6 Nov 2018

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Scholarships in Media Arts Cultures 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 1st January, 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

Eligible Fields of Study: Student’s prerequisite degrees will most likely be from the following: art history, cultural studies, media/communication studies, fine arts practice (media related), cultural management, museology, art restoration, library and archive science, computer science, and any other field directly related to digital media, the arts or culture. Other fields will be taken into consideration by the Application Board. We do not require the 1st university degree to be in a certain field or subject. We do expect the applicant’s motivation to study in the MediaAC programme to balance his/her previous education, working experience (if applicable) and future career plans and that this balance make sense for playing a role in the future of Media Arts Cultures.

To be taken at (country): 
  • Danube University Krems (coordinating partner)
  • Aalborg University (full partner)
  • University of Lodz (full partner)
  • City University Hong Kong (full partner)
About the Award: The Erasmus Mundus Media Arts Culture is a Consortium of four universities and influential global associated partners from the creative and cultural sector dedicate to grow a new generation of professionals based on the future needs of the field and grounded in rigorous academic training.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 
  • Students must have as first degree at least a Bachelor degree or higher issued by a university (quantified as three years of studies corresponding to 180 ECTS). Or (if ECTS is not used in countries where the first degree was acquired): proof a period of study at a higher education level considered comparable to a Bachelor’s degree (on decision of the MediaAC Admission board). Note for Erasmus+ Scholarship applicants: Your degree must be completed by the scholarship deadline
  • Applicants must also have sufficient knowledge of English for academic purposes corresponding to level B2 within the CEFR/Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. This is to be sent directly from the test centre TOEFL  (School Code 8773/Art History) (PBT paper-based): 550 www.ets.org/toefl, TOEFL (CBT computer-based, 230 www.ets.org/toefl, TOEFL (iBT internet-based): 80www.ets.org/toefl, Cambridge ESOL, C1 www.cambridgeenglish.org. An original or verified copy is accepted: IELTS (academic test): 6.5 www.ielts.org.
    Your tests results must be less than 2 years old fron your application date to be eligible to submit.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Full participation fees, 1000€ per month living stipend, plus travel expenses.

Duration of Scholarship: 2 years

How to Apply: 
  • Application Form
  • Copy of passport
  • Curriculum vitae (Europass)
  • Letter of motivation that expresses interest in studying Media Arts Cultures (max 1 page)
  • Final university diploma from previous degree(s)
  • Transcripts of records of all higher education studies
  • Recent photograph
  • Proof of proficiency in the English language (transcript of TOEFL / IELTS / Cambridge CPE scores)
  • Essay on “state/future of the art” in Media Arts Cultures (max 2 pages)
  • Example of relevant work. (academic paper, cultural project, art work) (max 5 pages and 50MB)
Apply via the online application system on the Website. It is important to go through the Erasmus Mundus Media Arts Cultures Scholarship Webpage before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Media Arts Cultures co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union

