11 Jul 2017

4th Africa – Europe Youth Summit and the Youth Plug-In Initiative 2017 – Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire

Application Deadline: 26th July 2017
Eligible Countries: African and European countries
To Be Taken At (Country): Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire
About the Award: This form allows you to apply to two linked opportunities:
1. The 4th Africa-Europe Youth Summit will bring together more than 120 youth leaders from both continents, including African Diaspora on 2-4 October in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire agree a declaration on themes including education, peace & security, environment, business, democratic inclusion and culture.
Eligibility:
-Age 18-30
-Current involvement in a youth organisation/network
-Experience of implementing an initiative under at least one of the themes
-Prior interest and previous knowledge of Africa-Europe cooperation
-Ability to work in either English or French
2. A follow-up group, the “plug-in initiative” will take the declaration and work between October 30 and November 29 to develop projects on Africa-EU cooperation with concrete deliverables. These will be presented to the EU-Africa Summit on November 30-31, also in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, which is itself, focused on youth. The initiative is still to be confirmed – expected to be finalised by 12 July – more details to follow.
Eligibility:
– Availability to dedicate significant time and energy to the initiative (for a period of around 6 weeks in October and November)
– Regular internet access for distance participation
– Preference for experience cooperating in international and multicultural teams
Type: Workshops/Conferences

Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: Fully-funded
Duration of Program: October – November
How to Apply: Apply in the Program Webpage (Link below)
The youth organisations involved include the Panafrican Youth Union (PYU), European Youth Forum (YFJ), Advisory Council on Youth in Council of Europe (AC-CoE), Network of International Youth Organisations in Africa (NIYOA), African Diaspora Youth Network in Europe (ADYNE) and African Caribbean and Pacific Young Professionals Network’s (ACP YPN).

Landesa Women’s Land Rights Visiting Professionals Program (VPP) 2017 – Seattle, USA

Application Deadline: 20th August 2017
Eligible Countries: India, China, Myanmar, Liberia, or Tanzania
To Be Taken At (Country): Seattle, USA
About the Award: The Women’s Land Rights Visiting Professionals Program seeks to cultivate a network of qualified professionals from around the world who are strongly committed to securing women’s land rights at local, national, and international levels. Our program goals are to enhance and learn from participants’ expertise, to support their commitment to securing women’s land rights, and to foster participation in a global women’s land rights network.
This is a competitive program that begins with a five-week period of intense training, mentoring, and experience sharing with land tenure experts at Landesa’s headquarters in Seattle, Washington. Participants will have the opportunity to deepen their expertise, gain and impart comparative knowledge around legal and policy reform and implementation; expand the set of approaches to designing, executing, and evaluating women’s land rights interventions; and improve their impact by honing leadership, management, and communication skills.
Program participants work closely with one another and with Landesa staff to develop their skills, expertise, and commitment to support one another by:
  • Participating in and contributing to substantive and comparative discussions
  • Sharing knowledge and expertise through presentations and informal conversations
  • Providing and receiving constructive feedback
  • Fostering group cohesion built on trust and openness to facilitate the growth of a global network of women’s land rights professionals
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • All applicants must be currently based and working in India, China, Myanmar, Liberia, or Tanzania due to current funding guidelines.
  • Professionals currently working in-country for national or international organizations, NGOs, academic institutions, government agencies, etc.
  • Practitioners, policy advocates, community organizers, educators, and other development professionals strongly committed to strengthening women’s land rights
  • Professionals with at least five years’ development experience, with two of those years focused on issues related to land tenure or women’s rights
  • Professionals with advanced English proficiency skills (speaking, reading, and writing)
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The program covers the cost of tuition, obtaining a US visa, roundtrip flights, airport transfers in the US, lodging, and public transportation and provides a modest stipend for food and other living expenses.
Duration of Program: April 1 – May 5, 2018
How to Apply: Please make sure we receive the following documents by August 20, 2017:
  • Completed application form (download here)
  • Letter of interest summarizing your qualifications for the Women’s Land Rights Visiting Professionals Program
  • CV or resume
  • One writing sample (five-pages maximum) that demonstrates your approach to and involvement in development work and/or women’s land rights
Please email these materials as attachments to vpp@landesa.org.
Award Providers: Landesa
Important Notes: Finalists will be notified for interviews and announced in September 2017.

Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) Fellowship Program 2018 – Germany

Application Deadline: 1st October 2017
Eligible Countries: International
To Be Taken At (Country): Germany
Field of Study: For our 2018 class of fellows, we will consider applicants who want to pursue topics that fall within one of HIIG’s main research areas. We would like to ask all applicants to respond to one of the following themes in their research outline. Please read the information on each of the websites closely, and position yourself and/or your project within a key area that best suits you.
  1. The evolving digital society: What are relevant concepts and theoretical approaches?
  2. The relationship between actors, data and infrastructures in the digital society: What are key factors of change?
  3. The knowledge dimension: What are emerging patterns of research and knowledge transfer in the digital age?
About the Award: The international HIIG Fellowship “Internet and Society” offers a unique opportunity for innovative thinkers who wish to engage in the exchange of research experiences and to set up new initiatives. Based in the heart of Berlin, the HIIG provides a dynamic intellectual environment for fellows to pursue their own research interests and actively shape their stay. We also invite fellows to collaborate with a growing international team of researchers and to participate in the activities at our institute. We offer a number of opportunities to share and discuss ideas. This includes:
  • writing and publishing papers in one of our open access publications
  • commenting on current developments in your field in form of HIIG Blog posts
  • holding presentations in one of our Lunch Talks
  • organising expert workshops with your peers
  • engaging in joint activities and projects with other fellows
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: We are looking for individuals from diverse backgrounds and professional experiences who want to contribute to the range of the institute’s transdisciplinary internet research. We particularly encourage early stage researchers to apply.
  • Master’s degree, PhD in process/planned (Junior Fellow) OR
  • Advanced PhD, post-doctoral researcher (Senior Fellow)
  • Fluency in English; command of German is appreciated
  • Research experience and a research project of your own that you want to pursue
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The HIIG offers accepted fellows a waiver for all mandatory fees. Fellows may use our facilities free of charge during their stay. However, fellows are expected to bring their own funding from their home institution or outside grants. They must take care of accommodation, insurance, childcare, and transportation arrangements. In special cases, fellows can apply for a travel grant of up to 700 Euros and a visa subsidy of up to 200 Euros.
Duration of Program: minimum of 3 months to a maximum of 12 months within the year 2018.
How to Apply: 
  • Up-to-date curriculum vitae
  • Motivation letter explaining your interest in the HIIG Fellowship, research background, and your expectations (1 page)
  • Research outline including a) your project and how it responds to one of the key areas, b) the specific work you propose to conduct during the fellowship, c) deliverables, products or outcomes you aim to produce (max. 3 pages)
  • Optional: one writing or work sample covering internet research (in English or German)
All application materials must be submitted electronically via the online application form. Please review the information carefully before applying.
Award Providers: Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG)

