Ashinaga Fully-funded Undergraduate Scholarships for Orphans from Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 28 February 2017 | 

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Field of Study: courses offered at the choice higher institution

To be taken at (country): Higher institutions outside of Africa, in countries such as Japan, US, UK etc

Eligible Countries: Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Sudan, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Mauritius, Somalia, Nigeria, The Gambia.

About Scholarship: Ashinaga presents the “Ashinaga Africa Initiative” aiming to provide higher education to 49 brilliant students from 49 Sub-Saharan countries, some of which are among the poorest in the world, and encourage them to become leading professionals in their own countries.

We search and screen for potential candidates: orphaned or bereaved students with academic potential but who cannot afford to apply to university. We provide them with a concentrated study camp for six months at Ashinaga’s facility, Kokorojuku, in Uganda and Senegal, where they are given dedicated support and assistance with their study of various subjects and languages, as they prepare to apply to highly ranked universities around the world. We also provide them with a full scholarship and living expenses for four years during their studies abroad.

We expect to see these young, educated people go back to their own countries and establish democratic and fulfilled societies, bringing people a higher national income and high-quality education. This movement will eventually contribute to the overall wellbeing of Sub-Saharan countries by helping to break the cycle of poverty, even though the effects will not be immediate, as they are when food or equipment is donated.

There is a theory that the African population will expand to more than three billion by the end of this century. We believe if we can create a bright future for Africa, a continent with so much potential, humanity’s global prospects will be bright as well.

Ashinaga is a Japan-based nonprofit organization, which provides educational and emotional support to orphaned students. The organization has supported over 95,000 orphans in the last 45 years, and many of its graduates are actively contributing to society in a variety of fields across the world.

Offered Since: 2014

Type: undergraduate degree

Eligibility: The application is open to those who:

The application is open to those who:

1. Have lost one or both parents.
2. Have completed 12 years of education (primary and secondary school) within the last two years, or those who will complete 12 years of education by December 31, 2016.
3. Have citizenship and completed/are completing high school in one of the following countries: Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Sudan, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Mauritius, Somalia, Nigeria, The Gambia.
4. Were born after 1 st October 1994.
5. Do not have the financial means to attend university.
6. Are proficient in English.
7. Have an outstanding academic performance at high school.
8. Are able to participate in the two Ashinaga preparatory programs, over the course of one year, before attending university.
9. Are willing to return home, or to Sub-Saharan Africa, and contribute to society in Sub-Saharan Africa after graduating from university.
10. Have no dependents who could interfere with academic progress.
11. Are in good health condition and capable of studying abroad.

Number of Scholarships: not specified

Value of Scholarship: The 100-Year Vision Scholarship provides a full scholarship that covers the cost of tuition, accommodation (during the terms and vacation), insurance, flight, and provides monthly stipend which covers food and necessary academic costs.

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of undergraduate studies

How to Apply: 

1. This application form.
2. One passport photo.
3. Copy of term reports / high school transcripts (the last 2 years).
4. Academic transcripts or diplomas from university/post-secondary institution, if applicable.
5. Copy of General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE).
6. Completion of essay 1 and essay 2.
   • Essay 1:  Please describe how you grew up and experienced losing your parent(s). What challenges have you faced after the loss and what and how did you do in order to overcome them? Please write in detail especially the action you took to continue further education. (Maximum 500 words)
   • Essay 2:  Please write a “personal statement” in English describing why and what you want to study at university abroad. Also, please mention whether you have any future plans of how you want to use the knowledge and experience that you gain after graduating from university. (Maximum 500 words)
7. Copy of death certificate of deceased parent(s) or alternative official document.
8. Copy of birth certificate.
9. Recommendation letter from a principal or a class teacher.
10. Copy of national ID card or passport.
11. Awards or activity certificates, if any.

You can apply online (preferred option), send by post or download the application and email it to; admissions.en@ashinaga.org

1. Email:

Download the form from the PDF icon below, fill it out and send it back attached to an email to admissions.en@ashinaga.org 
with the required documents attached.

2. Online application:
https://www.jotform.com/AshinagaAAI/Application_Form_2017_En

3. Post:
Download the form from the PDF icon below , fill it out and send it by post to;
Ashinaga Africa Initiative Recruitment Team
P. O. Box 16864 – Kampala, Uganda

Visit scholarship application page to apply

Sponsors: The 100-Year Vision is sponsored and implemented by Ashinaga.

Important Notes:Please also note that ONLY Successful candidates will be contacted via email in late March 2017 to be invited to attend an interview in their home country, which will take place in April 2017.

This application and selection process is free for students, and anyone asking for payment at any stage of this process is doing so against the will of Ashinaga, and should not be paid.

Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana

Jesse Ventura


While I was on my book tour for Jesse Ventura’s Marijuana Manifesto, I was shocked to discover how many Americans didn’t know our Founding Fathers grew cannabis. From talk radio and TV hosts to fans at my book signings, many were unaware that the 13 colonies were of great value to the British Crown because by law, colonists had to grow hemp and give it to England free of charge as part of their taxes. This obviously saved the British Navy an incredible amount of money, as everything from uniforms to rope to paper to ships’ sails were made from hemp.

Most people I spoke to also didn’t know that the DEA would consider George Washington and Thomas Jefferson criminals today because they grew marijuana and hemp. I was often asked: Why isn’t this information taught to us in school when we learn about American history? For the same reason when you Google marijuana, one of the first things that comes up is “gateway drug.” For generations, our Federal government has been re-writing America’s history as it pertains to cannabis. Today, the DEA is also playing a dangerous role when it comes to medical marijuana studies.

Just this month, we learned that 50 years ago, Big Sugar paid Harvard scientists to refute evidence from a major study that showed sugar plays a significant role in increasing the risk of heart disease. After receiving their payout, Harvard scientists decided to point the blame at fat instead, and for the past 50 years, we’ve been relying on that very study to determine what is a healthy, nutritional diet. We take fat out of everything, but have you noticed how much sugar is in our food, starting of course with baby products? Of course, too much fat isn’t good for you either, but the point is: little did we know, these scientists weren’t above being bribed. A scientific study is supposed to be objective. Scientists go into a study looking for answers. In this situation, scientists were told what the outcome of the study had to be, and they did their job.

