Australian government unveils brutal refugee deal with the US

Max Newman

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday announced a one-off “resettlement” deal with the United States that will forcibly remove to the US some of the 2,200 refugees who have rotted since 2013 in Australia’s prison camps on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island.

At a media conference in the government’s Maritime Border Command headquarters, Turnbull declared that Australia’s naval “Operation Sovereign Borders,” which organises the interception and turn back of refugee boats, would be boosted to its highest-ever level.

In return for taking a limited number of heavily-vetted asylum seekers, the Obama administration will deport to Australia some Central American refugees currently languishing in camps in Costa Rica, having been denied entry to the US. On both sides of the Pacific, some of the world’s most vulnerable people will be denied the basic right to seek protection, while many will face permanent separation from their families.

Far from alleviating the horrors produced by Australia’s “offshore” detention regime, the new deal will see hundreds of families split up forever, with many detainees, especially single men, unable to reunite with their spouses and children in Australia. It represents an escalation of the anti-asylum seeker policies being enforced worldwide in the face of the greatest refugee crisis since World War II, and further undermines the 1951 Refugee Convention, which recognised a right to seek asylum without being punished, or deported, for doing so.

Globally, more than 60 million refugees have fled their countries, mostly because of the criminal wars launched by the US and its allies, including Australia, in the Middle East.

At the media conference, where Turnbull and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton were flanked by four military, naval, “border protection” and police chiefs, the prime minister boasted that his Liberal-National Coalition government had “put in place the largest and most capable maritime surveillance and response fleet Australia has ever deployed.”

No details of the US agreement were disclosed, but Turnbull emphasised that it would apply only to detainees who were classified as refugees under the narrow official test, and to those currently held in the camps. All those excluded—either arbitrarily denied refugee status or already “resettled” in Nauru or Papua New Guinea—will remain indefinitely in limbo.

On Manus Island there have been 675 “positive refugee determinations” out of 1,015 single male detainees; on Nauru there have been 941 out of 1,195 men, women and children. More than 800 of the officially-designated refugees have been supposedly “resettled” in Nauru or PNG. Most of them are from Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Iraq, while others are stateless.

Not one extra asylum seeker will receive protection as a result of the swap deal. Turnbull stressed that the arrangement would result in no increase in the annual US refugee quota. Nor will there be any increase in Australia’s intake as a result of the Costa Rica plan, which Turnbull initially revealed in September.

No timeframe has been placed on when the transfers will occur. Turnbull declared they would be conducted in an “orderly” fashion. This could last many months. US Homeland Security officials will screen the refugees, with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) providing a fig leaf of legitimacy to the process by selecting those to be “considered” by the US.

Some of the media commentary has focussed on whether the incoming Trump administration will honour the pact. The forced removal of refugees from Costa Rica to Australia, however, is in line with Washington’s own anti-refugee policy, under which the Obama administration has deported more than 800,000 people, including more than 40,000 children.

“Australia’s border protection policy has not changed,” Turnbull emphasised. “It is resolute, it is unequivocal.” He insisted that an essential component of the arrangement was the proposed lifetime ban on all refugees who attempted to come to Australia by boat. The government is intent on pushing that legislation through parliament by making it a precondition for the refugee swap.

To underscore the coercive nature of the plan, Dutton insisted that the Nauru detention camp would remain open “forever” and that detainees who refused to go to the US, or return to the countries they fled, would instead be handed a 20-year Nauruan visa, leaving them stranded on the tiny Pacific island without any support or aid whatsoever.

These comments come after multiple revelations of extreme abuse inflicted on those inside Australia’s refugee camps. In the past four months alone, there has been a leaked cache of over 2,000 incident reports from Nauru revealing the abuses inside; an Amnesty International report indicting the Australian government for torture of refugees; and a United Nations committee report detailing the profound mental health effects on those inside the camps, particularly children.

Despite the reactionary precedent set by the deal, numbers of refugee organisations have applauded it, claiming it will end offshore detention. Likewise, Labor Party opposition leader Bill Shorten embraced the agreement and reiterated that Labor was on a “unity ticket” with the government in relation to refugee policy. Shorten even chided the Coalition for blocking a similar plan, concocted by the Gillard Labor government in 2011, to dump asylum seekers in Malaysia.

The Greens, who posture as defenders of refugees, also welcomed the swap deal, only complaining of the lack of details. The party’s immigration spokesman, Senator Nick McKim, said: “After three years, the government has finally admitted that offshore detention is a dead-end.” This is totally false. In the course of their press conference Turnbull and Dutton made unambiguously clear that their Liberal-National government would maintain the detention regime, which was reinstituted by the former Greens-backed minority Labor government in 2013.

The plan will conveniently elevate Australia’s military presence in the region, just as Washington pushes for a more frontline role by Canberra in the US “pivot” to Asia and its confrontation with China.

No information was provided at the media conference about the scale of the “border protection” military escalation, only that Australia would have more “assets” at sea and aerial surveillance than during any “peacetime” in history. The military and police chiefs warned of the “large threat” to Australia that would be caused by small leaky boats filled with people fleeing for their lives, and said the armed forces were ready for “any contingency.”

Turnbull repeated the hypocritical claim, echoed by Labor, that permanently shutting the borders to refugees was aimed at preventing asylum seekers from dying on perilous journeys at sea. The truth is that thousands of desperate refugees are dying around the world, precisely because of the refusal of Western governments to provide them with safe passage. No doubt, this toll is continuing in the waters to Australia’s north, but being shrouded by a government-mandated blanket of military secrecy.

Successive Australia governments have used fraudulent “concerns” about “deaths at sea” as a central plank in their criminal policies aimed at deterring refugees. The most notorious example was the October 2001 SIEV X tragedy in which 353 refugees drowned in Australian-surveilled waters. Both the Howard Coalition government and the Labor opposition of the day cynically seized upon their deaths to warn other intending asylum seekers of a similar fate.

Irish ruling elite in deep crisis over Brexit

Steve James

The British decision, June 23, to leave the European Union (EU), simultaneous with damaging tax rulings, has raised broad concerns for the future of Ireland’s low-tax investment strategy and the entire basis of the Irish economy.

