Australia: Fair Work Commission backs mass sackings at Essential Energy

Terry Cook

The Fair Work Commission, the federal government’s industrial tribunal, last month effectively cleared the way for extensive job cuts by New South Wales state-owned electricity distribution company Essential Energy.

The job destruction is part of a drive by the NSW state Liberal-National government to slash costs throughout its electricity enterprises. This includes Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy, which are in the process of being privatised.

The tribunal decision removes prohibitions on the use of “involuntary redundancies” in the current enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA). The company will no longer be obliged to offer “voluntary redundancies” and can move directly to sackings. It can impose 600 forced redundancies by July 2018, when a cap agreement ends, and up to 1,000 more in the following year.

Essential Energy originally demanded that workers accept the immediate destruction of 800 jobs as part of negotiations in a long running dispute for a new EBA. It is also seeking to freeze wages for two years, maintain a ban on re-employing redundant workers in permanent positions within two years, halve the amount employees are paid when called in for emergencies, and reduce the wages and conditions of contractors.

In its ruling, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) admitted that the job cuts will have “significant detrimental consequences for individual Essential Energy employees, their families, and the communities in which they live.” Yet it insisted this was “an unavoidable consequence of the economic paradigm in which Essential Energy operates.” It declared that “a significant reduction in the size and cost of Essential Energy’s workforce has become inescapable.”

This openly pro-business rationale, insisting that workers must suffer to cut costs, exposes the claim by the Electrical Trade Union (ETU) and United Services Union (USU) that the FWC is an “independent industrial umpire.”

While the ETU issued a statement making some objection to the ruling, the union handed the dispute over to the tribunal and is wholly responsible for the outcome. In May, without any consultation with its members at Essential Energy, the ETU called off a scheduled 80-hour strike after the FWC granted the company’s application for a suspension of the action on the grounds of public safety.

Subsequently, the ETU asked the tribunal to order the termination of all industrial action. It knew this would trigger a 21-day compulsory arbitration period, opening the way for a deal or a court-imposed settlement.

ETU state secretary Steve Butler declared this was “the best possible outcome” because it “forces the company to sit down and negotiate in good faith.” The union could “put its case to the independent umpire who will then make a final decision.”

The FWC is no “independent umpire.” Introduced by the federal Labor government in 2009, with full support of the trade unions, the tribunal is armed with anti-strike provisions and the power to impose severe penalties on workers. It forms part of the state apparatus, which includes the courts and the police.

Under Labor’s Fair Work laws the FWC and the federal government can also terminate any industrial action deemed to “threaten to cause damage to the Australian economy” or endanger the “welfare” of any part of the population.

The ETU and USU will now insist that Essential Energy workers have no choice but to accept the job cuts, and block any attempt to oppose them.

To head off any potential action against the sackings, the ETU is now claiming that the regional-based National Party’s newly-elected state leader John Barilaro can be prevailed upon to prevent the job cuts.

In a November 23 bulletin, the ETU declared: “New Nationals leader John Barilaro will today face his first opportunity to defend regional jobs and services.” It cited a statement by Barilaro before the March 2015 state election that: “I support lower electricity prices, but I will always lead the charge in protecting local electricity jobs.”

To claim that the Nationals will oppose job cuts is to lead workers into another blind alley. As part of coalition governments, at both state and federal levels, they are slashing thousands of jobs and cutting wages and working conditions across the public service, while gutting essential social services. The state Liberal-National government is currently privatising five regional-based hospitals, at the expense of jobs and services.

No doubt the power unions will also attempt, as they did in the 2015 state election, to promote Labor as a progressive alternative. For electoral purposes, Labor cynically claimed to oppose the government’s plan to privatise the electricity distribution assets.

In reality, Labor began the sell-off before it was thrown out of office in 2011. Once the 2015 election was over, state Labor leader Luke Foley flagged support for privatisation, declaring “private and not-for-profit sectors should play a significant role in the delivery of our public services.”

The FWC decision will strengthen the government’s hand in its assault on workers at Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy, where hundreds of jobs have already been axed with assistance of the power unions. The unions have worked to prevent any unified campaign by power workers to oppose cost cutting and privatisation.

Electricity workers nationally are facing a political offensive by Labor and Liberal-National governments alike, aided at every point by the trade unions.

A stand must be taken against the escalating assault on jobs that is condemning ever-greater numbers of workers and youth to permanent unemployment. A unified struggle by workers across the entire power industry will mean a direct confrontation, not only with the government and the corporate elite, but with Labor and the trade unions, which enforce their dictates.

The defence of jobs, conditions and services requires the establishment of rank and file committees to turn out to all other sections of workers—across the steel, mining, car and engineering industries—facing the destruction of jobs and conditions. This struggle can only be based on a socialist perspective to fight for a workers’ government to reorganise society to meet social need, not private profit.

Long-time leader loses election in The Gambia

Eddie Haywood

The president of The Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, was defeated by real estate tycoon Adama Barrow in presidential elections held Friday.

Jammeh conceded late Friday night on state television, stating “I told you, Gambians, that I will not question the outcome of the results and will accept it.” In a concession call to Barrow, Jammeh stated, “Congratulations. I’m the outgoing president; you’re the incoming president.”

Masses of Gambians celebrated in the capital city Banjul on the news of the autocratic president's defeat.

The presidential elections were held under the shadow of political repression and intimidation. In the months preceding the election, several opposition figures were beaten, arrested, and detained, and international telephone and Internet services were shut down during the election poll. There were widespread reports of intimidation of the press by the Jammeh government.

In April and May, dozens of protesters were beaten and arrested, along with 51 officials of the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP), who are still awaiting trial. The UDP Organizing Secretary, Solo Sandeng, has since died in custody after being tortured. The protestors and officials are being held at the infamous Mile 2 prison near Banjul, known for repression and torture.

Nogoi Njie, the vice chairperson of the young women’s section of the UDP was arrested at the demonstration, and described in an affidavit her ordeal of being detained, beaten, and tortured at the hands of the National Intelligence Agency, the Gambian security agency responsible for scores of forced disappearances, murder, torture, and intimidation of political opponents.