The interesting part about this story is that at the time, other researchers were conducting similar studies and found the results that Harvard did not disclose: that sugar played a significant role in heart conditions. The Harvard researchers actually dismissed any conflicting studies, stating things like eating less sugar and more vegetables isn’t a feasible dietary change. Or that other studies didn’t go far enough to determine that fat was the true culprit of things like coronary heart disease. Even though it took 50 years for the truth to finally come out and many of the original Harvard scientists are now deceased, sadly this manipulative practice is still going on. Corporations like Coca-Cola have offered to pay researchers to determine that drinking sugary drinks does not lead to a greater risk of obesity or Type 2 diabetes. But how does this relate to marijuana? Easy.

There are two conflicting “scientific” ideologies when it comes to marijuana:

1) marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic, just as dangerous as heroin, with no medical benefits whatsoever, and it is a gateway drug.

2) marijuana is a medicinal plant with great value for many diseases and incurable conditions.

Over the years, studies have proven both points. How can that be possible? Take a look at who is funding and approving the studies. Take a look at who is conducting the studies. Take a look at where the studies are being conducted.

If the results of the study fit into the first “scientific” ideology, then that’s a pretty good indication that the study was conducted in the United States. Since marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic, any researcher looking to study it must go to the DEA and ask permission to do so. The DEA then decides if the study is worth pursuing. Only in America can a law enforcement agency have the right to decide what scientists can and cannot research. Why on earth would the DEA approve a study looking to determine any positive attributes of marijuana, when the DEA’s job is to eradicate the plant and imprison anyone who uses it?

If you come across a study that lists any positive results—such as how THC can cause brain tumors to shrink and disappear entirely—then that’s a good indication the study was conducted in another country, such as Spain, Germany, or Israel. There’s also a good chance that the study has been published in several noteworthy medical journals, but we the American people probably won’t hear about it. The mainstream media in the United States sure wouldn’t cover the findings, and if any politician is asked about the medical benefits of marijuana, the response remains “we need more research.”

Why would that be? Think about all the industries who would be threatened by marijuana if it became legal, especially for medical purposes. Think about all the money those companies give to politicians. Think about how much money those corporations spend on advertising. Any media company would be shooting itself in the foot if breaking news went against what those corporate sponsors want. Don’t believe me? Re-read what I just wrote about Big Sugar. The same principle applies.

While I was on my book tour, a conservative talk show host tried to “get me” with a study that showed marijuana has a negative impact on the brain’s ability to remember. He didn’t know where this study was conducted, or who led the charge on the research. He also didn’t know about the studies that show marijuana helps people with Alzheimer’s. I admittedly don’t know every single scientific marijuana study that has been done in the US and abroad, but when I wrote my marijuana manifesto, I read enough of them to notice a pattern: America likes to rewrite history, ignore facts, and claim that a law enforcement agency has no conflict of interest when it decides what drugs to classify as illegal, and what studies scientists can conduct.

The problem with this pattern is that it is dangerous. Marijuana could alleviate and possibly cure conditions that affect thousands, if not millions of people. How can the DEA act this way when no one knows what the future holds? One day, you or someone you love might have exhausted all pharmaceutical options and find that you actually need what this plant can provide. What will you do then?

As far as I know, there is one DEA- and FDA-approved study underway on US soil that could prove unprecedented positive results. Dr. Sue Sisley’s study is examining if whole-plant cannabis can help with severe cases of PTSD if veterans are allowed to smoke it as a treatment option. She had to wait nearly seven years to get the study approved, and she claims the only way she even received federal approval was due to support from veterans’ groups that pressured the government.

With 20 or more veterans committing suicide every day (that means more service men and women die after returning home from combat than on the battlefield), this study was long overdue. I hope it is the first step in reversing our prejudice against this incredible plant, but did you realize what it took for the study to happen in the first place? We the People had to rise up and demand it.

This year marks the 45th anniversary of Nixon’s War on Drugs. If we really want to make America great, then it’s time to end the war against the American people. It’s time to realize the Founding Fathers knew the value of democracy as well as cannabis. In poll after poll, more than half of the American people want to see marijuana legalized. If that’s true, then we have to rise up together and demand it.

A Globalization Wake-Up Call

Murray Dobbin

If recent mainstream economic reports are to be taken seriously some of the big brains managing global capitalism these days are starting to lose faith in their neo-liberal ideology. Some come close to sounding like virtual heretics. Like Jonathan Ostry, is the IMF’s deputy director of the research and lead author of an article (“Neoliberalism: Oversold?”)  in the IMF’s official publication. He stated, with a childlike innocence: “…some aspects of the neoliberal agenda probably need a rethink. The [2008] crisis said: ‘The way we’ve been thinking can’t be right’.” No point, I suppose, in dwelling on the past – that is, the millions of lives made miserable by decades of IMF structural adjustment programs.

The lack of mea culpas notwithstanding, the IMF bravely identifies two aspects of neo-liberal policy for scrutiny: the elimination of capital controls (allowing for capital flight to be used as a political weapon against poor countries) and fiscal austerity. While “cheering” aspects of the “neo-liberal agenda”  according to the Financial Times he also acknowledged some “’disquieting conclusions’ including that they resulted in increased inequality that undermined economic growth.”

That report came out in May but just last week the annual report of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has leapt ahead of any cautious “rethinking” and calls for a virtual reversal of the whole neo-liberal “edifice.” The report contains some of the most alarming warnings UNCTAD has ever issued. And that warning relates, in part, to the near-zero interest rates developed countries are using to try to restart their economies.

There are unintended consequence of low interest rates, says the report: “Alarm bells have been ringing over the explosion of corporate debt levels in emerging economies, which now exceed $25 trillion. Damaging deflationary spirals cannot be ruled out.” And later: “The benefits of a rushed integration into international financial markets post-2008 are fast evaporating. If policymakers fail to mitigate the negative impacts of unchecked global market forces …a significant share of developing-country debt incurred since 2008 could become unpayable and exert considerable pressure on the financial system.”

