Indian Ocean: Modi on a Maritime Pilgrimage

Vijay Sakhuja

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit Maldives, Mauritius Seychelles and Sri Lanka during this month to reinforce India’s foreign policy objectives. A number of political, economic, social and security issues would constitute the agenda and several agreements and memorandums of understanding are expected to be signed with the Indian Ocean States. At least three maritime issues merit attention.

Capacity-Building for Maritime Security
First, capacity-building for maritime security is a recurring theme in bilateral discussions between India and the Indian Ocean island States. The 2014 trilateral meeting (India, Maldives and Sri Lanka) held in New Delhi supported the idea of expanding the trilateral engagements to include Seychelles and Mauritius as observers. It was decided to build the capacity of the partners to enhance Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), provide Search and Rescue (SAR) support, oil pollution response exercises, and cooperation in legal matters. The Indian Navy has supported hydrographic surveys in Seychelles, provided training to the Mauritius Coast Guard, undertaken surveillance for Maldives and worked closely with Sri Lanka in counter-terrorism against the LTTE. It has provided warships and aircraft to these countries to augment maritime security capabilities. These engagements have catapulted India to emerge as a ‘net security provider’ and be seen as a compassionate power in the Indian Ocean.

Before identifying what the Indian Prime Minister can offer during his visits to the four island States, it is useful to understand that these countries have similar security requirements which can be clubbed under MDA, a critical element of maritime security. For instance, Sri Lanka requires platforms, systems and technologies for fisheries patrol and to prevent transgressions that have been the bane of bilateral relations; Maldives requires surveillance assistance; Mauritius requires aircraft and ships for EEZ patrols; and Seychelles requires hydrographic support.

India can offer an institutionalised information and intelligence-sharing mechanism, and it will also be useful to explore if officials from these countries are co-located in the Indian Navy’s National Command Control Communication Intelligence (NC3I) network or the Information Management and Analysis Centre (IMAC). This is a practice in the Singapore-based Information Fusion Centre (IFC) established at Changi Command and Control Centre (CC2C), where an Indian Navy officer has been positioned. Significantly, the IFC has received much acclaim for its multilateral approach to maritime security.

‘India or China’ Dilemma
Second, China’s overt military support to Maldives, Sri Lanka, Seychelles and Mauritius is an issue, which has caused enormous anxiety in India. Notwithstanding that, it will be prudent for Modi to avoid raising the issue, which could result in an ‘India or China’ dilemma. These island countries are recipients of generous financial and material support (preferential loans for military/commercial infrastructure projects, sale of military hardware at friendly prices and military training and education) from China and may not be willing to address India’s concerns. The docking of the Chinese submarine in Colombo port invited sharp reactions in New Delhi and apparently, under pressure, Sri Lanka decided to review the project but quickly backtracked to state that any decision on the future of the project would be taken in consultation with the Chinese. Further, these countries are keen to participate and partake in China’s Maritime Silk Road (MSR) initiative, and build infrastructure to support economic growth. These drivers shape their India policy and these States would like to avoid any pressure from New Delhi. 

Blue Economy
Third, Blue Economy is the current ‘mantra’ of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the respective leaderships have championed it at national and international forums. In the Indian Ocean, Seychelles and Mauritius have been spearheading the discourse on Blue Economy and the concept has found favour across the globe including the United Nations. A number of countries and regional groupings have agreed to support the SIDS in their vision of sustainable development of oceanic resources for economic growth.

India’s ability to harness the seas is noteworthy and it has developed sophisticated mechanisms for the sustainable development of living and non-living oceanic resources. A number of scientific institutions for oceanic research, environment studies, offshore exploration and development of fisheries have been set up to harness the seas in a sustainable manner. India is working closely with its maritime neighbours and has endorsed Bangladesh’s call for the Bay of Bengal Partnership for Blue Economy. Maldives, Sri Lanka, Seychelles and Mauritius are natural partners for India towards developing the Blue Economy.

Saudi Arabia and Evolving Regional Strategic Dynamics

Ranjit Gupta

Saudi Arabia had, for the immediate short-term, seemingly successfully launched the process of transition to monarchs coming from the next generation; however, there has been dissent about the two younger generation appointments which has been kept secret from the public. Moreover, continuing widespread, but unreported, unhappiness within the royal family about Prince Muqrin’s elevation means that he may not necessarily become King; Prince Ahmed, the youngest of the seven Sudairi brothers, though presently sidelined, cannot be ruled out from becoming King and then equations change for the future. 

Thus, uncertainties on the domestic front remain. These add to Saudi Arabia facing the most challenging and daunting external security environment since the end of World War II. It is strongly besieged on all sides - the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria determined to recast the geopolitical map of West Asia while simultaneously posing an unprecedented ideological challenge to Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and to the very existence of its monarchical regime; Shiite Houthis taking control of the capital Sana’a and most of northern Yemen, with the country falling apart and staring at the South seceding and where the deeply anti-Saudi al Qaeda is likely to become even stronger than it is; the potential rapprochement between the US, Saudi Arabia’s preeminent ally for the past 70 years, and Iran, Saudi Arabia’s arch enemy since 1979; Obama’s West Asia policies being very different from that of previous Presidents even as US need for Saudi oil is diminishing very sharply. Saudi Arabia’s continuing troubled relations with two GCC partners - Oman since long and Qatar in recent times. 

Saudi Arabia has little or no control over how events in the region will evolve. It is not a significant military power. Even though it is the swing producer in global oil dynamics and can singlehandedly influence the price of oil this still does not give Saudi Arabia the clout to meaningfully influence regional strategic dynamics. To compound matters, it has a new King in fragile health and a relatively inexperienced new senior team. 

Iran is, has been and will remain the leading regional power in West Asia. Saudi Arabia is not and cannot be an equal power. Carried away by strong US animosity towards the new revolutionary Iran and its own ‘special relationship’ with the US, Saudi Arabia considered the new Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979 as a multi-pronged challenge and chose to respond by adopting a policy of unmitigated opposition to Iran. The US, shortsightedly, also adopted a similar approach which became progressively unsustainable in an increasingly inter-connected world in which Iran has become the preeminent strategic player in West Asia to the increasing disadvantage of the US and its regional allies. There is absolutely no possibility of any improvement in any of the conflict theatres in West Asia without Iran being an active participant in any such endeavours. The region is now caught in the vise of multiple crises forcing the US to finally recognise the reality of strong Iranian regional influence.

