3 Nov 2016

Sweden: Chalmers Adlerbert Study Scholarships (Masters) for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 16th January 2017
Offered annually? Yes
To be taken at (country): Sweden
Eligible Field of Study: Unrestricted – all of the current Master’s programmes at Chalmers.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • 1st year Master’s programme applicants
  • Citizens of 143 countries (listed below).
Selection Criteria: The selection is based on the applicants’ relative academic excellence, which primarily includes weighted average grade but also home University’s stature (including position on global ranking lists) and priority order of the application for Chalmers Master’s Programmes.
Number of Awardees: 5
Value of Scholarship: Covers 100% of the tuition fees
Duration of Scholarship: 4 semesters/2 year programme
Eligible Countries: Angola, Kenya, Bolivia, Algeria, Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Cabo Verde, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Argentina, Bhutan, Congo, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Belarus, Burundi, Egypt, Belize, Cambodia, El Salvador, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Central African Republic, Georgia, Botswana, Chad,Ghana, Brazil, Comoros, Guatemala, Chile, Democratic Republic of the Congo,Guyana, Djibouti, Honduras, Colombia, Equatorial Guinea, Cook Islands, Eritrea, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Kosovo, Cuba, Gambia, Kyrgyzstan, Dominica, Guinea, Micronesia, Dominican Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Moldova, Ecuador, Haiti, Mongolia, Fiji, Kiribati, Morocco, Former Yugoslav, Republic of Macedonia, Lao People’s Democratic, Republic Nicaragua, Gabon, Lesotho, Nigeria, Grenada, Liberia, Pakistan, Iran, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Iraq, Malawi, Paraguay, Jamaica, Mali, Philippines, Jordan, Mauritania, Samoa, Kazakhstan, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Myanmar, Swaziland, Libya, Nepal, Syrian Arab Republic, Malaysia Niger, Tokelau, Maldives, Rwanda, Ukraine, Marshall Islands, Sao Tome and Principe, Uzbekistan, Mauritius, Senegal, Viet Nam, Mexico, Sierra Leone, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Montenegro, Solomon Islands, Montserrat, Somalia, Namibia, South Sudan,Nauru, Sudan, Niue, Tanzania, Palau, Timor-Leste, Panama, Togo, Peru, Tuvalu, Saint Helena, Uganda, Saint Lucia, Vanuatu, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Yemen, Serbia, Zambia,Seychelles, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Venezuela.
How to Apply: It is important to go through the Application Requirements before applying
Award Provider: Chalmers University of Technology

MasterCard Global Justice Academy Scholarships for International Masters Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th November, 2016
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Eligible Fields of Study: The Global Justice Academy is delighted that its LLM in Human Rights is eligible for the award, along with the following postgraduate Masters programmes:
  • MSc Africa and International Development
  • MSc Education
  • MSc Environment and Development
  • MSc Global Health Policy
  • LLM Human Rights
  • MSc Product Design
  • MSc Sustainable Energy Systems
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • You must qualify academically for admission to the University of Edinburgh in the programmes listed above. We encourage applicants to apply to this scholarship BEFORE applying to the University. Have a look at entry requirements for postgraduate students at http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/international/postgraduate-entry/africa Please see section on applying below for more information;
  • You must be a resident and citizen of a Sub-Saharan African country, whose personal circumstances would make accepting an offer from the University of Edinburgh difficult.  Applications from Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe are particularly welcome;
  • You must demonstrate a track record of leadership and service within your community; and
  • You are able to present economically disadvantaged circumstances and be able to show that you lack financial means from family or other sources to pursue post-secondary (university) education in your home country or elsewhere.
Preference will be given to candidates who have not already had the opportunity to study in Scotland.
Selection Criteria: 
The scholarships are competitive and awarded broadly on the basis of academic merit. Candidates must have, or expect to obtain, the overseas equivalent of a UK first-class honours degree. Applicants financial, personal, and family circumstances will also be taken into account.
Applicants must also be committed to returning to Africa following their graduation to give back to their home community and country.
Number of Awardees: Ten scholarships are available in 2017/2018
Value of Scholarship: The scholarships will cover the full tuition fees and expenses for accommodation and maintenance.
Duration of Scholarship: Awards are tenable for one academic year, and at the end of the award candidates will be required to return to Africa.
How to Apply: We encourage applicants to apply to this scholarship BEFORE applying to the University (unless they are also applying to funding elsewhere). By completing a short online pre-application assessment, the MCF team will assess the student’s eligibility for the scholarship and if appropriate, provide a full application form.
It is important to go through the Application Requirements before applying.
Award Provider: Mastercard Foundation, University of Edinburgh