UNCTAD’s analysis also attacks Western governments’ obsession with austerity which has starved global demand but it more broadly blames “… the entire edifice of liberal market finance…”  As far as the UN is concerned this development is the “third leg” of the global financial crisis – the first two being the US housing bubble and the second the EU meltdown. Its solution sounds almost revolutionary according to the London Telegraph: “The world must jettison neo-liberal ideology, and launch a ‘global new deal’ with a blitz of investment on strategic sectors. …a return of the ‘developmental state’, commanding a potent industrial policy, and backed by severe controls on capital flows.”

The report also highlights the fact that global corporations – which designed the neo-liberal  Washington Consensus explicitly to reverse the old social contract and the ’development state’ – have failed utterly to deliver on the quid pro quo: their promise of growth and prosperity. The global corporate sector is characterized by management captured by ”activist funds” which focus almost exclusively on shareholder value, the maximum extraction of profit and mergers and acquisitions rather than the reinvestment of their profits “… into production capacity, jobs, or self-sustaining growth.”

This latter criticism describes the Canadian corporate sector in spades. Instead of investing its record profits – and its tax break windfall in the billions – it is sitting on over $600 billion idle cash. But the situation with Canadian corporations is actually much worse than in most OECD countries, particularly compared to their main competitors in the US. In previous columns I have quoted past studies done by Harvard Business School’s Michael E. Porter. He concluded: “The U.S. is just much more entrepreneurial (than Canada)… Research uncovered key weaknesses in the sophistication of (Canadian) company operations and strategy.” He went on to describe Canadian business as cautious and risk-averse, unwilling to spend money on research and development, and addicted to exporting almost exclusively to the US.

Just this past week Deloitte Canada published a report which took Porter’s academic studies a step further by interviewing 1200 Canadian CEOs regarding their willingness to takes risks and invest in the future of their companies. The results of the study – entitled The Future Belongs to the Bold – paint a pathetic picture. The poll concluded: “At a time when Canada needs its businesses to be bolder and more courageous than ever before, almost 90 per cent aren’t up to the task.” The companies fell into one of several categories: 15 per cent of CEOs were “fearful,” 43 per cent were “hesitant,” 30 per cent were “evolving,” and 11 per cent were “courageous.”

The result? “Investments aren’t made. New ideas aren’t explored. And Canadian companies slowly fall further and further behind.” Companies have actually reduced spending on training by 40 percent since the mid-1990s. As Porter earlier observed, where Canadian companies are successful it is mostly due to access to cheap labour and natural resources.

And this week the Conference Board of Canada published an op-ed in the Globe and Mail decrying the lack of investment in manufacturing innovation, observing: “…research and development spending in the sector is generally very low. Indeed, investment has been so weak for a number of years that many manufacturing segments have actually become less capital intensive. The result is an erosion in the global competitiveness of Canadian manufacturing.”

Once again we see the folly of placing our economic future in the hands of “fearful” and risk averse CEOs while giving them every possible advantage from suppressed wages, huge tax cuts, and privatization, to deregulation and endless idiotic “trade” deals. Corporate Canada signed a contract and broke it. It should be forced be back to the negotiating table. And this time it should focus on the domestic economy.

The Liberal preoccupation with trade deals looks increasingly ill-considered. In yet another warning about the state of global trade Roberto Azevêdo, the World Trade Organization’s director-general declared : “The dramatic slowing of trade growth is serious and should serve as a wake-up call.”  The question for the Trudeau Liberals is what to do if they do wake up. Instead of more oil and gas infrastructure (in a world already awash in both) it should itself be “courageous” and use bold fiscal policy to launch a serious transition away from fossil fuels and at the same time actually take the Paris climate accord seriously. But that would require “rethinking” another neo-liberal policy: the reckless tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations which rob federal government coffers of $50 billion every year.

What It’s Like To Be A Muslim Australian

Ghali Hassan

A recent Essential Research poll had found 49 per cent of Australians support a ban on Muslim immigration, including 60 per cent of Liberal-National Coalition voters, 40 per cent of Labor voters and 34 per cent of Greens voters agreed with the proposition that Muslim Australians were not integrating (assimilating) into “Australian culture” and pose a threat to Australia. It is the result of a steady diet of fear, and xenophobia fed to Australians by openly racist politicians and the mass media.

Australian politicians and the media are demonising an already marginalised small Muslim Community (2.2% of the total Australian population) to score point and win votes. It is true that Muslims have a strong Muslim identity, because Islam is not just a religion, Islam is a way of life. However, when compared with other minorities, Muslim Australians are the most integrated Australians in every field of life. They have succumbed to a repressive society that imposed its beliefs and values on them. It is nothing more than force assimilation justify by exaggerated fears of a fabricated threat.

Despite the daily racism and extreme hostility they face, nearly 86 per cent of Muslim Australians felt that relations between Muslims and non-Muslims were friendly and were not strained as politicians and the media allege, according to a study by the University of Western Sydney. The study ultimately revealed the “ordinariness of the Muslims” and their aspiration in Australia, said Professor Kevin Dunn of Western Sydney University. (The Study).

Muslim Australians have the right to live their lives without being vilified and discriminated against.  As Uthman Badar writes in The Sydney Morning Herald: “Contrary to baseless claims otherwise, Muslims are not demanding that Australia become an Islamic state, or that sharia be enforced. They are not demanding to be outside the law or judged by another set of laws. They’re simply asking to be left alone to practice their faith; that their beliefs and values not be interfered with by the state; that if some Muslim does the wrong thing he be dealt like any other criminal, without the entire community being criminalised and Islam demonised; that they be able to participate in debates about the law, morality and government policy without being considered a fifth column”. How can a small minority of ordinary Australian Muslims pose a threat to “Australian culture”?