If Iran becomes a partner then there is every possibility that negotiated political solutions can be arrived at in Syria and Yemen and of the ground situation improving in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories, including in Gaza. 

Saudi Arabia has to realise that the challenge posed by the Islamic State is far more fundamental and lethal to the Saudi regime, State and system than Iran. Its first and overriding priority must be to ensure the defeat of the Islamic State, both militarily as well as ideologically, though the latter will take a long time. Given current political ground realities in Iraq and Syria and the enormous assistance that Iran has been giving to Iraq in fighting the Islamic State, Iran is the best placed regional country which can help ensure the defeat of the Islamic State. 

Therefore, in more ways than one, a US/Western-Iranian deal is the key to stopping the increasing brutality, death and destruction in West Asia. There has to be a fundamental change of mindset by Saudi Arabia in relation to Iran. This is unavoidably necessary to ensure that the potential beneficial spin-offs of a nuclear deal can be translated onto the ground. This is also the only way that Islam-related extremism and militancy can be curbed and ultimately eliminated. Finally, this is absolutely essential to initiate the processes of controlling and ultimately eliminating deepening sectarian divides which have become the major fuel propelling the entirely unnecessary and avoidable killing of innocent people in the thousands. The new Saudi dispensation must play a statesman-like role, completely abjuring past counter-productive policies in relation to Iran.

Furthermore, absent Saudi hostility, there is no rational reason why Iran would be interested in destabilising the regime of any GCC country, including Bahrain. Finally, Iran must be an integral part of any new regional security structures in West Asia. 

If the nuclear deal does not happen and Saudi Arabia does not change its attitudes then deepening cleavages in West Asia will become far worse; possibilities of Iraq, Syria and Yemen imploding will increase; moderate President Rouhani will be discredited and internal strife will in Iran will be aggravated; and, the prized calm in the GCC countries could give way to violence too.

Russia and North Korea: Replaying Old Games

Sandip Kumar Mishra

It has been announced that Kim Jong-un will be participating in the 70th anniversary celebrations of the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II, to be held in Russia in May 2015. Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un have been facing isolation of differing degrees and wish to assert their determination in the face of such sequestration. The visit was finalised in November 2014 during the visit of the Secretary of the North Korean Workers’ Party Choe Ryong-hae to Russia, who is considered to be the number two in the North Korean power hierarchy. In May 2014, Choe also made similar visit to Beijing to arrange a summit meet between the leaders of China and North Korea but did not succeed. If Kim Jong-un’s visit to Moscow happens, it will be the first foreign visit of the North Korean leader after assuming power in December 2011. 

It is still too early to say whether Jong-un’s visit will actually take place, as other regional countries such as South Korea would not be willing to participate in the celebrations alongside Kim Jong-un. However, if it happens, it would be indeed an important episode in East Asian affairs, presenting the leader of the reclusive State an opportunity or compulsion to meet or face the leaders of many countries. It would therefore be interesting to explore the intentions of both Russia and North Korea in making these overt gestures, which are also intrinsically linked with North Korea’s relations with China.

North Korea has sought to maintain equidistance from its two closest allies - the USSR and China - from the days of the Cold War. The North Korean leadership has successfully played China against the USSR and in the process, has been able to garner economic and military help from both. In the recent sequence of events, North Korea had its third nuclear test in February 2013 along with several other provocative steps and statements, which have deteriorated the security situation in the region. North Korean behaviour has given an excuse to the US and South Korea to strengthen their security posture and preparedness in the region, which is definitely not good for China. As a result, China has shown its open displeasure with North Korea and has minimised its exchanges and support for North Korea. China has gone along with the international community in imposing various sanctions on North Korea. The Chinese President Xi Jinping has had two summit meets with the South Korean President Park Guen-hye in the last two years, but has held no such meeting with Jong-un. China has also reportedly been suggesting Chinese-style reforms to North Korea but this has not moved the latter yet – in fact, North Korea, in response, sent a strong message to China by executing Jang Seoung-thaek, probably the closest North Korean leader to China.

In this growing environment of isolation, Kim Jong-un has been looking at other openings. In 2014, Jong-un sent Kim Yong-nam, Chairman of the Presidium of Supreme People’s Assembly to Mongolia in the garb of participating in the Winter Olympics. However, by accepting Russian offer to visit Moscow, Kim Jong-un has decided to reuse North Korea’s old tactics and which is that when China is unhappy, go to Russia and vice versa. 

From the Russian point of view, their presence and role in East Asian affairs would only be possible via North Korea. In the 1990s, when the Boris Yeltsin administration had very cold relations with North Korea, Russia had no opportunity to be part of the politics of the region. Russia had no role in the Nuclear Accord of 1994, the establishment of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) and the Four-Party Talks of 1995-96. Putin realised the mistake, and North Korea was his fourth foreign visit after coming to power in 2000. In the last few years again, it seems that Russia has become a non-player in East Asia and has been much busier in its western neighbourhood. Putin probably wants to rectify this imbalance and send a strong message to the West by demonstrating his connections with North Korea.

North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Su-yong visited a hydroelectric power plant in Russia in October 2014, and in January 2015, Russia has announced its assistance to North Korea in repairing and improving is power grid in exchange for rate earth metals from North Korea. Russia also announced in early February a joint military drill with North Korea.

The developments between Russia and North Korea are more significant for China as Beijing may have to rethink its policy vis-à-vis North Korea. The re-thinking has already begun with Xi Jinping sending a personal message through one of the top CCP leaders to the North Korean Embassy in Beijing on the occasion of the third death anniversary of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Many observers felt that China’s changing posture had to do with its disappointment with South Korea and the US but the change could also be attributed to Russia’s outreach programme, which must be dealt with.

In brief, it could be said that North Korea is well aware that its relationships with China and Russia are of mutual dependence. Moreover, they also compete with each other for closer proximity to North Korea, which gives North Korea some space for strategic manoeuvring. Thus, the recent episode of Russia’s invitation to Kim Jong-un and his acceptance could be a replay of the old game, which North Korea, China, and Russia have been playing with each other since the Cold War era.

