14 Sept 2017

Standard Bank Derek Cooper (Fully-Funded) Africa Scholarship at Oxford University 2018

Application Deadline: 8th January or 19th January 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Angola, Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia or Zimbabwe. Preference will be given to nationals of Angola, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa and South Sudan
To be taken at (country): UK
Eligible Fields of Study: You must be applying to start any full-time, one-year taught master’s course within the Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences, Social Sciences, or Humanities Divisions.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: You will be considered automatically for this scholarships if:
  • You are applying to start a new graduate course;
  • You submit your course application by the relevant January admissions deadline;
  • You are subsequently offered a place after consideration of applications received by the deadline;
  • Your application is not placed on a waiting list or held back after the January admissions deadline to be re-evaluated against applications received by the March admissions deadline.
Selection Criteria: 
  • The eligibility criteria will be applied automatically, using the details you provide in the relevant sections of the graduate application form (for example, your country of ordinary residence and your previous education institutions), to determine whether you are eligible.
  • Selection is based on academic merit, unless specified otherwise.
  • Some of the scholarships are only tenable at specific colleges. Unless specified otherwise, you do not need to select that college as your preference on the graduate application form. All eligible applicants will be considered, regardless of which college (if any) you state as your preference. However, successful applicants will be transferred to the relevant college in order to take up the scholarship.
  • Applicants who hold deferred offers to start in 2017-18 are not eligible to be considered for these scholarships.
Number of Awardees: 3
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship covers course fees, college fees and a grant for living costs of at least £14,553
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: There is no separate application process for this Africa scholarship: to be considered, submit your application for graduate study by the relevant January deadline (6 or 20 January 2017, depending on your course). Selection is expected to take place by the end of April 2018.
Award Provider: Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

GM Mustard and the Indian Government

Colin Todhunter

The next stage of the case involving the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India is to be heard on 15 September in the Supreme Court (SC). GM mustard could be India’s first commercially cultivated GM food crop, which could very well open the floodgates to the commercialisation of various other food crops that are in the pipeline.
Lead petitioner Aruna Rodrigues is seeking a moratorium on the environmental release of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the absence of comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocols in the public domain and biosafety studies conducted by independent expert bodies the results of which are made available in public domain.
The petitioners argue that the present circumstances warrant a prohibition on commercial release of DMH-11 mustard in view of the fact that:
* Mustard is a crop of origin/diversity in India
* DMH-11 and parental lines contain herbicide tolerant (HT) traits
* DMH11 has failed to satisfy the prior requirement of ‘need’ of this crop as evidenced from the results of the open field trials
* The conduct of Biosafety Research Level (‘BRL’) trials were comprehensively flawed and are invalid
In this ongoing saga, two government ‘additional affidavits’ were recently submitted to the SC, following the recommendations of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) to permit the environmental release of DMH-11 and its transgenic parental lines.
The government says that only 15 kilograms of DMH-11 would be planted in the upcoming winter season (beginning from Oct 2017) to demonstrate its yield potential and commercial viability. It has revealed plans for hybrid seed production in preparation for commercial use in approx. two years.
It also reiterates its claims that DMH-11 is not a HT crop. It claims it has been developed through ‘hybridization technology’. The government averred that DMH-11 does not pose any risk to human/animal health or the environment. Furthermore, it urged that the DMH-11 and other hybrids using this technology are necessary to improve yields in mustard in India which has been ‘stagnant around 7-8 MT for the last 20 years’.
The government has not only projected the hybrid seed production of DMH-11 as an innocuous and harmless procedure, but also revealed its predisposed mind to permit commercialisation of GE Mustard.
Exposing the government’s claims
In response to this, Aruna Rodrigues has submitted a 45-page ‘Addtional Affidavit Reply’ (citing all relevant sources and in-depth arguments) to the SC to rebut the claims by the government.
The basis of the rebuttal is stated on pages 3 and 4:
“At the outset, it is stated that the above [government] Affidavits hide more than they reveal. The stand of the Central Government reflects a high degree of technical incompetence and a deliberate intent to obfuscate science. The claims made are also straightforwardly untrue; broad statements, without evidence, presented as fact.”
Based on the Report on Assessment for Food & Environmental Safety (AFES) submitted by the Sub-Committee of GEAC, the government argues that DMH-11 does not pose any risk to human/animal health or the environment.
In response to this, Rodrigues states:
“As such, the AFES Report is not a detailed scientific description of the biosafety of HT DMH-11. The dossier with the raw biosafety data submitted by CGMCP [Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants at the University of Delhi, which has developed DMH -11] running into thousands of pages is still concealed, for which the Petitioners were constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents which is currently pending for consideration by this Hon’ble Court.”
While Rodrigues expresses deep concern about the government’s attempts to confuse and even mislead on matters of core importance to biosafety, she is also concerned about minutes of a crucial GEAC meeting being suppressed.
The affidavit then discusses the recent report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment and Forests: ‘Genetically Modified Crops and its Impact on Environment’.
The report is scathing in its criticism of the regulation and risk assessment of GMOs, including GM HT mustard. It finds relevant high-level agencies as shockingly casual in their approach to GMOs in agriculture and “takes serious note of the apathy of the concerned government agencies” about the impact of GMOs on the environment (including agriculture) and on human and animal health. It finds the current regulatory framework to lack rigour, expertise, transparency and is seriously ‘conflicted’ (conflict of interest).
The Committee strongly believes that unless the bio-safety and socioeconomic desirability is evaluated by a participatory, independent and transparent process and a retrieval and accountability regime is put in place, no GM crop should be introduced in the country. The report states that with GM mustard being an herbicide tolerant GMO, there is clear evidence on the adverse impacts of such GMOs from elsewhere in the world.
The Committee argues that the government should reconsider its decision to commercialise GM crops in the country and recommends that the whole process of evaluation should be carried out by an independent agency consisting of the people of impeccable credentials in the relevant field to ensure that there is no violation of the existing regulations in this regard.
The above findings are entirely in agreement with four previous official government reports. A short description of these reports is contained in the affidavit, followed by a discussion of the history of regulatory delinquency with special reference to events surrounding GM brinjal. Regrettably and alarmingly, in HT mustard DMH-11, India faces a repeat of the disastrous regulatory history of Bt brinjal, which was eventually prevented from being commercially cultivated.
The affidavit then goes on to deconstruct each aspect of the government’s case for GM mustard. It exposes a catalogue of deceptions and misrepresentations, not least the government’s newly concocted claim that HT stands for ‘hybridisation technology’ and not ‘herbicide tolerant’, which – given the evidence set out by Rodrigues in the affidavit – appears to be a desperate attempt to backtrack given the massive dangers and impracticalities associated with HT crops in a country like India.
As in previous court documents and in various other literature, it is made clear that GM mustard does not improve yields and that there is in fact no need for it. Much is also made of the field trails that were based on invalid tests, poor science and a lack of rigour and is supported by a good degree of technical data and argument. The conclusion is there has been a “regulatory vacuum” and the SC is being misled by the government.
Rodrigues is scathing in her criticisms, not least in the proven dangers posed by the herbicide glufosinate and the contamination of India’s mustard germplasm. The government’s actions indicate:
“a disregard for India’s priceless biodiversity, a heritage that we must ferociously guard and also status as a biodiversity ‘hot spot’… lip service is paid to the certain contamination of India’s germplasm from HT DMH 11. This is outstanding issue that Petitioners emphasise repeatedly, because it is critical. If the GM ‘genie’ escapes, it cannot be bottled again.”
Rodrigues adds:
“In reality, the ruse is to obtain the authorisation of this Hon’ble Court now, to ‘creeping commercialisation’ which will be undertaken in 2 stages. This first stage, (limited to 15 kg of seed), will be the backdoor entry to eventual full commercial release sometime in the future, when there is sufficient seed produced from this first stage for full commercial planting.”
Given the conflicts of interest at work in the regulatory process, the invalid field tests, the lack of transparency, the proven lack of need, the threat to India’s mustard biodiversity and the dangers of glufosinate to health and to agriculture in a nation of small farmers using a multi-cropping system, isn’t it time for the government to come clean? Isn’t it time to follow the recommendation set out in numerous high-level reports.
The developers at Delhi University, the government and the GEAC have been found out.
No one wants GM mustard. Not farmers, not the various states. And do we hear the public speaking out in favour of it?
The game is up. The emperor has no clothes. The fraud has been exposed.