Mansions and Slums: the Inequality of Living Space

Tamara Pearson

Australians have the biggest homes in the world. New free-standing homes are an average 245.3 sqm – three times bigger than UK homes, and 22 times bigger than the average Hong Kong home.
For Australia, this space privilege shows up the all pervasive myth that the country has no room for refugees. But for the world, there’s a deeper story of a global inequality of space – a story that goes well beyond mere population density differences.
Inequality of space 
With 7 billion people in the world, how much space did each person get?
Thousands got mansion amounts of space and hundreds of rooms each. US heir (his only occupation) William Amherst Vanderbilt Cecil’s mansion had a banquet hall alone that was double the size of the average first world house.
1 billion people got slum-space – barely enough for the family to huddlesleep on one improvised mattress. The corrugated iron walls of their cupboard homes built on the edge of mountains and on the edge of cities and the edge of life, let the arguments in.
9 million people got prison space, and understood that the closer walls are, the more arguments there are.
65 million refugees got tent space or prisons, as they waited years for help. Photos weren’t hung up, because this wasn’t home yet, this was limbolife.
And over 100 million people got shop steps of space, their dragon hearts mistaken for street stains and their sleep adjusted to the shape of stairs and to office opening hours. Cardboard softened the ground.
The housing hierarchy
The unequal distribution of living space is part of the fabricated global hierarchy of human value. Living space, in a similar way to work space, or space on public transport, subtly communicates that some people are worth more, and have more power. Offices around the world play the desk game, where the boss has the big desk and the large office, supervisors have medium sized desks, and the rest share a desk with an assembly line of other workers. On buses, men will often spread their legs out, leaving women quietly squished on their half of the seat. Likewise, the world’s mansion owners don’t actually need the two pools and the 40 car spaces. Like immature territorial animals, these space-stealers are making big statements about their small selves – about their worth and power.
For the mainstream media, poor people’s lives and third world lives matter less. The less you own, the less space you take up, the less heart strings your home, broken in an earthquake, will pull.
The average floor space per person is less than 20 sqm in all African countries covered by a UN study. Meanwhile, France has an average43 sqm per person, Canada 72, Japan 35, UK 33, Germany 55, US 77, and Australia 89.
How much space does each person need for dignity and privacy?
And while the need for one’s own space and for privacy may have cultural variations, it is also deeply human. Virginia Woolf said that every woman needs a room of her own if she is to write. Women, often spending the whole day attending to others’ needs (through work, family, or partners) tend to lack space where they can process the day, think, and dream. Likewise, a lot of poor people don’t have the space or time to dwell and dream.
A crampled home is often a reflection of a narrow world: with poverty limiting how far people can travel, what work they can aspire to, who they meet, and what they experience. Many people see their home and their rooms as part of expressing their identity. But slums and other kinds of crowded housing can be repetitive, dysfunctional, and depersonalising. Dense urban living is often paired with apathy, and indifference. And people who live in informal housing tend to be excluded from society, while even people who rent are often excluded from communities as those who have permanent housing see them as temporary, passing, and less invested. On the other hand, when people have secure land tenure and housing, they are more likely to invest in their communities.
Homes are meant to be safe places, but research has found that crowding-related stress can increase domestic violence, and substance abuse, and overcrowding is often associated with greater competition for work. Children in crowded apartments and low-income housing can end up being withdrawn and have trouble concentrating, according to The Atlantic.
Meanwhile, unnecessarily large homes, beyond the status and value they dote on their owners, also encourage consumerism – becoming giant storage warehouses for useless, expensive items.
Ultimately, the exact amount of space people need varies according to cultural and personal preferences and individual situations. But there is a line, with the majority of the world living below it.
India
In India, the average living space per person is 6 sqm. A third of the population have less space than US prisoners, according to a national survey. In this complex country of study, struggle, hope, failing infrastructure, crowded trains, and dusty Delhi streets, alcohol is often cheaper than food, and many cities in India have just one hour of water a day, with not a single city completely sewered, despite the searing summer heat.
Sometimes, five to six people live in one room – and in that small room, people sleep, cook, wash, and play. In the slums, mental health issues tend to be sidelined by physical health issues. But people in such situations deal with a higher proportion of mental disorders, as they sleep sitting up due to overcrowding, and face rats and food insecurity.
In the Kaula Bandar slum, adults often sleep outside, women sleep while children are at school and men often take night shift work so others have space to sleep. Aggressive policing and demolitions stop people expanding their homes. People rarely invite guests over to visit, and when they do, the adults go outside, or guests stay in nearby communal religious spaces. Families eat food in shifts, and when an adult is sick, children sleep in a neighbour’s home.
White wall face
Their home was one room, and the bed was a desk and the cupboard was for cooking and clothes. Rain flavoured breakfast eaten on the edge of the bed, a gas sooted sink, paint covering up old walls, plasticbag bin that always slipped with a crashspill off the sink drawer, paint in her throat and a white powdered cough for weeks. No place to pace.
Gashes in the concrete because this whole city was crumbling super slowly and all the people with it, year by year. They rearranged things to stop the walls shrinking and create space, like magic, but the narrow walls continued to steal their ideas and dreamings, leaving them with blank eyes.
Where does housing inequality come from?
Perhaps with the exception of the UK, countries with higher average housing sizes tend to be those countries that have benefited from invading countries that are hence now poor, or from directly stealing their natural resources. On a more local scale, building dignified housing for the poor, especially in cities, isn’t profitable, and so it doesn’t happen. Poor people receiving exploitative wages struggle with paying rent, or end up in informal housing. Meanwhile, the mansion dwellers play games with housing – their speculation bringing up prices and seeing many homes left empty for years.

Is Popular Support For Suicide Terrorism Growing In Bangladesh?

