10 Jul 2017

MJ Bear International Fellowship (Fully-funded) for Early-Career Journalists 2017

Application Deadline: 20th July 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: United States or Canada and International
About the Award: Each year, ONA recognizes three fellows— two in the United States or Canada and one international. The fellows are up-and-coming journalists who are just beginning to make their voices heard in the industry and working to expand the boundaries of digital news.
Fellows are focused on developing a digital project, which might include experiments in social media, a unique approach to news coverage, creative data visualizations or other digital approaches. Through the course of the one-year fellowship, these early-career journalists receive guidance from industry leaders and opportunities to share their work with the digital journalism community.
The fellowship is designed for up-and-coming journalists between the ages of 23 and 30 who are just beginning to make their voices heard in the industry and who are working to expand the boundaries of digital news through ongoing creative and innovative projects. Fellows can be working inside or outside the newsroom, and we encourage freelance and independent journalists to apply.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • The fellowship is open to working journalists under 30 who are leading a digital journalism project.
  • Applicants can be working either for a company or organization or be self-employed.
  • ONA encourages freelancers and journalists from diverse backgrounds to apply.
  • Applicants in 2017 must be born between Oct. 6, 1987 and Oct. 5, 1994.
  • Full-time students are not eligible for this fellowship.
Number of Awards: 3
Value of Award: The fellowship is designed to provide support and guidance to fellows on both their projects and their own professional development.
Each Fellowship provides:
  • Three online workshop sessions with a Personal Advisory Board.
  • Registration, travel and accommodations for the Online News Association Conference & Awards Banquet
  • Recognition at the ONA conference
  • ONA membership, with three years’ dues paid in full
Duration of Program: 1 year
  • Fellows announced: end of August
  • ONA Conference: Oct. 5-7, 2017
How to Apply:  The application has five parts. Applications and all submitted materials must be in English.
Award Providers: Online News Association

University of Laval Masters Scholarship for African and European Students 2018/2019: Canada

Application Deadline: 
Admission for winter 2018: 15th September, 2017 (Annual)
Offered Annually: Yes
Eligible Countries: Students from Africa or European country (other than France)
To be taken at (country): University of Laval, Canada
Eligible Field of Study: Scholarships are awarded within the Faculty of Law, Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies,. Faculty of Forestry, Geography and Geomatics, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Faculty of Music, Faculty of Pharmacy, Faculty of Philosophy, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Faculty of Nursing, Faculty of Social Sciences and Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies.
About the Award: The purpose of this program is to promote academic excellence by offering scholarships to foreign students who are citizens of an African or European country (other than France*) and are admitted to a master’s program at Université Laval.
This scholarship of $7,000 per year is renewable once, subject to compliance with the faculty’s criteria of excellence and upon the research director’s recommendation and faculty approval.
Type: Masters
Eligibility:
  • At the deadline indicated below, must have submitted a complete application package* at Université Laval in an eligible first master’s program and have been accepted in this program.
  • You are a foreign student who is a citizen of an African or European country other than France.
  • You graduated from a public university accredited by the ministry of higher education in your country of origin. For private institutions, eligibility is determined when the file is reviewed.
  • You are registered full time for the two first semesters in the program of study for which the scholarship was granted (winter 2015 and summer 2015)
Number of scholarships: Participating faculties can determine a fixed number of scholarships to be awarded.
Value of Scholarship: $7,000 per year
Duration of Scholarship: Renewable once

How to Apply: There is no form to complete for master’s level scholarships. Recipients are selected using information from admission applications received by Université Laval. To be considered, candidates must submit a complete application for admission to the University no later than the deadline of the target semester (see application deadlines above).
Visit scholarship webpage for details to apply
Provider: University of Laval, Canada
Important Notes: Please refer to the person in charge of this program at your faculty to get more information.

Finally, Brighter Days Ahead for Hong Kong

THOMAS HON WING POLIN

Many Hong Kongers have long lamented the seemingly intractable problems plaguing their hometown. The difficulties range from relentless political disruption by anti-Beijing forces to an identity crisis and a growing rich-poor gap, exacerbated by a stalled economy. Yet even pessimists are sensing, with growing conviction, that the misfortunes of China’s leading Special Administrative Region (SAR) may be approaching a turning point.
There are two main factors, one political and one economic. The “Occupy Central” movement of 2014 and Mongkok riots of 2016 may have alienated Hong Kong’s ever-patient silent majority so deeply that the public appetite for the destructive negativity of local pan “democrats” (whose proper designation should be “pan anti-Communists”) has been blunted by indigestion. These faux-democrats have been notably, almost eerily, quiet since the Mongkok violence. The annual July 1 anti-Beijing, anti-HK SAR protest march, a flagship event for them, drew a mere 20,000 participants. That fell far short of the organizers’ expected 100,000 — and was the lowest number ever. When young political hothead Joshua Wong tried to mobilize an “occupation” of symbolic Golden Bauhinia Square a couple of days before, only a handful of protesters showed up. Police took them away without incident.
Also, signs are that Beijing and the new HK government under Chief Executive Carrie Lam will finally act to curb the virtually unchecked depredations of the anti-Communists, which have done so much harm to the territory since its reunification with the mainland two decades ago. During that time, the generous protections of the SAR’s “One Country, Two Systems” dispensation provided cover for their toxic activities, bordering on subversion.
Xi Jinping, in town for his first visit as China’s leader, declared with unprecedented explicitness that “One Country” would take precedence over “Two Systems.” As the chief editor of the top local English daily South China Morning Post notes: “The message comes right from the top and Hong Kong has heard it straight from the horse’s mouth that there is a ‘red line’ when it comes to undermining China’s sovereignty. The pan-democrats and others can no longer dismiss it, as they have similar warnings in the past, as the exaggerated personal views of some hardliners at Beijing’s liaison office here or across the border rather than a reflection of the president’s own thinking.”
Xi also stated that Hong Kong thenceforth must do its part for national security, including providing national education in its schools and enforcing the law strictly. Since the 1997 reunification, the territory’s educational and judicial systems have been dominated by Beijing-phobic forces. The result: a generation of Hong Kong youth deeply indoctrinated against their own nation, and negligible consequences for those who break the law while pursuing “pro-democracy” activities.
The second factor centers on business, Hong Kong’s traditional strength. China’s epic and historic Belt & Road Initiative will provide a couple of generations’ worth of new opportunities for Hong Kong, once the SAR gets its head together and seriously tunes in to the EurAsian megaproject. On-the-ground indications are that this is beginning to happen. And Xi all but pointed the way. Noting that the territory’s traditional economic areas of strength are fading, he suggested that new and sustainable prosperity would depend on Hong Kong fully joining in the nation’s development juggernaut. That is indeed the way forward for the embattled SAR.

