8 Jul 2016

Financial markets intervene in Australia’s political turmoil

Mike head

With the final outcome of Australia’s July 2 double dissolution still unclear, one of the major global ratings agencies has warned it will strip the country of its AAA credit rating unless “more forceful” action is taken to slash the budget deficit.
Standard & Poor’s (S&P) decreed that the incoming government must impose severe cuts to social spending and other austerity measures, regardless of the widespread vote of discontent last Saturday, which has left neither the Liberal-National Coalition nor the Labor Party able to form a stable majority.
The agency, which represents the interests and concerns of the global financial markets, yesterday lowered Australia’s credit rating outlook from stable to negative, and put the next government on six months’ notice. S&P said it would “continue to monitor, over the next six to 12 months, the success or otherwise of the new government’s ability to pass revenue and expenditure measures through both Houses of Parliament.”
As S&P issued its dictates, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was still engaged in talks with other parties and “independents” to enable the Coalition to cling to office. While the counting of postal ballots has favoured the Coalition in numbers of close seats, the Australian Electoral Commission today only had the government leading in 74 seats, two short of the 76 needed for a majority in the 150-member lower house.
Yesterday, Turnbull secured an agreement from Bob Katter, a rural Queensland-based populist and protectionist, to support a Coalition government in the event of a hung parliament, but only on votes of confidence and financial supply. Katter, concerned for his electoral prospects, said he offered the deal “with no great enthusiasm” to avoid a “very bad situation” of another election having to be called.
In its statement, S&P made clear its disapproval of the election result. “Given the outcome of the July 2, 2016, double-dissolution election, in which neither of the traditional governing parties may command a majority in either house, we believe fiscal consolidation may be further postponed,” it said.
S&P did not stop there, however. It drew attention to the protracted political crisis in Australia and cast doubt on the capacity of the parliamentary system to deliver the budget cuts that the financial elite is insisting upon.
“Since the global financial recession of 2008–09 and more recently the end of the mining boom, Australia’s fiscal position has continued to weaken with successive governments delaying an eventual return to budget surpluses,” S&P said. It noted that the Turnbull government’s pledge to wipe out the deficit by 2021 had set a date eight years later than the previous Labor government’s 2009 vow to balance the budget by 2013.
S&P’s blunt intervention underscores the implications of the remarks earlier in the week by billionaire retailer Gerry Harvey that “democracy was not working” and a dictatorship was needed in order to resolve the political crisis and impose anti-working class economic “reform” measures.
Successive governments since 2007, both Liberal-National and Greens-backed Labor, have failed to sufficiently satisfy the incessant demands of the finance houses and corporate chiefs to drastically cut health and education spending, dismantle welfare entitlements and drive down workers’ wages and conditions.
Now Turnbull’s bid to break through the political impasse by holding an election for all members of both parliamentary houses has been shipwrecked by the deepening public hostility already produced by decades of economic restructuring which has benefited a tiny super-rich minority at the expense of the working class.
S&P also spelled out the deteriorating and fragile situation facing international and Australian capitalism, which will intensify both the widespread loss of jobs and the corporate insistence on severe austerity measures.
Firstly, S&P indicated a sharp divergence between its forecast for world iron ore prices and the Turnbull government’s 2016 budget prediction. The ratings agency expects the price for Australia’s biggest export earner to be as much as $US20 per metric ton lower than the government’s forecast of $55 a tonne. By the government’s own calculations, this alone could wipe another $A10.6 billion from federal revenue in the next two financial years.
Secondly, S&P drew attention to Australia’s debt-fuelled housing bubble, which has exposed the country’s big four banks to immense risks on global financial markets, where most of the funds are borrowed. It warned of “unproductive household borrowing for housing” and “the country’s high external and household indebtedness, as well as vulnerability to weak commodity export demand.”
Since Australia’s last recession in 1991, household debt has trebled from about 60 percent of household income to 180 percent—the highest level in the world—because of spiralling house prices. This has propelled a rise in foreign liabilities to 67 percent of gross domestic product, well above the 50 percent level that the International Monetary Fund regards as calling into question financial stability.
Both the government and Labor immediately made plain their commitment to deliver the measures required by the money markets, despite the election’s overwhelming vote of disaffection. Treasurer Scott Morrison said S&P’s move reinforced the need to “stick to the plan” of spending cuts the Coalition set out in its past three budgets, and its message that Australia must “live within its means.” Labor leader Bill Shorten blamed the government for the AAA rating threat, accusing it of “decisions of fiscal ineptitude and the tripling of the deficit.”
Today’s Australian editorial demanded a fully bipartisan front. “Given their commitment to serving Australia’s interests, Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten should put political point-scoring aside and work co-operatively to restore the health of the federal budget after ratings agency Standard & Poor’s placed our prized AAA sovereign debt rating on ‘negative’ watch yesterday,” it insisted.
Denouncing “a finely balanced parliament with a shambolic Senate,” Murdoch’s national flagship called for a return to the offensive conducted by the Hawke and Keating Labor governments in the 1980s and 1990s. With all their key measures backed by the Coalition, as well as the trade unions, these Labor governments inflicted severe cuts to wages and working conditions, while slashing corporate and high-income taxes, setting in motion a vast and ongoing redistribution of wealth to the rich.
The editorial noted that during the election campaign Labor had already displayed its readiness to junk its opposition to sweeping social spending cuts, including to family benefits, the “schoolkids bonus” and aged pension assets tests.
Despite their severe impact on families and pensioners, these cuts are only a small down-payment on the social counter-revolution being dictated by the finance and business chiefs. In its editorial today, the Australian Financial Review declared that Australia’s foreign creditors were nervous about the Australian government’s capacity to bail out a big bank in the event of another financial crisis because of the “size and spread of Australia’s welfare state.”
These statements underline the warning made by the Socialist Equality Party that the ruling capitalist class can only impose its brutal agenda via authoritarian forms of rule and the ruthless suppression of opposition, making it essential to build a new revolutionary socialist leadership in the working class.

