10 Aug 2017

Chatham House Africa Internship Program 2017 – London, UK

Application Deadline: 27th August 2017
To Be Taken At (Country): London, UK
About the Award: This internship is an opportunity to gain insight into one of the world’s leading independent centres for practical policy research and debate on the politics and international relations of sub-Saharan African states. The successful applicant will be an integral part of the Chatham House Africa Programme team and gain valuable experience from supporting  its current projects and activities.
Type: Internship
Eligibility: Although flexible, Chatham House is ideally looking for someone who is able to commit 3 -4 days a week.
  • A bachelor’s degree or higher in international relations, development studies, politics, or related field;
  • Demonstrable interest in African affairs;
  • Strong writing skills and excellent attention to detail;
  • Ability to work as part of a team as well as independently;
  • Strong administrative and organizational skills;
  • Strong interpersonal skills
Value of Award: This is an unpaid internship. However, travel expenses to and from work within London (zones 1-6) will be reimbursed for the days worked. Lunch will also be provided in the staff canteen.
Duration of Program: 
  • Interview Period: 6-8 September 2017
  • Start date: 11 September 2017
  • End Date: 15 December 2017
How to Apply: To apply please send a CV, covering letter, a writing sample and the names of two referees to:
Eugénie McLachlan
Programme Administrator,  Africa Programme
emclachlan@chathamhouse.org
Award Providers: Chatham House

George Washington University Global Leaders Fellowship for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 5th February 2018 12:00 pm (Noon) EST
Eligible Countries/Regions: China (PRC), Cambodia, Eastern Europe, Laos, Latin America, The Caribbean, Mongolia, Sub-Saharan Africa, U.S.S.R. Successor States, ,Vietnam
To Be Taken At (Country): USA
Fields of Study: Graduate students (master’s and doctoral) from Foggy Bottom on campus programs in the following schools are eligible:
  • College of Professional Studies
  • Columbian College of Arts and Sciences
  • Elliott School of International Affairs
  • Graduate School of Education and Human Development
  • School of Business (Executive Education program is not eligible)
  • School of Engineering and Applied Science
About the Award: The Global Leaders Fellowship is for incoming graduate students (master’s and doctoral) who have applied to the George Washington University for Fall 2018 admission. (Current GW graduate students are not eligible for this fellowship). The fellowship is intended for GW graduate students who will be future leaders in their fields in their home countries, returning to their countries of origin to apply skills learned through their formal education at GW.
Type: Master’s, Doctoral
Eligibility: 
  • The Fellowship is valid for one degree only.
  • Fellowships apply to the fall and spring semesters.
  • Awards for the summer sessions are by petition only and subject to available funding.
  • This fellowship is for students who have not studied or worked in the U.S. or other countries aside from their home country.
  • Fellowships are awarded to highly qualified incoming GW full-time graduate degree program seeking students who have gained admission to the University and whose program is on the main Foggy Bottom Campus.
  • Students holding or intending to apply for an F-1 visa (J-1 visa is eligible for Fulbright applicants only. Note that other visa types are not eligible.) and who are from the following countries or regions above (chosen based on protocol arrangements and areas of the world underrepresented at GW) are eligible to apply.
Number of Awards: 3
Value of Award: The Fellowships will cover up to 18 credit hours will be awarded for 2018-19. The grantee is to provide funds from other sources for books, living, and other expenses, and must provide certification of this support.
Duration of Program: A Fellowship is renewable each year for a cumulative maximum of three years for Master’s candidates and up to five years for doctoral candidates. A grantee must submit renewal materials for the Fellowship each year; renewal is contingent upon the grantee’s grades (GPA of 3.0 or better).
How to Apply: 
  • Students need to apply for admission separately through the online process. No Fellowship applicants will be considered who have not completed the admissions application, including payment of their application fee.
  • As part of the admissions process, applicants must have passed the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) with a minimum score of 600 on the paper-based exam or 100 on the internet based exam, or an IELTS overall band score of 7.5 (with no individual band below 6.0).
  • Applicants must apply via the online submissions portal by the deadline. Instructions on how to apply through the portal can be found here.
  • Awards will not be announced until April 2018.
Award Providers: George Washington University
Important Notes: Please note that permanent residents, resident aliens and U.S. Citizens are not eligible for this fellowship. Applicants must have an F-1 (J-1 visa for Fulbright applicants only), no exceptions.

African Leadership Academy Pre-University Program for Undergraduate African Students 2018 – South Africa

Application Deadline: 31st August, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African students
To be taken at: African Leadership Academy, South Africa
About Scholarship: In supporting the education of talented students and empowering young people to lead change across Africa, the African Leadership Academy seeks to enrol the most outstanding young leaders from across Africa and around the world. ALA is not only looking for young people who are smart and excel in the academic environment, but are also looking for young people with the potential to lead and impact the world around them through their courage, initiative and innovation.african-leadership-academy
Offered Since: 2012
Type: Undergraduate
Selection Criteria and Eligibility: ALA’s application and selection process is very rigorous to ensure that the most outstanding students from across Africa with the potential to drive change are selected.
ALA is looking to enrol young people aged 16 to 19 based on the following criteria:
  • Leadership potential
  • Entrepreneurial Spirit
  • Passion for Africa
  • Commitment to Service
  • Academic Achievement
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship: All applicants who are selected as finalists will be given financial aid forms as a part of their finalist information package. Applying for financial assistance is strictly optional.
  • Students receive financial support for fees, uniforms, books and supplies, transportation, accommodation, and stipends.
  • Students benefit from enrichment in skill areas relevant to employment success, such as critical thinking, communications, and entrepreneurship.
  • Students will receive support during their transition into secondary school, university or the workforce with mentoring, career counselling, internships, leadership development, and other life skills coaching.
  • An integral component of the Program is the commitment from the Scholars to give back to their communities and countries of origin. Students will demonstrate this commitment through volunteerism and community service, as well as other forms of experiential learning.
  • Graduates of the Scholars Program will be connected through an alumni network that offers information, resources, and opportunities to consult with other graduates.
Duration of Scholarship: Two Year Pre-University Program