Let’s call a spade a spade. What is “Australian culture”? There is no unique white Australian culture. Australia is not known for its vibrant culture. Australia is a pretentious society addicted to punching far above its weight. There is an old Indigenous Culture with unique languages and cultural adaptations that most non-Indigenous Australians know nothing about. How many non-Indigenous Australians know where the Anindilyakwa people live? We all know how brutally Indigenous Australians are treated. They are despised by non-Indigenous Australians. Most non-Indigenous Australians choose the privilege of turning a blind eye. Outside Indigenous Culture, everything else is imported and repackaged – not AFL football. Australia is a colonial outpost, dominated by white Anglo-American culture. The so-called “Multiculturalism” – where each ethnic group put in its designated box – is racially-promoted ghettoization designed to enforce white privilege and white supremacy. To the contrary, Australia has a concocted image that is the exact opposite of its ugly reality. After the election of Pauline Hanson, Australia can claim to be the world’s most anti-Muslim and systemically racist societies where victims (mostly Muslims) of white racism have no protection. As victims of racism, Muslims are on their own. There is noone (nations or organisations) that has the courage to stand up for Muslims and defend them. Most of the so-called “Islamic nations” (with majority Muslims population) are U.S. clients ruled by despotic regimes. It is the reason Muslims are discriminated against and attacked in Australia with ease.

While many Australians are blaming Pauline Hanson and her gang for promoting racism, racism is deeply-entrenched in Australia. Australia was built on Racism and violence. It is elite racism – coated with the language of “tolerance” and multiculturalism – imposed by the white dominant class. The media, the education system, sport, the police, the justice system and Australian politics are systemically racist and plagued by rampant corruption. Most Australians breathe racism and cannot live without it. It is in their DNA makeup. From early childhood, Australians are conditioned by the corporate media (TV in particular), politicians and even their parents, to objectify others – non-white people and women. Unlike in other countries, racism in Australia is a well-managed subtle kind of racism. It is structural form of racism that, have a far larger impact on people’s lives: where religious, cultural or ethnic minorities are made to feel they do not belong in Australia.

Most people know that, “anti-Muslim sentiment did not begin with Pauline Hanson. A more sophisticated, highbrow anti-Muslim sentiment was used to justify the mandatory indefinite detention of Muslim [refugees]. It was used to justify the torture of Australian citizens in Guantanamo Bay. It was, and is used to justify wars in Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, [Libya and Syria]. It is used to justify our support for Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinians. It is used to justify our support for murderous tyrants in Muslim countries, who oppress their Muslim citizens. A lot of anti-Muslim argument has come from the elite’s need to defend their anti-Muslim policies. As Eric Hoffer observed, ‘when power is wedded to chronic fear… it becomes formidable”. (A. McQuire, M. Brull, & S. Sabawi, New Matilda, 22 July 2016).

Muslims are discriminated against because they are Muslims. It has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims are not integrating into Australian culture. Most Australians have never met a Muslim in their lives and most Australians know nothing about Islam. Indeed, according to a recent study by Deakin University: “people who don’t know any Muslims or interact with any Muslims in the community felt the most fear around terrorism. People who know Muslims and more about Islam as a religion are the ones who don’t feel threatened”, said the researcher, Dr Matteo Vergani.

All what Australians know about Muslims in Australia is from racist politicians and the media. For example, more often Australian TV channels devote time to “discuss” (denounce and demonise) Muslims and Islam without a Muslim voice to respond, denying Australians a rare opportunity to hear two sides. When the elitist Sydney Writers’ Festival invites an illiterate and ignorant Somali-born refugee (the anti-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and promotes her as an expert on Muslims and Islam, you know there is something wrong with Australian society. As Professor As’ad AbuKhalil of California State University observes, “Hirsi has no relevant expertise on Islam – she is ‘only because of her bigotry… treated as an expert on Islam’. Hirsi has identified Islam as ‘a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.’ This sounds a lot like the language of Tony Abbott on ISIS terrorists. Yet while right-thinking progressives in Australia have mocked Abbott’s rhetoric, Hirsi gets a warmer reception” (Michael Brull, New Matilda). Hirsi, validates what the anti-Muslim white bigots already believe: that Islam is bad and the West is inherently good.

What is really astonishing about Australians (the elites) is that, Donald Trump, the Republican U.S. presidential candidate, has been criticised in Australia by the Australian political and media establishments, who are rubbing shoulders with Pauline Hanson and her gang. Trump hasn’t said anything that Australia is not doing or not supporting. He is demonised thoroughly simply because he said he will do what Australia is already doing. May be because he said that if elected he will talk to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The Australian Greens Party leader Richard Di Natale said recently: “I think [Trump] is dangerous for the U.S. and dangerous for the global community, and you just need to look at those clashes that we have seen recently between anti-Trump and pro-Trump supporters”. What a cynical propaganda? Take a look in your own backyard, Mr Di Natale. The Clintons war criminals have been (and will be if elected) disastrous for world’s peace and prosperity.

Like in the U.S. and in many parts of Europe, Australian Muslims are living in fear. People do not know when the Police and Special Forces will raid their homes, arrest and imprisoned their loved ones indefinitely.  The policy is reminiscent of Kristallnacht, the night of horror in 1938 when rampaging Nazis smashed Jewish homes and businesses in Germany and killed scores of Jews. Muslims are unfairly targeted and accused of terrorism, because terrorism is framed as a Muslim problem. Hence, too many anti-Muslims draconian laws are predicated on the false and racist assumption that Muslims are more likely to engage in terrorism. To the contrary, Muslims are the victims of well-orchestrated terrorism.

For more than five years, the Syria people have paid dearly for the crimes of terrorists. It is well-documented that terrorist networks like ISIS [Daesh], al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front and their affiliates are U.S.-Israel proxy terror networks. They are labelled by Western governments and Western media as “moderate rebels”, “militants” and “opposition forces”, but not terrorists. They have been trained, financed, armed, directed and protected by the U.S. and U.S. allies, including Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, Qatar, Jordan among others. In addition, the U.S. and its allies air forces acting as the terrorists’ air force and provided air cover for the terrorists. The recent deliberate air strikes (17 Sep. 2016) by the U.S. and its allies on the positions of the Syrian troops at Deir ez-Zor, south east Al-Raqqa – which more than 60 troops were killed and hundreds were injured –, is a case in point. It allowed ISIS terrorists to occupy the heights around the airport. The criminal air attacks designed to sabotage the ceasefire agreement and strengthen the terrorists (ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra Front) against the democratically-elected Syrian Government. Before this dirty war on Syria, Syria was an Oasis of civilisation and religious tolerance.

