New Spanish government makes austerity budget its first task

Paul Mitchell 

On Thursday, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy announced his 13-member cabinet, which included six new appointments. His Popular Party (PP) was brought back into power in Spain as a minority government last Saturday thanks to the support of the Citizens Party and, most important of all, the abstention of the Socialist Party (PSOE).

The decision of the PSOE to allow Rajoy to form a new government followed the ouster of PSOE leader Pedro Sánchez, who had stuck to the “No to Rajoy” policy decided by the party’s Federal Committee in January. It was a desperate attempt to avoid the total discrediting of the political system after the failure to form a government during 10 months of a hung parliament and despite two general elections and the possibility of a third.

The new government is the weakest since the end of the Franco dictatorship in the 1970s, and rules under conditions in which the bipartisan arrangements, in which power alternated between the right-wing PP and the “centre-left” PSOE for four decades, have been thoroughly exposed as a result of the austerity agenda pursued by both parties.

The PP has to secure agreement on a long overdue budget for 2017 and prevent the collapse of the pensions system. Moreover, the prospect of the country fragmenting as a result of the referendum on Catalan independence, which the separatist regional government is planning to hold next year, looms ever closer. Catalan leader Francesc Homs warned Rajoy, “Catalonia will continue on its path, whether or not there is dialogue depends on you.”

There is also pressure on Spain to fully commit to the NATO war drive against Russia. It has opposed sanctions on Russia and was about to allow Russian warships to refuel in its ports earlier this month before being severely reprimanded by NATO allies.

Rajoy said the “red lines” for government were Spain’s commitments to the European Union (EU), budget stability and maintaining the unity of the country. He warned the PSOE that he wanted, “A government that can govern, not a government that will be governed” by Congress. “It is not good to demonize your adversary because, among other things, Europe sets out a framework for us…We agree on many things, but most especially on the important ones,” he added.

A PP spokesperson said the new government would try to get a one-vote majority (176 of the 350 votes in Congress) for each piece of new legislation by making deals with Citizens and smaller parties from the Basque Country and the Canaries. Media reports suggest Rajoy would be prepared to call a general election if the PSOE does not toe the line, calculating that its electoral support would plummet even further than its record low in June, after its role in allowing the PP to take office.

The European Commission (EC) has made it clear that Rajoy’s first task must be setting the 2017 budget. Last week, it insisted on a further €5.5 billion in cuts on top of those previously submitted in the Draft Budgetary Plan (DBP).

Commissioners Valdis Dombrovskis and Pierre Moscovi told Spain’s Economy Minister Luis de Guindos that the new government had to give the DBP its highest priority in order to ensure Spain met its deficit target of 3.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2017, down from an expected 4.7 percent this year. The Commission said, “We are therefore seeking reassurances from the Spanish authorities in the coming days that the incoming government, as soon as possible upon taking office, will submit an updated Draft Budgetary Plan to the Commission and to the Eurogroup, which will ensure compliance with the targets set out in the Council decision…of 8 August 2016.”

In its recent “State of Play—Winter 2016” report on Spain, the Commission also criticised the continuing “excessive deficit”, “high levels of public and private debt”, “large external liabilities” (i.e., debt to foreign lenders), high unemployment, especially youth and long-term unemployment, low productivity,” as well as “limited progress in improving the cost effectiveness of the healthcare sector and reinforcing the regional budgetary strategy” and only “some progress” in labour and social reforms and improving the “business environment”.

All of these criticisms can mean only one thing--a ratcheting up of the attack on the living standards of the working class. A sign of the social explosion this must provoke was shown by the thousands attending the demonstration outside the Congress building, called at the last minute, as Rajoy’s investiture vote was taking place.

On behalf of the PSOE, Javier Fernández, chair of the management team that is running the party until a new leadership election, signaled the PSOE’s support for anything the Commission demanded. Fernández said, “It should be clear that the PSOE is not considering any kind of alliance with the PP, but there are affairs of state on which we will always support the government… We have to drop this confrontational idea of politics we have in this country, where politics is reduced to mere antagonism.”

For his part, the former PSOE leader, Sánchez, made the “painful” decision to resign his seat in Congress just hours before the investiture vote—absolving himself Pilate-like of any responsibility for allowing the PP to take office, while also not having to vote against. In a tearful performance designed to cover for his cowardice, Sánchez said he would, once more, become “a rank and file member” and would “get in my car and travel all over Spain to listen to those who haven’t been listened to, to the grassroots members and left-wing voters.”

Sanchez indicated he might stand in the leadership election and appealed to the PSOE federal committee not to expel the 15, mainly Catalan, deputies who voted no. Disciplinary procedures have been opened against them.

The PSOE debacle is an indictment of the pseudo-left Podemos, which, since its creation in 2014, has oriented towards the PSOE in the hope of coming to power and setting up a so-called “Government of Change.” Undeterred, Podemos continues to seek out alliances with discontented factions of the PSOE, with party leader Pablo Iglesias arguing, “Sánchez has recognised the pressure of the oligarchic powers and that it was a mistake not seeking an agreement with us.”

Iglesias is calling for Podemos to re-orient to the social movements “on the streets”, in order to recoup the 1.2 million votes the party lost in the June election, preventing it from overtaking the PSOE as Spain’s second largest party.

To Iglesias’s rescue comes the Pabloite Anticapitalists, which have agreed to ally with him against the faction around Podemos’ number two, Inigo Errejón, who supported the forming of a PSOE-Podemos-Citizens government. Iglesias briefly attempted this strategy in the spring before dropping it, fearing that it would expose Podemos’ leftist pretensions. The Anticapitalists offered their services after previously complaining of an Iglesias dictatorship, which had demobilised the social movements in its construction of an “electoral war machine” that said one thing and did another--leading to the hemorrhaging of support.

Refugees face catastrophic conditions in Italy and Greece

Martin Kreickenbaum

The human rights organization Amnesty International has accused the Italian security forces of using torture and ill-treatment to force refugees to submit to fingerprinting.

Their report shows how refugees who have risked life and limb to reach Europe, seeking protection, are denied all rights and are subjected to arbitrary treatment by the authorities. They are chased along the border fences, which have sprung out of the ground like mushrooms. They are interned for months in reception camps, which only exist because there is nowhere else for them.

Amnesty International interviewed a total of 174 refugees in Italy, 24 of whom stated that they had been ill-treated by the police. In 16 cases, they have been beaten. A 25-year-old Eritrean woman reported that she had been struck in the face by police officers until she agreed to be fingerprinted.

A 16-year-old from Sudan was abused with electric shocks: “They used a rod to give me electric shocks. Many times on the left leg, then on the right, the chest, the abdomen. I was too weak, I could not defend myself, and then they took my hands and placed them on the fingerprint machine.”