Two cyclones devastate areas of northern and eastern Australia

Will Morrow

Hundreds of people have been left homeless and tens of thousands remain without power across both central Queensland and the Northern Territory in the wake of the impact of cyclones Marcia and Lam, which struck the two regions on February 22.

In the Northern Territory, the impact of the category four Cyclone Lam, which struck the northern area of Arnhem Land last Friday, has been disastrous. It has exacerbated the endemic poverty facing thousands of people, mainly Aboriginal, in the region.

Some of the worst-hit communities have been Ramingining, population 800, Milingimbi, just off the coast of Arnhem Land, population 1,500, and Galiwinku, the main town on Elcho Island, population 2,000. The total damage there has been estimated at $80 million.

The cyclone has highlighted the absence of basic infrastructure, including storm protection facilities, despite the region’s tropical climate. Milingimbi’s cyclone shelter has a 300-person capacity—one fifth of the town population. Julie Turner, a resident, told the SBS that people were turned away from the shelter during the storm and directed back to their homes, unaware of what other buildings were cyclone-proof. “For me that’s just not good enough,” she said.

In Galiwinku, 250 people remain homeless, with more than 100 homes declared uninhabitable. They will be forced to stay in tent camps being set up on a local football oval. At a community meeting yesterday, they were told it could be up to two months before they can return to their homes, many of which were constructed using asbestos, a known carcinogen.

Yvonne Gananbarr, a Galiwinku resident, has been sleeping on the floor of a school hall since the cyclone. She is unable to return to her house, which has been completely covered in asbestos. Even prior to the storm, Gananbarr had requested to the Northern Territory housing commission to address basic maintenance problems in the house, including broken taps and showers, and walls which leak during the rain, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

Grace Tongatua, another Galiwinku resident, complained about the delay in government financial support, compared to public relations announcements. “Most family and friends assume it’s been made from all the press releases that have been put out there,” she said, according to the ABC. “If we didn’t have family members that were able to provide us with extra money and things like that, it would be a fairly large stress on us to not have any money.”

In Queensland, more than 550 homes have been declared uninhabitable after the category five cyclone Marcia, the larger of the two storms, hit. As of Thursday, at least 33,000 people were reported to be without access to the power grids across the state, down from over 65,000 last week. The storm brought down over 1,800 power lines. Some of the worst-hit larger cities include Rockhampton, with a population of over 80,000 people, and Yeppoon, population 25,000.

Many smaller towns have been left devastated. One such town, Marmor, with a population of 200 people, is expected to be without power for another week, and running water, which relies on electricity to be pumped from bores, has been cut off.

Thousands of people have been left to fend for themselves, with little or no government support, and have instead been forced to turn to charities, or friends and family, just to survive. Colin Maxwell of the Salvation Army reported that the organisation has been feeding 900 people a day across the state since the cyclone. While the crisis continues, the major national media outlets have largely moved on to other issues.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott conducted a ritual, stage-managed tour to Yeppoon on Thursday, in a show of government support. In reality, the response by both the federal Liberal government and the state Labor government of Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has been contemptuous.

A paltry $1,000 sum, funded by the federal government, has been made available only to people whose home has either been destroyed or badly damaged, or who have suffered serious injury, with an additional $400 per child. The criteria have been substantially tightened since cyclone Oswald, which hit Queensland and New South Wales in 2013, when the fund was available to anyone adversely affected.

As of yesterday, only 1,433 claims had been accepted, totaling just $1,866,000, according to the Morning Bulletin. A second program run by the state government, called Immediate Hardship Assistance, has provided $360,000 in total to approximately 2,000 people, an average of just $180 per claimant. In addition, the state government has given $250,000 to each of four major charity organisations, essentially making clear that private charities, rather than government services, are responsible for providing assistance.

Many farmers and small rural businesses have suffered catastrophic damages. The total economic toll on the agricultural industry across the state has been estimated at $50 million. Rather than covering these costs, the federal government is providing low-interest loans, meaning the burden of the damages will ultimately be borne by the farmers and small businesses themselves.

The mass power outages have only highlighted the refusal of both government and private electricity providers to bury power lines underground, which is more costly than using above-ground poles. Queensland’s electricity distributor Ergon indicated last Monday that it may take out private insurance against storm damage to the power network, meaning the cost will be passed on to the population via higher electricity prices.

In the small towns of Biloela and Jambin, residents have blamed the private operators of the Callide Dam for the flooding of their towns. Rather than carrying out controlled releases of water in the days leading up to the cyclone, the dam operator SunWater allowed water to build up, until the flood gates automatically opened in the middle of the cyclone.

A number of commentators have pointed to the impact of global climate warming in contributing to the disaster. Last Friday was likely the first time that twin cyclones of category three or higher have struck Australia.

In particular, climatologists have predicted that global warming is expanding the earth’s tropical zone further from the equator, exposing new regions to powerful cyclones. A study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US claimed that the areas of the strongest cyclone intensity were now stretching from the equator at a rate of 56 kilometres per decade. Commentators have noted that the occurrence of a category five storm reaching as far south as Yeppoon, in central Queensland, is historically extremely rare, and potentially unprecedented.

Cairns climatologist professor Steve Turton, from James Cook University, said storms such as Marcia “are going to become more common in the future along the eastern seaboard of Australia,” according to a February 20 Sydney Morning Herald article. “The research is suggesting that, in a warmer world, we’ll get more intense cyclones because there’ll be more energy in the oceans and also the atmosphere.”

Sri Lankan opposition parties seek to bring back Rajapakse

W.A Sunil

A number of opposition parties and organisations—supporters and allies of former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse’s ruling coalition—have launched the “National Front to Defend the Motherland (NFDM),” a communalist movement with the aim of bringing Rajapakse back to office, as prime minister.

In the January 8 presidential election, Rajapakse was defeated by former Health Minister Maithripala Sirisena, who was supported by the pro-US United National Party (UNP) and other parties. The whole regime-change operation was sponsored by the US to shift Colombo’s foreign policy away from China, with whom Rajapakse had developed close ties.

Sirisena has formed a government with UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister and a UNP-dominated cabinet. Parliamentary elections are currently due to be held in June.