The Recapture of Mosul

Patrick Cockburn

Iraq is declaring victory over Isis in Mosul as the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, wearing black military uniform, arrived in the city to congratulate his soldiers at the end of an epic nine-month long battle.
Elite Iraqi government forces raised the Iraqi flag on the banks of the Tigris River this morning, though Isis snipers are still shooting from the last buildings they hold in the Old City.
The magnitude of the victory won by the Iraqi government and its armed forces, three years after they suffered a catastrophic defeat in Mosul, is not in doubt.
A few thousand lightly equipped Isis fighters astonished the world by routing in four days an Iraqi garrison of at least 20,000 men equipped with tanks and helicopters. The recapture of Mosul now is revenge for the earlier humiliation.
The devastation in the city is huge: the closer one gets to the fighting in the centre, the greater the signs of destruction from airstrikes. Wherever Isis made a stand, Iraqi forces called in the US-led coalition to use its massive firepower to turn whole blocks into heaps of rubble and smashed masonry.
A volunteer medical worker, who wished to remain anonymous, said that on bad days  “some 200 to 300 people with injuries had turned at my medical centre. I hear stories of many families dying, trapped in basements where they had been sheltering from the bombs.”
Isis gunmen have slaughtered civilians trying to escape from areas they held.

Jasim, 33, a driver living behind Isis lines in the Old City, died when  an Isis sniper shot him in the back as he tried to cross the Tigris over a half-destroyed bridge.
Two months ago, he was in touch with The Independent by phone after he had been wounded in the leg by a coalition drone attack.
“After a while, I felt a severe pain on my leg, and after few moments I realised I was injured,” he said. “I partly walked and partly crawled to a small temporary clinic nearby, but they could not treat my leg properly.”
Abdulkareem, 43, a construction worker and resident of the al-Maydan district, where Isis is making its last stand, spoke to The Independent last week about the dangers facing him and his family.
“We can hear the roar of the bombing and the mortar fire,” he said. “But we don’t know whether it is the Iraqi army, the coalition airstrikes or Daesh [Isis].”
A few days later, an airstrike hit his  house  and friends say that he was badly injured,
Away from the present battle zone in Mosul, many districts are deserted and only passable because bulldozers have cut a path through the debris.
In a side street in the al-Thawra district, where some buildings were destroyed, a crowd of people, mostly women in black robes which covered their faces as well their bodies,  were this week-end frantically trying to obtain  food baskets donated by an Iraqi charity.
“These women are from Daesh families, so I don’t have much sympathy for them,” said Saad Amr, a volunteer worker from Mosul who had once been jailed by Isis for six months in 2014.
“I suffered every torture aside from rape,” he recalls, adding that men from Daesh families had been taken to Baghdad for investigation, but evidence of their crimes is difficult to obtain so most would be freed.The prospect made him edgy.
Asked about popular attitudes in Mosul towards Isis, Saad, who works  part time for an Iraqi radio station, says that three years ago in June 2014, when Isis captured Mosul “some 85 per cent of people supported them because the Iraqi government forces had mistreated us so badly. The figure later fell to 50 per cent because of Isis atrocities and is now about 15 per cent.”
Ahmed, Saad’s brother who lives in East Mosul, said later that he was nervous because so many former Isis militants were walking about the city after shaving off their beards.
In a medical facility in a converted shop in  al-Thawra, a wounded Isis fighter who had been hit in the face by shrapnel from a  mortar round, was lying in a bed attached to a drip feed.
“You cannot talk to him because he is still under investigation,” warmed a uniformed guard. A further 30 Isis suspects were being held in a mosque nearby thugh these are more likely to have been administrative staff rather than fighters.
Saad said that the behaviour of Iraqi combat troops, particularly the Counter-Terrorism Service, also known as the Golden Division, towards civilians was excellent and “the soldiers often give their rations to hungry people.” He was more dubious about how incoming Iraqi army troops and police would act towards local people.
The Iraqi government victory is very real , but it also has its limitations. The weakness of the Iraqi forces is that they depend on three elite units, notably the Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS), the Emergency Response Division and the Federal Police, backed up by the devastating air power of the US-led coalition.
The CTS combat units, perhaps less than 3,000 men, have been the cutting edge of the military offensive in Mosul and have suffered some 40 per cent casualties.
This shortage of effective military units may make it difficult for Baghdad to consolidate its victory. This became clear during our five hour drive to Mosul from the Kurdish capital of Erbil 60 miles away to the east, as we tried we tried to find a road where the innumerable checkpoints would let us get through.
Driving across the Nineveh Plan east of Mosul, a land of ruined and abandoned towns and villages, most of the checkpoints are manned by Hashd al-Shaabi, the Shia group much feared by the Sunni Arabs of Mosul.
We crossed the Tigris by a pontoon bridge near Hamam al-Alil. Here there are camps for some 100,000 displaced people from Mosul. A few days earlier some 160 Isis fighters had staged a surprise counter-attack in Qayara district, killing soldiers and police along with two Iraqi journalists.
Travelling north towards Mosul, the police posts would not at first permit us to pass, so we circled round the city to the west travelling on a winding track through rocky scrubland where there were a few impoverished hamlets in which the houses were little more than huts and from which their inhabitants had fled.
For half a dozen miles not far from Mosul, there were no Iraqi security forces and we became nervous that US planes or drones might mistake our two vehicles for an Isis suicide bombing mission and attack us. We turned back to the main road and finally persuaded a police post to let us to use the road running past  Mosul airport and a row of bombed out factories.
Our journey showed that the Iraqi government have the historic nine month struggle for Mosul – the battle of Stalingrad was only five-and-a-half months long – but the war is not quite over. Isis may be able to regroup as it did before in 2007-11. Out in the vast desolate deserts of western Iraq and eastern Syria, its fighters can still hide and plan their revenge.

