International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Capacity Development Programme 2020 for Young Professionals from Developing Countries – Abu Dhabi, UAE

Application Deadline: 8th March 2020 (at midnight, Abu Dhabi Local Time)
Position Title: Capacity Development Programme Officer 

Eligible Countries: Young professionals from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Islands Developing States (SIDS). 

To be Taken at (Country): Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates or Bonn, Germany        

About the Award: The programme will provide an opportunity for nationals from LDCs and SIDS, with the agreement and support of their governments and/or institutions, to serve at IRENA Headquarters in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates or at its office in Bonn, Germany, for a period of one year (renewable to two years) aiming to build capacity for addressing renewable energy issues in SIDS and LDCs and to provide experience in an intergovernmental organisation setting.
Participating governments, universities or institutions would be asked to release selected employees to the Agency, for a period of one or two years, on a loan arrangement, whereby the government employee would continue to receive their salary and emoluments from the releasing government. 
An additional remuneration and travel to and from the duty station will be provided by IRENA.

Field(s) of Study: See eligibility below

Type: Job

Eligibility:

The programme is intended for individuals who are 32 years of age and younger.IRENA is looking for individuals from LDC and SIDS who have experience and/or education in the following career fields: – International Development  – Renewable Energy – Energy  – Economics – Public affairs – Government Relations – Communications – Finance/Banking – Engineering – Partnerships – Project Management – Human Resources – Fund raising – Project Development – Climate initiatives/NDC  – Innovation & Technology – Energy Planning – Energy System Operations – Outreach with Governments – Environment/Natural Science – Grid Assessment – Energy Modeling – Data Analysis and Statistics – Rural Electrification, including Mini-Grids – Energy Planning – Off-Grid Energy Access Work assignments may include, but not limited to: Analysis of data and information;Drafting of documents;Undertaking literature reviews;Preparing and making presentations;Dialogue with governments, partners and other key national, regional and international stakeholders;Contribute to the work programme outputs of the organization and work on specific projects;Support the efforts of the team in daily activities;Perform other duties, as required. Competencies Professionalism: Knowledge of policies, practices and procedures and ability to apply them in an organizational setting. Ability to identify issues, analyze and formulate opinions, make conclusions and recommendations. Shows pride in work and in achievements; demonstrates professional competence and mastery of subject matter; is conscientious and efficient in meeting commitments, observing deadlines and achieving results; shows persistence when faced with difficult problems or challenges; remains calm in stressful situations.  Communication: Has excellent drafting ability and communication skills, both oral and written; creates and promotes enabling environment for open communication; listens to others, correctly interprets messages from others and responds appropriately; demonstrates openness in sharing information and keeping people informed. Accountability: Stands accountable for the accuracy and completeness of information under his/her control and handling of the information in a discreet and confidential manner; takes ownership for all responsibilities and honour commitments; delivers outputs for which one has responsibility within prescribed time, cost and quality standards; supports subordinates, provides oversight and takes ownership of delegated responsibilities and authorities; takes personal responsibility for his/her own shortcomings and those of the work unit, where applicable; operates in compliance with organizational regulations and rules. Teamwork: Works collaboratively with colleagues to achieve organizational goals; solicits input by genuinely valuing others’ ideas and expertise, learns from others; places team agenda before personal agenda; builds consensus for task purpose and direction with team member; shares credit for team accomplishments and accepts joint responsibility for team shortcomings. Planning and Organising: Develops clear goals that are consistent with agreed strategies; identifies priority activities to ensure successful completion of work assigned. Qualifications Education: Advanced university degree (Master’s degree or equivalent) in a field relevant to the list of occupational groups listed above.  A first university degree in combination with qualifying experience may be accepted in lieu of the advanced university degree. Experience: Minimum of one to five years of progressively responsible experience related to the desired occupational groups is preferred. Language: Excellent command of both written and spoken English is essential. Working knowledge of another language is desirable. ***Qualified candidates must apply for the above-mentioned vacancy on-line, through IRENA’s recruitment platform, Taleo by submitting a complete and comprehensive CV and a letter of interest, including details of three professional references who will be contacted if their application is shortlisted.  Candidates should ensure that their respective governments/institutions will release them for the period of the programme and reabsorb them at the completion of the assignment.  They should include information as to the focal point from their releasing government/institution/organization. Applications from qualified women are highly encouraged. Please note that due to the number of applications received, only candidates under serious consideration will be contacted for an interview and will receive notice of the outcome of the selection process.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: USD 4,000

Duration of Award: One year (with possible extension for one additional year).

How to Apply: Qualified candidates must apply for the above-mentioned vacancy on-line, through IRENA’s recruitment platform, Taleo by submitting a complete and comprehensive CV and a letter of interest, including details of three professional references who will be contacted if their application is shortlisted.  


Visit Award Webpage for Details

United Nations International Law Fellowship Programme 2020 (Fully-funded to The Hague, in The Netherlands)

Application Deadline: 24th February 2020

Eligible Countries: United Nations member countries

To be taken at (country): Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands

 About the Award: The Fellowship Programme consists of an annual six-week summer course at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. The participants attend lectures and seminars in international law organized by the Codification Division as well as the public international law session at The Hague Academy of International Law.
The lectures and seminars organized by the Codification Division are given by prominent international law scholars and practitioners from different regions and legal systems.
The Fellowship Programme is conducted in English or French. The 2020 Programme will be conducted in French.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

Selection Criteria:  To qualify for the Fellowship Programme, candidates must have a legal background with professional experience in the field of international law. The selected participants are required to submit a medical certificate of good health and to certify that they are able to attend the entirety of the course on a full time basis. 
When selecting participants for the Fellowship Programme, due consideration is given to the candidates’ qualifications, to the scope of their professional duties, to the relevance of the training to their professional duties, geographical distribution and gender balance. Applications from female candidates are strongly encouraged.
Due consideration will also be given to candidates from Member States from which there has been no recent fellowship recipient for the International Law Fellowship Programme.