Brexit also raises the possible imposition of a “hard” border or passport controls between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It threatens the Common Travel Area, first agreed in 1923, under which there are 30,000 border crossings a day.

Ireland joined the European Economic Community (EEC), forerunner to the EU, on the same day as Britain in 1973, following an 83 percent majority vote the previous year. Membership allowed the Irish bourgeoisie to exploit the republic’s endemic poverty to provide a low-wage, English-speaking workforce to primarily US-owned transnational corporations seeking access to the European market. On this basis Ireland became known, prior to the 2008 meltdown of its banking sector, as the “Celtic Tiger,” with annual growth rates above 10 percent.

In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial collapse, the Irish government imposed billions of euros of austerity measures on the working class, at the behest of the EU-led “troika.” Over the same period, British and Irish membership of the European trading bloc allowed tariff free export of a large volume of Irish agricultural products to Britain. Overall trade between Ireland and Britain amounts to more than €1 billion a week.

Large European subsidies also provided a steady funding stream towards infrastructure projects, to cross border bodies and agriculture.

Both these pillars of the Irish economy are collapsing. Earlier this year, the European Commission demanded that the Irish government collect some €11 billion due in back taxes and up to a further €6 billion in interest from the US tech giant Apple. The ruling followed similar European moves against Starbucks and Amazon and expressed sharply deepening transatlantic tensions. These are likely to escalate following the election of Donald Trump as US president.

In response, last week Ireland’s Fine Gael Finance Minister Michael Noonan formally launched an appeal in defence of the right not to tax the world’s richest corporations. Noonan said he intended “to challenge the encroachment of EU state aid rules into the sovereign member state competence of taxation.”

The immediate consequence of the Brexit decision, however, is the fall in the value of the British pound against the euro. This has already caused a sharp crisis for Irish agriculture, long before the British government has taken any formal step to trigger the Article 50 EU exit process. Sterling has declined against the euro by nearly 15 percent since June 23, from €1.31 to €1.15 with a comparable increase in the price of Irish exports to Britain. Of €11 billion in food exports from the republic, some €4.4 billion is directed towards Britain; 230,000 workers are employed in the industry.

In October, two former holders of the office of Taoiseach (Irish premier), John Bruton and Bertie Ahern, gave evidence at a House of Lords select committee in Westminster. Bruton, once leader of Fine Gael, warned that Brexit threatened to disrupt the food processing industry that operates across the Northern Ireland border. Thirty percent of milk produced in the North is processed in the South, while 40 percent of chicken produced in the North is consumed in the South. Brexit will require some form of tariff reckoning on all such transactions.

According to Ahern, a senior figure in Fianna Fail, the British-based supermarket chain Tesco obtains 60 percent of its cheese and 84 percent of its chicken produce from Ireland. The Guardian reported that one in 10 of Ireland’s mushroom farmers had gone into bankruptcy post-Brexit. Representatives of the Irish meat industry warned that a post-Brexit Britain might strike a trade deal with rivals such as Brazil, which would further undercut the Irish position. A recent survey by the Dublin-based Economic and Social Research Institute reckoned that over 10 years, the impact of Brexit would cause a drop in Irish output of between 2.3 and 3.8 percent.

Around 300 attended a conference of an All-island Civic Dialogue in early November. The conference, initiated by current Taoiseach Enda Kenny to discuss the implications of the Brexit crisis, brought together employers, trade unions, non-governmental organisations and most of the major parties on both sides of the border.

The conference followed the rejection of a legal challenge against Brexit by the High Court in Belfast. Two challenges were made in separate proceedings. One was by a cross-party group of Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and another was by a citizen, Raymond McCord, whose son was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries. The basis of the challenge was a position that Northern Ireland should be able to veto any change to its constitutional position as a devolved government and the arrangements in the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement.

On October 28, a High Court judge ruled there was nothing in the Good Friday Agreement to prevent the government triggering Article 50. McCord said he would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Kenny opened the all-island conference, stating that Brexit “presents the most significant economic and social challenge of the past 50 years.” He reiterated his aspiration to avoid a “hard” border, but warned the problems this might face because “there are those around the European table that take a very poor view of the fact that Britain has decided to leave.”

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams called for some form of special status for Northern Ireland that would avoid border controls. According to Adams, the Irish government “as a continuing member of the EU, has the right, and in our view the obligation to bring forward such a proposal.”

The conference was boycotted by Northern Ireland’s Ulster Unionists, which was in favour of Remain, and the pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Northern Ireland First Minister and DUP leader Arlene Foster denounced the conference as full of “grandstanding remoaners.” A majority of the population of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU by a margin of 56 to 44. Foster complained the Irish government was exaggerating the uncertainty around Brexit to “poach” investors from the North.

Contradicting Foster, the head of the Northern Ireland Confederation of British Industry complained that Northern Ireland was particularly vulnerable because its businesses were generally quite small, and traded heavily with the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is annually in receipt of around £260 million in EU farm subsidies.

On Friday Fine Gael’s Joe McHugh, the republic’s minister for the diaspora and international development, stated his opposition to moves by Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to thwart Brexit. Sturgeon’s Scottish National Party government is opposed to Brexit on the basis that it threatens access to the EU Single Market. To this end, Sturgeon has held talks with representatives from Germany, France and other EU nations.

McHugh said talks over Brexit involving the devolved governments of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland had to take place under the auspices of Westminster. Speaking to Scottish daily the Herald, he said, “It’s a UK Government position and what I like about their approach is they’re looking to involve the devolved assemblies. I think that’s important. They’re already doing it, it’s already happening.”

Last week Sturgeon confirmed that the Scottish government is joining legal action on the side of those opposing May’s plan to trigger Article 50 by the end of March. On December 5, a Supreme Court panel of 11 senior judges will hear an appeal by May’s government to this month’s ruling by the High Court that she did not have the legal right to bypass Parliament.