A 16-year-old and a 27-year-old reported they had been tortured on their genitals. The older one said he had initially received electric shocks from the security forces in Catania in Sicily, and was then forced to strip. “I sat on an aluminium chair, with an opening in the seat,” he said. “They held me firmly by the shoulders, squeezed my testicles with pliers and pulled twice. I cannot tell you how painful that was.”

All the abuse documented by Amnesty happened in so-called “hotspots,” the registration centres established by the European Union in Italy and Greece within the last year. The EU’s aim was to prevent refugees making the onward journey to the rest of Europe, and ensure that an asylum application was made in the first country of arrival, as laid down in the Dublin II treaty.

Amnesty regards these restrictive policies as the cause of the ill-treatment of refugees. “EU leaders have driven the Italian authorities to the limits of what is legal—and beyond,” explained Amnesty’s Italy expert Matteo de Bellis, during the presentation of the report. “As a consequence, traumatized people who have landed in Italy after an agonizing journey confront flawed procedures and in some cases, repugnant ill-treatment by the police.”

In the hotspots, refugees are not only mistreated during the registration process, they are also deprived of their right to apply for asylum. Registration is used to select refugees by ethnicity. Those who, solely on the grounds of their nationality, are suspected of coming to Italy as “irregular” migrants are separated from those regarded as having good prospects for a successful asylum claim.

The interview takes place without providing any information about the asylum process and without any legal support. Arriving completely exhausted and often traumatised by their flight, refugees are questioned immediately upon their arrival in the hotspots, completely unaware that this could have an immediate bearing on their future. Refugees, who, following this short interview, are refused the right to lodge a claim for asylum, are then presented with a deportation order.

In this way, under pressure from the EU, the Italian authorities have been able to increase the number of deportations, and also through repatriation agreements with various countries of origin in which human rights are routinely ignored. Only in August, the Italian government reached such an agreement with the government of Sudan, resulting in refugees deported by Italy arriving at the airport at the Sudanese capital Khartoum only to be arrested immediately by security forces.

Matteo de Bellis sharply criticized the refugee policy of the European Union. “The hotspot approach that has been devised in Brussels, and is run in Italy, has increased the pressure on the bordering states, not decreased it,” he said. “It leads to the abhorrent violation of the rights of desperate and vulnerable people, for which the Italian authorities directly and the European leaders are politically responsible.”

And this is especially the case as the resettlement programme agreed to by the European Union a year ago has not come into effect. Of the 160,000 refugees who were supposed to be transferred to other EU member states at that time, only some 6,000 have been moved. In total, since the beginning of the year, some 158,000 refugees have reached Italy via the Mediterranean.

In Greece, the situation confronting refugees is no less catastrophic, especially on the Aegean islands where some 16,000 have been interned in hotspots for months. The camps, which were only supposed to house 8,000, are completely overcrowded and lack basic amenities. Recently, even drinking water was being rationed to maintain reserves.

According to official figures from the Greek government, 8,500 refugees have lodged asylum claims on the Aegean islands, but have to wait months for them to be processed. Of the 600 officials promised by the EU to assist with asylum claims, only a tiny portion have materialised, so that only 60 to 70 cases a day can be processed.

Protests continue to increase in the camps, with the refugees mainly directing their anger at the officials and facilities of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), which is primarily responsible for refugees being stuck in the camps.

On August 24, refugees protesting at the Moria camp on Lesbos, where some 7,000 are being kept, set fire to four EASO containers. Two days later, refugees on Chios attacked EASO containers, throw stones and burning blankets. Three containers were destroyed, and EASO officials had to be evacuated.

“It is no coincidence that the camps are burning,” according to the head of the UNHCR office in Greece, Philip Leclerc. The European Union is well aware of the extremely tense situation. A report by the European Commission seen by news magazine Der Spiegel notes that the staff of EU agencies and aid organizations face serious problems on the ground. This is why many EU states have withdrawn their agreement to send additional asylum support staff to Greece.

The EU has cynically calculated that the permanent internment of refugees on the islands is a means of deterrence. When the Greek government announced the transfer of refugees from the hotspots to the Greek mainland, to reduce the pressure a little, this was sharply criticised, especially by the German government.

The interior ministry in Berlin told Die Welt: “It must continue to be made clear that for the overwhelming number of new arrivals, being housed on the mainland is not a consideration, but that the processing of asylum claims takes place on the Greek islands.” Improvements in the camps should “be made primarily by expanding their capacity on the islands.” In other words, the Merkel government could not care less about the fate of the refugees. They should continue to be kept in inhuman conditions and without rights, imprisoned in camps.

Recently, the number of refugees coming from Turkey to the Greek islands increased slightly. In the last three months, more than 10,000 refugees arrived who had to be accommodated on the islands.

Without any legal recourse to leave Greece, more and more refugees are trying to get to central Europe illegally via Bulgaria and Serbia. However, at the Balkan Summit at the end of September, the EU made it unmistakably clear that the Balkan route was being hermetically sealed. To that end, the EU border agency Frontex was expanded and additional police officers and soldiers deployed to Bulgaria and to Serbia, which is not a member of the EU.

Some 7,000 refugees remain stuck in Serbia, and can move neither forward nor back. Of these, 1,200 have occupied an abandoned warehouse in Belgrade, and are attempting to survive the bitter winter there. Migrants who attempt to go to Hungary are hunted down by the police, beaten up and then shipped back to Belgrade without any due process.

The French government has also announced that following the dismantling of the so-called “Jungle” refugee camp at Calais, other such informal camps would also be forcibly cleared by the police. In particular, this affects a tent camp in Paris, near the “Stalingrad” metro station, between the 10th and 19th arrondissements. There, more than 2,000 refugees, mainly from Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea, are holding out with virtually no state support. They are mainly supported by charities, who bring food and hygiene supplies.

President François Hollande had previously announced that France would not tolerate any more “Jungles,” and only those with a valid claim to asylum would be accommodated. In Paris, the refugees in the tent camp are to be taken to a new reception camp where there is space for just 400.

An Afghan refugee from the tent camp expressed his incomprehension regarding the police action. Speaking to the AFP news agency, he said, “If they aren’t going to provide us with any accommodation, why do they destroy our tents?”

Meanwhile, the ruins of the former Calais refugee camp have witnessed considerable unrest. The 1,500 remaining refugees, who are all minors, are protesting that they are not being transferred to the UK, as promised, but being taken to reception camps in France. Following the police clear-out of the “Jungle,” the youth and children had been permitted to stay in some containers they had erected themselves, hoping to be reunited with family members in Britain.

