In the nearly four decades since the steel strike, 40,000 steelworkers lost their jobs in Yorkshire and the Humber alone and 25,800 in the West Midlands.

The unions have insisted for decades that workers cannot oppose demands for redundancies, pay and pension cuts and productivity hikes because sacrifices are needed to keep “our” steel industry afloat in a cutthroat global steel market.

The unions have repeated this mantra on behalf of the few parasites who run Tata and Greybull to this day, even with virtually no industry left to save. When Greybull bought Tata’s Long Products division in 2016, including the Scunthorpe plant, the Community union general secretary, Roy Rickhuss, dubbed the formation of British Steel as a “new chapter in the course of the UK steel industry.”

Greybull initially returned a profit, but only after collaborating with Community and the other steel unions in imposing a restructuring programme involving a cut in pay and pensions.

Last autumn, British Steel cut 400 managerial, professional and administrative jobs across its operations in the UK, Ireland, France and the Netherlands. In response, Community declared that the firm’s decision, having just reported first quarter profits of £21 million, “will come as a body-blow to the workforce who have already made huge sacrifices to make the business sustainable.” Nevertheless, it declared, the job losses came during "challenging times for UK steelmakers" and the union only implored the government to step in to “Save our Steel.”

Greybull executives hailed their intimate relationship with the unions in a statement on the insolvency, declaring, “The workforce, the trade unions and the management team have worked closely together in their determination to strengthen the business”.

What the unions were defending was an asset-stripping operation by individuals previously involved in the collapse of two other firms employing thousands of workers, Monarch Airlines and Comet. Their collapse led to the taxpayers footing bills running into tens of millions of pounds.

Greybull was able, with the support of the unions, to receive grants and loans of hundreds of millions of pounds from the public purse, utilising the name of “British Steel” to justify self-enrichment by a handful of multimillionaires. The last loan, handed over by the government only a few weeks ago, was worth £120 million. It was made necessary as a result of British Steel losing vast sums through a gamble involving the selling of additional carbon emission credits and will likely never be paid back.

After presiding over a disaster threatening the livelihoods of British Steel workers, the unions and Labour Party now demand—again in the “national interest”—that Prime Minister Theresa May’s crisis-ridden government take temporary control of what remains of Greybull’s operations, before organising its sale to yet another private corporation. Under conditions of a raging trade war, with the US leveling tariffs against the world’s largest steel producer, China, a glut of steel on the world market and a fall in demand, the only company that would even consider taking on the Scunthorpe plant would be a Greybull Mark 2!

The unions and Labour’s strategy chimes almost word for word with that of the Financial Times, which editorialised, “If both of the remaining large furnaces close, Britain’s defence industry will become almost entirely dependent on foreign producers or smaller outfits that buy raw steel from elsewhere.” It advised, “The government should keep the assets running, and consider injecting further capital itself. Then a well-planned sale into private hands will be needed….”

British Steel workers must reject the reactionary nationalist programme of the unions and Labour Party of relying on the good graces of the Tories and another profiteering outfit to save their jobs.

Steelworkers in the UK are part of an international class, which must combine their immense collective strength to oppose every attack on their jobs, wages and conditions by globally-organised corporations.

Workers in Scunthorpe and at other British Steel plants must unite with Tata workers and steelworkers in Europe and internationally in opposition to a fratricidal struggle for dwindling markets amid an escalating trade war.

To fightback, workers must turn to the formation of democratically controlled rank-and-file committees, independent of the corporate-controlled unions and based on a socialist perspective. These committees should make preparations for national and cross-border strikes to stop the British Steel plant closings and mass layoffs everywhere.

The steel industry must be transformed into a public enterprise, collectively owned and democratically controlled by the working class, as part of the establishment of a planned socialist economy in the UK and internationally.

PESCO Vs NATO: European Integration and the Transatlantic Challenge

Manuel Herrera

Debates surrounding the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) tend to approach both as if they are in opposition. The dominant argument is that PESCO and NATO will produce significant strategic divergences on either side of the Atlantic, and ultimately weaken both US and EU military capabilities against potential rivals (such as Russia and China). Could these two arrangements be seen in a new light, i.e. as complementary to each other, rather than as opposing forces?

What Motivates PESCO?

The European integration process has always faced difficulties in addressing security and defence matters. As early as 1952, the idea to create a European Defence Community did not get off the ground. It was not until the signing of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty that the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) was created, but this continued to face operational, capacity-based, and financial difficulties. Finally, in 2017, these shortcomings were addressed with the activation of PESCO.