The G20 From Hell

Pepe Escobar

A future history of the G20 in Hamburg might start with a question posed by President Donald Trump – actually his speechwriter – a few days earlier in Warsaw:
“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.”
What initially amounted to a juvenile/reductionist clash of civilizations tirade written by Stephen Miller – the same one who penned the “American carnage” epic on Trump’s inauguration as well as the original Muslim travel ban – might actually have found some answers in Hamburg.
The G20 as a whole was a noxious military dystopia disguised as a global summit. “Welcome to Hell” and other assorted protests, on multiple levels, were sort of answering another Trump-in-Warsaw question; “Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”
While leaders worked the cosseted rooms, gossiped, listened to the Ode to Joy and indulged in the proverbial banquet, outside there was burning and looting; a sort of vicious, street-level commentary not only about their concept of “civilization” but also about Trump-in-Warsaw conveniently forgetting to say that it’s US and NATO’s “policies” which end up generating the terror blowback that threaten “civilization”, “our values” and our “will to survive”.
It will get worse. Starting next year, a Bundeswehr/NATO joint production, a ghost town built in a military training camp in Sachsen-Anhalt – incidentally, not far from Hamburg — will become a prime site teaching urban warfare. Austerity is far from over, and euro-peasants are bound to continue rebelling en masse.
Multilateral or bust
The temptation is sweet to identify the emerging new order as a Putin-Xi-Trump-Merkel world. Not yet – and not yet as multilateral. What we’re seeing is the trappings of multilateralism, but not yet the real deal — resisted by Washington on myriad levels.
Frau Merkel wanted “her” summit to focus on three crucial issues; climate change, free trade and management of mass global migration – none of them particularly appealing to Trump, a believer in a Darwinian approach to global politics. So what the world got was an unexciting muddle through – inbuilt contradictions included.
The Boss, once again, was Chinese President Xi Jinping, calling on G-20 members to privilege an open global economy; strengthen economic policy coordination; and be aware of the enormous risks inherent in financial turbo-capitalism. He duly called for a “multilateral trade regime”.
To back it up, China deftly applied giant panda diplomacy – offering two of them, Meng Meng and Jiao Qing, to the Berlin zoo as a friendship gesture. Merkel’s commentary was not so cuddly; “Beijing views Europe as an Asian peninsula. We see it differently.”
Well, for all practical purposes what Chinese and German business interests do see further on down the road is Eurasia integration – with the 21st century New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) starting in eastern China and ending in the Ruhr valley. Now that’s a practical definition of how a “multilateral trade regime” should work. Add to it the just-clinched, massive trade deal between the EU and Japan. For all practical purposes, geopolitically and geoeconomically, Germany is moving East.
The BRICs nations – China, India, Russia, Brazil and South Africa – met on the sidelines and, what else, called for a “rules-based, transparent, non-discriminatory, open and inclusive multilateral trading system.”
President Putin went one up – stressing financial sanctions under political pretexts hurt mutual confidence and damage the global economy. Everyone knows it, everyone agrees, but that element of Washington’s “our way or the highway” geoeconomic policy won’t vanish anytime soon.
And then we had the anti-globalization group Attac criticizing Merkel for staging a “cynical production”; as much as the chancellor was positioning herself as “leader of the free world”, the German government “is actually pursuing an aggressive export surplus strategy”. And here we had left/progressive Attac totally aligned with Donald Trump.
We’ll always have Paris
The sherpas in Hamburg were involved in their own brand of “Welcome to Hell”. Merkel’s euphemism — “tense discussions” – masked a de facto mutiny against the US sherpas on both climate change and trade, bitterly fighting to the last minute a US clause on Washington “helping” countries access clean fossil fuels.
In the end we got the proverbial muddle through. Here’s the paragraph in the final communiqué that singles out the Trump administration’s decision to abandon the Paris agreement:
“We take note of the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The United States of America announced it will immediately cease the implementation of its current nationally-determined contribution and affirms its strong commitment to an approach that lowers emissions while supporting economic growth and improving energy security needs. The United States of America states it will endeavor to work closely with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently and help deploy renewable and other clean energy sources, given the importance of energy access and security in their nationally determined contributions.”
Directly following that paragraph is this one, concerning the G-19:
“The Leaders of the other G20 members state that the Paris Agreement is irreversible. We reiterate the importance of fulfilling the UNFCCC commitment by developed countries in providing means of implementation including financial resources to assist developing countries with respect to both mitigation and adaptation actions in line with Paris outcomes and note the OECD’s report “Investing in Climate, Investing in Growth”. We reaffirm our strong commitment to the Paris Agreement, moving swiftly towards its full implementation in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances and, to this end, we agree to the G20 Hamburg Climate and Energy Action Plan for Growth as set out in the Annex.”
In Hamburg, the Trump Organization was all over the place. First Daughter Ivanka even took Daddy’s chair at the forum for fleeting moments while he was away on bilaterals. Yet she did perform on substance, unveiling a $300 million program at the World Bank providing loans, mentoring and access to the financial markets for women-led start-ups in the developing world. Both the White House and the World Bank credited Ivanka for the idea.
Away from hellish issues, under a sunnier perspective, wind and solar power are set to become the cheapest form of power generation across the G20 by 2030. Already in 2017, over a third of German electricity has come from wind, solar, biomass and hydro, at 35% (in the US is only 15%). So Germany is not green, yet – but it’s getting there fast.
In Hamburg, Merkel collected a win on climate change; a relative win on trade (with the US self-excluded); but a miserable loss on mass migration. No NATO power at the G-20 would have had the balls to publicly connect the dots between ghastly US/NATO wars in Afghanistan, Libya, the Syrian proxy war generating millions of refugees for whom the only hope is Europe.
Geopolitically, Washington is de facto cutting off Germany while England has zero power left. The Trump administration considers both Germany and Japan as enemies who are destroying US industry through currency rigging. In the medium term, it’s fair to expect Germany to slowly but surely re-approach Russia. As much as Washington’s unipolar moment may be fading fast, the Game of Thrones in the G-20 realm is just beginning.