French government creates illegal database on over 60 million citizens

Anthony Torres

By setting up a single database centralizing information on the entire French population behind their backs, France’s Socialist Party (PS) government is giving the state vast repressive powers. Coming amid the state of emergency, it constitutes a fundamental threat to democratic rights, in particular to opposition within the working class to austerity and war.

The database, named “Secure Electronic Titles” (TES), was decreed into existence on October 30. It centralizes the personal and bio-metric data of all holders of passports or national identity cards. It concerns over 60 million people, that is, virtually the entire French population. The official launch of the database took place last Tuesday in the Yvelines area and will be extended across France at the beginning of 2017.

The database was prepared in violation of the law, behind the backs of the population. It was first proposed in 2011 at the National Assembly, during a debate on a secure national ID card, and sharply criticized by the National Commission on Information-Processing and Liberties (CNIL). While recognizing as “legitimate the use of bio-metric information to identify a person,” the CNIL ruled that “bio-metric data must be conserved in an individualized data system.”

The new TES replaces and combines a former TES, which contained passport data, and the National Management Database (FNG), which contained ID card data. It also adds data, including a digital photo of the face, fingerprints, eye data, and physical and electronic addresses. These data are conserved for 15 years (for passports) and 20 years (for ID cards).

The TES database violates legal limits on the use of bio-metric data, moreover, since fingerprints and retina scans are indelible and can be used to remotely identify individuals, and not simply authenticate that an individual presenting himself to the state indeed is who he purports to be. In 2012, the Constitutional Council invalidated an attempt to set up a similar database, ruling that such a database would serve not only to authenticate but also to identify individuals.

Thus, by creating the TES database, the PS government of President François Hollande trampled the recommendations of the CNIL and the Constitutional Council’s veto in 2012.

Having created the TES by decree, the government will find it easy to modify its functioning to increase its powers, as was the case for the national DNA database. According to Guillaume Desgens-Pasanau, a magistrate and lecturer and the National Conservatory of Arts and Professions (CNAM), “once the database of 60 million people is there, one can easily add a search function, for instance. It is quite easy, as it is regulated via a decree and therefore does not require new legislation.”

Beyond the risk that TES data could be pirated, the police, gendarmerie, customs and the intelligence services, as well as Interpol, will have access to tools that reinforce pre-existing surveillance infrastructure.

Speaking to Agence France-Presse (AFP), CNIL President Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin described her concerns regarding the TES: “It is very clear that we are not dealing with a database whose ultimate goal is to struggle against identity theft … This large-scale mechanism raises fears that it can be used for other purposes, not today, but in the coming period.”

The attacks on democratic rights, the police-state measures, and the pervasive domestic spying set up by the Hollande administration constitute an immense danger for the working class. A government even further to the right than the PS, armed with such powerful surveillance tools, could easily go even further than Hollande in repressing workers’ opposition to austerity and war.

The creation of the TES database is part of a far broader installation of a police state by Hollande after the November 13 terror attacks, committed by Islamist networks mobilized by the NATO powers in their war for regime change in Syria.

Police repression of protests against the PS’ deeply regressive labor law, a few months after the imposition of the state of emergency, exposed the more fundamental objectives of the police state crackdown. Hollande used a vast police deployment to detain hundreds of youth, intimidate high school and university student protesters, and physically crush strikes against his anti-worker policies.

The state of emergency went hand in hand with stepped-up attacks by the PS against Muslims and immigrants, with raids on hundreds of predominantly Muslim families in working class areas.

The collection of physical information as well as data on people’s political opinions is aimed at allowing police and intelligence agencies to identify and track existing and potential opponents of state policy. The AGDREF-2 database, which contains bio-metric data, including all ten fingerprints for 7 million non-citizens residing legally or illegally in France, can also be used to identify individuals.

Given the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim statements from both official and far-right circles, such a database could serve to identify and deport via detention camps immigrants and Muslims—a possibility mooted by far-right journalist Eric Zemmour after the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

These are all indications that the TES database is part of a broad construction of a police state in France, aiming to crush working class opposition to the austerity and war policies advanced by the PS. This has been broadly discussed in the ruling class and state circles in the European Union (EU).

Writing for the EU Institute for Security Studies, Thomas Ries, the leader of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, called for the growing recourse to military means in dealing with social problems: “…the percentage of the population who were poor and frustrated would continue to be very high, the tensions between this world and the world of the rich would continue to increase, with corresponding consequences. Since we will hardly be able to overcome the origin of this problem by 2020, i.e., the functional defects of society, we will have to protect ourselves more strongly.”

This points to the deep crisis of capitalist rule, as the ruling class attacks fundamental democratic rights to confront rising social tensions and working class anger against war and social inequality.

German parliament backs extension of military operations in Iraq and Syria

Justus Leicht

With the votes of the governing coalition of the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD), the German parliament last week approved an extension of the country’s military missions in Iraq and Syria. This involves the continuing participation of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) in combat missions as part of the so-called Anti-IS Coalition with other Western countries and regional governments in the Middle East.

The motion introduced by the government permits the dispatch of up to 1,200 soldiers, reconnaissance Tornados, tanker aircraft and a naval vessel until December 31, 2017. The “mission-related additional costs” alone for the German military forces will amount to about €133.6 million.

The list of tasks is long: it includes “logistics support through aerial refuelling”; “escort and security of the naval force”; “sea and air surveillance”; “the exchange and comparison of situational information with other actors in the international anti-IS coalition”; “the carrying out of liaison, advisory and support tasks for the HQs of the multinational partners” and “ensuring the management, linking, protection and support tasks for implementing the deployment of German forces”.

German soldiers will be deployed on NATO AWACS reconnaissance missions, which fly from Turkey into international airspace over the Mediterranean to gather intelligence on the situation in the region. The planes start out from the Konya base in south Turkey. The Bundeswehr is providing about one-third of the AWACS personnel for NATO.

In total, there are currently about 500 German soldiers deployed in the anti-IS operations. Most of them are stationed at the Incirlik base in Turkey, from where they launch Tornado fighter aircraft on reconnaissance flights over Syria and Iraq, providing target data for the bombing missions carried out by the coalition. In addition, a German air tanker is used to supply Bundeswehr and allied planes. German soldiers serving aboard the frigate Augsburg are tasked with accompanying and protecting the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Mediterranean.