PESCO's activation is justified through Russia’s destabilising actions, the arc of instability spanning the Middle East and North Africa, terrorist attacks, and lone actors or Islamic State (IS) fighters returning from Syria and Iraq. Adding to this is the lack of trust in the transatlantic alliance since US President Donald Trump came to power. As a consequence of these factors, the number of intra-EU summits on security and defence has increased significantly. This points to a seismic shift in the mood within the EU on military affairs, with most policymakers across the bloc finally agreeing that hard power is essential for their survival.

PESCO and the Future of NATO

PESCO also has the potential to be valuable for NATO from a transatlantic point of view. The best way to address misgivings about PESCO among non-European NATO states (Albania, Canada, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Turkey, and the US) is by further strengthening EU-NATO ties. This includes fostering symmetry between NATO’s Defence Planning Process and the European Defence Agency’s Capability Development Plan, and further implementing and advancing the 2016 joint EU-NATO declaration and its ensuing 42 action points, as well as the EU Council conclusions adopted by the EU and NATO in December 2017. Both the EU and NATO have a shared and vital interest (such as countering Russia and aiming for peace and stability in Europe) in enhancing European military capabilities, and this incentive should be enough to reach common ground on the issue.

NATO defines military capability targets for individual states, but in many areas, European allies have become too small (such as in terms of industrial size) to generate these capabilities by themselves. Collectively, however, Europeans are much better placed to address the capability question. That they choose to do this in a European framework is perfectly logical, more so because the European Commission can co-finance PESCO projects for up to 30 per cent from the EU budget. All additional capacity that Europe acquire thanks to PESCO can still be deployed for operations in all possible frameworks, including NATO. NATO will thus not necessarily be undermined by PESCO's creation. While certain cracks have indeed appeared in the EU-US relationship recently, such as regarding defence spending, PESCO's ability to increase EU member states' military capabilities will ultimately enable more collective territorial defence and expeditionary operations in the NATO framework.

In order to improve these capabilities, PESCO seeks to publish a common European call for tender that will be open to all manufacturers in Europe, and award one contract to build a single armament model (e.g. tank, aircraft, etc.). Manufacturers participating in PESCO projects will undertake them on a multinational basis (the project will be granted to several manufacturers from different countries). The aim to is have states whose companies participate in a PESCO project to share tendering costs and produce models that can be used by all PESCO member states, rather than each state manufacturing its own weapon model. Through this, the European Commission expects to address the current imbalance between member states' individual military expenditure and common military capabilities.

An area of concern for the US is how this call for tender is motivated by the need to make European defence industry more competitive vis-à-vis foreign industries. If this comes to pass, Europe will obviously buy cheaper and from within, rather than the US. Other concerns come from the potential degradation of US influence on European military affairs if the EU manages to become a truly autonomous strategic actor. The US has thus begun expressing its concerns about greater intra-EU cooperation, saying that all PESCO projects must be in close coordination with NATO, in which Washington has major sway.

Challenges to EU Integration in Defence and Security

Despite the significant momentum to establish PESCO, there is still no consensus on how to create, organise, or wield joint military power. The likelihood of the EU's ability to marshal the political will, technical capability, financial resources, and mutual trust that are essential to pose a credible military front ­­— that is independent of the US — to security threats is also uncertain. In addition, there is reluctance among some European leaders, such as Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, about ceding authority on national security, and, in some cases, concerns about undermining NATO.

The two main obstacles to further EU integration in security and defence are continuing political divisions with regard to the identification of threats and foreign policy priorities, and the Union's militarily weaknesses. Concerns over sovereignty, trust, technical, bureaucratic and financial hurdles, and defence industry issues complicate the scenario.

Conclusion

If implemented well, European defence initiatives such as PESCO will address the precise US ask of a stronger European pillar within NATO. The US will in fact welcome greater European defence spending, investments in military capabilities, and enhancement of operational readiness. Although there still remains a great deal of scepticism in Washington about European defence plans, their level of ambition, and practical applications, if integrated correctly, PESCO could be a net positive from a transatlantic perspective.

Xi and China’s Fourth May Revolution: Can State Control and People’s Empowerment be Reconciled?

Vijay Shankar

Since 1919, the Fourth of May movement has been evoked by Chinese scholars and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)  as a beacon for independence and enlightenment. How the array of critical thoughts that the movement represented will translate into policies that debunk authoritarianism  remains unresolved.

World War I ran its grisly course and all the while theorists argued whether dynamics for cessation could be found in the very causes that triggered it. Were the answers in the crisis that erupted on the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand? Was it in the nature of the alliance system? Or, conditions of aggressive militarism that drove countries to the brink? Or could it have been in the structure of imperial polity?