New Caledonia referendum rejects independence from France

John Braddock

Voters in the French Pacific territory of New Caledonia chose by a 56.9 percent majority in Sunday’s referendum to reject full independence from France. The turnout was high with nearly 80 percent of 270,000 residents casting a ballot. Notwithstanding the anti-independence victory, the referendum was marked by a late surge in support by pro-independence indigenous Kanaks.
While the territory has a measure of self-government, France retains control over defence, policing, the judiciary, monetary policy and foreign affairs. Underlining the real relationship with Paris, 350 extra French riot police were sent to the country in mid-October to provide extra “security.”
Speaking on television, French President Emmanuel Macron hailed the result as “a vote of confidence in the French republic, its future and its values.” He added the French state would ensure “liberty, equality and fraternity for everyone”—hypocritical claims given the long and brutal history of French colonial rule in the Pacific, Africa and elsewhere.
While Macron had formally struck a “neutral” position before the vote, the French ruling elite was opposed to any breakaway. New Caledonia occupies a key strategic position as France’s with military headquarters in the Pacific. In May, Macron visited Australia before heading to New Caledonia as part of the referendum preparations. He proposed an axis between France, India and Australia in the Indo-Pacific, with New Caledonia playing a key role in the US-led confrontation with China.
In the lead-up to the vote, Charles Wea, a Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) spokesman in Australia, told SBS News: “We want to build a new society and new country and set up effectively a new relationship with France because we can no longer accept French colonialism in New Caledonia.”
These hopes have, not for the first time, been dashed. A plebiscite in 1987, which was boycotted by the FLNKS, saw a 98 percent vote against independence. Sunday’s result will further entrench the deep social divisions between the largely impoverished Kanaks, who make up 44 percent of the population, and the more privileged, mainly European, layers.
A controversial electoral roll was created for the poll on which all Kanaks and only long-term New Caledonian residents could register. In October 2016, 5,000 people rallied in the capital Noumea to demand that Kanaks be automatically enrolled for the vote. An estimated 25,000 Kanaks were not on the general roll and were at risk of missing out. There were widespread claims of fraud by the authorities in the vetting process.
Divisions over independence continue. The 2014 elections saw a victory for three anti-independence parties—Caledonia Together, Front for Unity and Union for Caledonia in France. Together they won 29 of the 54 seats in the Congress, but just 49 percent of the popular vote.
Under agreements signed as part of the 1988 Matignon Accord, further votes are possible in 2020 and again 2023. The anti-independence parties, which have strong support in France from the far-right leader Marine LePen, want a clause allowing for a new referendum only every 25 years, and only if half the voters request one. They claim that without France, New Caledonia would not only become impoverished like other Pacific nations, but also a “province of China.”
While no French political party endorses independence, a recent poll commissioned by French television found that within France, almost two thirds of respondents thought New Caledonia’s independence would be a “good, or a very good thing.”
With the build-up against China intensifying, French influence in the Pacific was boosted when the Pacific Islands Forum unanimously agreed in 2016 to admit New Caledonia and French Polynesia as members. France had been pushing for membership for its territories since 2003.
New Caledonia’s economy is underpinned by annual subsidies from France to the tune of €1.3 billion ($US1.48 billion), while French companies retain significant economic interests. The main island, Grande Terre, has the world’s largest known nickel deposits, about a quarter of all known reserves. It is also the second largest cobalt producer. Nickel is critically important in the defence industry, and has been designated a “strategic material” to ensure the French state can maintain a close watch over its production and distribution.
New Caledonia was established as a French colonial possession in 1853, and used as a penal colony. The Kanak people were removed from their land, forced onto reservations and subject to the Indignat, a code of ‘native regulations,’ which gave them inferior legal status. Uprisings occurred in 1878 and 1917.
Today Kanaks make up 95 percent of the unemployed and many low-paid workers live in slum conditions. Police clashes with Kanak youth have erupted with increasing violence, prompting demands by local politicians for harsher “law and order” measures.
Meanwhile, descendants of the original European settlers known as Caldoches, French public servants, military personnel and business employees occupy expensive residences overlooking the tourist beaches and yacht harbors.
Tensions erupted in 1988 when a group of Kanaks captured the gendarmerie on the island of Ouvea, killed four gendarmes and took 27 hostages. Some 300 troops were flown in under the command of the head of the French elite anti-terrorist squad. The military stormed the cave where the Kanaks were holed up, killing 21 Kanaks and 2 policemen. The French troops reportedly tortured and beat civilians during the massacre.
The then minority Socialist Party government in Paris moved to bring the crisis under control. Prime Minister Rocard brokered the Matignon Accord, which was billed as a “compromise” between the independence movement, led by Jean-Marie Tjibaou of the FLNKS, and anti-independence leader Jacques Lafleur. The accord, which set out the long-term process for the independence referendum, was ratified by an 81 percent majority in a national plebiscite in which, however, only 37 percent of the electorate voted.
The Matignon Accord was followed in 1998 by the Nouméa Accord. The agreements gave limited influence to a privileged Kanak layer, effectively defusing the independence movement. Money was poured in to building a Kanak infrastructure, training public servants and establishing a base for this layer in the lucrative mining industry.
The nationalist movement—formed by a layer of educated Kanaks radicalised while studying in France during the late 1960s—put the issue of independence on the backburner and dropped its socialistic phrase-mongering, in return for political and business opportunities. Amid a widespread feeling among ordinary Kanaks that they had been betrayed, Tjibaou and his deputy were assassinated in 1989 by a former supporter.
As around the world, the globalisation of production has completely undermined the program of national economic regulation on which nationalist movements such as the FLNKS were based. The tiny island states in the Pacific that were granted nominal independence in the 1970s and 1980s are completely dependent on the major powers economically and strategically. Insofar as the FLNKS still calls for independence from France, it represents the interests of a relatively privileged layer of Kanaks who are seeking a larger slice of the economic pie and a greater political say.
While the nationalist movement is now increasingly moribund, class struggles have erupted, propelled by a precipitous collapse in global commodity prices, including nickel. Broad sections of the working class, including miners, processing workers, truck drivers, airport workers and others have all engaged in militant struggles to defend jobs and conditions, bringing them into conflict with the entire ruling class.
Workers in New Caledonia should turn to their class brothers and sisters throughout the Pacific, as well as the working class in France, Australia, New Zealand and internationally for a joint struggle against the capitalist system that oppresses them all.