America: An Empire In Chaos

G. Asgar Mitha


There is no denying that much of the Arab-Muslim world is in political, social and economic confusion and disarray as it strives for religious harmony in a similar manner that had divided Europe. The American Empire, however, is in chaos as it struggles with the economic, political and social home grown problems effecting and mirroring the Roman Empire2000 years ago. As they say in historical annals: those that reach the top of the mountain have to come down again. It’s a slow difficult ascent but an easy and fast descent.
Edward Gibbon’s voluminous work on the decline of the Roman Empire is a historic masterpiece that warrants commendation. What is yet more interesting is Cullen Murphy’s works in his book “Are We Rome? The Decline of an Empire and the Fate of America” which has investigated the parallels between the two empires. Listed among the reasons of the decline of Rome were economic troubles, over expansion and military overspending, government corruption and political instability, weakening of Roman legions, the perceived threat of Christianity, socio-religious decadence, avarice and loss of traditional moral values. The decline relates to the Western Roman Empire (capital Rome) and not the eastern Roman (Byzantine with its capital Constantinople) empire. As the western segment went into decline, the eastern half grew due to adopting the Christian values.
Certainly Rome did not fall in a day. Only four decades have passed and America has been engaged in 10 wars in the Middle East that have cost it trillions of dollars and loss of millions of innocent  lives in the region and yet it has not succeeded in asserting itself as a regional power in spite of its technological and military (aggressive) prowess. In fact, the harder it has tried to assert its global power, other powers have arisen to challenge it. One of the dominant reasons has been that it has wasted its efforts through policies dictated by an elite group in the echelons of foreign and economic administration of Washington whose sympathies are with Israel’s expansion. Pax America is in its beginning throes- the same that afflicted pax Rome. Rome was challenged by a supposedlyfanatical, extremist and fundamentalist movement that grew like a cancer till it ultimately destroyed it. Interestingly the socio-religious movement was founded by Jesus of Nazareth removed thousands of miles from the Romancapital.
Nothing could be further from the truth about Jesus’s movements that challenged Rome from its governate of Jerusalem than that captured by Reza Aslan in his book “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”. Rome had no reason to fear Jesus and his movement that was localized to Jerusalem. Aslan and history have demonstrated that the movement was supported among the downtrodden Jews that were being exploited not by Rome but by an elite group of economically motivated Jews that sought power. The elite- the money changers- had set up an economic power structure in the Temple of Solomon, something like the US Federal Reserve Bank, not stashed with notes but with gold and silver. From here they exploited the poor Jews.
The mission of Jesus simply was to renew the Commandments that the Jews, after some 1400 years, had forgotten from the period when Moses led the Israelites to Canaan. The elites among them feared their economic game of illicit money changing would be exposed. According to Aslan and correctly so, the elite Jews sought help from the Roman governor to crush the movement. It succeeded in getting rid of Jesus but not his revivalist movement that had gathered strong support after him and eventually crossed the continental borders to penetrate the heart of the empire: Rome.
The Roman Empire took several decades before it receded from its outlying posts into a nation. In fact, it gave birth to the Christian eastern empire where the papacy was established with Constantinople as the seat of the empire.
The American empire, founded on Christian values, is in the throes of socio-religious decay with the moral teachings of Jesus all but forgotten. Morality which was the hallmark of the US for several years following the end of World War 2 has been replaced with decadence and all those reasons historians have identified that had gripped Rome at the zenith. The American moral fiber is being torn by the elite and by terrorism, extremism and fundamentalism which it has created. It fears its own creation and has attributed it to Muslims and Islam as an excuse. It fears a growing socio-religious teaching several thousand miles away that could revive morality, the same movement that brought the message to a morally deprived decadent nation Arabia, 1500 years ago. The labels – Judaism, Christianity or Islam are different but the moral message is the same.
The Egyptian empire under Pharaoh feared Judaism; the Roman Empire under its emperors feared Christianity and now the American empire fears Islam. That Islam hates America is an ill-conceived thought. The empire is causing a self-inflicted injury due to this fear.
Interestingly this same psychological fear of Islam not only prevails in the American psyche but also in the psyche of Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of the Islamic movement, governed today by corrupt and decadent elite. History will witness the fall of Riyadh where Islamic teachings has lost its essence.
I came across an opinion by Jimmy Ma, founder of Alibaba as reported by Jim Edwards in the Business Insider of The Independent. Ma explains how America went wrong over the past 30 years.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/alibaba-founder-jack-ma-has-a-brutal-theory-of-how-america-went-wrong-over-the-past-30-years-a7821396.html. “No matter how good your strategy is you’re supposed to spend money on your own people,” Ma said. “The money went to Wall Street. Then what happened? Year 2008. The financial crisis wiped out $19.2 trillion in US income … What if the money was spent on the Midwest of the United States, developing industry there?”
Now President Donald Trump has an agenda to make America Great. His strategy will fail if he does nottake the wealth from those 2% or less who have amassed trillions of dollarsfrom Wall Street and invest it in America. So long as the White House, Congress, Senate and the Federal Reserve continue to support the defense, political and economic agenda favoring Israeli expansion and Wall Street, America will not only never be great again but it will continue to descend intodeeper chaos till it will no longer be an empire. It has to shift its policies to favor Main Street America.