Taj Hashmi


It’s absurd! It’s preposterous to suggest that around 40 per cent of Bangladeshis favour suicide terrorism. Yet this is what some American think tanks and “expert analysts” have recently come up with in their reports, to the detriment of Bangladesh’s reputation. Muslims in Bangladesh – around 90 per cent of the population – are peaceful, liberal, devotional, and even syncretistic, unlike their counterparts in the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Roughly two years after the publication of the Pew Research Center’s findings on the so-called “popular support for suicide terrorism” in Bangladesh in 2014, Christine Fair, Ali Hamza, and Rebecca Heller published an essay in the Foreign Policy magazine, titled “Popular Support for Suicide Terrorism in Bangladesh: Worse Than You Think” (Sept 4, 2016). This alarmist, prejudicial, and provocative piece reminds me of similar smear campaigns against Bangladesh by several Western and Indian journalists during the first decade of this century, which lasted during the entire period of the BNP-led coalition government under Khaleda Zia (2001-2006), and beyond up to 2008.
There’s a laundry list of such sensational, biased, and motivated writings against Bangladesh. I cite a few just to highlight that reputed individuals working for prestigious institutions often never shy away from saying or writing ridiculous things, out of ideological commitments, ignorance, political bias / prejudice, and even for material incentives. The following examples of vitriolic attacks on Bangladesh as a safe haven for al Qaeda and its ilk make us understand why scholars like Christine Fair and organizations like the Pew Research Center have come up with absolutely motivated reports on the state of Islamist terrorism in Bangladesh.
Bertil Lintner wrote the most alarmist piece, “Beware of Bangladesh – Bangladesh a Cocoon of Terror” in the Far Eastern Economic Review (April 4, 2002), giving the impression that terrorists were going to stage a successful Islamist revolution in the country. Soon, another Western journalist, Alex Perry unloaded his “deadly cargo” to attack Bangladesh. His write up in the Time magazine, “Deadly Cargo – Bangladesh has become a safe haven for al Qaeda” (Oct 21, 2002) boosted the morale of those who desperately wanted to tarnish the image of the Government as the harbinger of al Qaeda in Bangladesh, notwithstanding the bad reputation for the country.
While Bangladesh was fighting the homegrown Islamist terror outfits, HUJI (B) and JMB in 2005 (and soon crushed them by early 2006), yet another nasty piece against Bangladesh came out in the prestigious New York Times. Eliza Griswold’s piece, “The Next Islamist Revolution?” (Jan 23, 2005), “convincingly” argued about an “impending” Islamist takeover of Bangladesh. The rubble-rousers didn’t stop until late 2008. While Indian journalist Hiranmay Karlekar (a former editor of the Hindustan Times) came up with a poorly written book with a hyper-sensational title, Bangladesh: The Next Afghanistan? (Sage, New Delhi) in 2005, Harvard-educated renowned author/journalist Selig Harrison wrote a sensational nonsense, “Terrorism in Bangladesh”, in the Christian Science Monitor (July 8, 2008).
As scholars cite Pew Center reports, I have also cited them in support of my arguments on the states of governance, poverty, terrorism, and other aspects of society in various countries, as I always considered the organization “a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world”. I also believed that it “conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research” and “does not take policy positions”. Now, in view of Pew Center’s latest bombshell on Bangladesh that around 37 per cent of Bangladeshis support suicide terrorism, I no longer consider it a “nonpartisan fact tank”.
Christine Fair and her colleagues’ (all of Georgetown University) latest piece on Bangladesh in the Foreign Policy is an eye-opener for me, not to agree with them that there’s a huge support for suicide terrorism in the country but to see the other side of the coin, which in the name of objective research is spewing hate and prejudice against Bangladesh. I have reasons to believe, as were the vitriolic Western/Indian writings on Bangladesh during 2001-2008 were politically motivated, so are the recent Pew Report and the Foreign Policy article on Bangladesh. There’s nothing academic, objective, or nonpartisan about them.
At the very outset, Christine Fair et al strongly disagreed with former US Ambassador Dan Mozena, who in March 2014 considered Bangladesh to be “a moderate and generally secular and tolerant” country, in the following manner: “While Mozena’s statement reflects the general perception that Bangladesh is a success story of a moderate, secular, Muslim democracy, this view never rested on strong empirical grounds”. Then Fair and her colleagues tell us about the slow and steady growth of Islamism in Bangladesh, that they think, “enjoy popular support”. What’s exceedingly disturbing is the blatant lie, as one comes across in this piece: “Between January 2005 and June 2015, nearly 600 people have died in Islamist terrorist attacks, but 90 percent of those have taken place since 2013”. If one buys this grossly exaggerated account, then it appears that 540 people got killed at the hands of Islamist terrorists since 2013! We don’t have the evidence if Islamist terrorists were the killers of innocent people in late 2013 and early 2014, up to the February 5th Elections in Bangladesh.
Although it’s true scholars have paid more attention to Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries with regard to Islamist terrorism than they have done to Bangladesh, nevertheless it’s impossible to agree with Christine Fair and her co-writers that “almost half of the population” in Bangladesh justifies suicide terrorism. It’s ludicrous to suggest: “Levels of justification for suicide attacks in Bangladesh are considerably higher than in Pakistan, Indonesia, or Malaysia.” For some strange reasons, they have correlated Bangladeshi Muslim-support for Sharia and Hudud Law with their support for suicide terrorism!
Researchers at the Pew Center and Christine Fair et all should have applied some common sense before making such a sweeping assertion that almost 40 per cent of the population or almost 65 million people in Bangladesh favour suicide terrorism. Did they ever think before publishing their reports that even if a fraction of that population “who favour suicide terrorism” been actively engaged in terrorism – which would have been the most logical thing one could think of – how many thousands of suicide terrorists would have been around, killing tens of thousands of people within and beyond Bangladesh? They should have learnt from counterterrorism (CT) experts about the ratio of population in favour of suicide terrorism and the number of actual suicide terrorists in given populations, before making such sweeping assertions. Terrorism is such a formidable security threat that in 2008 the MI5 (British Intelligence) officials were very worried that as many as 80 IRA terrorist bombers were around in Britain, posing grave security threat to the nation.
One wonders as to how basing on a tiny sample of respondents in Bangladesh – who are always vulnerable to loaded questions – Pew Research Center could come up with such an absurd figure of 37 per cent of Bangladeshis favouring suicide terrorism. One’s not sure why Christine Fair and her co-writers have used the Pew data to write such an unconvincing essay in the Foreign Policy, which is again a prestigious magazine! Now, it’s not Bangladesh’s reputation that’s at stake; it’s Pew Research Center, Foreign Policy, Christine Fair and her co-writers’ turn to defend themselves for publishing something devoid of facts and logic, simply not defensible at all!
We know quantitative research is better than generalized assumption-based studies, but unscientific data from micro-studies could backfire as well. Common sense is more important than randomly collected statistics, often collected for the sake of defending a hypothesis, or even worse, out of malice, political bias, and prejudice. Last but not least, I strongly believe the Bangladesh government should immediately file defamation suits against the Pew Center and Foreign Policy magazine, demanding unconditional apologies from them for their attempts to tarnish the image of Bangladesh. Sooner the better!