Number of Awards: 21

Value of Award:

• The fellowships cover the fellowship recipient’s travel costs in economy class, accommodation, medical insurance, participation in the Fellowship Programme, the training material and the registration fee for The Hague Academy of International Law. In accordance with the policies and procedures governing the administration of United Nations fellowships, participants will also receive a stipend to cover other living expenses.
• Qualified candidates may also apply for self-funded positions. Self-funded participants bear all costs associated with their participation (travel, accommodation, living expenses and registration fee for The Hague Academy of International Law). Training materials are provided to all self-funded participants free of charge.

How to Apply: 
Complete the application form in French, typewritten. Answers should be clear and as detailed as possible. If you need extra space, you may attach additional pages. Incomplete applications will not be considered. 
The “Letter of Transmission” must be completed and signed by a senior official of the institution that is presenting the candidate’s application.
A candidate whose mother tongue or language of instruction is not French must submit evidence of his/her ability to attend and participate in lectures and seminars conducted in French (e.g., diploma of courses conducted in French, language test certificate, extensive work experience in French).
The application should be sent by email to: ilfp@un.org

Two versions of the application form must be submitted:
(1) One scanned copy of the signed original (for example in PDF or JPG)
(2) One electronic MS Word version (or equivalent) of the application
The United Nations does not charge a fee at any stage of the application and selection process, and does not require information with respect to candidates’ bank accounts.

The deadline for applications is 24 February 2020. Incomplete applications and applications received after the deadline will not be considered.

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Women in Africa (WIA) 54 Project 2020 for Female Entrepreneurs in Africa (Fully-funded to Morocco)

Application Deadline: 9th February 2020

Eligible Countries: African country

To be taken at (country): Marrakesh, Morocco

About the Award: WIA CLUB PHILANTROPY is a non-profit structure aiming at supporting and funding businesses led or managed by African women, through two main projects : the Women in Africa Entrepreneurs Hub and the Women in Africa Revelations Night.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

• The companies or initiatives meeting the following criteria can apply to the Entrepreneurs’ Hub:
• Companies or initiatives based in one of the 54 African countries.
• Created or managed by an African woman.
• With a strong market traction (turnover, number of users, funds raised)

Selection Criteria: We will select the most innovative and high-growth potential companies or initiatives with already proven traction:
• Innovative product, service or technology and/or a strong human impact.
• With a first traction on the market (turnover, number of users, raised funds…).
• Proven business model, scalability.
• Large growth potential (in own country, Africa and globally).
• Ambitious team with deep execution skills.

Number of Awards: 54 women

Value of Program: 

• Invitation to the WIA International Annual Summit in Marrakesh (June 27/28 2019): reimbursement of travel, accommodation and exhibition space decoration.
• Unique visibility: Unique visibility from 500 delegates, including investors, top executives and media from all over the world plus visibility on Women in Africa Club print and media supports including WIA Mag, social media, press, offering key visibility.
• High-level Networking: Business meetings organized during the WIA Club Annual Meeting in Marrakech and during all the events of the Club (Regional and Local meetings).
• Special access to the WIA Link digital platform in order to exchange with each other and with international top executive. Real social network of entrepreneurs and all year long acres exclusive club.
• Mentoring: Mentoring for 1 year from large companies (depending from the fundings and sponsors)
  

The African Revelations Night will invite women entrepreneurs to present their project on stage.

Duration of Program: June 25-26 2020

How to Apply: Apply to Women Entrepreneurs Hub 2020

Visit Program Webpage for details

War Profiteering is Real

Sarah Anderson

The prospect of war with Iran is terrifying.

Experts predict as many as a million people could die if the current tensions lead to a full-blown war. Millions more would become refugees across the Middle East, while working families across the U.S. would bear the brunt of our casualties.

But there is one set of people who stand to benefit from the escalation of the conflict: CEOs of major U.S. military contractors.

This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official on January 2. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies’ share prices spiked.

Wall Street traders know that a war with Iran would mean more lucrative contracts for U.S. weapons makers. Since top executives get much of their compensation in the form of stock, they benefit personally when the value of their company’s stock goes up.

I took a look at the stock holdings of the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman).

Using the most recent available data, I calculated that these five executives held company stock worth approximately $319 million just before the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian leader Qasem Soleimani. By the stock market’s closing bell the following day, the value of their combined shares had increased to $326 million.

War profiteering is nothing new. Back in 2006, during the height of the Iraq War, I analyzed CEO pay at the 34 corporations that were the top military contractors at that time. I found that their pay had jumped considerably after the September 11 attacks.

Between 2001 and 2005, military contractor CEO pay jumped 108 percent on average, compared to a 6 percent increase for their counterparts at other large U.S. companies.

Congress needs to take action to prevent a catastrophic war on Iran. De-escalating the current tensions is the most immediate priority.

But Congress must also take action to end war profiteering. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed capping CEO pay at companies receiving financial bailouts. He argued that CEOs relying on taxpayer funds should not earn more than $400,000 — the salary of the U.S. president.

That commonsense notion should be extended to all companies that rely on massive taxpayer-funded contracts. Senator Bernie Sanders, for instance, has a plan to deny federal contracts to companies that pay their CEOs excessively. He would set the CEO pay limit for major contractors at no more than 150 times the pay of the company’s typical worker.

Currently, the sky’s the limit for CEO pay at these companies — and the military contracting industry is a prime offender. The top five Pentagon contractors paid their top executives $22.5 million on average in 2018.