“Chaos” surrounds Papua New Guinea election outcome

John Braddock 

Papua New Guinea’s two-week election period from June 24 to July 8 has been beset by allegations of vote rigging, roll tampering, bribery, corruption and interference with ballot boxes. Voting in the capital, Port Moresby, was delayed for several days after election officials went on strike over pay.
To suppress unrest, the government mobilised 10,600 police and armed services personnel, purportedly to guarantee an “orderly” election process. Australia, the country’s former colonial ruler, provided training for police and more than 30,000 election workers, and Australian Defence Force planes and helicopters were involved in delivering election material to regional hubs.
The turmoil is an expression of the explosive social tensions produced by the austerity policies imposed by the government of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill over the past two years.
Budget cuts to health care and other social programs, following a collapse in state revenues due to the decline in global commodity prices, have worsened the already terrible levels of poverty and deprivation faced by most of the population.
Save the Children researchers revealed last month that almost half the country’s children suffer from under-nutrition, caused by insufficient food intake or disease, which is producing high rates of cognitive and physical impairment, including stunted growth.
O’Neill’s government appears to have tried to cling to power by blatant fraud.
The names of thousands of voters, including former prime ministers Rabbie Namilu and Mekere Morauta, a leading opposition candidate, were missing from the electoral roll. Morauta told Radio New Zealand the election was “the most chaotic election in PNG’s history” and bluntly claimed the chaos was “organised” by O’Neill’s party, the People’s National Congress (PNC).
“Because PNC is likely to be wiped out in a very clean election,” Morauta said, “it’s in O’Neill’s interest to create chaos and then use that chaos to return as many PNC candidates as possible.”
Writing for the Asia Pacific NZ Report web site, opposition MP and Oro provincial governor Gary Juffa asserted that O’Neill was using the election to prepare the “establishment of a dictatorship.” He claimed that O’Neill already had his own police unit escorting him in private jets, and a special army guard of 40, while he controlled the media, the public service and possibly the judiciary.
According to Juffa, up to half of eligible voters in the Popondetta Urban electorate were turned away because the roll did not have their names, even though many had tried to update their details.
Juffa warned that by the end of the election, many people would have concluded that “democracy was hardly a reality everywhere in Papua New Guinea.” Devoid of any progressive alternative, however, Juffa blamed ordinary people, declaring that “like lemmings and sheep, we are led to that reality with little resistance at all.”
In fact, there has been an upsurge in struggles by students and workers over inequality, corruption and the social crisis over the past 12 months. But these protests have been led to a dead-end by the trade unions and opposition parties.
Thousands of students boycotted classes for almost two months in 2016, demanding O’Neill step down to answer fraud allegations. At least 23 students were injured when armed police fired on them during a demonstration.
Last week, two students at the University of Technology (Unitech) in Lae were arrested for burning ballot papers in protest over being unable to vote. Unitech was given only 1,100 ballot papers for a voting population of more than 5,000. At the University in Goroka over 4,000 people were unable to cast ballots.
At the University of Papua New Guinea in Port Moresby, only 1,200 ballot papers out of 5,000 were delivered and there were numerous complaints about names missing on the rolls. A former Student Representative Council member, Gerald Tulu Manu-Peni, told Radio NZ the exclusion of so many students could be linked to the protest actions last year.
Corruption and favouritism are endemic. The Port Moresby district election manager and his assistant were arrested when reportedly caught in possession of $US57,000 in cash and a document signed by an unnamed candidate. Further arrests occurred after officials were found smuggling ballot papers out of the election office.
In O’Neill’s electorate, polling was temporarily deferred after a group of candidates served a protest notice with the election manager. They cited an inadequate common roll and politically-appointed presiding officers.
Several confrontations with authorities have erupted. In Hela province, where armed troops are guarding the giant ExxonMobil gas project from local protesters, a group of candidates and supporters attempted to destroy ballot boxes stored at the police station. According to police, the group with high-powered guns exchanged fire with security forces.
In another incident, Port Moresby candidates demanded the removal of police chief Ben Turi after officers fired shots near a crowd outside a polling booth. Turi defended the police action, declaring it was required to rid the area of “street vendors and unnecessary people who had been congregating near the counting arena.” Radio Australia reported that police used “heavy handed” tactics, including assaults and intimidation, to force candidates and polling officials from the area.
In an effort to defuse tensions, Electoral Commissioner Patilias Gamato promised a taskforce to investigate the roll failures once the polling was over. Many who have been denied their right to vote denounced his announcement, however.
Critics used social media to condemn the polling chaos, and called for the election to be officially declared a failure. Gamato said the threshold for this had not been reached. For that to occur, he declared, would require evidence of “gross” violence and that a majority of people were prevented from voting.
Former New Zealand governor-general Sir Anand Satyanand, who is leading a Commonwealth Observer Group, also issued a statement that it was “too early” to say the election failed.
Once the votes are tallied, horse-trading, alliance-gathering and influence-peddling will ensue among the competing elites. Whatever coalition is formed, it will likely include some of the current “opposition” formations.
None of the opposition parties that contested the election advanced any alternative to the government’s austerity measures or its protection of the interests of the transnational companies that dominate the country’s economy. Instead, they primarily attacked O’Neill over alleged “mismanagement,” signaling their intention of imposing deeper budget cuts if they took office.
Like its predecessor, the incoming government will carry out the dictates of the international banks and corporations. It will intensify both the attack on the living standards of working class and rural masses, and the police repression of opposition and unrest.