Why Palestine is Still the Issue

John Pilger

When I first went to Palestine as a young reporter in the 1960s, I stayed on a kibbutz. The people I met were hard-working, spirited and called themselves socialists. I liked them.
One evening at dinner, I asked about the silhouettes of people in the far distance, beyond our perimeter.
“Arabs”, they said, “nomads”.  The words were almost spat out. Israel, they said, meaning Palestine, had been mostly wasteland and one of the great feats of the Zionist enterprise was to turn the desert green.
They gave as an example their crop of Jaffa oranges, which was exported to the rest of the world. What a triumph against the odds of nature and humanity’s neglect.
It was the first lie. Most of the orange groves and vineyards belonged to Palestinians who had been tilling the soil and exporting oranges and grapes to Europe since the eighteenth century. The former Palestinian town of Jaffa was known by its previous inhabitants as “the place of sad oranges”.
On the kibbutz, the word “Palestinian” was never used. Why, I asked. The answer was a troubled silence.
All over the colonised world, the true sovereignty of indigenous people is feared by those who can never quite cover the fact, and the crime, that they live on stolen land.
Denying people’s humanity is the next step – as the Jewish people know only too well. Defiling people’s dignity and culture and pride follows as logically as violence.
In Ramallah, following an invasion of the West Bank by the late Ariel Sharon in 2002, I walked through streets of crushed cars and demolished houses, to the Palestinian Cultural Centre. Until that morning, Israeli soldiers had camped there.
I was met by the centre’s director, the novelist, Liana Badr, whose original manuscripts lay scattered and torn across the floor. The hard drive containing her fiction, and a library of plays and poetry had been taken by Israeli soldiers. Almost everything was smashed, and defiled.
Not a single book survived with all its pages; not a single master tape from one of the best collections of Palestinian cinema.
The soldiers had urinated and defecated on the floors, on desks, on embroideries and works of art. They had smeared faeces on children’s paintings and written – in shit – “Born to kill”.
Liana Badr had tears in her eyes, but she was unbowed. She said, “We will make it right again.”
What enrages those who colonise and occupy, steal and oppress, vandalise and defile is the victims’ refusal to comply. And this is the tribute we all should pay the Palestinians. They refuse to comply. They go on. They wait – until they fight again. And they do so even when those governing them collaborate with their oppressors.
In the midst of the 2014 Israeli bombardment of Gaza, the Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer never stopped reporting. He and his family were stricken; he queued for food and water and carried it through the rubble.  When I phoned him, I could hear the bombs outside his door. He refused to comply.
Mohammed’s reports, illustrated by his graphic photographs, were a model of professional journalism that shamed the compliant and craven reporting of the so-called mainstream in Britain and the United States. The BBC notion of objectivity – amplifying the myths and lies of authority, a practice of which it is proud – is shamed every day by the likes of Mohamed Omer.
For more than 40 years, I have recorded the refusal of the people of Palestine to comply with their oppressors: Israel, the United States, Britain, the European Union.
Since 2008, Britain alone has granted licences for export to Israel of arms and missiles, drones and sniper rifles, worth £434 million.
Those who have stood up to this, without weapons, those who have refused to comply, are among Palestinians I have been privileged to know:
My friend, the late Mohammed Jarella, who toiled for the United Nations agency UNRWA, in 1967 showed me a Palestinian refugee camp for the first time. It was a bitter winter’s day and schoolchildren shook with the cold. “One day …” he would say. “One day …”
Mustafa Barghouti, whose eloquence remains undimmed, who described the tolerance that existed in Palestine among Jews, Muslims and Christians until, as he told me, “the Zionists wanted  a state at the expense of the Palestinians.”
Dr. Mona El-Farra, a physician in Gaza, whose passion was raising money for plastic surgery for children disfigured by Israeli bullets and shrapnel. Her hospital was flattened by Israeli bombs in 2014.
Dr. Khalid Dahlan, a psychiatrist, whose clinics for children in Gaza — children sent almost mad by Israeli violence — were oases of civilization.
Fatima and Nasser are a couple whose home stood in a village near Jerusalem designated “Zone A and B”, meaning that the land was declared for Jews only. Their parents had lived there; their grandparents had lived there. Today, the bulldozers are laying roads for Jews only, protected by laws for Jews only.
It was past midnight when Fatima went into labour with their second child. The baby was premature; and when they arrived at a checkpoint with the hospital in view, the young Israeli soldier said they needed another document.
Fatima was bleeding badly. The soldier laughed and imitated her moans and told them, “Go home”. The baby was born there in a truck. It was blue with cold and soon, without care, died from exposure. The baby’s name was Sultan.
For Palestinians, these will be familiar stories. The question is: why are they not familiar in London and Washington, Brussels and Sydney?
In Syria, a recent liberal cause — a George Clooney cause — is bankrolled handsomely in Britain and the United States, even though the beneficiaries, the so-called rebels, are dominated by jihadist fanatics, the product of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the destruction of modern Libya.
And yet, the longest occupation and resistance in modern times is not recognized. When the United Nations suddenly stirs and defines Israel as an apartheid state, as it did this year, there is outrage – not against a state whose “core purpose” is racism but against a UN commission that dared break the silence.
“Palestine,” said Nelson Mandela, “is the greatest moral issue of our time.”
Why is this truth suppressed, day after day, month after month, year after year?
On Israel – the apartheid state, guilty of a crime against humanity and of more international law-breaking than any other– the silence persists among those who know and whose job it is to keep the record straight.
On Israel, so much journalism is intimidated and controlled by a groupthink that demands silence on Palestine while honourable journalism has become dissidence: a metaphoric underground.
A single word – “conflict” – enables this silence.  “The Arab-Israeli conflict”, intone the robots at their tele-prompters. When a veteran BBC reporter, a man who knows the truth, refers to “two narratives”, the moral contortion is complete.