Homelessness in London: Rough sleeping increases, removal of families from the city doubles

Paul Bond

New figures shed more light on London’s catastrophic housing crisis. A record number of people found sleeping rough in the capital was recorded between July and September.
The first six months of the year saw a rise of almost 50 percent in the numbers of London’s homeless families being rehoused outside the city, some as far away as Cornwall and Manchester.
The first six months of 2018 saw a 46 percent rise in out-of-London placements, with councils sending more than 1,200 households out of the city. Most of these placements have been to neighbouring counties like Kent and Essex, but over the last year councils have sent households to Newcastle, Cardiff and the West Midlands and as far away as Glasgow.
Between April and June 2018 alone, 688 households were sent out of the capital. This is the highest rate in at least six years, up from 113 households in the first quarter of 2012-2013.
London accounts for more than two-thirds of all England’s homeless households, and it is believed that the majority of those rehoused outside the city are families. Councils have a legal obligation to find them homes. This hardly alleviates the pressure on the households, as shelter provided is sometimes only for a few nights at a time.
Attention has focused on the massive distances some homeless households are being sent, but local displacement has a similarly devastating effect. Westminster North Labour MP Karen Buck reported one of her constituents with a job, a 12-year-old at school and a 14-month-old baby being moved away. She told Buck she had to wake her family at 5:40 a.m. to get her daughter to school and herself to work. They got home at 9 p.m. after nearly five hours spent commuting.
Greg Beales, director of campaigns at the Shelter charity, said the result was that people were often forced to quit their jobs and drop out of education. Shelter described the figures as “a damning indictment of our housing system,” pointing to the desperate need for more social housing.
The problem is not exclusive to London. According to responses to Freedom of Information requests made by the Huffington Post, in the last five years Birmingham has moved nearly 2,000 households outside the city, and Liverpool has moved 82. The Birmingham figure is significant, as many London boroughs have sought to do relocation deals with councils around that area.
The housing crisis, along with the slashing of benefit provision, has produced a record spike in rough sleeping. Between July and September this year, 3,103 people were found sleeping rough in London. This is the first time the figure has topped 3,000 in a three-month period. It marks a 20 percent rise on the previous three months, and a 17 percent rise on the same period in 2017.
Rough sleeping has been rising year on year consistently for the last seven years. Figures for January 2018 showed a 169 percent increase in rough sleeping since 2010. The July-September figures show this trend continuing, with outreach workers finding 1,382 people sleeping rough for the first time during this period. This was up 28 percent on the previous three months, and up 20 percent on the same period last year.
Official rough sleeping counts are considered a vast underestimation of the true scale of the problem.
As the figures for rehousing of homeless households outside London were being released, the BBC was reporting on the city’s “hidden homeless” who, either because of difficulties getting into hostels or from fear of sleeping on the street, sleep instead on the city’s night-buses.
Dionne, who regularly sleeps on the N38 bus, told the BBC she had problems finding hostel accommodation because of her drug addiction. Because of the dangers of the street she preferred to sleep on the bus, although this meant sleeping only 40 minutes at a time. Such sleep patterns cannot help those already struggling with mental health issues.
Last month the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) compiled figures on homeless deaths over the previous year. As no official bodies collate these figures, the BIJ count is likely to be a substantial underestimation, but they documented 449 deaths since October 2017, well over one per day.
A bus driver said he often had to wake up to a dozen people sleeping on his vehicle. Transport for London and City Hall are funding outreach workers to try and get bus sleepers into hostels. This is no humanitarian or altruistic gesture, but an attempt to prevent disruption to services and revenue.
The crisis has been fuelled by punitive benefit changes over the last period. On average, poorer households in the UK spend 47.4 percent of their average disposable income on housing costs. The amount that can be spent on private rent under housing benefit has been frozen for the last three years, even though rents have continued to rise.
Rollout of the Universal Credit (UC) benefit system has seen around 80 percent of recipients in arrears before payment comes through. This can take up to eight weeks, meaning claimants are losing their housing and being seen by landlords as a high risk for future tenancy. UC is increasing numbers of the working homeless.
Labour councils laid heavy emphasis on the rehousing figures ahead of last week’s Budget in an appeal for stabilising funding, which is on course to be cut by 63 percent, more than £4 billion, from 2010 to 2020.
But it is Labour councils that lead the way in the social cleansing policy of moving homeless households out of London boroughs. Former Mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales, told 29 mothers from the Focus E15 hostel who went to meet him after cuts to a mother and baby unit, “If you can’t afford to live in Newham then you can’t afford to live in Newham.”
Labour councils have also pioneered the transfer of social assets into the hands of private companies. Haringey Council, run by Blairites around former leader Claire Kober, was forced to scrap the hugely unpopular Haringey Development Vehicle, under which £2 billion of assets was to be sold off. After being forced to stand, the councillors who replaced them—supporters of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn—propose instead a “a wholly-owned company for the purpose of delivering new council-owned homes.” This would see a council-owned for-profit company building council housing alongside private accommodation and acting as landlord for the council properties. Even while abandoning HDV the council continued to describe it as a “social investment programme.”
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan pledged in May to build 10,000 council homes over the next four years. This is paltry compared to the around 250,000 Londoners on housing waiting lists. Labour are fully aware of the insignificance of these plans, with deputy mayor for housing James Murray admitting they were spending £1 billion on new homes, but this would not resolve the crisis.
In July, Khan introduced legislation requiring London councils to ballot residents on major regeneration plans if they wish to secure City Hall funding. These plans will not apply retrospectively, meaning existing social cleansing projects can proceed unhindered. Responsibility for deciding whether balloting applies is left up to the developers themselves, who have numerous exemption clauses open to them.