High Court challenge imperils Australian government

Mike Head 

The Australian Labor Party’s national executive announced last Friday it would launch a High Court challenge to the right of a government minister to sit in parliament. Depending on which way the court rules, the case could become a vehicle for bringing down the increasingly fractured government headed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
The Liberal-National Coalition government barely scraped back into office at last July’s election, and holds just 76 seats in the 150-member House of Representatives. A disqualification of Assistant Health Minister David Gillespie, a National Party MP, could reduce the government to minority status, making its survival even more doubtful than it already is.
The legal issue, which first became known in February, is that Gillespie and his wife own a shopping complex in Port Macquarie, New South Wales, in his electorate of Lyne. Through their company, Goldenboot, they lease a shop to a newsagent who operates an Australia Post outlet as a licensee of the federal government-owned corporation.
This could fall foul of Section 44 (v) of the Constitution, which makes someone ineligible for election to parliament if they have “any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth.”
Earlier this year, the High Court radically broadened its interpretation of “indirect pecuniary interest,” making the outcome of Gillespie’s case highly uncertain.
If the court ousts Gillespie and the government loses a by-election for his seat, the government would have to look for support from the five “crossbench” MPs—the Greens’ Adam Bandt, Nick Xenophon Team’s Rebekha Sharkie and independents Bob Katter, Cathy McGowan and Andrew Wilkie.
Alternatively, Labor, which currently holds just 69 seats, could try to govern with the backing of this disparate group. Neither outcome would be stable. A third possibility would be the calling of an early election.
Any election, however, would be likely to create further volatility. While media polls currently show Labor leading the Coalition on a two-party-preferred basis, neither party has anywhere near the primary vote support to form a majority government.
For the second time in a month, Australia’s political establishment faces a possible constitutional crisis. Just two weeks ago, three Coalition ministers narrowly avoided potential disqualification by belatedly apologising to another top court, the Victorian state Supreme Court, for accusing its judges of being “hard-left activists” who were soft on terrorists.
If found guilty of contempt of court, which can lead to imprisonment, the three ministers could have been removed from parliament by another clause of Section 44, which bars anyone convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more in jail.
The government has tried to play down the prospect of Gillespie being disqualified, with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop labeling the High Court challenge “another Labor Party stunt.” But since February, Attorney-General George Brandis has rejected Labor Party requests for him to seek and release official legal advice on the issue.
Moreover, the Labor Party has assembled a high-powered legal team to argue the case, and the High Court has already applied strict interpretations of Section 44 to disqualify two members of parliament this year.
One was Rod Culleton, who had secured a Western Australian Senate seat as a candidate for Pauline Hanson’s anti-immigrant One Nation party. At the time of the election he had been convicted of larceny, an offence punishable by more than 12 month’s jail. The court ruled he was in breach of Section 44 even though he later had the conviction set aside.
The other was Bob Day, a former millionaire housing industry entrepreneur who had won a South Australian Senate spot for Family First, a right-wing Christian party. In Day’s case, a full court decided unanimously that he had an “indirect pecuniary interest” in an agreement with the Commonwealth. His electorate office was leased from a Day family trust, even though no rent was actually paid to the trust by the federal government.
In Day’s case, the judges declared that Section 44 had a “special status” that was “fundamental to the Constitution.” They gave the provision a sweeping anti-corruption interpretation, saying it sought to ensure there were no potential conflicts of interest involving members of parliament. A MP would be disqualified wherever there was any expectation of financial gain.
The court overturned its only previous ruling on the section, a 1975 case involving James Webster, a Country Party (now National Party) senator, describing it as “unduly narrow.”
Webster’s case was highly controversial, being heard amid a developing political crisis that ultimately led to the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor government by the governor-general.
As the result of a ruling by then Chief Justice Garfield Barwick, a former Liberal Party attorney-general, Webster was permitted to remain in the Senate despite being a major shareholder and managing director of a company that supplied timber to two Commonwealth departments. Webster’s retention strengthened the hand of the Liberal-Country Party opposition in the Senate, which blocked financial supply to the Whitlam government, triggering the governor-general’s intervention.
Now, because the Day case has widened, and effectively left open-ended, the definition of “indirect pecuniary interest,” any High Court ruling on Gillespie is unpredictable and likely to be surrounded by political controversy.
Academic constitutional law experts have said Gillespie’s arrangement with Australia Post may be a more “remote” financial agreement than Day’s lease, but it was difficult to predict what the High Court would do. Professor Anne Twomey, from the University of Sydney, told Sky News: “Thing is, you can never tell with the High Court.”
The legal intervention is occurring under conditions where Turnbull’s government is being condemned in corporate circles for its failure to impose severe austerity cutbacks to government spending, out of fear of popular opposition. It is riven by factional conflicts, with its policies under regular criticism by Tony Abbott, the man whom Turnbull toppled as prime minister via a Liberal Party coup in September 2015.
The impasse is symptomatic of a deeper political crisis, which has seen every government, whether Liberal-National or Labor, fall in rapid succession over the past decade. Each election has witnessed a massive backlash against the sitting government over its attacks on the living standards of the working class.
As well as being unable to overcome popular resistance to austerity, Turnbull is attempting to navigate major foreign policy dilemmas. The Trump administration is seeking a greater Australian involvement in military provocations against China—Australia’s largest trading partner—and the dispatch of more Australian troops to the widely-opposed US-led wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
As in 1975, the involvement of the courts in actions that could change the government outside of an election is a sign of the immense political crisis wracking the entire parliamentary order.