The Gambia was ruled by Jammeh for more than two decades, after he came to power in 1994 in a military coup. As a commander in the Gambian army, Jammeh led a faction of the military and seized power from Dawda Jawara, the corrupt president who ruled for the three decades since The Gambia gained its independence from British colonialism in 1965.

Jammeh joined the Gambian armed forces in 1984, rising to the rank of Second Lieutenant in 1989. Just months before leading the military coup that brought him to power, he received military training at Fort McClellan in Alabama; a clear display of Washington's influence in Jammeh's rise to power.

Barrow, the candidate of the UDP and its former treasurer, is a wealthy real estate developer in The Gambia. He received a university education in London, returning to The Gambia where he was employed by the largest real estate firm in the country. Barrow was supported by all opposition parties in his bid for the presidency.

Clearly enunciating the character of his administration in calling for unity in the ruling class, Barrow displayed his cynicism in an interview with the Associated Press the day after his election win, saying, "A new Gambia is born. We want everybody on board now. This is Gambia, politics is over."

What Barrow really means to say is, ‘The ruling elite needs to continue the exploitation of The Gambia's resources, so quit the political squabbling.’

The jubilation of the masses at Barrow's election is likely to be short-lived, as he is set to take power in a country influenced by Washington which is seeking to assert American capitalism’s hegemony over the entire African continent.

The Obama administration welcomed the newly elected president in an official statement congratulating Barrow on his victory. The administration stated that it “looks forward to being a strong partner in efforts to unify the country, [and] promote inclusive economic development,” clearly a reference to maintaining the current capitalist relations Washington has with the country.

Washington has been increasingly dissatisfied with the Jammeh regime, hypocritically criticizing the autocrat on his repressive rule. In advancing its imperialist aims on the continent, Washington is keen to cultivate an image that it promotes human rights and democratic forms of rule in Africa, and regards various autocratic leaders such as Jammeh as a “stick its eye.”

The predominately Muslim nation is the smallest nation in Africa, with a population just under two million. It harbors great economic resources mainly in the agricultural sector, tourism, and its special location geographically as a center of trade in Western Africa. It also has an abundance of natural resources such as silica sand, titanium, tin, zircon, clay, and fish.

Despite this, The Gambia is one of the poorest nations on earth, ranking 175th out of 188 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index. The vast majority of Gambians subsist in farming and earn around one dollar or less per day.

Like most nations on the African continent, The Gambia is home to crippling poverty and other social ills inflicted on the masses, such as high mortality rates in child birth and diseases due to lack of spending for these basic social services. The Gambia has a high HIV prevalence rate at 2 percent, disastrous considering the country's small population. Besides HIV/AIDS--malaria, hepatitis A, typhoid, and animal contact diseases such as rabies ravage the Gambian population.

These intolerable social conditions are rooted in the class structure of the Gambia, in which a tiny corrupt elite controls the country’s economic resources and wield political power in which the great majority have little to no say.

The “scramble for Africa”, aggressively pursued by Washington to assert its geo-political and economic dominance on the continent in furtherance of control by wealthy Western business interests of Africa's economic resources guarantees massive social and political upheaval not only in The Gambia, but across all of Africa.

Polish parliament approves creation of paramilitary militia

Clara Weiss

The Polish parliament (Sejm) approved the establishment of an army for territorial defence (WOT) in mid-November made up of 53,000 personnel. The parliament thus gave the green light to a project pushed by far-right Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz.

The new military organisation will be under the direct control of the Defence Ministry. It will support the Polish army in fighting Russia in the event of war, and suppress social and political opposition domestically. Motions by the opposition that the WOT ought to be apolitical, and not be deployed against Polish citizens, were explicitly rejected by the Sejm.

Macierewicz already announced his intention to establish a militia along the lines of the American National Guard in the summer. The Sejm has now voted in favour of this by an absolute majority. By 2019, the force will be comprised of 53,000 people. The first units in the east of the country will be established before the end of the year. By 2019, the government plans to spend 3.6 billion zloty (around €800 million) on the WOT. The monthly remuneration for the militiamen will amount to around 500 zloty (€120).

Macierewicz stated in a television interview, “These units are the most effective way to expand the strength of our armed forces and its defence capabilities. It is also the best response to the dangers of a hybrid war like those we saw in the wake of Russian aggression over Crimea.”

Each of Poland’s 16 provinces is to establish a defence unit of between 3,000 and 5,000 men. The units will be recruited from volunteers, who will be given military training at the government’s expense. Most of the units will be constructed in the eastern regions of Podlachien, Lublin and Podkarpathen, which border Ukraine and Belarus. The east of Poland is the poorest and most economically backward part of the country and is comprised of large forested areas. Given the social catastrophe produced by the restoration of capitalism, fascist forces and the PiS (Law and Justice Party) have been able to transform the region into a stronghold.

The WOT mandate voted for by the Sejm is extraordinarily wide-ranging and openly orients to right-wing nationalism. It states that the WOT is responsible for “anti-crisis, anti-sabotage, anti-terrorist and anti-disinformation deployments, to defend the security of the civilian population and the cultural heritage of the Polish people.” The Defence Ministry, which will command the WOT, will have a free hand to define what amounts to a crisis, sabotage, terrorist attack or disinformation.

Politicians from the governing PiS explained to a parliamentary committee prior to the vote that the WOT had the goal of “strengthening the patriotic and Christian fundamentals of Poland and the armed forces.” The “patriotism and belief of the Polish soldiers” was “the best guarantee of our security.”

They were thereby making an appeal to far-right forces to join the WOT. Several leaders of right-wing parties and citizens’ militias have already indicated that they will encourage their members to join the WOT.

Since taking office just over a year ago, the PiS government has repeatedly strengthened far-right and anti-Semitic forces in Poland. The government has cooperated closely in this with the Catholic Church, which historically has intimate ties with fascism. Defence Minister Macierewicz, who has a fascistic and anti-Semitic past, played a central role in the promotion of far-right forces and their integration into the state apparatus.