Protests erupt throughout the US against string of police killings

Tom Hall

Protests against police violence have been held throughout the country in the aftermath of the killings of Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota and Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana this week. Demonstrations began soon after the most recent shootings and are ongoing, with more demonstrations planned over the coming days.
In late-breaking developments Thursday night, reports emerged of a shooting at the end of a demonstation in Dallas, Texas. Four police officers were killed and seven other wounded. Very little is yet known about the incident and the motives of the shooters, though at least two people are in custody. The focus of news coverage was immediately switched from police violence to the attack on police officers, while downtown Dallas was shut down and residents ordered to shelter in place.
On Wednesday, 32 year-old Castile was shot and killed during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights, a suburb of St. Paul, Minnesota, in front of his fiancée and her four-year-old daughter. Protests broke out in the area overnight and continued yesterday.
Castile's fiancée, Diamond Reynolds, who was sitting in the front passenger’s seat, broadcast the grisly aftermath live to the world over Facebook. Castile, a kitchen supervisor for a local school with no criminal record, can be seen in the video gasping for breath, blood pouring out of his arm and torso, before slumping over, apparently having succumbed to his injuries.
A section of the demonstration in Washington DC
The video stream begins shortly after the shooting. The officer, apparently in a state of panic, continued to train his gun on Castile as he was dying in his seat, while cursing and screaming orders at Reynolds to keep her hands up.
Remarkably, Reynolds retained her composure and explained the incident in detail. “We got pulled over for a busted tail light in the back [a detail which Reynolds now disputes], and the police just—he's, he's covered—he killed my boyfriend. He's licensed to carry, he was just trying to get out his ID and his wallet out his pocket and he let the officer know that he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him in his arm, and the officer just shot him in his arm… he just shot his arm off.”
Later in the video, Reynolds is pulled out of the car by backup officers, who handcuff and arrest her. In the commotion, her phone falls to the ground but continues recording. Reynolds and her child can be heard sobbing in the background. The video picks up again with Reynolds in the back seat of a police car, asking her friends and family to pick her up from the station.
In a press conference Thursday outside of the Minnesota governor's mansion, Reynolds complained that police separated her from her daughter at the jail, failed to confirm that Castile had died until 3 a.m. the next morning, and did not release her until 5 a.m., according to CNN.
Minnesota Democratic Governor Mark Dayton called for an “independent” investigation by the FBI. Given the role of similar federal investigations in exonerating cops in previous police brutality cases, no confidence can be placed in such an investigation. Rather, it is a clear indication that a cover-up of the shooting is being coordinated with the highest levels of the American state.
The shooting in Minnesota was the second horrifying police murder caught on cell phone video in little more than 24 hours. Early Tuesday morning, Alton Sterling was tackled to the ground and shot execution style by police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, an incident which was recorded by two separate eyewitness videos. Louisiana Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards likewise announced a federal investigation into the shooting.
Officials and the media are already moving to condition the public to accept the likely outcome that Sterling's killers will go free. Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore told CBS yesterday morning that the murder of Alton Sterling was “potentially a state-authorized killing,” explaining that the law “gives law enforcement officers the authority and mandates them to kill when in defense of themselves or others [emphasis added].”
Since Sterling's death scarcely 72 hours ago, at least seven other people including Castile have been killed by US police, bringing the total for 2016 up to 602. In the vast majority of these cases, no eyewitness video is available and the police accounts of the shootings are almost invariably accepted without question by the corporate-controlled media.
Among the most recent killings is 44-year-old Jasen Scott Ramirez, who was tased and then shot seven times on July 1 by US Marshals in a church parking lot in Wyoming as he was leaving his father's funeral. “They should have called for an ambulance sooner!” one of his cousins told the media through tears, noting that the nearest hospital was only just down the street. “They wanted him to die!”
On June 25, police in Fresno, California shot and killed unarmed teenager Dylan Noble in a gas station parking lot. Video surfaced Wednesday of Noble's final moments. Noble is shown lying on the ground, still alive after having been already shot twice, when police fire two more shots at point-blank range.
The execution-style killing caught on video explodes police claims that officers “feared for their lives” and that they believe Noble was reaching for a gun in his waistband. However, even police officials admit that all four shots were fired over the course of two minutes, an extraordinary length of time which suggests a methodical and deliberate murder, not an act of self-defense.
And in Fullerton, California, outside of Los Angeles, 19-year-old Pedro Villanueva was killed and an 18-year-old passenger injured when undercover highway patrolmen fired into his moving pickup truck. Police followed him in an unmarked vehicle for several miles before trapping him in a residential cul de sac, and claim the opened fire when he “made a U-turn and drove toward the officers,” the only possible direction he could drive on the road, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Protesters in New York City
Reporters from the World Socialist Web Site spoke to demonstrators at protests held yesterday in New York City and Washington, DC, each attended by thousands of people.
In Washington, DC, Lee expressed outrage over the killing of Castile, “This was an extrajudicial killing. It fits a pattern where the police operate with impunity.”
Antonio, a messenger who works in New York City, said, “It has been going on for a long time, but it is more controversial now. It is getting a lot more attention than before.” Rejecting the portrayal of police violence in purely racial terms, Antonio pointed out, “At this protest you can see everyone coming together. There are a lot of different races here.”
He continued: “Even if the police are allowed to get away with killing black people now, this is an issue that impacts everyone. If the police are allowed to get away with black people it will empower them. It empowers them to be able to kill anyone they want.”
John, a New York teacher, said, “I am out here to voice that I am opposed to violence and for equality of the people… In the last three years we have seen Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, and now Philando Castile. I don't even like protesting but this is the 10th time I have been out here in two years. After I heard that the police killed two people in the same 24 hours I had to come out.”
He added, “You see what is going on and you know it is just wrong. This is not about being white or black. It is simply knowing that police brutality is wrong.”