How to Apply: Candidates this year can apply online through an application portal.
Visit application webpage for details to apply
Sponsors: MasterCard Foundation
Important Notes: African Leadership Academy will perform a detailed review of each application for financial assistance, including copies of any employment contracts of the applicant’s parent/guardian. An ALA assessor will visit the home of each financial aid applicant and will interview references as a part of the financial need determination. Final decisions will be made by a financial aid review panel that includes ALA staff members, governors, and independent financial professionals.

University of Pretoria Tuks Young Research Leader Programme (TYRLP) 2018

Application Deadline: 31st August 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To Be Taken At (Country): TYRLP training at UP, Hatfield Campus, South Africa
About the Award: The TYRLP serves early career researchers in basic and applied sciences, engineering, social sciences, arts and the humanities.
The programme aims to grow early career academics at UP in the areas of thought leadership, team development, engagement and collaboration, with the intention of enabling them to solve the complex issues that face society.
A further aim is to form a community within the University of the like‐minded young researchers who possess qualities that will contribute to UP becoming a leading research intensive University, in line with the projected UP 2025 vision.
The leadership programme:
  • Identifies early career academics who have demonstrated leadership potential and an interest in developing key leadership skills;
  • Supports them to apply the acquired skills to projects that are relevant to the development of their academic careers and its impact;
  • Creates a network of early career academic leaders at UP, spanning across disciplinary boundaries;
  • Advances a curriculum for academic leadership development, which can be utilised by others.
Type: Training
Selection Criteria: To be selected, applicants need to display a compelling vision of their future involvement in the development of research projects, programmes, human capacity, specific policies or societal structures. The selection process will consider individual qualities but also focus on ensuring a diversity of culture, subject background (natural and social sciences, humanities) and gender among the fellows.
The following criteria are used as a guide for the nomination and selection of fellows:
  • A research fellowship with two years’ experience or a faculty position at UP
  • Outstanding scientific potential and outputs
  • A desire to nurture a culture of research excellence
  • Internationally influential, but South Africa and Africa focused
  • A desire to work collaboratively on inter‐ and transdisciplinary problems
  • An appetite for multiple stakeholder engagement and research communication
  • Commitment to participate in all the activities of the fellowship
All applicants should provide a support letter from an academic referee (details are provided in the application form). Please ensure that the support letter is sent from an accredited institutional email address. The referee should be available for future communications and mentorship in case of selection of the applicant into the programme. The referee will be informed about the progress of the fellow and should be willing to support him/her if required. All applications will be reviewed and shortlisted by representatives of the University of Pretoria and ASLP management. The final selection of candidates will be made by the ASLP management team.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The programme follows a highly interactive approach to training, including application of skills to a leadership project, peer support, and mentorship. Fellows will attend a two day intensive on‐site programme at UP. The process involves an approach that cycles between theory, application and reflection. Participants will be challenged to work collaboratively to design initiatives that advance a new paradigm for their science.
The training will cover elements of:
  • Core elements of collective leadership
  • Creative and systems thinking
  • Development of effective networks
  • Stakeholder engagement for change
  • Maximising the efficiency and impact of collaborative efforts
  • Advanced dialogue and communication skills
  • Effective problem-solving and decision-making
Following the initial training, the ASLP team will engage with fellows for a year, sharing information on resources and stimulating further interaction.
Duration of Program: 3 and 4 October 2017
Award Providers: The TYRLP is an initiative of the University of Pretoria in partnership with the Africa Science Leadership Programme (ASLP), KnowInnovation and the Robert Bosch Stiftung.
Important Notes: Fellows will be required to attend from 09:00 to 17:00 on both days. Please keep the evening of 3 October free when applying for the TYRLP 2017 Programme.