The construction of an ultra-right militia in Poland also enjoys international support. The US think tank Atlantic Council advanced proposals in a strategic paper published in July to establish Poland as a bulwark against Russia. Among the concrete measures suggested for the military build-up were an increase in the regular army from 100,000 to 150,000 and the expansion of paramilitary forces under government control. According to the authors of the paper, the various paramilitary groups, including private ones, already comprise some 400,000 personnel.

It is significant that, according to Polityka magazine, the Krakow-based paramilitary organisation Stowarzyszenie Jednostka Strzelecka 2039 participated in NATO’s Anaconda training exercise. A number of these units now intend to join the WOT. Other right-wing and fascist organisations like Falanga and Zmiana plan to participate in the WOT.

The WOT bears similarities to the paramilitary organisations in Ukraine, which have not only fought pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country, but also taken action against opposition throughout the country within the Ukrainian population. Some of the right-wing paramilitary organisations, which played a leading role in the overthrow of Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovitch in February 2014, were trained in Poland. Similarly right-wing forces are now to be trained and established in Poland itself.

The liberal opposition has criticised the founding of the militia from a right-wing bourgeois standpoint. Considerable disquiet has been created by the fact that the militia will not be under the command of the military general staff, but rather the Defence Ministry. The deputy chair of the opposition Nowoczesna Party, Katarzyna Lubnauer, described it as Macierewicz’s “private army.”

Within the Polish army, opposition has emerged to the course pursued by Macierewicz. At the beginning of the year, several high-ranking generals resigned in protest at Macierewicz’s military reforms and agitated in the press against the government.

General Janusz Bronowicz attacked the minister and his military reforms publicly. In an interview with Polityka magazine, he warned that PiS’s policies could lead Poland to a catastrophe like 1939. Bronowicz was one of those who resigned in protest against Macierewicz’s policies earlier this year.

The liberal newspaper Newsweek Polska in a column expressed the fear that the WOT could be deployed by the Defence Ministry against the liberal opposition. This concern is not without justification. There have already been violent attacks on members of the Committee for Defence of Democracy (KOD) by right-wing radicals, which were quite openly supported and promoted by PiS.

In addition, the opposition does not want to lose its influence over the direction of the military. There remain several generals and officers in the leadership of the army who support the liberals’ domestic political programme.

But the liberal opposition has no objections to the strengthening of the armed forces against Russia and its deployment against the working class at home. Some liberal commentators even attacked the parliamentary vote from the right. Some expressed the fear that several fascist organisations seeking to join the WOT pursue an anti-American stance and advocate a closer alliance with the Kremlin.

Others argued that the money allocated would be insufficient to establish well-equipped units by 2019. Like other NATO states, the government should therefore concentrate its resources on equipping its armed forces with modern weaponry and technology, they argued.

Bogdan Klich, who was defence minister under the PO (Citizens Platform) government of Donald Tusk, complained, “The majority of NATO states are investing in an expansion of the potential of existing forces, not in the creation of a territorial defence force. The priority for investments should be the purchasing of new technologies for the waging of modern wars.”

Immigrants protest ill treatment in UK detention centres

Richard Tyler

More than 200 detainees being held in UK immigration centres staged hunger strikes in the three months from July to September this year.

The figures were obtained following a Freedom of Information request submitted by No Deportations, a voluntary group that provides information to those subject to UK immigration controls who do not want to leave the country, for whatever reason.

The Home Office, which is responsible for the detention centres, had initially refused to release the information relating to hunger strikes and suicide. An appeal by No Deportations was made to the Information Commissioner, who ruled that the Home Office had breached the Freedom of Information Act.

The highest number of hunger strikers, 66, was recorded at Brook House detention centre, near Gatwick airport. There were 35 hunger strikers logged at both Harmondsworth (close to Heathrow Airport) and Tinsley House, also near Gatwick.

One hundred nine suicide attempts were made in detention centres over the same period; 649 were placed on suicide watch—nearly 9 percent of those in detention over the period, with the highest number (106) at Brook House. The figures released record 393 attempted suicides in 2015, an increase of 11 percent over the previous year, with 2,957 placed on suicide watch that year.

Theresa Schleicher, the acting director of the charity Medical Justice, which offers independent medical advice and assessments to immigration detainees, told the Guardian the high numbers illustrated “the degree of desperation, frustration and sense of helplessness” faced by detainees.

Schleicher said that several of the hunger strikers seen by Medical Justice had “later been found to have been unlawfully detained and were found to have valid protection claims.”

As well as hunger strikes and attempted suicides, there are a large number of incidents of self-harm by those in immigration removal centres. Over the five years 2011-2015 nearly 11,000 detainees were deemed “at risk” of self-harm, with 1,435 actual incidents being logged.

Stephen Shaw, the former prisons ombudsman and author of a critical report into the welfare of immigration detainees, said, “Levels of self-harm are critical indicators of the health of any institution and the welfare of those in detention. Many detainees are extremely vulnerable and experience high levels of anxiety and depression.”

On Monday last week, a legal challenge brought by Duncan Lewis Solicitors, supported by Medical Justice, was successful in gaining a temporary suspension of the far more restrictive definition of torture introduced by the government in September, and used to keep those affected in detention.

The narrower definition, hypocritically included in a new policy titled, “Adults at risk in immigration detention,” restricted torture to that only carried out by “state authorities.”

Submissions made on behalf of five asylum seekers showed how the restrictive definition had failed to protect vulnerable detainees with a history of ill-treatment, who had been unable to meet the new definition. These included an Afghan male kidnapped and tortured by the Taliban, a Nigerian man beaten and stabbed by a gang for being homosexual, and a Vietnamese woman who was tortured twice by loan sharks for a debt owed by her parents.

At the High Court, Justice Ouseley ruled that the Home Office must revert to applying its original definition of torture, which does not distinguish between state and non-state actors. The full case will be heard in March 2017.