German arms exports almost doubled in 2015

Johannes Stern

Last year, German arms exports nearly doubled, and rose to their highest level so far in the 21st century, as was reviewed in the “Military Equipment Report 2015,” adopted by the federal cabinet last Wednesday.
The Welt am Sonntag quoted from the report at the weekend. According to the paper, in 2015 “individual licenses were granted for the export of arms totalling 7.86 billion euros.” By comparison, arms exports in 2014 totalled €3.97 billion, and in 2002 they were just €3.26 billion.
According to the report, in 2015 the German government approved a total of 12,687 applications—597 more than last year. Only 100 were rejected.
One of the largest items was the delivery of battle tanks and self-propelling howitzers worth €1.6 billion to the emirate of Qatar. The deal was so controversial that the Die Welt felt obliged to note: “Qatar is considered the financier of IS.”
In May, the human rights organisation Amnesty International condemned the decision by Germany to supply weapons to the counterrevolutionary military dictatorship of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Egypt.
In 2014 and 2015 the German government approved arms exports worth €22.7 million and €19 million to Cairo—including submarine technology—but also supplies for armoured vehicles used against demonstrators. The arms deal went ahead although the EU had officially imposed a stop on weapons and ammunition supplies to the country after Egyptian security forces killed more than 1,000 opponents of the regime during the forcible dissolution of protest camps in August, 2013.
In all probability, German arms exports will increase again this year. According to government sources, the government has already approved arms exports worth over €4 billion in 2016. In the first half of the record year 2015, they had amounted to nearly €3.5 billion.
As was the case last year, a majority of the arms will go to authoritarian “third countries,” which are neither members of NATO nor the EU. So far 1,732 orders are going to the countries of the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa). The largest single supply is a frigate, worth over €1 billion, to Algeria. In addition, licenses have been issued for military exports amounting to €37 million and €15 million to Israel and Kuwait respectively.
According to Spiegel Online the Economics Ministry informed the Bundestag on Tuesday evening that the federal security council (BSR) approved more weapons deals with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Brunei and Mexico just 10 days ago.
The list is long. Saudi Arabia received “final approval for the export of the first of 48 military patrol boats ordered” and Egypt “for the supply of a German submarine plus torpedoes.” Brunei is to receive “900,000 bullets for imported machine guns,” Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates will get “armoured tanks as test models,” and Mexico can import “five German anti-tank weapons.”
In 2014, the German Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), whose department is responsible for arms exports, explained in an interview withStern magazine: “It is shameful that Germany is one of the biggest arms exporters.” He went on to demand: “No arms to countries where civil war rages. And weapons should not be sold to regimes using illegal measures.”
Now the SPD chairman is seeking to deny any responsibility for soaring arms sales. On Monday he admitted to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, that arms sales had “significantly increased,” but then claimed the fault lay with the promises made by the previous conservative-liberal government, which “unfortunately could not be reversed.”
This is a brazen lie. In fact, all arms exports must be approved by the federal security council, to which Gabriel belongs.
In addition to the Economics Minister, the council, which meets in private and is not subject to parliamentary control, includes the Chancellor (Angela Merkel), the head of the Chancellery (Peter Altmeier), the Foreign Minister (Frank-Walter Steinmeier), defence (Angela von der Leyen), finance ( Wolfgang Schäuble), the justice minister, and the minister for economic cooperation and development. The Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, Volker Wieker, also usually participates in the meetings of the BSR.
In reality, the massive increase in German arms exports is directly linked to the revival of German militarism and Germany’s claim to “lead more often and more decisively in the future” (Steinmeier at the Munich Security Conference 2014). This not only requires more Bundeswehr missions abroad, but also the direct arming of warring parties. Significantly, a large proportion of the small arms trade in 2015 went to the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq—and the development of a German-European defence industry.
The arms export report declares that the strategic importance of the arms exports serves to “strengthen” a European defence strategy and “protect legitimate security interests.”
The current military government report, which was published in April and lists about 20 defence projects with a total budget of over €60 billion—including the “Tiger” combat helicopter, the A400M transport aircraft, “Euro Fighter” combat aircraft, as well as various tanks and warships—defines the German armaments strategy as follows: “The aim and aspiration of the armaments is to provide the Bundeswehr with the necessary armoury to fulfil its constitutional mission in good time, and be ready for mobilisation within the predetermined financial framework, and thereby make an important contribution to the operational readiness of the Bundeswehr.”
In other words, the prerequisite for a well-armed, “ready for mobilisation” and internationally competitive army is an export-oriented defence industry. In a note on the support helicopter “Tiger,” the arms report states: “[The] Tiger is a joint European product of political importance for rearmament. Whether the European military helicopter industry can overcome US hegemony in the sphere of gunships will be demonstrated by the Tiger in terms of its further development potential and export success.”

