Bartering On Refugees: The Costa Rica Solution

Binoy Kampmark

“We will also participate in a US-led program to re-settle Central American refugees currently in a resettlement centre in Costa Rica.” Malcolm Turnbull, Australian PM, Sep 21, 2016

It used to be claimed that you could not let the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, go anywhere with any degree of freedom. The mouth would open, the madness would come out.  His successor’s efforts have not been much better, reflecting a deep seated pathology in the global refugee debate and notions of violated borders.

On arriving in New York, Malcolm Turnbull seemed full of poorly minted ideas.  He insists that his country’s policy on asylum is one to be emulated – globally.  “Addressing irregular migration, through secure borders, has been essential in creating confidence that the government can manage migration in a way that mitigates risks and focuses on humanitarian assistance on those who need it most.”

What his portrait of purported balance ignores is the grotesque Pacific camp system that institutionalises torture and dehumanisation.  As a video statement from Iranian journalist refugee Behrouz Boochani noted, a vain measure to convince delegates at the UN to pressure Turnbull, “Australia’s offshore policy is not based on border protection, it is based on torture.”

The externalisation of all processes on treating and assessing the claims of refugees is an international malady.  The European Union is erratically putting up fences in parts while allowing trickles in elsewhere.  Countries are blaming each other for not pulling their weight. Fictional numbers of compromise are suggested, but the rise of toxic populism has hardened attitudes.

The United States is also undertaking its own reserved strategy in dealing with those feeling social strife in countries affected by violence.  Strategists in Washington have been chewing over how best to deal with the influx of people fleeing Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala via Mexico with the US as an ultimate destination.

To that end, Australia has suggested itself as an unwitting accomplice in quelling the numbers coming into the US.  Within twenty-four hours, the “Costa Rica” solution (or non-solution, as these things tend to be), was born.  Turnbull had offered a hand to his US counterparts that Australia would do its bit “to pledge new commitments to support some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

The Turnbull proposal, despite being deemed a “hoax” by opposition leader Bill Shorten, confirms a trading model for refugees.  We will take some from the Costa Rica centre, and you, in turn, may take some of ours. That last point has been officially denied, though the discussion on trade is certainly on, given statements by the Nauru justice minister, David Adeang, that Nauru had invited “other countries to assist in finding durable resettlement options for our refugees.”

There is an irony in this, given the humanitarian pretence of governments who obsess about “breaking” various market models of people smuggling.  Far from them to be the only ones engaged in the business of carting human souls across dangerous routes.  This is global resettlement with an unacceptable face.

Such models are also premised on brutal presumptions: those seeking asylum and refugees will not be settled in countries of their ultimate destination, as this throws the international system out of kilter. They will, rather, be located in places of least comfort in a cultural and economic sense.

Turnbull’s approach has been sold before the United Nations as necessary for a credible border protection regime.  Patching up porous borders wins votes, as does repelling unconventional refugee arrivals who dare travel by boat.  That enables the government of the day to then raise the legal humanitarian intake without agitating the local electorate it wishes to pacify.

All this is then above board, made decently, without fuss and fury.  In this case, the promise has been to make a previously announced figure – 18,750 – permanent, or at least up till the 2018-9 year.  This neatly inflates Australian generosity, which, if it comes to crude figures, can be measured by the resettling of 11,776 people last year.  In terms of recognising, registering or resettling refugees, Australia ranks a dismal 25th, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Turnbull was also in the sweetening mood, promising to add $130 million over the course of three years towards “peace building and assistance to refugees, forcibly displaced communities and host countries.”  This is additional to the $220 million in assistance to Syria and countries in its proximity.

Playing this electoral game of pick and choose comes with its risks.  Polls held in various countries show certain fears about that great phantom known as Muslim migration.  An Essential opinion poll fanned a few flames in that regard, revealing that one in two Australians favoured a ban on Muslim immigration.

The consequence of this is potentially retarding, with Australian politicians reluctant to acquiescence to the country’s receiving of refugees from some of the more traumatised areas of the planet.  Far better, then, to receive more desirable types, if only on paper.

The Australian proposal has another disruptive point. It creates a Costa Rica exception in the bargaining house, suggesting that the Obama administration has been lending its ear to Canberra.  As the Sydney Morning Herald (Sep 22) observed, the US program “echoes Australia’s use of Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.”

Refugees warehoused like disreputable goods on Manus Island and Nauru face interminable periods of detention and the promise that they will never be allowed to settle in Australia. But they were the silent figures in a debate that has degraded them.  Their plight is effectively being globalised.

USAID or US CIA?

Thomas C. Mountain

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) was created by Pax Americana to provide a cover for CIA agents under the pretext of helping the 3rd World. US Imperialism has to do some good or its potential targets would not open their doors to intelligence agents posing as do gooders, so USAID was created.

Today the USAID is headed by Gayle Smith, formerly the “Special Advisor” to President Barack Obama and Senior Director of the National Security Council. To put it simply, Gayle Smith is one of the top “spooks” in the USA, someone who told the CIA what to do.

Today this former “spook” is running a multibillion dollar “aid agency” with thousands of employees or “contractors” operating world wide. Who knows who is an agent and who is a real aid worker when it comes to USAID.

Earlier this year Ms. Smith sent 25 senior CIA investigators to Ethiopia to see first hand what was going on with the nationwide uprising under cover of “investigating the drought”. Their report, yet to be made public, must have been pretty dire for not to long later, Freedom House, that excreable voice of the CIA, published a report insinuating that replacements for the present Ethiopian regime could be in the works.

