9 Nov 2018

Pakistan’s government bows to Islamist right, victimises anew woman in blasphemy case

Sampath Perera

Bowing to the demands of the Islamist right, Pakistan’s three-month-old Tehrik-e-Insaaf (PTI) government has ordered the country’s Supreme Court to review its decision vacating the blasphemy conviction and death sentence imposed on Asia Bibi, an impoverished Catholic woman.
The government has also ordered that Bibi, who languished on death row for eight years, not be allowed to leave the country.
On Wednesday, Pakistani and international media claimed that Bibi had been allowed to go into exile. But Foreign Office spokesperson Dr. Mohammad Faisal has denounced these reports. “There is no truth in reports of her leaving the country—it is fake news,” Faisal told Dawn News Television. It subsequently emerged that the authorities had merely released Bibi from a Multan jail and flown her to Islamabad where she remains closely guarded for her own protection.
Pakistan’s highest court struck down Bibi’s 2010 blasphemy conviction and ordered her immediately freed in an October 31 ruling. While the Supreme Court framed its ruling within a defence of the legitimacy of Pakistan’s reactionary blasphemy laws, it said there was insufficient evidence against Bibi, including inconsistencies in the testimony of her accusers.
The Islamist right—which has long been cultivated by Pakistan’s ruling elite, especially the military-intelligence apparatus, as a bulwark against the working class and a weapon in its strategic rivalry with India—responded to the court’s verdict with calls for immediate mass protests.
From Wednesday, October 31, through Friday, November 2, Pakistan was rocked by violent protests led by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP). In Karachi, Peshawar, Lahore and other cities, TLP supporters clashed with the police and set fire to vehicles and other property.
TLP co-founder Muhammad Fatal Badri told a Lahore rally that the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by the chief justice “deserve to be killed.” “Either their security, their driver, or their cook should kill them,” he declared. Badri also publicly urged Pakistani army officers to mutiny against the chief of the military, General Qamar Javed Bajwa.
Such threats by Islamists in Pakistan are not empty rhetoric. In 2011, Salman Taseer—Punjab’s provincial governor and an influential leader in the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan’s then ruling party—was killed by his bodyguard after he advocated for Bibi’s release. Shahbaz Bhatti, the federal minister for Minorities Affairs and a Christian, was assassinated two months later, after declaring his opposition to Bibi’s incarceration and threatened execution. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility for the latter killing.
The TLP’s founding in 2015 and subsequent expansion was connected to the Pakistani state’s conviction and hanging of Taseer’s assassin. Sectarian attacks—especially those by suicide bombers linked to the TTP—have frequently targeted minorities in recent years, killing hundreds of men, women and children.
The rise of the TTP was itself a product of the Pakistani state’s decades-long promotion of Islamic fundamentalism and US-sponsored alliance with the Afghan mujahedin, on the one hand; and the brutal methods it has used—including carpet bombing and colonial-style collective punishments—in militarily suppressing support for the Taliban within Pakistan’s tribal areas since 2001.
In a televised speech on the evening of October 31, Prime Minister Imran Khan supported the Supreme Court’s ruling, admonished the protest leaders for their remarks against the judges and the military, and decried the violence and blocking of roads. He warned the protesters against pushing “the state to a point where it has no option but to take action.” However, two days later, as the Islamist rampage continued and the highway connecting Islamabad with Lahore remained blocked, the government pulled back from its harsh rhetoric and bowed to most of the TLP’s demands.
In addition to ordering the Supreme Court to review its decision, and placing Bibi under an arbitrary travel ban so as to prevent her from leaving the country, the government agreed to the immediate release of all TLP supporters arrested since the protests began.
In response, the TLP issued a token apology, mainly to appease the military.
A year ago this month, the TLP waged a campaign against the former Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) government’s attempts to amend the religious oath taken by election candidates, denouncing the government’s action as tantamount to blasphemy. This campaign, which brought the TLP to prominence, was tacitly supported by Pakistan’s military. The protests crippled Islamabad and involved a demand for the resignation of the minister for law and justice, Zahid Hamid, which the government carried out after the military announced it was “neutral” and would not disperse the protests.
The threat of the Supreme Court reversing its decision, turning Bibi, who is in her early 50s and a mother of five, back to the hangman’s noose, remains real. Her whole family also faces the threat of assassination or mob attack. Such attacks, resulting from blasphemy allegations, have caused the deaths of at least 65 people since 1990. Since 2010, Bibi’s husband has been living in hiding. Their two mentally and physically disabled daughters have had to live apart from him out of fear for their safety.
Bibi’s lawyer, Saiful Mulook, left the country last Saturday. “In the current scenario, it’s not possible for me to live in Pakistan,” he told the AFP. “I need to stay alive as I still have to fight the legal battle for Asia Bibi.”
The origins of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws lie in the British Raj, which promoted communalism as a key element in its colonial “divide-and-rule” strategy. They have been upheld and dramatically expanded under a succession of governments led by the military and all factions of the political elite, including the PPP, which once claimed to be an “Islamic socialist” party and today passes itself as the votary of Pakistani liberalism.
The blasphemy laws have served to intimidate critics of the government and religious obscurantism and to harass and terrorise minorities like the country’s Christians, who make up 2 percent of the population and are largely drawn from groups historically discriminated against as low-caste and “untouchable.” No one has yet been executed by the state after being convicted of blasphemy, but 1,472 people were charged under the laws between 1987 and 2016, according to the Lahore-based Centre for Social Justice.
The charges against Bibi, an impoverished farm labourer, emerged out of a 2009 dispute in a rural Punjab field. While harvesting falsa berries, she was asked to fetch water to share with the rest of the farmhands. After drinking from a cup next to the well, she was accosted by a Muslim neighbor of hers. The woman and the other farmhands refused to drink from the same well, claiming that being a Christian she had tainted it. As a result of the ensuing argument, Bibi was accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad and arrested.
The backsliding of the Khan government is not a surprise. Khan has long courted the Islamist right, including by championing the blasphemy laws and supporting the disenfranchisement of the several-million-strong Ahmadi religious minority.
In September, Khan revoked the appointment of economist Atif Mian to his Economic Advisory Council when the TLP threatened protests against the inclusion of a member of the Ahmadi sect, which Islamic fundamentalists view as comprised of apostates. “The government wants to move forward with the religious leaders and all segments of society,” declared Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry in justifying Khan’s decision.
US imperialism has played a major role in the growth of the Islamic right in Pakistan. It staunchly supported the military regime led by General Zia ul-Haq (1977-1988), whose “Islamicisation” campaign spearheaded a political-ideological offensive against the working class and the left, and made Pakistan’s military-intelligence apparatus the linchpin of the CIA operation to organise and arm the mujahedin to wage war on Afghanistan’s Soviet-backed government .
It was under Zia that the punishment for blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad was raised to “death, or imprisonment for life.”
While the government appeases the Islamist right and bows before its threats of violence, Pakistan’s military with the support of the PTI and complicity of the rest of the political establishment uses the threat of terrorist attacks and disorder to extend its power and reach.
This has included using the anti-terrorism laws against striking workers and to arrest leftists, and subjecting the press and social media to ever more severe censorship. Last week, the editors of the Dawn lamented that while the government had responded to the violent threats of the TLP leaders with talks, “Editors have been threatened; the distribution of newspapers disrupted; news channels taken off air or consigned to anonymous slots” for doing their “job and reporting events, facts and information.”