Speaking to the World Socialist Web Site, solicitor Lewis Kett, one of those representing the Duncan Lewis claimants, said the suspension of the restrictive definition of torture could “potentially affect hundreds of immigration detainees between now and the hearing in March, and may lead to many of the most vulnerable detainees being released.”

Commenting on the conditions facing those incarcerated while their asylum claims are evaluated, Kett said, “Detention continues to be an inhumane way of dealing with people pending their applications, especially in those cases where they have been a victim of torture, that they have mental health issues or may be trafficked.

“As a result, it’s not surprising to see hunger strikes and suicide risk in cases where people are either trying to get out of their misery or are protesting against their treatment and continued detention.”

During the court case, the Home Office announced it was reviewing the cases of 340 people identified between September 12 and November 18, who had claimed to be the victims of torture and may have been wrongly detained.

However, the numbers may be far higher, as Toufique Hossain, director of public law at Duncan Lewis, pointed out: “We know from NGO groups and other firms that there are others—given that non-state torture is a common feature in those who are traumatized.”

In August, the Home Office introduced a draft “Detention Services Order” (DSO) providing “guidance” to staff at immigration detention centres on the use of solitary confinement. Under the “Removal from Association and Temporary Confinement” rules, staff are advised that anyone being “stubborn, unmanageable or disobedient” can be placed in solitary confinement. Obliquely called “rule 40 or rule 42 accommodation,” staff can authorise this punishment for up to two weeks.

Where medical advice is that such confinement might prove life-threatening, staff are under no obligation to follow it, with the DSO stating it can be ignored as long as a note is made “clearly stating the rationale.” This can apply to those with serious mental health issues, who may be at acute risk of harm under such conditions.

Human Rights organisation Liberty said, “The use of limitless detention—unashamedly for administrative convenience and far removed from the enforcement of removal decisions—leaves a dark stain on this country’s human rights record.”

Liberty goes on to note considerable evidence suggesting that “segregation is used punitively and retributively as an arbitrary sanction for non-compliance with staff requirements.” It cites reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons finding that segregation was used at the Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre as an “unofficial sanction for non-compliance … when there is no risk of harm to staff or detainees,” contrary to the Detention Centre Rules.

In 2015, the numbers being detained, either pending a decision on their asylum application or their deportation, reached 32,466, up 7 percent over 2014.

These are people who have committed no crime, and yet they are incarcerated in squalid conditions, subject to arbitrary and inhumane treatment by their gaolers, who are often working for private companies. They represent the most oppressed and vulnerable layers of the world’s population. Many are the victims of wars, tyranny and grinding poverty, for which British imperialism bears a major responsibility.

Supreme Court Brexit hearing begins amid growing divisions in UK ruling circles

Robert Stevens

On Monday, the UK’s Supreme Court began a four-day hearing on whether the Conservative government of Prime Minister Theresa May is able to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty—to begin the process of leaving the European Union (EU)—without the consent of Parliament.

The case stems from the major constitutional and political crisis sparked by the narrow June 23 referendum vote by the population to exit the EU. It is the most significant to be heard in a British court in modern times.

The government intends to trigger Brexit by the end of March 2017, by invoking the powers of Royal Prerogative—once held by British monarchs and now reserved to the government on the advice of the prime minister and the cabinet.

The government appealed to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, to challenge last month’s High Court decision ruling that Parliament alone has the right to trigger Britain’s EU exit. The High Court case was brought by a group of claimants led by Gina Miller, a London-based investment fund manager. They argued successfully that rights conferred by Parliament when it passed the 1972 European Communities Act—paving the way for the UK to join the then European Economic Community—were threatened by Brexit. The High Court accepted their contention that a process leading to the withdrawal of these rights could therefore only be determined by Parliament.

The significance of the Supreme Court hearing was laid out prior to the case by the president of the court, Lord Neuberger. He said the assembling of 11 Supreme Court judges to hear the case was the largest panel constituted since the Law Lords were created in 1876. Cases are normally heard before just five judges, or occasionally seven. The Court’s deliberations are being live streamed on the Supreme Court web site, by the BBC and other news channels, with an estimated 300,000 expected viewers.

Representatives from the UK devolved Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland administrations are also in court as interested parties.

What is being fought out in the courts are the fundamental strategic interests of warring factions of the British ruling class—between those who favour remaining in the EU, and the minority faction, which includes the May government but not all of the ruling Conservative Parliamentary party, who favour leaving.

In the aftermath of the High Court ruling, Nigel Farage, a leading Leave campaign figure and then leader of the right-wing xenophobic UK Independence Party (UKIP), threatened to lead a march of 100,000 people through central London to the Supreme Court. Supporters of the Remain camp were preparing to hold a counter-protest. The Farage-led march was cancelled after the organisers, Leave.EU, said they feared it would be hijacked by fascist groups, including the English Defence League and British National Party.

The Leave-supporting media responded to the High Court verdict by describing the judges as “enemies of the people” and accusing them of “treachery.”

On Saturday, the Daily Mail continued its campaign by editorialising, “With only a simple majority needed for a ruling, we therefore find it disturbing that no fewer than five Supreme Court judges have publicly expressed views which appear to be sympathetic to the EU, while six have close links with people who have publicly attacked the Leave campaign.”

The Telegraph led Monday’s front page with the headline, “Don’t defy the people, judges told.” This was in reference to the Attorney General for England and Wales and Tory MP, Jeremy Wright QC, who outlined the government’s case at the beginning of Monday’s session. Wright would say that the government’s opponents were inviting the court “to stray into areas of political judgment rather than legal adjudication,” the Telegraph reported. “The Court should resist that invitation, particularly where the underlying issue is one of considerable political sensitivity.”

Tensions escalated further as the case got underway, with May’s spokeswoman saying threats by Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs to amend any Brexit bill that comes before Parliament if the government loses the case were an attempt to “frustrate the will of the British people.”

The Supreme Court began its deliberations in an extraordinarily febrile atmosphere. Neuberger was forced to warn the media they should not report the names and addresses of Miller and other claimants and their families, as there had been “threats of serious violence and unpleasant abuse” made to them online and in emails.