USAID is up to its ears in the effort for “regime change” in South Sudan with dozens of CIA ops operating inside the country. Look at Latin America and the USAID’s dirty war against Cuba for decades now with USAID involved in recent “coups” and “quiet coups” in Central and South America.

When you deal with the USAID you are dealing with the USCIA and never forget it. Better yet, kick them out of your country like our government did here in Eritrea more than a decade ago.

German supermarket chain to be broken up with thousands of jobs lost

Marianne Arens

The German retail chain Kaiser’s Tengelmann confronts liquidation. According to media reports the Kaiser’s Tengelmann owner, Karl-Erivan Haub, intends to close dozens of stores and wipe out up to 8,000 jobs by January 1, 2017.

As usual, the ver.di trade union was notified in advance and has advised the company’s management. A roundtable involving ver.di, together with Kaiser`s Tengelmann and the two retail giants Edeka and Rewe, has been organised to ensure a smooth winding down of the stores.

The decision affects 5,650 shop assistants, warehouse workers, forklift and truck drivers and their families, as well as the employees of the Birkenhof meat processing company. They all have to reckon with mass redundancies, and the closure or sale of almost 430 supermarkets in the states of North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria and Berlin.

According to information from the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung of 10 September, Haub will announce his plan at an extraordinary company meeting on 23 September. Haub has already outlined his plan in a secret paper provided to the supervisory board, which includes trade union officials. It evidently involves the closure of less profitable stores, including over 80 in North Rhine-Westphalia, and the wiping out of at least 5,000, and according to dpa, up to 8,000, jobs. More profitable branches in Berlin and Munich are to be sold.

A fierce price war and rabid competition have raged for years in the food retailing industry due to the growing influence of internet marketers. The Cologne Institute for Business Research (IFH) expects that trade in physical stores could shrink by around €40 billion by 2020. This is also a result of years of stagnation and decline in real wages in Germany. A growing proportion of the working population has simply less money for shopping.

For Kaiser’s Tengelmann, a relatively small chain, the prices of its goods are roughly 10 percent higher than its market rivals Aldi, Lidl, Rewe and Edeka. Because the chain was suffering losses, CEO Haub announced his intention to sell Kaiser’s Tengelmann to Edeka two years ago. Previously, employees had waived 50 percent of their Christmas and holiday pay for three years in a row.

Both the Monopolies Commission and the Federal Cartel Office vetoed the sale, arguing that Edeka would obtain a dominant position from the merger. However, Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) had already held talks in December 2014 with the heads of both companies, and annulled the veto in March 2016 with a ministerial decree. In so doing, he paved the way for the sale of Kaiser’s Tengelmann branches to Edeka under certain conditions.

The conditions were primarily aimed at strengthening the unions at Edeka. They included both a five-year jobs and locations guarantee for 97 percent of the workforce, as well as a ban on the selling off of individual stores. Numerous stipulations were made conditional on the union’s agreement. The Edeka Group, originally developed as a cooperative association of independent retailers, had previously prevented widespread trade union membership.

Edeka grudgingly accepted the ministerial decree because that was the only way to circumvent the cartel prohibition, and because ver.di signaled far-reaching cooperation. The competitors of Edeka, Rewe and Markant, however, then filed a lawsuit at the Higher Regional Court (OLG) in Dusseldorf.

The OLG upheld their lawsuit in July and decided to ban the proposed merger. Minister Gabriel, together with Edeka, appealed to the Federal Court (BGH) to permit the merger. Germany’s highest court subsequently announced it would reach a decision by 15 November.

A final decision by the BGH could drag on for a maximum of two years, but the billionaire Haub is not prepared to wait. “The BGH option is no longer relevant,” Haub told the Süddeutsche Zeitung in early September. With an estimated fortune of $4.5 billion, the US magazine Forbes ranks Haub as one of the 200 richest people in the world. He is both the owner and chairman of Kaiser’s Tengelmann.

When it became known that Haub would announce the rationalisation of jobs at an extraordinary Supervisory Board meeting on 23 September, the unions ver.di and NGG responded immediately. Rather than mobilise the workers of the affected companies against the job cuts, the unions agreed to organise a roundtable with the industry bosses this week to ensure a controlled liquidation of jobs.

If it depends on ver.di, then the fate of tens of thousands of ordinary salesmen and women, drivers, etc., whose jobs today are already among the toughest and worst paid, will be served on a platter to Haub and the multibillion-dollar bosses who run Edeka and Rewe. The roundtable is aimed primarily at defusing possible protest and resistance.

A particularly pernicious role is being played by Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel. He immediately welcomed the planned roundtable, declaring that it was good, “if the competing companies are now willing to conduct the type of constructive discussions they refused to hold before the fusion process.” This is hogwash. The “constructive discussions” will culminate in a shabby sellout of the workforce.

Sigmar Gabriel was never interested in the fate of cashiers, meat packers or other workers. He is only interested in his current project: a red-red-green government coalition of the SPD, Left Party and the Greens at the federal level, for which he needs the support of the unions and the Left Party.

In the poker game surrounding the fate of Kaiser’s Tengelmann, Gabriel held talks at an early stage with Edeka, while ver.di leader Stefanie Nutzenberger (responsible for retail on ver.di’s executive) held talks with the competitor firm Rewe. Nutzenburger sits on the Rewe Supervisory Board. Rewe had registered from the beginning its own interest in buying Kaiser’s Tengelmann branches.