However, the British government has maintained its harsh stance, excluding family reunification even for minors. “In Calais, no further requests for transfers to the United Kingdom are being processed,” an official statement read. “All cases and emigration towards the UK are only being processed at the special reception camps for young people.”

When the youth realized that they were not being brought to Britain, their anger grew. Armed with sticks and stones, they marched into the former camp, damaging vehicles and throwing stones. The police arrived with a large contingent of special forces and drove the young refugees back with tear gas.

Michael McHugh, who works with unaccompanied minors, told the Guardian that there were more military-equipped police at the camp than social workers, teachers or therapists. “These are the most at-risk children in Europe,” he said.

However, the answer of the European Union to the millions who have had to flee the imperialist wars and conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen or Sudan consists of sealing off the border even more tightly, refusing the right to asylum and using police-state methods.

US election stokes deep concerns in Australian ruling circles

Peter Symonds 

The degraded spectacle of the US presidential election has provoked great trepidation in the Australian media and political establishment amid fears that the result, whoever wins, will have far-reaching implications for global politics and economics.

President Obama’s term in office coincided with the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism following the 2008–09 global meltdown and the escalation of tensions throughout the Asia-Pacific as his administration rolled out its confrontational “pivot to Asia” against China. Both the present Liberal-National Coalition government and the previous Labor government enmeshed Australia in this military build-up, basing US Marines in the northern city of Darwin and opening up Australian air and naval bases to the American military.

Now not only the “pivot” but the whole framework of post-war alliances in Asia is being called into question. The most overt sign has been the opposition of both major presidential candidates—Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump—to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was aimed at ensuring, as Obama put it, that the US, not China, writes the economic rules in the twenty-first century.

The Australian’s editor-at-large Paul Kelly warned in a worried comment last week: “It is more likely this crisis of American culture and politics is closer to its commencement than its conclusion. An unconvincing win by Clinton could cripple her governing ability arising from a permanently divided polity. An unexpected Trump win would generate even deeper domestic trauma and plunge the world into hazardous uncertainty.”

After declaring that it would be a mistake to exaggerate America’s decline, Kelly questions the ability of the US to maintain its global dominance, and by implication, defend Australian interests. “Well, there are limits now, big time, limits everywhere. The truth, however, is that limits on American power have been growing for 25 years and are now on embarrassing display for the entire world, notably US rivals,” he wrote.

Kelly is just one of a string of commentators fearful of the implications of a Trump presidency. While Trump has not publicly questioned the US-Australian military alliance—indeed privately his advisers have signalled to Canberra that he regards it highly—he has called into question longstanding American alliances with Japan and South Korea. Trump has even suggested that Japan and South Korea should develop their own nuclear weapons if they are not prepared to pay more for American military protection.

An editorial in today’s Australian Financial Review (AFR) entitled “The dangers of President Trump” declared that his populist appeals to widespread anti-establishment sentiment had “made this into the most extraordinary and dangerous US election of modern times.” Not only would a Trump presidency “undermine the credibility of the West’s defensive alliances” but “his antics have damaged the global prestige of Western democracy.”

While not uncritical of Clinton, the editorial opined: “Mrs Clinton may be wrong on many things, but she is in the realm of normal. In an extraordinary election she is not the extraordinary danger, and must be the world’s choice.” It did, however, call on Clinton to reverse her opposition to the TPP, echoing sentiments in ruling circles throughout the region that any US withdrawal from the economic deal could undermine the “pivot” and America’s position in Asia.

Another AFR comment by US Council of Foreign Relations fellow Sheila Smith criticised the Trump variant of American isolationism, saying that “his prescriptions for US policy sound downright dangerous.” It warned of the dangers of “China’s growing use of military force” and declared that “Washington will need to bolster—not reduce—its forces in the region.” Smith appealed to US allies in Asia not to back off and to “remind the United States of what is at stake if the US loses its way in Asia.”

Such pronouncements stand reality on its head. The primary factor in raising geo-political tensions in Asia has been the Obama administration’s “pivot” and its preparations for war with China. While Trump might put pressure on key allies, his “make America great again” demagogy foreshadows a reckless resort to military force in Asia and globally.

As for Clinton, she was one the chief architects of the “pivot” as secretary of state and consistently adopted a more militarist stance than Obama in the Middle East as well as against Russia and China. In 2010, Clinton deliberately inflamed longstanding territorial disputes in the South China Sea by declaring that the US had a “national interest” in ensuring “freedom of navigation”—transforming the disputed waters into a dangerous flashpoint for war.

Several commentators have warned that a Clinton presidency would place far greater demands on Canberra to play a more prominent role in the US military build-up against China.

Speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald, an unnamed “Washington expert” declared that Clinton was “very invested in the pivot to Asia and sustaining advantage [over China]” and suggested that she would challenge the Australian government to mount a military “freedom of navigation” operation into Chinese-claimed waters in the South China Sea.

The same article entitled “End of the Alliance?” cited James Brown, research director of the US Studies Centre at Sydney University, who warned against assuming that “it’ll all be OK if Hillary wins.” He said that a President Clinton would make big and difficult demands of Australia, ones that it is not ready for. Brown said before too long Clinton would pose the questions: Is Australia prepared to host US long-range bombers? Is Australia prepared to host a US aircraft carrier battle group?

Andrew Shearer, former national security adviser to Australian prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott, told the AFR: “Australia will find itself having to stand up. Issues like freedom of navigation where we’ve been given a bit of a pass by the Obama administration, when Clinton settles on a policy there will be a part for Australia to play and expectations on us.”

The apprehension in ruling circles over the US election feeds into sharp divisions over how to deal with the underlying dilemma posed by Australian capitalism’s longstanding reliance on the US to defend its strategic interests, on the one hand, and its growing economic dependence on China, the country’s largest trading partner.

The government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has ignored repeated suggestions by American officials for the Australian navy to intrude into Chinese-claimed waters in the South China Sea. Turnbull is under pressure both from the opposition Labor Party and within the Coalition to carry out a provocative “freedom of navigation” operation, regardless of possible Chinese economic retaliation or the risk of a destabilising military clash.

The American election is also viewed in the Australian political establishment as another warning of the political instability threatened by widespread popular alienation and hostility deepening social inequality and the agenda of austerity, not only in the US, but Australia and around the world.

An editorial in today’s Sydney Morning Herald draws the parallel between the rise of the Trump, the surprise referendum vote in Britain to exit the European Union, and the re-emergence of the right-wing, anti-immigrant populist Pauline Hanson in Australia. As it points out, Hanson and other small parties and “independents” who have exploited seething resentments have created a parliamentary logjam.