CEO pay restrictions should also apply to the leaders of privately held government contractors, which currently don’t even have to disclose the size of their top executives’ paychecks.

That’s the case for General Atomics, the manufacturer of the MQ-9 Reaper that carried out the assassination of Soleimani. Despite raking in $2.8 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is allowed to keep executive compensation information secret.

We do know that General Atomics CEO Neal Blue has prospered quite a bit from taxpayer dollars. Forbes estimates his wealth at $4.1 billion.

War is bad for nearly everyone. But as long as we allow the leaders of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, their profit motive for war in Iran — or anywhere — will persist.

Russia – A Groundbreaking Powershift?

Peter Koenig 

In groundbreaking news President Putin announced today, 15 January, in his annual address to the Nation, major changes in his government. First, he announced that Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and his entire cabinet resigned and will eventually be replaced by a new PM and a new cabinet. A timeline was not given. In the meantime, they would carry on with their functions as ‘normal’. Well, how normal can this be for a group of “lame ducks”?

A second important point of Mr. Putin’s speech focused on shifting power away from the Presidency to the Duma, or Parliament. The Duma shall have more power in a better balancing act between the Presidency and the voice of the people, i.e. the Parliament. The possibility of referenda, with people voting, is also foreseen. A move towards more ‘democracy’. Some interpret this as a reaction to western criticism of Russia being a dictatorial state and this move should alleviate Russia from this accusation. I don’t think so. Western accusations are random, when it suits them, never based on facts, but on lies.

For example, the change in government power foresees some changes in the Russian Constitution, but not a rewrite at all, as Mr. Putin stressed. The term-limitation of the Presidency should also not change, no more than two. It appears the “no more than two in a row” – should be amended, and the “in a row” deleted. That would mean, that President Putin would have to leave the Presidency definitely in 2024, when his current term is up. This may be one of those Constitutional areas to be confirmed by the Duma – or not.

But could Mr. Putin become PM and still run Russia from behind the scene? As he did from 2008 – 2012, under then President Dmitry Medvedev. This was not discussed.

When PM Medvedev explained his resignation, he referred to Article 117 of the Russian Constitution, which states that the government can offer its resignation to the president, who, in turn, can either accept or reject it.Mr. Putin, of course, accepted it, thanking PM Medvedev and his Ministers for their good work and service to Russia. Although there was no visible hostility between Putin and Medvedev, this move has most likely been discussed and negotiated months ago.

Mr. Medvedev was offered the post of Deputy Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, a job that first had to be created, according to Mr. Putin. This rank is clearly a few steps down from Prime-Minister. PM Medvedev and President Putin are both members of the United Russia Party, but Medvedev has the reputation of being an Atlantist, meaning, leaning strongly towards the west, western political philosophy. The Russian financial sector is still infiltrated with Atlantists, some may call them Fifth Columnists.

All the while seeking to improve relations with Europe – a logical step – President Putin is adamant to detach from the US-dollar dominated “sanction-prone” economy. And rightly so. Might this explain the departure of PM Medvedev? – As of this morning, there was no mention of a favored replacement as PM. This may take a while. Seemingly no problem, as all the key activities are still covered by the “caretaker” government. The entire change of government was presented as “relaxed”, “no big deal”, a natural process for improving the functioning of the Russian government. Yet, this has never happened in “modern” Russia, in the last 20 years, under Mr. Putin’s leadership.

Duma members interviewed saw it generally as a positive move. They will now have more power, and more responsibility. They will have a say in key appointments, including of the Prime-Minister and his cabinet, while the final decision rests still with the President.

What is important to notice, is that the present “democratization” of the Russian government comes at a time when Mr. Putin’s public approval is still around 70%, a slight drop since his reelection in 2018 with 77%.

The Duma with its new powers, will be asked to look at some aspects of the Constitution (as of yet no details are officially defined) with a view of possibly modifying them. Given Mr. Putin’s high popularity and Russia’s economic and political stability, Russia’s military superiority – despite the constant western interference, or attempted interferences – preserving that stability and continuous economic prosperity is important, i.e. continuity in the Presidency and the Government is crucial. Thus, wouldn’t it be conceivable that the Duma might lift the term-limit for the Presidency altogether?

Although, at this stage much of this is speculation.But assuming that some of the strategy behind this change – the “power equalizing move” – goes in this direction, then the timing is perfect. A new Decade, a new Era. And Putin remains the key player – the one who has made of Russia what she is today – a proud, independent, autonomous nation, that has despite all sanctions and western demonization – not only prevailed, but come out on top brilliantly as a sovereign world super power. – Why would the Russian people want to risk giving up this hard-deserved privilege?

Opposition grows to Nepal government’s move to curtail social media

Rohantha De Silva

Resistance is increasing in Nepal to the proposed Information Technology Bill (ITB), which curbs freedom of expression and social media. Senior journalists, prominent intellectuals and law professionals have voiced their opposition to the draconian nature of the bill, which is part of the ruling Stalinist Nepal Communist Party’s (NCP) turn toward autocratic rule.

The Federation of Nepali Journalists, Nepal Bar Association, NGO Federation of Nepal and other organisations have condemned the attack on free speech. Addressing a meeting last week in Kathmandu, Nepal’s capital, constitutional expert Bhimarjun Acharya said the bill “must be scrapped entirely.”

The parliamentary Development and Technology Committee passed the bill on December 29. It will be presented to parliament for passage to replace the current Electronic Transactions Act, which the NCP government has used already to arrest people for making “improper” social media posts.

The ITB sets heavy fines of up to 1.5 million rupees ($US13,145), or jail terms of up to ten years, or both, for harassing, bullying or defaming others via social media. Though the government claims this would not stifle freedom of expression, the bill’s vague language would put social media users at high risk for criticising business leaders, politicians and bureaucrats.