While none of these considerations contained a tenable rationale for reconciliation, what did bring about cessation was strategic exhaustion coupled with the collapse of motivation.The US’ weighing-in on the side of the Allies decided the victor. Devastation caused by the war fashioned a perception that it was a ‘self-inflicted’ mortal wound to the ‘eminence’ of imperial boom. And so the peace settlement of Versailles in 1919 was an instrument to make good territorial, colonial, economic gains and indeed salvage some pride for the victors through the imposition of punitive, geographic, military, and financial terms on the vanquished. What the Treaty fatally failed to perceive was the emergence of a cluster of unsettled precarious nation states in West Asia and East Europe; and a disdain for the dormant appetite for expansion in Russia, the down-but-not-out Germany, and China.

The Treaty of Versailles, among its many contentious terms, awarded Japan control over German colonies and territories in the Pacific and , to China’s anguish, German concessions in Shandong. This led to a major uprising that over the next decade saw the coming of warlords, fragmenting of the Qing Empire, and colonial avarice; all against the backdrop of a nationalist revolution. China, it will be recalled, had sided with the Allies, and many Chinese expected Shandong back. Instead, the Allies awarded it to Japan. That decision ignited fury among Chinese students, who saw it as a betrayal by Western countries and by Chinese leadership. Anger spread in universities and colleges across Beijing, and on 4 May 1919, students from 13 campuses in the capital came together in protest. The upsurge spread to other cities in China, inspiring strikes and boycotts. This forced the government in Beijing to refuse to ratify the Peace Treaty.

This day entered history as a watershed for Chinese philosophical thought. Chinese intellectuals linked the protests with the ‘New Culture Movement’, the name they gave to a flux of ideas that had spread in universities, newspapers, and literary circles. Ideas included anarchism, socialism, feminism, artistic experimentation, and reforming written Chinese. Summed up as the tempestuous advent of "Mr Science and Mr Democracy; science “stood for ‘modernity’, the ‘West’ and a general distaste and iconoclastic approach to Chinese tradition.”

Shandong has been China’s political, economic, and cultural centre since ancient times. The founder of Confucianism lived here. Chinese culture, beliefs, and folklore were rooted in Confucius’ teachings and philosophy. He broke from convention in which culture and education were controlled by aristocrats. He publicly put forth a slogan "just education, no discrimination." The students’ protests of 1919 sought to reinstate and expand on these very traditions.

Now, the CCP has cast itself as the rightful heir to the legacy of the ‘New Cultural Movement’ as its strongest suite for legitimacy. However, what is of substance is that the challenge of empowering the people is unfulfilled. In this circumstance, the Fourth of May can neither be buried nor ignored. So, notwithstanding how unpalatable the disclosure and debilitating the impact of restructuring, it is an innate process that looms over China’s future.

Having graduated from Deng’s grand strategy of “Hide the light, bide the time,” Xi’s vision of ushering a ‘new era’ is founded on two critical milestones spread over three decades starting with 2020, by which time China should become an all-round prosperous society, and then by 2035, complete a basic socialist modernisation project. The next 15 years is to be devoted to attaining the status as a “leading world power,” and a wealthy socialist state; restoring to China its “lost glory.” Whether Xi has accounted for the needs of democracy on the path to socialist modernisation in the first 15 years or whether it is even tenable is the moot point. After all, the whole scheme appears to be a hail back to Soekarno’s failed “Guided Democracy” — conceptually, a democratic government that functions as an autocracy. While legitimised by controlled elections, the people are not empowered to bring about changes in national policies, motives, and goals. Undeterred by this foundational contradiction, Xi commemorated the Fourth of May by exhorting Chinese youth to “obey and follow the party.” A strange way for the renewal of 'Mr Democracy'!

The most important change that a century has wrought is the shift in global power structures. The collapse of the British empire in the wake of World War II ushered in ‘Pax’ Americana (ironically a period marred by over 50 years of warfare). The prediction of the Asian Century is now coming true, with the emergence of China, Japan, India, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore as global economic pivots. China’s economic growth has been incredible; a phenomenon that is only 40 years old. Yet, the century-old conundrum that Xi faces remains unchanged: having taken ownership of the Fourth of May, how indeed is science-technology-wealth to be divorced from the increasing urge for democracy? Will the despot’s ‘socialist modernisation project’ ever reconcile this imbalance between the CCP’s iron hold and empowerment of the people?