Despite being competitors, both Edeka and Rewe have an interest in the roundtable discussions. Instead of the previous plan, i.e., to acquire the whole company with all of its loss-making stores under the terms of the ministerial permit, they can now pick out profitable stores to take over, while the union sabotages resistance by the workforce.

Now both the union and the SPD have given their seal of approval to the destruction of jobs, wages and workers’ rights in the merger. This is clear from the contract bargaining completed by the unions a few weeks ago in anticipation of the BGH ruling on Edeka. According to the new contract, ver.di and NGG representatives have accepted job transfers, longer working hours, wage cuts and the closure of Birkenhof meat plants in North Rhine-Westphalia.

If it is left to the Social Democrats and union officials, then the fate of Kaiser’s Tengelmann employees will be the same as the employees of other store chains that have closed or drastically rationalised, such as Neckermann, Karstadt, Practitker or Schlecker. In all of these cases, ver.di functionaries agreed to the closures and organised mass redundancies.

NASDAQ hits record after US and Japanese central banks signal continued stimulus

Nick Beams

The decisions of the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) on monetary policy announced yesterday were both indications of the perplexity in the world’s leading financial institutions over how to deal with the “new normal” in the global economy, characterised by low growth, weak investment, contracting trade and low inflation.

In a split 7–3 vote, the Fed decided to leave interest rates on hold, while the Bank of Japan, after a weeks-long review of its quantitative easing program, made adjustments to its policies in light of the failure of its measures to achieve their stated aim of lifting inflation.

The BoJ decision was made in response to problems that arose following policies announced earlier this year.

Instead of simply trying to expand the overall money supply through broad-based asset purchases, the bank said it would now target 10-year government bonds, allowing the yield on longer-term bonds to rise. The decision was in response to concerns expressed by longer-term investors, including pension funds and insurance companies, that falling yields adversely affected their business models.

But the major impact of the statement was the commitment that the quantitative easing program, under which the BoJ injects 80 trillion yen (around $US800 billion) a year into financial markets, will go on indefinitely.

The bank said it would continue to buy assets until inflation “exceeds the price stability target of 2 percent and stays above the target in a stable manner.” With inflation currently running at minus 0.4 percent, and showing no sign of rising, this is a pledge that quantitative easing is not a temporary or emergency measure but will become permanent.

Financial markets responded positively to the news with the broad-based Topix index up by 2.5 percent and Nikkei rising by 1.8 percent.

In announcing its decision, the US Fed’s Open Market Committee said that while “the case for an increase in the federal funds rate has strengthened,” it had decided “for the time being to wait.” The split vote, with three members voting for an immediate increase in the base rate of 0.25 percent, and comments by Fed chairman Janet Yellen, indicating that she was looking for a rate rise, point to a possible increase by the end of the year. Financial markets welcomed the decision with the Dow up by 163 points on the day and the NASAQ index reaching a record high.

Yellen made clear, however, that any interest rate rises in the future would be gradual and monetary policy would remain accommodative. While she insisted that the decision did not reflect lack of confidence in the economy and she expected economic growth to continue at a moderate pace over the next few years, projections on the future direction of interest rates by members of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) again saw a downward revision on where they expect rates to be.

The median projected rate for the federal funds rate was reduced by around half a percentage point, indicating expectations of lower growth.

It was during the question and answer session at her press conference that some of the confusion in financial circles made its appearance through the calm exterior which Yellen seeks to present.

In answer to questions on the role of politics and political uncertainty as a basis for the Fed decision—Republican candidate Donald Trump has accused the Fed of keeping rates low at the behest of the Obama administration—Yellen insisted that politics played no part in the central bank’s decisions. Another questioner noted that while the Fed had cited the Brexit decision as a reason to keep rates on hold in June, how could it not be the case that political uncertainty in the US was having an impact on investment and the Fed’s decisions.

Brushing aside present politics, Yellen replied that “investment spending has been weak for some time and we are not certain what is causing that.”

Given that investment is a key driver of the economy, this is a significant admission. It indicates that the Fed has little overall grasp of what is taking place and is simply responding to immediate events.

The perplexity at the top was expressed in other remarks. Yellen said Fed policymakers were “struggling” with a difficult set of issues over what is the “new normal” in the US and global economy.

These comments amount to a virtual declaration that the economic scenario on which the Fed has based itself over the past eight years has been torn to pieces. The “conventional wisdom” was that, after the financial crash and the Great Recession which followed, stimulatory measures by central banks in the US and worldwide would restore economic growth close to its previous path.

This has evidently failed and instead a period of “secular stagnation” has set in, that is, permanent low growth and disinflation.

The historically unprecedented quantitative easing policies of the Fed and other central banks, which have pumped trillions of dollars into the global financial system, have done next to nothing to promote growth, leading only to massive speculation and the growth of a financial bubble that threatens to burst even if there is only a small rise in interest rates.

This prospect was alluded to indirectly by Yellen when she explained the risks which the Fed confronted when considering its policy. On the one hand, she said, there was the prospect that keeping interest rates too low could risk “overheating” the economy, while on the other there was the danger that an increase could set off a recession.

These remarks, in the context of a discussion of a possible 0.25 percent rise in the federal funds rate, point to real fears. They are not based on the belief that such a small rise will lead to a slowdown in the real economy—it would have next to no impact on investment decisions or consumer spending—but that it could trigger a major disturbance in financial markets.

This is evidenced by what happened at the start of the year when, following the 0.25 percentage point increase last December, global equity and financial markets experienced one of their worst year-openings on record in January.