NATO convenes summit in Warsaw to make war preparations against Russia

Johannes Stern

Today, a two-day NATO summit begins in Warsaw. The measures to be decided upon by the Western military alliance during its meeting in the Polish capital will further escalate the threat of war in Europe and serve ever more openly as preparations for a war against Russia, a nuclear power.
Below are just some of the plans soon to be implemented:
  • Beginning in 2017, NATO will deploy four additional battalions of at least 1,000 soldiers each in the Baltic States and Poland. Germany is expected to lead the battalion in Lithuania, the US in Poland, Canada in Latvia and Britain in Estonia. The troops sent on these deployments are to be continuously replaced every six to nine months. In this way, the alliance will sidestep the provision in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act barring the “permanent stationing of substantial combat troops” in former member states of the Warsaw pact.
  •  The new 5,000-strong Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) launched at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales will be fully operational by the weekend and can be sent with arms and munitions into crisis areas within 48 hours. This so-called “spearhead” is part of the NATO Response Force (NRF), whose troop strength was tripled from 13,000 to 40,000 soldiers in the last year.
  •  In Eastern Europe, NATO will create the necessary infrastructure to ensure the operational capability of the VTJF. Six bases, so-called NATO Force Integration Units (NFIUs) to serve as “bridgeheads” for the “spearhead,” have already been built in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the three Baltic States. Each is staffed with 40 logistics and leadership experts and is stocked with food and medical supplies. Additional NFIUs are currently being built in Slovakia and Hungary.
  •  In Warsaw, the preliminary operational readiness of the missile defence system that NATO is currently building in Poland and Romania will also be announced. While NATO is officially standing by the claim that the shield will serve first and foremost as a defence against medium-range missiles from Iran, it is justifiably considered by Russia as part of the NATO war preparations against Moscow, designed to make a nuclear first strike more feasible.
  •  NATO, which has systematically advanced toward Russia’s borders since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, plans to further isolate Moscow militarily. In May, General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg announced that in Warsaw “a new comprehensive NATO support package for Ukraine” would be decided.
Thursday, on the eve of the summit, US Secretary of State John Kerry staged a provocative visit to Kiev, announcing $23 million in aid. It is supposedly to go to Ukrainians displaced by the military offensive launched by the government against populations in the east that refused to accept its legitimacy following the 2014 Western-backed coup that brought it to power. Speaking alongside Kerry, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said that the upcoming summit would further “the consolidation of our special partnership” with the Western military alliance.
Additionally, Montenegro will be present at the summit as the future 29th member state in the military alliance. Close collaboration with the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Moldovia is likewise to be intensified.
NATO has also invited Finnish President Sauli Niinistö and Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven to Warsaw. Neither country is a member of NATO. At a press conference on Monday, Stoltenberg explained that they were invited because they “are two of our very few enhanced opportunity partners” and play a central role in the security and “stability of the Baltic Sea region.” He added that it is now “up to Finland and Sweden to decide whether they want more.”
Stoltenberg brusquely rejected Russian warnings over the possibility of Finland’s admission into NATO. “It’s up to the Finns to decide, whether they want to apply for membership,” he declared. Last Friday Russian President Vladimir Putin had warned that Moscow could move its troops closer to the Finnish-Russian border if NATO were to appear “at the border of the Russian Federation overnight.”
Above all, host country Poland and the Baltic States are urging decisions be taken at the summit that go well beyond earlier plans. Poland’s national security advisor, Pawel Soloch, has called on NATO to station more troops in Eastern Europe. “The volume can still be increased if Russia’s attitude does not change,” said Soloch.
Separate from the concrete decisions of the summit, the right-wing Polish government wants to deploy a 35,000-strong voluntary militia against Russia through September, under the pretext of “national defence.” Four hundred members of this right-wing paramilitary militia have already taken part in the NATO “Anaconda” exercise. The largest such military maneuvers in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War, the exercise simulated a military confrontation with Russia.
In the meantime, at least a portion of the NATO establishment is openly discussing a possible war of aggression against Russia. In an article from the news agency UPI entitled “Is the US planning for a war with Russia?” American military strategist Harlan Ullman reports on a military conference in Britain at which a US general declared it was the top priority of the US Army to “to deter and if necessary defeat Russia in a war.”
The result of the Brexit referendum in Britain has made the American foreign policy hawks, who have long urged a harsher course against Russia, still more aggressive.
On Friday, Robert D. Kaplan published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “How to crash Putin’s Brexit party,” warning that Washington cannot allow the Brexit to weaken the NATO offensive against Russia. The US would have to develop its alliance with London against Russia and, if necessary, against Germany. “Great Britain should reinvigorate its alliance with America,” writes Kaplan, one of the architects of the Iraq War. “Acting together, the two nations can still project power on the European mainland up to the gates of Russia.”
In a policy statement in the Bundestag (German parliament) yesterday, Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the NATO military buildup in Eastern Europe. “We will supplement the adjustments the Alliance made in Wales. Elements will be added with which the Alliance’s deterrence and defence capability will be consolidated and safeguarded on a permanent basis,” Merkel stated. “That is important, because we in the Alliance have realised that it is not enough to be able to deploy troops quickly, but that we need to have a sufficient presence on the ground as well.”
However, at the same time Merkel paradoxically claimed the military buildup was “not directed against Russia and it does not affect the strategic balance between Russia and NATO and neither the German government nor the alliance have any intention of changing it.” She added: “Deterrence and dialogue are not contradictions; no, they belong inextricably together.” Merkel also stressed that “security in Europe can only be accomplished with Russia and not against it.”
Within sections of the German bourgeoisie, including elements within the government itself, the United States’ aggressive drive toward war is increasingly seen as a threat to the implementation of their own geostrategic and economic interests in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently warned NATO allies against “saber-rattling and war cries” directed toward Russia.
In a recent commentary entitled “The Russia paradox,” Wolfgang Ischinger, the leader of the Munich Security Conference, considers Russia’s actions “aggressive and threatening,” but sees them as the “expression of the country’s weakness rather than its strength.” And if it seems like a “paradox,” he writes, one must “shower Moscow with offers for dialogue” to assert one’s own interests and values.
To the extent that Germany is attempting to pursue its foreign policy goals independently of the United States, leading politicians are also discussing the dangers that could come out of the Warsaw summit. In another interview with the Berlin newspaper B.Z., Ischinger states: “The summit itself can, one fears, further strain the relationship [with Russia.] I’m worried that Moscow will take countermeasures, to which NATO would then have to respond. It is imperative that we prevent an arms race.”
The threat of military escalation is “as before, very considerable,” he warns. Since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, there have been “an increasing number of power plays,” says Ischinger, “in which Russia and the West have come close to each other with combat planes or ships. If a single soldier were to press the wrong button, it could set into motion a dangerous chain reaction. We must not forget: 26 years after the end of the Cold War, both sides possess substantial arsenals of nuclear weapons.”