The size of the mission area is worth noting. “The deployment of German armed forces takes place primarily in and over the area of operations of the terrorist organization IS in Syria, on the territorial area of neighbouring countries, whose respective governments have granted permission, as well as in the Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, Red Sea and adjacent sea areas”, according to the draft parliamentary motion.

In other words, German troops are involved in a comprehensive combat and war mission in the Middle East, which is escalating the attacks on the metropolis of Mosul in Iraq and the so-called “IS-capital” Raqqa in Syria. The forces deployed have been expressly granted the right to “use military force”.

Civilians have been repeatedly killed since the beginning of the German mission. This week, the US Army admitted that at least 64 civilians had been killed in 24 coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, between November 2015 and September 2016. The real number is far higher. At the end of October, Amnesty International published a report on 11 different attacks by the US-led coalition, in which a total of about 300 civilians were killed. Other observer groups calculate that well over a thousand deaths are due to Western bombing in Syria.

Last Thursday, Amnesty International accused the Iraqi security forces of having abused and killed civilians during their offensive in Mosul. According to information from the human rights group, the incidents occurred south of Mosul. Several residents of the liberated area were tied up or beaten with cables and rifle butts before some were shot. Some bodies were found mutilated or blindfolded.

The Bundeswehr is playing an important role in the battle for Mosul. In close proximity to the front, up to 150 German soldiers are training and arming Kurdish Peshmerga units, which are advancing from the north of the city. Germany has admitted to delivering more than 2,200 tonnes of arms, ammunition and other military equipment to the Iraqi Kurds since 2014. As early as last April, Amnesty International accused the Kurdish militias of having “looted, set on fire, blown up or destroyed by bulldozers … thousands of homes”.

Niels Annen, foreign policy spokesman of the SPD parliamentary group, who campaigned for the mandate on behalf of the government in parliament, nevertheless had the chutzpah to call the German war effort a “humanitarian contribution”.

He knew “no other European country, which had acted in such a way over the recent weeks and months so that the support for the already visible consequences of this offensive ... succeeded”, he added cynically. “Even in the preparation of this operation”, Germany had “helped, [so] that refugee facilities were built and that the means were there so that liberated areas had water, that there were health care provisions and that the infrastructure was restored”.

In reality, the Bundeswehr is not building up the “infrastructure” let alone “health care provisions”, but is spreading terror and chaos. This can be seen most clearly in Afghanistan, where the Bundeswehr has been active for 15 years. On Friday, a bomb was detonated in front of the German Consulate General in Mazar-i-Sharif, killing at least six people and injuring more than a hundred. The Taliban described the attack as retaliation for an airstrike by the Western occupation forces on November 3 in Kunduz, which cost the lives of at least 30 civilians, including many women and children.

The German forces are responding with brutal counter-violence. After the attack, the Quick Reaction Force was deployed, the NATO Response Force from the Resolute Support mission, which is run from the German field camp at Marmal outside the consulate. Shortly afterwards, German soldiers shot two Afghan motorcyclists who had approached the scene of the attack and who had allegedly not stopped when warned.

Instead of pausing and halting the madness of its missions abroad, Berlin is now using the election of the new American President Donald Trump as an excuse to push forward German militarism.

In his speech to parliament, Annen appealed, “I hope that the Bundestag will make it clear that our country, the Federal Republic of Germany, with the soldiers that we have sent, and with the skills that we want to provide [ ...] is regarded as part of the coalition, that we take responsibility and—particularly in view of the election in the United States and the uncertainty that this election result has caused—that we want to be seen as a reliable partner. This is more important than ever”.

For tactical reasons, the Greens and Left Party voted against the motion, but agree with the call for a more independent German foreign and military policy. For example, on election night, the Left Party representative in the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, Stefan Liebich, cheered the prospect of a more aggressive German great power politics.

Germany and Europe must “act more strongly, more independently, more self-assuredly in future foreign policy”, said Liebich. The times in which we oriented ourselves to the US were now over. “The task now is to strengthen European foreign and security policy. ... We will in future say a louder and clearer No to what Washington wants. It’s now time to end the pussyfooting”.

This does not prevent the Left Party, when necessary, from working closely with the United States to enforce the economic and geo-strategic interests of Germany in the Middle East. On Friday, the pro-Left Party newspaper Neues Deutschland published a propaganda interview with the Peshmerga Brigadier General Hazhar Omar Ismail, “the first US-trained Kurdish military cadre”. In 2013, he “graduated from the Pennsylvania Military College”, notes the paper. Now he is closely coordinating the offensive against Mosul with the Western powers.

Trump victory batters emerging markets

Nick Beams

Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election lifted American stock markets on the back of the belief that financial deregulation and possible increased infrastructure and military spending could provide a profit boost. But it was a different story in “emerging” markets, where currency values have fallen and funds have been withdrawn.

According to the Institute for International Finance, emerging market stocks and bonds experienced a $2.4 billion outflow in the past week, most of it after the election.

Last Thursday, the iShares Emerging Markets’ exchanges traded fund suffered its worst single day of outflow since 2011, with more than $1.5 billion in withdrawals.

Latin America was particularly hard hit. Currencies fell sharply, led by a 12 percent decline in the value of the Mexican peso since the election, hitting a record low on Friday. The Brazilian real fell by 5.2 percent against the dollar on Thursday—its biggest single-day drop in five years.

The declines were not confined to that continent. The South African rand was down about 6 percent for the week. Indonesian stock markets fell 4 percent on Friday and the rupiah dropped by 2.7 percent, prompting an intervention by the country’s central bank.

Emerging market bond funds suffered their first outflow in four months and JPMorgan’s emerging market currency index experienced its worst week in three years. According to one financial analyst quoted by the Financial Times: “In just two days, half of the last six months’ gains have been given back.”