How Much India Care For Its Refugees?

Amit Singh

India is a home of millions of refugees and asylum seekers such as Tibetans, Afghani, Burmese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankans and Africans. In past, Antonio Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) has applauded India’s refugee’s policy. In fact, Indian hospitality of welcoming foreigner is rooted in ancient Indian tradition of ‘Athithi Devo Bhav’ meaning Guest is (our) God.
However, recent threat by the Indian government to deport 40000 Rohingya, including UNHCR recognised refugees, is not only breach of its International human rights obligations-particularly the principal of non-refoulement- but also, violate old tradition of providing shelter to those seeking refuge on the Indian shore.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, in his speech at the UN Human Rights Council’s 36th session in Geneva, had deplored the Indian decision to “carry out collective expulsions” and “return people to a place where they face persecution.” Indian response to the UN Commissioner has been ‘typical’ and traditional. India just like its neighbour Thailand and Bangladesh (who are also not signatory of 1951 Refugee Convention) invoked its concern for “national security” to justify Rohingya’s deportation. This has questioned about India’s intention/willingness to protect human rights of its refugee populations within its jurisdiction.
India has not signed 1951 Refugee Convention (which is legally binding principals for refugee protection) and, there is no specific domestic legal framework to protect the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in India. This has led to legal insecurity of refugees’ status and difficulty to access in refugee rights. Due to the absence of specific laws related to refugees and asylum seekers; they are regulated under the Foreigners Act, 1946. However, problem with this act is, it does not take special situation of refugees and refugees’ rights and treats refugees and asylum seekers with tourist, illegal immigrants, economic immigrants alike.
Indian legal framework has no uniform law to deal with its huge refugee population, it chooses to treat incoming refugees based on their national origin and political considerations, questioning the uniformity of rights and privileges granted to refugee communities as per the international human rights conventions and UN treaties. This results in unequal treatment towards refugee groups. This treatment is reflected in how refugees from China are well received compare to refugees from Myanmar in India.
Though recently, Indian Citizenship laws have been amended to accommodate specifically Hindu refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh, ignoring other groups of refugees in need of protection. This step of Indian government seems motivated by the nationalist politics rather than humanitarian concern as many have blamed.
Refugees from Myanmar and Somalia are often ignored by the Indian policy makers, since these nationals do not serve geo-political purpose, as refugees from China (or share ethnic similarity as in the case of Hindu refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh). There is hardly any concrete legal protection measures for Rohingya refugees in India even though they have been declared genuine refugee by the United Nations.
In the absence of specific refugee policy, Indian government takes administrative decision on ad hoc basis keeping the national security in mind, however, ad hoc decision is more guided by the national security, and foreign affairs- as observed in Rohingya case where due to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Myanmar; a threat of deportation have been issued to 40000 Rohingya refugees staying in India to appease political leaders of Myanmar.
However, India is a signatory to various international treaties and conventions relating to universal human rights and refugees such the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Thus, for India, it is imperative to exercise consistency in the application of refugee law and regional politics shall be avoided. The current ad hoc arrangement dealing with refugees based on administrative, political and economic calculations, do not meet international standard of refugee protection. The principle relating to refugees in international law needs to be recognised in the Indian law — that of non-refoulement, which means non-expulsion or non-extradition to the place from which the refugee has fled as long as the compelling circumstances for fleeing persist.
States do not subscribe to an adapative approach towards the sensitive human rights issues like refugees and minorities may find themselves increasingly isolated by the world community. Failing to adopt any asylum legislations does not free a country for its human rights obligations under treaties to which it is party or, indeed, under customary International law. States can not use national legislation to reduce their human rights obligation.
Protection of refugees and asylum seekers shall be guided by the humanitarian concerns rather than matter of foreign affairs, national security and narrow politics of vote bank. If India is serious to claim its permanent position in United Nations Security Council and wants to provide able leadership to the world, then it must set good example in South Asia by providing a secure legal protection to its refugees and asylum seekers particularly to Rohingya refugees who are in dire need of protection.