Factional conflict in Sri Lankan elite underscores dangers facing working class

K. Ratnayake

The political crisis triggered by Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s dismissal of Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister and his replacement with former President Mahinda Rajapakse continues. The infighting between the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) led by Sirisena and Rajapakse and Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP) points to the dangers facing the working class.
Both sections of the political elite, which have consistently suppressed the basic rights of the working people and the poor, are falsely posturing as defenders of democracy in order to secure government control and deepen the drive to place the burden of the country’s economic crisis on the masses.
In their bid to form a government, Sirisena and Rajapakse have appointed ministers on a virtual daily basis and plan to have 30 cabinet ministers. Mahinda Samarasinghe, the newly-appointed government spokesman and ports minister, yesterday said the appointments would be completed by November 14.
Sirisena initially suspended parliament until November 16 but, in response to international pressure, brought the date forward by two days. The suspension sought to give Rajapakse time to secure a parliamentary majority via new ministerial appointments and other horse-trading deals.
Parliamentary party leaders met with Speaker Karu Jayasuriya yesterday to discuss the November 14 agenda. Jayasuriya said he would give priority to a no-confidence motion submitted by 116 MPs against Rajapakse. The vote would determine which faction had a majority.
SLFP members of parliament insisted that President Sirisena’s address should come first, followed by a “vote on account” to provide temporary budget allocations to the ministries, and, if necessary, a no-confidence motion.
Sirisena, who is desperately attempting to garner parliamentary support for a Rajapakse-led government, met with Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leaders, including R. Sambandan. The TNA has 16 MPs so its support is decisive for a parliament majority. Thus far, Rajapakse has won the support of just one TNA MP, who was rewarded with a ministerial post.
The TNA leaders told Sirisena they opposed Rajapakse’s appointment and called for the reconvening of the parliament at an early date to determine who had a majority. The TNA, a bourgeois nationalist formation, usually responds to the political signals from Washington and New Delhi, so as to secure the interests and privileges of the Tamil elites.
Sirisena is using the crisis to strengthen the autocratic and repressive powers of the presidency. Apart from his position as defence minister, which he holds under the constitution, Sirisena has the law and order ministry, which controls the police, and the media ministry.
Many advisers to Rajapakse and Sirisena claim the president’s appointment of a new prime minister is constitutional and openly declare he has the authority to dissolve the parliament if he deems it necessary. These claims are a travesty of the 19th constitutional amendment, previously introduced by Sirisena himself, which pruned some of these powers.
These self-serving interpretations are aimed at using the president’s executive powers for further anti-democratic actions, not just to consolidate the Sirisena-Rajapakse faction but to suppress the basic rights of working people.
Wickremesinghe’s UNP will hold another rally in Colombo on Monday to call for the immediate reconvening of the parliament and a no-confidence vote.
Yesterday Wickremesinghe briefly spoke to his supporters, declaring that they were fighting to defend democracy and the freedom of the nation. This is a canard. Wickremesinghe heads the oldest bourgeois party in Sri Lanka. It has always served the interests of big business and trampled on the democratic rights of the masses.
The UNP is relying on the support of the so-called international community, in particular the US. Its constant appeals for major power backing were again revealed in a letter sent by Speaker Jayasuriya on Monday to foreign diplomats in Colombo.
According to the constitution, the parliamentary speaker is supposed to be impartial. Jayasuriya, however, is a senior member of the UNP. Sections of his letter were published in a Reuters report on Wednesday.
“The entire series of events [Sirisena’s actions] can only be described as a coup, albeit one without the use of tanks and guns,” Jayasuriya’s letter said. The “entire matter was pre-planned,” it continued, accusing Sirisena of acting “contrary to all norms of transparency, decency, democracy and good governance, and contrary to the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold and defend.”
The letter amounts to a direct appeal to the major powers to intervene. While Sirisena and Rajapakse denounce the UNP for turning to foreign powers, their government would be just as subservient to the dictates of major powers and their financial institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank.
From the outset, the US has been hostile to Rajapakse’s appointment. During the January 2015 presidential election, Washington orchestrated a regime-change operation to oust Rajapakse as president and install Sirisena.
While the US supported Rajapakse’s brutal war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and turned a blind eye to his anti-democratic rule, it bitterly opposed his close relations with Beijing, regarding it as an impediment to US strategic interests.
The newly-appointed US envoy, Alaina B. Teplitz, met with Jayasuriya on November 6. In a twitter message she said they discussed “the importance of parliament reconvening to put an end to this political crisis.” She also met with TNA leader R. Sambandan at his residence on Tuesday.
Washington has stepped up its intervention during the past week. In a tweet on Wednesday, US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert declared: “We urge Sri Lanka’s President to reconvene parliament immediately to resolve the political crisis.” She warned that any delay “compounds uncertainty in Sri Lanka, and undermines its international reputation.”
The Trump administration has no regard for democracy in Sri Lanka or anywhere else, including in the US. Its only concern is to advance Washington’s geopolitical interests against China.
Earlier this week, a delegation headed by Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake met with the TNA leadership, including Sambandan, to discuss its stance. Both parties said they reached an agreement to defeat Sirisena’s unconstitutional acts in the parliament.
At press conference yesterday, Dissanayake thanked Speaker Jayasuriya for his opposition to Sirisena’s actions, saying his letter was “very strong.” The media reported that the JVP said it would support a parliamentary vote against “violations of the constitution” and support a UNP no-confidence motion.
The JVP, which is part of the political establishment, has consistently maneuvered with one or another faction of the bourgeoisie, and is now stepping up its efforts to sow illusions in the crumbling façade of parliamentary democracy. It plans to hold another protest rally in Colombo to promote its stance.
In the face of a resurgence of the class struggle and the deepening economic crisis and geopolitical tensions, all factions of the ruling elite have moved further to the right and are preparing a major onslaught against the social and democratic rights of the workers and poor.
In its statement on the political crisis, the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) wrote: “We urge the working class to take stock of the political situation and to chart its own independent course based on the Theory of Permanent Revolution.
“Workers must take the initiative in forming independent action committees in workplaces, neighbourhoods and the estates, mobilising the support of the rural poor and youth to fight for their democratic rights and class interests. The struggle for democracy is bound up with the question of state power and the fight for a workers’ and peasants’ government to implement socialist policies.”