Chinese president denounces “law of the jungle” on trade

Nick Beams

China’s president Xi Jinping has again attempted to position Beijing as the defender of free trade in opposition to the US, denouncing the “law of the jungle” in a major speech delivered yesterday.
Xi was speaking at an international business fair in Shanghai at which he cast China as an importing nation. It was an attempt to secure allies in the intensifying trade and economic war with the US, ahead of a scheduled meeting with US President Donald Trump at the G20 summit meeting at the end of the month.
“China has a big market of over 1.3 billion people and it is our sincere commitment to open the Chinese market,” he said. The audience included representatives of major global corporations, some heads of governments and delegates from international organisations, including the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund.
However, the speech did not contain any new initiatives to win support for China in its conflict with the US. It was largely a repeat of his earlier statements in support of globalisation since the coming to power of Trump.
“As globalisation deepens,” he said, “the practices of ‘law of the jungle’ and ‘winner-take-all’ are a narrowing road that leads to a dead end. Inclusion and reciprocity, win-win and mutual benefits are a widening and correct path.”
In an indirect reference to the US and its criticism of China’s trade policies, Xi said: “Each country should work hard to improve its own business environment. One cannot always beautify oneself while criticising others, and one can’t shine a flashlight on other people without looking at oneself.”
Xi said the economic and social well-being of countries was increasingly interconnected and claimed reform of the global governance was picking up speed. “On the other hand, the world economy is going through profound adjustment and protectionism and unilateralism are resurging. Economic globalisation faces headwinds, and multilateralism and the system of free trade are under threat,” he said.
The composition of the audience reflected the shifts and manoeuvres in the global trade conflict. Major western European countries joined the US in not sending high-level delegations, signalling the European Union’s decision to at least partially align itself with US complaints against China’s push to acquire enhanced technology through so-called forced technology transfers and alleged theft of intellectual property. Representatives of the G20 group of countries were conspicuous by their absence.
The representatives of foreign corporations tended to be lower-level executives. But in a sign of easing of tensions between the two countries, 450 Japanese companies were represented.
The main criticism of foreign corporations is that China should do more to open up its market to their operations, enabling them to compete with domestic Chinese companies.
Xi sought to address those concerns, saying that China would undertake more opening measures in telecommunications, medical care, education and culture. But no specific details were provided and corporate executives are insisting that more concrete measures be announced.
The vice-president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, Carlo D’Andrea said: “Meaningful progress can only be claimed when major structural challenges are positively dealt with and international companies can compete on an equal footing with domestic ones.”
Xi pledged that China would import $30 trillion worth of goods over the next 15 years, an increase from $24 trillion in previous commitments. But the figure was not a significant departure from the current trajectory of Chinese imports. There was also a commitment to further cut tariffs. However, this has been made before. As one market analyst observed, an announcement to this affect had been made in September and it “can only be milked so many times.”
In an attempt to deflect criticism both from the US and other countries over technology theft, Xi said there would be tighter protection for intellectual property and stronger punishments for violations.
He also addressed concerns among Asian countries about the slowdown in the Chinese economy and its possible impact on the region, referring to recent stimulus measures.
“Uncertainty in some areas has risen, operating difficulties for some companies have multiplied and risk challenges have increased in some areas,” Xi said. “These are problems that one encounters amid progress. We are taking active measures to address them and the result is already apparent.”
The trade war has yet to have a wide impact but the effects are starting to show up. Hyundai, the South Korean car firm, announced a sharp fall in third quarter earnings, attributing it to weaker sales in the US and China, its two biggest markets.
The Japanese copier and camera company, Canon, has voiced fears that the US-China trade war will lead to slower growth.
“One concern is how long this trade war is going to last,” the company’s chief financial officer Tishizo Tanaka told the Financial Times. “A far more serious issue is if this becomes a catalyst for an economic slowdown, not only in China and the US, but in other regions across the world.”
Those concerns are likely to grow because the view in key sections of the Trump administration directing the trade war measures is that China must feel real economic pain before it will make concessions to the US on its central demands.
Those demands are not primarily for a reduction of the trade deficit between the two countries but that China makes substantial “structural” changes in its economy, essentially scrapping its state-subsidies for key industries, which the US claims are “market-distorting,” and ceasing its alleged theft of technology and intellectual property.
There had been hopes that the meeting between Trump and Xi on the sidelines of the G20 would result in at least a ceasefire in the trade war. After Trump held out the prospect of a deal, markets in Asia enjoyed one of their largest rises in the recent period last Friday.
But expectations were swiftly dashed when White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said China and the US were not on the cusp of a trade agreement.