Why Most Arab Rulers Detest Free Speech

L. Ali Khan

Arab rulers across the Middle East detest free speech. The demand that Al- Jazeera close its operations is no surprise. Al-Jazeera (which means the island) offers talk shows, documentaries, and news in Arabic, the language of the region that reaches more than 350 million Arabic-speaking people from Mauritania to Yemen. Headquartered in Doha, Qatar, a native Arab land, Al-Jazeera has adopted an iconoclastic motto “opinion and the other opinion.”
For most Arab rulers, there is always only one opinion, the opinion of the government, and for them all other opinions are false, alien, and subversive. This commentary analyzes why Arab rulers are hostile to free speech, particularly the home-grown free speech, emanating from within the region, in Arabic dialects and metaphors, by Arab intellectuals, analysts, and critics.
Historical Tradition
For centuries, the Arab rulers are used to reverence, hand-kissing, and bowing. The Arab rulers, be they military officers, kings, emirs, or presidents, share a similar concept of leadership. They truly believe in their hearts that they are the men-in-authority chosen with divine will. They cherish an automatically presumed self-concept of being noble, just, and sagacious. Witness how General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Egyptian martinet, who overthrew a democratically-elected government, smiles with condescending wisdom. Such men as sovereigns (and there are no women Arab rulers) are not open to free speech.
Also historically, the Arab rulers have been tolerant of foreign criticism but not of internal dissent. Even today, the Arab rulers tolerate the non-Arab opinions broadcasted by the BBC, Voice of America, Press TV (Iran), or any other foreign outfit because the Arab rulers rely on an overarching paradigm that the foreigners, including Europeans, Americans, and Iranians, brood ill-will against the glorious Arab civilization that once dominated the world for centuries and gifted the world with the religion of Islam. They dismiss the Europeans as colonists, they deride the Americans as Islamophobes, and they scorn the Iranians as Shias, who are corrupting the true message of Islam that only the Arab rulers understand and have been ordained by Allah to preserve.
Al-Jazeera offers internal dissent, which is interpreted as baghyan(rebellion). The real-time reporting that deviates from the official truth, the “unfavorable” documentaries, and intellectual ruminations, aired in various shows at Al-Jazeera, all are seen as internal threat to political order that the Arab governments have imposed without the will of the people. Unintendedly, for that is the fallout of free speech, Al-Jazeera challenges the historical narrative of infallible Muslim rulers who can do no wrong.
In Arab countries, banning Al-Jazeera is seen as the right thing to suppress fitna (mischief), another convenient concept that the Arab rulers frequently invoke to arrest journalists, lash critics in public, and execute intellectuals and scholars. In Egypt, for example, Hassan al-Banna was assassinated in 1949, Sayyid Qutub was hanged in 1966, as both scholars were seen as the purveyors of fitna. President Morsi, elected in 2012, is in prison accused of terrorism and faces capital punishment. Egypt, the most prominent Arabic speaking country, has blocked or banned Al-Jazeera in cahoots with U.A.E, and Saudi Arabia. All are determined to eliminate fitna (fake news, lies, and terrorism) that Al-Jazeera allegedly promotes.
Distortions of Islam
The Arab rulers, the self-appointed defenders of “true religion,” defame Islam as the peoples of the world gather the impression that Islam is hostile to democracy and free speech. Even though the majority of Muslims, living in Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, India, Pakistan, and many other nations, are non-Arabs, the world continues to associate Islam with the Arabs, particularly with Saudi Arabia, where the prophet is buried and where the Qur’an was revealed in Arabic. Despite the expansion of Islam in all continents, what the Arab rulers do or say have significant bearing on the image of Islam for non-Muslims.
Even Islamophobia in the West is a distorted reaction to the Middle Eastern customs that have little to do with the teachings of Islam. Seeing that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia, seeing that the leaders of Al-Qaeda and Islamic State hailed from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq, and seeing the failed efforts to bring democracy in Arab countries, non-Muslims of the world construct a view of Islam rooted in misogyny, terrorism, and tyranny. The opposition to Shariah in the United States has everything to do with what the Americans witness in the Middle East.
Outside the Middle East, Islam has a different ethos. Consider Pakistan, a country carved out of India in the name of Islam. Only a few days ago, the Supreme Court disqualified a democratically elected prime minister, the highest political office in the country—an unthinkable event in the Arab heartland. In Pakistan, hundreds of newspapers and TV channels are determined on a daily basis to find faults with every aspect of the government and opposition. Although Pakistan has suffered military interventions, free speech has remained vibrant for most of its history. In this country, no credible paradigm paints the ruler as noble, wise, or appointed by Allah. Rulers are seen fallible and replaceable. Sometimes, the military generals get away with murder but this impunity is never associated with the dictates of Islam. In fact, even supporters of military generals advocate equality under the norms of Islamic justice.
Conclusion
Arab rulers detest free speech because they obtain and retain political power without the will of the people. They see free speech as a threat to the unrepresentative form of government they institute. The convenient labels of baghyan and fitna, mentioned in the Qur’an, are arbitrarily invoked to suppress legitimate criticism and dissent. The label of terrorism is also convenient to eliminate opposing viewpoints. The proposal to shut down Al-Jazeera reflects how the Arab rulers build their castles in sand that cannot tolerate the winds of free speech.