“Nations across the Western world have reached a point where citizen anger at dysfunctional and tone-deaf political institutions is palpable. The backlash by outsiders against political insiders had combined with an endemic yet largely overblown fear of migrants, Muslims and multinationals to destabilise global relationships. Trust in policy making is being eroded. The risks of conflict on a national and community scale have grown,” it stated.

The editorial warned that “centuries-old rules of liberal democracy are under fire, but offered no solution other than the pious call for “higher standards of behaviour” on the part of politicians.

All but ignored in all of the commentary is the significance of the campaign waged by the self-proclaimed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders who won millions of votes, many from young people, who believed his empty posturing against Wall Street. The unspoken fear is that the anger and opposition of workers and youth will take a genuinely socialist direction and pose a threat to the capitalist order.

PM Modi’s Visit to Japan: Prospects and Prudence

Sandip Kumar Mishra

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day visit to Japan, 11-12 November 2016, is eagerly awaited in India for an almost certain civil nuclear deal between the two countries. This would be an important achievement, as until now Japan has been firm on its stand of not having nuclear technology exchange with any non-NPT signatory. Both the countries had broad consensus on the deal during Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe’s visit to India in December 2015 and in the subsequent months the details have gradually been carved out. The deal will boost bilateral economic and security ties and facilitate leading US-based players to set up atomic plants in India. The deal has been important not only because Japan is one of the most important players in the nuclear energy sector but also because some of the American nuclear plant makers have Japanese investments in them and without Japan’s consent they were not able to reach the Indian market.

 

There have been important high-level contacts between India and Japan in the recent past, which which may be seen as a prelude to Modi’s visit and would bring more comprehensive partnership between the two countries in the future. On 3 November, a Japanese parliamentary delegation visited India and had a meeting with Modi and on 5 November, Japanese National Security Advisor Shotaro Yachi met his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval in New Delhi. In several other exchanges, both the countries have shown their strong willingness to collaborate on various issues of mutual cooperation such as tax convention to cover banking information, disaster management, high speed trains, Japanese investment in India and so on. In fact, after two years of talks, India’s Defence Ministry has approved the purchase of 12 ShinMaywa US-2i amphibious search-and-rescue/maritime surveillance aircraft from Japan. Though, it’s not clear if Japan has agreed to the Indian demand of buying only two of them and building the remaining ten in India, the deal per se is an important step forward. This would be the first time that Japan would export arms to India and it underlines the growing proximity and trust between the two countries. India and Japan have identified the importance of each other not only for bilateral cooperation and gains but also for their mutual interests on most of the regional and global issues.

In the changing economic and security dynamics of the Asia-Pacific region, which is largely shaped by the rise of China and its “assertive” moves in the regional politics, it has been imperative for Japan to reach out to India and ask for a more active role. Recently, the Deputy Director of Japan’s Foreign Ministry’s regional policy division, Yuki Tamura said that that “we are encouraging India to speak up on issues related to South China Sea because maritime security is important.” In the upcoming East Asia Summit in Japan, which will be held in December 2016, there is all probability that Tokyo would insist on India having a more proactive role on issues related to the maritime security of the region. 

The US is also in agreement with Japan that India must be supported and brought into the network of countries which are concerned about an “assertive China” in the South and the East China Sea and beyond. For the same reason, in June 2016, the Malabar Naval Exercise among India, the US and Japan took place near Okinawa in Japan. 

India-Japan friendship has a long history, which has gradually deepened with the course of time, though not without disagreements on India’s nuclear tests in 1998. However, under the leaderships of Modi and Abe, the pace and content of friendship has increased substantially. 

Although the growing “special strategic global partnership” between the two countries is an important achievement, which is going to be further strengthened by the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Japan, India should tread carefully on three counts. 

First, New Delhi needs to be cautious in prematurely over stretching its role in the regional politics. Although, India’s growing economic and military prowess is fact but it must take an incremental approach rather than committing itself beyond its capabilities.

Second, India should also be clear about its own national interests and carefully assess that by becoming part of the great game in Asia-Pacific, which has unleashed with decline of the US and emergence of China, India does not become a pawn of any vested interests. India shares a long unsettled border with China along with cultural and historical ties, which are absent in the cases of both Japan and the US. Thus, India’s approach towards China must also be different and more nuanced.

Third, in the process of building proximity with Japan, India must also remember that Japan has its own historical and colonial baggage with other countries of the region such as South Korea and Taiwan. India needs to assure them that the India-Japan ties would not hamper New Delhi’s bilateral relations with these countries. This would be possible when India does not solely and narrowly focus on its bilateral relations with Japan but also keeps in mind its integrated regional objectives.

A Patchy Road to Peace: The Panglong Experiment in Myanmar

Angshuman Choudhury

On 31 August 2016, the government of Myanmar inaugurated the much-awaited '21st Century Panglong Peace Conference' (also referred to as the Union Peace Conference) in Naypyidaw. This four-day long mega event saw a wide range of stakeholders gather under a single roof to discuss longstanding issues of ethnic discord and armed conflict. How comprehensive is this institutionalised process of reconciliation in reality, towards the effort to bring peace in strife-torn Myanmar?

Envisaged by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi as a reboot of the original 'Panglong Peace Conference' organised by her father in 1947, the latest edition comes as a crucial waypoint in the internal peace process in Myanmar. Despite major hold-ups and criticisms, this convention successfully established a cohesive platform for dialogue and peaceful reconciliation between the state and the various independent armed groups organised along ethnic lines.

The high-profile conference - attended by around 1,600 representatives from various Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs), military generals from the Tatmadaw (Myanmar Defence Services), political parties, Hluttaw (Parliament) members, and even the UN Secretary General - was a follow-up to the 2015 Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) that was signed by eight EAOs. The key focus areas of the conference were power sharing through federalism, local autonomy, constitutional revision, and separation of powers between the military and civilian state structures. Expectedly, most of these agenda points brought the ethnic groups and the government at loggerheads with each other.

While the ethnic groups proposed a fully federal union that would provide complete administrative autonomy to each state, the civilian-military clusters argued for a mere decentralised structure of governance through constitutional amendments. Furthermore, the former rallied for a complete separation of powers between the civilian government and the military, while the latter group sidelined it as a minor issue. 

Even so, Suu Kyi's primary motivation for organising such a conference was to bring as many political stakeholders as possible to a common deliberative forum, and in the process, create a level playing field for peaceful settlement of ethno-political disputes. It was aimed at expanding the NCA by establishing a platform for sustained and inclusive dialogue between the government, the army, and the various EAOs, including those who did not sign the accord in 2015. However, if one looks closely, the purported inclusiveness of the whole process could be debatable.

