10 Nov 2023

Deepening uncertainty and fear in ruling financial circles

Nick Beams



Pedestrians walk past Hong Kong Stock Exchange electronic screen in Hong Kong, Thursday, June 29, 2023. [AP Photo/Louise Delmotte]

There is a swirl of uncertainty surrounding financial markets and the entire global financial system amid fears that one or other or a combination of ongoing inflation, rising interest rates, growing government debt, decoupling from China, a significant loss by firms involved in the so-called shadow banking system, and the escalation of war could set off a major crisis.

And on top of this there is concern in ruling financial and economic circles, ever-present but seldom discussed publicly, of an eruption of struggles by the working class which break out of the efforts of the trade union apparatuses to contain them.

Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported on a conference of global bankers in Hong Kong. It was convened to deal with how they were handling the “complexities” of the financial world but “ended up dwelling on the potential for financial blowups instead.”

This was evident from a number of comments from major participants.

Deutsche Bank chief executive officer Christian Sewing told the meeting: “My biggest fear is there’s one more geopolitical escalation and there’s a market event.”

The Bloomberg report stated that the meeting, one of the largest gatherings of banking heads since the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza, was “dour as banking chiefs traded observations and fears.”

Bridgewater co-chief investment officer Bob Prince said markets were “under-discounting” how long the tightening of interest rates in the US and Europe would last—a reaction to what is still a significant view that central banks will have to ease up next year.

Citadel founder Ken Griffin said that “deglobalisation”— sharply expressed in the moves out of China—was a “giant wild card.”

“We don’t know what a world looks like that involves deglobalisation,” he said, and that included how much it “increased inflation systemically.”

Colm Kelleher, the chairman of the Swiss bank UBS, which is still embroiled in the fallout from its takeover of Credit Suisse after it collapsed earlier this year, directed attention to the “shadow banking” sector which involves lending by hedge fund and private equity groups.

Shadow banking, which is largely outside the financial regulatory system, has had an explosive growth since the crisis of 2008 with roughly half of global financial assets now in the “shadow sector.”

“It’s a real cause of concern,” Kelleher said. “The next crisis, when it happens, will be in that sector. It’ll be a fiduciary crisis.”

A fiduciary crisis is one in which the various organisations trading in the market have no trust in each other. Kelleher did not elaborate but such a crisis of confidence can rapidly extend from the shadows and into the broader financial system.

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon raised concerns about the growth of US government debt and its refinancing in a much less liquid environment, that is, a situation where there is a contraction in the capacity of financial markets to buy Treasury bonds.

The head of Morgan Stanley, James Gorman, summed up the general air of perplexity and uncertainty saying that big disruptions were often caused by unforeseen forces.

This week the Financial Times (FT) has devoted a major series of articles on new conditions in the global financial system, examining key areas including corporate debt, deal making by private equity groups and the funding of ever-growing government debt.

It noted that takeover deals, forged when interest rates were at historic lows, were starting to come apart. Some participants see so-called “financial engineering” as a way round the problems.

But as the FT report commented, “others view the financial engineering as a symptom of a deepening crisis,” and that a “modus operandi that thrived in an environment of low interest rates will look very different if rates stay high for some time.”

One article in the series posed the question: “Can corporate America cope with its vast debt pile?” It noted that default rates were starting to trend above their historical average.

Another dealt with the financial reckoning for governments being delivered by bond markets as interest rates rise, pointing out that according to the S&P rating agency, whereas the interest bill for G7 countries was $905 billion a year in 2018, it would rise to $1.5 trillion by 2026.

And there will be a rapid escalation in future years with the rating agency Moody’s estimating that the US government’s interest bill as a proportion of its revenues will jump from under 10 percent in 2022 to 27 percent by 2033.

There is no prospect for the US economy to grow its way out of the mounting debt problem because, as the article commented, “economic growth forecasts for next year are anemic at just 1.5 percent.”

The FT did not point to the consequences, but they are already under discussion with a developing clamour in financial circles for an attack on government spending starting with social facilities, in particular Social Security payments in the US.

On Wednesday the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Mohamed El-Erian, the chief economic advisor to the global insurance and financial services giant Allianz and a well-known financial commentator and analyst.

The main feature of his comment was not his warning of a recession in the US next year but the state of disarray in policy making circles, particularly at the US Federal Reserve.

He criticised the Fed for at least six policy and forecasting errors starting from its claim that inflation, which started to take off in 2021 due to the impact of the pandemic on supply chains, was “transitory.”

After noting that the CEO of the failed Silicon Valley Bank told Congress the reason the bank collapsed in March was because he believed the Fed when it said inflation was “transitory,” El-Erian turned to the serious nature of the banking crisis.