Journalismfund.eu Money Trail Grants 2019 for Journalists to investigate cross-border illicit financial flows

Application Deadlines:

• 25th June 2019, 11.59 PM Brussels time.
• 24th September 2019, 11.59 PM Brussels time.
• 16th December 2019, 11.59 PM Brussels time.

Eligible Countries: African European and Asian countries

About the Award: Grants are awarded to journalists solely by Journalismfund.eu, with no input or oversight at any stage from the consortium as a whole. This working grants project is part of a larger Money Trail project.

Type: Grants

Eligibility:

• Preferably, intercontinental journalist teams consisting of at least one African, one Asian and/or one European journalist. Each team preferably consist of journalists from two continents. Ideally, the teams must provide letters of intent for publication from media organisations in two continents.  
• We also accept regional cross-border collaborations in Africa and Asia. Each team must consist of journalists from at least two countries.
• Exceptional proposals from individual journalists in Africa and Asia whose story includes an offshore element in a national story – where the money trail leads to a tax haven  – can be accepted. 
• European journalists planning on applying must collaborate with an African or Asian journalist. 
• Foreign correspondents in Africa or Asia can apply with local journalists.

Number of Awards: There will be 10 application rounds over the three years.

Value of Award: The total amount per call is around 50.000 euro: this amount is distributed among different projects. 

How to Apply: Apply Here

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Africa Fact-Checking Awards 2019 for African Journalists

Application Deadline: 30th June, 2019 (midnight GMT)

Offered annually?  Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Kenya

About the Award: Launched in 2014 and now in their sixth year, the African Fact-Checking Awards are the only awards that each year honour journalism by Africa-based media in the growing field of fact-checking.
They continue to grow. In 2018, we received over 150 entries from more than 20 countries, from Ethiopia and Nigeria to Egypt, South Africa and Zimbabwe. In our inaugural year, we received entries from more than 40 journalists across 10 countries.
“The role of information – and misinformation – in influencing public policy has in recent times been sharply thrust to the fore,” says Noko Makgato, Deputy Director at Africa Check.
“The increased interest every year in fact-checking can only help strengthen the quality of public debate, and hopefully, improve the quality of life across the continent. We look forward to even more entries this year.”
This year’s categories include:

• Fact-check of the year by a working journalist
• Fact-check of the year by a student
• One runner-up in each of the two categories above.

Type: contest

Eligibility:

• Best fact-checking report by a working journalist

To be eligible, the entry must be an original piece of fact-checking journalism first published or broadcast between 1 September 2018 and 30 June 2019, by a media house based in Africa. The work may be published in print or online, broadcast on the radio or television or published in a blog. Reports published by Africa Check are not eligible for the competition.

• Best fact-checking report by a student journalist

To be eligible, the candidate must have attended a journalism school in Africa at some period between 1 September 2018 and 30 June 2019. The entry must be an original piece of fact-checking journalism, produced as course work or first published or broadcast between 1 September 2018 and 30 June 2019, in a blog, student publication or by a media house based in Africa. The work may be published in print or online, broadcast on the radio or television or published in a blog. Reports published by Africa Check are not eligible for the competition.
Candidates can only enter for the awards in one category per year, but can submit more than one report if they choose.

Selection Criteria: Entries must have been published or broadcast between 1 September 2018 – 30 June 2019. They should have exposed as misleading or wrong a claim on an important topic made by a public figure or institution in Africa.
All entries sent into the competition before midnight on 15 August 2018 will be judged on the following four criteria.

• The significance for wider society of the claim investigated
• How the claim was tested against the available evidence
• How well the piece presented the evidence for and against the claim
• The impact that the publication had on public debate on the topic

Number of Awardees: Four (4)

Value of Award: The winner of the awards for best fact-checking report by a working journalist will get a prize of $2,000, while the runner-up will be awarded $1,000. The winner of the award for best fact-checking report by a student journalist will get a prize of $1,000, and the runner-up $500.

How to Apply: Interested participants should:

Enter the awards

Visit Award Webpage for details

Austrian Government Research Grants 2019/2020 for International Students (Undergraduate, Masters & PhD)

Application Deadline: 1st September 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All (except Austria)

To be taken at (country): Austria

Fields of Study: Natural Sciences, Technical Sciences, Human Medicine, Health Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts

About Scholarship: Foundation of the Republic of Austria is offering scholarships for international students (except Austrians). Applicants who are descendants of forced laborers (regardless of their country of origin) or people coming from countries that have suffered exceptionally from the Nazi regime, especially from the recruitment of forced laborers. Scholarships are awarded to pursue research on their diploma or master thesis or their dissertation at scientific research institutions in Austria.