There is no conflict, no two narratives, with their moral fulcrum. There is a military occupation enforced by a nuclear-armed power backed by the greatest military power on earth; and there is an epic injustice.
The word “occupation” may be banned, deleted from the dictionary. But the memory of historical truth cannot be banned: of the systemic expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. “Plan D” the Israelis called it in 1948.
The Israeli historian Benny Morris describes how David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was asked by one of his generals: “What shall we do with the Arabs?”
The prime minister, wrote Morris, “made a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand”. “Expel them!” he said.
Seventy years later, this crime is suppressed in the intellectual and political culture of the West. Or it is debatable, or merely controversial.  Highly-paid journalists and eagerly accept Israeli government trips, hospitality and flattery, then are truculent in their protestations of independence. The term, “useful idiots”, was coined for them.
In 2011, I was struck by the ease with which one of Britain’s most acclaimed novelists, Ian McEwan, a man bathed in the glow of bourgeois enlightenment, accepted the Jerusalem Prize for literature in the apartheid state.
Would McEwan have gone to Sun City in apartheid South Africa? They gave prizes there, too, all expenses paid. McEwan justified his action with weasel words about the independence of “civil society”.
Propaganda – of the kind McEwan delivered, with its token slap on the wrists for his delighted hosts – is a weapon for the oppressors of Palestine. Like sugar, it insinuates almost everything today.
Understanding and deconstructing state and cultural propaganda is our most critical task. We are being frog-marched into a second cold war, whose eventual aim is to subdue and balkanise Russia and intimidate China.
When Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin spoke privately for more than two hours at the G20 meeting in Hamburg, apparently about the need not to go to war with each other, the most vociferous objectors were those who have commandeered liberalism, such as the Zionist political writer of the Guardian.
“No wonder Putin was smiling in Hamburg,” wrote Jonathan Freedland. “He knows he has succeeded in his chief objective: he has made America weak again.”  Cue the hissing for Evil Vlad.
These propagandists have never known war but they love the imperial game of war. What Ian McEwan calls “civil society” has become a rich source of related propaganda.
Take a term often used by the guardians of civil society — “human rights”.  Like another noble concept, “democracy”, “human rights” has been all but emptied of its meaning and purpose.
Like “peace process” and “road map”, human rights in Palestine have been hijacked by Western governments and the corporate NGOs they fund and which claim a quixotic moral authority.
So when Israel is called upon by governments and NGOs to “respect human rights” in Palestine, nothing happens, because they all know there is nothing to fear; nothing will change.
Mark the silence of the European Union, which accommodates Israel while refusing to maintain its commitments to the people of Gaza — such as keeping the lifeline of the Rafah border crossing open: a measure it agreed to as part of its role in the cessation of fighting in 2014. A seaport for Gaza – agreed by Brussels in 2014 – has been abandoned.
The UN commission I have referred to – its full name is the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia — described Israel as, and I quote, “designed for the core purpose” of racial discrimination.
Millions understand this. What the governments in London, Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv cannot control is that humanity at street level is changing perhaps as never before.
People everywhere are stirring and are more aware, in my view, than ever before. Some are already in open revolt. The atrocity of Grenfell Tower in London has brought communities together in a vibrant almost national resistance.
Thanks to a people’s campaign, the judiciary is today examining the evidence of a possible prosecution of Tony Blair for war crimes. Even if this fails, it is a crucial development, dismantling yet another barrier between the public and its recognition of the voracious nature of the crimes of state power – the systemic disregard for humanity perpetrated in Iraq, in Grenfell Tower, in Palestine. Those are the dots waiting to be joined.
For most of the 21st century, the fraud of corporate power posing as democracy has depended on the propaganda of distraction: largely on a cult of “me-ism” designed to disorientate our sense of looking out for others, of acting together, of social justice and internationalism.
Class, gender and race were wrenched apart. The personal became the political and the media the message. The promotion of bourgeois privilege was presented as “progressive” politics. It wasn’t. It never is. It is the promotion of privilege, and power.
Among young people, internationalism has found a vast new audience. Look at the support for Jeremy Corbyn and the reception the G20 circus in Hamburg received. By understanding the truth and imperatives of internationalism, and rejecting colonialism, we understand the struggle of Palestine.
Mandela put it this way: “We know only too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
At the heart of the Middle East is the historic injustice in Palestine. Until that is resolved, and Palestinians have their freedom and homeland, and Israelis are Palestinians equality before the law, there will be no peace in the region, or perhaps anywhere.
What Mandela was saying is that freedom itself is precarious while powerful governments can deny justice to others, terrorise others, imprison and kill others, in our name. Israel certainly understands the threat that one day it might have to be normal.
That is why its ambassador to Britain is Mark Regev, well known to journalists as a professional propagandist, and why the “huge bluff” of charges of anti-Semitism, as Ilan Pappe called it, was allowed to contort the Labour Party and undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader. The point is, it did not succeed.
Events are moving quickly now. The remarkable Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS) is succeeding, day by day; cities and towns, trade unions and student bodies are endorsing it. The British government’s attempt to restrict local councils from enforcing BDS has failed in the courts.
These are not straws in the wind. When the Palestinians rise again, as they will, they may not succeed at first — but they will eventually if we understand that they are us, and we are them.