Saudi Arabia And Israel Are Best Buddies

Ludwig Watzal

That the Zionist and the Saudi regime are cooperating very closely and intensively is all over town. They have a common enemy: Iran. So, Israel doesn’t mind supporting the most radical, anti-democratic, fundamentalist, and repressive Islamic regime on the face of the earth. Besides that, both regimes are not that different. In the last decade under the Netanyahu reign, Israel has become so fundamentalist that one can hardly differentiate this government from the Iranian one, not to speak of the Saudi regime. Radical Jewish right-wing extremists infiltrating all ranks of the state, especially the military, and have hijacked the Netanyahu government through the Bennett’s Jewish Home party.
Compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is a fully fledged Muslim democracy with regular elections on all levels of society. The Saudis have no votes whatsoever and oppress not only its Sunni but especially its Shiite population. Western media do not report on the daily attacks against Saudi installations. The Saudi regime is going to execute 13 Shiites again in the coming days. Western protests: Nil.
Israel, which is the self-proclaimed “only democracy in the Middle East,” can only fool their Western supports with this slogan. Israel has become a significant liability not only to the US but Western interests across the Middle East. The country is heavily involved in causing havoc in their neighborhood such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Kurdistan.
The latest indication of this close cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia is Israel’s intent to shut down Al-Jazeera, the Qatari news network that has been a nuisance to the ruling dictators in the Middle East. To silence this network has long been on the list of the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the other Arab dictatorships. At the height of the US attack and its atrocities in Iraq, George W. Bush contemplated openly on bombing Al-Jazeera.
But in the case of Israel, it’s different. By closing down the Iraqi network, the Zionist Netanyahu-regime wants to do the Saudis a big favor because both countries still want to push the US into war with Iran. The way to this disastrous road would be the canceling of the Iranian nuclear deal that Obama and the other nations signed with Iran. Israel and the Saudis are strongly opposed to this agreement. Al-Jazeera’s political analyst Marwan Bishara stated recently: “Israel is taking its cues from Saudi dictators.”
Perhaps US President Donald Trump is that stupid to walk into this Israeli-Saudi trap. The US has already paid a high price for its illegal attacks across the Middle East. Why should the American people take the bullet for these two rogue regimes? When Saudi Arabia and Israel want to attack Iran, the tens of thousands of their decadent princes should fight together with the Israeli army. So far, Saudi Arabia was unable to defeat a bunch of Houthi tribesmen in Yemen.
To shut down Al-Jazeera in Israel is not that easy as in the Arab dictatorial regimes. In Israel, at least, a due process is still required. What a strange coincidence, the office of Al-Jazeera is in the same building that houses the Israeli government press office. To shut down Al-Jazeera in Israel would also close a window to the Muslim population that only the Qatari network can provide. Or does Netanyahu wants to detract from his legal and political difficulties that he is facing, and Al-Jazeera serve as the useful bogeyman?

New Zealand: Inland Revenue Department to axe nearly 2,000 jobs

Tom Peters

New Zealand’s Inland Revenue Department (IRD), responsible for tax collection, last month confirmed plans to slash its staff numbers by 25 to 30 percent by 2021.
At least 1,500 and as many as 1,947 workers will be made redundant, out of a total workforce of 5,647. This is part of the IRD’s “Business Transformation” project, which aims to save the national government up to $7.65 billion by 2024.
Further details have not been made public. According to the Public Service Association (PSA), which has some 3,000 trade union members at the IRD, the department also plans to cut wages for new staff. The PSA says up to 4,000 staff will be affected in varying ways by the restructure. Many will have to reapply for new positions.
Staff members were informed on July 19 that layoffs could begin in February 2018. The IRD has 17 offices around the country and has not said which will be affected. The IRD first announced last year it was planning the redundancies, partly attributing them to technological changes.
In fact, the cuts are part of the National Party government’s ongoing austerity drive. Since 2008, following the global financial crash, more than 5,000 core public sector jobs have been eliminated. Health and education are severely underfunded and access to welfare has been cut for thousands of people.
Government-owned companies have also sacked thousands of workers, including NZ Post, which has eliminated over 2,000 jobs. The collapse of state-owned coal mining company Solid Energy has led to about 2,000 layoffs and devastated entire towns.
This assault has been carried out with the full collaboration of the trade unions, including the PSA. The union has helped to ensure orderly lay-offs at several departments, including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Ministry of Justice, Department of Conservation and Ministry of Agriculture.
The PSA announced from the start that it agreed with the IRD restructure, and would help implement it. In a statement on April 4, 2016, the union said it would collaborate with the IRD “at every step of the way” and praised management for being “proactive so far in communicating with us about the change process.” PSA national secretary Erin Polaczuk said: “It’s inevitable jobs will go, but we are committed to retaining as many as possible.”
Polaczuk reiterated the message on May 10, 2017. Criticising the IRD’s threat to withhold redundancy from workers who refused to accept new job descriptions, she stated: “We understand Inland Revenue’s desire to maintain a flexible workforce ahead of the proposed job cuts... Change happens, and our members understand this.”
Having supported the cuts, the union has made tactical criticisms of IRD’s “process.” On July 19 Polaczuk told Radio NZ: “I just think they’re being a bit hasty by thinking that they can reduce the number of staff by that amount.”
In a statement on July 31, Polaczuk declared that “despite working closely with IRD for more than a year,” the PSA was forced to conclude that the management’s final document “includes sweeping changes to members’ roles, risks putting staff under extreme stress and could negatively affect New Zealand’s ability to pursue tax avoidance and compliance.”
In other words, the union’s main concern is to keep “working closely” with the IRD to find means to impose the job cuts, so as to overcome members’ resistance and ensure “tax compliance.”
Doubtless under pressure from PSA members outraged over the union’s sellout, Polaczuk sought to deflect the blame, stating that “the leadership at Inland Revenue has failed PSA members.”
Like other unions, the PSA is seeking to drum up support for the opposition Labour Party and the Greens ahead of the September 23 election. A union press release on July 20 said Labour was committed to “a restoration of funding to vital public and community services.”
The Labour Party has made limited criticisms of the IRD restructure, saying it would undermine the government’s stated goal of reducing tax avoidance by multinationals. New Zealand has one of the most deregulated tax environments in the world. As the leaked Panama Papers revealed, it is also a haven for foreign trusts, where the world’s elites stash hundreds of millions of dollars.
Labour’s revenue spokesman Michael Wood told TVNZ: “Improving IRD does not require a whole-scale gutting of the organisation and loss of experienced workers.” However, the party has made no commitment to reverse the cuts to the IRD and other departments if it wins the election.
Despite its campaign rhetoric, the Labour Party has no substantial differences with the government’s agenda. Labour and the Greens have committed themselves to “Budget Responsibility Rules,” limiting spending to 30 percent of gross domestic product, about the same as the current government.
In Auckland, thousands of jobs have been slashed by Labour- and Greens-backed municipal councils, including 1,200 following the amalgamation of Auckland’s local councils from 2010 to 2012. The current city council, led by former Labour Party leader Phil Goff, is cutting hundreds of library jobs and preparing hundreds of redundancies in public transport. The PSA has fully collaborated with the library cuts, just as the union is doing at the IRD.
In recent months workers in several industries have faced job cuts and attacks on wages and conditions, including transport and library workers, engineers and meat processing workers. In every case they confront unions that work hand-in-hand with the government and corporations to suppress any struggle against this offensive.
There is a growing mood of rebellion among workers and distrust of the unions and Labour. The Socialist Equality Group (NZ) says bluntly to workers that the way forward is not through these reactionary, anti-worker organisations but in a rebellion against them on the basis of a socialist perspective.