Iraqi prime minister claims “liberation” of devastated Mosul

Bill Van Auken

Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi staged a triumphalist visit to Mosul Sunday, proclaiming the “liberation” of Iraq’s second-largest city from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), even as US airstrikes and automatic weapons fire continued nearby. Heavy fighting is still reported in parts of western Mosul’s Old City along the Tigris River, where ISIS fighters reportedly continued to hold nearly one square kilometer of territory.
“The commander in chief of the armed forces (Prime Minister) Haider al-Abadi arrived in the liberated city of Mosul and congratulated the heroic fighters and Iraqi people for the great victory,” Abadi’s office said in a statement.
The “liberated city of Mosul” has been largely reduced to smoking rubble littered with decaying corpses. Entire blocks have been leveled and huge stretches of residential buildings have been either demolished or badly damaged.
The United Nations issued a report last week estimating that replacing basic infrastructure alone will cost upwards of $1 billion. The UN admitted that this figure is probably an underestimation of the real costs, particularly given the massive destruction inflicted on the narrow and densely populated streets of Mosul’s Old City, ISIS’s last redoubt, which was subjected to the most intense bombardment.
The battle for Mosul has been raging since last October 15, with US warplanes, attack helicopters and heavy artillery providing the bulk of the firepower for the slow advance of Iraqi and army police units operating under the direction of US special forces “advisers.” British, French, Australian, Jordanian and Iraqi bombers have also participated in pummeling the city.
In the continuing nine-month-long siege, the city’s civilian population has been subjected to wholesale slaughter and hellish conditions. Tens of thousands have been killed or wounded, and at least a million driven from their homes. Some half a million Mosul residents have been forced into crowded refugee camps. Those trapped within the city itself were deprived of electricity, clean water, adequate food and access to medical care, while facing a continuous rain of bombs and missiles.
Those fleeing the city have faced abuse at the hands of Iraqi security forces and sectarian militias besieging Mosul. Young men and boys have been detained as ISIS suspects and, in many cases, subjected to brutal torture and summary executions.
Among the weapons unleashed upon the population in the US air war was white phosphorous, a chemical weapon that burns human flesh down to the bone, and whose use in populated areas is banned under international law.
All of these crimes have been carried out under the explicit direction of the Pentagon, whose chief, the recently retired Marine Corps general James “Mad Dog” Mattis, announced in May that the US military had shifted from “attrition tactics” to “annihilation tactics” in its anti-ISIS war. Mattis, who led two murderous sieges of the city of Fallujah during the US occupation of Iraq in 2004, added, “Civilian casualties are a fact of life in this sort of situation.”
The battle for Mosul has exacted a heavy toll on Iraqi security forces, with some units reporting casualty rates of 50 percent, and the total number of dead and wounded as high as 10,000.
There has been no attempt to record the number of civilian deaths caused by US airstrikes in Mosul, though the Pentagon was compelled to admit to one particularly bloody air raid on March 17 which it acknowledged claimed over 100 lives. Iraqi witnesses have put the death toll from that attack at over 200.
Among the first to join Abadi in hailing the “liberation” of Iraq was newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron. “Mosul liberated from ISIS: France pays homage to all those who, alongside our troops, contributed to this victory,” Macron wrote on his Twitter account.
France intervened aggressively in Iraq and Syria, sending the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and dozens of warplanes to carry out airstrikes in both countries. French special forces units were also deployed on the ground as “trainers.” Macron’s rush to celebrate a still unconsummated victory in Mosul is indicative of his government’s embrace of stepped-up militarism and widening foreign interventions, particularly in areas of the Middle East and Africa where France previously exercised colonial domination.
The Iraqi government’s retaking of Mosul will by no means spell the end of fighting in Iraq. ISIS and similar Sunni Islamist militias are expected to continue a rural-based insurgency as well as bombing attacks on targets in Iraqi cities.
There is no indication that the government in Baghdad and its US backers have any clear plan for stabilizing Mosul, or for that matter the predominantly Sunni Anbar Province to the south, where similarly devastating sieges have been waged against the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah.
When it swept across western Iraq three years ago, ISIS had gained military strength thanks to the support given by the US and its allies to the Islamist militias serving as proxy forces in the wars for regime change in Libya and Syria. Its ability to rout larger Iraqi government forces stemmed not only from the corruption and low morale dominating these US-trained units, but also the hostility of the Sunni population towards the Shia-dominated government and security forces.
These sectarian divisions, deliberately stoked under the American occupation as a divide-and-rule tactic, can be expected to deepen with Shia militias deployed in the area and Iraqi Kurdistan seeking independence as well as enlargement of the areas under its control at the expense of Sunni populations.
US commanders have made it clear that they don’t see American forces leaving the country in the foreseeable future. And the Pentagon has asked for nearly $1.3 billion in its 2018 budget to fund continued support for Iraqi security forces
Meanwhile, the US continues its airstrikes and artillery bombardment of Raqqa, 231 miles to the west in Syria, where the Kurdish YPG militia serves as the main US proxy ground force. While the city is far smaller than Mosul, there too the siege is expected to drag on for months, with civilian casualties climbing into the thousands.
In both countries, under the cover of fighting ISIS and “terrorism,” Washington is unleashing military force with the aim of furthering its grip over the oil-rich Middle East at the expense of its rivals, and in preparation for war against the main regional obstacle to US hegemony, Iran.