Under the bill, the government would be able to block social media platforms if they are not registered in Nepal, including Facebook, Viber, and WhatsApp. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would also come under scrutiny. The bill authorises the federal, state and local governments in Nepal to direct ISPs to withdraw “improper” online content, without any court ruling. Equipment and software can be deemed “illegal.”

Cases will be heard by an “Information Technology Court,” chaired by a “legal expert” and with IT and commerce experts as members. Acharya said this would be a “kangaroo court” designed to bypass the judiciary, violating the Nepal constitution.

Expressing the concern of sections of the Nepali elite, the Himalayan Times wrote on December 31: “Democracy will die in the absence of freedom of expression or opinion.” A Kathmandu Post opinion piece noted that authorities could block social media, “threatening to curtail freedom of speech online as well as increase surveillance of personal data.”

Responding to widespread public hostility, the country’s main opposition party, the Nepali Congress (NC), was forced to demand that the government revise the bill’s “regressive” provisions. However, the last NC government also attacked basic democratic rights and was widely discredited before it was voted out in the December 2017 general elections.

A day before the parliamentary committee approved the bill, NCP chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal branded the press as the “bourgeois media.” This is a cynical attempt to justify the attack on basic democratic rights by a government that serves the interests of the capitalist class.

Since its election, the NCP government has sought to gag free expression. The police have filled 106 cases in Kathmandu Valley, where the majority of Nepalis live, for “improper” posts on social media in the last three years.

The ICB is not the only measure proposed by the Nepal government to attack media freedom. Under the Media Council Bill (MCB), the Nepal Press Council can fine editors, publishers and journalists up to one million rupees if found guilty of damaging someone’s reputation. Under the current legislation, the council can ask for clarifications and apologies, and blacklist press organisations, but must go to court for compensation orders.

On December 30, the government tabled the Special Service Bill, which authorises Nepal’s intelligence agencies to intercept telephone and digital conversations under the basis of countering “threats to national security, sovereignty and integrity.”

With more than half the planet’s population now using the internet, governments everywhere are increasingly taking measures to gag social media platforms, fearing their use to organise the struggles of workers and youth. At least 29 countries carried out deliberate internet shutdowns last year.

As part of the Nepal government’s increasing surveillance against the masses, 165 more CCTV cameras were installed by police in the capital Kathmandu during October. This takes the total number of CCTV cameras in Kathmandu Valley to 1,414, and to more than 3,000 throughout Nepal. A number of schools and colleges in Kathmandu are under CCTV surveillance also.

These developments underscore the NCP’s fear of the development of a mass movement against the government. In by-elections held in November for the parliament and provincial assemblies, the NCP lost most of the seats it had held. In an attempt to shield itself from the discontent, the Rastriya Janata Party withdrew its support from the government last March.

Nepal is a social tinderbox. On average, the richest 10 percent of people now own property worth an astounding 26 times more than the poorest 40 percent, and the top 10 percent earn three times more than the poorest 40 percent.

Nepali migrant workers in the Middle East and elsewhere sent home over $7 billion to their families in the last fiscal year, but they endure significant hardships, including 12-hour work-days in desert heat and grueling hours in factories with no days off. Many are virtual slaves trapped in private homes as domestic helpers. Around 1,000 Nepali migrant workers die every year, mainly in the Gulf region, because of these appalling conditions.

Mass opposition to the ongoing poverty and social problems under the previous Nepali Congress government resulted in the victory of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s administration in the 2017 election. But the NCP government has carried forward the same pro-market program of international finance capital, which is intensifying social devastation and political opposition.

Australian fires leave tens of thousands in financial hardship and stress

James Cogan

Around the world, the universal outcome of climate-change related disasters is that those who can least afford it—the working class and the poor—suffer the greatest and longest-term impact. The fires that have burnt through large areas of Australia since October have most severely affected low-income workers and welfare recipients, self-employed contractors, small-business owners and family farmers who were already struggling to make ends meet. The recovery measures being provided by the federal and state governments, and the assistance from charities, offer only short-term relief.

Losses are already devastating. At least 28 people have lost their lives nationally, including four volunteer firefighters. Thousands more have been injured, traumatised or forced to seek emergency treatment for respiratory conditions aggravated or caused by the toxic smoke blanketing large areas of the country.

Some 11 million hectares have gone up in flames, including hundreds of thousands of hectares of prime farmland, orchards, vineyards, commercial timber plantations and logging forests. An estimated seven thousand beehives have been incinerated, with major implications for honey production and the pollination of valuable agricultural industries. Stock losses run into the tens of thousands, especially on Kangaroo Island. The impact on native vegetation and wildlife has been immense, with as many as one billion animals killed.

Fire on the outskirts of Harrington, NSW (photo credit Kelly-ann Oosterbeek)

Nationally, over 2,600 homes have been lost. In New South Wales (NSW), currently the worst affected state, the Rural Fire Service reported on January 13 that 2,132 homes, 4,518 “outbuildings” such as sheds and 218 “facilities,” such as shops and other commercial buildings, have been destroyed. Hundreds more homes and buildings have burnt out in the fires that have ravaged eastern Victoria, South Australia’s Adelaide Hills and Kangaroo Island, along with areas of Western Australia, Queensland and the southern island state of Tasmania. Thousands of cars and farm vehicles have also been destroyed.

So far, over 11,000 insurance claims have been made, totally over $1 billion, according to the Insurance Council of Australia. But it can be predicted with certainty that many people who have lost assets were either underinsured or had no insurance at all because they could not afford the premiums. While there is not yet an estimate for the current crisis, at least 13 percent of those who lost their homes in the 2009 Black Saturday fires in Victoria were uninsured. A study undertaken after the 2003 fires in Canberra concluded that insured households were underinsured by between 27 and 40 percent of the cost of rebuilding.