Iran Inflicts Environmental Catastrophe In Ahwaz Region

Rahim Hamid


Ahwazi   environmental activists are reporting an accelerating  environmental catastrophe in the once verdant Hor al Azim marshlands in Ahwaz near the Iraqi border with Iran.  The latest reports reveal that Iranian authorities recently excavated large areas of land in the marshlands, covering these in thick plastic sheeting to use as open pits for the storage of millions of barrels of oil. This is not only devastating to the areas excavated but is toxic to human and animal life in the wider area, as well as being fatal to the delicate environmental balance in the surrounding marshlands which teemed with aquatic and avian life.  Inhalation of the fumes from the open pits is already causing a health crisis, with local people who made their living for generations from fishing and farming in the once verdant area already developing dreadful skin and eye conditions, as well as severe respiratory problems which have led to death in a number of cases due to the lack of any medical facilities in the area.
Photos taken by local activists on October 26 show the release of millions of barrels of oil into the pits which extend over a vast area, which will in turn destroy the surrounding land and kill off plant and animal life.
The environmentalists’ report states: “After mismanagement by the Ministry of Water and Electricity which resulted in the drying up of the province’s rivers and the Hor AlAzim lagoon itself, the time has now apparently come for the destruction of the local farmlands and natural resources.”
Evidence shows that the ‘Ofogh’ oil company has constructed massive pits in the farmlands to store the leftover oil.
Environmental agency and the department of natural resources in the Ahwaz region have not reacted to the devastating actions of these oil companies which make massive profits at the expense of destroying the natural environment.
One of the most active oil companies in Hor Al Azim is ‘North Oil’, which operates three rigs in the area. Its previous director, named only as Mr. Khademi, currently represents the cities of Izeh and Baghmaslek in the Iranian parliament.
Other oil companies working in the area are ‘PEDEX’, directly associated with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which operatesfive oil rigs there, and ‘MelliHafari’ (National Drilling) and ‘Tadbir Energy’which collectively operate a further five rigs. All of these firms are run by consulting companies affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Responsibility for guarding the areas surrounding these projects, all of which are devastating to the surrounding environment, has been given to an extremely well-equipped special security organization (one of 16 such active secretive and unofficial security organizations operating inside Iran), whose heavily armed personnel use the latest model of Toyota trucks.
This is just the latest state-sponsored environmental sabotage in Ahwaz, where the regime’s  diversion of the once-lush region’s rivers to Persian areas, have been wreaking havoc, causing ceaseless massive dust storms which in turn lead to potentially fatal respiratory disorders that local medics warn are likely to develop into cancerous diseases due to the heavily polluted atmosphere from the oil excavation taking place in the area.   Thousands of Ahwazi Arab citizens have been rushed to hospitals and clinics in recent days suffering from asphyxia and severe breathing problems due to the toxic mixture of dust storms and extreme pollution, with children and the elderly being worst affected.
Although the source of the dust storms which are causing a health crisis is well known, local authorities have been negligent and irresponsible as usual, taking no action to avert the environmental catastrophe which is a grave threat to human and animal life and the natural habitat in the already afflicted region.  On Wednesday, the amount of dust particles in Ahwaz’s air was measured to be 1147 micrograms per cubic meter. This amount is about 7 times more than the standard rate which is 150 micrograms per cubic meter.
The current dust storms are so severe that both public and private institutions in the region, including schools and banks, have announced temporary closure while they continue.
The regime’s diversion of the rivers and the subsequent desertification of thousands of acres of once verdant land in Ahwaz has also led to brush fires in the areas around the once-lush wetlands, while increased state logging in the forested areas in Ahwaz has increased the risk of landslides as the soil is weakened by erosion.  The result is a catastrophe for the environment, the indigenous Arab people and the natural life of Ahwaz, with all of this taking place in deafening silence from the international community.