 

First, four of the NCA non-signatory EAOs - the Arakan Army (AA), the Ta'ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), the Myanmar National Democracy Alliance Army (MNDAA), and the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland - Khaplang (NSCN-K) - remained uninvited because they refused to disarm before the conference, as stipulated by the army. Their refusal to disarm was premised on their perception that the Panglong process does not align with their demands for greater autonomy.

Second, representatives from the United Wa State Army (UWSA) – the largest and most powerful EAO in Myanmar – staged a walkout on the second day of the conference after being identified as 'observers' rather than participants. Although this might have been a misunderstanding of protocol, the move led to non-attendee EAOs expressing solidarity with the UWSA by reasserting that the Panglong Conference was a “discriminatory” forum.

 

Barring the AA and NSCN-K, the non-attendee EAOs are all based out of Shan State in the north – a perennial hotbed of violent clashes. Both TNLA and MNDAA continue to remain engaged in skirmishes with the army. Intriguingly, so does UWSA, which has only recently faced a sudden offensive from the Tatmadaw. It continues to survive in the region as one of the largest narco-insurgent groups in the world, and a prime dealer of drugs and illegal arms from Chinese grey markets. The organisation is known to have served as the key supplier of weapons to several northeast Indian insurgent outfits based in Myanmar's northwestern Sagaing division.

Third, the NSCN-K - which remains ‘at war’ with India - refused to attend stating that the conference “had nothing to do with the demand for Naga sovereignty.” Notably, it was only last year that India officially banned the outfit after a brutal assault against an army convoy in Manipur, following which Indian Special Forces pursued the rebels across the India-Myanmar border in a covert operation. The NSCN-K is also the ‘leader’ of the motley set of northeast Indian separatist outfits that currently operate out of Sagaing. Hence, it continues to be a serious threat to India.

Fourth, political parties from Kayah State in the southeast of Myanmar refused to attend the conference, complaining about the meagre five seats granted to them in the November 2015 elections. This reflects a core political dynamic in newly-democratic Myanmar: smaller regional parties’ perceptions of political under-representation and marginalisation by the larger, dominant national party (NLD).

Lastly, despite strong statements from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on the deplorable condition of the Rohingya community in Rakhine State, the conference did not invite any representative from the ethno-religious minority, marking a continuity of the union government's non-recognition of the persecuted community. The current crisis in Rakhine State, and the ensuing crackdown, makes this lack of representation relevant.

Despite Aung San Suu Syi’s efforts to meet the non-signatory EAOs before the conference and her assurances of the government’s willingness towards a comprehensive reconciliatory framework, the army has unleashed a tirade of shockingly violent offensives against armed groups in Kachin, Shan, and Kayin States in the past few days, threatening to derail the entire peace process. For now, it remains to be seen if military action can compel the recalcitrant EAOs to join the Panglong framework.

However, the ambitious peace process in Myanmar will remain hobbled not just without the participation of all ethnic, religious, and political groups, but also without cohesion between the civilian and military clusters of the union government.

Hydro Boom Sparks Violent Conflicts In Nepal

Louise Voller


The paradox is easy to spot.  Running water is Nepal’s strongest asset at the moment, not only for investors in hydroelectric power plants, but also for communities that still lack electricity.  Nevertheless, a steady stream of disputes has arisen between local populations, the government, and an increasing number of hydro plants that are meant to create electrical currents out of water currents.

Take for example the Khimti Dhalkebar power plant in Nepal’s impassable mountains.  Khimti Dhalkebar will be able to provide up to 17 percent of the country’s electricity needs, but it is currently four years behind schedule because of a battle over power cables and the eviction of more than one thousand villagers.

Recently, violent conflicts and accusations of police brutality have flared up around the Khimti Dhaldkebar plant, which is now mired in a court case.

The Khimti Dhalkebar project is one of six cases of illegal land seizure before Nepal’s courts, while additional complaints have been filed with Nepal’s Human Rights Commission (NHRC), according to Tahal Thami, director of the Lawyer’s Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP).

“These conflicts arise because locals are rarely asked before the government has transferred their land to a company and they are removed.  Fundamentally, the biggest problem is that neither the government nor businesses consult local people as they are required to do by national and international human rights statutes,” says Thami.

According to Thami, Khimti is built particularly to sell electricity in India, which will not help to electrify Nepal, he says.

Energy crisis triggers state of emergency

Nepal has no major fossil fuel reserves, and historically, the country’s per capita energy use has been very low, at about one-third of the Asian average and just one-fifth of the global average, according to Energypedia.

In 2008, the country experienced a serious energy crisis, worsened at one end of the country by severe drought that made hydro plants unusable, and at the other end by floods that ruined power cables transmitting electricity from India.  According to the World Bank, the energy crisis was of “unprecedented severity, caused by years of under-investment and sharp growth in electricity demand.”

In Kathmandu, Gyanu Maskey of the South Asia Institute of Advanced Studies researches the social effects of hydroelectric plants.  She is co-author of a report entitled Justice brokers, global indigenous rights and struggles over hydropower in Nepal.

She explains that the government enacted a plan in 2011 in response to the emergency. The Energy Crisis Management Action Plan suspends procedures meant to ensure indigenous peoples’ rights to consultation and compensation when their land is confiscated, making it easier to “use measures to compulsorily acquire land.”

The government had already implemented limits on compensation to local communities in connection with hydro power plants the previous year, but all the political plans came into force when authorities declared the state of emergency in 2011.

Money or rights?

Maskey studied a hydroelectric plant project of this kind in Lamjung, where locals demanded compensation for damages connected to its construction, like cracks in their houses that were caused by the drilling of holes in the mountain wall for power lines.

Sixty-five-year old Farsi B. K. has been temporarily removed from his home in Tanglichwok in southern Nepal in order to make room for the hydroelectric project in Lamjung.  He is only 100 metres from his former home, but it makes a world of difference.  His new home is little more than a shack and not at all to the older man’s liking.

“I am sorry to have to leave my house.  I don’t know if it was force or fear that made me leave, but this is not in my best interest,” says Farsi B. K.

Maskey says that local people have also insisted on their proper share of the profits from the hydro plant, an amount that has been significantly reduced under the government’s energy plan.

“The residents wish to be compensated for damages to their property and to receive a share of the profits from the hydro plant.  This is in line with Nepalese law regarding hydro projects, in which the distribution of resources is prioritised over rights,” says Maskey.

But giving cash to individuals rather than securing collective rights makes it hard for groups that fight for the rights of indigenous peoples, Maskey points out.

“These are organisations like the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), which speak out on behalf of indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior and informed consent before the confiscation of their land, according to the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the ILO’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (#169, ed.).”