Government of crisis installed in Papua New Guinea

John Braddock

Papua New Guinea’s parliament was briefly reconvened on August 2 following national elections. Prime Minister Peter O’Neill was placed back in office following a vote of the newly-elected MPs. O’Neill received 60 votes, with 46 voting against.
The two-week election that ended on July 8 was dominated by vote-rigging, the wholesale omission of names from the electoral roll, ballot box-tampering and bribery. Nevertheless, Governor-General Bob Dadae invited O’Neill to form a government and recalled parliament, even though writs from only 106 of 111 seats had been returned.
O’Neill had earlier declared that he negotiated a deal with the Peoples Progress Party (PPP), the United Resources Party (URP), the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and independents to form a coalition government with his Peoples National Congress Party (PNC).
Already there are signs that the incoming government will be one of crisis. The National Court this week dismissed a challenge to the legality of a 2014 arrest warrant for O’Neill. The warrant stemmed from an investigation by anti-fraud police into alleged illegal state payments of $US30 million to law firm, Paraka Lawyers.
Last year O’Neill sacked the police commissioner and disbanded the anti-corruption taskforce. A series of challenges by his legal team ensured that the execution of the warrant remained stalled in PNG’s court system.
Dismissing the latest legal challenge, Justice Collin Makail declared it was “an abuse of court process” and the warrant is “not reviewable.” The head of the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate, Matthew Damaru, welcomed the judgment, saying it cleared the way for the prime minister’s arrest. O’Neill, however, indicated he would appeal to the Supreme Court.
The election outcome points to the deepening popular opposition to the austerity policies of all the major parties. O’Neill has clung to power in the face of rising struggles by students and workers over inequality, corruption and the country’s social crisis.
Despite the widespread electoral fraud, which principally benefited the ruling PNC, O’Neill’s government has seen its majority slashed. O’Neill presided over the last parliament with a large majority that included 55 MPs from the PNC. With Southern Highlands still to be declared, that number has been reduced to 27. Minor parties such as the PPP and the URP each have between 4 and 6 members.
According to a list published by the Loop PNG, over half the 59 MPs who signed up to O’Neill’s “Alotau 2” coalition are from minor parties or are designated independents. This unstable coalition will be held together largely through the disbursement of “development” funds, worth more than $A3 million, used to reward supporters in each electorate.
O’Neill last week announced a seven-man caretaker cabinet to operate until the first parliamentary sitting on August 22. His previous cabinet was largely decimated when at least six high-profile PNC figures were ousted in the election. They included Deputy Prime Minister Leo Dion, former parliamentary speaker Theo Zurenuoc and Health Minister Michael Malabag, who oversaw massive expenditure cuts in the health services.
The most significant new cabinet appointment is Charles Abel (PNC), who has been promoted from national planning minister to deputy prime minister, treasurer and minister responsible for next year’s APEC conference.
A coalition of opposition parties, called the Alliance, now holds 47 seats. It consists of the National Alliance (NA), PANGU Party, PNG National Party, Peoples Movement for Change, Melanesian Alliance, Coalition for Reform Party, Melanesian Liberal Party, PNG Party and independents. The NA, which was the main party in O’Neill’s previous coalition government, remains the second largest party in parliament with 14 seats, while PANGU has 10.
The parliamentary opposition parties provide no alternative for the working class and rural poor to intensifying austerity and deprivation. Throughout the election they attacked O’Neill from the right, accusing him of bankrupting the country and not going far enough in slashing budget spending.
Treasury last week released its Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, revealing a budget blowout of more than a billion kina ($US309 million) amid collapsed revenues and higher than expected expenditure.
Foreshadowing more attacks on living standards and public services, Treasurer Abel warned “changes in government direction” would be necessary. He told Radio New Zealand: “We’ve got to realise that there’s a limit to borrowing. We’ve got to realise that we’ve got to live within our means.”
Anger over the outcome of the election is fuelling ongoing political turmoil. The day parliament reconvened, fighting erupted when supporters of former MP and opposition leader Don Polye reportedly went on a “rampage” after his opponent Alfred Manase (PNC) was declared winner of the Kandep Open seat in the Highlands.
Polye’s supporters claimed the returning officer proceeded with the vote count without including seven disputed boxes from Polye’s support base. A gunfight broke out, causing five deaths and injuring more than 20 people.
The provincial capital of Wabag has already been in a two-week lockdown after four people, including two police, were killed in a previous incident between rival supporters over grievances regarding the Kandep count. More than 500 security personnel have been dispatched to the region to suppress the continuing unrest.
The decision to set aside the ballot boxes from Polye’s stronghold almost certainly ensures the result will go to the court of disputed returns. Nevertheless, his loss is significant. As Triumph Heritage Empowerment Party leader, Polye headed the official opposition in the last parliament and advocated an urgent supplementary budget to replenish depleted foreign reserves through further attacks on living standards. He centred his election campaign on a promise to sell the government’s share in the Oil Search company, which has a 29 percent stake in the country’s vast liquefied natural gas projects.
Unrest has also taken place in other areas. The Southern Highlands capital Mendi was placed in lockdown after five people were killed in fresh election-related violence last weekend. The clash erupted between armed supporters of the two leading candidates who accused the provincial election manager of defying Electoral Commission orders by proceeding to the vote count with dozens of ballot boxes still under dispute.