The NFDM started its pro-Rajapakse campaign with a rally in Nugegoda, a Colombo suburb, on February 18 under the banner, “The victory of freedom at risk, rally to take the challenges of the nation.” The reference to victory is to the military defeat of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009 under Rajapakse, in which tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were killed.

The rally was mainly organised by the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) led by Dinesh Gunawardena, the National Freedom Front (NFF) led by Wimal Weerawansa and the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU), a breakaway faction of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU). All are Sinhala chauvinist parties and partners in Rajapakse’s former ruling coalition, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) led by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).

Also participating in the rally were the Deshapremi Bikshu Peramuna (Patriotic Front of Buddhist Monks) and the Bodu Bala Sena (Buddhist Brigade)—Sinhala Buddhist extremist groups that carried out violent attacks on Muslims and Christians under the Rajapakse government’s patronage.

According to the police and media reports, around 20,000 people were transported from several parts of the country to attend the meeting. The organisers hope to hold further rallies around the country.

Hated for his police-state methods and relentless attacks on living conditions, Rajapakse was silent for a few weeks after his January 8 defeat. However, he has signaled his readiness to stage a comeback. He sent a message to the rally, read former petty bourgeois radical-turned communalist Dayan Jayatillake, saying he could not “ignore the hands of affection.”

In his greetings, Rajapakse alleged that his defeat was the “result of an enemy conspiracy against the country” and again boasted about the victory over the LTTE. As in the past, Rajapakse did not name the “conspirators” because he is still trying to balance between Beijing and Washington, as he sought to do when in power.

The speakers at the rally delivered similar communal diatribes. They concentrated on appealing to Rajapakse to become a prime ministerial candidate and urging Sirisena, to appoint him as the SLFP candidate for the June elections. Even though Sirisena defected from the Rajapakse government and stood against Rajapakse in the election, not only is he still a member of the SLFP but heads it in his capacity as president.

“Today our national security has been threatened,” Gunawardena claimed. Weerawansa accused Sirisena’s government of “betraying national security,” adding: “We will not stop our struggle to bring Mahinda [back] to politics.” PHU leader Udaya Gammanpila characterised Sirisena’s election win as a victory for the LTTE and declared: “We need Mahinda to save the motherland.”

The Democratic Left Front (DLF) of Vasudeva Nanayakkara, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and the Stalinist Communist Party are backing this reactionary patriotic movement, underscoring the fact that these ex-left parties are nothing but appendages of a wing of the bourgeoisie directed against the working class.

According to media reports, sections of big business that profited from Rajapakse’s rule helped finance the Nugegoda rally. Rajapakse and his brother and former defence secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapakse, have also cultivated close relations with the military hierarchy and senior state bureaucrats. Sirisena recently shuffled the top military posts, appointing new officers supposedly loyal to his government.

The NFDM coalition is trying to exploit the emerging disillusionment among working people, who, while hostile to the previous government, are distrustful of the new one.

Various middle class pseudo-left groups, such as the Nava Sama Samaja Party (NSSP), and the trade unions claimed that a Sirisena government would boost their living standards. In his election program, for example, Sirisena promised to increase public sector wages by 10,000 rupees ($US75) a month, but is already backtracking on the election pledge.

The moves to install Rajapakse as prime minister indicate growing political and social tensions and the instability of Sirisena’s government. The government only has minority support in parliament, even though Sirisena heads the SLFP-led UPFA, which still holds a parliamentary majority. A leading section of the SLFP wants to use Sirisena to reassert its authority, but he is hostile to bringing back Rajapakse.

The SLFP officially decided not to participate in the Nugegoda rally, but there is an incipient split in the party. Some parliamentarians and provincial council members joined it, defying the party decision. In a counter-move, Sirisena held a two-day workshop for party MPs and organisers last weekend, which proposed a “national unity government” with the UNP.

Sirisena and UNP leader Wickremesinghe have announced a rally against the forces “stoking communalism”—a reference to the NFDM campaign. In reality, neither Sirisena nor Wickremesinghe are anti-communalist. Wickremesinghe’s UNP started the civil war in 1983 and Sirisena, as a senior minister in Rajapakse’s government, directly participated in it. Sirisena, like Rajapakse, hails the 2009 military victory and declares that he should be credited for his role.

Compounding these political tensions, the country’s economic crisis is intensifying under the impact of the worsening international situation. Sirisena’s government has initiated negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a bailout loan of $US4 billion. Finance Minister Karunanayake has also asked the IMF to defer loan repayments in order to avoid a default.

For several weeks, the Central Bank has been spending dollars in the money markets to stave off a sharp devaluation of the Sri Lankan rupee. Foreign investors are selling government and treasury bonds, withdrawing funds to invest elsewhere. The IMF will intervene with a more brutal austerity program that will impose new attacks on the conditions of workers and the poor, paralleling those in Greece.

Sirisena’s call for a “national unity government” amounts to a sinister plan against the working class and poor to impose such an assault. Similarly, the real target of those sections of the ruling class rallying behind Rajapakse is the working class.

At the same time, the sharp shift in foreign policy in favour of the US highlights the mounting frictions generated by Washington’s aggressive steps throughout the Indo-Pacific region to confront China, creating enormous dangers for the working people in Sri Lanka, across the region and globally.

Anti-Muslim actions rise sharply in France after Charlie Hebdo shooting

Anthony Torres

Since the January 7 Charlie Hebdo shootings, the number of acts against Muslims has risen sharply, spurred on by the hysteria of the media and politicians. The official response to the shootings is encouraging the most reactionary forces in society and the state to target and persecute France’s Muslim minority.

According to the National Observatory Against Islamophobia, 116 anti-Muslim actions have been reported in France since the beginning of 2015, more than in all of 2014. Muslim religious sites were targeted 28 times and received 88 threats. These statistics are likely underestimations, as many Muslims do not report intimidation or attacks for fear of reprisals.

Many attacks occurred in the days after the Kouachi brothers’ terrorist attack. Mosques or prayer rooms in Bayonne, Le Mans, and Port-la-Nouvelle were attacked or sprayed with graffiti. (See: French Muslims targeted by revenge attacks after Charlie Hebdo shootings)

The official stimulation of a climate of fear and suspicion towards Muslims has even led police to investigate schoolchildren denounced by school officials or third persons.