Afghanistan war veteran kills 12 at a southern California dance club

David Walsh

Another horrible mass shooting took place in the US on Wednesday night, the 307th such episode on the 311th day of the year, according to a website that tracks gun violence.
A 28-year-old Marine Corps veteran of the Afghanistan war walked into a country music dance club in Thousand Oaks, California on Wednesday night and opened fire with a handgun, killing 12 people and wounding 25. The attacker, Ian David Long, who lived with his mother in the Newbury Park section of Thousand Oaks, some six miles away, then apparently turned the weapon on himself.
The incident is the deadliest in the US since the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in mid-February, in which 17 people were killed and 14 wounded, a tragedy that sparked mass outrage and protest.
Hundreds of college students and others were on hand late Wednesday at the Borderline Bar & Grill, some 40 miles west of downtown Los Angeles, when the gunman entered. The club, located near both California Lutheran University and Pepperdine University, has a College Country Night on Wednesdays, permitting those under the drinking age to enter, with a black X marked on their hands.
By all accounts, Long, armed with a Glock 21, whose magazine had been illegally extended so it could hold more than the standard 10 rounds, carried out his attack with precision and determination.
According to witnesses, the gunman—dressed entirely in black and wearing a black baseball cap, sunglasses and a bandana covering the lower half of his face—first shot a security guard standing outside the club. Tim Dominguez told KABC television in Los Angeles that the intruder “shot the doorman, bouncer … just a young man. Then, he shot the cashier, just a young girl.”
Dominguez’ stepson John Hedge told reporters that the two were preparing to leave the bar when Long entered and threw several smoke grenades, before pointing his handgun and opening fire. Hedge explained to NBC News, “You start hearing pop, pop, pop. It sounded like fireworks or something … My stepdad dove and took cover and yelled at me, ‘John, hit the deck! Hide!’ So I got down. And the gunman started opening fire on the cashiers, the people working the cash register on the front desk.”
Teylor Whittler, who was celebrating her 21st birthday at the club, told Fox News, “As soon as he walked in, he had perfect form. I was born in a military family and I’ve been around guns my entire life so I know a bit about them. He looked like he knew what he was doing. He had practiced, he had been shooting before.”
Whittler also explained, “While I was inside I would say [I heard] … about a good 30 seconds [of gunshots] … He had two [magazines] that I know with him. He changed them within about six seconds, which was really fast.”
Another survivor of the shooting simply said, “He just kept firing.”
Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean commented, “It’s a horrific scene in there … There’s blood everywhere.” He described the shooting as “by far, the most horrific thing I’ve seen in my 41 years.” One of the victims was a local police officer.
Long served in the Marines from 2008 to 2013 (i.e., when he was approximately 18 to 23 years old) as a machine gunner. He was deployed to Afghanistan from November 2010 to June 2011. During his time in the Marines, Long was awarded a Combat Action Ribbon, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.
According to Buzzfeed, Long belonged to “a special forces internet forum where he wrote sporadically about his experience in the military.” In one post, he wrote that “he had been deployed to Marjah in Afghanistan, where in 2010 thousands of US, British and Afghan troops launched the largest joint offensive in the war. The town in Helmand Province was a Taliban stronghold and site of Operation Moshtarak from February to December 2010, the first attack launched after the Obama administration announced plans to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Long’s deployment to Afghanistan overlapped for the last month of that operation.”
Operation Moshtarak, also known as the Battle of Marjah, involved some 15,000 US, Afghan, Canadian, British, Danish and Estonian troops. The aim was to drive Taliban forces out of Marjah. The latter withdrew from Marjah before the large number of foreign occupiers, but by 2016 the Taliban was back in control of the area.
Long was later deployed to Okinawa, where he served as a Jungle Warfare Training Center instructor. He left the Marines as a corporal.
Officials suggested that Long was likely suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Neighbors told the media that the young man was struggling mentally and emotionally.
USA Today reported that Long’s “various interactions with police over the years pointed to a man who needed professional help. None came. Neighbor Richard Berge said everyone on the block was aware when the police came to the Long home earlier this year after an incident.
“Although Berge had never been inside the Long house, he said a neighbor had reported seeing walls that were ‘full of holes,’ adding that the neighbor got the impression that Long had kicked the walls in. ‘She [Long’s mother, Colleen] was worried because he wouldn’t get help,’ Berge said. ‘I asked her, ‘Can’t he just get help.’ She said, ‘He can’t get help.’” Berge further asserted that Long’s mother “lived in fear,” not for herself, but for her son and for others.
The newspaper reported that neighbors called police “to complain of loud noises earlier this year that sounded like he [Long] was damaging the house, neighbor Tom Hanson told local TV stations KTLA and KTTV. ‘It sounded like he was tearing down the walls of the house,’ Hanson said.”
The connection between the eruption of US militarism in every corner of the globe and the epidemic of anti-social violence and mayhem at home could hardly be clearer.
American imperialism recruits young men and women, often “economic conscripts,” to do its dirty work in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and elsewhere, forcing them to commit horrendous crimes and undergo brutal, psyche-destroying experiences. When the Pentagon has done with them, it releases them to their families and into the general public. In too many cases, these veterans are walking time-bombs.