In his submission, Wright stated that the “foreign affairs prerogative” was not an “ancient relic,” but was essential for the “government to maintain control over strategy, policy and operational matters in conducting our bilateral or multilateral international relationships.”

If May’s government loses the case, it plans to present a mini-bill to Parliament, confirming its intention to proceed with Brexit. Presented as a “compromise”, the government—with a majority of just 13—is desperately seeking to bring its Brexit agenda back under its control. It calculates that Parliament will accept the bill and therefore hand back to the government full control of negotiations with the EU over Brexit that will last a minimum of two years. However, this outcome is unacceptable to the Remain camp, whose leading figures are seeking the reversal of the Brexit vote.

In Parliament, they are supported across party lines, by up to three-quarters of MPs. While a majority of MPs have said they will not block Article 50 being triggered, many are committed to amending any Article 50 bill in order to ensure that their pivotal aim—access for British capital to the EU’s Single Market—is achieved in the EU negotiations. Last Saturday, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn stated, “When the Article 50 debate comes up, we will put forward an amendment to it, about market access and protections. We want those to be part of the negotiations.”

The bitter divisions in ruling circles cannot be resolved through the courts. The Brexit referendum was called in 2013 by May’s predecessor, David Cameron, as a manoeuvre to stem the growing influence of the Tories’ euro-sceptic wing and to prevent a further haemorrhaging of support to UKIP. As a Leave result was never seriously contemplated, no planning was undertaken by the Cameron government for this eventuality. The Remain campaign, led by Cameron, was only ever intent on implementing the referendum if they got the result they wanted.

The working class must take an independent political stance against both equally reactionary factions of the ruling elite. The pro-Brexit forces are advancing a “Britain into the world” strategy, based on the tearing up of all regulations that hamper the unfettered ability of Britain’s corporations to reap profits. This is premised on escalating the exploitation of the working class in order to “compete internationally.” The pro-EU wing are solely concerned with access to the EU’s single market for UK banks and corporations, and the ability to compete globally as part of the world’s largest trade bloc. Both wings are equally supportive of cuts in immigration and restrictions on the freedom of movement.

This unprecedented crisis in British ruling circles gathers pace amid the ongoing fracturing of the EU. The Remain camp eulogises the EU under conditions where its austerity agenda and the accompanying destruction of living standards is being rejected by millions across the continent. Just hours before the Supreme Court hearing began, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi was forced to resign after the population rejected, in a referendum, constitutional amendments modifying electoral laws to vastly strengthen the prime minister’s powers. The EU supported Renzi’s proposals and their decisive rejection reflects deep opposition to the ruling Democratic Party government and the austerity policies enacted since the 2008 global financial crash.

Shock resignation by New Zealand Prime Minister

Tom Peters & John Braddock

Yesterday New Zealand Prime Minister John Key announced his resignation from politics after eight years in the role and a decade as leader of the National Party. He will formally step down on December 12 after the party caucus elects a new leader.

The sudden announcement appeared to come as a shock to media commentators and the political establishment, including government ministers, who were only informed of Key’s decision a few hours before his media conference. Police Minister Judith Collins told Radio LIVE that she and her cabinet colleagues were “absolutely gobsmacked.”

There was no obvious trigger for the resignation. Key was widely expected to lead the party in the 2017 election. He only offered the trite and unconvincing explanation that he wanted to spend more time with his family and was exhausted with politics.

Key supported his deputy Bill English to take over as prime minister, identifying him as best placed to maintain the government’s continuity. As finance minister, English has been the chief architect of the government’s anti-working class agenda, leading the part-privatisation of several power companies.

Collins and Health Minister Jonathan Coleman are so far the only other candidates to declare their intention to contest the leadership. Collins has pushed draconian “law and order” policies and has links with far-right bloggers. Coleman has overseen the government’s drastic underfunding of the health sector.

Under Key’s leadership, National has won the last three elections and was favoured to secure another term in office. The media have described Key as the country’s most popular leader ever. His government has been touted as a model of stability compared with neighbouring Australia, where in the past six years three prime ministers have been removed in inner-party coups.

In reality, there is seething popular hostility towards the government, with a social explosion building below the surface of daily events. National has imposed severe austerity measures, strengthened the powers of the intelligence agencies to spy on the population and supported US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Key, a multi-millionaire former trader at Wall Street bank Merrill Lynch, personifies the financial aristocracy that has profited from the global economic crisis at the expense of the working class.

The National Party has remained in power primarily due to the historic collapse in support for the opposition Labour Party, which is discredited among workers because of its support for National’s pro-business agenda and its own pro-market policies while in government. The 2011 and 2014 elections were both marked by record abstention of more than a million people—in a country with just 4.5 million people. Despite National’s sweeping attacks on living standards and public services, Labour is languishing at under 30 percent support in the polls.

The exact reasons behind Key’s resignation have yet to emerge. It takes place, however, in the context of the US election victory of Donald Trump, whose extreme right-wing nationalist and protectionist agenda has sent shockwaves through ruling circles throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Key took it upon himself to warn business leaders last month not to “get despondent” over fears of a new wave of protectionism.

Key was one of the most vocal advocates for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, which Trump vehemently opposes and, in one of his first policy pronouncements, promised to scrap. In February the New Zealand government hosted the formal signing of the agreement.

Trump will dramatically escalate the US confrontation with China. His threats to impose a 45 percent tariff on imports from China and to label Beijing a currency manipulator, if carried out, would unleash a full-blown trade war, heightening the danger of war between the two nuclear-armed powers.

While Key supports the American military build-up in Asia and has strengthened New Zealand’s alliance with the US, his government has worked assiduously to avoid alienating China, which is New Zealand’s second largest trading partner. Two-way trade with China has nearly tripled over the past decade, rising from $NZ8.2 billion in 2007 to $23 billion in 2016. Annual exports to China have quadrupled and imports doubled since 2007.