Nice-matin reported that a school in Nice called police after an eight-year-old schoolboy said, “I am not Charlie. I am on the side of the terrorists.”

The boy was held for a two-hour interrogation by police on suspicion of the crime of “apologetics for terrorist actions,” even though the regional head of public security declared: “The child manifestly did not know what he was saying. We do not know where he got this idea.”

According to the lawyer for the boy’s family, “The child is under investigation for apologetics for terrorist actions. It is written in black and white on the police documents I had to sign. The police are lying.” He added that the boy’s father, who went to the school to try to calm his son, faces charges of “breaking into a public establishment.”

He added that the parents had explained to their son that “terrorism is bad,” and condemned his remarks.

According to the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), the child has diabetes and complained of “being deprived of his insulin treatments by teaching staff.”

The CCIF and the lawyer both state that while the boy was playing in a sandbox, the school’s headmaster shouted at him: “Quit digging in that sand, you won’t find a machine gun to kill us under there.”

A child aged 9 was investigated for shouting, “God is great, long live the Koran.”

Prosecutors explained, “Afterwards, another child told his mother, an employee at the cafeteria, about the event, and she told the person overseeing the cafeteria, a report was drawn up. ... Finally, the military police [ gendarmerie ] were notified.”

The child facing charges “told investigators that he did not understand, there had been some misunderstanding between the two children.” Prosecutors added that “on the basis of the facts, accusations are entirely unfounded.”

Exploiting the rise of anti-Muslim prejudices to promote their reactionary agenda, leading politicians are embracing and stimulating anti-Muslim sentiment.

Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, the vice-president of the conservative Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), declared: “I’m going to give you a very concrete example. The mayor of Mulhouse, a friend, tells me that in his city there are dozens of children who arrive late every day because of prayers, their parents take them to prayers. And when their parents are summoned, because they are summoned, they explain that there are religious authorities which are superior to those of the Republic.”

She said that she supported taking away children and placing them in foster homes. “I want to be very precise,” Kosciusko-Morizet said. “Today, half of all reports to the judicial authorities protecting youth come from the schools. And very often they are on suspicion of violence, of incest or mistreatment.”

The role of the ruling Socialist Party (PS) and its pseudo-left satellites is not substantially different. They supported, under the false guise of defending “secularism,” bans on Islamic headscarves in the schools and on the burqa. The PS invited the neo-fascist National Front (FN), which is notoriously anti-Muslim, to the Elysée after the Charlie Hebdo shootings. They exploited anti-Muslim cartoons and sentiment to promote their military interventions in Africa and the Middle East. Such policies create the conditions for the persecution and stigmatizing of the Muslim population.

PS statements addressing the rise of anti-Muslim actions drip with cynicism. President François Hollande declared, “We must abstain from all amalgams and confusions. Frenchmen of the Muslim faith have the same rights and responsibilities as all citizens. They must be protected. Secularism is a part of this, it respects all religions.”

The same day, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said: “In these moments, everyone has his importance, and I want to assure all of my fellow citizens, and especially those of the Muslim faith, that they have the right to the same protection, including of their places of worship.”

In fact, the PS is exploiting both the Charlie Hebdo shootings and the anti-Muslim hysteria to bolster the security forces, accelerate the building of a police-state infrastructure, and promote a climate of fear and intimidation against all those who oppose its policies of austerity and war.

Canada invokes “jihadi threat” to pursue agenda of war and reaction

Keith Jones

Canada’s Conservative government is steamrolling its new “anti-terrorism” bill through parliament—legislation that tramples on core democratic rights and dramatically augments the power of the state and its national-security apparatus.

The Conservatives, who last fall sent Canada to war yet again, this time in Iraq, are also plotting to involve Canada still more deeply in US imperialism’s global offensive.

In both instances, the government is justifying its actions with the claim that Canada is under attack from Islamist terrorism.

This has been a constant refrain of Prime Minster Stephen Harper and his minsters since the killing of two members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) last October in separate incidents in St.-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec and Ottawa.

Harper and his Conservatives seized on these killings—the work of deeply troubled individuals who had no connection with each other, let alone any terrorist group in Canada or the Middle East—to advance a pre-planned right-wing agenda.

The claim that Bill C-51 is an anti-terrorist measure is a brazen lie. Running to well over 600 pages, it amends numerous laws to give vast new powers to Canada’s spy agencies and the police.

Canada’s premier spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, is to be empowered to break virtually any law when disrupting what it deems threats to Canada’s national security, including ostensible threats to Canada’s economic stability and infrastructure, territorial integrity, and diplomatic relations.

The only provisos are that when employing illegal measures against opponents of the government, CSIS must not kill people, cause bodily harm, or impugn their “sexual integrity.” They also will require a judge acting in secret and on the basis of secret jurisprudence to grant them a “disruption warrant.”

No one should be taken in by the government’s pretense that “lawful dissent” will be protected from CSIS dirty tricks and provocations. Canada’s national security apparatus is notorious for spying on socialist, labor, anti-war, environmental, and aboriginal groups and justifying it on the grounds that one of their members “may” engage in unlawful activity sometime in the future.

Moreover, governments across Canada have increasingly criminalized the struggles of the working class and political dissent, passing one anti-strike law after another and employing police violence against the anti-G20 protesters and striking Quebec students.

Those who organize or participate in worker job actions in defiance of strikebreaking laws, student sit-ins, or other acts of civil disobedience, or whom CSIS claims “may” do so in the future, would all be potential CSIS “disruption” targets

Bill C-51 builds upon the Chretien Liberal government’s 2001 “Anti-Terrorism Act.” It created a new category of “terrorist” crimes subject to “exceptional” rules and penalties and based on a catch-all definition of terrorism in which any “unlawful” action aimed at compelling a government to do something—such as for example a political general strike or even a blockade of a highway–could be designated a terrorist act.

Bill C-51 expands the power of preventive arrest introduced under the 2001 law and reduces the evidentiary threshold at which it can be employed. Police will now be able to detain a person whom they suspect “may” commit a terrorist act for up to a week without charge. In the name of protecting Canadians, the state will also be able to much more readily place restrictions on the movements and actions of people who have never been charged let alone convicted of any crime.