Had it not been for the decision by authorities to essentially guarantee all bank deposits, there would have been a banking crisis, a financial accident.

He described the state of the $25 trillion US bond market—the basis of the global financial system—as “confused.” Last year was about the bond market realising the central banks were behind and they would be raising rates aggressively. This year the market’s understanding was that interest rates would remain high for longer.

“And then we pivoted to people worrying about the deficit, and worrying about the amount of issuance we are going to and who was going to buy that,” El-Erian said.

He then went on to raise what he considered a more fundamental question—the formulation of policy.

Noting that the US was the largest economy in the world with the most mature institutions, he continued: “What consensus has been expecting, has gone from a soft landing to a hard landing, to no landing, to crash landing, back to hard landing, back to soft landing. That’s an incredible sequence and it tells you we’ve lost our anchors. We’ve lost our economic anchors, we’ve lost our policy anchors, and we’ve lost our technical anchors.”

Many analysts ignore the social effects of economic policy and its impact on the class struggle. El-Erian is not one of those and drew attention to the broader social and political issues contained in the deepening crisis of the capitalist economy and its policy-making bodies.

He warned that there was a climate change crisis and an inequality crisis.

Inequality was not just an economic problem it was also a social and political problem.

“And you start getting bad outcomes because a bigger part of the population feels alienated, feels marginalised. And then the next thing you know, your economic issues including the reality of people of the most vulnerable segments being very, very exposed to any shock becomes also social and political.”

And then perhaps in an endeavour to reassure himself as well as others, he added: “And I think that there’s a greater awareness today that we should continue to pursue capitalism, but keep on the radar screen, equity and sustainability.”

Of course, the ruling circles are determined to “pursue capitalism” whatever brutal methods they consider necessary. But it is precisely those methods and the growing understanding that they are endemic to the profit system itself which is leading to a growing anti-capitalist and socialist sentiment.

El-Erian might keep inequality “on the radar screen,” but he could offer no answers to deal with it and in conclusion emphasised the necessity for “hope.” But as the economic and geopolitical crisis deepens, working people are not going to seek to get by on a “wing and a prayer” but will increasingly turn to action.

9 Nov 2023

Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellowship Program 2024

APPLICATION DEADLINE:

29th November 2023 (11:59:59 PM ET)

Tell Me About Award:

Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellowship Program 2024. The Microsoft Research AI & Society fellows program aims to catalyze research collaboration between Microsoft Research and eminent scholars and experts across a range of disciplines core to discussions at the intersection of AI and its impact on society.

Microsoft recognizes the value of bridging academic, industry, policy, and regulatory worlds and seeks to ignite interdisciplinary collaboration that drives real-world impact

TYPE:

Fellowship

Who Can Apply?

Microsoft is seeking eminent scholars and leading experts from a wide range of fields and disciplines to join a variety of interdisciplinary collaborations focused on key research challenges.

The submission criteria and eligibility guidelines vary by research challenge for this program. Please review the research challenge descriptions and eligibility details below for more information.

In general, our research challenges seek eminent scholars from academia as well as experts from non-academia.

  • Leading experts from non-academic disciplines
  • Eminent scholars pursuing research and instruction in academic venues

To be eligible to apply, candidates will be required to confirm they are actively pursuing (enrolled in program) or have already earned their terminal degree in their respective field or discipline. A terminal degree is defined as the highest-level college degree that can be achieved within your academic discipline or professional field.

A fellow selected to be a part of the Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellows program is subject to disciplinary proceedings for inappropriate behavior, including but not limited to discrimination, harassment (including sexual harassment), or plagiarism will forfeit their funding.

Microsoft actively seeks to foster greater levels of diversity in our workforce and in our pipeline of future researchers and collaborators. We are always looking for the best and brightest talent and celebrating individuality. We invite candidates to come as they are and do what they love.

HOW ARE APPLICANTS SELECTED?

All proposals should be submitted via the submission portal (see above). Proposals will not be accepted by email.

Each submission will include:

  • Candidate information (region, institution, research/work focus, etc.)
  • “Statement of Interest” title (80 characters or less)
  • Submission of a “Statement of Interest” document.
    • This document should be 3 pages (or less) in length, which may include appendix and citations if applicable.
    • See additional instructions and guidance in the “Statement of Interest Requirements” section below.
  • Candidate CV/resume to be uploaded in the submission portal.

A strong submission will:

  • Demonstrate a clear understanding of the research challenge and its aims for societal impact.
  • Describe relevant work/accomplishments, demonstrate the alignment one’s motivation to the research challenge, and outline the potential impact achieve through collaboration.
  • Be clearly written, in alignment with program guidelines.
  • Consider that readability and clarity are valued in the review process.