Hugh Gusterson, professor of anthropology and international affairs at George Washington University, argued in 2015 that while veterans accounted for 13 percent of the adult population, “more than a third of the adult perpetrators of the 43 worst mass killings since 1984 had been in the United States military.” He added, “It is clear that, in the etiology of mass killings, military service is an important risk factor.”
Gusterson also noted that a recent study in the Annals of Epidemiology had found “that military veterans kill themselves at 1.5 times the rate of their civilian counterparts. … Although more veterans with PTSD take their own lives than kill others, military service is a risk factor for both homicide and suicide.”
The list of mass killers with military backgrounds, according to Gusterson, included George Jo Hennard, who killed 22 in Killeen, Texas in 1991 (US Navy); Michael McDermott, who shot seven people in Wakefield, Massachusetts, in 2000 (also US Navy); Robert Flores, a veteran of the Persian Gulf war, who shot his three nursing professors in Tucson, Arizona, in 2002; Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the US Army psychiatrist who killed 13 at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009; Wade Michael Page, the white supremacist who killed six at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, had served six years in the US Army; in 2012, Radcliffe Haughton, an ex-Marine, killed three women, including his wife, at a spa in Wisconsin; in 2013, Aaron Alexis, another Navy veteran, killed 12 at the Washington Navy Yard; in 2014, Ivan Lopez-Lopez, an Iraq War veteran, killed three at Fort Hood in Texas; and Timothy McVeigh, whose truck bomb killed 168 in Oklahoma City in 1995, was a Persian Gulf War veteran.
We could add the name of Washington, DC sniper John Allen Muhammad, another Gulf War veteran, who, along with an accomplice, killed 10 people in the so-called “Beltway sniper attacks” in October 2002. More recently, Scott Paul Beierle, who posted racist and sexist videos online and murdered two women at a yoga studio in Tallahassee, Florida earlier this month, had been in the US Army from 2008 to 2010. The killer in the Parkland, Florida shooting, Nikolas Cruz, was a member of the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC). The list goes on and on.
More generally, the spree of mass killings has its deeper roots in the toxic soil of American capitalism. Gun Violence Archive estimates that the 307 shootings involving four or more victims this year alone have claimed 1,328 lives and injured another 1,251. The website calculates that there have been 49,000 gun violence incidents so far in 2018 in the US, leading to more than 12,000 deaths. Some 45,000 Americans took their own lives in 2016, while drug overdoses killed more than 72,000 in the US in 2017.
No remotely healthy society could generate such appalling statistics. America, as we have previously noted, is a nation at war with itself.
An Associated Press reporter was obliged to point out almost despairingly: “The bloodshed was the latest in what seems to be a never-ending string of mass shootings that are happening with terrifying frequency across the United States.”
No general social state of affairs can fully explain an individual act of madness. Every person guilty of a mass killing like the Thousand Oaks tragedy has his or her specific history and psychosis. But it is possible to enumerate certain of the conditions that have created the atmosphere in which these ghastly events occur with “terrifying frequency”:
  • A quarter century or more of increasingly unrestrained imperialist violence, exercised in many cases against largely defenseless peoples. America’s rulers talk and act like killers, and not only in regard to Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans and Mexican and Central American migrants. The poor and working class in America, when they resist, will also feel the full force of state savagery.
  • Vast and malignant social inequality, which creates at one pole of society a Mount Olympus of oligarch-gods with almost unlimited economic and political power, and, at the other, a mass of people who count for nothing and who are made to feel on a daily basis that they count for nothing.
  • The filthy, corrupt, widely despised political system, to which none of the tens of millions suffering or in need can look for any assistance or relief, or regard with hope. The recent election campaign brought home the reality that both major political parties are the dedicated and declared enemies of the working class and oppressed. It cannot be an accident that the November 6 election has now been bookended, so to speak, by the massacre of 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh by a fascist anti-Semite less than two weeks before Election Day and the mass killing in Thousand Oaks, carried out by a former Marine, two days after it.
  • The general brutalization and debasement of American society, including popular culture and the media. Nowhere on earth is life cheaper than in American films, television and popular music. Over the period of the “war on terror,” a good many film and television writers and directors have turned their attention to glorifying homicidal killers, in or out of uniform, torture and other barbarisms.
The sickness of American society is reaching a terminal state. Only social revolution can cure the disease.

8 Nov 2018

US Government Global Exchange Program (Global UGRAD) 2019/2020 for Emerging Leaders

Application Deadline: 31st December, 2018

Eligible Countries: International (See list below)

To be taken at (country): United States

Eligible Field of Study: Students from all academic disciplines are encouraged to apply for the Global UGRAD program. Possible fields of study include the humanities, arts, social sciences, mathematical science, natural and physical sciences, engineering and applied science.