Australian government moves to bar entry to refugees for life

Mike Head

In a further escalation in the bipartisan assault on the fundamental democratic right to asylum, the Liberal-National government last Sunday announced legislation to stop asylum seekers from entering Australia for the rest of their lives—even as visitors.
No details of the proposed bill have yet been released, but it is clear that the measure will go far further than the already unprecedented legislation enacted by the previous Labor government in 2013 to bar all refugees from resettling in Australia.
Not only will asylum seekers be blocked from ever living in Australia, as the Greens-backed minority Labor government established in 2013, when it reopened Australia’s brutal “offshore” detention camps on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island. They will never be allowed to visit the country, even to be reunited with their spouses and children, see other family members, or as tourists, students or temporary workers.
Some of the most vulnerable people in the world, many fleeing the ravages of the wars and devastation caused by the US and its allies, including Australia, in the Middle East, are bearing the brunt of a brazen repudiation of basic legal and democratic rights.
The new law is intended to inflict the maximum suffering on detainees in order to deter refugees from trying to reach Australia. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said the legislation would “send a very clear message” that “Australia will never be an option for people to seek to come here illegally by boat.”
This takes to a new level the violation by successive Australian governments of international law, including the Refugees Convention of 1951, which recognises a right to seek protection from persecution and not to be punished for doing so.
Adopted after the horrors of World War II, which forced millions to flee their homes, Article 31 of the Convention states that signatories “shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees.” The right to family reunion is also enshrined in international treaties, including Article 16 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The new laws would apply regardless of whether detainees have been officially recognised as refugees under the Convention. Children who were under 18 at the time they were transported to Nauru or Manus would be exempt, but in many cases that would mean permanent separation from their parents. About 300 detainees currently in Australia on temporary visas, mostly for medical treatment, are also likely to be deported.
According to legal experts, the proposal has no precedent. No other country has yet sought to impose a lifetime ban on refugees. It is another damning milestone set by Australia’s political establishment, which became the first in the world to detain all asylum seekers when the Keating Labor government imposed its “mandatory detention” policy in 1992.
The current government’s “message” was sent just weeks after two reports condemned Australia’s detention regime as a clear breach of international law. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed “grave concern” about “inhuman and degrading treatment, including physical, psychological and sexual abuse.” Amnesty International said the intentional infliction of “intolerable cruelty” to “intimidate or coerce people” amounted to torture.
The bipartisan character of the anti-refugee policy was underscored when the government set July 19, 2013 as the date to which the new ban would be backdated. On that day, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced the reopening of the Manus Island detention camp and declared: “From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees.”
Aware of deep-felt popular opposition to the inhumane treatment of refugees, Labor leader Bill Shorten, who was one of Rudd’s key ministers, cynically sought to distance himself from the Coalition government. He said it seemed “ridiculous” to ban a refugee from coming to Australia as a tourist or on a business trip. But he refused to rule out backing the bill, saying Labor would wait to see details before taking a position.
Rudd himself criticised Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, saying the policy was “designed to throw red meat at the right,” appease “thugs” in the Liberal Party and “grovel to the broad politics of xenophobia.” Rudd claimed that the 2013 decision had been intended to run for one year only. In reality, it was part of Labor’s policy, introduced the previous year, to supposedly “stop the boats” by incarcerating refugees, effectively indefinitely, for as many years as they would otherwise have waited in the overcrowded camps across the Middle East.
Equally hypocritically, Greens leader Richard Di Natale, whose party propped up the minority Labor government from 2010 to 2013 as it implemented these policies, described the latest proposal as “barbaric, cruel, shameful, cynical politics.” Di Natale further covered for Labor’s record, appealing for Labor to join the Greens in opposing the bill in the Senate.
Turnbull’s plan certainly seeks to shift the official political agenda further to the right—demonising refugees and dividing the working class along communal lines, in the face of rising unemployment, deteriorating social conditions and mounting attacks on welfare and other social spending.
It is a clear pitch, in particular, to Pauline Hanson’s anti-immigrant One Nation party, whose support the government has been cultivating in order to pass contentious legislation through the Senate, where the Liberal-National Coalition holds only 30 of the 76 seats.
Hanson welcomed the government’s proposal, telling Channel Seven’s “Sunrise” program: “I think you need to make a tough stand and put out a clear message. Refugees are not welcome here.” Hanson tweeted: “Good to see that it looks like the government is now taking its cues from One Nation. Just like last time.”
During the late 1990s, the Howard Coalition government adopted much of One Nation’s program in order to divert growing social discontent in a reactionary xenophobic direction. Turnbull’s government is on a similar course, but under conditions of an even deeper economic, social and political crisis.
Last weekend, Hanson gave another indication of collaborating closely with the government. She praised it for outlining a further $6 billion worth of cuts to welfare over the next four years, on top of the $6 billion already imposed with Labor’s agreement since the government narrowly survived the July 2 election.
The cruel treatment, by successive governments, of people fleeing oppression and war is setting far-reaching precedents for the abrogation of legal and democratic rights more broadly. The Australian Constitution contains no bill of rights providing protection of such essential rights, and all attempts to hold governments to account via appeals to UN agencies have failed.
The government claims to have advice that the lifetime ban is legal, but has provided no details. On a number of occasions, it has simply blocked advice from the solicitor-general, Justin Gleeson, to avoid having to consider an adverse legal opinion. Gleeson resigned last month as a result. In recent months, similar dubious assurances of legality have been given for other legislation overturning core democratic rights, including to revoke citizenships and indefinitely incarcerate “high risk offenders” after they have served prison sentences.
These developments are another warning of the government’s lawlessness. The brutal methods utilised against refugees will also be brought forward domestically, including to deal with social and political opposition to the underlying program of slashing social spending and preparing for war.