An anti-democratic witch-hunt in Australia over dual citizenship

Mike Head

Over the past month, an unprecedented media and political campaign has been launched against members of the federal parliament who allegedly hold, or are entitled to hold, citizenship of another country as well as Australian citizenship.
The witch-hunt involves a provision in Australia’s British colonial-era 1901 founding Constitution, declaring ineligible anyone owing allegiance to a “foreign power.” This anti-democratic clause today potentially disqualifies millions of people—about half the population—who were born overseas or had a parent born overseas, even if they are Australian citizens.
Two Australian Greens senators—party co-leaders Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters—have resigned their seats already. Ludlam was born in New Zealand and Waters in Canada, and both were unaware they automatically remained citizens of those countries. They had lived in Australia since they were infants.
However, as soon as the issue was raised in the media—in circumstances that remain murky—Ludlam and Waters each quit without any fight, not even a legal challenge. Instead, they both abjectly apologised for their supposed negligence in not checking their status.
After parliament resumed this week from its six-week winter recess, the Senate referred their cases to the High Court, the country’s supreme court, along with those of two other senators—a National Party government minister and a One Nation representative. Other MPs could face challenges. Media outlets have drawn up lists of more than 20 declared to be suspect because of their migrant heritage.
Every parliamentary party—the ruling Liberal-National Coalition, the Labor Party, the Greens and the various “third parties”—has joined the crusade against so-called dual citizens sitting in parliament or even standing for election. None has called for the scrapping of the anti-democratic provision.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull quickly endorsed the witch-hunt, deriding the “incredible sloppiness” of the Greens. Labor leaders demanded that the Coalition “come clean” on any of its MPs “at risk” of dual citizenship. Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale was the most fervent of all, demanding an official investigation of all 226 members of parliament to “immediately establish” their eligibility.
This hue and cry is anti-democratic to the core. Australia has an estimated six million dual citizens, who are potentially barred from standing for or sitting in the parliament.
Section 44(i) of the Constitution disqualifies anyone who “is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.”
The clause excludes not just dual citizens. It covers any Australian resident “entitled” to foreign citizenship. For some countries, children and even grandchildren of citizens may be entitled to citizenship. In other countries, like Canada and New Zealand, citizenship is acquired by birth and sometimes may be virtually impossible to renounce.
The words “adherence to a foreign power” could extend even further, particularly in wartime conditions, to anyone with an overseas family heritage, or who opposed a war or wartime measures such as conscription. It should be recalled that during both world wars, thousands of residents of “enemy” descent—German, Italian and Japanese—were arbitrarily rounded up and interned in camps for the duration of the war.
The anti-democratic character of this provision is highlighted by the fact that when it was adopted, there was no concept of Australian citizenship. Instead the continent’s inhabitants were classified as “subjects” of the British monarch, as were people throughout the British Empire.
The colonial politicians and businessmen who drafted the Constitution opposed using the word “citizen” because it smacked of republicanism. While they had their own imperialist ambitions, they were tied to the apron-strings of the empire, which remained their economic backstop and great power guarantor.
The only reservation of the “founding fathers” was that the term “subject of the Queen” would open the door for “Asiatic” royal subjects from Hong Kong and elsewhere. The constitutional convention debates are full of references to barring the Chinese and other “coloured races.”
In the end, this fear was addressed by the first parliament adopting legislation to expel Pacific Island labourers and impose English-language “dictation” tests to exclude immigrants not of the “British race.”
However, British subjects from elsewhere in the Empire such as New Zealand, Canada or Britain could stand for and sit in parliament, as long as they met basic residency and age requirements.
Australian citizenship was only introduced in the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. By then the ruling class had shifted its alignment behind the US following World War II. Even so, it was not until 1987 that “British subjects” were no longer entitled to Australian citizenship.
Today, section 44(i) stands as a barrier to essential legal and democratic rights. With the exception of the Aborigines, the entire population is composed of people who are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants who have arrived since 1788. Moreover, Australia, like many other countries, is increasingly diversifying because of the globalisation of economic and social life.
Full civil political rights, including to stand for elected office, should be available to all, regardless of birthplace, skin colour or ethnic background. More broadly, people should be free to live and work where they choose, with full democratic participation, not straitjacketed by the anachronistic capitalist nation-state system.
More than a century after it was imposed, section 44(i) is being brought to centre stage now for definite political purposes.
One immediate motive is to create a potential vehicle to remove politicians, and possibly governments, via legal challenges and court rulings, effectively overturning election results. Over the past decade, the Australian political establishment has become increasingly unstable, with one government falling after another, amid rising popular discontent with glaring inequality, falling living conditions, attacks on basic democratic rights, and mounting militarism.
If any Liberal or National lower house MP is disqualified, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government could lose its one-seat majority, triggering a new election or the formation of a highly unstable minority government, led by the Coalition or Labor.
The other, underlying, purpose is to whip up nationalist sentiment. This is designed to divide Australian workers along ethnic and communal lines, as well as split them from their fellow workers across Asia and internationally. Such agitation seeks to create the ideological climate for war. Around the world, with the Trump administration in the lead, ruling elites are inciting protectionism, jingoism and bigotry as a means of diverting the deepening social tensions outward and justifying war-mongering threats.
“True-blue Australian MPs only,” was the headline of an Australian editorial on July 20, highlighting the nationalist character of the outcry. The Murdoch publication insisted that patriotism, loyalty and national pride are essential pre-requisites for sitting in parliament.
The disqualification of “foreign” MPs is just one manifestation of this promotion of nationalism. The government is proposing legislation to restrict Australian citizenship to “patriots.” Applicants will have to formally “pledge allegiance” to Australia and pass tests of “Australian values” and university-level English—reminiscent of the “White Australia” dictation tests.
In late 2015, the Coalition government also pushed through legislation, with Labor’s backing, enabling it to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals by decree. The immigration minister can now unilaterally declare, on the basis of secret intelligence reports, that someone has “renounced” Australian citizenship. These provisions could be used to terminate the basic rights of many people, including those opposing the predatory and criminal wars being conducted by the US and its allies, such as Australia.
For now, these powers have been confined to dual citizens, but there have been calls within the government to extend the measures to all citizens. Citizenship is an essential democratic right, without which members of society can be stripped of all political and civil rights, including to vote, stand for office and obtain health, education, welfare and other social services.
These developments are a warning sign. The clouds of war are gathering, and the media and political establishment is trying to foment a xenophobic atmosphere, with far-reaching implications for fundamental democratic rights.