Under Bill C-51 the government is also creating a new crime of advocating or promoting terrorism “in general” for which the punishment will be up to five years in prison. Even the big-business mouthpiece the Globe and Mail noted that this measure could potentially result in the prosecution of someone who expressed sympathy with the Palestinian group Hamas (which the government has designated as “terrorist); and, precisely because it is so sweeping and deliberately vague, will, by way of intimidation, greatly restrict free speech and public debate even in the absence of widespread prosecutions.

Bill C-51’s undemocratic character is underscored by the methods the government is using to speed it into law. The Conservatives have responded to opposition queries and criticism with half-truths, lies and smears. Harper has himself led the charge, calling the NDP’s concerns over the bill “ridiculous,” “extremist” and grounded in “conspiracy theories.”

Although the House of Commons only began its deliberations on Bill C-51 on February 19, the Conservatives—joined by the Liberals, who have pledged to support its passage—effectively adopted it in principle this past Monday when they voted to send it to the Public Security committee for review.

Initially the government proposed this committee hear just four days of “expert” testimony on the bill, the first of which would be given over to presentations by Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney and Justice Minister Peter MacKay. In the face of an NDP filibuster, the Conservatives later conceded that nine sessions can be devoted to hearing “expert” reaction to Bill C-51. But the government is insistent that the entire committee process be terminated by the end of March so that Bill C-51 can be passed into law in early April. The NDP has bowed to this demand, saying it shares the government’s view that adoption of the bill is a matter of urgency.

The government is also preparing to extend and expand Canada’s combat mission in the Middle East, which is currently slated to come to an end at the end of March. In his first public address since becoming defence minister, Jason Kenney declared the government “committed to playing a meaningful role in the fight against ISIS” because “it’s a matter of national interest” and “Canadian security.” A few days later Kenney told CBC the Canadian military mission could be expanded to Syria and Libya, adding that nothing has been ruled out.

As with the government’s claims that Bill C-51 is directed against jihadi terrorism, its attempts to present Canada’s growing involvement in war in the Middle East as a response to the threat of jihadi terrorism is completely disingenuous. The latest US-led war in the Middle East, like those that have preceded it, is aimed at strengthening US imperialism’s strategic dominance of the world’s most important oil exporting region. The Canadian elite, for its part, has responded to the deepening crisis of world capitalism and the emergence of new rivals to US global dominance by strengthening its decades-long military-strategic partnership with Washington and signing up for one US-led war after another.

While Harper rails against the “international jihadist movement,” the reality is that until recently the US and its allies were using Islamist forces, including those comprising ISIS, as their proxies in “regime change” wars in the Middle East, first in Libya, then Syria. Last fall, when the Harper government announced that CAF aircraft would be bombing ISIS in Iraq, even sections of Canada’s corporate media noted that they might well end up bombing Islamist fighters with whom the CAF coordinated bombing raids in Libya in 2011 during NATO’s campaign to oust Muammar Gaddafi.

With the government set to present its budget and steamroller Bill C-51 through parliament in April and announce an expansion of Canada’s role in the Mideast war sometime in March, the Conservatives are putting everything in place for a possible spring “jihadi” election. The Conservatives would seek to frame such an election around their false narrative of a Canada under attack, presenting themselves as the only ones prepared to confront jihadi terrorism at home and abroad and to resolutely defend “Canadian values.”

Through this bellicose, nationalist appeal, laced with anti-Muslim chauvinism, the Harper government hopes to divert attention from the deepening economic crisis—the collapse in oil and other commodity prices, a plunging dollar, and growing unemployment and underemployment—and divert the social frustration produced by mounting economic insecurity and social inequality behind war and reaction.

They also hope to rally the support of the ruling class by demonstrating their ruthless determination to implement big business’ agenda at home and abroad and their readiness to run roughshod over democratic norms and rights to suppress opposition, especially from the working class.

This is a high-risk gamble. There is mass disaffection from the entire political establishment, broad hostility to war and bigotry, and mounting working class resistance to years of concession contracts and the systematic dismantling of public services.

In mounting their right-wing campaign of lies and reaction, the Conservatives are dependent on the spinelessness and complicity of the opposition parties and the trade unions. Their differences with the government over its program of war, austerity and attacks on democratic rights are entirely tactical: over how best to ensure the competitiveness of Canadian capitalism and its global strategic interests.

The Liberals, the Canadian elite’s traditional alternate party of government, blazed the trail for the Harper government. The 12-year Chretien-Martin Liberal government (1993-2006) implemented a fiscal counterrevolution that included the greatest social spending cuts in Canadian history and massive tax cuts for big business and the rich. They led Canada to war against Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, launched the rearmament of the Canadian Armed Forces, and presided over a massive expansion of the national-security apparatus, including authorizing the Communications Security Establishment to systematically spy on Canadians’ electronic communications.

Although it withheld approval for the CAF combat mission in Iraq, the NDP has otherwise repeatedly supported Canada’s participation in US-led wars and Harper’s aggressive foreign policy. Just this week, the social democrats signaled they would be ready to support the CAF training troops of Ukraine’s right-wing government, which came to power through a fascist spearheaded, US-German fomented coup, if NATO approves such a step.

Similarly, while it claims to oppose Bill C-51, the NDP has agreed to help secure its speedy passage. Moreover, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has said that in the event the NDP forms the government it will amend, not repeal, this omnibus assault on democratic rights. (See: Canada’s NDP belatedly opposes Conservatives’ draconian “anti-terror” bill)

As for the NDP’s union allies, they have systematically suppressed working class resistance to the austerity agenda of big business and ordered compliance with the anti-union laws. While they claim to oppose austerity, they encouraged the NDP to prop up an Ontario Liberal government as it imposed massive social spending cuts and illegalized teacher strikes.

Now, in the name of defeating Harper, the unions are seeking to channel the opposition to the Conservatives behind a campaign to elect a Liberal or Liberal-NDP government. Were such a government to come to power it would simply give a new, “progressive” face to the Canadian elite’s program of aggression abroad and sweeping attacks on workers’ democratic and social rights.

Workers and youth can only assert their interests through the building of new organizations of struggle, independent of the pro-capitalist unions and NDP—above all a workers’ party, animated by a socialist-internationalist program to put an end to capitalism.