About the Award: The Global Undergraduate Exchange Program (Global UGRAD) provides a diverse group of emerging leaders with a scholarship for one semester of non-degree academic study at a U.S. college or university. The program is sponsored by the U.S Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, and aims to recruit participants from underrepresented, non-elite backgrounds. Successful applicants can expect an in-depth exposure to U.S. society, culture, and academic institutions, as well as an opportunity to enhance their professional skills.
All participants will be enrolled in full-time, non-degree, undergraduate course work chosen from their host institution’s existing curriculum. Participants will be required to take one, 3-credit U.S. studies course to enhance their understanding of the United States. Participants will live in campus housing facilities with American peers, and will be required to participate in twenty hours of community service. There will also be a virtual arrival orientation and an in-person end-of-program workshop.
Global UGRAD is a substantive exchange program designed to expose students to the U.S. educational system, society, and culture. Finalists represent diverse disciplines, from architecture to engineering, biochemistry to literature and education.  A small number of students will also receive additional English language training in the US prior to the start of their academic program. All students are required to participate in volunteer community service activities and are encouraged to participate in professional development activities as part of the Global UGRAD Program. Exposure to U.S. civil society, as well as the cultural and ethnic diversity of the United States, gives the participants a strong example of tolerance in a democratic society.

Type: Undergraduate non-Degree Exchange Programme

Eligibility: The Global UGRAD Program is open to anyone who is/has:
  • over 18 years of age;
  • a citizen of a UGRAD participating country, currently residing in that country;
  • enrolled as an undergraduate in good standing at any accredited university, public or private, and has at least one semester remaining at their home university at the conclusion of the UGRAD program;
  • completed secondary education in their home country;
  • a solid command of written and spoken English (English Language training for some finalists is possible);
  • able to begin studies in the United States in August 2019 or January 2020 (selected participants may not defer to a later date);
  • eligible to receive and maintain the US student exchange visa (J-1) required for the program;
  • cleared by a physician to participate in the program;
  • committed to returning to their home country after the completion of the program.
Individuals in the following circumstances are not eligible for the Global UGRAD Program:
  • U.S. citizens and permanent residents of the United States;
  • Individuals currently studying, residing, or working outside of their home country;
  • Local employees of the U.S. missions abroad who work for the U.S. Department of State and/or the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); employees are also ineligible for one year following the termination of employment;
  • Immediate family members (i.e. spouses and children) of U.S. Department of State and USAID employees; family members are also ineligible for one year following the termination of employment;
  • Current World Learning employees and their immediate family members.
Number of Awardees: Global UGRAD will provide a select group of approximately 250 students with scholarships for one academic semester of undergraduate, non-degree study in the United States.

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship will cover international travel, tuition, room and board, accident/sickness insurance, a small monthly stipend, and funding for books.

Duration of Scholarship: One semester

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, China, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Palestinian Territories, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Korea, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, UAE, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.

How to Apply: Apply online

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Award Provider: U.S. Department of State

Dell EMC Graduation Project Contest 2018/2019 for Undergraduate Students from Middle East and Africa

Application Deadline: 15th December 2018

Eligible Countries: Countries in the Middle East and Africa

About the Award: The competition is intended to spark the creativity of students for their graduation projects to play an active role in the Transformation of IT and get the opportunity to shine and win prizes.

Fields of Contest: Students are invited to submit their project abstracts in areas related to the advancement of technology and applications related to the following focus areas:
  1. Cloud Computing
  2. Big Data
  3. High Performance Computing (HPC)
  4. Internet of Things (IoT)
  5. Artificial intelligence (AI)
  6. Virtual and Augmented Reality (VAR)
  7. Secure Systems
Please be advised that the Competition Steering Committee might decide to accept project ideas that are of exceptionally high quality even if they do not fall exactly within these focus areas.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 
  • Students who wish to participate should be in their senior year and should be enrolled in any of the Dell EMC External Research and Academic Alliance in the Turkey, Middle East and Africa region.
  • Students should have a faculty member as their official academic advisor and mentor.
  • Students should have a strong academic standing, validated by the Head of their Department.
  • The correctness of the information provided by the students should be validated by the official signature and stamp of the Dean of their college/institute.
  • No students should be listed in more than one project.
  • At the time of submission, all the members of student teams should not be full time employees of any organization whatsoever, whether it is private, public, or non-governmental.
Number of Awards: 3

Value of Award: Winners of the competition will receive cash prizes as below:
  •  First place will receive a cash prize of $5,000
  •  Second place will receive a cash prize of $4,000
  •  Third place winner will receive a cash prize of $3,000
All the team will get recognition certificates for their achievement.
In addition to in-kind gift for the academic supervisor
A formal award ceremony will be organized at one of the major Dell EMC events in the region. All the members of the winning team and their academic advisor(s) will be invited to attend the ceremony along with senior officials from their university/college.

How to Apply: Apply Now

Visit the Program Webpage for Details


Award Providers: Dell

4th İstanbul Fellowship Program 2019 – Publishers Meeting for Publishers in Developing Countries (Fully-funded)

Application Deadline: 30th November 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Turkey

About the Award: Istanbul Fellowship Program was initiated in 2016 by Turkish Press and Publishers Copyright & Licensing Society (TBYM), the largest professional organization of publishers in Turkey. The aim of this program is to contribute to bilateral cooperation between Turkish and foreign publishers, and to make Istanbul a marketplace for copyrights exchange.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Publishing managers, editors, copyright agencies, publishers’ associations and non-governmental organizations can apply to the program.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: A number of packages, offered in response to perceived need, will be given to successful applicants, all of which cover meals and translation support, and some of which cover both flights and accommodation in Istanbul for the duration of the fellowship. Participants will be announced on New Year’s Day 2019.

Duration of Programme: 26-28 February 2019

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Hilton International Elevator Programme 2019 for Middle East & Africa

Application Deadline: 1st December 2018

Eligible Countries: Turkey, Middle East & African countries

To be taken at (country): All placements will be located in Middle East and African countries

About the Award: Elevator consists of an 18-month training programme which encompassess two international 9-month placements. During your placements, you will combine operational, all-round experience working in the 4 main hotel business areas of Operations, Business Development, Human Resources and Finance. You will also participate in off-the-job training and have business driven projects to complete.
During Elevator your progress is constantly assessed, so you always know how you are developing. As the programme is so flexible, it will take into account all training that you have had to date and build on it, rather than making you repeat things unnecessarily.