Under conditions where the growth in the real economy continues to slow, the ongoing rise in financial markets is inherently unsustainable. This is because, notwithstanding the illusions that money can indefinitely beget more money, credit, share values and other financial assets ultimately represent a claim on real wealth.

In its latest survey of the economic outlook of the advanced economies, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has revised down its global growth estimate, citing weak trade growth and lower productivity.

It predicted growth in the UK for 2017 at 1 percent, down from 2 percent, largely due to sharp falls in business investment.

It lowered its US growth forecast for 2016 to 1.4 percent, from 1.8 percent and cut the forecast for Canada from 1.7 percent to 1.2 percent, and marginally lowered its projection for global growth to 2.9 percent.

The report said the world economy “remains in a low-growth trap with persistent growth disappointments weighing on growth expectations and feeding back into weak trade, investment, productivity and wages.”

The growing divergence between financial markets, boosted by the actions of central banks, and the real economy is creating the conditions for another financial crisis and even deeper attacks on the wages and social conditions of the working class.

US pushes for “no fly” zone as Syrian conflict escalates

Bill Van Auken

Speaking before a United Nations Security Council meeting on Syria Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry demagogically blamed Russia and the government of President Bashar al-Assad for the escalating violence that has left a ceasefire reached earlier this month in tatters.

Kerry also demanded the imposition of a de facto “no fly” zone over areas controlled by US-backed Islamist “rebels,” including those affiliated with Al Qaeda, under the pretext of assuring delivery of humanitarian aid and reviving the ceasefire.

“I believe that to restore credibility to the process, we must move forward to try to immediately ground all aircraft flying in those key areas in order to deescalate the situation and give a chance for humanitarian assistance to flow unimpeded,” Kerry told the Security Council meeting.

The Syrian government declared the ceasefire ended on Monday after reporting 300 violations by the Western-backed Islamist “rebels” and in the wake of the US bombing of a Syrian army outpost near the Deir al-Zor airport in eastern Syria on Saturday that killed as many as 90 soldiers and wounded another 100.

US officials have claimed that the attack was a mistake, while Damascus has pointed out that it was immediately followed by an assault on the position by fighters of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), charging that the air and ground actions were coordinated. Deir al-Zor occupies a strategic position on the highway leading from Syria to Iraq and onto Iran.

The US airstrike was followed on Monday by an attack on a UN aid convoy in the town of Urum al-Kubra in northern Aleppo that left 20 people dead and 18 trucks bearing relief supplies destroyed. Washington immediately charged, without presenting any evidence, that either Russia or the Syrian government was responsible. Kerry and other US officials are now invoking the attack as a means of vilifying Moscow and pressing for new concessions.

Blaming Russia and the Assad government for Monday’s attack, Kerry claimed that it “raises a profound doubt about whether Russia and the Assad regime can or will live up to the obligations that they agreed to in Geneva.”

Speaking earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the attack on the aid convoy as “an unacceptable provocation,” and called for a “thorough and impartial” investigation to determine who was responsible. He repeated previous statements by Russian military officials that no Russian warplanes had been in the vicinity of the attack, adding that the Syrian air force was not capable of carrying out such an airstrike at night. He pointed out that the attack on the convoy coincided with a “rebel” offensive in the same area.

Russian military officials, meanwhile, reported Wednesday that a US Predator drone, capable of firing multiple air-to-surface missiles, was seen flying over the aid convoy at the time of the attack. Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry released an aerial video showing that the aid convoy had been accompanied by a “rebel” truck towing a large-caliber mortar launcher, which subsequently disappeared from view.

In his statement to the Security Council, Lavrov also insisted that there could be no more “unilateral” cessations of hostilities in Syria. Russia has charged that the US-backed Islamists never accepted the ceasefire and continued to carry out attacks on government positions after it went into effect on September 12.

Speaking before the same Security Council meeting, Syria’s ambassador to the UN Bashar al-Jaafari vowed that his country “will not become another Libya or Iraq,” and stated that his government was prepared “to reach a political solution that is decided by the Syrians”

While Kerry claimed that his proposed “no-fly” zone is meant to prevent the Syrian government from attacking “civilian targets with the excuse that it is just going after Nusra,” from the standpoint of Washington’s aims, the exact opposite is the case.

As with its support for the ceasefire itself, Washington is invoking humanitarian concerns for civilians trapped in areas controlled by the Al Nusra Front and similar Al Qaeda-linked militias in order to bring a halt to Syrian military operations against these forces and thereby allow them to rearm, regroup and resume an offensive against the Assad government.

The Syrian ceasefire has been the subject of bitter divisions within the Obama administration, with the Pentagon and top uniformed commanders in the Middle East calling into question whether the military would even obey orders to implement the deal.

Those most heavily involved in the US-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria, particularly elements within the CIA, have opposed the agreement because it calls upon Washington to oversee the separation of the so-called “moderate opposition” that it has paid and armed from Al Qaeda-linked forces like the Al Nusra front that are formally designated as “terrorists.” In the week following the ceasefire’s initiation, there was no sign of these “moderates” distancing themselves from the Al Qaeda elements. Such a separation is opposed by Washington’s “rebels” because Nusra represents the most significant armed group fighting the Syrian government.

Even more importantly for the Pentagon, the ceasefire’s call for the establishment of a joint operations center with Russia to share intelligence and targeting information would cut across the US military’s escalating preparations for war with Russia itself. The bombing of the Syrian army position on Saturday, followed by the attack on the aid convoy on Monday, served to squelch this proposal.