5 Nov 2018

Open Africa Power 2019 for Young African Leaders – Call for applications

Application Deadline: 26th November 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Ethiopia, Italy

About the Award: Open Africa Power is an education venture initiated by Enel Foundation in 2018 in partnership with top Academic institutions such as Strathmore University from Kenya, the University of Addis Ababa from Ethiopia, and Italian institutions such as the Politecnico di Torino, the Politecnico di Milano, Bocconi University and Florence School of Regulation.
The program aims to forge a new generation of African leaders deeply engaged with their countries clean energy future. After involving 29 selected candidates in the inaugural module of the first edition, Open Africa Power’s second edition, taking place in 2019, will engage up to 60 African students and alumni in a series of professional development and leadership activities, comprising residential training modules in Ethiopia and Italy in 2019.
Open Africa Power program is open to high-profile African graduates wishing to acquire an holistic knowhow of the electricity sector, enhancing the technical, regulatory and business skills required to work in the private and public sector towards the electrification of Africa. Precisely for this reason, from this year, candidates living abroad but wanting to relocate back to Africa will also be admitted.

Type: Training

Eligibility: The Open Africa Power selection process is an open, merit-based, competition. The application
period opens on October 25th, 2018, and closes on November 26th, 2018.


To be eligible candidates must meet the following criteria:
  • Be between the ages of 24 and 35 by January, 2019;
  • Be a citizen of an African country;
  • Currently resident in an African country or planning to relocate in Africa within the end of 2019;
  • Be eligible to travel to Italy in case of admission to the second module;
  • Have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering, Computer Science, Law or Business from an African University;
  • Have an admission letter to or being a student of a PhD MSc, LLM, MPP or MBA degree from an African University;
  • Have a demonstrated interest in the electricity sector in the African Continent;
  • Be fully proficient in English.
Number of Awards: up to 60

Value of Award: Open Africa Power’s second edition, taking place in 2019, will engage up to 60 African students and alumni in a series of professional development and leadership activities, comprising residential training modules in Ethiopia and Italy in 2019.