Local communities, therefore, are not only struggling against the government’s suspension of applicable law, but also amongst themselves, as collective rights are pitted against the individual’s right to compensation for lost land or property.  But why should there be such resistance, when the 107 planned hydro projects can bring electricity to large swaths of Nepal that until now have been in darkness?

Rights of indigenous people under pressure

At an elaborate press conference in Kathmandu last April, the government launched yet another energy plan: the National Energy Crisis Reduction and Electricity Development Decade master plan.  The plan was meant to give new momentum to hydroelectric projects and bring more energy to Nepal by clearing certain “obstacles” out of the way, said Minister of Energy Top Bahadur Rayamajhi to the gathered mass of journalists.

“The government will initiate the process to speed up the construction of a few large hydropower projects that have been stalled due to various problems within a few weeks.”

Around the same time, the government sent a paramilitary group, the Armed Police Force (APF), to ensure progress in the construction of the Khimti Dhalkebar project’s power lines.  This led to violent conflict between demonstrators and the police that was described by activists who witnessed the clashes in an open letter to the World Bank in Washington.

“Community members were beaten, arrested, and detained while taking part in peaceful protests. Additionally, armed police officers were deployed to guard construction sites, militarizing areas located amidst homes, fields, and schools,” the letter states.

On July 2 and 3, it happened again, with several local residents detained and arrested following a peaceful demonstration.

Specifically, the project will require that roughly one thousand people from several municipalities in the Sindhuli district be moved, while four thousand will be affected in all.  The power lines will run 75 kilometres through five rural districts in central Nepal.  Two hundred and eighteen towers, each 60 metres high, will be built at 700-metre intervals.  Because each tower requires a 30-metre radius around it, community members say that the land cannot be used for homes or agriculture.

Furthermore, the power lines will pass through several towns, hanging over four schools as well as several areas of historic, cultural and religious importance.  The value of the land will decrease, in part because of a loss of agricultural production.

The Khimti Dhalkebar Hydro Power project, which is partly owned by the Norwegian state hydro company Statkraft and partly financed by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, has been delayed for several years because of protests from local communities who say that they were not consulted in accordance with international guidelines and Nepalese law.

Hydroelectric power in Nepal

The majority of electricity in Nepal will come from hydroelectric plants.  It is estimated that nearly 43,000 MW of generation is economically viable, compared to the country’s current capacity of 753 MW.

Despite Nepal’s current lack of power, its potential hydroelectric resources are sufficient to enable regional energy exports, for example to India and Bangladesh, if they are developed strategically, according to the International Hydropower Association.

Seven more projects are expected to be completed in 2016.  These are about one year behind schedule due to earthquakes as well as to the border blockade and Madhesi movement, which limited access to the fuel needed to complete construction.

Brexit Stumbling: The High Court, British Parliament And Article 50

Binoy Kampmark

Parliamentary supremacy in British law and politics is akin to the fetish of the union in the United States. Challenge it at your peril; question it to your misfortune.  The point was tested, with rumbling consequences, by the May government in its latest Brexit stumble dealing with Britain’s painful and at times confused response to exiting the European Union.

The way Theresa May’s government has respected that referendum result so far is open to question. Behind closed doors, it has promised various versions of what it might do, when in truth, it may well not know what it is doing at all.  Terms such as “hard Brexit” and “soft Brexit” change hands with meal like regularity; positions are foggily unclear.  The only matter sovereign at this point is solid confusion.

This confusion was even more confounded by the antics of the High Court, which suggested in it judgment of November 3 that Prime Minister May’s approach to the nature of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty had demonstrated significant error.

Parliament, in other words, had to be involved in triggering the operative functions of Article 50, which involves a two-year process for departure.  The executive would have to duly comply with those wishes.

According to Lord Chief Justice John Thomas, “The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses.”  Hardly heretical, given that the Brexiteer group had always insisted that UK sovereignty had been imperilled by the bureaucrats in Brussels.

The government statement was stubborn but in its own way an expression of frustration at what had been the most traditional of readings of Parliamentary supremacy.  “The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament.  And the Government determined to respect the result of the referendum.”

Not that the government won’t – it will just have to do so through the very legislature it has decided to hoodwink. In bringing the Brexit process before Parliament, the May play book will be brought to light.

The reaction from the Leavers was furious. The Daily Mail, in sinister fashion, suggested that the judges were, as its headline went, “Enemies of the people.” Photos of these touted criminals were also published, suggesting a near vigilante call to arms.

As ever, the paper’s editors decided to wade into the issue about what was meant by those good people of Britain when they decided leaving the EU was a good idea. The “people” had effectively lost out to a court which had sided “against [their] interests”.  Had the battle against the wicked court system within the European Union been for nothing?

An image here that emerges is that of nativism burning wildly before the cliquish designs of the elite.  Such a judgment, it was hyperbolically argued, stoked the flames of dissatisfaction “not just in Britain and Europe, but also among Donald Trump’s supporters in America – that western public life is becoming a conspiracy of tightly knit, self-serving Establishment elites against the public.”

The Daily Express event went so far as to urge the British public to rush to the barricades to “fight, fight, fight”. Those humble court darlings were misfits who had purposely engineered a roadblock to prevent Brexit by including Parliament in the whole rotten business.  An eccentric reading of the ruling if ever there was one.

The European authorities are not going to go easy on what is regarded as audacious mischief making by the British populists to damage the European project. But that populist voice took the form of a vote which must, in the annals of that country’s electoral history, be respected.

Suspicion, however, abounds as to how this timetable of exit is to be performed, and such Murdoch papers as the Sun suspect foul play amongst the conservatives.  Everyone is in need of someone to crucify.

Yet the populists, ever the bullies in the playground, were the first ones to jump ship after the vote in the name of sovereignty. Nigel Farage, having done the damage, fled to the United States to enthusiastically embrace Donald Trump’s campaign to claim that Britain had reclaimed itself.  Only the often oafish Boris Johnson was brought, most probably by compulsion, into the ministry.

Perhaps the most useful aspect to this entire affair, apart from the predictable anger on the part of the government at the intrusive rulings of courts it would rather not listen to (even their own), is the understanding of the populists.  Behind the Brexit campaign – less than the vote itself – was a despotic snigger, a sense that unaccountable power might not be such a bad thing.

As Alex Massie noted with understandable derision, “People who shouted for months about the urgent need to restore parliamentary sovereignty now reacted in horror to the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty.”[1] The populists had effectively ambushed themselves.