Type: Internship, Training

Eligibility:
  • You have a true ambition to become General Manager
  • You have to be graduated in the period of July 2017 until 31 August 2019 from a well-respected Hotel or Business School.
  • You must be willing/able to live and work in MEA
  • You will be fluent in English.
  • A second modern language would be considered a plus
  • You are internationally mobile within MEA, with preferably hotel or hospitality work experience.
Selection Criteria: 

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • During your 18-month training you will take part in four residential courses. As an Elevator participant you will also have access to the Hilton University, our on-line learning and development tool, through which you can complete e-learning courses, learn a language on-line and make use of our on-line business library.
  • Elevator participants are supported throughout their career progression with the Elevator Mentoring Programme where senior managers within Hilton take on the role of Mentors.
Duration of Programme: 18 months. The 2019 MEA Elevator Program starts on 01 September 2019.

How to Apply:  Apply Now

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Global Social Venture Competition 2019 for Aspiring Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 3rd December, 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Applicant’s chosen country and Graduate School Business and Society at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.

About the Award: The Global Social Venture Competition (GSVC) empowers the next generation of social entrepreneurs by providing them with mentoring, exposure, and over $80,000 in prizes to transform their ideas into ventures that address the world’s most pressing challenges.
GSVC awards prizes to early-stage social venture teams that show the highest, most integrated financial and social returns – businesses that demonstrate blended value.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 
Eligibility Requirements for Ventures
  • Submitted ventures should aim to be: financially sustainable or profitable; whether it is a for-profit, non-profit, or hybrid business model, your venture must aim to be self-sufficient on earned revenue.
  • Submitted ventures should be scalable long term. This criterion will mean different things for each business. Scalability will take into account the potential for growth of the business, both financially and in its social impact.
  • Submitted ventures must have a quantifiable social and/or environmental bottom line incorporated into their mission and practices.
  • Your entry must include a financial analysis as well as a Social Impact Assessment (SIA), including the Social Value Proposition and Social Indicators. Learn more on the SIA page of the website.
  • Submitted ventures must be less than 2 years old (with the start of the venture marked by incorporation or first income, whichever occurred first) as of December 31, 2017.
  • Submitted ventures may not be a wholly owned subsidiary of an existing entity (of either a for-profit or nonprofit entity).
  • Submitted ventures must not have received more than $250,000 in funding from venture capital, private investors, grants (government or foundation), loans, or other funding sources (excluding in-kind) as of December 31, 2016.
  • Lifetime revenue should not exceed $500,000 as of December 31, 2017.
  • GSVC has the right to investigate funding and qualifications of ventures to assure that they are truly early stage.
Eligibility Requirements for Teams
  • Your team must include a student, current or recent graduate*, from any level of higher education (undergraduate, masters level/graduate, or doctoral) in any area of study in the world;
  • Recent students must meet the following criteria:  
    • Recent Bachelor’s degree holders must have completed their degree with four (4) years of the application deadline (December 31, 2017).
    • Recent Master’s or Doctoral level degree holders must have completed their degree within two (2) years of the application deadline (December 31, 2017)
  • The student or recent student must be actively involved in the venture (i.e., a founder or co-founder, actively participating in development of the business or actively working on the business)
  • Your team should include a statement describing the student’s level of involvement.
  • The student or recent student must be one of the team’s presenters and must be available to answer judges’ questions regarding the business in the final two rounds of the competition.
Selection: The Global Social Venture Competition leads entrant teams through an experiential learning process to develop innovative, scalable solutions to the world’s greatest challenges.  Through our global network of 14 partner schools and competitions, we give teams the connections, support, and exposure needed to advance their social ventures.
Each of the competition’s three rounds also asks teams to build on past learnings and focus on distinct emphasis areas. A team’s ability to demonstrate progress in these areas will be an important determinant of its venture’s overall score, which in every round is evaluated on business potential, social impact potential, and likelihood of success.

Number of Awardees: 6

Value of Programme: 
  • FIRST PLACE AWARD: $40,000
  • SECOND PLACE AWARD: $25,000
  • THIRD PLACE AWARD: $10,000
  • PRIYA HAJI MEMORIAL AWARD: $2,500
  • PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARD: $1,500
  • QUICK PITCH AWARD: $1,000

International Foundation of Science (IFS) Individual Research Grants 2019 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 30th November 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: See list below

To be taken at (country): A Developing Country

Eligible Fields: Proposals are sought under one of three research areas:
  • Biological Resources in Terrestrial Systems: Including but not limited to: Biodiversity, Forestry, Natural Products, Renewable Energy and Climate Change.
  • Water and Aquatic Resources: Including but not limited to: Water Resources Research; Research on all aspects of freshwater, brackish and marine aquatic organisms and their environments.
  • Food Security, Dietary Diversity and Healthy Livelihoods: Including but not limited to: Research on Food Production; Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine; Crop Science including Underutilized Crops; Food Science and Nutrition, and Food Security issues.
About the Award: Providing early-career support to promising young developing country researchers has been the mandate of the International Foundation for Science (IFS) for many years.
Within the Individual Research Approach (IFS Strategy 20112020), IFS continues its commitment to support excellent individual research and to build capacity of early-career scientists in the developing world to undertake research on the sustainable management of biological and water resources. Applicants are encouraged to tackle research issues linked to these areas, and to develop solutions that are relevant to local contexts. By encouraging local researchers to work in their home countries, generating cutting-edge and locally relevant knowledge, we hope to contribute to strengthening their countries’ research capacity and ultimately contributing to a global research community aimed at reducing poverty and supporting sustainable development.