Buyer reportedly found for German supermarket chain

Dietmar Henning 

The owner of German supermarket chain Kaiser’s Tengelmann, Karl-Erivan Haup, reportedly reached an agreement on Monday with the Edeka and Reve firms to divide up the grocery chain. It remains unclear whether the supermarket chain will be dismantled.
Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel (Social Democrats) and the chairman of the services trade union Verdi, Frank Bsirske (Greens), praised the agreement in the highest tones at a joint press conference.
“The effort and the work paid off,” said Gabriel, before leaving for a trip to China. The workforce could now enjoy a happy Christmas season because they no longer had to fear the loss of their jobs. “A very good day for the employees of Kaiser’s Tengelmann,” added Bsirske. The agreement, as part of the arbitration initiated a week earlier, can be completed with the approval of the economy minister.
Gabriel overruled the federal cartel agency’s refusal to allow Edeka to take over Kaiser’s Tengelmann in a ministerial order. The precondition was that Edeka commit in a contract to retain the jobs of 15,000 Kaiser’s Tengelmann employees for five years. But the district court in Düsseldorf subsequently suspended the ministerial order after competitors Norma, Markant and Reve filed complaints against it.
Verdi declared in a statement on its web site that the original terms of the ministerial order had been secured in the arbitration. “Along with the retail outlets, the butcher business, administration and store locations are included in the negotiated terms, which along with employment guarantees also include collective agreement guarantees and the retention of co-determination structures.”
Verdi has been pulling the strings in the almost two-year-long haggling. The arbitration concluded on October 31, led by former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and finance academic Bert Rürup (both SPD), was organised by Bsirske. Verdi and the SPD want to retain control over the dismantling or carve-up of Kaiser’s Tengelmann by encouraging ever new hopes in the viability of its future.
When Gabriel commented that he did “not consider there to be any stumbling block to the conclusion of the arbitration agreement,” this was a lie. In reality, the consequences of the agreement remain entirely unclear. It would not be the first time that an alleged “breakthrough” or “success” hailed by Verdi and Gabriel vanishes into thin air.
Numerous questions remain unanswered. Although the details of the compromise between Edeka and Reve were accepted without dissent, even the works councillors have reportedly not been informed of the key points. But according to information from DPA obtained from those involved in the talks, some of Kaiser’s Tengelmann’s retail outlets in Berlin/Brandenburg will be sold to Reve, while the supermarkets in upper Bavaria and Munich will go to Edeka. But there has reportedly been no discussion yet about specific outlets.
It remains entirely unclear who will take over the supermarkets in North Rhine-Westphalia. This is to be discussed after the conclusion of talks on the Berlin outlets, it was reported.
Almost 3,500 workers are employed in 100 supermarkets in NRW, out of a total of 400 Kaiser’s Tengelmann outlets nationwide. The administrative centre (400 workers) is also located there, a logistics centre (250 workers) and one of the butcheries owned by Birkenhof GmbH (90 workers). The food and restaurant union (NGG) agreed to the closure of the butchery in Viersen several months ago. Haup began negotiating the sale of the NRW outlets immediately after the failure of the last round of crisis talks in mid-October.
The procedure for dividing up the markets is unclear. By November 11 at the latest, a final agreement is to be reached on all of these issues. Only when an agreement is achieved, according to negotiators, will Reve withdraw its complaint against the ministerial order and thereby enable Edeka to purchase the chain. The two supermarket chains Norma and Markant have already done this. This implies that Edeka will initially take over all of Kaiser’s Tengelmann’s outlets before passing those in Berlin and the surrounding area on to Reve.
The purchase price as well as the “financial basis for the compromise” have also yet to be agreed. These will be organised by an independent economic assessor, Gabriel said, and could be concluded by this Friday. According to the Economy Minister, this is not part of the arbitration process.
After the experience of the past two years, these open questions are not merely “stumbling blocks,” but threaten to block the entire sale. Therefore, it still remains possible that the Kaiser’s Tengelmann supermarket chain will be dismantled after all.
But even if all participants agree on a solution, the federal cartel agency is expected to have to review it once again. This was announced by the chair of the monopoly agency, Achim Wambach, in the Rheinische Post. “If the leading companies divide up a substantial part of the supermarket chain among themselves, it will be an arrangement that could restrict competition at the expense of the consumer,” he said.
If contrary to all expectations, everything works out as Gabriel and Bsirske have planned and Kaiser’s Tengelmann employees receive a five-year job guarantee, the question remains as to whether this guarantee applies to the overall number of employees or for each individual worker. If the latter is the case, thousands of jobs could still be cut over five years by means of “natural fluctuation.”
In addition, employees at Edeka and Reve do not have such a guarantee. Whether they will gradually be forced out by the Kaiser’s Tengelmann employees, or whether job cuts will be achieved by closing Reve and Edeka outlets, are questions which remain unanswered. One thing has been clear from the outset: the haggling to take over Kaiser’s Tengelmann is aimed at a “market correction” in the ruthlessly competitive retail industry at the expense of the workers.
This once again proves that Gabriel, Bsirske and the NGG are not concerned about working conditions and the workers. Verdi and the NGG have in fact assumed the role of maintaining “social peace” during this attack on workers. By announcing ever new possibilities for a “negotiated solution,” they hold in check the anger of the workforce so as to suppress any sign of open resistance.
The support of Verdi and the NGG for the takeover of Kaiser’s Tengelmann by Edeka is also aimed at assisting them to get a foot in the door at Edeka. At the Edeka concern, an association of independent supermarkets, the trade union is hardly represented.
In addition, the support for Gabriel from Verdi for Edeka’s takeover plans is bound up with preparations for a red-red-green federal government. The SPD leader views the trade union as an important partner in the continuation of the policies of social cuts and military rearmament begun 15 years ago under the Schröder government.