More warnings of Australian property market crash

Oscar Grenfell

Over the past weeks, nervous commentaries in the financial press, from international banks and major property developers, have warned that a downturn of the Australian housing market could trigger a financial crisis.
Indices of soaring mortgage debt, declining wages and falling investor confidence have pointed to the fragility of the property bubble, which is built on a mountain of debt and parasitic financial speculation.
There are symptoms of a slowdown that some commentators warn could mark the beginning of the end for record high house prices. Figures from CoreLogic showed that auction clearance rates for the first week of September were at their lowest level in over a year, at 66.4 percent across the country.
Falls were recorded in Sydney and Melbourne, the country’s two biggest cities and the centres of the east coast property boom. Prices were stagnant during August in Sydney, and grew by just 0.5 percent in Melbourne. This marked a shift from growth rates that had seen prices double in both cities since 2009. Average prices reached over $1 million in Sydney this year and more than $900,000 in Melbourne.
The downturn in the apartment sector is far more pronounced.
In Brisbane, the third largest city, apartment sales from a plan fell from 1,600 in the December quarter of 2014, to just 300 in the June quarter of 2017, according to CoreLogic. In the March quarter, some 25 percent of Brisbane apartments already on the market were resold at a loss. Unit values fell by 3.2 percent over the year to the end of last month.
Tim Lawless, CoreLogic’s research head, described the Brisbane apartment market as “quite problematic” and said similar processes were underway in Melbourne and Perth.
Harry Triguboff, the multi-billionaire property developer whose Meriton Group is the country’s largest apartment builder, told the Australian on Monday that prices in the sector had fallen by as much as 10 percent over the past six months. “The falling prices will have a big impact on the economy,” he said, “Australians could lose an enormous amount of wealth.”
BIS Oxford Economics last month estimated that high-density residential completions could fall by 50 percent in the two years to 2020–21. The research group also forecast a 31 percent fall in new residential building starts over the next three years.
This would jeopardise the jobs of tens of thousands of construction workers, and have far broader implications. BIS managing director Robert Mellor said that with the downturn, national economic growth rates would be below the 3 percent projected by the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Turnbull government.
The Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment report for September said confidence in the property market had fallen to its lowest level since the survey began 40 years ago. Only one tenth of respondents said real estate was the best area to invest savings, while the “time to buy a dwelling” sub-index had fallen by 13 percent this year.
Underlying the concerns are a sharp growth of mortgage debt and declining wages.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data this week showed that in Sydney alone, 407,000 households with mortgages or other housing loans are “over-indebted.” A household with debt three times greater or more than income is classified as holding excessive debt. The average debt among such households in Sydney is over $765,000.
Across the country, “over-indebtedness” among young homeowners is endemic—62 percent among 24–35 year-olds and 51 percent among 35–44 year-olds. Total household debt has almost doubled since 2003. It now stands at 189 percent of income, the second highest ratio in the world.
Modelling by Digital Finance Analytics late last month found that up to 820,000 households, a quarter of those holding a mortgage across the country, are in mortgage stress. About 32,000 of those are in severe stress, unable to meet their repayments with their current income, while 52,000 are at risk of defaulting on their loan by May.
The pressures on mortgage-holders are being driven by record low wage growth, which has been just 1.5 percent over the past year, according to one measure. Household savings levels in June were 4.6 percent of income, the lowest since 2008, and the figure has not risen for 14 consecutive quarters.
Because of rising living costs and stagnant or declining incomes, broad sections of the population are suffering financial hardship. They could be pushed over the edge by the loss of a job, or any other unexpected expense.
Commenting on the ABS debt figures, Robert Gottliebsen, the Australian’sbusiness columnist wrote today: “If ever property falls in Australia the affects will not just be directed to the over-borrowed parts of the society... but it will spread through the wealth of the community.”
The major banks would be heavily exposed to any housing sector slowdown, with around 60 percent of their assets composed of mortgage debt.
International investment bank, UBS, this week called into question the quality of much of that debt. It estimated that up to $500 billion of outstanding mortgage loans could be based on incorrect information, including about the borrower’s income, debts and assets.
In a UBS survey of 900 mortgage holders, only 67 percent said their mortgage application was “completely factual and accurate.” If UBS’s extrapolation is correct, 29 percent of all mortgage debt, and 18 percent of private debt across the board may be based on false information.
The figures have prompted media denunciations of “dishonest” household borrowers, with headlines warning of “liar loans.” In reality, the banks and mortgage brokers have aggressively pushed risky housing loans, as part of a broader promotion of the speculative housing bubble, including by governments and regulatory authorities.
Last month, for instance, a former broker told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Four Corners” program the previous industry standard was for loans to be no more than three to four times gross income, but it was now common for loans to amount to seven or eight times income.
Having promoted the boom, the authorities are trapped in a dilemma, with any move to rein it in threatening a precipitous fall in lending and a rush of mortgage defaults, risking broader economic turbulence.