Even those households with the most comprehensive insurance coverage are likely to struggle. The cost of replacing lost assets generally far exceeds the insurance pay-out, particularly for older properties that have to be rebuilt to meet more stringent construction standards.

Banks are offering no-interest loans to cover the gap and 12-month mortgage repayment freezes, but people will still only be able to afford to rebuild by going deeper and deeper into debt. Insurance premiums will also soar over the long-term in every area that the banks and finance companies assess as “high-risk” natural disaster zones. With major flooding now taking place regularly in the tropical north-eastern state of Queensland—another consequence of global climatic change—insurance costs have increased by 300 percent or more in particularly prone areas—or coverage for floods is not offered at all.

As part of the $2 billion package announced by the federal Coalition government of Prime Minister Scott Morrison this month, fire affected households are now eligible for one-off emergency assistance of just $1,000 per adult and $400 per child under 16. State governments are offering their own small financial aid to the worst impacted people. Private charities, which are taking in tens of millions in donations, are also offering cash grants.

Examples beginning to appear in the media give a glimpse of how people have been left for weeks without meaningful relief. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) interviewed people this week in the north-eastern NSW town of Wytaliba, which was devastated by fire on November 8. Two people lost their lives. Dozens of homes and the public school were destroyed.

Al Bacon, a concreter, suffered serious burns and was hit by a car during the worst of the fire emergency in the town. He was uninsured and lost his home and virtually all his possessions. He spent weeks in hospital and has been unable to return to work. One month after the fire, he and his partner received a total of $1,280 from a state government relief fund, which was immediately spent on an ambulance bill and covering rent for temporary accommodation. Eight weeks after the fire, they are still waiting for financial assistance from the charity St Vincent de Paul. They are only now applying for the federal amount.

Initially, the federal social welfare agency Centrelink was refusing to even give out the $1,000 payment to people unless they had been rendered homeless. Amid the storm of anger over fire victims being denied relief, Morrison personally intervened. Even so, only 33,000 payments have been made, totaling just $40 million.

Morrison has also announced that the owners of some 19,000 farming businesses and other small businesses which have been severely impacted by the fires can apply for an immediate $75,000 cash grant. State governments are also offering packages of up to $15,000.

Such amounts pale in comparison with the losses that have been suffered. Crops have been decimated or smoke damaged. Farmers have had to sell or destroy valuable stock and are spending thousands of dollars each week to buy emergency fodder as grazing land has been burnt out. Just the fencing that has been destroyed on some farms will cost up to $100,000 to replace.

Farming couple David and Carolyn Duff, who own a cattle farm on the NSW mid-north coast, told the ABC this week that, while grateful for any assistance, “$75,000 has been swallowed up just with feeding cattle.” They are spending up to $12,000 a week just trucking in hay to their property. They estimate their total losses from the fires—including machinery, fences, outbuildings and stock—to be at least $1.2 million.

Moreover, the number of businesses indirectly affected by the fires—through loss of trade in particular—is estimated by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia to number over 100,000. Many of the impacted regions are popular holiday destinations during the Christmas-New Year period. Hotels, motels, caravan parks and sight-seeing operators have suffered a collapse in bookings, while restaurants, cafes and service providers have gone weeks with drastically reduced custom.

In many cases, businesses have lost between 50 and 90 percent of the revenue they earn during the peak season of the year. Moreover, agricultural industries and the wilderness and natural beauty that attracts holidaymakers have been laid waste and will not recover for several years. A legacy of the fires will also be the perception, both in Australia and internationally, that what were once considered prime tourist destinations are dangerous to visit during the fire season. Areas of the country face the prospect of protracted economic slump, large-scale business failures and mass unemployment.

The victims of the fire crisis being treated with the greatest indifference are the low-paid temporary, casual, part-time and contract workers who have lost hours or been stood down. They will never be compensated for the loss of income they are suffering. The only assistance they are eligible for is 13 weeks of payments equivalent to the below-poverty unemployment benefit—providing they can demonstrate to Centrelink that their loss of paid employment is the “direct result” of fire. Thousands of impacted workers in the major cities and regional towns cannot provide such “proof.”

Hundreds of thousands protest pension cuts in France

Alex Lantier

Yesterday, over a half-million French strikers and youth marched for a 43rd day of strikes against President Emmanuel Macron’s pension cuts. They rejected Prime Minister Édouard Philippe’s announcement this weekend of a “temporary” withdrawal of a planned two-year increase in the pension age from the text of the bill, which Philippe intends to rework and add back into the bill after four months of talks with the unions.

According to the unions, 550,000 people marched across France, including 150,000 in Paris and tens of thousands in cities including Marseille, Toulouse, Bordeaux and Nantes. In Toulouse, they interrupted a ceremony held by right-wing mayor Jean-Luc Moudenc, holding a banner saying “Emmanuel Moudenc, mayor of the rich” and singing “yellow vest” songs.

The protest in Paris

Among workers, there is growing opposition to Macron and support for the strike. An Odoxa poll for France-Info and the right-wing daily Le Figaro found that 66 percent of the population still considers the strike “justified,” even though 57 percent would like it to stop, as rail and mass transit strikes lengthen commutes to work. Moreover, 67 percent told Odoxa they agreed that Philippe’s announcement this weekend was “a half-measure that comes too late.”

Philippe’s proposed talks with the unions to identify possible spending cuts only underscore that such talks are a dead end for the workers. There is nothing to negotiate with Macron. The way forward is to organize independently of the unions, in committees of action mobilizing broader layers of workers in a struggle to bring down Macron.