The so-called “Islamic Terrorism” is a Western-concocted pretext to manipulate the public (instil fear) and justify discrimination against Muslims. The ongoing demonisation of Muslims and Islam in Australia, the U.S. and Europe is part of the policy to divert attention away from Western nations roles in creating and supporting terrorism. As the violence increase in their homelands, Muslims who manged to flee and seek refuge abroad are demonised and used as scapegoat by politicians and the media.

Australia which is reached by only a trickle of Muslim refugees, has turned into a nightmare for them. Australia prides itself on its widely-condemned and inhumane anti-Muslim “White Australia’s” refugee policy. The New York Times has recently called Australia’s draconian refugee policy as “unconscionable”, and urged European policymakers not to look at Australia’s “ruthlessly effective effort to stop boats” as an option. No decent human being like to associate with a society that sells cruelty and treat dogs better than humans. The current Muslim refugee crisis is the predictable results of U.S.-led Western war of terror in the Middle East and Africa, to which Australia is a party.

In Australia refugees – mostly Muslims – are stopped at sea by the Australian Navy and Borders Control Forces (Operation Sovereign Borders) and shipped to grotesque Concentration Camps in poor Island nations like Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The voiceless refugees, including children, women and men have been sexually abused, tortured, exploited and some have been murdered. Journalists and media who visited the refugee Camp on Manus Island have been ordered (and threatened) to delete footages. It is the Government’s view that anything that contradict the Government narrative is unacceptable and should not be made available to Australians.

A recent article, entitled “Is Australia engaged in torturing asylum seekers? A cautionary tale for Europe,” co-authored by John-Saul Sanggaran, a medical officer, who worked at one of such camps which was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that the Australian government is creating unbearable conditions at these Concentration Camps to send a message to others would be refugees not to come to Australia. The criminal policy is supported by the majority of Australians. Can you imagine the outrage if Australian women and children are treated in the same way as refugees are treated?

Although most Australians know that the Government’s refugee policy is cruel and in flagrant violation of international law, a poll in January 2014 found that 60 per cent of Australians support the Government policy of harsh treatment of refugees and urge the Government to “increase the severity” of the policy. As Henry Giroux writes: “Shallow consumerisms coupled with an indifference to the needs and suffering of others has produce a politics of disengagement and a culture of moral irresponsibility” in the Australian society. Any society in which politicians and the media appeal to bigotry, promoting hatred and promising to terrorise refugees to win elections is a sick society.

The onus is on the other half of Australians to begin the dismantling of the Hansonism culture of ignorance and racism. Australia needs to evolve beyond the façade of multiculturalism into a cohesive nation for every Australians. The 49 per cent of Australians who support this racist and backwards policy against Muslims are doing Australia great harm. As McQuire and colleagues rightly argue: “We don’t have a Muslim problem in Australia. We have a racism problem, and it is an emergency. We urge readers to take this as a wake-up call, to build stronger ties across communities, and to challenge racism, whether it comes from the top or from the bottom”. Only together, the contagious virus of racism will be defeated.

Suing Saudi Arabia: Overturning Sovereign Immunity In US Courts

Binoy Kampmark

It was momentous on one fundamental level. Here was the President of the United States, Barack Obama, holding the torch for a wretched ally the politicians on the Hill and others have had reservations over for many years.  Saudi Arabia, ever the thorn and asset of US interests, facing the grief of families who lost members on September 11, 2001.  This, the same ally whose theocratic bent remains the most bruising of obstacles in any claims that the US is open to a global democratic experiment.

In the end, it came down to a very American formula, one born in the court room and ligation process. It also left a good deal of mud on the Presidential power of veto.  “I would venture to say,” ventured press secretary Josh Earnest, not without some hyperbole, “that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States has done, possibly since 1983.”

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act permits US courts to waive an assertion of foreign sovereign immunity, one of the treasured features of a State’s legal armoury, regarding acts of terrorism that occur on US soil.  While Saudi Arabia claims no direct role in the 9/11 attacks, it cannot say the same about its zealous nationals, with fifteen of the 19 plane hijackers boasting that nationality.

True to form, its diplomats were heating the issue and reminding US lawmakers about the consequences of JASTA becoming law.  In the cold, monetarily inclined words of Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, “everybody will begin to think twice before they invest in a place where their assets could be seized.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer, chief sponsor of the bill, explained with some solemnity that, “Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts.”

Nerves through Washington duly frayed.  Playing the 9/11 card is a rotten business, but it certainly worked to convince members on both side of the aisle that the President’s veto had to be overturned.  The façade was duly taken down; and the ugly, protective mask of the relationship with Riyadh ripped off.  Admitting to an avenue of legal action, or at any rate permitting it, against an ally was tantamount to a confession.

One such individual was CIA director John Brennan, whose befuddled security mind has to juggle the plotting machinations of Riyadh with the dictates of US security.  “It would be an absolute shame if this legislation, in any way, influenced the Saudi willingness to continue to be among our best counterterrorism partners.”

President Obama was more forthright. The passage of the bill effectively meant that the various imperial efforts of the US would be compromised.  Vast, gargantuan and spread over the earth, US engagements and actions would suddenly face the prospect of legal targeting.

His concern with such actions had to with “not wanting a situation in which we’re suddenly exposed to liabilities for all the work that we’re doing all around the world, and suddenly finding ourselves subject to private lawsuits in courts where we don’t even know exactly where they’re on the up and up, in some cases.”

Speculation was already being advanced by various legal authorities.  JASTA, argued Theodore Karasik, would also permit Saudi citizens an avenue to sue the US government and its employees in foreign courts. That would well accompany additional moves to amend domestic laws “to allow their citizens to sue the US government and its employees in foreign courts, most likely state security courts.”