Asian bond markets were hit by a sell-off. Yields on 10-year government debt rose sharply in South Korea and Thailand. As with all fixed income debt, yields rise as the price of bonds falls. The yield on 10-year South African bonds rose to 9 percent, its highest level since September.

Several factors are driving the emerging market downturn. There is concern that Trump’s protectionist “America first” policies will have a significant impact on global supply chains. These fears are also reflected in US stock markets. The stocks of tech-based companies, which depend on cheap-labour countries for their business models, did not join last week’s rise on Wall Street.

Another major factor is the sharp rise in US bond yields which followed the Trump victory on the expectation that any infrastructure spending program, coupled with major tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, will increase US government debt. The yield on 10 year-treasury bonds, considered to be a global benchmark, rose by 37 basis points (0.37 percentage points) last week to finish at 2.15 percent, the first time it has gone over 2 percent since the beginning of the year.

The prospect of higher yields in the US is attracting funds from emerging markets. According to Ashely Perrott, head of pan-Asia fixed income at UBS Asset Management in Singapore: “If [US] treasury yields continue to march higher, that will put pressure on emerging markets. What you think is an opportunity initially might turn into a regret.”

Rapid movements of funds out of emerging market debt back to the US could have major global ramifications. The Japanese financial firm Nomura noted that a move “meaningfully above” 2.25 percent in US 10-year treasuries in the short run “could result in a significant redemption flow… potentially triggering a broader risk-off event.” In other words, major outflows could bring about a rush for the exits, leading to global financial turbulence.

The International Monetary Fund has reported that world debt now stands at a record $152 trillion and warned that high debt levels in emerging markets could make them vulnerable to a reversal of capital flows.

No one has any clear idea of what specific measures a Trump administration will implement and whether they will get through the US Congress. But any policies that increase fiscal spending, at least in the short term, are likely to bring about higher inflation and will increase pressure on the US Federal Reserve to lift interest rates.

Whatever the medium-term outlook, there is a growing expectation that the US Fed will raise its base rate by 0.25 percent when it next meets in December.

That prospect appears to have strengthened on the back of remarks by Fed vice-chairman Stanley Fischer. Addressing a conference convened by the central bank of Chile, he said the Fed appeared to be reasonably close to achieving its objectives on inflation and employment and “the case for removing accommodation gradually is quite strong.”

Rising interest rates in the US will in turn bring about a stronger US dollar and a further fall in emerging market currency values, with consequences for emerging market dollar-denominated debt because the real value of that debt rises with every increase in the dollar. There was significant financial turbulence in January and February when the Fed raised rates by 0.25 percent last December, with global equity markets experiencing one of their worst starts to the year on record.

In the longer term, as the Financial Times noted, there is considerable scope for further rises in yield because outstanding US debts are twice what they were relative to gross domestic product when Reagan came to power in 1980s. Much of that increase has occurred in the recent period, with US debt almost doubling to $14 trillion since the global financial crisis of 2008.

The other longer-term factor that will impact not only on emerging markets but the world economy as a whole is the “America first” nationalism that forms the core of the Trump economic agenda.

In a research note on the impact of Trump’s policies, the US bank Citigroup said that while they might provide a short-term boost for the US economy, they could set off a disastrous global trade war.

“A US-led trade war is a material downside risk for the global economy, which could easily trigger a global recession. In our view, the election outcome significantly increases the risks around the global macroeconomic outlook, including for inflation, and future Fed policy,” it said.

Managing Differences is the Key to Sino-India Relations

Siwei Liu

Close on the heels of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to Hangzhou, China for the G20 meeting last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping made his second India visit to participate at the Brazil Russia India China and South Africa (BRICS) Summit on 15-16 October 2016 in New Delhi. There is no doubt that the frequent interactions between the top leaders of both countries are helpful for the current Sino-Indian relations that have experienced setbacks in the past years. At the same time, differences on some key issues have disrupted the smooth development of bilateral ties. It is time for China and India to adopt an inclusive approach for managing their differences, with them being the two biggest powers in Asia. This also means that the two sides should show greater mutual respect and pursue a win-win cooperation to avoid the Thucydides Trap.

Athough evidently there is no reason for making an over-pessimistic assessment on current China-India ties, there still remain major differences and disagreements between the two countries. Indian policy-makers and strategic analysts repeatedly state that China does not take care of India's interests on some issues, including India’s entry into the NSG and India’s efforts to get the United Nations to impose sanctions on anti-India terror groups based in Pakistan. India has also been opposed to the Chinese-initiated China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) arguing that the corridor passes though the disputed region of Kashmir. The extension of India’s strategic frontier to the western Pacific Ocean along the lines of its Act East policy, and its security relationships with Japan and the US, cause concerns to the Chinese strategic community. China has also been closely watching the Indian stance on the South China Sea issue; upto now India has had an unclear policy on this issue. 

Thankfully, the two sides have channels of communication and opportunities for interaction both at the multilateral level and at the bilateral level. In recent years, the two sides have recognised the importance of using some of the multilateral mechanisms to enhance bilateral dialogues and negotiations, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the G20 and the BRICS summit. In addition to these, a number of new bilateral mechanisms have also been established, including a ministerial-level mechanism to tackle terror, a working mechanism for consultation and coordination on border affairs, and so on. The two sides also held the first round of dialogue on maritime cooperation this year. There is no denying that these mechanisms provide a good platform for the two nations to discuss each other’s positions, expectations and interests. 

Exploring and creating channels of communication is only the first step for achieving positive ties. The next and the more important step should involve the two sides thinking deeply on how to manage their differences and address the divergence of interests between the two countries. China and India should avoid a zero-sum approach to manage their differences; adopting a comprehensive approach is the best choice. 

How can the two sides push the bilateral ties forward? First, fostering an inclusive environment and restoring some positive energy for the current bilateral ties is very important. This understanding will have to be reflected in the national discourse and national institutions; for instance, bilateral ties are not only impacted by realistic national interests, but also by the behaviour and speeches of national leaders, diplomats, public intellectuals, etc. China and India should encourage related people, institutions and media to use a positive discourse to describe the developments in bilateral ties and make the relationship appear valuable and friendly. 