Emma, a schoolteacher protesting in Paris, told the WSWS: “We demand the pension cuts not be implemented. Philippe can say whatever he wants to anybody about his announcements on the pension age, we don’t care—at all.” She added, “What is unprecedented is that the strike belongs to the strikers. The workers have escaped the control of the unions. So, the union leaderships can negotiate whatever they want. We will not give up anything.”

This is not a pension reform...it is armed robbery

Emma added that her pension could fall by up to €1,036 per month due to Macron’s cuts: she is a teacher with three children and, in addition to cuts specifically to teachers’ pensions, Macron’s reform slashes bonuses paid to women for bearing children. She said: “Women are unjustly attacked by this reform, though media peddle the line that this is a pro-woman reform, that things will be much fairer for them if their careers were interrupted by childbirth.”

Sylvie, who works in Paris mass transit, said Macron’s pension cut “is bad for everyone. It is a swindle. They cannot tell us how much it will take away from the French people… But we’ve seen such cuts in other European countries. Cutting our pensions twenty to thirty percent or more, is that good? Who wants to earn less—and I mean much, much less? They aim to impoverish the people.”

Sylvie

Sylvie stressed that she did not trust the unions negotiating with Macron in Philippe’s four-month conference: “They are negotiating for themselves, not for the people. That is all that I can say. They are negotiating for themselves, not for Paris mass transit workers… The media are denouncing us, but it is just to impose a pension reform that is harmful to everyone, that will impoverish people.”

The discrediting of the French union bureaucracy and the emergence of a militant movement in the working class reflects an explosive, international resurgence of the class struggle transforming class relations worldwide. Recent months have seen mass strikes of tens of millions of Indian workers, of US autoworkers and teachers, of Polish teachers, and mass protests in dozens of countries—from the Czech Republic in Europe to Iraq, Lebanon and Algeria in the Middle East to Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador in Latin America.

This upsurge of international class struggle unfolds amid a descent of the capitalist class into criminality and militarism, epitomized by Washington’s drone murder of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani on January 3 in Baghdad. This assassination, carried out with blatant contempt for international law, exposed the danger of all-out war between the major powers in the Middle East.

As the strike against France’s “president of the rich” continues, it is ever clearer that this struggle raises far broader issues that ultimately workers can resolve only via international, revolutionary action against the financial aristocracy and the capitalist system.

Jules

Jules, a Paris high school student, told the WSWS: “There is a lot of concern among high school students about the danger of war in the coming years. When certain individuals start bombing the Iranian military … then it’s not even a proxy war anymore, it is America and Iran that are nearly at war, or at least in violent armed conflict. And there is a lot of concern about the future of the peace we had in Europe for the last few decades.”

Jules linked the war danger to the aggressive domestic repression and austerity measures against workers at home. He said, “After attacking pensions, Macron will attack public health care and the universities… If he has given the Legion of Honor medal to the head of BlackRock, it is that he has very close links to BlackRock,” the $6 trillion global asset management firm that discussed Macron’s pension cuts with him just after his election in 2017.

The WSWS also interviewed Adrien, a worker at the Grandpuits refinery that is on a three-day strike. French refinery workers are discussing a possible indefinite national strike, which in 2010 rapidly led to a national fuel shortage and a direct clash with the state. Isolated by the unions, the refinery workers in 2010 were forced to return to work.

Adrien

In 2010, Adrien said, “we arrived for our 5a.m. shift and discovered 17 trucks of riot police in front of our workplace. They came with the police prefect with requisition letters addressed to each of us by name, threatening us with three years of prison and €45,000 fines if we did not return to work. The UN International Labor Organization later ruled against the prefecture’s position, calling it illegal: they cannot requisition a private company except to supply critical public services… It was completely illegal, and a violation of our constitutional right to strike and of democracy.”

Workers are discussing what Macron might do against a nationwide refinery strike today. Adrien said, “This government and the bosses behind it dream of just one thing: outlawing the right to strike in France. They will not hesitate to requisition us, even with illegal requisition orders. They will try to requisition us; we will struggle for our right to strike.”

This experience of the class struggle underlines the need to build committees of action, organizations independent of the unions, to mobilize broader layers of workers to defend strikers. This entails a struggle against the diktat of the banks and of the police-state machine raising key political questions—above all, that of revolutionary perspective and leadership.

When all the poor get involved in the struggle ...

Éva, a student protesting in Paris against Macron and students’ precarious living conditions due to low scholarships, said she “absolutely” supports bringing down Macron: “I never supported Macron and never will.” However, she added, “today I see no one I could support to take his place: as always in the last years and decades, we only have politicians who want power to serve capitalism. We are ruled by finance.”

The emergence of a strike consciously impelled by the workers against the union bureaucracy is rapidly transforming the political situation. While strike participation rates in rail, mass transit and education are falling—with workers temporarily returning to work part-time to earn some money, financially exhausted after weeks of striking, or striking in shifts—the radicalization of the working class continues to grow. The class gulf separating workers from the ruling class and its political agencies is ever more evident.

The Parti de l’égalité socialiste advances in this context the perspective of an international, revolutionary struggle by the working class to take power, expropriate the financial aristocracy, and build a socialist society as the alternative to the bankrupt capitalist system.

UK energy costs soar, leaving millions of households in fuel poverty

Alice Summers

Energy costs in the UK have risen by 40 percent since 2015, according to research by comparison website comparethemarket.com. The average UK household now pays a record £2,707 in bills annually.

These figures, which were based on data inputted by comparethemarket.com customers, only include costs for energy (gas and electricity), home and motor insurance, excluding expenditure associated with broadband, mobile phones and television, which also come at a significant cost.

The majority of this increase in expenditure on bills comes as a result of the massive increases in gas and electricity charges, with the 40 percent hike between 2015 and 2019 being well above the inflation rate. Average energy costs in 2015 were £1,289 a year, compared to £1,813 in 2019.