HOW MANY AWARDS?

Not specified

What Is The Benefit Of Award?

The purpose of this program is to support interdisciplinary research collaboration across academia and industry in pursuit of addressing significant research opportunities at the intersection of AI and society.

The fellowship is intended to provide a range of opportunities to collaborate with Microsoft Research to pursue cross-disciplinary discourse and drive impactful research outcomes in a range for formats. Collaboration opportunities will vary by research challenge but may include working sessions meetings, asynchronous collaboration, workshops, events, etc.

Funding amounts vary by the region a fellows’ organization/institution of employment is located in. All funds are distributed as unrestricted gifts as a one-time payment.

  • Africa – $15K (USD)
  • Australia & New Zealand – $15K (USD)
  • Canada – $45K (USD)
  • Europe – $15K (USD)
  • India – $15K (USD)
  • Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan – $15K (USD)
  • United States – $45K (USD

The program offers opportunities for fellows from fields beyond core computer sciences to join and support interdisciplinary research conversations with Microsoft Researchers. By facilitating these new collaborations, Microsoft aims to scale the impact of collective research efforts at the intersection of AI & Society.

HOW LONG WILL AWARD LAST?

  • November 2, 2023 | Call for proposals opens globally
  • November 29, 2023 (11:59:59 PM ET) | Proposal deadline
  • January 30, 2024 | Global announcement of the 2023 Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellows
  • February 2024 – February 2025 | Research collaboration between Microsoft Research and selected fellows

How To Apply:

Through a global, open call for proposals targeting a specific set of research challenges, Microsoft will facilitate strategic collaborations, catalyze new research ideas, and contribute publicly available works to benefit scholarly discourse and benefit society more broadly.

The details of the program vary by research challenge. Please review the “Research Challenges” for more information and eligibility, “How to apply” to submit a proposal, and our “FAQ” for answers to commonly asked questions.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

What Kind of Family is Yours?

David Rosen



Photograph Source: Macfadden Publications Copyright 1955 – Public Domain

What kind of “family” is yours?  Is it a traditional “nuclear” family, with a mom & dad & a couple of kids? Or is a two-some, just you and a partner, no matter what gender? Or maybe you are part of an extended grouping, be it an adopted family, a commune or shared housing of multiple parents with children?  Or maybe it’s just you, a “family” of one?

Over the last few years, there has been increased discussion of the changing nature of the “traditional” nuclear family.  No matter what “family” formation you are part of the “classic” Ossie & Harriet family celebrated on TV land during the ‘50s is declining.  In 2021, only 18 percent – or 23.1 million — of U.S. households were “nuclear families” with a married couple and children.  This is a significant drop from nearly 60 percent during the 1970s.

David Brooks, a conservative opinion writer for The New York Times, wrote a compelling article in The Atlantic, “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” in 2020. It chronicles the decline of the nuclear family and, more importantly, he considers the new forms of interpersonal association that are emerging today.

Brooks offers a rigorous and carefully reasoned analysis of the history and current decline of the “traditional” nuclear family, a decline intimately linked to structural changes in U.S. capitalism and deepening inequality.  His critique of the family is simple:

“We’ve made life freer for individuals and more unstable for families. We’ve made life better for adults but worse for children. We’ve moved from big, interconnected, and extended families, which helped protect the most vulnerable people in society from the shocks of life, to smaller, detached nuclear families (a married couple and their children), which give the most privileged people in society room to maximize their talents and expand their options.”

Brooks concludes, noting, “The shift from bigger and interconnected extended families to smaller and detached nuclear families ultimately led to a familial system that liberates the rich and ravages the working-class and the poor.”

Perhaps most surprisingly, Brooks reveals, “Two years ago, I started something called Weave: The Social Fabric Project. Weave exists to support and draw attention to people and organizations around the country who are building community.”  He then goes on to mention, “In 2015, I was invited to the house of a couple named Kathy and David, who had created an extended-family-like group in D.C. called All Our Kids, or AOK-DC.”  And adds, “I joined the community and never left—they became my chosen family.”

The article drew much critical attention. From the left, Nicole Sussner Rodgers, writing in The Nationargued,

Brooks writes, ‘while social conservatives have a philosophy of family life they can’t operationalize, because it’s no longer relevant, progressives have no philosophy of family life at all.’ Seldom do I agree with Brooks, but on this point, he’s correct.

She then adds: “Progressives are finally beginning to understand that the decline of nuclear families among working-class and poor folks is better understood as one symptom of growing economic inequality, not its cause, as conservatives typically contend.”  Most insightful, she insists, “Children can flourish in a variety of family types and living arrangements.”