Corruption crisis engulfs all major parties in Peru

Cesar Uco

A political crisis of rule is rapidly developing in Peru involving all of the major parties. It stretches from the internal fissures within the extreme right-wing parties, like the ruling Partido por el Kambio of President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (PPK) and the fujimorista Fuerza Popular, all the way to the pseudo-left Frente Amplio.
Kuczynski’s first year has been generally assessed within the media as somewhere between disappointing and near catastrophic. His performance has been characterized by continuous cabinet shakeups, inability to deal with the Fuerza Popular-controlled Congress and the mega-scandal related to kickbacks by the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht, which is having strong negative repercussions for the nation’s economic growth.
The government has blamed the fall of the economy during the first part of this year on the devastation produced by the so-called “Niño costero,” affecting most of the country, especially the northern region with heavy rain and widespread flooding. While it is true that the floods in the north damaged agricultural production and distribution, the government’s response to this catastrophe has been to ensure that private companies profit from the “reconstruction” to come with a fund of 25.7 billion soles (US$7.7 billion) to invest in the damaged areas.
Though metal prices are experiencing an upswing in the world commodities markets, it may come too late to reactivate the Peruvian economy, which has been slowing down for almost two years.
But, as in many other countries facing problems in the growth of the real economy, the Peruvian stock exchange has increased 13.7 percent so far in 2017.
According to Gestion, the only growth this year has been in “informal” jobs; those which are kept off the books, paying no taxes to the central government, nor benefits to workers. 332,600 informal jobs were created in the past 12 months.
The Odebrecht scandalwhich is bound up with the massive Lava Jato bribes and kickbacks operation surrounding Brazil’s state-run energy conglomerate Petrobrasis threatening to put two other former presidents behind bars: Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006), accused of having received US$20 million from the Brazilian company, and Alan Garcia (2006-2011).
Former president Toledo is living comfortably in the San Francisco Bay Area, employed by Stanford University. But in recent days, prosecutors have been preparing a dossier for Washington, which has signaled that it will extradite Toledo if proof of his misdeeds is presented by the Peruvian government.
Toledo’s position was weakened when his longtime associate, Israeli multimillionaire Josef Maiman, agreed to collaborate with prosecutors. Maiman revealed that he was part of a transaction of US$3 million in the “Ecoveta” case; a scandal involving a multi-million-dollar acquisition of real estate in Lima by Eva Fernenbug, mother of Toledo’s wife Elaine Karp. Other collaborators have indicated they will testify about other schemes used by Toledo to hide US$20 million in kickbacks requested from Odebrecht.
Among the several mega-construction projects that Odebrecht bid for and won through bribes, the most significant was for the construction of the southern portion of the Interoceanic Highway, an ambitious plan to create an overland link between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
During recent years, in addition to multi-billion-dollar mining projects, Peru’s fortunes have relied heavily on construction, an industry that Odebrecht dominated. As a result of the bribery scandal, many major projects are now paralyzed.
The dilemma of PPK’s government is that it is forced to pretend that it is battling corruption, but bringing Toledo before the Peruvian courts would jeopardize the political future of Kuczynski himself, who was prime minister under Toledo. Toledo has declared that PPK was a participant in the meeting that approved contracting Odebrecht to construct the Interoceanic Highway.
PPK’s approval rating is deteriorating rapidly, from 40 percent in the last week of August to a meager 19 percent today. No president in Peruvian history has suffered such a collapse in popularity during his first year in office. Recently, a government prosecutor announced that he will question PPK over his involvement in the Odebrecht scandal.
PPK is not the only high profile figure the prosecutors are after. The leader of Fuerza Popular, Keiko Fujimori, has been accused of receiving presidential campaign contributions from Odebrecht. Thus, Keikothe daughter of Peru’s jailed former dictatorial president Alberto Fujimori sentenced to 25 years in prison for crimes against humanity in the 1990smight end up serving an 18-month term of preventive imprisonment.
Former president Ollanta Humala and his wife Nadine Heredia have been in jail since July 2017 under a similar preventive detention order. In its September 7 edition, La Republica, reported that “Human Rights Watch submitted a report stating that there is new evidence that the former president [Humala] was involved in atrocities committed during the armed conflict” in the 1990s.
Alongside the corruption allegations, Fuerza Popular, which controls Congress, is suffering divisions within its ranks conditioned by a political struggle between Keiko and her brother Kenji.
The courts are also preparing to interrogate and present evidence against the last two mayors of Lima: the pseudo-left-backed Susana Villaran; and the current mayor, Luis Castañeda Lossio, known for the corrupt deals that characterized his first term as mayor (2003–2010).
Then there is the pseudo-left coalition Frente Amplio, which has been split between those aligned with Marco Arana of the Tierra y Libertad party, and those backing former “left” presidential candidate Veronika Mendoza, who is building her own party in preparation for the next presidential elections. Each faction has 10 representatives in Congress.
Lately there have been rumors about the possibility of vacancia presidencialfor Kuczynski, a constitutional measure that Congress can employ to force a democratically elected president to resign the presidency. Though such an extreme measure is normally reserved for only extraordinary circumstances, such as when a president is physically incapacitated, some factions of the ruling class clearly fear that having an extremely unpopular president under conditions of a stagnant economy and the wholesale discrediting of the political establishment by corruption scandals is creating a dangerous and unacceptable situation for bourgeois rule.
These fears are well-founded. Over the course of this year, Peru has seen a growing wave of working class and peasant struggles. Beginning on June 15, 400,000 public school teachers went on a national strikealongside strikes in the public health sector and the mines along with 24 or 48-hour regional stoppages.
From mid-July onwards, in the combative southern region, teachers adopted the tactics traditionally used by miners and peasants, blocking roads with stones and burning tires and holding massive marches in all the major cities, followed by bloody confrontations with the police. More than 15,000 teachers, students and parents, coming from all corners of the country, congregated in Plaza San Martin in the capital, Lima.
The teachers have valiantly resisted the government’s repression and its provocative accusations that they are “terrorists,” staging protests near the government headquarters every single day until the end of August.
On August 4, the government announced an agreement on some of the issues raised in the strike and called upon teachers to return to classes. According to Telesur, “the government will raise the basic salary of teachers to US$ 617 per month by December 2017. Teachers’ leaders agreed to resume activities in all schools across the country beginning August 7. Regional governments also promised to allocate 70 percent of their budgets to the education sector by 2018.”
The strike has also seen the major teachers’ trade union, SUTEP, for decades under the control of the Maoist movement Patria Roja, gradually lose control over the majority of teachers to a new movement led by members opposed to the SUTEP bureaucracy, which collaborated with the government, even joining it in accusing the strikers of “terrorism.” Across the country, teachers have created “Defense Committees” independent of the union.