Missouri Republican candidate, apparent target of anti-Semitic comments, commits suicide

Nick Barrickman

Missouri’s state auditor Tom Schweich died Thursday from a single gunshot to the head in what police are ruling an “apparent suicide.” According to a spokesperson for Schweich, he had been preparing to go public with allegations of anti-Semitism against state Republican Party Chairman, John Hancock.

Schweich, a practicing Episcopalian with a Jewish grandfather, had announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for governor of Missouri in the 2016 elections. Hancock, who is alleged to have made disparaging remarks about Schweich’s faith and ethnicity in private discussions, had worked as a consultant for rival Republican gubernatorial candidate, Missouri House Speaker Catherine Hanaway.

“The campaign had been difficult, as all campaigns are,” said Schweich’s spokesman Spence Jackson. “There were a lot of things that were on his mind.” Attempts to identify Schweich as Jewish were seen as potentially damaging to his chances of appealing to the Christian fundamentalists who play an enormous role in Republican primary elections.

Hancock denied the claims, stating that, “I don’t have a specific recollection of having said that,” while adding that it was “plausible that I would have told somebody that Tom was Jewish, because I thought he was, but I wouldn’t have said it in a derogatory or demeaning fashion.”

According to Tony Messenger, the editorial page editor for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Schweich had contacted him personally the morning of his death, requesting reporters be sent to his residence for a videotaped interview on the matter. Messenger said in a public letter that Schweich had been experiencing “significant angst” in the days prior to the suicide, and that “he had heard from campaign donors that while political consultant John Hancock was doing work for gubernatorial candidate Catherine Hanaway, he would mention in passing that Mr. Schweich was Jewish.” Messenger stated that Schweich had said he had a number of donors who would go on record to support the allegations.

A series of phone calls on the day of his death suggest that Schweich was undergoing some sort of crisis or breakdown. He called first the AP, then thePost-Dispatch, setting up appointments for interviews on the charge of anti-Semitism, but shot himself a few minutes later.

Whatever the circumstances that precipitated the fatal events, Schweich had held a series of responsible, high-stress positions in the federal government, beginning with a 1999 appointment as chief of staff for former US Senator John Danforth, who headed the federal probe into the FBI’s actions at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.

He worked as chief of staff to the US ambassador to the United Nations for three years, serving three successive ambassadors—Danforth, then Anne Patteron, then John Bolton. He was also principal deputy secretary of state in the administration of President George W. Bush, responsible for international law enforcement, with a particular focus on illegal drug trafficking in Afghanistan under the US occupation.

That such an individual could be driven to suicide—if indeed that is what happened—speaks volumes about the toxic political environment in the American political establishment, and particularly in the fever swamps of the Republican Party’s right-wing.

Clinton Foundation raked in cash from right-wing regimes, corporations

Tom Hall

Several press reports last week highlight details of the major donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, including right-wing Persian Gulf monarchies, big defense contractors, and an array of corporations and governments seeking influence with the US political establishment—and potentially in the next White House.

Founded in 2001 after the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president, the Foundation has raised and distributed huge amounts of money, reaching nearly $2 billion. After a brief drop in fundraising coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, when most foreign donations were discouraged because of conflict-of-interest concerns, donations jumped $100 million in 2013, reaching $262 million.

The list of the Foundation’s largest donors, available on the Foundation’swebsite, is a virtual who’s who of the super-rich and major corporations. The largest donors, having given over $25 million since 2001, include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, well known for its leading role in the dismantling of public education, Chicago multimillionaire and top Democratic Party donor Fred Eychaner, and, strangely, the Dutch national lottery.

Major corporations appear in spades in the list of 168 individuals and organizations that have given more than $1 million. Defense contractors such as Boeing and Booz Allen Hamilton, both gave between $1 and $5 million, joined by Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and the American Federation of Teachers.

The reactionary Persian Gulf monarchies have poured tens of millions into the Clinton Foundation, including Saudi Arabia ($10 to $25 million), Kuwait, ($5 to $10 million), Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates ($1 to $5 million). In addition, several groups and individuals close to the Saudi government have also made tens of millions in contributions.

The Clinton Foundation made an agreement with the Obama administration not to accept new donations from foreign sources during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, a policy which has now expired. However, tens of millions of overseas dollars continued to flow into the Foundation through an exemption which allowed existing donors to continue making contributions at a similar level.

Claims by Clinton Foundation donors that they were genuinely interested in charity are belied by the circumstances of many of the donations. For example, the Wall Street Journal cited an incident in 2009 in which Hillary Clinton convinced Russia to purchase 50 Boeing 737s; seven months later, Boeing made its first-ever donation to the Clinton Foundation, $900,000 to help “rebuild” Haiti’s school system. Perhaps admitting more than she intended, a Boeing spokeswoman said in a written statement, “Secretary Clinton did nothing for Boeing that former US presidents and cabinet secretaries haven’t done for decades.”

In another case, the Foundation received a $500,000 donation from the government of Algeria for its pro-market “relief” effort in Haiti. TheWashington Post notes that the donation, which violated the Foundation’s earlier agreement with the Obama administration, came in the midst of a particularly heavy lobbying push from Algeria in Washington in the aftermath of a report by Clinton’s State Department condemning Algeria’s human rights record. The donation was more than the Algerian government spent on lobbying for the entire year.

Two years later, Secretary of State Clinton lobbied successfully on behalf of GE in its bids to construct power plants in Algeria, described by the company as “some of its largest power agreements in company history.” A month later, GE donated from $500,000 to $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The focus in the media, especially from Journal and other ultra-right outlets, has been on the fact that foreign countries, companies and individuals comprise a third of the foundation’s major donors, implying that they are purchasing political influence through the Clintons. While there is a degree of truth to this, this is also a two-way street, as the Clinton Foundation is fully integrated into the political apparatus as an instrument of American imperialist foreign policy.

Instructive in this regard is their role in the “rebuilding” of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, in which some 300,000 died. The Clinton Foundation played a major role, with Bill Clinton himself co-chairing the panel that distributed all international aid to Haiti. The entire aid effort was used to ram through pro-market restructuring, while American and then UN “peacekeepers” patrolled the country to prevent any opposition from the population. The Obama administration made no objection to the Algerian donation to the Clinton Foundation for the simple reason that it was entirely in line with American foreign policy in Haiti.