From the right, Kay Hymowitz, of the Institute for Family Studies and the Manhattan Institute, argued, “Scholars now pretty much agree that the nuclear family household has been the “dominant form” in Western Europe and the United States since the dawn of the industrial era. In fact, demographic realities made extended families an impossibility.”  She then insists:

Because humans can’t seem to resist pairing up, couples who break up will likely look for new partners. The partner who moves out will be mourned and newcomers will have to be incorporated into the pre-existing family, whether it is nuclear, extended, or forged.

Since time immemorial, humans have cohabitated or associated in sharing clusters to meet survival issues and address caregiving needs. Today, Americans – in unprecedented numbers — are experimenting with new forms of kinship and extended family association.

Matt Bell distinguishes two types of extended family association – (i) multigenerational families and (ii) nonbiological kinship lines.  Multigenerational or extended families include people that cluster along biological kinship lines and can involve (i) grown children living with married parents, (e.g., young adults moving back home after college); (ii) married or single adult parents helping elderly parents; and (iii) seniors living with unmarried children (e.g., “in-law suite”).

Nonbiological kinship lines include groups like the one Brooks is part of and CoAbode that welcomes single mothers who can find other single mothers interested in sharing a home. Its purpose is bold: “Combining resources allows single mothers and their kids to afford a better home in a better school district, helps lighten the load of parenting and childcare, and enhances their economic opportunities.”

The changing composition of the “family” signals an equally significant change remaking society – the erosion of patriarchy. “Before the nineteenth century, most families were organized according to patriarchal tradition,” notes Steven Ruggles in “Patriarchy, Power, and Pay: The Transformation of American Families, 1800–2015.”  Going further, he points out:

Masters of the household [i.e., men] had a legal right to command the obedience of their wives and children—as well as any servants or slaves—and to use corporal punishment to correct disobedience.

The waning of patriarchy was accompanied by a shift toward simpler and more unstable family structures.

Ruggles provides an invaluable overview of the shifting landscape of family life that grounds his analysis. “The tectonic shifts in the structure of the economy since the early nineteenth century transformed family relations. The transition from corporate families to male breadwinner families was a consequence of the rise of male wage labor in the Industrial Revolution.” He then adds:

The transition from male breadwinner families to dual-earner families reflects the massive increase in wage labor among married women following World War II. The decline of corporate families led to a profound upheaval of generational relations as family patriarchs lost control over their wage-earning sons. The decline of male-breadwinner families led to an equally profound upheaval of gender relations as men lost control over their wage-earning wives and daughters.

These developments had profound consequences. “In the past half-century,” Ruggles asserts, “the long-run trend toward atomization of families has accelerated. A broad retreat from marriage began after 1960.”

Now, a half-century later, what kind of “family” is yours?

Cuba Scores a Big Victory in the UN General Assembly

W.T. Whitney Jr.



Photograph Source: Bruno Rijsman – CC BY-SA 2.0

The United Nations General Assembly on November 2 voted to approve a Cuban resolution that, unchanged over 31 consecutive years, calls for an end to the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba. Approval once more was overwhelming: 187 nations voted in favor and two against, the United States and Israel. Ukraine abstained.

Reacting to the vote, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel proclaimed a “new victory for the Cuban people and their Revolution!” He pointed to “the triumph of dignity and the fearlessness of our people,” and expressed gratitude for “the international community’s recognition of and support for Cuba’s heroism and resistance.”

For over 20 years, the only nations opposing the Cuban resolution, apart from the United States, have been Israel and, formerly, a few U.S.-dependent Pacific island nations. The blockade began in 1962, and now 80% of Cubans have lived under its sway.

Before the vote this year, dozens of delegates representing member states spoke out against the blockade. Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Relations Bruno Rodríguez addressed the General Assembly, insisting that the U.S. blockade interferes with “the right to life, health, progress and welfare of every Cuban family.”

He explained that Cuba’s financial losses from the blockade reflect factors like the high cost of substituting for goods excluded under the blockade with more expensive goods and/or those with higher transportation costs. Losses take the form also of an overall lack of necessary materials, goods, and services. And “barriers Cuba faces in gaining access to advanced technology” lead to monetary loss.  

 The chancellor emphasized that “sectors like agriculture and energy face serious obstacles to acquiring spare parts or machinery.” He cited examples of blockade-related shortages such as extreme shortages of gasoline and oil, cancer patients being denied “first-line treatments and drugs,” and healthcare providers and their patients lacking respiratory ventilators and medicinal oxygen normally available from abroad.

The blockade’s assault against the Cuban people shows up clearly and dramatically in money lost to Cuba’s economy. Rodríguez claimed that Cuba’s GDP would have grown by 9% in 2022 without the blockade, and that the $4.87 billion in losses occurring between March, 2023 and February 2023 correlated with “pain and suffering.”