UK: Pay cap for majority of public sector workers to continue, despite government defeat

Robert Stevens

The Conservative government suffered defeat in Parliament Wednesday as its Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) partners backed a Labour Party motion calling for an end to the one percent public sector pay cap for National Health Service (NHS) workers.
With the Tories abstaining on the vote, Labour’s motion went through unopposed. The DUP also backed a Labour motion calling for this year’s proposed rise in tuition fees to be reversed.
It is the first time the DUP has voted against the Tories after agreeing a “confidence and supply” arrangement to keep Theresa May’s minority government in power. The result is non-binding, however.
The vote is indicative of concern in ruling circles at popular discontent over the seven-year pay cap on public sector workers, draconian austerity measures and the parlous state of the UK economy.
On Tuesday, the government announced it would lift the pay cap on prison guards and police officers. They will be given 1.7 percent and 2 percent respectively, under conditions in which the government is strengthening its law and order agenda.
Even so, the increases are still below the official inflation rate of 2.9 percent and are to be funded through further budget cuts. And they have only fuelled anger amongst other public sector workers.
August saw a further precipitous decline in living standards for all workers, due to the rising cost of fuel, clothes and food imports. The crisis engulfing millions was summed up by the Institute for Public Policy Research on Economic Justice think tank, which noted that the Britain is experiencing the longest period of earnings stagnation for 150 years. It found that GDP per head has risen by 12 percent since 2010 but average earnings per employee have fallen by 6 percent. Wages as a share of national income are the lowest since the Second World War.
This is an indictment of the trade unions and the Labour Party, which have enabled the government to impose its austerity and pay freeze agenda without any serious challenge. Moreover, it was Labour that first introduced tuition fees in 1998, paving the way for the astronomical charges of £9,000 per annum today, which are set to rise in line with inflation.
It is to conceal their role in facilitating these attacks that they are now posturing as the opponents of low pay and tuition fees.
Speaking at the annual conference of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) Tuesday, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn attacked the Tory pay award to police and prison guards as a policy of divide and rule and announced that a “Labour government will end the public sector pay cap and give all workers the pay rise they deserve and so desperately need.”
Corbyn did not make a specific pledge on the amount of any pay rise, or when it would be honoured. Nor did he address the fact that Labour-run councils are implementing Tory policies—cutting services and ripping up employment contracts.
He made an oblique reference to the ongoing struggle by Birmingham refuse workers, stating that the “labour and trade union movement, have a duty… to find a resolution to this dispute as soon as possible.”
Corbyn could not address the dispute honestly because it would show Labour’s real stance behind his pious words. In Birmingham, England’s second largest city, it is a Labour-run council that has sought to carry out mass redundancies and attacks on refuse workers’ pay and conditions. A series of walkouts by the workers resulted last week in Labour council leader John Clancy issuing redundancy notices to 113 workers, before being forced to resign just days later.
The situation in Birmingham is replicated across the country, including by the Labour council and Mayor in Bristol and in Salford, where they being pushed through by one of Corbyn’s own supporters, Mayor Paul Dennett.
While Corbyn condemns the Tories for divide and rule policies, the fact is that Labour and the unions are the real specialists at this. The motion tabled in parliament Wednesday by Labour did not call for the scrapping of the pay cap for all workers. Instead it centred only on NHS employees, which it said should be given “a fair pay rise.”
Labour’s motion listed the deepening crisis in the NHS, which is facing its worst ever winter. In addition to chronic low pay and worsening conditions, the government’s refusal to safeguard the rights of European Union citizens working in the country following Britain’s exit from the EU has created a major staffing crisis that imperils the lives of thousands of workers and their families.
The same situation can be found across the public and private sector. Labour’s decision to focus solely on the NHS is just as divisive as the Tories, with its implicit suggestion that some groups of workers are more deserving of a living wage than others.
The absence of any firm commitment quantifying the size of any pay rise is not an accident. Only last month Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell told the Guardian how he had sought to reassure “people in the City—asset managers, fund managers and… the London Stock Exchange” that they had nothing to fear from an incoming Labour government.
There is no way that the fundamentally conflicting interests of the working class can be reconciled with those of the financial oligarchy. For all their statements supposedly in support of workers, Labour and the TUC are seeking to suppress and police the class struggle.
That is why, when Labour’s shadow Health Minister Jonathan Ashworth—one of the six MPs introducing the NHS motion—was asked if he supported strikes to reverse the pay cap, he responded, “[W]e don’t want it to get to that stage. We don’t want to see a strike. We don’t want to see nurses going on strike and wider public servants going on strike.”
Asked if he supported anti-pay cap strikes that would be deemed illegal under the Tories anti-union laws, another shadow minister, Richard Burgon, refused to answer.
At the TUC conference, Len McCluskey, Unite General Secretary, made great play of the unions’ preparedness to defy anti-union laws over public sector pay. The “concept” of “coordinated public service workers’ action” was “very likely and very much on the cards”, he said.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, just three unions out of 50 have called only “consultative ballots” for industrial action, despite the government making clear the pay cap would continue for the majority of workers. All that TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady has proposed is a token 90-minute protest over pay on October 17.
That the ruling elite have the real measure of these anti-working class organisations was demonstrated in Tuesday’s Financial Times editorial.
“Britain’s departure from the EU single market and customs union leaves the economy vulnerable,” the Financial Times wrote. This meant, “Britain’s unions have an opportunity: their role is likely to become more important after the UK leaves the EU.”
The mouthpiece of big business made clear that this depended on the unions’ ensuring no “return to a more militant attitude of the past.” Any “returning to the era of mass strikes and state aid to select industries” was forbidden, it cautioned. On this basis, the “unions can remain relevant if they use their power wisely,” it reassured.