The Clinton Foundation’s version of “charity” also involves imperialist intrigue. This included secret maneuvers last year against Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakse, which ultimately led to his electoral defeat last month. The country’s former president Chandrika Kumaratunga, who joined the Clinton Foundation in 2005, played the major role in backroom deals that led to Maithripala Sirisena’s sudden departure from the government and announcement that he would be the “common opposition candidate.” Earlier this month Kumaratunga admitted that unnamed “foreign governments” had urged her to maneuver against Rajapakse.

During her time as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton took the lead in denouncing the Sri Lankan government’s “human rights record” in order to pressure it to move away from its ties with China as part of the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia.” She presented resolutions in 2011 and 2012 in her capacity as secretary of state demanding that the UN take action against Sri Lanka for human rights violations during the civil war against Tamil separatist guerrillas.

Workers Struggles: Asia, Australia and the Pacific

Asia

India: West Bengal tea plantation unions betray workers’ demands

Twenty-four unions representing 350,000 tea plantation workers in India’s northern state of West Bengal signed a sell-out wage deal on February 20 with plantation owners and the state government. Workers at 300 tea estates at Darjeeling and Dooars Hills have been holding limited strikes and demonstrations since last August for a minimum daily wage of 322 rupees ($US5.20). The strikes have been organised by the United Tea Workers Forum and the United Trade Union Congress.

While the state minimum daily wage for unskilled agricultural workers is 206 rupees, tea estate workers are only paid 95 rupees. Under last week’s the tri-partite agreement, tea garden workers’ daily wage will be increased to 132.5 rupees by April 2016, back-dated from April last year. Other entitlements have been increased by minimal amounts.

While it falls far short of workers’ demands and the official unskilled agricultural minimum wage, the tea plantation unions claim the minimal increase is a victory. The 132.5 rupees will now become the official minimum wage for all tea plantation workers in West Bengal.

Public sector bank unions impose inferior pay rise

The United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU), representing nearly one million public sector bank employees at 50,000 branches nationally, has called off a four-day strike scheduled for February 25 following a five-year wage deal with the Indian Bankers Association. Workers will receive a 15 percent pay increase, back-dated to November 2012, and Saturday work is restricted to two days per month. This is far short of workers’ original demand for a 40 percent pay rise and a five-day week. The bank workers were also demanding improved pensions, better healthcare benefits and oppose government plans to merge several nationalised banks and allow foreign institutions to compete with the State Bank of India.

While bank employees have not received an increase for almost six years, the UFBU has progressively reduced its wage claim during 18 rounds of negotiations.

Pakistan: Utility workers protest privatisation in Islamabad

Thousands of workers from the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and its distribution companies protested outside the Press Club in Islamabad on February 18 against the privatisation of the state-run utility and its associated companies.

WAPDA workers were mobilised nationally to join the protest and were joined by workers from the railways, banks and other state-run enterprises threatened by the government’s privatisation plans.

While the All Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Workers Union and the WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Union have conducted a three-year campaign against privatisation of the sector, the unions have restricted this to demonstrations and harmless protest strikes.

In line with International Monetary Fund demands, the government insists that it will continue privatising state-run utilities. IMF loan payments are determined according to regular reviews of Pakistan’s restructuring and sale of state assets.

Punjab government doctors demonstrate

Services Hospital and Punjab Institute of Cardiology doctors in Lahore held a sit-down demonstration in the city on Monday to condemn recent targeted killings of doctors and the non-payment of salaries to postgraduate trainee doctors in public sector hospitals in Punjab province. The protest was organised by the Young Doctors Association (YDA)-Punjab chapter.

The doctors’ action followed a demonstration in the city on February 10 by YDA members from several teaching hospitals over delays in the implementation of a long-promised service structure. The doctors also demanded pay rises for medical officers, postgraduate doctors and house officers.

On Wednesday, doctors, nurses and paramedical staff of the Shaikh Zayed Hospital in Lahore protested on the hospital premises calling for the service structure, risk allowance for paramedics of grade 1 to 4 and other demands. The Allied Health Organisation at the hospital also wants restoration of salary increments and establishment of a Board of Governors as per government regulations.

Philippines public school teachers hold national strike

Public school teachers across the Philippines held a sit-in strike on Wednesday in a long-running dispute for a pay rise. Teachers attended their schools but did not teach and only assigned activities for pupils. Their action followed a one-day strike in November over the issue.

The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) wants teachers paid 25,000 pesos ($US557) per month, up from the current 18,549 pesos, and 15,000 pesos per month for non-teaching personnel, up from the 9,000 pesos. Philippines President Benigno S. Aquino is delaying signing House Bill 245, which provides for salary increases for teaching and not-teaching personnel, falsely claiming that the government does not have enough funds.

The ACT has also called for the immediate implementation of Republic Act 4670, or the Magna Carta of Public School Teachers, which mandates that public school teachers’ salaries “shall compare favourably with those paid in other occupations requiring equivalent or similar qualifications, trainings and abilities.”

Australia and the Pacific

New South Wales power workers to strike

The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) members at the state-owned electricity network company Ausgrid will strike for four hours in Newcastle, the wider Hunter area, the Central Coast and Sydney on March 3 in a dispute for a new work agreement. The union, however, has limited the strike action, directing members to respond to all blackouts and supply interruptions during the walkout.

While workers overwhelmingly voted for strike action, the ETU last week offered to reduce the pay demand from an 8 percent increase over two years to annual 2.5 percent increases over two years in line with the New South Wales Liberal government’s wages policy. In return, the union called on the company to retain all existing conditions are retained, including a guarantee of no forced redundancies. Ausgrid rejected the offer.

Papua New Guinea teachers on strike

Teachers at six primary schools in Papua New Guinea’s Northern province have been on strike since the start of the school year in January to demand unpaid salaries and holiday-leave fares.

According to the PNG Teachers Association, at least 15 teachers have not received their 2014 holiday-leave fares and about 300 elementary teachers in rural areas of the province were teaching without salaries.

The provincial governor was handed a petition by teachers on Wednesday. He governor responded by claiming that the teachers’ protest was illegal and that the teachers were receiving adequate support.