Does India Need an Internal Security Strategy?

N Manoharan & Asmita Michael


The recent deadly terror attack in Dhaka attests to the deteriorating security environment in India’s neighbourhood. The instability in Pakistan has a telling effect on Indian security, especially in Jammu and Kashmir. The arrest of the Islamic State (IS)-linked terror module in Hyderabad is a cause for concern. The Left-wing extremists have been trying to expand from their central Indian stronghold. Given the complex and varied nature of threats, India requires a comprehensive internal security strategy involving five components: political, military, social, economic and diplomatic.
 
The political component includes a will to take threats head on, a multi-layered grievance redressal system, constitutional safeguards and good governance, which in turn demands reforms in administration, the electoral system and criminal justice system. The institutions of governance and state structures should be strong enough to deal with internal conflicts in a coordinated way. Winning back and sustaining the confidence of alienated communities through political means is crucial for the long-run.
 
Inequity and deprivation breed resentment and alienation whereas a thriving economy, which gives hope and opportunity to all, is more likely to defeat extremist movements than any other strategy. There is an urgent need to adopt an inclusive development model that allows people to contribute to and benefit from this economic growth. Furthermore the role of the private sector should not be ignored. The economic part of the strategy also includes reaching out to neighbouring countries with development aid to address certain threats at their sources.
 
The social element should take into consideration the support of the population in countering internal security threats. Without the eyes, ears and intuition of the general public, it is difficult to identify terrorists who blend seamlessly into the environment in which they live and operate. People can contribute as informers, witnesses, and rescuers. A strong security consciousness needs to be created. The awareness could also include rules to be followed in case of a terror attack. Training of people in civil defence is important in post-strike scenarios. It is also important to engage and take the help of civil society organisations like self-help groups, non-governmental organisations, think tanks and the media in addressing internal security threats.
 
Within the military component, three broad measures are suggested: prevention, deterrence and rehabilitation. A comprehensive database of terror groups must be drawn up, detailing their ideology, organisational set-up, leadership, goals, modus operandi, training systems, support network, sponsors, weapon systems, and funding sources. It is necessary to employ covert operations, but they should be restricted to eliminating terrorist leadership and bases abroad and within India. Vigilance along land, coastal and maritime borders needs to be substantially enhanced, including through the use of hi-tech surveillance devices. Additionally border management could be more efficiently coordinated among various central and state agencies that operate along the country’s borders. Intelligence gathering in India, especially the preventive aspects of intelligence, needs substantial improvement. The beat constable system has to be given priority to facilitate grassroots intelligence. In this regard, informers’ networks need to be expanded.
 
Developing specialised counter-terrorism forces, strengthening the local police and a strong legal frameework are some of the deterrence measures that are required. The mantra is, right force for the right situation. While the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the nodal counter-insurgency force, requires restructuring and value additions, the National Security Guard (NSG), India’s primary strike force for counter-terrorist operations, must be provided with the necessary wherewithal to respond swiftly to terrorist attacks. Significant improvement is called for in the training of state police forces, who are the first responders. Each police station should aim at being self-sufficient and needs to be given the required resources in terms of anti-riot gear, better weapons, and mobile forensic units, and be connected to a networked criminal database management system. Long-pending police reforms require an aggressive push. At the same time, it is important to have a comprehensive legal framework against terrorism that conforms to the rule of law and human rights standards.

The main aim of rehabilitation is to induce change in the attitude of militants, thereby moderating their radical views. Prison conditions should be conducive enough to prevent the counter-productiveness of the whole corrective system.

The diplomatic aspect of the strategy is the optimal use of political energy to safeguard India’s security. The effort should be to create a web of cooperative partnerships at both bilateral and multilateral levels. Such diplomatic cooperation could be in joint military exercises, joint military operations, sharing of information and credible intelligence, mutual legal assistance, extradition, provision of requisite arms, technology, and aid. This requires the strengthening of India’s foreign policy mechanism on both qualitative and quantitative terms. Indian diplomacy can immensely benefit through outside expertise available in think-tanks, universities, media and the private sector to conduct high-quality, policy-relevant research and training.

It should be noted out that all the five components of a comprehensive internal security strategy are not mutually exclusive but are interlinked. At times, the required measures may conflict with each other. But unless these components are wielded in exact proportions as the situation demands, it would difficult to address threats. Going too far in one direction could be counter-productive. Striking the right balance is key to a comprehensive strategy.