UNESCO Censures Israel’s Administration Of Jerusalem

Richard Falk

In response to UNESCO resolutions adopted in October that were highly critical of Israel’s protection of sacred and cultural Islamic heritage sites in Jerusalem, there is again a fiery confrontation between Israel and this UN organ whose actions have so often touched the raw nerves of Western political sensibilities. The main UNESCO resolution ‘deeply deplores’ Israel’s failure to stop a series of excavations and related activities in East Jerusalem, which are declared to be harming Islamic sites in Jerusalem, and above all complains about Israel’s interference with worship and serenity at the Al Aqsa mosque. The resolutions also complain about Israel’s general failure to cooperate with UNESCO’s cultural and religious conservation work in Jerusalem, especially in the ‘Old City,’ even to the point of refusing visas to UN officials seeking to carry out their duties.

Of course, not far in the background is Israel’s hostility toward UNESCO that has been pronounced ever since 2011 when Palestine was admitted to UNESCO as a member state over the vigorous objections of Israel, the United States, as well as several European countries. Unlike the Security Council, where the US could single-handedly block full UN membership, there is no veto in either the General Assembly or in UN specialized agencies. Israel has refused all cooperation with UNESCO ever since Palestine gained membership, which presupposes that Palestine qualifies for membership because it has the credential of a state. Obligingly, the U.S. reinforced Israel’s hostility by withholding its annual contributions ever since, which amounts to a hefty 22% of the UNESCO budget.

This New Controversy

This latest initiative raised substantive issues high on the UNESCO agenda. This contrasts with the earlier status fight about admission to the agency, which was limited in scope to a procedural matter, that is, whether or not Palestine qualifies as a state entitled to membership. Here, Israel insists that UNESCO is aligning itself with a sinister Arab effort to minimize, or even erase, Jewish historic and religious connections with Jerusalem, and specifically with the area around Al Aqsa Mosque and the nearby Noble Sanctuary. The resolution fails to mention explicitly Jewish connections with the Temple Mount and Western Wall, using only Arab names for these places of overlapping religious significance, although in its general language it was acknowledged in the UNESCO text that all three monotheistic religions possessed historical connections with the Old City in Jerusalem that should be respected. It is accurate for Israel to assert that the Temple Mount and Western Wall are the very most sacred of all Jewish holy places, a reality that should have been acknowledged. It was somewhat invidious, and not really relevant, for the Israeli denunciation of the UNESCO action, to point out that Al Aqsa ranked only third in the Islamic canon, behind Mecca and Medina, and thus seemingly had a lesser claim on UNESCO’s protection if competing claims were at issue. Actually, this line of attack is a red herring as there was no UNESCO attempt to denigrate Jewish claims; the resolutions were devoted to pointing out Israel’s failures of responsibility with Islamic sites.

Nevertheless, in a typically diversionary spirits, Israel’s top politicians insisted that to approach UNESCO’s role in Jerusalem in such an allegedly partisan manner effect was deeply offensive to Jewish concerns. Netanyahu, never at a loss for invective, put his objection this way: “Saying that Israel doesn’t have a connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall is like saying the Chinese don’t have a connection to the Great Wall.” He went on, “Through this absurd decision, UNESCO has lost the little bit of legitimacy that it has.” Let’s be clear. The UNESCO resolutions in no way denied Jewish connections with the holy sites of Jersualem, it just failed to acknowledge them by name. There was no ‘absurd decision’ as the resolutions were above all a fully legitimate, even overdue, call to Israel to start performing its proper role of protecting Islamic sites as Occupying Power in accord with law, and in the interest of cultural preservation. There were strong grounds to believe that Israel was administering Jerusalem in ways that were threatening in various ways to the integrity and enjoyment of Islamic sites. From this perspective it was in no way relevant to mention, much less criticize, Israel’s protection of Jewish sites as they were being fully protected by Israel, likely over-protected and allowed to encroach in unacceptable ways on Islamic sites.

Jordan, among the several Arab sponsors, praised UNESCO’s “historic decision” as supportive of the very genuine struggle to preserve the status quo in Jerusalem in the face of Israeli efforts to create as much of a Jewish city as possible, diminishing by stages the Palestinian and Islamic character of the place. In recent years there was particular reasons for concern about Israel’s effort to administer the holy sites in Jerusalem, especially Al Aqsa. Such an evenhanded role conflicted with Israel’s preoccupation with promoting the primacy of Jewish traditions and memories, and deliberately at the expense of Muslim and even Christian concerns.

There has been a series of violent encounters at Al Aqsa during several recent religious holidays. This much beloved mosque was increasingly endangered as a serene place of worship by Israeli policies and practices in recent years. Israel has in the past been severely criticized for the failure to fulfill its legal responsibilities with respect to holy sites in Jerusalem as ‘Occupying Power.’ With respect to Al Aqsa Israel was specifically charged with denying access to Muslim worshippers and not taking adequate steps to curb the campaign of settler extremists to assert aggressively Jewish claims in the mosque area leading to violent encounters.

Appraising the UNESCO Initiative

Overall, it would seem that there are two kinds of understandable reactions to this latest UNESCO initiative. It was entirely appropriate and even necessary for UNESCO members and the organization to complain about Israel’s failures to uphold its several responsibilities with respect to holy and heritage sites throughout Jerusalem. It is one more illustration of Israel’s pattern of defiance when it comes to discharging its obligations as set forth in the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties. In these circumstances, it was appropriate for UNESCO to act, and given developments in Jerusalem in recent years, even with a sense of urgency.

At the same time, it was inappropriate and seems irresponsible for the resolution to avoid an explicit acknowledgement of the Jewish connections to Temple Mount and Western Wall. The UNESCO drafters should have anticipated that by referencing only the Arabic names the resolutions would be sufficiently provocative to give Israel a rather plausible pretext for voicing a hostile reaction, and thereby evading the substantive criticism that was the core of the initiative. These wider politics also led a politically acute Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO, to join Israel, the United States, and some European states in condemning the resolutions, calling them an irresponsible incitement of violence, swallowing Israel’s bait to place all blame on the provocation and give no attention at all to the genuine substantive issues that lie at the heart of UNESCO’s mission.

This unwillingness to mention both the Jewish and Arab names for the holy sites in Jerusalem had the dysfunctional effect of shifting attention away from the legitimate concerns of Palestinians and others in the Islamic world about the overall failure of Israel to uphold its responsibilities in Jerusalem, which included a variety of efforts to Judaize the city by stages. These unacceptable occupation policies verge on ethnic cleansing with a focus on undermining the Palestinian presence in relation to religious and cultural claims, residence rights, building permits, and family reunification. Thus, Israeli failures to carry out the legal responsibilities associated with being an Occupying Power with respect to non-Jewish holy and cultural heritage sites should be understood as an inflammatory implementation of Israel’s unlawful annexation of Jerusalem.