Trump’s protectionist policies could have devastating consequences for trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region. At an APEC summit in Peru on November 20, Key warned: “We really like the US being in the region. We think they are great partners, great friends and we think they add something to all the countries there. But in the end if the US is not there, that void has to be filled. And it will be filled by China.”

On November 21, in one of his final acts as prime minister, Key announced the launching of negotiations to upgrade New Zealand’s Free Trade Agreement with China. A few days later Key told a business audience in New Zealand: “Is the world going to stop trading because Donald Trump is fundamentally opposed, or do things in spite of the US?”

Key was not forced from office by any significant “opposition” from the other parliamentary parties. Labour leader Andrew Little responded to Key’s resignation by hailing his “service” in the wake of the global financial crisis and the series of New Zealand earthquakes in 2010, 2011 and 2016. He told Radio NZ Key “has been a very popular prime minister … He’s seen through some pretty difficult periods [and] … given comfort and assurance to people.”

Former Labour Party Prime Minister Helen Clark (1999-2008), now a leading figure at the UN, wrote: “He has advocated tirelessly for NZ internationally these past eight years.”

Labour’s main ally the Green Party similarly extended its “best wishes” to Key. Co-leader James Shaw stated: “Mr Key should be applauded for his commitment to public service and to New Zealand.”

For working people, the legacy of the Key government has been eight years of austerity. Key has overseen thousands of job cuts and a decline in median incomes, almost destroyed the coal mining industry, increased the goods and services tax, cut taxes for the rich and slashed spending on healthcare and welfare services. An estimated one in four children is living in poverty and 41,000 people are homeless due to the soaring cost of housing. Large parts of the country have been de-industrialised and economically shattered. Suicides have reached record levels two years in a row.

The calling of an early election is now possible. However, Key’s departure will in no way lessen the attacks on the working class and the drive towards nationalism, militarism and anti-democratic forms of rule in New Zealand. Labour and the Greens are both parties of big business and agree with National’s agenda to make workers pay for the economic crisis.

The opposition parties have attacked National from the right, joining the anti-immigrant New Zealand First Party in demanding cuts to immigration. The election of Trump has given a definite boost to NZ First, whose leader Winston Peters is demanding similar protectionist policies. Peters has also launched repeated racist attacks on Muslims and Chinese immigrants, scapegoating them for the country’s social crisis.

Whoever wins the next election, Labour or National, may well need NZ First’s support to form a government. Key, however, has repeatedly criticised Labour and the Greens for aligning themselves with NZ First and helping it to promote xenophobia and anti-immigrant policies.

India rebuffs Pakistan’s “peace” overtures

Keith Jones

India has demonstrably rebuffed Pakistan’s attempts to initiate a dialogue aimed at defusing the almost three-month-long war crisis between South Asia’s rival nuclear-armed states.

This crisis has already resulted in weeks of artillery and gunfire barrages across the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistan-held Kashmir and scores of military and civilian casualties. But Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) appear determined to continue their push to rewrite the rules of New Delhi’s relations with Islamabad, even though this entails an ever-escalating danger of triggering all-out war.

Islamabad had repeatedly signaled that it wanted New Delhi to use the visit of its de facto foreign minister to Amritsar, India for last weekend’s “Heart of Asia” (HoA) international conference on Afghanistan as the opportunity to resume high-level talks.

But India went out of its way to snub Sartaj Aziz, while using the HoA meeting to intensify its campaign to diplomatically isolate Pakistan.

Aziz was granted only a brief audience Saturday evening with Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who was standing in for India’s ailing foreign minister, Sushma Swaraj.

The Pakistan Foreign Office circulated a photo of Aziz and Doval in conversation and Radio Pakistan claimed that the two had spoken for more than 30 minutes, but this was angrily denied by India. Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Vikas Swarup “categorically” denied there had been any “pull aside or bilateral meeting” between Aziz and Doval. Earlier an unnamed Indian official accused Pakistan of “leveraging a joint, 100-foot stroll.”

Speaking to the Pakistani press, Aziz later admitted, “my so-called interaction…was not really substantial.” Doval and Jaitley “sort of welcomed my presence,” continued Aziz. “That’s all we should take notice of right now.”

Adding insult to injury, India did not allow Aziz to hold a press conference or even leave his hotel. Islamabad called this a violation of diplomatic protocol, while India cited, not very convincingly, security concerns.

At the HoA conference, India mounted a coordinated attack on Pakistan in tandem with Afghanistan, whose government has taken an increasingly antagonistic attitude toward its southeastern neighbor.

In his opening address, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi insisted that terrorism constitutes “the gravest threat to Afghanistan’s peace, stability and prosperity” and went on to denounce those in the region “who support, shelter, train and finance” terrorists—a remark that was universally interpreted as aimed at Pakistan.

Rattled by this summer’s resurgence of mass anti-Indian government protests in Indian-held Kashmir and angered by Pakistan’s attempts to use the protests to bolster its reactionary, communally based claim to Kashmir, the BJP government has been mounting a diplomatic offensive to label Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism since August.

Afghani President Ashraf Ghani was even more explicit than Modi in attacking Pakistan. He accused Pakistan of waging an “undeclared war” against Afghanistan, charging that the military campaign Islamabad has mounted since 2014 against the Taliban and allied groups in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas has been “selective,” thereby allowing the “displacement of the Pakistani extremist networks and their allies onto Afghanistan.”

Ghani further charged that Pakistan’s “undeclared war” has intensified “during 2016” and especially following the October 5, European Union-Afghan government-sponsored Brussels Conference on Afghanistan.

While denouncing Pakistan, Ghani heaped praise on its archrival India, saying New Delhi’s “impressive” support for Afghanistan was “aimed at improving people’s lives” and was “transparent and without strings attached.”

Modi and Ghani had coordinated their attack on Islamabad during the bilateral talks that they held Sunday morning, just hours before the ministerial session of the HoA conference. During those talks, India agreed to “operationalize” US $1 billion in bilateral “cooperation” aid, including for the establishment of an air cargo corridor. For decades, Pakistan has used its geographic position between the two countries to frustrate Indo-Afghan trade ties. Ghani also reportedly pressed India, which has provided training for Afghan security forces and recently gifted it four attack helicopters, for increased military hardware.