More Australian workers killed in preventable workplace incidents

Terry Cook 

Over a seven-day period at the end of last month, industrial incidents claimed the lives of four workers in the Australian state of Victoria, highlighting the dangerous conditions across industries and workplaces.
Two farm workers were killed within 24 hours. One man in his 50s was thrown from the cabin of a spreader truck that then crushed him on a property south of Yea. A man about 40 died after falling from a stationary truck while loading manure at an egg farm near Geelong.
A carpenter in his late 60s died after falling from the first storey of a house under construction at Kalkallo, north of Melbourne and a 40-year-old hand stablehand was killed in a fall at Bendigo Racecourse.
These tragedies were followed by the death of David John Keen, 51, on July 4 at Rio Tinto’s Yandicoogina iron ore mine in the Pilbara region in Western Australia. Keen was killed in what the company termed “a serious incident” that may have involved an explosion.
The latest report released by a federal government agency, Safe Work Australia (SWA), shows that the number of deaths this year is on track to match or exceed the grim toll of 178 workers killed in 2016.
According to SWA, 95 workers died in industrial incidents from January 1 to June 28 this year compared to 87 for the same period last year.
So far, the sectors with the highest rate of deaths remain transport, postal and warehousing (38), agriculture, forestry and fishing (20), and construction (16). Last year’s fatalities across these three sectors were 64, 41 and 30 respectively.
Between 2003 and 2015, there were 3,207 industrial-related deaths, or an annual average of 247. While there has been a decline in the overall annual toll, the decline has been largely in deaths caused by vehicle collisions—the category with the highest number of fatalities. In all other categories of cause of death, the number of fatalities remained more or less constant or increased.
These statistics underestimate the real number of work-related deaths. Many more workers die from industry-related illnesses, cancers and other diseases, sometimes after years of pain and suffering. The statistics also exclude transport workers killed in road accidents as well as suicides related to workplace psychological injuries.
The SWA web site itself states: “Diseases are significantly under-represented in workers’ compensation statistics. That is because many diseases result from long-term exposure to agents or have long latency periods, making the link between the work-related disease and the workplace difficult to establish.”
A Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) analysis of the period 2016-17 estimated that 200 workers across the state of Victoria died as a direct result of workplace injury or illness, far exceeding the government’s official tally of 26.
The Australian Mesothelioma Registry reports that in 2014, 641 people died from mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, which was produced and used extensively in Australia. A total ban on the manufacture, use or sale of all forms of asbestos only came into force on December 31, 2003.
Medical models point to an expected peak in deaths from mesothelioma between 2014 and 2021. Future deaths are expected to reach 18,000, on top of the estimated 10,000 deaths since the 1980s.
Many of the fatalities and injuries that continue, year on year, are avoidable. A major factor has been the undermining and deregulation of safety conditions carried out by successive Liberal-National and Labor governments, which undermined even nominal restraints on the corporate drive to cut costs, speed up production and boost profits.
The trade unions are also directly responsible. They ritualistically denounce companies following workplace deaths, but only to cover up their own complicity in imposing today’s hothouse conditions. In the name of “international competiveness,” union-negotiated enterprise agreements have opened the way for seven-day working, around the clock shifts, and working in wet weather.
Also with union assistance, employers have imposed ever-greater casualisation, with workers often receiving little or no safety induction. This includes coal mining, one of the most dangerous occupations. According to an official report last June, contract labour now accounts for 33 percent of the total workforce in New South Wales mines.
To head off independent action by workers after workplace casualties, unions have called for official inquiries or appealed to governments to introduce stricter regulations and penalties. That is to leave safety in the hands of the very forces responsible for dismantling the conditions in the first place.
Jorge Castillo-Riffo, 54, died after suffering serious crush injuries to his head and neck on the Flinders Medical Centre construction site in Adelaide, South Australia in November 2014. In response, SafeWork SA pledged its investigation “would identify any breaches of the Work Health and Safety Act as well as all parties with potential responsibility for workplace safety.”
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) state secretary Aaron Cartledge declared: “SafeWork and police have got to do their work, we can’t speculate, it’s an active investigation.”
In February this year, the South Australian government announced it was dropping all charges against the project’s lead contractor HYLC and Castillo-Riffo’s employer SRG Building (Southern) for alleged workplace safety breaches.
Just days after the announcement, a 55-year-old worker was killed while working a jackhammer on the same project. Despite the government’s response to the previous fatality, Cartledge declared the union “wants a full investigation” by the same agencies.
Fatalities so far this year include:
  • A 65-year-old man died after being struck when part of a pressurised pipe detached during  tunnel work on the Lendlease NorthConnex project in Sydney’s northwest.
  • A worker in his mid-30s was killed by a large pipe that fell from a truck at the Neil Mansell Group transport yard in Chinchilla, Queensland.
  • A 60-year-old man died from serious cranial injuries after being trapped and crushed in a scissor lift device at James Hardie Business Supplies in Carole Park, Brisbane.
  • A 32-year old rigger was crushed to death by a heavy metal beam while working on a barge operated by building contractor McConnell Dowell off Barangaroo in Sydney’s Darling Harbour.
  • A mine worker was killed in Tasmania’s northwest at the Grange Resources open-cut Savage River iron ore mine—the fourth mining death in the region in as many years.
  • A painter in his late 60s suffered critical head injuries after falling 4 metres at a construction site at Merricks North on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula.
  • A worker in his early 50s was crushed by a load of steel that fell from a forklift at a scrap metal yard at Foster in South Gippsland, Victoria.
  • In January a 17-year-old was killed after plunging 12 metres to his death on a construction site in Perth, Western Australia, bringing the total number of industrial deaths across the country in the first week of 2017 to seven.