It is possible that this question of acknowledgement might not have avoided Israel’s condemnation of UNESCO’s initiative. It seems likely that Israel was enraged by this successful move by Palestine to sidestep Israel’s attempt to oppose any Palestinian effort to gain legitimacy and attention for its statehood claims. In this regard Israel’s most basic objection to the resolution likely involved the adoption of its title “Occupied Palestine,’ giving Palestine the status it is aspiring to establish on its own without any prior agreement by Israel. This by itself infuriates the Netanyahu leadership in Israel, which is evidently seeking to exclude any possibility of Palestinian statehood, and seeks to avoid the legal complications of occupying a foreign state as it proceeds with its own territorial expansion. Finally, it should be appreciated that Palestine has only resorted to this symbolic chessboard of UN legitimation after twenty years of frustration and setbacks resulting from Oslo diplomacy.

Australian government steps up assault on social welfare

Richard Phillips 

The Australian government is intensifying its attacks on the poor and most socially-vulnerable with plans to slash parental leave payments and calls for an expansion of the punitive “Healthy Welfare Card.”

The campaign is in line the government’s “welfare reform” measures announced in September and in response to demands from the financial elite for major inroads into social spending in order to cut corporate taxes and force welfare recipients into low-paid work.

Altogether the government is seeking to slash $6 billion from welfare spending over the next four years, in addition to the $6 billion in cutbacks already imposed with the support of the opposition Labor Party since July. The further measures include abolishing Family Tax Benefit end-of-year supplements, ending carbon tax compensation payments for future welfare recipients, freezing welfare eligibility thresholds and extending the time before the unemployed receive dole payments.

Last month the Liberal-National Coalition government also introduced legislation to restrict access to Australia’s state-funded paid parental leave. It currently provides 18 weeks’ pay at the minimum wage of $672 a week and allows recipients to combine this with parental payments from their employers.

The government now claims this is “double dipping.” Under the legislation, those receiving eight weeks pay from their employer will have their government-funded entitlement cut from 18 to 10 weeks, equivalent to a loss of about $12,000.

Social Services Minister Christian Porter said the “reforms,” which will directly impact at least 80,000 new parents, are designed to make paid parental leave “fairer.”

In bid to whip up hostility to welfare recipients, Porter last week claimed that thousands of parents receiving welfare payments were “financially better off not getting a job.”

He cited the example of a single parent, who, he said, could receive over $52,000 from Family Tax benefits and other government payments. This, Porter alleged, was more than the $49,831 take-home pay of a median full-time worker. He declared the government had a “moral” responsibility to end “welfare dependency.”

Porter’s claim, which was prominently featured in the Murdoch press and on talk-back radio, was utterly bogus. His hypothetical example referred to a single parent with four dependent children—a tiny minority of the population.

According to the Australian National University’s Centre for Social Research, only 9 percent of the 6.7 million family households were single-parent homes with dependent children and only 2.5 percent of these, or about 15,000 households, had four children.

Porter omitted to mention that single parents who worked full-time for the mean annual wage can receive $30,916 in family tax benefits, as well as their wages. Their mean annual income would be over $80,000, not $49,000. Current average family tax benefit payments amount to only about $7,000 per child per year. This is supposed to cover all child-related costs, including food, clothing, education and numerous other expenses.

Porter’s calculations also did not take into account the government’s planned cuts to Family Tax Benefits. Single parent families with four children will lose about $4,000 per year, irrespective of whether the parent is working or not.

As for government and media claims that thousands are “double-dipping,” according to the most recent data, only 48 percent of employers provided paid parental leave in 2015. Of those, 80.9 per cent offered full pay to employees and only 8.6 per cent topped up the government scheme to full pay. The average period of paid leave was just 10.2 weeks.

Porter’s assertions are part of the constant drumbeat of government and corporate media claims that welfare spending is “out of control” and that anyone receiving the below-poverty level government payments is “bludging” on society. The anti-welfare demagogy is to divert attention from decades of tax cuts for corporations, lower rates for the rich and rising military spending.

The legislation confronts opposition in the Senate where the Coalition lacks a majority. Facing widespread public hostility to austerity measures, Labor and the Greens have postured as opponents to the changes to paid-parental leave. This is a patent fraud given that both parties have consistently supported attacks on welfare spending.

In October 2012, the Greens-backed minority Labor government cut 100,000 single parents off Parenting Payments and forced them onto the Newstart unemployment benefit, a cut of about $120 from their fortnightly income.

In June last year, the Greens made an agreement with the Coalition to impose far-reaching assets tests on the aged pension to slash $2.4 billion from pension spending over four years.

If Labor and the Greens do not strike a deal on parental leave, the government will require the support of eight out of 10 “cross-bench” senators—that is, the small parties and “independents” that hold the balance of power. Moreover, two senators on whom the government was counting for votes are facing High Court challenges.

The anti-immigrant One Nation party, which holds four Senate seats, has already endorsed the cuts, with Senator Pauline Hanson telling the Australian Financial Review she would support the government “if it wanted to go harder.” However, the government has yet to get the backing of the three Nick Xenophon Team senators, without which the legislation faces defeat.

Early this week, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull flagged further expansion of the government’s cashless “Healthy Welfare Card,” another punitive measure to undermine the rights of welfare recipients.

Under this scheme, 80 percent of welfare payments to individuals are placed in a Visa-debit account that cannot be used to buy alcohol or gambling products, or to withdraw cash. Most single welfare recipients would only have access to about $50 cash per week.

The card is being “trialled” on about 10,000 people in the remote communities of Ceduna in South Australia and Wyndham and Kununurra in Western Australia’s east Kimberley region. The government claims that the cashless welfare card, which was endorsed last year by Labor, will reduce spending on alcohol, gambling and family violence.

The Healthy Welfare Card, which was devised by Fortescue Metals Group owner Andrew Forrest, in fact, is a variation on the Basics Card. This was initiated by the previous Labor government, which continued the Howard Liberal-National government’s “intervention” into Northern Territory indigenous communities in 2007. The Basics Card, which has now been imposed on over 25,000 welfare recipients across Australia, places between 50 and 70 percent of an individual’s welfare payments into cashless cards.

Last month, Forrest, a multi-billionaire, told Australia’s National Press Club that the Healthy Welfare Card should be expanded across Australia, declaring that a “cash-based welfare system underpins laziness and rewards bad choices.”

The Healthy Welfare and Basic cards have nothing to do resolving unemployment, poverty, substance abuse but are mechanisms for destroying the right to social welfare and another means of blaming the victims for the social ills created by government policies and the profit system.