Stephen I. Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law goes further in suggesting that the law will do little to bring home the litigious bounty for victims of 9/11 while enlarging the scope for US plaintiffs to launch suits against states for international terrorism, whether Washington deems them sponsors of terrorism or otherwise.

The punch against US power, however, would come in the form of taking Washington’s policies to task in very specific cases.  Would, for instance, the Syrian regime be justified in suing the United States for its role in sponsoring Syrian rebel fighters who go on to commit acts of terrorism?  Justice can be truly blind, though the legal authorities often fear it.

Much of this fuss may be unfounded.  States continue to pursue claims against each other in the International Court of Justice, though they tend to do so with velvet gloves and utterances of mock decency.  In some cases arbitral channels over matters of wrongful death can also be used.  But States have continued over the years to cite a veil of sovereign immunity in the courts that has, at stages, begun to tear. The Nuremberg war crimes trials made a decent start of it.

Over time, the deaths of nationals has generated a basis to seek compensation, though a state might well be reluctant to part with money in the bargain.  Granting an award is no guarantee of receiving it.  But rarely has there been such an overt challenge to assumptions of sovereign immunity, a domestic effort to effectively overturn an internationally accepted rule.

Following that other accepted notion of reciprocity at international law, other countries may well see their nationals rush to the courts to seek redress for the actions of the US imperium, allies or otherwise.  They should be mindful of the comments of Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate judiciary committee: “All they want is the opportunity to present their case in a court of law.”

Australia: Immigration employees take industrial action in public sector dispute

Oscar Grenfell

Workers from the Department of Immigration and Border Force (DIBF) launched limited industrial action on Monday, as part of an ongoing dispute over federal public sector wages and conditions.

As many as 100,000 federal public sector workers in departments covered by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) have gone almost three years without an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.

The dispute centres on the government’s demands for a sweeping overhaul of working conditions, aimed at slashing costs, and capped wage increases below the rate of inflation, which will result in real wage cuts for many employees. Because the government has asserted that any agreement will not be backdated, the conflict has resulted in most of the CPSU’s public sector members being hit with an effective three-year wage freeze.

While there is widespread opposition to the government’s attacks among workers, the CPSU has done everything it can to prevent the development of an industrial and political fight against the measures. Instead the union has issued pathetic appeals to the government for negotiations, and has promoted illusions that a Labor Party government would be an alternative.

The current strike action is along these lines. It involves rolling stoppages of just 30 minutes at cruise ship terminals, cargo facilities and international airports. The union has stated that the action will continue until October 9. It has not provided any details on when and where members will go on strike.

Despite the limited character of the stoppages, a series of commentaries in the financial press have declared that the action is likely to lead to delays at international airports.

A statement by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection likewise commented: “This proposed strike action flies in the face of this bargaining process and represents an unreasonable and unwarranted escalation at a time the department is looking to find consensus.”

Federal Liberal-National senator and former minister for industrial relations Eric Abetz also denounced the stoppage and said that the union was being “unrealistic.”

Some prominent figures have called for the government to step-in and ban the strike altogether.

On Wednesday, the Sydney Morning Herald published a comment by Dr John Moyne of the Australian Strategic and Policy Institute (ASPI), a government-connected think tank, which denounced the industrial action as “an unacceptable risk to airport security during the school holidays.” Moyne encouraged the government to make legislative changes to the employment conditions of Border Force workers, in order to prevent them from taking any industrial action.

“National security” has previously been invoked by the government, and the union, to suppress strike action by Border Force employees.

In March, the CPSU cancelled scheduled 24-hour strikes after the Liberal-National government issued vague terrorism warnings in the wake of attacks at Brussels airport in Belgium. The union’s move created a dangerous precedent for any industrial or political struggle to be suppressed at the say-so of the government. In April, an injunction by the government’s Fair Work Commission banned strike action by Border Force employees on the grounds of “national security.”

According to the Australian, in the latest dispute the union has 50 exemptions in place “to ensure national security and the safety of the general public.” The union has nevertheless accused the department of “strike breaking.” It has alleged that the department is engaging in “surge deployment,” whereby employees are transferred in order to cover the work of their striking colleagues.

The strike action follows a new offer from the department, reported on by the CPSU at the beginning of the month. According to the union, the new deal retains cuts to working conditions contained in previous offers, and reduces average pay raises contained in the last proposed agreement from an average of 6 percent over three years, to just 4.7 percent. The CPSU has claimed that under the offer, some staff would face real cuts to take-home pay.

Repeated government offers have included clauses to strip allowances, which in some cases could leave workers $8,000 worse off per year. The government is also seeking to abolish existing workplace entitlements and allowances, including for flexible working hours.

Workers also face the prospect of the reinstatement of a host of cuts to pay and conditions first implemented in July 2015 when the government merged Australian Customs, Border Protection Service and the Department of Immigration to form the DIBF. The union has claimed that as many as 800 jobs are set to be slashed across the department.

As in a number of other public sector departments, DIBF staff have repeatedly voted down government offers in large numbers. An agreement in September 2015 was rejected by 91 percent of employees and a similar offer in May 2016 was voted down by 81 percent of workers.

There are indications, however, of mounting frustration and hostility among workers towards the CPSU’s attempts to limit opposition to isolated strikes and protests. A one-day strike called by the union on September 9 across a number of departments appears to have been boycotted by a substantial number of workers, including in departments that have overwhelmingly rejected government offers.

On the day of the strike, the union held pathetic protests outside the offices of Liberal-National MPs. The events, which were attended in most capital cities by as few as 50 union officials and workers, were aimed at suppressing any serious political discussion. There were no speeches, with union officials merely posing for media photos and leading chants of “Come on Malcolm, come on,” directed to the conservative prime minister.

According to John Lloyd, the Public Service Commissioner, only 730 Tax Office workers took part in the strike action, out of a workforce of almost 20,000. Lloyd claimed that 5,000 Department of Human Services employees participated in the stoppage, out of over 34,000 employees, and that none of its offices were closed.