Prisons in India: Defending the Rights of Death Row Prisoners

Saumitra Mohan


The constitutionality of the death sentence was last upheld in May 1980 by the Supreme Court. In the said judgement, the apex court ruled that the death penalty did not infringe upon the right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the same should be imposed only in the rarest of the rare cases. Surprisingly, most prisoners sentenced to death in India are eventually not executed. Less than 5 per cent of those sentenced to death by Indian trial courts have actually been executed. In most of the cases, following appeals, their death sentences are commuted by the higher courts.

Researchers at National Law University (NLU), Delhi, in a first ever comprehensive study of the socio-economic profile of prisoners serving death sentence in our jails, have identified many problem areas in the administration of capital punishment in India which warrants urgent attention. The said Death Penalty Research Project bases its findings on the one-to-one interviews of 385 prisoners on death row. From July 2013 to January 2015, the project team interviewed all prisoners and their families to comprehend the sociology and psychology of the death penalty in this country. The consequent findings suggest that the rights of these prisoners are often compromised by default than by to purposeful discrimination.

The insights of the study are based on the primary and secondary data as accessed through the National Legal Services Authority (NLSA), state and district level legal authorities, prison visits, RTI applications and the High Court. The project has brought forth a rich resource for a close inspection of the administration of the death penalty in India. The research team identified 385 prisoners and got access to 373 of them. Surprisingly, there was no reliable database of the total number of death row prisoners in India nor was there any official record or details with any agency of the total number of prisoners executed since independence. 

Project Findings

With regard to the right of being present at one’s own trial for the purpose of defence, only one out of the four interviewed had attended all their hearings. Some prisoners would merely be taken to the court premises by the police and then confined to a court lock-up without ever being produced in the courtroom. Of 189 prisoners, 169 did not have a lawyer. Again, although anyone being arrested should be informed about the reason for the arrest, 136 prisoners alleged that they were taken away to sign papers and were never allowed to go home again. Moreover, 166 prisoners were allegedly not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest, as is mandatory. Weeks and months passed before they were so produced and sometimes the arrest was recorded only after this procedure. The interim period was often spent in torture; one woman even suffered a miscarriage.

One of the death row prisoners said he would prefer being killed than being tortured every day. Of 92 prisoners who had confessed in police custody, 72 claimed to have made statements under alleged torture. Death row prisoners were often kept locked while the trial proceeded, and 2 were so far removed from the stand that they followed nothing of their own trial; as the report reiterates, “the very architecture of several courts often prevents any real chance of the accused participating in their own trial”. The accused are often confined to the back of the courtroom while proceedings between the judge and the lawyers take place in the front. It is notable that everyone charged with a crime has the right to an interpreter if she/he does not understand the language used in court, and to translated documents. However this requirement is seldom met. Over half the prisoners interviewed said they did not understand the proceedings at all – either because of the obstructive court architecture or the language used (often English).

Part of an accused’s right to a fair hearing is the right to challenge evidence produced against them. In India, trial courts can question the accused directly at any stage, and the Supreme Court has ruled that accused persons must be questioned separately about every material circumstance to be used against them, in a form they can understand. The study found that these provisions are routinely dishonored. Over 60 per cent of the prisoners interviewed said they were only asked to give yes/no responses during their trials, with no meaningful opportunity to explain themselves. 

Most of the prisoners said their lawyers did not discuss case details with them. Almost 77 percent never met their lawyers outside court, and the interaction inside the court was perfunctory. Many of the prisoners preferred engaging private lawyers notwithstanding their economic vulnerability because of the putative incompetence of the underpaid legal aid lawyers. The higher the courts, the lesser the information prisoners had about their cases, often finding out about trial developments through prison authorities or media reports, though this dearth of information was not limited to death row prisoners alone. One only hopes that the report findings shall enable us to secure the rights of death row prisoners in a better way.

What is the Domestic Significance of the Holey Bakery Terror Attack?

Ibtisam Ahmed


Bangladesh is facing a pivotal point of no return. The recent hostage crisis and siege at an uptown bakery/café in the Gulshan diplomatic zone of the capital Dhaka on 1 July has seen a fundamental shift in the way Islamic extremist violence functions in the country and these realities need to be checked. Unfortunately, authorities seem reluctant to actually engage with the situation, which does not bode well for the South Asian nation.

A Year of Living Dangerously

Over the past year, dozens of individuals have been attacked and killed by groups of extremists, usually wielding machetes or knives. Although individuals had been targeted with violence before – including the high profile murder of blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider in 2013 – the volume of killings since the start of 2015 has been staggering. Targets have ranged from bloggers, academics and LGBTQ+ rights activists, to Hindu and Sufi clerics and temple workers, foreign workers, and even a tailor whose only crime was belonging to the ‘wrong’ religious denomination.

The audacity of the attacks grew with each successful attempt. The initial targets were all self-proclaimed atheists whose writings and blog posts were critical of politicising Islam and the dangers of Islamic extremism. Although being atheist is not a criminal offence in the country, hurting religious sentiment is, as under Section 295A of the Bangladeshi Penal Code, which, combined with general social conservatism painting atheism in a negative light, led to the perpetrators being condemned and criticised for murder but not necessarily for their motives.

Similarly, the murder of two LGBTQ+ activists earlier this year sparked worldwide outcry but the prevalence of Section 377 of the Penal Code – which criminalises homosexual intimacy and is interpreted to legalise prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community – once again led to platitudes from the authorities regarding the intent of the killings. In fact, the Prime Minister went so far as to state that anyone who offends religious sensibilities needs to be careful as it goes against established norms, thus effectively suggesting that the victims were responsible for their own deaths.