Type: grants, research, undergraduates, graduates, postgraduates

Eligibility: Eligible for application are

• descendents of forced labourers (regardless of their country of origin)
• or people coming from countries that have suffered exceptionally from the Nazi regime, especially from the recruitment of forced labourers.
• Applicants must not have studied/pursued research/pursued academic work in Austria in the last six months before taking up the grant.

Selection Criteria: Students meeting the above mentioned criteria can apply to pursue research

• on their bachelor thesis
• on their diploma or master thesis
• or their dissertation.

No scholarships are awarded for Bachelor, Master or Doctoral/PhD studies pursued in Austria, summer courses, language courses, clinical traineeships or internships. The scholarship grant is for research.

Age limit:
Doctoral students: 40 years (born on or after March 1, 1978)
for other students: 35 years (born on or after March 1, 1983)

Number of Scholarships: not specified

Value of Scholarship:

1. monthly scholarship instalment: 1.050 EUR
2. Health insurance: OeAD scholarship holders need to have health insurance that is accepted by the Austrian authorities for the duration of their stay in Austria. The OeAD can help with taking out such insurance. The monthly costs can vary, at the moment you should calculate 55 to 200 EUR (depending on your age, scholarship category and state of health). The costs for the insurance have to be covered from the scholarship.
3. Accomodation: It is possible for OeAD scholarship holders to book accomodation (dormitory or apartment) with the OeAD Housing Office.The monthly costs are 220 to 470 EUR (depending on the level of comfort requested by the scholarship holder). The scholarship holder has to pay an administrative fee of 18 EUR/month to the OeAD Housing Office for the provision of accommodation. The costs for the accommodation have to be covered from the scholarship.
4. Travel Costs: Applicants from countries which are neither members of the EU nor members of EFTA, EEA or OECD can be granted a travel allowance. The lump sum depends on the country of origin.

Duration of Scholarship: 1 – 4 months

How to Apply: The following documents have to be uploaded for the Online Application on www.scholarships.at/:

• fully completed Online Application form “Application for a Scholarship of the Scholarship Foundation of the Republic of Austria” including a CV and a project plan, describing the plans and completed preparatory work for the research stay in Austria
• two letters of recommendation from university lecturers. For these letters of recommendation no specific form is required; they have to contain the letterhead, date and signature of the person recommending the applicant and the stamp of the university / department and must be no older than six months at the time of application
• confirmation of supervision by a supervisor at the chosen Austrian university, university of applied sciences or research institution
• scanned passport (showing the name and picture of the applicant)
• university graduation certificate of your diploma, master, PhD or doctoral studies at a university outside Austria resp. proof of enrollment at a study programme at a university outside Austria
• confirmation, that proves your participation in a study programme (Bachelor, Master/Diploma or PhD) at your home university
• for descendants of forced labourers: processing number or photocopy of the letter of information or other relevant proofs

Visit scholarship webpage for details to apply

Sponsors: OeAD-GmbH on behalf of and financed by the Scholarship Foundation of the Republic of Austria

Vicious Cycle: The Pentagon Creates Tech Giants and Then Buys their Services

T. J. Coles

The US Department of Defense’s bloated budget, along with CIA venture capital, helped to create tech giants, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and PayPal. The government then contracts those companies to help its military and intelligence operations. In doing so, it makes the tech giants even bigger.

In recent years, the traditional banking, energy and industrial Fortune 500 companies have been losing ground to tech giants like Apple and Facebook. But the technology on which they rely emerged from the taxpayer-funded research and development of bygone decades. The internet started as ARPANET, an invention of Honeywell-Raytheon working under a Department of Defense (DoD) contract. The same satellites that enable modern internet communications also enable US jets to bomb their enemies, as does the GPS that enables online retailers to deliver products with pinpoint accuracy. Apple’s touchscreen technology originated as a US Air Force tool. The same drones that record breath-taking video are modified versions of Reapers and Predators.

Tax-funded DoD research is the backbone of the modern, hi-tech economy. But these technologies are dual-use. The companies that many of us take for granted–including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and PayPal–are connected indirectly and sometimes very directly to the US military-intelligence complex.

A recent report by Open the Government, a bipartisan advocate of transparency, reveals the extent of Amazon’s contracts with the Pentagon. Founded in 1994 by Jeff Bezos, the company is now valued at $1 trillion, giving Bezos a personal fortune of $131 billion. Open the Government’s report notes that much of the US government “now runs on Amazon,” so much so that the tech giant is opening a branch near Washington, DC. Services provided by Amazon include cloud contracts, machine learning and biometric data systems. But more than this, Amazon is set to enjoy a lucrative Pentagon IT contract under the $10bn, Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure program, or JEDI. The Pentagon says that it hopes Amazon technology will “support lethality and enhanced operational efficiency.”