Second, an all-encompassing approach requires taking some effective steps to respect the other’s core interests and values. If possible, the two sides should have more frank exchanges and a express each others interests and concerns more clearly, particularly on its national security stance. In addition, the two sides should believe that any side’s friendly behaviour in bilateral ties possibly could motivate the other side to think actively about their own behaviour. For instance, India could avoid exerting pressure on China on the South China Sea issue - an area of Chinese core national and strategic interest - and if possible India could even try to ease the tension in the region. Similarly, China could cooperate with India on counterterrorism, nuclear safety and maritime security governance, among other areas. 

Third, a broader vision is required in both countries to manage the China and India relations. Besides their bilateral issues, China and India should also think about the effective management of regional and global affairs. As the overall national strength of both nations rises and as their strategic frontiers expand, there is greater scope for clash of interests and disagreements, especially at the regional level. Therefore, both sides need to recognize their responsibility to pursue an inclusive economic development and security cooperation for a stable and prosperous Asia. One of the ways to do this is by joining hands to provide public goods at the global and regional platform.

Leadership and Advocacy for Women in Africa (LAWA) Fellowship Programme 2017/2018

Application Deadline: Friday, 13th January, 2017

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Over 80 women’s human rights advocates from Botswana, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe have participated in the LAWA Program, and we hope to include Fellows from additional countries in the future.

To be Taken at (Country): Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., USA

About the Award: The Leadership and Advocacy for Women in Africa (LAWA) Fellowship Program was founded in 1993 at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., in order to train women’s human rights lawyers from Africa who are committed to returning home to their countries in order to advance the status of women and girls in their own countries throughout their careers.

Type: Fellowship, Masters

Value of Fellowship: The LAWA Fellowship provides the tuition for the Foundations of American Law and Legal Education Course (a U.S. $2,200 benefit) and for the LL.M. degree (a U.S. $46,865 benefit) at the Georgetown University Law Center, as well as professional development training. Candidates who are admitted to the LAWA Program must be prepared to cover the costs of all additional expenses (such as their visas, travel, housing, utilities, food, clothing, health insurance, books, etc.), and must be able to demonstrate to the U.S. Embassy for visa purposes that they have the funds available to cover those expenses (approximately $28,000).

Duration of Fellowship: The entire LAWA Fellowship Program is approximately 14 months long (from July of the first year through August of the following year), after which the LAWA Fellows return home to continue advocating for women’s rights in their own countries. The LAWA Program starts in July, when the Fellows attend the Georgetown Law Center’s Foundations of American Law and Legal Education course. From August through May, the LAWA Fellows earn a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree at Georgetown with an emphasis on international women’s human rights and complete a major graduate paper on a significant women’s rights issue in their home countries. After graduation, the LAWA Fellows then have an opportunity to engage in challenging work assignments for several months at various public interest organizations to learn about different advocacy strategies to advance women’s human rights, before returning home to continue advancing women’s human rights in their own countries.

Upon completion of their Program, LAWA Alumnae have returned home to assume prominent leadership positions enabling them to focus on women’s rights issues in non-governmental organizations, government agencies, law schools, courts, legislatures, and private firms.

More Fellowship Guideline: LAWA Alumnae have formed their own non-governmental organizations, such as the Women’s Legal Assistance Center in Tanzania and Legal Advocacy for Women in Uganda (LAW-Uganda) to promote women’s human rights in their countries (e.g., by bringing impact litigation under their countries’ statutes, constitutions, and the human rights treaties that their countries have ratified).

How to Apply: The 2017-2018 LAWA Fellowship application is available here.

For more details about this fellowship programme, visit fellowship webpage

105 Developing Solutions Masters Scholarships in UK for African and Commonwealth Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 24th March 2017 (12 midday UK time)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries in Africa and the Commonwealth (See list of countries below)

To be taken at (country): University of Nottingham UK

Eligible Fields of Study

• Faculty of Engineering,
• Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,
• Faculty of Science,
• Faculty of Social Science

About Scholarship: Founded in 2001, Developing Solutions is The University of Nottingham’s flagship international scholarship programme for  postgraduate masters courses.

Type: Masters degree

Eligibility: You can apply for the Developing Solutions scholarship if you:

• are a national of (or permanently domiciled in) Africa, India or one of the countries of the Commonwealth listed below AND
• are classed as an overseas student for fee purposes AND
• have not already studied outside of your home country AND
• are not currently studying at a University of Nottingham campus or are not a University of Nottingham graduate AND
• already hold an offer to start a full-time masters degree programme, including MRes, at Nottingham for September 2017 in an area of study within the:
  • Faculty of Engineering,
  • Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,
  • Faculty of Science,
  • Faculty of Social Science
• Priority is given to candidates who have not previously studied outside of their home country. Students currently studying in the UK are not eligible to apply.

Number of Scholarships: 105 Developing Solutions scholarships available for 2017 entry:

• 30 x 100% tuition fee
• 75 x 50% of tuition fees 

Value of Scholarship: 100% tuition fee and 50% tuition fee

Duration of Scholarship: For the one year masters program

Eligible Countries: Nationals of (or permanently domiciled in) Africa, India or one of the countries of the Commonwealth listed below:

Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Montserrat, Nauru, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn, St Helena, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa.

How to Apply: You’ll need to first apply for admission for Masters degree and be registered as a full-time student at the university. It is important to go through the Application requirements before applying.

Scroll down the page and click on View guidance on completing your online application and apply 

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details.

Scholarship Providers: The University of Nottingham

Important to Note: Application for admission to study at Nottingham should be received at least six weeks before the scholarship closing date to allow time for our Admissions office to process the application and confirm your offer, before you can apply for the scholarship. Any application for admission to study submitted later than six weeks before the scholarship closing date is not guaranteed to be processed in time.

A Call for Resistance in Dark Times

Henry A. Giroux

Americans have now entered into one of the most sickening and dangerous periods of the 21st century. Trump is not only a twisted caricature of every register of economic, political, educational, and social fundamentalism, he is the apogee of a warrior culture committed to rolling back civil rights, women’s reproductive rights, and all vestiges of economic justice and democracy.