In his comments to the HoA conference, Aziz rejected Ghani’s accusations as “baseless.” He said that “to blame only one country for the recent upsurge in violence in Afghanistan”—which has seen the Taliban secure control over more of the country than any time since the 2001 US invasion—“is simplistic.”

Aziz claimed that his participation in the conference, despite the military “escalation on the Line of Control,” is “testimony to Pakistan’s unflinching commitment” to peace in Afghanistan and the region.

The statement issued by the Amritsar conference labeled a series of groups as terrorist threats to the region. Over Pakistan’s objections, India was able to place on the list two Pakistan-based groups that had, and New Delhi claims continue to have, ties to sections of Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus: the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad. In return, New Delhi had to concede Pakistan’s demand that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan or TTP also be included.

Islamabad has charged both New Delhi and Kabul with providing covert support to the TTP. As the New York Times admitted several years ago, there is definite evidence that Afghan intelligence has assisted the TTP in order to pressure Islamabad, and that this stratagem was initially supported by “rogue” elements in the US military-intelligence apparatus.

Islamabad became deeply involved in Afghanistan as a result of its frontline role in the CIA-orchestrated mujahedeen insurgency against the Soviet-backed government in Kabul. Post-1991, it sought to use the war-ravaged Afghan state to give it “strategic depth” against India, ultimately backing the Taliban in their rise to power.

Two decades on, and under conditions where India’s strategic position has been enormously strengthened by its having supplanted Pakistan as Washington’s chief South Asia ally, Islamabad is increasingly apprehensive about the growing Kabul-New Delhi axis. The joint attack Modi and Ghani mounted on Pakistan at last weekend’s conference will only have increased these fears.

So as to secure Pakistan’s logistical support for the US occupation of Afghanistan, Washington, while encouraging New Delhi’s role in Afghanistan also put definite limits on it.

But as part of a broader recalibration of its strategy in South Asia, Washington now appears prepared to give India greater latitude in Afghanistan and with Pakistan more generally.

A critical factor in the Modi government’s hardline stance against Pakistan is the encouragement it has received from Washington. The Obama administration first gave tacit and then explicit support to the illegal and highly provocative Special Forces’ commando raids India mounted inside Pakistan on Sept. 28-29 in supposed retaliation for an attack by Islamist, pro-Kashmir separatists on an Indian military base in Kashmir.

India’s “surgical strikes” were the first military action New Delhi has admitted to carrying out inside Pakistan in more than four decades. Previous governments, including that led by the BJP from 1998-2004, refrained from publicizing attacks inside Pakistan so as avoid sparking an escalating series of retaliatory actions that could rapidly end in war.

The Modi government, by contrast, is boasting that it has thrown off the “shackles of restraint” and that it is ready to keep attacking Pakistan unless and until Islamabad demonstratively bends to its demand that Pakistan cease all logistical support to the anti-Indian insurgency in Kashmir.

The US is well aware that events in South Asia could easily spin out of control, resulting in the first-ever war between nuclear-armed states. All the more so, since Modi is shamelessly using claims of India’s newly proven military prowess to whip up a foul bellicose atmosphere, calculating that this will both facilitate his government’s ramming through of unpopular pro-big business reforms and bring big electoral dividends in the coming elections in India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh.

But Washington is also anxious to demonstrate to India that there are “rewards” for the Modi government having integrated India ever more completely into the US military-strategic offensive against China, including by throwing open its military bases and ports to US warplanes and battleships.

Thus, as the war clouds grow ever thicker over South Asia, Washington is recklessly combining muted calls for New Delhi and Islamabad to show restraint with celebratory statements about the strength of Indo-US military ties. On Sunday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter boasted, “The US-India defense relationship is the closest it’s ever been. Through our strategic handshake—with America reaching west in the rebalance [i.e. Washington’s anti-China Pivot], and India reaching east in what Prime Minister Narendra Modi calls his Act East policy—our two nations are exercising together by air, land and sea like never before.”

The Muse Rebel Attacks: Dangers of Myanmar's Two-Faced Peace Process

Angshuman Choudhury

On 21 November 2016, a group of four Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) launched a joint offensive against security outposts and bridges near the border town of Muse in northern Myanmar's Shan State. The daring assault prompted a strong reaction from the Tatmadaw (Myanmar Defence Services), which launched a violent counter-assault by land and air. As of 30 November, at least 16 people had lost their lives in the fighting, 51 injured, 2600 internally displaced, and over 3000 pushed across the border into China.

 

This commentary looks at the recent episode of rebel violence and its effect in the context of the ongoing internal peace process in Myanmar.

 

The EAOs which constitute this newly-emergent ‘Northern Alliance’ are: Kachin Independence Army (KIA), Ta'ang (Palaung) National Liberational Army (TNLA), Mon National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) and Arakan Army (AA).

 

The attack comes only a year after the previous quasi-civilian government signed the Nationwide Ceasefire Accord (NCA) with eight EAOs in October 2015, and barely three months since the new civilian government led by the National League for Democracy (NLD) hosted the 21st Century Panglong Peace Conference in August 2016. Notably, while none of the Northern Alliance members have yet signed the NCA, the KIA, which called the attack "inevitable" in a statement released afterwards, attended the Panglong conference in August.

 

A Failed Strategy  

 

The Muse Township assault is not an abrupt incident, but follows more than twelve months of low-to-medium level violence between the Tatmadaw and recalcitrant EAOs in Shan and Kachin States of northern Myanmar. From the time the NCA was signed in October 2015, the Tatmadaw has launched several dozen offensives and troop incursions against the non-signatories KIA, TNLA and MNDAA. The period from February to March and then from September to October 2016 saw heavy fighting, involving heavy artillery attacks and even airstrikes against KIA and TNLA. Both EAOs, in addition to MNDAA, have accused the Tatmadaw of perpetrating violence against civilians in their respective areas and reconfiguring stable frontlines by brute force.