Fed keeps rates on hold as disarray over central bank policies increases

Nick Beams

The US Federal Reserve, as expected, kept its base interest rate on hold at its meeting on Wednesday, with the growing expectation that it will lift the rate by 0.25 percentage points at its meeting next month.
The Fed’s rate-setting open market committee indicated that the case for a rate rise had “continued to strengthen” but it would wait for “some” further evidence before moving. The Fed clearly decided not to take action this month, with only a week to go before the presidential election, and to leave its options open in case of market turbulence following the outcome.
While pointing to a rise, it offered assurances to financial markets that economic conditions would warrant “only gradual increases” in the rate, which would remain, “for some time,” below levels expected in the longer run.
In other words, even if there is a rise in December, the flow of cheap money into financial markets will continue.
The financial speculators are continuing to make hay while the sun shines. On Monday, General Electric announced a merger of its gas and equipment business with Baker Hughes, taking the total volume of such transactions attempted in October to more than $500 billion, one of the highest monthly levels on record.
As the Financial Times noted, with companies still struggling to increase sales, “historically low borrowing rates have made acquisitions an attractive way to boost revenue growth.” In other words, financial manipulation and increasing monopolisation is the way to boost the bottom line.
As the Fed sought to project an image of measured calm in its statement, taking care not to frighten financial markets, this week has seen signs of growing disarray in central bank policy internationally.
On Tuesday, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) effectively threw in the towel on its stated aim of lifting inflation to 2 percent before the end of BoJ governor Haruhiko Kuroda’s five-year term in April 2018. Kuroda took office in 2013, pledging action to lift Japan out of the deflation that has gripped the economy for more than two decades.
His commitments to bold monetary policy, based on zero interest rates and asset purchases of around $760 billion a year, has formed the core of the “Abenomics” program of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
Since Kuroda took office, the BoJ has pushed back the deadline for attaining its inflation target four times and now says it hopes to meet the target by April 2018. But that deadline has no more likelihood of being met than all the previous ones. The latest data shows that deflationary pressures continue.
Japan’s core consumer price index, excluding food prices, fell for the seventh straight month on September and is down 0.5 percent from a year earlier. In its economic outlook, the BoJ said “risks to both economic outlook and prices are skewed to the downside” and momentum toward achieving the 2 percent inflation target was “somewhat weaker than the previous outlook.”
At a press conference after the BoJ meeting, Kuroda said failure to meet the inflation target was “unfortunate of course” but other central banks had experienced the same problem.
“The quantitative and qualitative easing we introduced in April 2013 has had the expected effects,” he said. But after that came weakness because of a rise in sales tax and the even bigger effects of the 70 percent fall in the oil price from its peak.
“Then last summer came the slowdown in emerging markets, which caused a lot of disturbance in international markets. That’s why the inflation rate is where it is now,” he said.
In addition to a focus on the Fed, the attention of international markets over the next weeks will be directed to the next meeting of the European Central Bank (ECB), scheduled for December. Earlier this month, ECB president Mario Draghi said the governing council would indicate at that meeting its position on the future of the central bank’s asset purchasing program, which is due to end its present form next March.
Draghi indicated the ECB had no plans to suddenly end bond purchases of €80 billion a month that form the core of its quantitative easing program. It is widely believed the ECB will extend the program for at least six months.
This could lead to significant divisions on the ECB governing council, however, as opposition to the policy from Germany increases.
On Wednesday, the influential Berlin-based, five-strong Council of Economic Experts said in its annual report that the ECB’s monetary stimulus policies were no longer “appropriate” for the euro zone and threatened to put the entire project at risk.
Calling for an end to the “exceptionally loose monetary policy,” it said negative interest rates and asset purchases could not bring about an economic recovery, and an expansive central bank policy led to a “misallocation of tasks.”
The report made clear that the key component of those “tasks” is a deepening assault on the social position of the working class through major cuts in government spending.
“Willingness to reform has faded,” it stated, “and some member states lack necessary budgetary discipline. Monetary policy masks these problems and increasingly threatens financial stability. An exit from the expansionary monetary policy is becoming more and more difficult.”
These views, which are widely held in the German political and financial establishment, were echoed in a note to clients issued by Deutsche Bank economists this week, saying the negative effects of the ECB policies were becoming “overwhelming.”
“By some measures, indeed, the situation is worse than during the Great Depression,” the analysts said, pointing to the situation in France and other countries where the unemployment rate is 13 percent, compared to the 10 percent French average between 1930 and 1938.
“Given the aggressiveness and unconventionality of monetary policy since 2012, it seems fair to ask whether the ECB’s approach bears some of the blame for Europe’s woes.”
Up until July 2012, high interest rates and refinancing threats forced governments to be “serious about reforms” but these were now not being implemented. Increased lending had gone mostly to low-quality existing borrowers, “obviating troubled banks from the need to write down their loans.” And “without creative destruction in ailing industries, investors in high-saving countries have simply bid up the price of healthy assets.”
What this analysis indicates is that, with the failure of quantitative easing to provide any boost to the real economy and the fear it is creating of increased financial risks, there is mounting pressure in sections of the ruling financial elites for the extension, across the euro zone, of the impoverishment already imposed on Greece.

Malaysian prime minister forges closer military ties with China

Peter Symonds

In his visit this week to China, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak sealed a raft of agreements, including one on naval cooperation between the two countries, and used the opportunity to lash out at former colonial powers. Before his departure for Beijing, Najib declared himself to be “a true friend” of China, determined to take the two countries’ relations to “new heights.”
Writing in an editorial in the state-run China Daily on Tuesday, Najib said larger countries should treat smaller ones fairly. “This includes former colonial powers. It is not for them to lecture countries they once exploited on how to conduct their internal affairs today,” he stated. The remarks are clearly directed at the US and its European allies in particular, and mark a significant shift on the part of Najib toward Beijing.
President Barack Obama has carefully cultivated Najib as part of Washington’s “pivot to Asia” directed against China. Obama visited Malaysia in 2014, the first official trip by a US president since 1966, and again last November, to strengthen strategic and military ties. Obama has deliberately ignored both Najib’s repressive measures against political opponents and the rigged 2013 election that enabled his government to retain office.
In July, however, the US Justice Department launched a civil action to recover $1 billion in funds that were looted from Malaysia’s state-owned investment fund, 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). This implied corruption by Najib—referred to in documents as “Malaysian Official 1.” The US case has compounded the political crisis surrounding Najib, who is under siege over the allegations.
By contrast, Beijing provided a significant boost to Najib last November when the state-owned China Nuclear Power Group announced a $2.3 billion purchase of 1MDB’s power assets, thus significantly relieving its heavy debt burdens.
In the China Daily, Najib signalled a shift in relation to Malaysia’s territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea. “When it comes to the South China Sea,” he said, “we firmly believe that overlapping territorial and maritime disputes should be managed calmly and rationally through dialogue, in accordance with the rule of law and peaceful negotiations.”
Najib made no mention of July’s Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling in The Hague in favour of a US-backed Philippine legal challenge to Chinese maritime claims in the disputed waters. Malaysia has previously protested against Chinese incursions into what it regards as its territory, including by Chinese naval vessels in waters near the James Shoal in January last year.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said on Tuesday that Malaysia had pledged to handle territorial disputes with China bilaterally. This is a significant concession to Beijing, which has always insisted on bilateral dialogue over the South China Sea, and objected to disputes being discussed in multinational forums such as the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) summits—as the US and its allies have pressed for.
Najib met with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on Tuesday and the two oversaw the signing of agreements worth a total of $34.25 billion, including a memorandum of understanding on defence cooperation. Vice Foreign Minister Liu said: “We haven’t touched upon the details of our cooperation. Mostly we are focussing on naval cooperation.”
As part of the naval cooperation, Malaysia has agreed to buy four Chinese naval vessels, two of which will be built in Malaysia and two in China. The deal is the first major purchase of Chinese arms by Malaysia, which has bought its armaments in the past largely from the US and Russia.
Other agreements included the building of a high-speed rail link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, which is part of Beijing’s massive One Belt, One Road plan to integrate the Eurasian landmass, including South East Asia, more closely via land and sea.
Undoubtedly Najib is engaged in a balancing act amid rising rivalry between the United States and China but his shift toward Beijing is a blow to Washington’s efforts to ramp up pressure on China. Najib’s visit comes in the wake of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s trip last month to Beijing, where he signed $13.5 billion in deals and declared his country’s “separation” from the US.
Reflecting concerns in Washington, Euan Graham, an analyst with the Sydney-based Lowy Institute, told the Financial Times: “Now Malaysia seems like a wobbly domino. It lends itself to the pessimistic reading that there is a broader accommodation with China across South East Asia.”
Duterte, who has been far more strident in his anti-American posturing, has called for an end to joint US-Philippine military exercises and the withdrawal of American forces from the southern Philippine island of Mindanao.
The forging of closer defence ties between China might call into question Malaysia’s military cooperation with the US. This has included permitting US Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft to take off from Malaysian bases for surveillance operations over the South China Sea.
More broadly, the tilt by Manila and Kuala Lumpur toward Beijing has blunted US plans to escalate its confrontation with China over the South China Sea following the ruling in The Hague, and compounded concerns in the US and the region over the future of the “pivot.”
The visits by Duterte and Najib occurred amid the intense uncertainty surrounding the American presidential elections and thus the future of US foreign policy. The opposition of both presidential candidates to the Trans-Pacific Partnership—the economic linchpin of the “pivot”—has called Washington’s commitment to Asia into question.
The US, however, is not about to sit idly by while China extends its influence. Just as the American press is ratcheting up its “exposure” of Duterte’s brutal anti-drug war, which has already claimed the lives of more than 4,000 alleged drug dealers, the US will undoubtedly begin to highlight the “human rights” abuses and corruption of the Malaysian government, in order to put pressure on Najib to change his orientation to Beijing.