The surge in energy bills far surpasses the rate of inflation. Had charges risen in line with inflation, they would be 11.6 percent higher now than in 2015, according to the Office for National Statistics.

This is despite a nominal “cap” on energy prices introduced by the Conservative government in January 2019. The price cap—which does not limit the total cost of the bill, only the amount a supplier can charge per kWh (kilowatt hour) of gas and electricity—was initially set at a still huge £1,137 a year for a dual-fuel customer using a typical amount of gas and electricity and paying by direct debit.

However, only three months after introducing the cap, the government fuel regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), announced a 10.29 percent increase, raising the upper limit from £1,137 to £1,254.

As Richard Neudegg, head of regulation at price-comparison website uSwitch, commented: “People could be forgiven for feeling that they’ve been completely and utterly conned by the Government’s energy price cap. … It’s now crystal clear that households were never going to save what was promised.”

Ofgem claimed that the cap would “give 11 million [people] a fairer deal,” and that customers would save around £76 on average and as much as £120 on the most expensive tariffs. But as could be expected, rather than reducing the amount charged by suppliers, many of the most prominent energy providers—including British Gas, EDF Energy, E.ON UK, npower, Scottish Power and SSE—saw the setting of an upper limit as a golden opportunity to increase their prices towards the maximum permissible.

Those living in London and other major urban centres have been particularly hard hit by these rising costs, with the average household in the capital paying £3,129 a year—over £400 more than the national average. The West Midlands region, with the second most expensive annual costs in the UK, was paying an average of £2,910 on bills in 2019.

By comparison, those living in Scotland, the cheapest area, spend “only” £2,470 on bills, according to comparethemarket ’s survey.

Many families are being crippled by a huge increase in essential services required for life in the 21st century. Simon McCulloch, director at comparethemarket.com, noted that the increase in energy bills was a “stark reminder of not only the high cost of essential services but of the huge increases that have been seen in the past few years. The average cost of energy and motor and home insurance is now £675 higher than in 2015.”

The survey did not include the cost of a home phone, mobile phone, broadband and TV services, which cost families hundreds of pounds in addition. Another huge outlay for working people is the cost of Council Tax, which also increased on average by 4.5 percent on average last year—more than twice the rate of inflation.

For a working-class resident earning the misnamed “living wage” of £8.21 an hour, the statutory minimum for those aged 25 and older, these extortionate pay-outs to multibillion-pound energy corporations are a significant and often unaffordable cost.

Despite increased competition from 60 smaller firms that have entered the domestic energy supply market and to whom they lost 1.3 million customers, the big six firms—Centrica’s British Gas, E.ON, SSE, EDF Energy, npower and Scottish Power—still reported collective profits of £599 million in 2018.

Costs of heating and lighting homes are so high that millions of people earning lower incomes are forced to choose between eating and heating during the colder winter months.

According to a study released by uSwitch last November, 3.4 million UK households live in fuel poverty and are unable to adequately heat their homes. The study found that 1.6 million of these households will be forced to choose between warming up their homes or putting food on the table this winter.

The worst affected areas of the UK are in Sheffield, where 14 percent are in fuel poverty, Norwich (12 percent) and Plymouth (11 percent). The uSwitch report indicates that across the whole country, more than a third of households (36 percent) are worried about how they will afford their energy bills during the colder months.

Around 4.6 million households suggest that they wouldn’t turn the heating on even if it is cold, and 2.3 million households owed their energy supplier a combined total of £267 million before winter even began.

Living conditions have become so bad for many working-class households that the winter of 2017-2018 (the last for which data is available) saw the highest recorded Excess Winter Deaths—fatalities directly linked to cold weather—since 1975-1976, with 50,100 excess deaths in England and Wales. These figures, from fuel-poverty charities National Energy Action (NEA) and Energy Action Scotland, showed that of these deaths, 15,030, or 30 percent, were directly attributable to cold homes.

According to a 2018 study by NEA, some 36,000 deaths over the last five years, mostly of older people, can be attributed to conditions related to living in a cold home. A further 17,000 people are estimated to have died as a direct result of fuel poverty. This is the second-worst rate of unnecessary winter deaths of 30 countries in Europe, beaten only by Ireland.

The never-ending austerity programme and stagnating pay—implemented by the main political parties of the ruling class over the last decade, the Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats—have plunged millions into poverty. They are responsible for ever-growing rates of fuel poverty and avoidable winter deaths.

It is an indictment of capitalism that in the 21st century, millions of people are worried about putting their heating on, for fear of the bill that will arrive. Heating, lighting and all basic utilities are a requirement of civilised life and a social right, and their provision cannot be dependent on affordability.

Former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe linked to international drug trafficking through Sinaloa Cartel

Julian James

Allegations have recently emerged linking Colombia’s former right-wing president and current senator Álvaro Uribe with Mexican drug cartels, right-wing paramilitary groups and the American Drug Enforcement Agency in a plot to traffic large quantities of cocaine into Mexico between 2006 and 2008.

If true, the allegations would represent the latest in a series of incidents and revelations exposing the so-called “war on drugs” waged by the United States and Colombia as a phony pretext for decades of militarization, as well as the intimate role played by both countries’ governments in the lucrative multi-billion-dollar narcotics industry.

Uribe has long been a dominant figure in Colombian politics and is the chief political patron of current President Iván Duque, who heads the Democratic Center (CD) party founded by Uribe in 2014. Before the most recent allegations, Uribe had already been under investigation since 2018 by the Colombian Supreme Court on charges of tampering of witnesses who had testified that he was one of the founders of the far-right paramilitary group Bloque Metro when he was governor of the province of Antioquia. Recent revelations that the military has been spying on the prosecutors involved in this case, with President Duque being fully aware, have fueled widespread popular opposition to his administration, which has an approval rating of merely 24 percent.