Duration of Programme: 

How to Apply: Applications must be sent to openafricapower@enelfoundation.org. Applicants should send in the
following items:

  • A copy of their CV;
  • Copy of their BSc or MSc, MBA, MPP, LLM academic records/transcript;
  • A copy of their Passport;
  • A motivation letter;
  • Three references from industry, academia and/or civil servant representatives.
Inquiries regarding the program must also be sent to openafricapower@enelfoundation.org


Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Continental Reinsurance Pan-African Re/Insurance Journalism Awards 2019

Application Deadline: 30th November 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Mauritius

About the Award: Sponsored by Continental Reinsurance, the Pan-African Re/Insurance Journalism Awards recognise the outstanding work of journalists on re/insurance from across the continent. Successful candidates have to demonstrate how their articles have raised awareness and understanding of the re/insurance sector in Africa.
The awards are an extension of Continental Reinsurance’s continued commitment to the advancement of excellence in the industry. The Pan-African Re/Insurance Awards were launched in April 2015.

Fields: The categories in the 2019 awards are:
  1. Pan-African Re/Insurance Journalist of the Year
  2. Best Re/Insurance Print Article
  3. Best Re/Insurance Broadcast (TV/Radio) Article
  4. Best Re/Insurance Online Article
Type: Award

Eligibility: Submission can be either a published article (print or online)or a broadcasted radio/television clip in English or French. The review period is the 12 months leading up to the submission deadline date. Entrants have to be based in an African country. Only 1 article can be entered for each category. 

Selection Criteria: The judging panel will evaluate all submitted material according to the quality of information and how it contributes to raising awareness of the insurance and reinsurance sector in Africa.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

How to Apply: 
  • Explanatory Brief: A 250-words motivation note explaining the reason for creating the article/clip.
  • Personal: Include your name, media organisation, the publishing/broadcasting date, a brief profile and a photo.
  • Award Categories: Submission can be either a published article or (print or online),a broadcasted radio/television clip in English or French. The review period is the 12 months leading up to the submission deadline date. Entrants have to be based in an African country.
Submit entry to embera@continental-re.com

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) 2019 International Travel Fellowships for Journalists

Application Deadline: 15th November at 12 noon EST

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Lausanne, Switzerland


About the Award: Many travel fellowships are reserved for those attending one of the four pre-conference workshops  on July 1st. Before applying for those, check the program and the eligibility criteria.

Type: Conference

Eligibility: International Science writers are eligible.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Successful journalists are funded to attend the WCSJ in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Duration of Programme: 1-5 July 2019