Amid the diplomatic sparring between the US and Russia at the United Nations, there were multiple signs that the conflict in Syria is on the brink of a dangerous escalation, carrying with it the threat of a wider and even world war.

The US is considering a plan to begin directly arming the Syrian Kurdish fighters of the YPG (People’s Protection Units), according to unnamed officials quoted in a report published Wednesday in the New York Times. US special forces units have already been deployed alongside the Kurdish fighters and Washington has been at least indirectly arming them by feeding weapons to a smaller Syrian Arab militia force that fights alongside the YPG.

Nonetheless, the plan, which is reportedly under discussion in the US National Security Council, would represent an escalation of the US utilization of the Kurdish militia as a proxy force in its campaign against ISIS. It would also deepen tensions between Washington and the Turkish government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which launched its own military incursion into Syria last month.

Operation Euphrates Shield, as the Turkish invasion of Syria has been dubbed, now also counts with a US special operations “advise and assist” mission. As the primary strategic goal of Ankara’s intervention is to prevent Kurdish forces from consolidating an autonomous entity on Turkey’s border, US special forces could end up facing each other on opposite sides of the battlefield.

Before leaving for the UN General Assembly meeting in New York City, Erdogan told reporters that the Turkish intervention had “cleared” an area of 900 square kilometers (about 350 square miles) of “terrorists,” by which he meant both ISIS and the Kurdish YPG. He added, “We may extend this area to 5,000 square kilometers as part of a safe zone.” Such an intervention would require the deployment inside Syria of thousands of Turkish troops.

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry announced Wednesday that the Russian navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is being deployed to the eastern Mediterranean to participate in military operations in Syria.

1,000 Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders 2017

Application Timeline: 

• Application Opens: Today, 21st September,2016
• Application Closes: Wednesday, 26th October, 2016
• Semifinalists interviewed by local U.S. embassies and consulates: December 2016– February 2017
• Applicants are notified of their status: Late March 2017
• Visa processing for finalists: April-May 2017
• Fellowship begins in the United States: Mid-June 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries

To be taken at (country): U.S

About the Award: The Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders is the flagship program of the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI). President Obama launched YALI in 2010 to support young African leaders as they spur growth and prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and enhance peace and security across Africa.

The Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders empowers young people through academic coursework, leadership training, and networking. In 2017, the Fellowship will provide up to 1,000 outstanding young leaders from Sub-Saharan Africa with the opportunity to hone their skills at a U.S. college or university with support for professional development after they return home.

The Fellows, who are between the ages of 25 and 35, have established records of accomplishment in promoting innovation and positive change in their organizations, institutions, communities, and countries. In 2016, Fellows represented all 49 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. They also represent diversity across the continent as 66 Fellows identified as having a disability, thirty percent came from rural areas or towns of fewer than 100,000 people, and fifty percent of Fellows were women.

Offered Since: 2014

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Candidates must:

• be between the ages of 25 and 35 although exceptional applicants younger than 25 will be considered;
• Are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the United States;
• Are eligible to receive a United States J-1 visa;
• Are not employees or immediate family members of employees of the U.S. government (including the U.S. Embassy, USAID, and other U.S. government entities);
• Are proficient in reading, writing, and speaking English;
• Are citizens of one of the following countries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
• Are residents of one of the above countries; and
• Are not alumni of the Mandela Washington Fellowships.
• Please note: Fellows are not allowed to have dependents (including spouses and children) accompany them during the Fellowship.

Number of Awardees: Up to 1000

Selection Process and Criteria: The Mandela Washington Fellowship selection process is a merit-based open competition. After the deadline, all eligible applications will be reviewed by a selection panel. Following this review, chosen semifinalists will be interviewed by the U.S. embassies or consulates in their home countries. If advanced to the semi-finalist round, applicants must provide a copy of their international passport (if available) or other government-issued photo identification at the time of the interview. Selection panels will use the following criteria to evaluate applications (not in order of importance):

• A proven record of leadership and accomplishment in public service, business and entrepreneurship, or civic engagement;
• A demonstrated commitment to public or community service, volunteerism, or mentorship;
• The ability to work cooperatively in diverse groups and respect the opinions of others;
• Strong social and communication skills;
• An energetic, positive attitude;
• A demonstrated knowledge, interest, and professional experience in the sector/track selected; and
• A commitment to return to Africa and apply leadership skills and training to benefit the applicant’s country and/or community after they return home

Value of Fellowship: There is no fee to apply to the Mandela Washington Fellowship. If you are selected for the Fellowship, the U.S. government will cover all participant costs. Financial provisions provided by the U.S. Government will include:

• J-1 visa support;
• Round-trip travel from Fellow’s home city to the U.S. and domestic U.S. travel as required by the program;
• A six-week academic and leadership institute;
• Concluding Summit in Washington, DC;
• Accident and sickness benefit plan;
• Housing and meals during the program; and
• An optional six-week Professional Development Experience (for up to 100 Fellows).
• Please note: the Fellowship will not cover salary while Fellows are away from work or funds for personal purchases such as gifts.

Mandela Washington Fellows will also have access to ongoing professional development opportunities, mentoring, networking and training, and support for their ideas, businesses, and organizations.

How to Apply: The deadline for applications for the Mandela Washington Fellowship is 4:00 PM GMT on Wednesday, October 26, 2016. Applications must be completed online at https://yaliapp.irex.org.