Australian government summarily deports more Sri Lankan refugees

Max Newman

Under the cover of darkness, the Australian government forcibly deported six Sri Lankan asylum seekers back to Colombo on a charted plane from Christmas Island on June 26, even though they could face imprisonment and torture.
The removals from Australia’s Indian Ocean outpost were only made public after local residents on Christmas Island reported this latest crime, committed as part of the Liberal-National government’s militarised “Operation Sovereign Borders” policy of repelling all refugees.
Because of the secrecy shrouding the use of naval and Border Patrol vessels to intercept and block all refugee boats trying to reach Australia, little is known about the latest six victims, including their ethnicity or background.
Such deportations violate the 1951 Refugees Convention, which prohibitions the removal of asylum seekers to face a risk of death, harm or persecution. Once the removals were confirmed publicly, however, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull personally backed them.
In fact, Turnbull seized on the event to boast of the ruthlessness of Australia’s anti-refugee regime. He told the Australian: “Our message is very clear—if you try and come to Australia on a boat you will not be allowed in.”
In Sri Lanka, President Maithripala Sirisena’s government has continued the repressive policies of his predecessor Mahinda Rajapakse, including torture and state terror directed against government opponents and Tamils.
After Sirisena was elected in 2015 via a Washington-backed regime change operation, the local and Western media hailed him as a more democratic and peaceful leader. In reality, his government has continued police frame-ups and brutality, as well as the military occupation of the island’s north and south.
In a similar case in May last year, the Australian government handed over 12 Sri Lankan asylum seekers to the notorious Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which immediately imprisoned them. The CID has a documented record of psychological, physical and sexual torture of government opponents.
The Australian Labor government, in 2012, pioneered the policy of deporting refugees back to Sri Lanka, without allowing them to even apply for asylum, working in close partnership with the Rajapakse regime. In order to strengthen relations with the Sri Lankan police-state apparatus, it went further, forcibly returning 650 asylum seekers who had been previously imprisoned in Australian detention centres.
Despite the claim of the current government to have “stopped the boats,” the latest Sri Lankan deportations show that asylum seeker boats are still setting sail for Australia, as part of the worsening worldwide refugee crisis.
According to statistics belatedly released by the Immigration Department last month, since Operation Sovereign Borders began in December 2013, the Australian Navy has captured 31 boats, repelling 771 people. Of these, 14 boats were turned back and six made “assisted” returns, while the victims on board the other 11 vessels were removed by plane.
These figures may only be the tip of the iceberg. Other military “turnbacks” could be going unreported, and an unknown number of boats may have sunk at sea while trying to avoid detection.
Both the “assisted” returns and the direct turnbacks create perilous conditions for those on board. In one instance 16 asylum seekers were captured by the Australian Navy, offloaded onto wooden boats and sent back in the direction of Indonesia without enough fuel to make it ashore. They were found adrift off West Timor and rescued by local people.
There is also clear evidence that removing refugees involves bribing “people smugglers” to cart them away from Australia in small boats. An Amnesty International report last year said the modus operandi of the so-called border protection regime involved paying incentives to boat crews, who are often desperate fishermen. This included an incident in May 2015 when the Australian government reportedly paid six crewmen $US32,000.
The department refuses to divulge the nationalities of those forcibly returned, except for those fleeing Sri Lanka and Vietnam. By its statistics, 153 Sri Lankan and 92 Vietnamese asylum seekers have been forced back since December 2013. Among them was a boatload of 46 Vietnamese men, women and children intercepted in April 2015, who faced between 2 and 15 years’ jail in Vietnam for seeking asylum.
There are signs that the Turnbull government is intensifying these brutal practices. Border Protection officials seized on last month’s incident to claim that “people smugglers” were using “micro-ventures”—smaller boats with less than eight passengers—to break through navel defences.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said the incident “should serve again as a very important reminder that these boats haven’t gone away.” He declared that “if the government of the day doesn’t have the resolve, I promise you these boats will start up in huge numbers.”
In other words, Dutton is claiming that tiny boats carrying desperate asylum seekers represent an attempt by so-called people smugglers to threaten the country’s defences. Rather, the “border protection” policy has forced those seeking asylum to find more dangerous ways to get to Australia, sailing smaller vessels through treacherous waters.
This regime is the result of decades of anti-refugee measures by successive Labor and Liberal-National governments. As with the deportation of Sri Lankans, the current government has built on the procedures adopted by the previous Greens-backed Labor government to repel or remove asylum seekers or incarcerate them in camps on remote Pacific islands.
Neither Labor nor the Greens has condemned the deportation of the Sri Lankan asylum seekers, underscoring their complicity in this criminal practice. The removals have received virtually no coverage by the mainstream media, signifying the support of the ruling class as a whole.
This line up has placed Australia in the forefront of measures being taken by governments around the world to repulse asylum seekers amid the greatest refugee crisis since World War II. Over two decades, the global population of forcibly displaced people has nearly doubled, from 33.9 million in 1997 to 65.6 million in 2016. Most are fleeing starvation, state violence or the wars unleashed by the US and its allies, including Australia.