Offered Since: 1974

Selection Criteria: To qualify for IFS funding, research projects must be
  • related to the sustainable utilisation, conservation or management of the biological or water resource base
  • conducted in a developing country
  • of a high scientific standard
  • feasible
  • relevant for the country/region
Eligibility:
  • To be eligible, applicants must be citizens of a developing country that is eligible for IFS support, and carry out the research in an eligible country (this does not have to be the country of citizenship).
  • Individual research grants will be awarded to individual early-career scientists in eligible developing countries in support of excellent science.
  • Researchers applying for a first IFS research grant must be at the beginning of their research careers and have a minimum academic degree of an MSc/MA or the equivalent. To be of eligible age, men must be younger than 35 years and women must be younger than 40 years. If the applicant’s 35th (men)/40th (women) birthday is on the closing date of the call, he/she is still eligible.
  • Applicants must be attached to a national research institute (e.g. university, non-profit making research centre, or research-oriented NGO) in an eligible developing country. The institution is expected to: administer the grant, guarantee that the applicant has a salary (or other source of income), and provide basic research facilities. Researchers employed at international research institutes or NGO’s are NOT eligible.  However, researchers doing part of their project at an international institute can apply for an IFS grant, if their principal affiliation is with a national institution.
Number of scholarships: several grants are awarded

Value of Award: Individual Research grants are awarded on merit in amounts up to USD 12,000 for one to three years. Grants are intended for the purchase of basic tools for research: equipment, expendable supplies and literature, as well as field activities.

Duration: Up to 3 years

Eligible African Countries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Republic of, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cote d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Other Countries: Asia and the Pacific: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, East Timor, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Kiribati, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam
Latin America and Caribbean: Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines, Suriname, Venezuela
Middle East and North Africa: Algeria, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen


How to Apply
  • A researcher may submit only one application at a time for consideration by IFS.
  • Applications for IFS Research grants must be submitted using the standard IFS Application Form in English or French.
  • It is important to go through the Application instructions on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Online News Association (ONA) Women’s Leadership Accelerator 2019 – Funded to New Orleans, USA

Application Deadline: 30th November 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

About the Award: The Women’s Leadership Accelerator is aimed at leaders who are pushing innovation in digital media. In addition to learning leadership skills and tools for navigating change, you will get practical feedback on a challenge specific to your career — a realistic obstacle you’d like to overcome, or an aspirational goal you’d like to achieve, either within your organization or as an independent project.

Type: Training

Eligibility: The Accelerator is designed for practitioners working in digital media, including freelancers, entrepreneurs and independent journalists, who are pushing innovation in digital media. This means we’re looking for women who not only have an understanding of the digital journalism landscape but who are helping to advance it in innovative ways.
  • Women from a range of disciplines, including startups, digital-only, legacy media and blended newsrooms, broadcast and technology companies.
  • Applicants should have leadership experience, which can mean managing people or projects, and be committed to further developing their skills.
Number of Awards: 25

Value of Award: The Women’s Leadership Accelerator provides:
  • A week of hands-on personal and professional work; candid discussions about leadership, work-life balance and problem-solving in the newsroom; deep dives on developing leadership and management skills; inspiring visits to digital media organizations; and one-on-one mentoring from some of the top women leaders in digital journalism.
  • A year of check-ins and practical, targeted guidance and personal coaching on individual challenges.
  • Registration, travel and accommodations for the Online News Association Conference in New Orleans.
  • Workshops tailored to the needs of the cohort, including a half-day workshop for women in the program during ONA18.
  • The opportunity to be a part of a cohort of peers to serve as a strong career-long support system.
Duration of Program: 
  • Oct. 31, 2018: Applications open
  • Nov. 30, 2018: Applications close
  • January: Cohort announced
  • Feb 10-15, 2019: Accelerator at the UCLA Meyer & Renee Luskin Conference Center in Los Angeles
  • Sept. 14, 2019: Final workshop at ONA annual conference in New Orleans
How to Apply: Apply Now

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Online News Association

The United Nations: Challenges and Leadership

Rene Wadlow

To dream of vast horizons of the Soul
Through dreams made whole,
Unfettered free – help me!
Help me make our world anew.
Langston Hughes
The United Nations remains the only universally representative and comprehensively empowered body the world has to deal with challenges to the security and welfare of the world society. However, the awareness of these challenges grows unevenly. Often the awareness first develops among the representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who present these ideas to governments. In other cases, awareness will be developed by some governments who face these challenges most directly and who then try to build support among other governments.
The response of the United Nations to new challenges has been of two types:
The first is the incorporation of separate intergovernmental organizations into what is called the “U.N. system” or the “U.N. family”.
The second is to create a program within the existing U.N. Secretariat, often after having held a world conference on the issue.
The incorporation of the International Organization for Migration in 2016 into the U.N. system as a “related organization” is an example of the first type. It is a sign that both U.N. officials and major governments recognize that the issues of migration are important and that these migration issues will continue to be a major challenge to the world society.
The International Organization for Migration had been officially created in 1951 to deal with the large number of refugees and displaced people in Europe as a result of the Second World War. In practice, the Organization had started its work three years earlier to help displaced persons and refugees migrate from Europe toward South America which had not been a victim of the war as Europe had.
The United Nations system of Specialized Agencies, Associated Organizations, and Programmes have grown in a pragmatic fashion as governments and NGOs have come to realize that there are long-standing issues that require cooperation. Some of these bodies had already been created and were associated with the League of Nations. This was the case of the International Labour Organization led by the strong-willed Albert Thomas, which like the League of Nations had its headquarters in Geneva. Geneva was also the home of the International Bureau of Education headed by the path-making child psychologist Jean Piaget. The Bureau’s aim was to develop cooperation among Ministries of Education and to improve formal education, especially at the primary and secondary levels by sharing research on the needs of children and pedagogical advances. The Bureau is now incorporated into UNESCO but its office remains in Geneva. The Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome is a continuation of the Agriculture Institute created by the King of Italy and associated to the League of Nations.
Other international institutions were created as a response to the monetary disorder of the 1930s and the destruction caused by the Second World War: The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, both in Washington D.C. and the World Trade Organization in Geneva, originally the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Programs within the regular U.N. Secretariat have developed as awareness of issues has grown. This has been the case for the programs on development, on the environment, on women.
The U.N. Specialized Agencies and related institutions did not grow up in a planned way, although many correspond to government ministries within national governments: Education, Health, Transportation, Agriculture, Finance, Housing, Environment. All these institutions have grown as governments realize that all issues transcend national frontiers and must be worked on in a cooperative way.
The key element in each case of creative responses to major challenges has been leadership. Enlightened leadership with clear vision and with political courage in articulating the way the world has changed and the directional flow of the next cycle has been the motor for creation. Such leadership within the U.N. Secretariat, within national governments and within non-governmental organizations is needed so that the U.N. will continue to be an instrument of transformation to benefit all the world’s people.