Trump administration threatens further clampdown on refugees

Bill Van Auken

Having already capped the number of refugees to be admitted to the United States at 50,000less than half the previous quotathe Trump administration is preparing to slash the number even further as part of its “America First” program promoting right-wing nationalism and xenophobia.
With an October 1 deadline looming for the administration’s declaration to Congress on the number of refugees it is prepared to accept, Trump’s fascistic senior political adviser and the chief architect of his virulently anti-immigrant policies, Stephen Miller, has, according to the New York Times, proposed that the number be reduced as low as 15,000.
While the process of deciding the cap on refugees is “typically led by the State Department and coordinated by the National Security Council,” this year it has been taken over by the Domestic Policy Council, which reports to Miller, and the Department of Homeland Security, the Times reports. This shift reflects the administration’s decision to exploit a hardline policy of criminalizing refugees and immigrants in general in order to appeal to Trump’s narrow hard-right political base.
Under conditions in which the world is confronting the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War, with some 66 million forcibly displaced people, in large measure as a result of the unending wars waged by US imperialism over the past 16 years, Washington is effectively slamming the door in the face of men, women and children fleeing for their lives.
The refugee cap already imposed by Trump was the lowest since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, which required the US president to set a ceiling for admissions. Only once during the last 37 years has this ceiling fallen below 70,000, when it was cut to 67,000 in 1986, under the Reagan administration.
The report on this planned escalation of the Trump administration’s war on refugees came in the immediate wake of another reactionary decision by the US Supreme Court Tuesday, further lifting restrictions on the anti-Muslim “travel ban” first imposed by the White House last January, blocking the entry into the United States of refugees and citizens from six majority-Muslim countries.
The one-paragraph statement issued by the court granted the administration’s request to stay a federal appeals court ruling that would have allowed 24,000 refugees formally assigned to and accepted by resettlement agencies to enter the country.
The appeals court ruling stemmed from a Supreme Court decision in Junesupported unanimously, including by the so-called “liberal” wing that includes Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kaganthat overrode actions by lower federal court judges blocking Trump’s flagrantly discriminatory executive orders from being enforced. While allowing the resumption of the anti-Muslim ban, the high court provided an exception for those who could prove a “bona fide connection” to the United States.
A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit this summer had interpreted the Supreme Court’s category of “bona fide connection” to include not only people with families in the US, job offers or admissions to a US university, but also refugees with assurances of support from US sponsors.
Tuesday’s high court order overturns this interpretation, placing another roadblock in the path of persecuted refugees.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the merits of Trump’s anti-Muslim ban on October 10. The 90-day ban directed against citizens from the Muslim-majority nations will expire in late September, before the court hears the case, while the 120-day refugee ban will lapse one month later, before it renders a decision.
The stay of the 9th Circuit ruling, which was hailed by Breitbart News and other far-right media, may well be an indication of the direction that the Supreme Court will take when it considers the constitutionality of the ban. If so, it will be taking a dramatic step in legitimizing a deeply reactionary and anti-democratic measure that not only persecutes Muslims and refugees, but sets the stage for broader attacks on the working class as a whole.
The report of the planned escalation of the crackdown on refugees comes just one week after Trump announced the rescinding of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the government program that offered limited protection from deportation to nearly 800,000 immigrants brought to the US as children. The action imposed a six-month deadline for Congress to act before the program would be phased out, paving the way for mass deportations of children to countries to which they have few if any ties.
Trump scheduled a White House dinner Wednesday night with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, where DACA was to be discussed along with other legislative issues.
Pelosi indicated that she and the Democratic leadership were prepared to reach a deal with the Trump White House that would provide some form of protection for those covered by DACA in exchange for an even more draconian crackdown on immigrants and the US-Mexican border.
“We always want border stuff, so that’s not a problem,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.
Schumer made a similar statement on Tuesday, indicating that while Democrats did not support funding for Trump’s “wall,” this was purely a matter of its practicality. “We’d certainly look at border security that makes sense, border security that’s effective,” he said.
While concentrating their political opposition to the Trump administration almost entirely on the issue of alleged Russian government meddling in the 2016 US election and Trump’s supposedly insufficient hostility to Moscowa line of attack entirely in sync with the aims of the US military-intelligence apparatusthe Democrats are fully prepared to collaborate in the assault on immigrants, corporate tax cuts and military aggression abroad.
Trump’s virulent anti-immigrant rhetoric notwithstanding, thus far his administration has carried out, on average, less deportations than that of Barack Obama, who became known as “deporter-in-chief” for expelling nearly 3 million immigrant workers during his eight years in office.
According to figures issued by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) last month, a total of 84,473 people were deported between February 1 and June 30 of this year, or, on average, about 16,900 a month. Under Obama, the average number of people deported each month was 20,000 in 2016, and roughly 34,000 in 2012.
The Democrats under Obama have laid the groundwork for a massive escalation of the anti-immigrant crackdown. During the first six months of this year, the number of deportation orders has increased 31 percent compared to the same period last year.
Moreover, according to a leaked Homeland Security Department memo, ICE had been set to launch this month “Operation Mega,” a massive nationwide dragnet described as “historic” in scope, targeting up to 10,000 undocumented immigrants across the US.
Late last week, ICE issued a statement saying that the operation had been canceled due to the hurricanes that struck Texas and Florida: “Due to the current weather situation in Florida and other potentially impacted areas, along with the ongoing recovery in Texas, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had already reviewed all upcoming operations and has adjusted accordingly. There is currently no coordinated nationwide operation planned at this time.”
The clear implication is that once the administration judges the recoveryin which undocumented immigrant workers are playing no small roleto be adequate, the massive crackdown will be resumed.