German automaker VW collaborated with Brazilian dictatorship

Ludwig Weller 

The criminal machinations of Volkswagen are not exhausted by the diesel emissions scandal and the formation of an auto cartel. The history of Germany’s largest automaker, which began under Hitler’s Nazi regime, has once again caught up with VW. Research conducted by broadcasters NDR and SWR, as well as the SĂĽddeutsche Zeitung, confirm that during the period of Brazil’s military dictatorship, which ruled the country from 1964 to 1985, VW participated in the persecution of regime opponents.
The firm’s own plant security service at its facility in Sao Paulo operated like an intelligence service, according to the research. It spied on VW employees, prepared lists of political opponents which ended up in the hands of the authorities, arrested militant workers and transferred them to the political police and enabled the arrest of workers by the military police on the grounds of the plant, thereby handed them over to be tortured. The company’s chief executive was informed of the arrests as early as 1979.
Public Broadcaster ARD screened a documentary entitled “Collaborators? VW and the Brazilian military dictatorship” on July 24. The film showed how VW do Brasil, Volkswagen’s subsidiary in Brazil, used plant security to spy upon workers opposed to the regime in the plant and in their private lives. The mere suspicion that they could be involved in trade union or communist activities was sufficient to justify VW handing workers over to the military junta. Hundreds of oppositional workers were tortured in prisons and killed as a result.
VW workers in Sao Paulo who survived have been targeting the VW company in Germany for years and demanding compensation. Two years ago, they filed a class action lawsuit and the state prosecutor in Sao Paulo has since been investigating VW.
An interview with the now 91-year-old former VW chief Carl Hahn, who was a member of the supervisory board of the company’s subsidiary in Brazil at the time, exposes the ongoing and persistent callousness of the company. Hahn denied outright having known anything about the collaboration. Asked about the latest investigations, he responded cynically, “They should just do it; we have more important things to get on with here.”
Hahn added that the company had the desire to move forward before noting with a smug smile, “However, I can tell you that we weren’t communists.”
The VW spokesman in Wolfsburg, Germany said as little as possible. Asked about the investigations, he blandly noted, “There are different interpretations, accusations must of course be proven. We should wait a little and not jump to premature conclusions.”
A central figure in the 45-minute documentary is the former toolmaker LĂşcio Bellentani, who tells his life story. Shortly after the military coup in 1964, the 19-year-old began his career at VW do Brasil. He soon became active on the periphery of the Brazilian Communist Party.
In the summer of 1972, secret police held a pistol to his back, arrested him and led him away in handcuffs during the night shift in the pressing plant. The armed VW plant security force and VW staff were on the scene. The first interrogation occurred in the human resources department. He was beaten, and ordered to give the names of other trade union and party activists. Since he remained silent, they brought him to the notorious prison of the political police (DOPS).
Bellentani’s only “crime” was the distribution of leaflets and organisation of discussion circles. He encountered other VW colleagues in prison and still cannot forget their desperate cries. His wife was only allowed to visit him with their two small children after 47 days of imprisonment and torture. He was released after two years.
Although LĂşcio Bellentani has retained his humor, he is marked by this period to the present day. He and a number of former colleagues have been meeting up for years and have absolutely no intention of letting VW off the hook. They therefore have placed a lot of hope in the class action lawsuit, which is based on their testimony.
But VW continues to play for time. Former VW chief historian Manfred Krieger, who visited Brazil in 2014 and called for a memorial for the workers, was laid off in the autumn of 2016. He was forbidden from giving interviews for the documentary.
VW subsequently hired the Bielefeld-based historian Christopher Kopper, son of the long-serving spokesman for the board of Deutsche Bank, Helmar Kopper, in hopes that he would place the company’s interests first in the investigation of the brutal methods of suppression employed by VW do Brasil.
But contrary to expectations, the historian, who is to present his final report in the autumn, came to similar conclusions to the research conducted by NDR, SWR and the SĂĽddeutsche Zeitung, which evaluated investigation files, internal VW papers from the period in question, documents of the VW supervisory board, reports from the Foreign Ministry and classified papers from the DOPS torture chambers under the military dictatorship.
The key finding is clear: “The picture emerging from all of this is that VW did not only collaborate and assist the regime, but was an independent actor in the repression. A good collaborator.”