Government declares child refugees will not remain in Australia

Max Newman

About 40 refugee children and their families reportedly have arrived in Australia in recent weeks, after being medically transferred from the tiny Pacific island of Nauru, where successive Australian governments have indefinitely detained asylum seekers.
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton last week indicated that the remaining 27 children on the island—many of whom have severe mental health problems after years of trauma and detention—would be evacuated by the end of the year. However, Dutton declared that none of the families would be permitted to stay in Australia.
In effect, they may receive limited medical treatment but will be subjected to equally cruel detention onshore until they can be removed from the country, either by “resettlement” or forced transfer back to the states they fled.
Rather than signalling a relaxation of the inhuman incarceration of innocent people, the move is a cynical bid to placate a public outcry over the barbaric treatment of children, while reinforcing the underlying “Operation Sovereign Borders”—the use of the military to repel all asylum seekers.
The Liberal-National Coalition government is continuing to challenge the right of Australia’s Federal Court to order such medical evacuations, even in the direst of circumstances, in which children suffer “resignation syndrome,” refusing to eat.
Australia’s imprisonment of refugees in concentration-style camps, whether “offshore” or “onshore,” has provided a precedent for the measures announced last week by US President Donald Trump to arrest and imprison all the desperate asylum seekers who manage to enter the US.
This has been a longstanding bipartisan assault on the basic democratic right to flee persecution and seek asylum.
* In 1992, the Keating Labor government first introduced the mandatory detention of refugees arriving by boat.
* In 2001, the Howard Liberal-National government imposed the “Pacific Solution” of forcibly transporting asylum seekers to remote islands in former Australian colonies—either Nauru or Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island.
* In 2012, the Gillard Labor government reopened the Pacific camps and vowed that no detainee would ever be allowed to settle in Australia—the policy being enforced by Dutton and the Coalition government today.
The current temporary transfers have come after numerous medical professionals, risking possible jail time, exposed the brutal conditions on Nauru. In August, medical staff and social workers blew the whistle on the treatment of detainees, above all the children. They reported widespread instances of abuses, self-harm and high risks of suicide.
The Australian government, supported by the Nauruan government of President Baron Waqa, which depends on Australian financial assistance, has made every effort to suppress the revelations, in order to hide the abuses from public scrutiny.
Against the backdrop of the 18-member Pacific Island Forum held on Nauru, which concluded on September 5, Waqa made clear that all reports of the treatment inflicted on the detainees would be blocked. A New Zealand reporter who interviewed a refugee was arrested.
Backed by the Australian government, Waqa’s regime blocked the court-ordered medical transfers of numbers of detainees, both during the forum and in the following weeks. The Australian Border Force, a para-military body overseeing the capture and imprisonment of asylum seekers, endorsed the Nauruan government’s stand, saying that any criticism of it would affect their “working relationship.”
Undoubtedly with the close collaboration of the Australian authorities, the Waqa government began the deportation of medical professionals who exposed the horrors inflicted on the children. On the October 17, Dr Nicole Montana was deported after allegedly taking a photo of a child, a practice that had been banned in order to censor images that expose the conditions on the island.
Montana’s deportation came just one week after Médecins Sans Frontières health workers were forced to leave the island. Nauru’s government said the charity’s essential psychological and psychiatric services were “no longer required.”
Despite decades of anti-refugee rhetoric by the corporate media and both the Coalition and the Labor Party, there is widespread sympathy for asylum seekers. A recent survey conducted by YouGov Galaxy reported that nearly 80 percent of respondents wanted the children off Nauru, while 61 percent of young respondents said the government had a moral obligation to find permanent accommodation for them.
Nevertheless, the Coalition and Labor have reiterated their unity, insisting that none of the children ever be permitted to settle in Australia. Last month, in the lead-up to a crucial by-election in the Sydney seat of Wentworth, Prime Minister Scott Morrison canvassed finally accepting a longstanding offer from New Zealand to take 150 refugees, but only on the proviso that legislation in both Australia and New Zealand barred them from ever travelling to Australia.
Labor’s immigration spokesman Shayne Neumann signalled the Labor Party’s willingness to support the plan. Last week, however, Home Affairs Minister Dutton ruled out such an arrangement, claiming it would encourage “people smugglers” to offer voyages to asylum seekers.
A similar bill to bar all asylum seekers from entering Australia for life, even as tourists or to visit relatives, was proposed in 2016, but it was eventually dropped amid doubts about its legality.
At a speech at the Lowy Institute last month, Labor leader Bill Shorten vowed that Operation Sovereign Borders would be “fully resourced” under a Labor government. He claimed, however, that “stopping the boats was never meant to leave people languishing in indefinite detention.”
That is a lie. When the Greens-backed Gillard Labor government, in which Shorten was a key minister, reopened the prison camps on Nauru and Manus Island in August 2012, it insisted that lengthy detention was essential to deter refugees. The following year, the Rudd Labor specifically decreed that no detainee would ever live in Australia, effectively consigning them to indefinite detention.
The Greens have indicated their support for a New Zealand resettlement bill and said they would not agree to a lifetime travel ban. While occasionally posturing as refugee advocates, the Greens fundamentally agree with the entire framework of restrictive national borders, and back the mandatory detention of all asylum seekers to vet so-called non-genuine refugees. They call for the closure of the offshore detention facilities, but only to be replaced by UN-run assessment centres in impoverished countries, such as Indonesia.