Cuba’s monetary loss in over 60 years of blockade now totals $159.8 billion, according to one account. What with inflationary change, that’s $1.3 trillion.

Another report indicates that between August 2021 and February 2022, losses in the energy and mining sectors added up to $185.5 million, in the agricultural sector, $270.9 million; and in banking and finance, $280.8 million. Between January and July in 2021, losses were $113.5 million in the healthcare sector; $30.6 million in education; and $31.3 million in the transport sector.

Cubans’ lives are affected:

+ During the last school year, Cuba’s government lacked paper sufficient to “print and assemble books and notebooks for students,” in part because a Canadian paper manufacturer did not extend credit.

+ Presently, according to the Granma news service, no school books are being produced due to a lack of supplies and spare parts.

+ Lack of access to high-performance brands and equipment, as well as spare parts, serves to handicap Cuba’s telecommunications sector, thus easing the way for U.S. and European competitors to reach Cuban users.

Laws authorizing the U.S. blockade include the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act, the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (Torricelli Law), and the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (Helms-Burton Law). Executive actions taken to implement the blockade have been central to how that policy affects Cuba.  The Obama administration eased many blockade regulations. President Trump added 243 new measures, with disastrous effects. The Biden administration continues them. The U.S. Treasury Department imposes large fines on third-country exporters failing to comply with its rules, so they often do not sell to Cuba.  Because the Treasury Department forbids foreign banks from using U.S. dollars, international financial institutions rarely make loans to entities in Cuba and are reluctant to handle U.S. dollars in transactions involving Cuba.    The U.S. government has recently been weaponizing its false declarations that Cuba is a terrorist-sponsoring state. The enabling legislation on the matter granted the U.S. government authority to penalize any international financial and banking sectors bold enough to have dealings with states so designated.

Conveniently enough, Cuban analyst Claudia Fonseca Sosa recently provided President Biden with advice as to “substantive modifications” of methods for carrying out his policy. He could authorize “the export of U.S. products to key branches of Cuba’s economy” and of medical supplies and equipment to the island to help with the manufacture of biotechnical products. Biden could allow U.S. companies to invest in Cuba and enable U.S. citizens to receive medical treatment there. The prospects for changed policies toward Cuba perhaps have improved; a recent report documented the major role of the blockade in propelling Cuban emigration to the United States – and sending Venezuelans and Nicaragua there too. Those three blockaded countries presently supply most of the migrants crossing into the United States. U.S. sanctions cause desperate living conditions, and so people leave.

End all three blockades. Relieve the pressure on people, and maybe they’d stay home. Who could object?

Japanese PM Kishida visits Manila, intensifies preparations for war with China

John Malvar


Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida staged a two-day official visit to the Philippines over the weekend. In meetings with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Kishida arranged the sale and transfer of military equipment and surveillance technology to the Philippines for use in the disputed waters of the South China Sea and began negotiations for the deployment of Japanese forces to the Philippines. 

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., right, with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida after their joint statement at the Malacanang presidential palace in Manila, Philippines on Friday, Nov. 3, 2023. [AP Photo/Aaron Favila, Pool]

Tensions in the region are extremely high after a collision two weeks ago between Chinese and Philippine ships off the Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea. Kishida’s visit only inflames the situation.

During an official banquet at Malacañang presidential palace, Kishida stated that Japan and the Philippines “are now experiencing an excellent relationship—we call it the golden age. I look forward to working with President Marcos to take these bilateral relations to even newer heights.” 

The “golden age” of which Kishida spoke was the developing return of Japanese imperialism to Southeast Asia, to the countries that it once ravaged, now under the auspices of Washington’s war drive against China. Tokyo is abandoning even the pretense of upholding Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, known as the pacifist clause, and is returning to the world stage as a military power, supplying arms and deploying troops.

Kishida donated P235 million ($US13.5 million) of Overseas Security Assistance (OSA) for the acquisition of coastal radar equipment to improve the Philippines’ “maritime domain awareness.” The technology will be used to surveil Chinese vessels and coordinate naval activity in the hotly disputed South China Sea.

Kishida stated that Japan would be providing the Philippines with additional patrol vessels, “defense equipment” and radar. Tokyo’s transfer of military hardware specifically designed to augment the Philippines capacity to escalate its already tense maritime confrontations with China is immensely provocative.

The Global Times, which articulates the interests of sections of the Chinese state and particularly the military, wrote of Japan’s military aid to the Philippines: “This move—driven by Japan’s desire to create chaos and provoke conflicts—will further escalate tensions in the South China Sea, which is detrimental to peace and security in East Asia.”