Trump is the fascist shadow that has been lurking in the dark since Nixon’s Southern Strategy. It has now come into the light knowing full well that it no longer has to code or apologize for its hatred of all those who do not fit its white-supramicist and ultra-nationalistic script.

In light of the country tipping over into authoritarianism, we have learned is that liberalism with its third way economic and political polices is dead, nothing more than an ugly corpse decomposing on the national landscape. Its commitment to neoliberalism and the financial elite has helped to usher America into the dark night of authoritarianism.

We have also learned that the economic crisis and the misery it has spurned has not been matched by an ideological crisis, a crisis of ideas, education, and values. In part, that is because the left and progressives have not taken education seriously enough as central to the meaning of politics. Without an informed public, there is no resistance in the name of democracy and justice.

Of course, power is never entirely on the side of domination, and in this coming era of acute repression, we will have to redefine politics, reclaim the struggle to educate, change individual and collective consciousness, engage in meaningful dialogue with people left out of the political landscape, and build broad based social movements. There are hints of this happening among youth of color and we need to be attentive to these struggles.

This is a time to both talk back and fight back. It will not be easy but it can happen and there are historical precedents for this. The main vehicle of change and political agency has to be young people. They are the beacon of the future and we have to both learn from them, support them, contribute where possible, and join in their struggles.

The lights are going out and the time to wake up from this nightmare is today. Forget depression, look ahead, get energized, read, build alternative public spheres, become guerrilla fighters. There are no guarantees in politics, but there is no politics that matters without hope, that is, educated hope.

Diplomatic row erupts between Sri Lanka and China

W.A. Sunil 

The Sri Lankan foreign ministry on Monday voiced its “displeasure” about comments made early this month by Chinese ambassador Yi Xianliang on Chinese financial assistance to Sri Lanka. The diplomatic row underscores the continuing strained relations between Sri Lanka and China since the pro-US President Maithripala Sirisena was installed in office in January 2015.

Yi’s comments were made in response to a reporter’s question at a November 1 press conference held during a seminar at the Chinese embassy. The ambassador was asked clarify “what they [the Sri Lankan government] call ‘expensive loans’ from China that were taken out by the previous regime [of President Mahinda Rajapaske].”

Yi said some Sri Lankan ministers and the media had spoken about “expensive loans” from China. He commented: “I talked with Ravi [Karunanayake], the minister of finance. Ravi criticised this many times publicly. I asked him, if you don’t like this one [loans from China] why have you spoken to me about getting another one?”

The ambassador explained that the interest rate for loans from China’s Exim Bank was 2 percent for friendly countries. He asked why this was considered expensive, when the rate for commercial loans from Europe was 5 percent.

Yi said claims that China’s loans were expensive were “really unfair.” He added: “The Sri Lankan people and the government should have a more thankful attitude towards China. For a long time, we have supported and assisted Sri Lanka in international forums and bilateral business fields.”

Yi also voiced his concerns over the slow progress of China-funded projects in Sri Lanka. He stated: “I do believe that political in-fighting should not be linked to Chinese assistance.”

Sri Lankan Finance Minister Karunanayake angrily opposed the ambassador’s comments, telling the media: “I cannot imagine that the envoy of a friendly country thought it fit to make those remarks.” He declared that he was “Sri Lanka’s finance minister and not China’s.” The Colombo media reported that an unnamed senior Sri Lankan foreign ministry official had said the ambassador’s statements were “highly unprofessional.”

The Chinese foreign ministry responded by defending the ambassador. Foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the ambassador had only “clarified some misunderstandings and misleading remarks regarding China-Sri Lanka cooperation at a seminar.”

On Monday, Sri Lankan foreign secretary Esala Weerakoon telephoned Yi to express the government’s concerns. Weerakoon later issued a statement declaring that he told Yi “it is not necessary for the ambassador to communicate his concerns through the media.”

While Karunanayake and the foreign ministry condemned the Chinese ambassador, senior Sri Lankan officials and members of parliament routinely criticise loans awarded to the government of former President Mahinda Rajapakse. These sorts of denunciations, along with allegations of corruption directed against Rajapakse, were commonplace during last year’s presidential election campaign.

In fact, the criticism of Chinese investments was an integral component of the US-led regime-change operation to oust Rajapakse and install Sirisena as Sri Lankan president.

Washington was hostile to Rajapakse’s close relations with Beijing, which cut across the US “pivot to Asia”—the aggressive economic and military effort to subordinate China to its geo-strategic interests—and wanted him removed and replaced with a pro-US regime. India, a rival of China and its influence in other South Asian countries, backed Washington’s campaign.

After coming to power, the Sirisena-led government suspended all Chinese-funded development projects, including the $US1.4 billion Colombo Port City Project. Beijing regarded the port plan as a key part of its Maritime Silk Route initiative, linking China’s sea routes in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea with West Asia and Africa. The cash-strapped Colombo government over the past months, however, has been making overtures to Beijing for new funding.

Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe visited China separately twice this year, hoping to mend strained relations. Both leaders met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, signed economic agreements and invited investors. Both countries agreed to sign a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in March next year. China is still Sri Lanka’s top donor and investor, with $409 million a year in direct investments.

Colombo eventually removed restrictions on the Port City Project, while amending clauses that promised to grant a portion of reclaimed land freely to the Chinese construction company. Beijing agreed to convert part of Sri Lanka’s debts to equity, buying the Chinese-funded Hambantota sea port and Mattala airport in Sri Lanka’s south. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe regime also agreed to provide 15,000 acres, near Hambantota, for a special economic zone for Chinese companies.

While economic relationships between two countries have strengthened in recent months, diplomatic strains are intensifying as the Sri Lankan government steps up its involvement in the US and Indian efforts to isolate China.

Senior officials from the Obama administration, including Secretary of State John Kerry and US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, visited Sri Lanka, hailing the new regime in Colombo. US Pacific Command (PACOM) officials also visited and new military training programs were put in place.