In the Department of the Environment and Energy only 36 of 2,400 participated and in the Department of Parliamentary Services just 27 out of 894 employees took part. Among Immigration and Border Force workers, the participation was reportedly 4 percent.

The union has continued to signal that it is willing to work with the government to slash the conditions of the workers it falsely claims to represent. CPSU national secretary, Nadine Flood stated at the beginning of the latest strike that “In our view, the best way to avert this protected industrial action would be for the government to choose to either seek a sensible resolution through discussions or to take the CPSU to the Fair Work Commission and allow the independent umpire to [resolve] the matter.”

At the same time, the union is campaigning for Labor Party candidates in the Australian Capital Territory elections, and is presenting them as “pro-public sector.” In reality, it was the Labor government of Bob Hawke that introduced efficiency dividends, mandating an annual funding cut to the public sector, in the late 1980s. The measure has been used by successive governments to decimate the jobs and conditions of public sector workers, including by the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments, which presided over the destruction of up to 14,500 federal public sector jobs.

Infrastructure breakdown plunges Australian state into darkness

Mike Head

In an unprecedented breakdown of essential infrastructure, an entire Australian state was blacked out on Wednesday night after a severe storm damaged electricity transmission towers.

Power went out across South Australia, with a population of 1.7 million, at about 3.45pm in the midst of drenching rains, lightning and thunder, throwing the state into chaos. The cause was not a lack of base load power, but a cascading shut down of the state’s transmission system.

According to Electranet, the private company that operates the South Australian grid, storm cells damaged more than 20 towers at five different points in the network. It seems that the whole system rapidly shut down because of power surges, and that triggered the cutting off of supply cables from the neighbouring state of Victoria.

Without warning, residents suddenly lost all power. About 900,000 homes were in darkness and use of mobile phones began to be threatened by the lack of electricity. State Emergency Services officials said almost 1,000 calls for assistance were received over the following 24 hours. There were no reports of lives lost, but widespread traffic accidents were caused.

In the capital, Adelaide, a city of 1.3 million people, the public transport system was paralysed. Trains and trams were shut down. Roads were gridlocked as traffic lights failed, street lights stopped operating and railway level crossing boom gates were stuck in the down position for hours.

Thousands of people were stranded in the city, with Adelaide Town Hall opened to people unable to return home. People were trapped in lifts and fire alarms blared throughout the city as the power ceased. At Adelaide airport, outgoing flights were grounded and only one of two back-up generators was working.

Standby generators failed at a major Adelaide hospital, forcing 17 patients to be transferred to another hospital. Some needed help breathing with manual respirators as they were taken from Flinders Medical Centre to Flinders Private Hospital, health officials revealed. Generators reportedly functioned at other public hospitals, but some medical operations were interrupted and so-called elective surgeries were postponed.

Major damage was threatened at the Whyalla steelworks, where production stopped and the blast furnace cooled rapidly. Other large industrial and mining projects were affected, forcing BHP Billiton to temporarily shut down the Olympic Dam copper and gold mine, and Oz Minerals to do the same at its Prominent Hill mine.

Today, tens of thousands of homes are still without power, mostly in the north and west of the state, and some may remain blacked out for many days. With bad weather continuing, there are fears of more blackouts until the electricity towers and transmission lines are rebuilt.

No such statewide “black system event” has occurred previously in Australia, although general breakdowns hit northern Queensland in 2009 and New South Wales in 1964.

This week’s storm was an extreme weather event. Winds exceeded 90 kilometres an hour, and two tornadoes tore down power lines. There was hail the size of golf balls and more than 80,000 lightning strikes across the state. The Bureau of Meteorology said the storm front and intense low-pressure system were the most severe reported in the state in 50 years.

Such events are now likely to occur more frequently, however. The non-government Climate Council attributed the wild weather to erratic patterns generated by climate change. Professor Will Steffen said the storm was “a disturbing preview of what’s likely to come if Australia fails to act on climate change.” He said the atmosphere was packing much more energy, contributing to the increasing intensity of storms.

Clearly, the authorities were not prepared for such a storm, nor was the electricity infrastructure. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the agency responsible for the National Electricity Market, which was established in 1998, said the outage’s “root cause” was likely to be the multiple loss of 275-kilovolt power lines during storm activity.

“These transmission lines form part of the backbone of South Australia’s power station and support supply and generation north of Adelaide,” AEMO said. But it added: “The reason why a cascading failure of the remainder of the South Australian network occurred is still to be identified and is subject to further investigation.”

According to industry experts, once the transmission lines went down, the whole high-voltage power system was cut, in order to protect generators and equipment in South Australia. In addition, to stop the voltage and frequency fluctuations affecting Victoria and the rest of the national market, the two lines (“interconnectors”) connecting South Australia to Victoria were also shut down.

AEMO said ample electricity was being generated in South Australia at the time of the power failure, augmented by supplies from the interconnectors.

Without waiting for any investigation, however, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other senior ministers immediately sought to exploit the disaster to blame South Australia’s almost 40 percent reliance on renewable energy, mainly wind and solar power, for the breakdown.

Experts insisted that the transmission grid would have failed in the storm, regardless of the source of the electricity. But Turnbull demanded that state Labor governments lower their renewable energy targets in line with his Liberal-National Coalition government’s target, which he said was 23.5 percent.

Turnbull declared the blackout was a “wake-up call” for state leaders who were trying to hit “completely unrealistic” renewable targets. “We’ve got to recognise that energy security is the key priority.” Turnbull’s intervention echoed that of the mining industry, which has opposed the closure of coal-fired power stations.

In all the media coverage, no mention has been made of the privatised state of the electricity system in South Australia, where the grid was sold off 15 years ago. Electranet, which controls the state’s network and is responsible for upgrading and maintaining it, is a consortium of China’s state-owned State Grid, Malaysian firm YTL Power Investments and Westpac bank’s Hastings Investment Management.