While VW do Brasil persecuted militant workers and handed them over to the goons of the military dictatorship, it was simultaneously employing and protecting high-ranking Nazi collaborators.
Following the opening of VW’s new plant in Sao Paulo in 1959, one of the first to be employed there was Franz Stangl. The SS captain was a participant in the Nazis’ T4 euthanasia program and obtained “the class I and II War Merit Cross with distinction,” according to a subsequent court ruling. In 1942, he received a promotion to commandant of the Sobibor and Treblinka concentration camps.
After the war, he fled to Brazil, like many other high-ranking Nazis. There, he worked for eight years undisturbed under his own name in VW do Brasil’s “plant maintenance.” It remains unclear whether he was involved in the plant security service. He built a house close by, where the war criminal being sought around the globe was able to live unmolested.
Asked whether he was aware that Stangl had been employed by VW do Brasil under his own name for years, former VW chief Hahn answered, “We certainly didn’t know every concentration camp commandant’s name… and that those who came from Germany would be employed there is, I think, a matter of course.”
Without the research of Simon Wiesenthal, who tracked down Nazi war criminals around the globe, Stangl would probably never have been identified or arrested. In March 1967, Wiesenthal complained in a letter to North Rhein-Westphalia’s Justice Minister Josef Neuberger that “the Volkswagen plant in Sao Paulo made available to Stangl its lawyer, Dr. Garcia, who is of course seeking to resist the extradition.” Basileu Garcia was considered one of Brazil’s top prosecutors at the time. In addition, according to Wiesenthal, German industrial circles were applying considerable pressure to Brazilian business circles to hinder the extradition.
Stangl was arrested in Sao Paulo on 28 February, 1967, and despite the efforts at resistance extradited to Germany. It would take another four years before he was sentenced by a court in DĂĽsseldorf to life imprisonment. The ruling was “accessory to murder in 400,000 cases.”
Shortly after Stangl’s arrest, then VW chief executive Friedrich Wilhelm Schultz-Wink justified the employment of Stangl by saying, “In addition, Brazilian law forbids asking any questions of or collecting information on workers or employees.” In light of the collaboration with the Brazilian military and persecution of oppositional workers, it would be hard to make a more cynical statement. Incidentally, Schultz-Wink was himself a member of the Nazi Party.
The VW concern, together with the Social Democrat-Green government in Lower Saxony, has yet to comment on VW’s collaboration with the military dictatorship or the Stangl case.
What has been the response of the IG Metall trade union and the works councilors imbedded in VW? The answer is a stony silence. Neither the IG Metall nor the works council in Wolfsburg has taken a position on the matter. Not a single word of protest, no call to the VW board that it may wish to at least apologize for the criminal acts against Brazilian workers.
This feckless and subservient behavior of the trade union and works council can only surprise those who have a completely uncritical relationship with them or defend the union’s nationalist policies.
During a massive general strike in Brazil in 1979, which also included VW workers, a small delegation of VW workers from Sao Paulo visited Wolfsburg to confront the VW board of directors with the criminal machinations at VW do Brasil. One of them openly challenged then VW chief executive Toni SchmĂĽcker during a trade union conference in Wolfsburg city hall and reported on the collaboration between VW’s plant security force and the military dictatorship.
The VW board downplayed the situation and maintained a low profile, but IG Metall did not lift a finger. There is no indication of any solidarity rallies, and there is not even a record of notes of protest to the board of management. The current evasion by the trade union is a clear sign that IG Metall not only displayed a complete lack of solidarity with their Brazilian colleagues at the time, but also bore joint responsibility for their persecution.
Even now, when VW’s own company historian has been forced to confirm this grim episode, IG Metall and the works council stand behind company management to a man. Workers must draw far-reaching conclusions from this, and not only at VW. The huge crisis in the auto industry will spare no-one, and this will above all require a bitter struggle for jobs and wages, which can only be waged with a socialist orientation.
The example of the struggle by former VW do Brasil workers illustrates how workers confront a united front of company management, trade unions and the political establishment. The lawsuits filed by the former VW workers risk grinding to a halt without the workers having obtained justice or compensation. Without a global alliance of VW workers, which first and foremost demands a break with the pro-capitalist trade unions, the workers’ rights cannot be defended.