In August, the first Operational Level Bilateral Defence Dialogue was held between a PACOM delegation and Sri Lankan security forces at Sri Lanka’s navy headquarters. According to reports, the discussion was held to “develop military engagements for the next three years, from 2016” and continue training and other exercises involving the armed forces of both countries.

A group of members of parliament, known as the Joint Opposition (JO) and led by former President Rajapakse, is seeking to gain political advantage from the current diplomatic differences. The MPs, who are campaigning to topple the government, praised Yi’s criticisms, declaring that China had “set the record straight.”

The growing US military presence in Sri Lanka and in Indian waters is part of Washington’s military preparations against China. Beijing clearly regards this as a threat to its interests in the region.

Australian government pushes ahead with lifetime refugee ban

Max Newman

Legislation to impose a lifetime ban on any refugees even visiting Australia passed the House of Representatives, parliament’s lower house, last Thursday. The Liberal-National government remains determined to get the bill through the Senate despite widespread public opposition to its blatant violation of international law.

The bill bars any adult refugees detained in Australia’s “offshore” camps on Nauru or Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island since July 2013—contemptuously described as the “regional processing cohort”—from ever applying for any Australian visa. In order to punish them for trying to seek protection in Australia, they will be stopped from ever entering the country, even to visit their children or other family members.

This denial of basic legal and democratic rights flagrantly violates one of the core provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits signatory countries from penalising or discriminating against asylum seekers, regardless of whether they arrive by means declared “illegal” by that country’s laws.

The legislation also gives the immigration minister an arbitrary power to lift the ban on selected individuals or classifications of refugees—in the supposed “public interest”—opening the way for political, economic and social discrimination. The lawless character of that power is underscored by decreeing that the minister has no compellable “duty” to consider exempting anyone from the lifetime ban.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government is intent on proceeding with the bill despite condemnation by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In a short statement last week, Thomas Albrecht, the UNHCR regional representative described the proposed legislation as “deeply concerning.”

“Seeking asylum is not ‘illegal,’” Albrecht stated. “Refugees need and deserve protection and respect. The basic human right of every person to seek asylum from persecution is not diminished by their mode of arrival. Those forced to flee persecution need and deserve conducive conditions of protection, and a sustainable long-term solution.”

According to media reports, the government is hoping to soon finalise a deal with the outgoing Obama administration to swap about 1,800 Nauru and Manus detainees for a similar number of Central American refugees who have been blocked from entering the United States.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said the bill must be passed to ensure that any swap does not permit the detainees to eventually enter Australia. “What we don’t want is if somebody is to go to a third country that they apply for a tourist visa or some other way to circumvent what the government’s policy is by coming back to Australia from that third country,” he stated.

Any such deal would therefore be based on punishing refugees, barring them permanently from reunifying with family and friends, and overturning the basic democratic right to choose where to live.

Faced with deep popular disgust toward the legislation, the opposition Labor Party cynically decided last Tuesday to vote against it, while emphasising its bipartisan agreement on the basic anti-asylum seeker policy and its readiness to embrace a reactionary swap deal.

Labor leader Bill Shorten said his party maintained a “unity ticket” with the government on stopping any asylum seekers from ever settling in Australia. Shorten said the “unity ticket” did not extend, however, to a “lifetime ban on tourists.”

In essence, Labor has made a tactical shift to head off public outrage, while propping up the underlying framework of militarily repelling refugee boats and indefinitely detaining any asylum seekers who manage to arrive.

In fact, it was the previous Labor government that reopened the brutal Nauru and Manus camps in 2012, accompanied by a lifetime ban on detainees living in Australia. Under that policy, detainees would also be incarcerated for many years—as long as refugees languished in camps in the Middle East and elsewhere—to remove any “incentive” for asylum seekers to try to reach Australia by boat.

As a result of Labor’s latest tactical ploy, and the earlier stated opposition of the Greens to the bill, the government needs the support of eight of the ten other remaining senators (“cross­benchers”) for the legislation to pass the Senate.

The depth of the popular sentiment, however, has also provoked a rift in Senator Nick Xenophon’s team, which holds three Senate seats. Xenophon, a right-wing nationalist, has said he cannot guarantee the support of his two Senate colleagues for the bill.

This situation reflects the wider precariousness of the government, which only holds 30 of the 76 Senate seats and just a one-seat majority in the lower house.

The Greens welcomed Labor’s hypocritical stance, with their immigration spokesman Senator Nick McKim calling it a “crawl towards a more compassionate approach to refugees.” He said it was “time for Labor to add some vertebrae to their newly formed spine and reject offshore detention and boat turnbacks.”

McKim’s statement only serves to whitewash Labor’s record, and the role of the Greens themselves in ensuring the parliamentary survival of the last minority Labor government, from 2010 to 2013, as it imposed the total ban on refugee settlement.

The Labor Party does indeed have a “spine” when it comes to refugees. It has been a world leader in introducing anti-asylum legislation. In 1992, the Keating Labor government imposed mandatory detention of all asylum seekers, setting a global precedent. And it was the last Greens-backed Labor government that initiated the practice, which the Coalition government continues today, of forcibly returning Sri Lankan asylum seekers to face possible torture, imprisonment and death.

Labor’s face-saving stance was also heralded as a step forward by the Refugee Action Coalition (RAC), whose spokesman Ian Rintoul is a member of the pseudo-left state-capitalist group Solidarity. The RAC said: “Labor’s stance makes it almost certain that Turnbull’s bill will be defeated. It is a welcome first sign that the days of bipartisan support for offshore detention are ending.”

This claim seeks to sow deadly illusions in Labor, and to divert the opposition of broad layers of working, professional and young people back into the hands of the parliamentary establishment.

Meanwhile, with Labor’s full support, unknown numbers of refugee boats are being intercepted at sea by the navy and either turned around with barely enough supplies to reach land or their passengers are transported back illegally to their country of origin. All this is being done behind the backs of the Australian population, under the cover of military secrecy.

The number of people trying to flee to Australia, and other countries, will only grow as the global refugee crisis deepens, driven by the escalation of violence and war across the Middle East by the US and its allies, including Australia.