 

Quite evidently, the military's objective has been to degrade and demoralise the rebels, reduce their capacity to strike back, and ultimately to compel them to disarm and sign the NCA, with little bargaining power. However, the tactic of violent coercion seems to have done more harm than good.

 

Instead, the Tatmadaw's offensives have led to a new tactical grouping - the Northern Alliance - and triggered a violent response. In a statement released after the assault, a TNLA spokesperson categorically stated that the Muse operation was launched “because the Tatmadaw has continuously carried out offensives in remote ethnic areas.” Furthermore, TNLA, MNDAA and AA have decisively reversed their hitherto supportive deportment, rejecting an offer to disarm and join the Panglong process earlier this year. Even the KIA - who remained open  to consultations through most of 2015 and 2016 - is on a belligerent footing now.

 

In sum, the military’s aggressive approach has had three distinct outcomes: pushed the non-signatory EAOs to a far more hardline position than before, compelled the rebels to switch from a defensive to an offensive footing, and moved the entire frontline from the remote countryside to urban areas.

Two Peace Processes

 

The Tatmadaw’s violent war of attrition against non-compliant EAOs stands in stark contradiction to the parallel peace process spearheaded by State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi, which seeks dialogue and peaceful rapprochement. Why does Myanmar’s ‘peace process’ have two separate fronts? The answer lies in the administrative structure of the new union government.

 

The military still occupies a solid 25 per cent of seats in both houses of the Parliament and is in charge of internal security and counterinsurgency. This explains the continuity in the longstanding approach of coercion and military subversion that the previous administration relied on. This militaristic approach is perpetuated by the passive conformism of the NLD, which continues to tow the Tatmadaw's line. Expressing remorse after the Muse attacks, Suu Kyi, said that "such attacks were instigated" and urged the non-signatory EAOs to sign the NCA. She made no mention of what really instigated the attacks.

 

Two diametrically opposite prognoses of the same problem has had counterproductive outcomes and the latest attacks are testimony of this.

 

Viable Options

 

The fresh attacks could threaten the credibility of the entire Panglong peace process and the NCA mechanism. This could, in turn, widen the trust deficit between belligerent ethnic groups and the union government.

 

However, not all hope is lost. The KIA stated that operation was a “controlled/limited offensive” that “was not intended to destroy national reconciliation”.  This leaves the government with still viable openings for peaceful reconciliation.

 

If the government wishes to bring the non-compliant EAOs to the table on its own terms, it would need to offer strong political incentives that relate to the actual grievances of the groups. A violent war of attrition isn’t one. The military will also have to operate in absolute concomitance to the core objective of the peace process, which is to resolve outstanding ethno-political disputes through political dialogue.

 

Expansion of the NCA, however, remains a long shot for the government given a bare minimum of sustained peace and confidence is a prerequisite for wholesale disarmament. In such a fragile situation, the last thing that Myanmar can afford is a contradictory and dualist policy of reconciliation.

WMFE through Education Scholarship Program 2017 for Undergraduate Students in Developing Countries

Application Deadline: from 1st December 2016 to 1st April, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries; Developing Countries in Africa

Accepted Subject Areas? All fields are eligible although WMF intend to favor helping professions such as health care, social work, education, social justice, as well as, professions that help the economy and progress of the country such as computers, engineering, agriculture and business.

About Scholarship

Wells Mountain Foundation offers undergraduate scholarship to students from developing countries to study in their home country or any other developing country. The foundation’s hope is that by providing the opportunity to further one’s education, the scholarship participants will not only be able to improve their own future, but also that of their own communities. The foundation believes in the power and importance of community service and, as a result, all scholarship participants are required to volunteer for a minimum of one month a year.

Applicants are only allowed to select a university in a developing country. Applications to study in UK, USA, Europe and Australia will not be accepted

Offered Since: 2005

Type: undergraduate

Who is qualified to apply? To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, applicant must be a student, male or female, from a country in the developing world, who:

• successfully completed a secondary education, with good to excellent grades
• will be studying in their country or another country in the developing world
• plans to live and work in their own country after they graduate
• has volunteered prior to applying for this scholarship and/or is willing to volunteer while receiving the WMF scholarship
• may have some other funds available for their education, but will not be able to go to school without a scholarship
• submits a complete, legible application in English (please proof-read). Incomplete applications will not be considered.

Number of Scholarship Positions: 10 to 30 per year

What are the benefits? Maximum scholarship is $3,000 USD.

–          tuition and fees

–          books and materials

–          room rent and meals

Duration: Scholarship will be offered for the duration of the degree programme subject to satisfactory academic performance.

How to Apply

Applicants are required to submit two letters of recommendation written by someone who knows you, but is not a family member, who can tell why you deserve to receive a WMF scholarship. What qualities do you possess that will make you an excellent student, a successful graduate and a responsible citizen who will give back to his or her country? These letters of recommendation may come from a teacher, a religious leader, volunteer supervisor, or an employer.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

To learn more about the Empowerment Through Education Scholarship opportunity, please review the ETE Program Information Flyer and read the ETE Application Frequently Asked Questions Guide for 2017.

Sponsors: Wells Mountain Foundation

Important Notes:

• WMF does not require the applicant to pay an admission or processing fee or to buy a number to have the application reviewed.
• You must maintain good grades, submit a semester report and your grades each semester to WMF to maintain your sponsorship.
• A photo is required, which can also be scanned and emailed.
• You can apply before you receive your official acceptance letter, but you will not be awarded a scholarship until you are accepted. When you receive your acceptance letter, send a copy to the foundation to attach it to your application. In the subject line of the email when you send this or any additions to your application, type “application addition”.
• WMF scholarship application require an official transcript from secondary school and from any tertiary school classes you have already completed.
• The scholarship awards are determined by the Board of Directors of the Wells Mountain Foundation and awarded once a year.
• Applicants will be notified if they have been selected as a WMF Scholarship student by August 1st