Juncker’s State of the EU speech: Europe readies for war with the world

Alex Lantier

In his State of the European Union (EU) speech yesterday in Brussels, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker outlined an aggressive military and commercial agenda for the post-Brexit EU.
Juncker, the leader of an institution despised by workers for its austerity and police-state measures, constantly invoked “European values” as the basis of his policy. Stripped of these empty and misleading phrases, however, his address sent a clear message: amid the collapse of the EU’s relations to long-standing allies, above all Washington and London, it must prepare for global trade war and pursue an independent military policy from the United States.
Juncker began by congratulating the EU for “an economic recovery that finally reaches every single [EU] member state,” nearly a decade after the 2008 Wall Street crash. Despite touting this so-called recovery, the fruits of which have overwhelmingly gone to the wealthiest layers of society, Juncker nevertheless sounded a worried note: “We now have a window of opportunity, but it will not stay open forever. Let us make the most of the momentum, catch the wind in our sails.”
While raising EU free trade deals with Canada and Japan, and plans for such deals with Mexico, South America and New Zealand, Juncker made clear that they go hand-in-hand with plans for commercial measures against Europe’s trading partners and a major military build-up.
“Let me say once and for all: we are not naïve free traders. Europe must always defend its strategic interests,” Juncker said. “This is why today we are proposing a new EU framework for investment screening. If a foreign, state-owned company wants to purchase a European harbour, part of our energy infrastructure or a defence technology firm, this should only happen in transparency, with scrutiny and debate.” Juncker added this would serve to “protect our security if needed.”
A year after US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks broke down over French and German objections, Juncker did not mention the United States as a key trading partner or a country with which the EU seeks a free trade deal.
Juncker went on to call for the accelerated formation of what would be an EU army, three years after Berlin announced the re-militarization of German foreign policy.
Juncker said the EU had “to become a stronger global actor. In order to have more weight in the world, we must be able to take foreign policy decisions quicker. This is why I want Member States to look at which foreign policy decisions could be moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting. … And I want us to dedicate further efforts to defence matters. A new European Defence Fund is in the offing. As is a Permanent Structured Cooperation in the area of defence. By 2025 we need a fully-fledged European Defence Union. We need it. And NATO wants it.”
Juncker’s claim that NATO, including Washington and London, want the formation of an EU defense union is nothing more than an attempt to downplay the rapid rise of US-EU conflict.
Amid an escalating drive to war internationally, military tensions are rising rapidly between Washington and the EU, and particularly the Berlin-Paris axis. While Washington has repeatedly pressed Europe to increase its military spending in recent years, hoping to receive more European aid in its own wars, Washington also relied on London to veto plans for an EU army, as long as Britain was in the EU. After Britain’s exit from the EU, however, Germany and France have rapidly revived plans for an aggressive EU military policy independent of the United States.
A quarter century after the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, depriving the European imperialist powers and the United States of a common enemy, tensions among the major NATO powers are bringing the alliance to the verge of collapse. The bases of the trans-Atlantic alliance have been shattered. Since his election, Trump has repeatedly indicated that his administration could target EU car and steel exports with punitive tariffs that could spark an all-out US-EU trade war.
These commercial tensions reflect explosive strategic conflicts that are building inside NATO, as US targeting of Russia and China places the world on the verge of all-out war. As Trump threatens North Korea with war, the subject of today’s EU foreign ministers’ meeting, it is ever more unlikely that the EU powers would support Washington in a war that could escalate into war with China.
Remarkably, Juncker’s speech did not mention Russia, which has been the target of a relentless NATO military build-up in Eastern Europe since the 2014 NATO-backed putsch in Kiev. Berlin and Paris, however, intervened in Ukraine in 2015 to cut across a US policy of arming far-right militias in Ukraine against Russian-speaking forces in eastern Ukraine. With the Trump administration now threatening again to arm the Ukrainian regime, these conflicts are again reaching explosive levels.
The international working class is the only force that can oppose the drive to war, however; the EU itself is simply emerging as the vehicle for a brutal, competing assertion of European imperialist interests around the world that threatens to provoke new and bloodier conflicts.
The EU policy is not a peace policy, as reflected by its support for wars in Libya and Syria and its ruthless imposition of police-state measures at home, like the French state of emergency. It represents the interests of a rival bloc of imperialist powers competing with Washington, which aims to finance the building of a war machine on the backs of the European workers. Juncker spent much of his speech indicating a vast list of countries that have fallen afoul of the EU.
In response to the Turkish regime’s brutal crackdown on domestic opposition after a failed US- and German-backed coup attempt in Turkey last year, Juncker ruled out Turkey joining the EU. “The rule of law, justice and fundamental values have a top priority in the negotiations, and that rules out EU membership for Turkey in the foreseeable future,” he said. “For some considerable time Turkey has been moving away from the European Union in leaps and bounds.”
Juncker also addressed a stern warning to Britain. In response to cheers from EU parliament members from the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party, Juncker warned them: “I think you will regret [Brexit] as well soon, as I might say.”
Juncker’s call for monitoring foreign investment in Europe and foreign state ownership of European ports was a veiled threat against China, which is investing heavily in European companies and has acquired a majority stake in the major Piraeus port in Athens.
Moreover, while Juncker’s speech aims to lay out an agenda to be pursued under the leadership of Berlin and Paris, after the election of French President Emmanuel Macron in May and upcoming German general elections on September 24, there are deep divisions inside the EU itself.
Visiting Athens last week, Macron had laid out calls for a major shake-up of the EU institutions, including the creation of a common parliament and budget of the eurozone. He also included calls for Greek debt forgiveness and expelling the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from the Greek debt program that have long been opposed by Berlin.
Juncker’s speech was a targeted rebuke to Macron, refusing to endorse these proposals. Instead, he called for a European finance ministry, the formation of a European Monetary Fund to replace the Washington, DC-based IMF. Le Monde commented that Juncker was preparing for “the compromise that could emerge from the negotiations on the future of the eurozone that could begin this autumn between Mr. Macron and [German] Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will in all likelihood win a fourth term.”