Marcos and Kishida discussed the establishment of a Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA), a defense pact that would allow the exchange and deployment of troops between the two countries for joint exercises. Japan has already established RAA’s with the United Kingdom and Australia. The Philippines is the first Southeast Asian country to begin discussion of an RAA with Japan.

On Saturday, Kishida delivered an address to a special joint session of the Philippine Congress, the first time any Japanese leader has done so since World War II and the devastating Japanese occupation of the country. 

He told the assembled representatives that the two countries had agreed “to further strengthen the trilateral cooperation among the Philippines, Japan and the US” and added that “in the South China Sea, the trilateral cooperation to protect the freedom of the sea is underway.” 

This is the crux of the matter. The driving force behind the dangerous reemergence of Japanese militarism is Washington, the third partner in this trilateral cooperation. It is US imperialism and its aggressive campaign against China that is forcing open the doors of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, devastated by Japan in the Second World War, to a restored Japanese military presence.

On November 3, as Kishida visited Manila, Washington made its presence known as the US Seventh Fleet sent a Navy Destroyer to stage a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) through the South China Sea near the Spratly Islands. It was the first time in six months that Washington had conducted such an operation near the Spratlys. 

The timing was not accidental. Looking to consolidate Japan’s military ties with Manila, Washington deliberately escalated tensions with China for Kishida’s visit.

The details of the trilateral cooperation of which Kishida spoke are not yet clear, but they will doubtless include the use of the basing facilities throughout the Philippines that have been set up for the US under the auspices of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA).

No two countries created more misery and oppression in the Philippines in the past one hundred fifty years than the US and Japan. 

At the opening of the twentieth century, the US conquered the Philippines in a bloody colonial war that killed hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. The US military tortured Filipino civilians, executed revolutionary soldiers as bandits, banned freedom of speech and thought, and destroyed the fledgling Philippine Republic. Out of this bloodshed it crafted a colony subservient to its interests and in service to these aims elevated a rapacious and corrupt elite to positions of political power that they still hold.

Japan ruled the country in a brutal three-year occupation during World War II, marked by mass repression, public executions, concentration camps, starvation in the cities, and the forced sexual slavery of so-called “comfort women.” The occupation and the return of the US military left the country in smoldering ruins.

The US has never apologized for the crimes of the Philippine-American War, nor has Japan apologized for the rape of comfort women.

Now these two imperialist powers, with Japan working as junior partner to the US, posture as the noble defenders of Philippine sovereignty. The claim is an historical abomination.

What is more they claim to be defending the Philippines from Chinese aggression. The Philippines has never been the victim of Chinese aggression, but like the Philippines, China has been the victim of both the US and Japan. The US sought to dismember and subjugate China with its “Open Door” Policy in the 1920s and 1930s, and Japan invaded and ravaged China in the 1930s and 1940s. 

Kishida’s visit to Manila marks a significant step in the dangerous reawakening of Japanese imperialism. While Tokyo currently moves in lockstep with Washington, it has its own interests. The imperialist cooperation of the US and Japan against China contains explosive objective contradictions that could lead to deadly falling out. Washington, looking to secure its hegemony by aggression in every corner of the planet, is stoking the fires of world war.

G7 members threaten Iran with regional war amid ongoing Israeli slaughter in Gaza

Jordan Shilton



Israeli army troops are seen next to a destroyed building during a military operation in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, November 8, 2023 [AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed his government’s opposition to a ceasefire Wednesday, emboldened by a G7 statement that backed Israel’s genocidal violence against the Palestinians in the name of “self-defence” and threatened Iran. The imminent danger of a region-wide war was underlined as both the US and Israel launched air strikes in Syria against targets claimed to be associated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corp.

Meeting in Tokyo, foreign ministers from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and the US gave their stamp of approval to the Netanyahu regime’s bombardment of Gaza, which has officially claimed over 10,500 civilian lives. “We unequivocally condemn the terror attacks by Hamas and others across Israel that began on October 7, 2023, as well as ongoing missile attacks against Israel,” the statement declared, echoing the pro-war propaganda of the far-right Netanyahu regime. “We emphasize Israel’s right to defend itself and its people, in accordance with international law, as it seeks to prevent a recurrence.”

The G7 statement carried the unmistakable signature of US imperialism as it prepares for a wider regional war to secure its hegemony against all challenges. “We call on Iran to refrain from providing support for Hamas and taking further actions that destabilize the Middle East, including support for Lebanese Hezbollah and other non-state actors, and to use its influence with those groups to de-escalate regional tensions,” the statement threatened. In a section devoted entirely to “Iran,” it denounced everything from the country’s nuclear power program to development of ballistic missiles and human rights record.