Since then, the targets have widened even further to include anyone who is deemed a sinner by the extremist camp and the subsequent killings of people from various walks of life, and various religions, has pushed the country into a state of perpetual fear for religious minorities, secularists (including pro-secularist Muslims), free thinkers, and critics of extremism.

That the nation was founded in 1971 on the principle of secularism after the rejection of political pan-Islamism as a means of unity with Pakistan seems to have been largely forgotten, making way for a national identity that seems more welcoming of the current reactionary pan-Islamism that has emanated from West Asia in the wake of the ‘War on Terror’.

A New Ball Game

While the number of targets has been a legitimate cause for concern, the fact that they were individual killings had made it possible for the Government to either brush the incidents off as uncoordinated, random attacks or attempt to justify their lack of action by blaming the activities of the victims. The hostage-taking and murders at the Holey Artisan Bakery changed the scenario completely. Instead of individuals attacked with machetes, this was an entire building of casualties who were held at gunpoint before being executed.

Chillingly, it has come to light that all the victims inside the bakery (with two policemen also being killed in the siege) were made to recite from the Quran; failure to do so resulted in their deaths. The scale of the massacre, with the specific targeting of a bakery that is regularly visited by foreigners – and, indeed, with the majority of victims being non-Bangladeshi – was unprecedented. There had never been an incident where multiple foreign nationals were specifically killed in the country and it has already led to stern rhetoric from Italy, Japan and India (the nationalities of the deceased).

The other major concern is the identities of the assailants themselves. Previously, extremist attackers have been profiled as being from poor and uneducated backgrounds, either from rural communities or being taught in madrasas. However, it is certain that the gunmen from 1 July were all from upper-middle and upper class urban backgrounds. All of them were educated in the country’s top private schools and some had gone on to study at universities both at home and abroad. Most of them had gone missing since late last year or early this year, which hints at their radicalisation having taken place in a relatively short period of time.

All of this means that political groups and security forces need to re-evaluate how they approach extremism. The Government has consistently blamed homegrown terrorist groups without considering the impact of wider extremism and the possibility of trans-national influence. They have also blamed the Opposition on several occasions. For its part, the Opposition – which had utilised political Islam and had aligned itself with the only mainstream Islamic political party during its terms in power – has steadfastly refused to accept its role in the long-term growth of extremism, instead focusing its blame solely on the Government.

With the two sides too busy trying to tear each other down, the only victor so far has been the extremists. There needs to be a serious rethink and genuine attempts at unity going forward, for the security of Bangladesh and, indeed, the region more widely.

7 Jul 2016

University/Commonwealth Govt. Scholarships for Masters & PhD at University of Newcastle Australia 2016/2017

Application Deadline: 31 March 2016 (round 1) and 15 September 2016 (round 2) | 
Offered annually? Yes
Brief description: The University of Newcastle Australia is offering university and commonwealth government scholarships for Research Masters & PhD degree for international students
Eligible Field of Study: courses offered at the university
About Scholarship
Full-time research students are eligible to apply for University and Commonwealth Government scholarships, which are awarded during one main round offer. They provide a living allowance so you can commit to full-time study. Historically over 90% of international students hold a scholarship from UON or a sponsor.
Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified
Scholarship Type: Research Masters and PhD Scholarship
Selection Criteria: Scholarships are granted on the basis of academic merit, which includes your undergraduate grade point average and extra research attainments.
Eligibility
Eligibility criteria is set by the Commonwealth Government and candidates must:
  • have a current offer of admission into a research higher degree.
  • have completed at least four years of undergraduate study and have attained Honours Class 1 or equivalent and a high grade point average (GPA)
  • be no more than two full-time equivalent years into their PhD (or one year for Masters) at the end of the year.
Successful international scholarship candidates usually also have:
  • satisfied the English proficiency requirement (IELTS of at least 6.5)
  • A master degree with strong research component
  • International peer reviewed research publication or research experience
Scholarship conditions
  • Be enrolled full-time (part-time enrolment may be approved in exceptional circumstances. Part-time scholarships are taxable)
  • be enrolled on-campus (off-campus enrolment may be approved in exceptional circumstances)
  • scholars may only work a maximum of 8 hours per week (between Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm)
  • Scholarship offers must be taken-up in the year of the offer and cannot be deferred to the following year. A leave of absence may be taken after 1 year full-time enrolment.
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship: A scholarship funded by the University of Newcastle or the Commonwealth Government provides:
  • An annual living allowance $26, 288 per annum (2016 rate – indexed annually)
The scholarship may also include:
  • a relocation allowance (up to $2,020)
  • a thesis allowance (up to $500)
  • a full tuition fee scholarship (international students)
  • overseas student health cover (OSHC) (international students)
Duration of Scholarship: PhD scholarships are for three years and Masters scholarships are for two years, less any tenure already completed towards a research degree.
Eligible Countries: International students
To be taken at (country): The University of Newcastle, Australia

How to Apply
  • Currently enrolled candidates can apply for a scholarship by contacting researchscholarships[@]newcastle.edu.au
  • New applicants can apply for a scholarship at the same time as applying for admission.
Visit scholarship webpage for details
Your application for admission must include:
  • Copies of all academic transcripts
  • A research proposal
  • Evidence of extra academic attainments e.g. publications
  • If required, certified evidence of meeting the English proficiency requirement
What happens once you submit your application?
  • Applications are assessed and ranked according to merit
  • Attendance at an interview is not normally required
  • Scholarship outcomes are known from mid December each year
Sponsors: The University of Newcastle and Commonwealth Government
Important Notes: ensure you attach the following documents to support your scholarship application:
  • Copies of research publications, exhibitions or conference papers
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • Details of previous research experience e.g. research work experience / study
  • Any additional documents that may add to your scholarship application e.g. evidence of the award of a University Medal