A series of nationwide strikes and protests against government corruption, social inequality, political assassinations and state violence erupted on November 21, 2019, and are set to resume on January 21, with none of the protesters’ demands having been met. The protests have been the largest in Colombia since 1977 and are part of a region-wide and global resurgence of class struggle.

The recent allegations against Uribe were made by a former security chief for Colombian airliner Air Cargo Lines, in an interview with whistleblower and investigative journalist Richard Maok. Maok, a former detective and IT specialist with the Cuerpo Tecnico de Investigacion (CTI, the Colombian equivalent of the FBI) went public two decades ago with strong evidence showing top right-wing paramilitary figures working in close coordination with the army, intelligence agencies and other government institutions, including congress, to install Álvaro Uribe as the future president of Colombia.

For his exposures of criminality in the Colombian state, Maok faced death threats and assassination attempts, and was granted political asylum in Canada where he continues his journalistic activities and remains a fierce critic of the Colombian government.

According to the Air Cargo Lines security chief, between 2006-2008, while president, Uribe received large bribes from representatives of the Sinaloa Cartel in exchange for helping traffic 10,000 kilograms of cocaine from Colombia to Mexico. As part of the deal, Uribe authorized the construction of a hanger on the grounds of a Bogotá airport to be used as a logistical hub for the operation, and instructed the country’s aviation authority to allow a privately owned Mexican DC8 aircraft to fly in and out of the country without first passing through customs.

The cocaine exported was provided by the Colombian Paísa cartel, which was composed of ex-members of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC, or United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia), accurately described by Latin American crime research organization Insight Crime as “a coalition of right-wing death squads that used the [civil war] to camouflage their illicit economic activities [including] drug trafficking, displacement, kidnapping, and extortion.”

The AUC paramilitary group has been exposed by Richard Maok as playing a key role in bringing Uribe to power in 2000. The latest whistleblower interviewed by Maok also alleges that he met several times at the American embassy with Emir Abreu, an official of the American Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) stationed in Colombia, who gave his blessing for the operation. The arrangement ended in 2006 when a metric ton of cocaine went missing from the sixth shipment to Mexico.

While the former airline security official has chosen to remain anonymous, the allegations appear credible in light of other reports connecting Uribe to Colombian paramilitary and drug trafficking organizations. These date back to the early 1980s, when Uribe, then head Colombia’s civil aviation agency, was accused of giving air licenses to drug traffickers.

Previously classified cables from the early 1990s released by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and State Department in 2018 describe a politically emergent Álvaro Uribe as a “close personal friend” of Pablo Escobar, the richest and most powerful narco-trafficker in the world. Uribe was said to be “dedicated to collaboration” with Escobar’s Medellín Cartel, at the time responsible for most of the cocaine imported to the United States. The Medellín Cartel terrorized the population of the city and surrounding Antioquia region from 1976 to 1993, assassinating thousands and making Medellín the murder capital of the world.

As for the United States, among the most infamous drug trafficking episodes in the last five decades was the CIA’s facilitation in the mid-80’s of cocaine trafficking from Colombia through Panama into the United States by the CIA-backed Contra guerrilla group that waged a bloody insurgency against the left-nationalist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Public exposure and a congressional investigation into the sordid affair did nothing to end the ongoing involvement of powerful sections of the state in international drug trafficking.

As the WSWS noted in 2014:

Relations between the US ruling elite and organized crime have flourished in the decades since the Contra war. In April 2006, the capture of a cocaine-laden DC9 owned by the Sinaloa cartel exposed money laundering operations by Wachovia bank on behalf of the massive cartel, which operates across more than 40 countries. The cartel, responsible for 25 percent of illegal drugs sold in the US, passed some $370 billion to Wachovia, investigators found. Large infusions of drug money played a key role in stabilizing the finances of the big banks during the 2008 financial crisis, according to top UN official for drugs and crime Antonio Maria Costa. During a 2012 Al Jazeera interview, an official spokesman for the government of Mexico's Chihuahua province accused the CIA of “managing the drug trade.”

Another notable incident possibly linking the CIA to the Colombian drug trade was the crash in 2007 of a Florida-based Gulfstream II Jet over Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. Several tons of cocaine were discovered on the jet, which took off from the Rio Negro airport in Medellín, Colombia.

As documented by the WSWS, the bill of sale for the Gulfstream jet was listed as Greg Smith, a pilot previously employed by the FBI, DEA and ICE. The sale of the aircraft was facilitated by the son of Ismael Zambada Garcia, a top official in the Sinaloa Cartel, through Wachovia accounts. Highlighting the interconnection between the fraudulent “war on drugs” and “war on terror,” the plane was also identified as being involved in the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” and torture program, transporting captives to secret prisons around the globe.

The most recent revelations about Alvaro Uribe’s involvement with international cocaine smuggling further expose that large sections of the Colombian state—the closest ally of US imperialism in South America—are deeply involved in the multi-billion-dollar cocaine industry stretching from Colombia to Mexico and the United States.

Colombia’s more than three-decade-long US-backed “war on drugs” was waged under the auspices of “Plan Colombia.” Launched under the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton in 1998, in funneled some $10 billion in mostly military aid to Colombia, financing a bloody counter-insurgency campaign that killed many tens of thousands, while driving millions from their homes.

The so-called drug war in Colombia, like that in the US itself, has served as a smokescreen for government criminality, while providing a pretext for violence inflicted upon the broader population. In Colombia, this “war on drugs” has translated into decades of militarization, political assassinations, the indiscriminate murder of workers, the poisoning of the rural population through Vietnam-style aerial fumigation and support for right wing death squads such as the AUC.