Pro-Russian candidate leads in Moldovan presidential election

Markus Salzmann 

Pro-Russian candidate Igor Dodon won the first round of Moldova’s presidential election. He fell just short of an absolute majority, taking 48.5 percent of the vote. He must now participate in a run-off election on 13 November against Maia Sandu, who obtained 38.2 percent of the vote.
The election is seen as decisive in determining whether Moldova will deepen its orientation to the European Union (EU) or strengthen ties with Russia. Dodon is the chairman of the Socialist Party (PSRM) founded in 1997. He joined in 2011 after leaving the Communist Party (PCRM) with many others. He was minister of trade between 2006 and 2009. His party represents a tiny privileged elite which has profited from strong ties with Russia and maintains close relations with Moscow and Russia’s oligarchic clans.
Dodon announced that in the event of his victory, a referendum on cancelling Moldova’s trade agreement concluded with the EU in 2014 would be held. Instead, the country would join a Russian-led customs union. In several interviews with the Russian press, he explained that the association agreement with the EU was a serious mistake.
The Harvard graduate Sandu represents the country’s pro-European elite. Until 2012, she was an adviser to the World Bank in Washington. She subsequently became minister for education in the former liberal-led government. Politically, she advocates drastic market reforms and aggressive opposition to Russia.
Sandu was nominated by the Liberal Democratic Party (PLDM). She was originally projected to win just 15 percent of the vote. But then Marian Lupu, the candidate of the Democratic Party (PDM), which is also pro-Western, withdrew his candidacy to the benefit of Sandu. Vladimir Plahotniuc, the country’s biggest oligarch, was a backer of Lupu.
The political elite is in deep crisis. Since 2014, six prime ministers have been in office. While for a time up to 70 percent of the population favoured a pro-EU course, endemic corruption and bitter poverty—the average income is €240 per month—have resulted in a shift in public opinion.
Last year, tens of thousands took to the streets for weeks of protests after it emerged that the central bank had permitted €1 billion (equivalent to 12 percent of the country’s GDP) to disappear without a trace into the foreign bank accounts of the corrupt elite. Sandu was among the initiators of the pro-European protests against the government at the time. Under the pretext of combatting corruption in the country, the alliance “Dignity and Justice” called for a “Maidan” in Moldova.
Sandu is seeking to pull off a balancing act in the presidential campaign. She is attempting to distance herself somewhat from the corrupt elites and parties, while at the same time depending upon their support.
The deep mistrust of the entire political elite was reflected in an extremely low election turnout. In a country with a population of 3.5 million, less than half of all eligible voters went to the polls. Sixty-three percent of voters were over the age of 41, a result of the mass migration of younger people unable to find work in Europe’s poorest country.
The vote marks the first time the president has been directly elected in Moldova since 1996. In 2000, parliament changed the electoral law and has appointed presidents ever since with a three-fifths majority. Earlier this year, the constitutional court declared this procedure unconstitutional and ordered a direct election for the presidency. This decision was aimed at avoiding months of political crisis, which would have been unavoidable in the deeply fractious parliament.
The lead for the pro-Russian candidate Dodon has provoked concern in Brussels and Washington. Situated between the NATO and EU member Romania and Ukraine, Moldova occupies a strategically important position. The EU and NATO have been trying for some time to draw the country into their sphere of influence.
In addition, Transnistria, a small stretch of land east of the Dniester River, where 17 percent of the population lives, has been in effect independent since the establishment of Moldova in 1991, and has 2,000 Russian soldiers stationed there for its protection. The President of Transnistria, Yevgeni Shevchuk, announced in September his intention to apply for the region to be accepted into the Russian Federation.
Igor Dodon spoke out openly against NATO during the election campaign, which apparently secured him support. “We will not tolerate soldiers from NATO or other states on the territory of our country,” he stated.
Sandu represents a diametrically opposed standpoint. She calls for Moldova to assume the role of a spearhead against Russia and defends the increased militarisation of Romania and Moldova. For the first time, exercises of NATO troops took place on the territory of Moldova in May of this year, in clear violation of the country’s constitution.
At the same time, NATO is strengthening ties with the government in Chisinau. The NATO programme “Science for peace and security” (SPS) began three initiatives at the beginning of the month. Among other things, they were aimed at enabling the armed forces to respond more swiftly to attacks and protect themselves against cyber attacks. At NATO’s summit in Warsaw earlier this year, the Moldovan defence minister called for support to force Russian troops out of Transnistria.