The report reveals what it can, but much is protected from public scrutiny under the twin veils of national security and corporate secrecy. For instance, all prospective host cities for Amazon’s second headquarters were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.

But it doesn’t end there. According to the report, Amazon supplied surveillance and facial Rekognition software to the police and FBI, and it has pitched the reportedly inaccurate and race/gender-biased technology to the Department of Homeland Security for its counter-immigration operations. Ten percent of the subsidiary Amazon Web Services’ profits come from government contracts. Departments include the State Department, NASA, Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2013, Amazon won a $600m Commercial Cloud Services (C2S) contract with the CIA. C2S will enable deep learning and data fingerprinting. Amazon’s second headquarters will be built in Virginia, the CIA’s home-state. Despite repeated requests, the company refuses to disclose how its personal devices, like Amazon Echo, connect with the CIA.

But Amazon is just the tip of the iceberg.

According to one thorough research article: In the mid-90s, future Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin used indirect Pentagon and other government funding to develop web crawlers and page ranking applications. Around the same time, the CIA, Directorate of Intelligence and National Security Agency–under the auspices of the National Science Foundation–funded the Massive Data Digital Systems (MDDS) program. A publication by Sergey Brin acknowledges that he received funding from the MDDS program. According to Professor Bhavani Thuraisingham, who worked on the project, “The intelligence community … essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.” The Query Flocks part of Google’s patented PageRank system was developed as part of the MDDS program. Two entrepreneurs, Andreas Bechtolsheim (who set up Sun Microsystems) and David Cheriton, both of whom had previously received Pentagon money, were early investors in Google.

Like Bezos, Brin and Page became billionaires.

The Pentagon’s Project Maven (or Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Function Team) was launched in 2017 as a machine-learning application to help drones differentiate humans from objects. Technology and staff were provided by Google, many of whom quit in protest after it was revealed that the project had targeted Iraqis and Syrians for death.

In 1999, the CIA established a venture capital firm, Peleus; later In-Q-Tel. One of In-Q-Tel’s companies was the mapping firm Keyhole, bought by Google in the mid-2000s and developed into Google Earth. Within a few years, military personnel were using Google Earth to target sites in Afghanistan. In 2005, In-Q-Tel invested $2.2m in Google. In 2010, the CIA and Google both invested in Recorded Futures, a social media tracking company.

Another billionaire, Peter Thiel, created both PayPal and Palantir. With $2m of In-Q-Tel investment, Palantir was launched in 2004 and provided data analysis for the CIA in Afghanistan and Iraq. Recently, it was tested in New Orleans as part of local law enforcement’s “predictive policing” program. Palantir creates digital webs of citizens whose personal data are gleaned from various sources. Palantir’s webs show police images of alleged, potential, future suspects along with captions such as, “Colleague of…,” “Lives with…,” “Owner of…,” “Sibling of…,” and “Lover of…”. Palantir is also used by US immigration authorities. For all the accusations of Russian meddling in both the US elections and Brexit referendum in the UK, mainstream Western media have underplayed Palantir employees’ role in working with Facebook to create psychographic profiles of potential voters.

These and other examples show that in addition to trying to shape the world in the interests of American elites, the Pentagon’s ulterior motive is to fund hi-tech industry to stimulate new economies. That same hi-technology, which exists in a so-called system of “free enterprise,” not only creates monopolies, it does so with taxpayer money. Spied on and manipulated by the technologies they fund, the public, as consumers, then pay for services provided by those tech giants. Talk about a vicious cycle…

Children in conflict zones and imperialism

Farooque Chowdhury

Children in conflict zones are one of the most affected “parties” in today’s world. They, especially children from the poor-households pay the most.

A recently released report – Stop the War on Children (2019) – by the Save the Children, UK highlights many facts related to the children in conflict zones. It’s a commendable effort in defense of children.

The report presents many facts related to the problem – conflict. It’s an eye-opener for all – parents and guardians, teachers and activists, politicians and policy makers, and people living peacefully in areas far-away from armed conflict.

The facts tell: Much of the time – a brutal reality; greedy and powerful actors’ brutal moves on the chessboard of geopolitics.

The report has tried its best to stand on a sound methodology and rely on data sources considered reliable. It has estimated many figures. It’s an effective learning material.

The report tells: “Powerful international actors have influence over the war [in Yemen].”

“In this particular case”, the report says, “it is likely that the weapon used was not built in the country whose air force dropped it, nor in the country where it landed, but in a third country that profited from its sale. The commission of this potential grave violation was facilitated by international actors.”