It is important to visit the official website (link below) for detailed information on how to apply for this Fellowship.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: American Government, Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI)

Important Notes: The Mandela Washington Fellowships are not designed to help Fellows identify funding for projects or organizations.

Is India About To Make A Catastrophic Mistake With GM Mustard?

Colin Todhunter

Global oilseed, agribusiness and biotech corporations are engaged in a long-term attack on India’s local cooking oil producers. In just 20 years, they have reduced India from self-sufficiency in cooking oil to importing half its needs. Now the government’s attempts to impose GM mustard seed threaten to wipe out a crop at the root of Indian food and farming traditions.

In 2013, India’s former Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accused US companies of derailing the nation’s oilseeds production programme. Similar claims had been made in 1998 concerning the so-called mustard oil tragedy when Rajasthan Oil Industries Association claimed that a “conspiracy” was being hatched and that the “invisible hands of the multinationals” were involved.

Both figures seem to have a point. India was almost self-sufficient in edible oils by the mid-1990s, but by 2014 it was the world’s biggest importer of cooking oils. Under pressure from the World Bank, India began to reduce import tariffs on edible oils and imports then began to increase.

The country now meets more than half its cooking oil requirements through imports, with palm oil shipped from Indonesia and Malaysia and soybean oil from Brazil and Argentina (see here), with devastating impacts on the environment. At the same time, there is a push to get GM mustard (and other crops) commercialised and grown in Indian fields.

The GM mustard issue cannot be divorced from the running down of India’s indigenous edible oils production. The cynical argument being forwarded for introducing GM mustard is to diminish reliance on imports, especially as it is said to possess a trait that makes it high-yielding. Given the role that trade rules had in decimating India’s oils sector, this argument is little more than a smokescreen to divert attention from this reality, which has to date certainly benefited US agribusiness Cargill. What is more deceptive is that the genetically engineered mustard does not produce higher yields than non-GM mustard.

In addition, the high-level push to get GM food crops planted in India is by-passing proper processes and procedures in what is a case of “unremitting regulatory delinquency“. Moreover, four high-level reports advising against the adoption of these crops in India are being side-lined:

The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal;

The ‘Sopory Committee Report’ [August 2012];

The ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ [PSC] Report on GM crops [August 2012]; and

The ‘Technical Expert Committee [TEC] Final Report’ [June-July 2013]).

Given that trade rules and not the low productivity of Indian farming undermined indigenous production and that non-GM varieties of mustard are better yielding, where is the logic in promoting GM varieties?

Consider that India is the biggest recipient of World Bank loans in the history of that institution. And consider that the opening up of India’s agriculture sector to foreign agribusiness via the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture is a quid pro quo deal for the US sanctioning investment in and the opening up of India’s nuclear industry. Such considerations steer us towards the real reasons for the relentless drive for a GM India.

The push to get GM mustard into India is presented as an endeavor independent from vested interests. However, the hand of Bayer is clear to see. It is a Trojan horse crop that is intended to open the regulatory floodgates for the sanctioning of other GM crops. That’s not a wild claim. It is a tactic that has already been employed the GMO agritech sector: Syngenta once described GM Golden Rice as a device to create “regulatory tension”with the ultimate aim of breaking down regulatory barriers.

GM mustard is being undemocratically forced through with flawed tests or no tests and a lack of public scrutiny. It is also a herbicide-tolerant crop (to be reliant on Bayer’s non-selective weedkiller Basta) that is wholly inappropriate for a country like India with its small biodiverse farms that could be affected by its application.

GM is not wanted or required in India. From research institutes, regulatory agencies and decision-making bodies riddled with conflicts of interests to strings-attached trade deals and nuclear agreements and pressure from the World Bank, the answer to why India is trying to pursue the global agribusiness-backed GM route is clear.

Transnational agribusiness armed with its chemicals and chemical-responsive (GM) seeds uses the language of crisis to convince people of its enormous value to humanity: that the world would starve without its products. However, in India, people go hungry because of, for instance, a lack of income, under-investment in farming, mismanagement or poor logistics – not because of an inability to produce enough food.

Environmentalist Viva Kermani states:

“India has been self-sufficient in food staples for over a decade. It grows about 100 million tons (mt) of rice, 95 mt of wheat, 170 mt of vegetables, 85 mt of fruit, 40 mt of coarse cereals and 18 mt of pulses (according to the Economic Survey)… our farmers grow enough to feed all Indians well with food staples. We have 66 mt of grain, two-and-a-half times the required buffer stock (on January 1, 2013). The country has reached this stage through… the knowledge and skill of our farmers who have bred and saved seed themselves and exchanged their seed in ways that made our fields so bio-diverse.”

If there are to be any winners here, it will be Monsanto/Bayer and Cargill as India’s farmers continue to buckle under the pressures of neoliberalism and under-investment.

The decision over GM Mustard is close, despite data being kept out of the public domain and the whole processes surrounding the regulation of GMOs having been described as a case of “unremitting fraud“. The sanctioning of GM food crops will alter the genetic core of India’s food system to suit the profit margins of the likes of Monsanto/Bayer with irreversible consequences for biosafety (ecology and health):

“This technology is a classic case of ‘unforeseeable systemic ruin’, which means that we will know we are ruined after it happens. As they say, the dead cannot make a comeback.” – Aruna Rodrigues

The genuine solution for securing sufficient healthy food is to adopt more sustainable, organic, ecological farming systems that draw on India’s vast indigenous knowledge of agriculture to promote food self-sufficiency and sovereignty. India should learn from the mistakes it made in adopting Green Revolution ideology and practices. As Viva Kermani argues, India’s farmers have legitimate claims to being scientists, innovators, natural resource stewards, seed savers and hybridisation experts. Unlike fly-by-night corporate profiteers who can in no way be trusted, farmers’ knowledge and skills have been developed over millennia.