Sri Lankan government appeases Buddhist hierarchy

K. Ratnayake

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena met with the country’s chief Buddhist priests in Kandy last Friday to assure them no constitutional changes would be made without their consent. The top priests, from all the Buddhist groupings, had issued a series of demands last Tuesday aimed at whipping up Sinhala Buddhist supremacism.
Their demands included: a delay in submitting a bill to parliament on the “International Convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance;” no new changes to the country’s constitution except the electoral system; the protection of Buddhist cultural and archaeological sites in the north and east of the island; and a special committee to look into the grievances of Buddhists.
Sirisena’s meeting took place against the backdrop of an intensifying political crisis, stemming from the growing struggles of workers, farmers and youth against the government’s austerity program. The government itself is seeking to promote communalism to split the growing mass opposition.
For decades, the ruling class has again and again exploited Sinhala communalism and anti-Tamil chauvinism in periods of crisis as the ideological means to defend capitalist rule in the name of defending the Sinhala nation. One of the chief tools has been the reactionary Buddhist establishment, which derives considerable privileges from the entrenchment of Buddhism as the state religion in the constitution.
Before Sirisena’s meeting with the monks, the government postponed submitting to parliament a bill on enforced disappearances. The draft legislation declared that any public officer or person acting with the authority or support of the state, who arrests or abducts someone and fails to acknowledge it or disclose the person’s whereabouts will be guilty of the crime of enforced disappearance.
The military, para-militaries and police arrested or abducted thousands of people during the 26-year communal war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Many of those who disappeared were tortured and killed.
The government proposed the cosmetic legislation to posture as democratic and try to deflect the anger among Tamils in the north and east, who have been campaigning for information about their disappeared relatives. At the same time, Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have insisted the government will not allow war crime charges to be brought against the military.
Opposing the bill, former president Mahinda Rajapakse accused the government of trying to punish the military that won the war against the LTTE. Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera, however, issued a statement yesterday that “the bill only affects the future and no impact on past events.”
Rajapakse and his parliamentary grouping are stirring up Sinhala communalism, including by defending the military “war heroes” against any war crimes charges, in a bid to topple the government and retake office. Rajapakse was ousted in the January 8, 2015 presidential election via a regime-change operation backed by the US, which was hostile to his close relations with China.
During the election, Sirisena posed as a democratic alternative to Rajapakse, promising to abolish the autocratic executive presidency and empower parliament. He also pledged to devolve powers to the country’s Tamils as part of any constitutional change. While the constitutional redrafting started in January 2016, no document has been produced.
Following last Friday’s meeting, Sirisena tweeted that he assured the Maha Sangha, or great Buddhist prelates, they would be consulted about any new constitutional draft. He insisted that the government would not alter the unitary state or the foremost place for Buddhism in the constitution. In other words, there will be no significant devolution of powers and no alteration to the clause making Buddhism the state religion.
Sirisena’s comment was also aimed at countering the Rajapakse grouping. Speaking at Trincomalee, Rajapakse again accused the government of seeking to divide the country by caving in to the demands for the devolution of powers. He claimed it was planning to remove the constitutional clause guaranteeing the foremost place to Buddhism.
The government’s decision to appease the Buddhist establishment comes amid deepening economic and social problems. Exports are declining and debt is increasing. Remittances of overseas workers, a major source of government income, declined by 6.3 percent in the first quarter of this year compared to last year. Inflation increased to 7.1 percent in April, eroding the living conditions of workers and the poor.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) postponed the final installment of its bailout loan, which was due in March, and is demanding revised tax laws. Last week the government tabled in parliament the new laws, which will sharply impact on the wages of working people. This follows other austerity measures dictated by the IMF, including privatisations and cuts to price subsidies.
The government is terrified about the developing opposition of the working class. On June 25, thousands of power workers marched in Colombo demanding a pay increase. On June 28, 22,000 postal workers began an indefinite strike against privatisation moves, but the trade unions shut down the strike after two days. Last week, unemployed graduates marched in Colombo demanding jobs. Medical students, supported by doctors and other students, have boycotted lectures for five months demanding the closure of a private medical college.
Trade unions, backed by pseudo-left groups such as the Frontline Socialist Party and United Socialist Party, and also the Sinhala chauvinist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, confined and sabotaged these struggles. The Nava Sama Samaja Party is directly backing the government’s repression of the protests.
The government’s promotion of chauvinism goes hand in hand with intensifying attacks on the democratic rights of working people. The government ordered the June 21 riot police attack on students who occupied the health ministry. The police injured around 60 students and later arrested six activists as a broader warning to the working class.
Police-state measures are being used against any opposition or protest. Teams of soldiers and police have been mobilised to crack down on people opposed to the dumping of garbage by state authorities, which is polluting the environment.
The whipping up of reactionary chauvinism by all factions of the political establishment is a warning to the working class that the government and ruling class as a whole is turning to autocratic and dictatorial methods to suppress opposition to the mounting austerity drive and attacks on living conditions.