Transatlantic tensions dominate G20 summit

Nick Beams

After hours of back-and-forth negotiations, with the drafting committee saying at one point they could not come up with an acceptable proposal, the G20 summit managed to issue a unanimous final communiqué.
But this has done nothing to alter the fact that the Hamburg summit over last weekend was, by any measure, the most fractious meeting of major political leaders in the post-war period. As soon as they signed off on the statement, differences were being voiced, signifying the ongoing breakdown of the post-war political order of world capitalism and the decline of the position of the United States.
The newly-elected French president, Emmanuel Macron, attending his first such summit, pointed to the divisions that have opened up. “Our world has never been so divided,” he said. “Centrifugal forces have never been so powerful. Our common goods have never been so threatened.”
Macron not only pointed to the conflicts between Europe and the US but the deepening social opposition to the present economic order, noting “real divisions and uncertainties” in the Western world “that didn’t exist just a few short years ago.”
Calling for more and better coordination, Macron insisted that without the organisations created after the Second World War, “we will be moving back toward narrow-minded nationalism.”
Commenting on the summit’s outcome, James Stavridis, a former US commander of NATO, said it was striking there was “no central US leadership role.”
“What we see today is beginning to look like the world after the First World War about 100 years ago, in which none of the leading nations pulled together and we in the US rejected the idea of the League of Nations.,” he added.
Stavridis did not elaborate further. But the outcome of this situation was the outbreak of the Second World War, just two decades after the first had concluded.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the host and summit chair, repeated the message she delivered after the G7 summit in May when she pointed to the break-up of the post-war order following the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change.
“We as Europeans have to take our fate into our own hands,” she said.
“Wherever there is no consensus that can be achieved, disagreement has to be made clear. Unfortunately—and I deplore this—the United States of America left the climate agreement.”
It was symptomatic of the widening divisions that Trump did not bother to hold a press conference at the conclusion of the summit, something that would have been unthinkable for past leaders of the so-called “free world.”
The weakened American position was also highlighted by the absence of a resolution on North Korea, despite the build-up of US diplomatic, economic and military pressure, including a drill involving the dropping of two 900kg dummy bombs near the North Korean border during the meeting.
According to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, a resolution on North Korea was opposed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in her capacity as chair of the meeting on the grounds that the G20 was “historically largely an economic conference” and a unanimous statement “was not able to be achieved.”
While Trump and his “America First” agenda is being blamed for the breakdown of multilateralism, Trump is not the cause of the divisions. Rather he is a catalyst, accelerating processes that were already well underway long before he came into office.
The divisions are rooted in the long-term decline of the US relative to its rivals and its efforts to counter this process by ever more aggressive economic and military measures.
An open split between the US and the other 19 members of the G20—what would have amounted to a declaration of economic warfare—was avoided only by evasive words in the communiqué that sought to paper over the divisions on trade issues.
The text sought to balance the demands of the European and other powers that there had to be a commitment to oppose protectionism and the claims of the US that present international agreements are “unfair” and work against its interests. It stated: “We will keep markets open noting the importance of reciprocal and advantageous trade and investment frameworks and the principle of non-discrimination, and continue to fight protectionism including all unfair practices and recognise the role of legitimate trade instruments in this regard.”
The immediate flashpoint on trade is the question of steel. The Trump administration is threatening to invoke a section of a piece of legislation from 1962 that enables the US president to restrict imports on national security grounds.
The G20 committed itself to speeding up work on the development of a forum on global steel excess capacity established in 2016. But this is not expected to affect the US decision on whether to take action under the legislation that has been dubbed the “nuclear option” in trade measures.
Invoking the threatening language so often used in its military confrontations, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told the Financial Times: “All options remain on the table.”
European Union officials are reported to have drawn up a list of US goods for possible retaliatory action, including whiskey, orange juice and dairy products, should the US decide to go ahead with restrictions on steel.
Speaking Friday as the summit was getting underway, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker did not spell out potential targets, apart from mentioning whiskey, but indicated the EU was ready to act.
“Our mood is increasingly combative,” he said, with any action coming within “days” not months. “We will respond with countermeasures if need be, hoping that this is not actually necessary.”
Former top State Department official Nicholas Burns said the US had been “more isolated at this G20 summit than at any other.”
“The US can’t lead effectively if we are constantly criticising our allies," he said. "Trump seems to regard Germany and other European countries more as economic competitors than as strategic allies. That is a great mistake of judgement about our most important friends in the world.”
But the breakdown of the post-war economic and political order is not a product of the bad judgement of the present occupant of the White House. It is the result of much deeper objective forces, above all the irresolvable contradiction between the development of a global economy and the division of the world into rival nation-states and great powers.
Each of these powers, the European nations no less than the US, seeks to resolve this contradiction by ever more aggressively advancing its own interests against its rivals, leading to the assertion of economic nationalism, trade war and ultimately military conflict. That is the process that was openly on display at the G20 summit.