Australian government launches far-reaching assault on welfare

Mike Head

Under the fraudulent banner of “investing” in welfare recipients to “improve” their lives, the Australian government yesterday unveiled an ideological offensive designed to satisfy the demands of the financial and corporate elite for the dismantling of welfare entitlements.

The government is trying to put new window dressing on measures designed to coerce some of the poorest layers of the working class into low-paid jobs. This is under conditions of mounting job losses, driven by the collapse of the mining boom and the global slump, and growing numbers of workers already being forced into insecure and poorly-paid work.

At the same time, the government is targeting the entire welfare system, including disability programs and aged pensions, in a bid to lower taxes further for corporations and the wealthy. Having barely survived the July 2 election, the Liberal-National Coalition government is anxious to demonstrate to big business that it can deliver its requirements.

Addressing the National Press Club, Social Services Minister Christian Porter declared a “revolution” to eliminate “welfare dependency.” It was a “moral imperative” to assist individuals supposedly “trapped” in a welfare cycle. In reality, the proposals take to a new level the “welfare to work” drive by successive governments, both Coalition and Labor.

Porter rejected criticism that unemployment benefits—kept at below-poverty levels for two decades (currently $38 a day for single adults)—push people into poor quality, part-time and low-wage jobs. “These types of jobs are far better than 40-odd years inside the welfare system,” he declared. Young people were being deprived of the “dignity and purpose” of employment under such super-exploited conditions.

Porter boasted of the punitive “success” of the welfare system. By making it “challenging to subsist off Newstart (unemployment benefits),” the government was already pushing off within six months 96 percent of those relying solely on the benefit. Only 1,500 people remained on the base rate for a long period. The government intended to go further, he insisted, by compelling applicants to wait four weeks before payments began.

Porter’s cynical declarations about the “dignity and purpose” of work are based on a false premise—namely that there are jobs available for those who want them. Even according to the under-stated official statistics, more than 720,000 workers are unemployed and there are 18 jobseekers on average per vacancy. Roy Morgan surveys estimate that the real level of unemployment is twice as high as the official 5.7 percent. A total of 2.3 million workers (17.5 percent) are either unemployed or under-employed, a rise of nearly 1 percent over the past year.

Many of those who are driven off unemployment benefits are condemned to a desperate hand-to-mouth existence relying on friends, family and welfare agencies. Others who do manage to find a job—often casual and poorly paid—are frequently little better off. In 2014, one-third of those living below the poverty line were “working poor”—that is, living in households with wages as their main income.

As the government’s initial victims, the minister singled out three vulnerable groups—students, young carers and young parents—but made it clear that his initiatives would not stop with them. Citing statistical analysis commissioned by the government from accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, Porter produced the misleading claim that the “lifetime cost” of welfare payments for those currently on benefits would total a colossal $4.8 trillion.

This calculation reveals the actual purpose of the government’s plan—drastic budget-cutting—beneath the veneer of concern for the wellbeing of welfare dependants. It is also a confected figure. First of all, the data focusses on alleged forecasts of the future plight of relatively small groups of young recipients. For example, of the 4,370 teenage parents, 12 percent—just 525 people—were expected to access income support for the rest of their lives.

Secondly, the biggest and fastest growing categories of welfare dependants are aged pensioners, people on National Disability Insurance Scheme programs and disability pensioners. In other words, it is the basic social right to welfare itself, including retirement pensions, that is being declared “unsustainable.”

Assisted by the corporate media, which constantly demonises “dole bludgers” and “welfare parents,” governments, Labor and Coalition, have already dramatically lowered the proportion of the working age population receiving income support payments, from 25 percent in 1994 to 16.6 percent in 2015.

This has been achieved through punishing measures such as eliminating sole parent payments once the youngest child turns 8 and imposing harsh “work tests” on dole recipients. By one measure alone—cutting off sole parent benefits—a process completed by the Gillard Labor government, the proportion of households receiving those payments halved from 5 percent in 1998 to 2.4 percent in 2015.

Porter signalled an intensification of this offensive. He outlined a new era of “mutual obligation” for every “working age” payment. Among his proposals were obligations to refrain from alcohol or substance abuse, attend “work appointments” on time, ensure children attend school and pay debts owed to the government.

Porter went beyond simply seeking to repackage the “welfare to work” drive. He advanced an underlying agenda of redefining “fairness” and dismissing inequality as a social indicator. “Fairness” now consisted of stopping “the mere transfer of money from one group to another.” Inequality was just a “measure of difference,” not of “comparative wellbeing.” These “ideological fixations” had to be pushed aside.

Similar nostrums are being brought forward to declare the failure of expenditure on education and health, which is decried as “throwing money at the problem.” This means nothing less than the gutting of all social spending in order to boost corporate profits and widen the gulf between the wealthy elites and the working class.

According to the most recent estimates by the Australian Council of Social Service, by 2014, 2.5 million people, or 13.9 percent of all Australian residents, were already living below the internationally accepted poverty line of 50 percent of median household income. Among them were 603,000 children, or 17.7 percent of all children in Australia.