Australian television program highlights flammable cladding crisis

Paul Bartizan 

“Four Corners,” the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s flagship television current affairs program, last week screened a disturbing exposure of the widespread use of flammable cladding in Australia’s deregulated construction industry.
Made in response to the June 14 London Grenfell Tower fire, the 40-minute program recalled the dangerous 2014 Lacrosse apartment fire in Melbourne and brought together a range of experts—fire and building engineers and firefighters.
The program demonstrated that Australian authorities have been aware of the dangers of aluminium composite panel (ACP) cladding for more than a decade. Fire-testing conducted by the program revealed that all these products, including the “safest,” catch fire, with life-threatening consequences.
While no one was killed in the Lacrosse blaze, which involved combustible ACP cladding, it rapidly spread up one side of the 23-storey building.
Fire engineer Tony Enright told the program that the polyethylene (PE) present in the ACP cladding on the Grenfell and Lacrosse buildings releases the same energy as petrol when ignited. PE is one-and-a-half times denser than petrol. Every square metre of cladding has an equivalent fire energy of 3.5 litres of petrol.
Enright said he was only able to dissuade some clients from using the cheapest and most dangerous cladding by posing the question: “Do you want to wrap it in petrol?” The “Four Corners” program explained that, in fact, many Australian buildings have been “wrapped in petrol.”
Preliminary state governments’ audits conducted since the Grenfell Tower estimate that thousands of buildings are covered with PE-core ACP cladding. Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) Assistant Chief Officer Adam Dalrymple suggested that many more buildings are involved.
Australian governments—state and federal, Labor and Liberal-National alike—have covered up the scale of the problem, anxious not to undermine confidence in the increasingly fragile property market.
New South Wales Innovation and Better Regulation Minister Matt Kean downplayed the dangers, telling the program: “We don’t know that the cladding on buildings in this state that’s been identified is unsafe. If it is unsafe, we don’t know whether or not there are appropriate systems and processes that will ensure that that cladding is safe.”
Translated into plain English, this means that numerous buildings clad with PE-core ACP cladding have been deemed “safe” by local government regulators in order to avoid its removal.
Several firefighters spoke about the Lacrosse blaze, explaining the new challenges posed by cladding fires. The fire started on the eighth floor and spread up 13 floors, and down to the sixth floor, in just eight minutes. Lumps of molten cladding rained from the building. Luckily, the absence of wind prevented flames spreading horizontally across the building. Internal sprinklers stopped the fire engulfing apartment interiors.
MFB senior station officer Tim Erikson said the fire was “completely outside of anything that we were prepared for or expecting.” MFB chief Dalrymple said a building like Lacrosse would “normally have a two-appliance response” but six appliances were needed, including “an aerial appliance, a ladder platform with 26 metres reach.”
ACP cladding suppliers told “Four Corners” the product became popular with architects in the early 1990s. By 2000, one of the major manufacturers, Mitsubishi, ceased using PE core due to its flammability. Other suppliers, however, continued to sell the product.
An Australian supplier who visited the Alucobond factory in Germany in 2007 discovered that although the company had developed fire-resistant cladding, it continued exporting the flammable product to Australia. When he asked why, he was told: “We don’t have to [stop the exports] and it’s cheaper to stay with polyethylene.” At that time, PE panels were about $11 cheaper per square metre than the fire-resistant product.
“Four Corners” tested three ACP samples in a laboratory cauldron heated to 750 degrees Celsius. The first sample, 100 percent PE core, ignited almost immediately. Two other “fire resistant” panels, with varying proportions of flame retardant and mineral fillers, added to their cores were tested. Both caught fire, albeit more slowly than the one with a 100 percent PE core.
“Four Corners” also highlighted the widespread use of polystyrene foam cladding covered in a thin acrylic rendering on three- to eight-storey apartment buildings. Phil Dwyer, who heads the Builders Collective lobby group, said that when this product caught fire it “melts like a marshmallow.” He warned the product was being used extensively “because it’s a cheap means of construction, and when it’s [covered] with an acrylic render over it, it looks like concrete.”
Grenfell Tower had PE-core ACP cladding on the outside. Underneath that was a 150-millimetre layer of rigid plastic foam made of Polyisocyanurate (PIR). The foam provided insulation, yet when it burnt it gave off deadly hydrogen cyanide gas, adding to the death toll. Burning polystyrene is not as poisonous as burning PIR foam but is widely used for cost-cutting reasons.
“Four Corners” broadcast a few minutes from a Senate committee inquiry into “Non-Conforming Building Products.” Established in 2015, after the Lacrosse fire, the inquiry is not expected to hand down its final report until April, almost three and a half years after that blaze.
The show featured testimony from Stephen Goddard, president of the Owners Corporation Network, which represents apartment owners. He bluntly told the inquiry: “I have more consumer protection buying a refrigerator than for a $1.5 million apartment.”
Goddard explained that the financial responsibility for replacing non-compliant combustible cladding and rectifying other construction problems is dumped on apartment owners. Builders and developers had little statutory responsibility.
Other comments by Goddard at the Senate inquiry, however, were not used by “Four Corners.” He told the hearing that government authorities were responsible for the situation facing residents and there was no real enforcement of building regulations. “There is no punishment to be extended for the failure to deliver the BCA [Building Code of Australia]. If that were the case, we would not be sitting here,” he said.
Directly addressing the senators running the inquiry, he declared: “You now know our lives are in jeopardy… You have seen in the United Kingdom the level of loss of life that you are facing. Your failure to act has dire consequences.”
“Four Corners” provided a brief overview of building deregulation and the privatisation of building certification. It failed to explain that this involved a decades-long, bipartisan erosion of construction industry safety standards by Liberal-National and Labor governments at the behest of property developers and construction companies.
The show’s exposure of the potentially catastrophic situation facing thousands of people living or working in buildings wrapped in flammable cladding across Australia was damning. Those politically responsible, however, were let off the hook.