Needless to say, no mention was made of the “destabilising” role of American imperialism, which has waged wars across the Middle East and Central Asia for the past three decades, destroying entire societies in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan. In portraying Iran as the chief escalator of the present situation, the fact that Washington has dispatched two aircraft carrier battlegroups and a nuclear-armed submarine to the region was also passed over in silence.

The G7 statement also included sections asserting the bloc’s support for the ongoing US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine and denouncing China as a threat to the stability of the “Indo-Pacific.” The statement underscores that the imperialist powers, led by the United States, view the expansion of war throughout the Middle East as one front in a global struggle for a re-division of the world.

Just hours after the provocative G7 statement, US aircraft struck a site in eastern Syria allegedly used by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and allied groups. Describing the air strike as a “self defence” act following a series of attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria, a Pentagon statement said that President Biden “directed” the strike to “make clear that the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests.”

Israeli air strikes were also launched against southern Syria and Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of three people.

Within the context of their support for Israeli genocide and threats of war with Iran, the G7’s appeal for “urgent action” to reduce the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza appears risible. The Orwellian call for “humanitarian pauses” in Israel’s relentless onslaught will do nothing to stop the Netanyahu regime’s collective punishment of the entire 2.3 million population by withholding fuel, electricity and clean drinking water.

In remarks at the White House on Wednesday, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby underscored just how flimsy such pauses would be, explaining that they would last “hours to days.” He continued, “So it would be an agreement that for a set period of time in these agreed coordinates, there would be a pause in the fighting. That doesn’t mean there won’t be, or couldn’t be, fighting outside that zone during that same period of time. So all of that has to get factored in, and I have no doubt that on the Israeli side, as they look at each proposal, they’ll think about the potential impact on their military operations on the ground or in the air.”

In other words, Kirby, who just a day earlier confirmed that Washington is still imposing no “red lines” on Israel, was effectively admitting that Israel would have a veto power over any “humanitarian pause” that clashes with its military operations.

The green light from the G7 for Israel to continue with its murderous assault on Gaza coincided with further evidence of the horrendous conditions facing the population. The Norwegian Refugee Council reported that over half of all housing units have either been damaged or destroyed. The 40,000 housing units made uninhabitable have left 200,000 Palestinians without homes, while damage to over 220,000 homes has impacted over a million people.

The crisis in medical care also continues to deepen. According to a Gaza Health Ministry spokesperson, thousands of people in critical condition “do not have access to treatment in hospitals in Gaza.” Dozens are dying each day as a result of Israel’s refusal to let them leave for treatment in Egypt.

Conditions are especially bleak in Gaza City, where Israeli forces are operating on the ground as bombardments continue. While ordering civilians to leave, the Israeli military opened only one “humanitarian corridor” for civilians to flee south. At least 100,000 civilians remain trapped in Gaza City and its environs, according to Israeli military estimates Wednesday.

The Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City has suspended all surgeries due to a lack of fuel, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent. In its three buildings, some 14,000 people are sheltering. All roads leading to the hospital are closed due to the bombardment. “Most of the buildings around the hospital have been almost completely destroyed. The bombings are getting closer and closer to the hospital, and we fear a direct hit to the hospital,” the Palestinian Red Crescent said in a statement.

The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians continued Wednesday unabated, with at least 19 people killed in the latest strike on the Jabaliya refugee camp and the updated figures indicating that more than half of the enclave’s housing units have either been damaged or destroyed. Further south, sustained air strikes were carried out in many areas where Israel is demanding civilians flee to. Khan Younis was hit repeatedly throughout the day.

The United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees reported Wednesday that 92 aid workers have died in air strikes since October 7. “This is the highest number of United Nations aid workers killed in a conflict in the history of the United Nations,” the agency noted.

Raids by Israeli soldiers and far-right settlers across the West Bank are also intensifying, prompting a senior UN official to declare conditions “increasingly dire.” Martin Griffiths, head of the UN Relief Agency, noted, “Since October 7: 158 Palestinians were killed, including 45 children. Over 2,400 were injured. At least 250 children and over 1,000 were displaced—including 424 children.”

The G7 statement made a show of criticising “extremist settler violence” in the West Bank. But much like the call for “humanitarian pauses,” such platitudes ring hollow given the unconditional support extended to Netanyahu, whose political career since the 1990s has been closely bound up with the rise of Israel’s far-right settler movement.

Illustrating the worthlessness of the G7’s condemnation, Netanyahu convened a meeting of settler leaders Wednesday to strengthen his support for their expansionist seizure of Palestinian land, which has essentially turned the West Bank into a series of isolated bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements and transportation routes. Netanyahu declared that there is “a small handful of extremists who do not represent the group sitting here.” He added, “I told President Biden that the accusations against the settlement movement are baseless. There is a small extreme minority that does not come from the settlement movement.”