It – Yemen – is not the only case. In all conflict zones, areas defined by the Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO),   within 50km of where one or more conflict events took place in a given year, within the borders of a country, the picture is broadly the same. The condition of the children in all the conflict-affected areas is the same.

The report reveals a startling fact: “The number of children living in conflict-affected areas has increased drastically since the end of the Cold War, significantly outpacing population growth, even though the number of countries experiencing armed conflict has remained stable.” [“The number … outpacing population growth”! Mr. Malthus, the plagiarist by […] profession, as Marx has identified the economist, has to think over the development.]

In support of the claim, the report says: “Today’s figure of 420 million is more than twice as high as at the end of the Cold War.”

Therefore, the question comes: Who are these “powerful international actors” having “influence over the war”, and over other wars? Who produce the weapons, and who trade with weapons? Who profit from trading with weapons?

And, to bring in devils of death in the lives of the children, the so-called Cold War is not needed. The Cold War-story is part of history, and a material to learn about imperialist strategies and tactics.

But powerful international actors are there; and they are enough to call in the merchants of deaths and destruction in regions.

These powerful actors are not a few handfuls of persons engaged with weapons production and trading. These powerful persons are not a few handfuls in the world of finance capital fueling the weapons business.

Along with these persons in the spheres of weapons and finance capital, there are parties in the politics- and geopolitics-spheres, and in the MSM – the “great” mainstream media. They are connected. They have their system; they have built up the system; and the name of the system is imperialism, the name the Save the Children report avoids to utter. And, the system is driven by a single hunger: endless stream of profit with ever-increasing rate.

The payment is made by the people in lands under the shadow of the system, not only in conflict zones. Children are especially vulnerable in this situation.

The conflict zones have not cropped up suddenly, spontaneously and accidentally. These were built up in an organized way. These were selected through painstaking research – potentials, economic and political. Proxies were organized and nourished. It took years to complete the process, from area and proxy selection, foe identification, proxy organizing and training to start the conflagration. The MSM extends its services to this “noble” effort, which it identifies, in cases, as “struggle for democracy”.

A number of these conflicts are identified by research circles as “Resource Wars”. It’s easy to identify in such an easy way, as there are simple one-dimensional data without connections, like this: “OPEC cashed $650 billion for 11.7 billion barrels of the oil it sold in 2006, compared with $110 billion in 1998, when it sold a similar quantity of oil at much lower prices.” (David G Victor, “What resource wars?”, The National Interest, November 12, 2007) Twelve years later, the same type of data, partial and isolated, will be cited and a single part will be mentioned. But the system – imperialism – will not be identified by the MSM and a major part of academia. A group of NGOs also will not identify imperialism.

A few of the conflicts are identified as “War for Oil” or “War for Diamond” or “War for cobalt/coltan/ tin/tantalum/tungsten/water”, and of similar nomenclature. But there are relations embedded in mode of production/loot of resources and war. “The close relation between war and natural resources is of long standing.” (William K. Tabb, “Resource wars”, Monthly Review, January 1, 2007)

A few of these are now-a-days dissected as “because of climate crisis”. But the main reason – capitalist/imperialist system – is not identified by the mainstream discourse.

The toll the system takes is ionospheric: More than five million people around the world were killed in conflicts during the 1990s. (Michael Renner, “The Anatomy of Resource Wars”, Worldwatch Institute, 2002) “The 20th century”, writes Eric Hobsbawm, “was the most murderous in recorded history. The total number of deaths caused by or associated with its wars has been estimated at 187m, the equivalent of more than 10% of the world’s population in 1913.” (The Guardian, “War and peace”, February 23, 2002) “More familiar is the erosion of the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The two world wars of the first half of the century involved the entire populations of belligerent countries; both combatants and non-combatants suffered. In the course of the century, however, the burden of war shifted increasingly from armed forces to civilians, who were not only its victims, but increasingly the object of military or military-political operations.” (ibid.)

And, “[d]uring 1990–2001 there were 57 major armed conflicts in 45 locations.” (UNDP, Human Development Report 2003, “Violent conflict and the goals”, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 2003) The UNDP report said: “[S]ince 1990 conflicts have killed as many as 3.6 million people and injured many millions more. Particularly tragic is that civilians, not soldiers, are increasingly the victims — accounting for more than 90% of deaths and injuries. Shockingly, children account for at least half of civilian casualties.” (ibid.)