By presenting its measures as “investing in people,” the government is aiming to secure the political assistance of the charities and other groups that vie for ever-dwindling government grants to provide basic social services once delivered by governments themselves. As an initial step in “revolutionising” welfare, $96 million will be allocated to a “Try, Test and Learn Fund” to enable such groups to compete with corporate consultants for funding to experiment with programs to “create a path out of the welfare system.”

Interviewed on Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “7.30” program last night, several representatives from such organisations, including Mission Australia CEO Catherine Yeomans, expressed “cautious optimism” about the government’s agenda.

As for the Labor Party, it demonstrated its basic agreement by last week helping the government push through the first post-election legislation, an Omnibus Bill to cut public spending by $6.3 billion over the next four years. More than half the cuts will come from welfare, including payments to families, students, the young unemployed, newly-arrived immigrants and aged nursing home residents.

More than a million Australians live in poor housing

John Harris

Over one million people in Australia are living in poor housing and, of those, more than 100,000 are in dwellings regarded as very poor or derelict.

A report published last month found that 1,093,600 people, or nearly 5 percent of the population, live in poor housing. The health of residents in these households was more likely to be rated as being only fair or poor compared to those living in better quality housing.

The study, entitled “Poor housing quality: Prevalence and health effects,” was conducted by researchers at the University of Adelaide. They found that official statistics do not account for a “hidden fraction” of the population that is in dire circumstances.

Many families live in precarious and unstable conditions, due to a combination of unaffordable housing, lack of a secure tenure and poor quality housing, plus inadequate access to social and employment networks. In the major cities, tenants in overcrowded dwellings have a lower health status, and children in poor quality dwellings are more likely to have long-term health issues, including a greater likelihood of asthma and respiratory disease.

When it comes to public housing, only about 42 percent is in good condition. Some 20 percent of public housing tenants live in very poor to derelict conditions. Responding to the report, a public housing resident in Port Lincoln, South Australia, provided a glimpse of the shocking conditions. Identified only as Muzz, he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: “I live in a Trust home with asbestos and no heating or cooling but it’s a home nonetheless… so many people have no home and will just struggle to exist.”

The report’s lead author Associate Professor Emma Baker said: “There is a strong body of research linking poor quality housing to measureable impacts on mental, physical and general health.

“We know that damp, cold or mould in homes can cause or exacerbate respiratory illnesses like asthma, and overcrowding can promote communicable disease, but just living in poor quality housing has been linked to anxiety, depression, and a range of other mental health conditions.

“Poor housing makes the already disadvantaged even worse off. Younger people, people with disabilities and ill health, those with low incomes, the unemployed or those in part-time employment, indigenous people, and renters are much more likely to be found in the emerging slums of 21st century Australia,” she said.

The largest proportion of poor quality housing is in the rental housing market, both private and public or social housing. Nearly half, 47 percent, of all indigenous Australians, who are among the most exploited and disadvantaged layers of the working class, live in poor quality housing.

Those who owned their own homes or held mortgages accounted for 80.5 percent of those who occupied homes of good to excellent condition. However, many families who have mortgages are teetering on a knife’s edge. Couples and families often rely on two incomes to repay mortgages of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Australian housing costs are among the most expensive and unaffordable in the world, “and that plays a big role in people not being able to afford the quality of dwelling they need,” Baker told Fairfax Media.

Over the past three decades, the cost of private housing has soared. From 1991 to 2011, the average price of houses in Australia grew sharply by 263 percent, compared to an average after-tax income growth of only 95 percent.

This is producing a mountain of debt. In 2014, the mean home equity was at $427,847, compared with a mean home value of $618,276. The mean household debt was $190,429 on unappreciated mortgages. Job losses, or loss of working hours can thrust many families into poverty, when confronted by unrepayable debts.

At the same time, for many the rental market is unaffordable. In Sydney, one of the most expensive cities in the world, median weekly rents range from a low of $400 for a house and $390 for a unit in the outer suburbs to a staggering $1,750 for a house and $720 for a unit in the wealthiest areas.

Hundreds of thousands of working-class families experience housing stress—more than 30 percent of their income is allocated to housing costs. To avoid housing stress, a family or individual living in Sydney would need to earn about $1,800 a week, and in broader NSW, $1,500.

Yet the minimum wage is only $672.70 a week, while the maximum unemployment payment for a single adult without children is just $237 a week. In May 2016, the average weekly pay for a full-time worker in NSW was just $1,160.20.

Home ownership is declining, and is now at its lowest level in 50 years, marking an historic reversal from the post-World War II period of rising ownership. According to the best estimates, home ownership was at 51.7 percent in 2014, down from 57 percent in 2002. These statistics include those paying off mortgages. In 2011-12, outright home ownership was only 31 percent.

The Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, on which the report’s data was based, demonstrated the ever-growing gulf between the wealthy and the poor. Between 2002 and 2014, the average net wealth of the top 1 percent of households more than doubled, from $3,905,912 to $8,491,287. By contrast, the mean net household wealth recorded for the lowest 10 percent was $6,148 in 2002 and only $10,820 in 2014.

Report lead author Baker appealed for remedial action, saying: “We believe governments need to take steps to ensure the supply of affordable and reasonable quality housing, otherwise we are destined to become a nation scarred once again by slums, reduced life chances and shortened lives.”

But despite occasional government lip service to providing affordable accommodation, the housing crisis has continued to worsen. It is driven by soaring prices that are producing a bonanza for property developers, real estate speculators, finance houses and construction giants. Capitalism systematically subordinates the needs of millions of people to the demands of private profit, with a terrible price being paid by the working class, particularly its poorest and most vulnerable members.