In reality, settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has been pervasive since October 7, with 218 attacks, or seven per day, recorded. The UN’s Human Rights Office reported 28 attacks resulting in Palestinian casualties, 157 causing damage to property and 33 resulting in both. Even prior to the bombardment of Gaza, an average of three attacks by settlers on Palestinians occurred every day this year. “In nearly half of all incidents, Israeli forces were either accompanying or actively supporting the attackers,” the UN wrote.

Repression against Israel’s Arab population, which accounts for some 20 percent of the country’s inhabitants, is also being strengthened. Israel’s Supreme Court upheld a ban on protests calling for an end to the war in Gaza in the Palestinian towns of Shaknin and Umm al-Fahm. More than 2,200 Israeli Palestinians have been taken into administrative detention since 7 October, according to Amnesty International, which pointed to widespread torture and abuse in detention centres.

8 Nov 2023

Commonwealth Split-Site PhD Scholarship 2024

Application Deadline: 5th December 2023

Eligible Countries: Developing Commonwealth Countries

To be taken at (country): UK Universities

Eligible Field of Study: All subject areas are eligible, although the CSC’s selection criteria give priority to applications that demonstrate the strongest relevance to development.

About Scholarship: Commonwealth Split-site Scholarships support one year’s study at a UK university as part of a PhD being undertaken in a candidate’s home country, under the joint supervision of a home country and UK supervisor.

The 12-month period of study in the UK supported by the scholarship can be taken at any stage during your PhD study, providing this is justified in your study plan. It can be divided into two or more periods, with no more than 12 months elapsing between each award term. If you have not already started your PhD at the time of your application, you will be eligible to spend a maximum of six months in the UK in your first year of study.

These scholarships are for:

  • 12 months study at a UK university as part of an applicant’s doctoral studies in their home country, starting in Sep 2024
  • Applicants who are registered (or will be registered by September 2024) for a PhD at a university in an eligible Commonwealth country
  • Study at a UK university with which your home university has an established institutional or departmental link
  • Study at a UK university which has a part funding agreement with the CSC. View a full list of UK universities with part funding agreements

Offered Since: 1959

Type: PhD study

Selection Criteria: Applications for Commonwealth Split-site will be considered according to the following selection criteria:

  • Academic merit of the candidate
  • Quality of the research proposal
  • Potential impact on the development of the candidate’s home country

Eligibility:

  • Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
  • Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
  • Be registered for a PhD at a university in an eligible Commonwealth country by the time your Scholarship starts (September 2024)
  • Ensure that an institutional or departmental link exists between your home university and your proposed UK university. This link must be greater than simply a collaboration between individuals – see section on ‘Tenure and placement’ for further details. Both supervisors must provide a supporting statement which provides further details of the link to ensure your application is eligible.
  • Be available to start your academic studies in the UK in September 2024
  • By September 2024, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) honours standard, or a lower second class degree and a relevant postgraduate qualification (usually a Master’s degree)
  • Be unable to afford to study in the UK without this Scholarship

The CSC aims to identify talented individuals who have the potential to make change. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity and non-discrimination and encourage applications from a diverse range of candidates. For further information on the support available to fellows with a disability, see the CSC disability support statement.

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Commonwealth Split-site Scholarship: Each fellowship provides:

  • Approved airfare from your home country to the UK and return at the end of your award (the CSC will not reimburse the cost of fares for dependants, nor the cost of journeys made before your award is confirmed)
  • Approved tuition fees
  • Stipend (living allowance) at the rate of £1,347 per month, or £1,652 per month for those at universities in the London metropolitan area (rates quoted at current levels).
  • Warm clothing allowance, where applicable
  • Study travel grant towards the cost of study-related travel within the UK or overseas
  • If a Scholar is widowed, divorced, or a single parent, child allowance of £576.61 per month for the first child, and £143 per month for the second and third child under the age of 16, if their children are living with them at the same address in the UK.

The CSC’s family allowances are intended to be only a contribution towards the cost of maintaining your family in the UK. The true costs are likely to be considerably higher, and you must be able to supplement these allowances to support any family members who come to the UK with you.

Duration of Scholarship: One year

How to Apply for Commonwealth Split-site Scholarship: Applications to the CSC must be made using the CSC’s online application system.

Candidates must apply to study at a UK university which has a part funding agreement with the CSC. Part funding agreements are at the discretion of individual universities. For a list of universities that have agreed to part fund Commonwealth Scholarships, visit the UK universities with part funding agreements page on the CSC website

Candidates are advised to complete and submit applications as early as possible, as the online application system will be very busy in the days leading up to the application deadline.

Applications must include supporting documentation to be eligible.

  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Programme Webpage for details