Whatever the precise causes of the infrastructure failure, it occurred after two decades of privatisation of basic utilities by state governments nationally, placing society’s most critical services in the hands of corporate entities driven by short-term profit requirements. This drive intensified under the last federal Labor government. Its “Energy White Paper 2012: Australia’s Energy Transformation” demanded that state governments privatise the remaining state-owned electricity assets, then estimated to be worth more than $100 billion, delivering a windfall to the financial markets and associated business interests.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard claimed that this would stop the “gold plating” of energy infrastructure—that is, supposed over-investment in transmission and distribution networks—that the Labor government blamed for escalating power charges for business and households.

Addressing the Energy Policy Institute in August 2012, Gillard branded as excessive expenditure on upgrading transmission and distribution networks to avoid blackouts during periods of peak demand. She compared such spending to “building a ten lane freeway but with two lanes that are only used or needed for one long weekend.”

In fact, outdated and poorly maintained networks have led to electricity shortages during extreme weather conditions that have caused deaths, as well as severe dislocation. In the summer of 2009, record temperatures in Victoria and South Australia saw the national power wholesaler impose rolling blackouts, without notice, on hundreds of thousands of households. More than 60 people died from heat stress.

Today, climate change is causing what were “once in 50 years” weather events to occur at an increasing rate in Australia, as elsewhere around the world. Yet the dictates of the capitalist market, enforced by successive governments, are lessening society’s capacity to cope with the resulting disasters. Access to reliable and affordable energy is a basic social right, but it is being subordinated to the interests of big business and finance capital, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Berlin police shoot Iraqi refugee

Verena Nees

On Tuesday evening, police shot dead a 29-year-old Iraqi refugee in Berlin. According to reports, police responded when the refugee sought to attack a fellow refugee from Pakistan with a knife. Apparently the Iraqi suspected his Pakistani roommate of sexually abusing his six-year-old daughter.

The police were called in the evening to a shelter for refugees in the Kruppstrasse in Berlin Moabit, as the confrontation raged between the Iraqi father and a 27-year-old Pakistani. The fatal shooting is alleged to have taken place as the suspected Pakistani already sat handcuffed in a police car. The Iraqi refugee suddenly stormed the car and, according to witnesses, shouted: “You will not survive.”

Martin Steltner, the speaker for the Berlin public prosecutor stated that “several shots from a number of service weapons” had been fired. Investigations are being conducted of the officials concerned. The young Iraqi father of three children died during the night from his gunshot wounds.

On Wednesday morning the refugee aid organization “Moabit helps” posted a message on Facebook stating. “It is becoming ever more tragic…The refugees are subject to one humiliation after another. Inhumane accommodation, no privacy, untreated ... this family has fled to us and now has to experience such a thing.”

Initially the affected refugees were to have been temporarily housed in an inflated structure situated in the middle of Berlin. Now, over a year later, the use of the hanger has been extended by the Senate until 2017. “These cabins cannot be locked by the refugees. No protection, no security. In summer unbearably hot, in winter the air, it is a nightmarish soundscape.”

Diana Henniges, director of “Moabit helps,” roots both the conflict between the two residents and the alleged sexual assault of the Iraqi child in the prevailing conditions.

“Actually such structures are suitable for tennis,” Diana Henniges told the WSWS, “and not for storing people.” The City Mission that operates the accommodation opened it at the end of 2014 as a refuge for the homeless in winter. In the meantime, it has been packed with refugees living in two barely separated spaces—one for families with children, the other for single men.

The appalling conditions in the refugee structure are similar to those prevailing in the airplane hangars of former Tempelhof airport, where there have been a series of suicide attempts.

The refugees are also subject to resignation and depression, having waited many months for the processing of their asylum applications without housing, without work, without training and integration and under the constant threat of deportation.

“This long, long time of waiting, so many months, is what breaks people's hearts,” said Christiane Beckmann of “Moabit helps.” One should imagine what it is like to spend a year living in such an undignified mass accommodation, in a cabin without a roof, having to stand in a queue every day for food, along with hundreds of other people from different countries and speaking different languages.

“Recently, a Syrian said to me: With Assad there was murder, there was filth, there was persecution—but we had our dignity as human beings. Here I lose my dignity!”

A proper review of the police shooting of the young Iraqi can only be undertaken after the investigation, according to the two speakers from “Moabit helps.” “It was certainly not the intention of the police to shoot someone,” Diana Henniges told the WSWS. However, the law-and-order campaigns of the Berlin Senate and the demands for better-armed police have led to a situation in which “the police intervention is ever more massive.”

When two refugees fought with one another at LaGeSo (now called LAF, State Office for Refugee Affairs) six policemen appeared immediately, they reported. “You only have to mention the word refugee and there is immediately a huge contingent of police.”

On Wednesday the state chairman of the German police union, Bodo Pfalzgraf, defended the police action to the state broadcaster Rundfunk Berlin Brandenburg, arguing that the police had prevented vigilante justice and a life-threatening situation for themselves. He stated that the “very dynamic situation” in which there was a reaction time of fractions of a second, meaning that the police could not fire a non-lethal shot. In such situations the entire body of the attacker was deemed a target area.

At the same time, Pfalzgraf and the CDU took advantage of the event to demand a quicker introduction of potentially deadly tasers. The former Interior Minister, Henkel announced a test run with these weapons in two downtown districts shortly before being voted out of office in the recent Berlin election.

The death of the refugee in Tuesday night is an indictment of the Berlin Senate and the federal government. Against a background of deplorable anti-refugee tirades in the media, the government and all of the established parties have responded to the rise of the far right AfD (Alternative for Germany) with ever sharper attacks on refugees and their right to asylum and by beefing up the state.

The Left Party and the Greens, who are currently discussing forming a coalition with the SPD in Berlin, have made their own thinly veiled appeals for arming the police. On Wednesday the interior policy expert of the Left group in the Berlin House of Representatives, Hakan Tas, made no basic criticism of the fatal shooting. Instead he merely called for a check of whether the police officers had regular shooting practice and whether the shots were justified.

A few days ago, the parliamentary group chairman of the Left Party, Sahra Wagenknecht, told the FAZ newspaper, “We have always criticized cuts in police personnel. We are not the party of the weak state but want a state well equipped to fulfill its tasks.” In the same breath Wagenknecht spoke out in favour of a limit on refugees.