Japan’s ‘New Approach’ to Russia: Is it Moving Forward?

Sandip Kumar Mishra


After over a year of deliberations, a team of Japanese officials and few business leaders finally visited the Russian-controlled Southern Kurils Islands on 27 June 2017. Japan calls them Northern Territories, but they have been under the control of Russia since World War II. The purpose of the visit was to explore the possibilities and modalities of joint economic activities on the islands by both Russia and Japan. Even though the five-day visit is claimed to be “a big step towards resolving the territorial issue” between Japan and Russia, a remarkably cold response from the latter makes it difficult to anticipate any substantial breakthrough on the issue in the near future. Moreover, the change in the regional power equations has also made it less likely that Russia would be still eager to cooperate with Japan as it promised earlier.

This has been one of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s ambitious projects, part of his policy of rapprochement towards Russia. In May 2016, Abe announced this policy, called the New Approach to Russia, and said that Japan would like to resolve territorial disputes with it by utilising two mechanisms: economic cooperation and frequent high-level diplomatic exchanges. This policy is based on the premise that economic benefits to Russia would be able to buy territorial concessions for Japan.

However, it seems that political and other security variables were not taken into consideration in the formulations of this optimistic policy.

The potential economic benefits to Russia through cooperation with Japan cannot be denied. It was this reason that compelled Russian President Vladimir Putin to respond positively to Japan’s proposal last year. In December 2016, Putin visited Tokyo and agreed to undertake joint economic projects for the Kurils Islands after joint surveys and studies. He also agreed that these joint projects should be operated under a ‘special legal framework’. However, it was naïve on Japan’s part to believe that Russia would pursue its economic benefits devoid of security and strategic interests. 

From the very beginning, both parties have different perspectives about the deal. Russia considered this purely as an economic deal, which would not dilute its claim over the islands. But Japan publicised Putin’s agreement about the ‘special legal framework’ as Russia’s indirect admission that these islands did not come under its legal framework. It was, thus, perceived as a sign of Russia’s compromise on the issue of its sovereignty. This deal has not progressed well because of these fundamental differences in their respective perspectives. An initial survey was originally planned to be conducted in May 2017, but it was postponed by Russia.

Japan sent a special envoy to Russia and finally the survey dates were scheduled for late June 2017. 

Furthermore, in the past few months, there have been other adverse developments, connected to the different perspectives of the two countries. In recent times, a Russian research vessel was found to be operating in Japan’s exclusive economic zone and a Japanese lecturer was caught by Russian customs authority carrying Japanese language teaching material to the disputed islands. All these developments show that political and security considerations, which are the backbone of the bilateral differences to the proposed deal, are going to make it difficult for Japan’s ‘New Approach’ to Russia to succeed.

Constant changes in the US-China contestations in the region have also made Russia more reluctant to concede any potential advantage to Japan. US President Donald Trump's administration appears to be unhappy with North Korea’s persistent belligerent behaviour, and is ready to enhance security cooperation with Japan, which is unacceptable to Russia. 

On 1 June 2017, Putin underlined the importance of the islands, claiming that their transfer or even common use with Japan might lead to these islands being used for missile defence systems. Although, he did not name the US, his indication was quite clear. On 15 June 2017, the Russian embassy in Tokyo issued an appeal to Japan not to join the US missile defence system. Russia appears to be worried about Japan moving closer to the US in the context of the US-China contestations, which would not be conducive to Russia's national interests. 

Overall, it seems that Shinzo Abe’s ‘New Approach’ to Russia is unlikely to help in resolving territorial disputes with Russia on the Kuril Islands. Even though the initial survey has begun, given the different priorities of the two countries and broader geopolitical factors, the prospects of the 'New Approach' do not look positive.