Therefore, it’s a worldwide business – the business of conflict and death. Without traders, this business cannot move. These death-traders’ group is composed of banks, companies trading with oil, non-oil minerals, timber, industries like steel, aircraft, shipbuilding, a type of politicians, diplomats and generals, the MSM, and a part of academia. A few in this group are owners while a few are on the owners’ payroll. “Since in the international sphere”, writes Paul Sweezy, “the interests of capital are directly and quickly translated into terms of state policy, it follows that these antagonisms assume the form of conflicts between states and thus, indirectly, between whole nations.” (The Theory of Capitalist Development, Principles of Marxian Political Economy, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1964) Borrowing from Sweezy’s discussions on militarism, it can be said: “The munitions magnets have a direct interest in the maximum expansion of military production; not only do they benefit in the form of state orders but also they are afforded safe and lucrative outlets for their accumulated profits. Hence it is these elements of the capitalist class which take the lead in calling for an aggressive foreign policy.” (ibid.)

So, writes Michael T. Klare, “none has so profoundly influenced American [US] military policy as the determination to ensure US access to overseas supplies of vital resources. As the American economy grows and US industries come to rely more on imported supplies of critical materials, the protection of global resource flows is becoming an increasingly prominent feature of American security policy.” (Resource Wars, The New Landscape of Global Conflict, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2002)

Many earlier works also relate war to control over natural resources. These include A Study of War(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1942) by Quincy Wright, The Economic Causes of Modern War: A Study of the Period: 1878-1918, (Mofatt, Yard, and Company, New York, 1921) by John Edwin Bakeless. Fourteen of the 20 major wars, Bakeless identified, were related to conflict over resources: “The rise of industrialism has led to the struggle for […] raw materials.” Thus, conflict zones and tension zones, areas tension being built up, crop up.

Today, there are proxies – mercenaries, armed and unarmed, recruited from the area of imperialist intervention/conflict/targeted for intervention, and engaged with a banner of political slogans like “democracy” designed by imperialism. These proxies play role in conflict zones/tension zones.

There are companies trading with armaments. “[T]he business of war remains a good one. The 100 largest arms producers and military services contractors recorded $395 billion in arms sales in 2012. Lockheed Martin, the largest arms seller, alone accounted for $36 billion in such sales during 2012.” (Time, “Here are the 5 companies making a killing off wars around the world”, by Vince Calio and Alexander E.M. Hess, March 14, 2014) The Time report said: “Arms sales have remained concentrated among the same small number of companies for more than a decade. The top 10 companies have largely remained in place because industry consolidation in the 1990s made them dominant players […].”

Three years later, another report said: “National security and warfare are big business. The U.S. government spent $598.5 billion, over half of its discretionary budget, on military and weapons technology in 2015. The 100 largest arms-producing and military services companies across the globe sold an estimated $370.7 billion worth of arms that year.” (msn.com, “20 companies profiting the most from war”, by Samuel Stebbins and Thomas C. Frohlich, May 31, 2017) The report said: “U.S.-based companies continue to dominate the defense market, a trend that is unlikely to change meaningfully any time soon.” So, the story appears same: war-profit-war, a circuit of profit where war is investment by the profit seekers.

Today, a group of companies directly engages armed gangs in areas of competition to grab resources triggering hot conflicts. These gangs sometimes don cloak of political slogans. Studies are there on the issue.

And, now, there are private companies contracted to carry on war; and, the companies are for profit.

And, today, there are moves to privatize war – an unmasking of imperialist war. Thanks should go to imperialism for unmasking itself.

All are for profit.

And, the victims? The people in the war-ravaged lands, the children in the war-demolished countries.

Thus, it’s found:

“There are 639 million small arms in the world, or one for every ten people, produced by over 1,000 companies in at least 98 countries.

“16 billion units of ammunition are produced each year – more than two new bullets for every man, woman and child on the planet.

“It is estimated that 80-90 per cent of all illegal small arms start in the state-sanctioned trade.

“In World War One, 14 per cent of total casualties were civilian. In World War Two, this grew to 67 percent. In some of today’s conflicts, the figure is even higher.

“One third of countries spend more on the military than they do on health-care services.

“An average of US$22 billion a year is spent on arms by countries in Africa, Asia, Middle East and Latin America. Half of this amount would enable every girl and boy in those regions to go to primary school.

“[I]n the same minute in which one person dies from armed violence, 15 new arms are manufactured for sale. (Amnesty International, Oxfam, IANSA Control Arms Campaign Media Briefing: key facts and figures, October 9, 2003)

And, children – the future, the future of humanity – find themselves as victim while the villain – capital that moves brutally to “heroically” conquer and control everything on the earth – carries on its war business.