To Stop Oil Trains, I Spent My Honeymoon in Jail

Daphne Wysham

It was a few days after my wedding. I was supposed to be honeymooning at a nearby winery with my newly minted husband, celebrating our unlikely marriage at age 55.
Instead, I was sitting on the railroad tracks in the pouring rain. Along with 20 other brave souls, some weeping, some singing, I was facing down a locomotive in a town — Vancouver, Washington — that many fear will be forced to accept the largest oil-by-rail terminal in the country.
Why would anyone do something like that?
Because a few short days before, we’d watched in horror as a mile-long train filled with Bakken crude derailed in Mosier, Oregon and burst into towering flames.
We call these oil trains “bomb trains” because we know, with one tiny loose bolt, they can erupt into an inferno, scorching everything for miles. It happened in Lac-Megantic, Canada in 2013. Forty-seven people were killed in a matter of minutes, the town leveled when a train’s brakes failed.
In the aftermath of the Mosier derailment, local fire chief Jim Appleton, who was originally unwilling to condemn oil trains, was beginning to sound more and more like one of us: “I think it’s insane” to ship oil by rail, he told a reporter. “Shareholder value doesn’t outweigh the lives and happiness of our community.”
And yet shareholder value is outweighing the lives and happiness of communities all over the world. I live in the “blast zone” less than a mile from tracks that ply this dangerous cargo here in the Pacific Northwest. And millions of people, most of them on the other side of the world, are already feeling the heat.
More bomb trains, after all, mean more climate change. Rising temperatures mean dangerous weather patterns, like the floods that recently killed hundreds in Pakistan and China.
Meanwhile, ExxonMobil, whose scientists knew as early as the 1960s that catastrophic climate change would ensue if they didn’t change course, has invested in climate denial in order to maximize their shareholder value, counting on us to not connect the dots.
I grew up in India. I can see the faces of friends and loved ones on Facebook enduring record heat and flooding there. So if the trains wouldn’t stop coming, I figured, I’d put my body on the line in Vancouver. If I went to jail, I hoped my husband would forgive me for skipping out on our first big date as newlyweds.
The riot police were beginning to gather, and the railroad’s private police were issuing their warnings while hundreds chanted nearby. Not wanting to lose valuables in jail, I gave my wallet, cell phone, and wedding ring to a friend.
Then they hauled us off, one by one, in plastic handcuffs like tiny angel’s wings behind each protestor’s back. They put the 13 women — as young as 21 and as old as 85 — in one cell and the eight men in the other.
Seven hours later, as we were released from our windowless cage into the beautiful summer evening, I felt an unspeakable gratitude to my cellmates and those who awaited us outside.
Should we go to trial, many of us will be arguing we did this out of necessity, in order to prevent a far greater looming evil — of being incinerated in our sleep, of doing nothing to stop this deadly fossil fuel cargo while hundreds of thousands of people die each year from floods, disease, malnutrition, and heat stress due to climate change.
Call me crazy, but we might just win this one. And in so doing, we’ll send a very strong message to the oil companies that threaten us all that they must end this madness.

A New Declaration of Independence

Tom H. Hastings

The US has entered the Orwellian Era of permanent war—until we decide that it’s over.
Why, after nearly 15 years, do we still have 10,000 American troops fighting, killing, and dying in Afghanistan?
Why, after more than 13 years, have we nearly exited and then escalated back into Iraq with 3,500 US troops fighting, killing, and dying?
We are gaining absolutely nothing from this armed occupation of two countries for so long—instead we are losing lives, spending $billions, and creating endless ill will amongst yet another generation in the Middle East and Central Asia. Even the Military Times notes that US troops are “deeply unpopular” in Iraq. It has been a complete waste since the US invaded in March 2003 based on Bush regime lies about WMD and false claims of alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
US combat mortalities since 2001: Afghanistan, 1,742; Iraq, 3,527.
Civilian mortalities in Afghanistan since US invasion: more than 25,000.
Civilian mortalities in Iraq since the US 2003 invasion: more than 160,000.
The dollar costs of war since 2001: nearly $1.7 trillion.
We can argue into the night about fault but can we turn toward solutions even more strenuously? US citizens could help convince our government, our officials, and our candidates to begin advocating for these steps that will de-escalate the conflicts and work toward sustainable peace:
* Stop all arms transfers—both military aid and sales—to the region. That is only pouring gasoline on the flames, demonstrably, repeatedly, with those arms perpetually falling into the wrong hands. The “loss” in revenue to arms manufacturers would be more than covered by the next step.
* Withdraw the US military from the region. All we do there is provoke more hatred. Our violent responses and presence have caused a worsening of terrorism steadily to the point we now see a caliphate, unthinkable until recent years. US taxpayers would either get tax relief or see domestic infrastructural or services improved significantly.
* Declare a hands-off policy on military intervention in the region and get used to the people of the region redrawing their own borders and having the forms of governance they decide to have.
* Increase nonviolent measures of influence, from humanitarian aid to financial sanctions. Withdraw all support for human rights violators in the region, friend or foe.
* Support the nonviolent supranational and US-based organizations that can help enhance the well being of the people of the region.
These measures and more could transform so much—and the US would benefit greatly from taking these steps unilaterally. Time for a Declaration of Independence from foreign military disasters.