How to Apply: APPLY NOW FOR A TRAVEL FELLOWSHIP

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Time to Dump Blasphemy Laws

Subhash Gatade

Mera azm itna bulund hae, Parae sholon se dar nahin.
Mujhe dar hae tu atish e gul se hae, Ye kahin chaman ko jala na dein
(my confidence in self is strong, I’m unafraid of foreign flames
I’m scared those sparks may ignite, that in the blossom’s bosom lay )
— Shakeel Badayuni’s couplet which was very dear to Salman Taseer who was assassinated by Islamists
Know Meilana, a 44-year-old ethnic Chinese Buddhist from Indonesia, whose conviction under Indonesia’s controversial blasphemy laws, caused an uproar in the country, merely few months ago. The only ‘offence’ registered against her was that this woman from Sumatra had merely complained about ‘the volume of adzan or call to prayer, from her local mosque’. Her complaint was considered ‘blasphemous’ and even triggered an anti-Chinese riot in which several Buddhist temples were burnt.
While the world at large was contemplating the fall-out of this sentence, and the way in which a Muslim majority country which celebrates pluralism – where religious freedom is stipulated in the constitution – the law has been increasingly used to ‘suppress freedom of expression’, there have been two pieces of news from different parts of the globe worth discussing.
Ireland, a deeply conservative country, dominated by the Roman Catholic church till recently, which merely six years back denied medical termination of pregnancy to a dentist of Indian origin named Savita Halappanavar despite threat to her life, as it was a ‘catholic country’, and let her die, has voted to oust this ‘medieval’ blasphemy law. Remember this law was added to the country’s Constitution in 1937 and included in the country’s statue books merely a decade ago  and had been conveniently used by the Islamic countries to put pressure on the United Nations that it should adopt the wording of Ireland’s blasphemy law.
The referendum to this effect saw 64.85% vote ‘yes’ to remove the prohibition on blasphemy, with 35.15% in favour of retaining it.  Considered part of the ‘quiet revolution’ of ‘seismic, social and political changes in the country’ by its openly Gay Prime Minister, the country has already legalised abortion and gay marriage via similar referendums held earlier.
The second news came from neighbouring Pakistan, where the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar, who headed special three-judge bench, acquitted Asia Bibi — a Christian woman accused of blasphemy in 2010 and sentenced to death — by quashing an earlier judgment passed by the trial court as well as high court.
The case had attracted national-international media attention because she was the first woman who had been charged under this controversial law. The intervening period also saw assassinations of two leading politicians, namely, Salman Taseer, then governor of Punjab, and Shahbaz Bhatti, a federal minister – by Islamists for demanding rescinding the false charges against Asiabi and also repeal of this anti-human law.
One can just recall the death of Mashal Khan, a journalism student at the Khan Abdul Wali Khan University in Mardan in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, who was stripped, beaten and shot in the head and chest by a mob under the charges of blasphemy. The Centre for Social Justice, a Lahore-based research and advocacy group, had then collated information about such killings and according to it
‘at least 62 men and women have been killed on mere suspicion of blasphemy between 1987 and 2015. So far, no one has been executed by the state. ‘
Looking at the violence which has been unleashed under the name of blasphemy, it need be emphasised that the Asiabi judgement is definitely a ray of hope for all those people who believe in a more inclusive, humane, plural Pakistan but there is no denying that the fundamentalist forces in Pakistan have not taken kindly to this verdict and have held violent demonstrations all over Pakistan. A few fanatic formations have even declared judges Justice Saqib Nisar and his colleagues Wajib Ul Katl (worth to be killed) making it very clear that the challenge of Islamist fanaticism is not going to disappear easily.
Anyway while one celebrates this judgement — where one finds that despite all the dangers which stood in its way, Supreme Court there stood its ground and refused to bow down before vigilante justice and that is definitely a silver lining to the unfolding dark scenario, one discovers to one’s dismay that people/formations belonging to this part of South Asia — namely India –are in a miraculous way  trying to rediscover virtues of blasphemy.
It has been more than two months that the Punjab cabinet, led by the Congress, took steps towards introducing blasphemy laws in this country. It approved amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) to make sacrilege of all religious texts punishable with life imprisonment. With this new Bill, Section 295AA will be inserted in the IPC to provide that, “whoever causes injury, damage or sacrilege to the Guru Granth Sahib, the Bhagvad Gita, the Quran and the Bible with the intention to hurt the religious feelings of the people, shall be punished with imprisonment for life.”
As rightly put by commentators the law which is being pushed through “[w]ill make punishable by a life term any attempt to hurt the religious (we can’t definitely say what that is) sentiments (a fuzzy area) of people.”
An open letter written by a group of retired civil servants explains how “blasphemy provisions, such as the one planned, go against the very grain of the secular character of our Constitution” and how instead of reducing the “role of religion from the matters of the state” would “further consolidate the hold of sectarianism, and strengthen the hands of religious extremists on all sides.”
The statement emphasised how the “Experience of the implementation of blasphemy laws the world over, point to their being particularly prone to misuse against minorities and weaker sections, to harass them, exact revenge and also to settle personal and professional quarrels, all matters entirely unrelated to blasphemy. (Pew Research Centre, 2016, US Commission on International Religious Freedoms, 2017)” and making sacrilege a major offence has “fostered an environment of intolerance and impunity, and led to violations of a broad range of human rights”.  (Freedom House, 2010), it demanded withdrawal of the law.
What happens next is still hidden in future but one can get a glimpse of things if blasphemy law is not rescinded from what happened before.
Not very many people even know that before this issue of blasphemy entered the statue books of Punjab, it has witnessed deaths of two women – both shared the same name Balwinder Kaur, accused of desecrating religious books. Remember Punjab witnessed many cases of desecration of Guru Granth Sahib – during 2015-16 – when Akali Dal ruled the state, which had led to much turmoil in the populace.
Balwinder Kaur, a 47-year-old from Ghawaddi village in Ludhiana, had spent few months in jail accused of ‘desecrating’ Guru Granth Sahib and was on bail when she was killed (July 27,2016) near a Gurudwara Manji Sahib Alamgir allegedly by a Khalistan sympathiser.
The other Balwinder Kaur faced death in her home only (September 9, 2016). She was also released on bail and had similarly spent some time in jail accused of desecration of religious books. The fact that she had entered a Gurudwara inadvertently wearing her slippers andthe issue had got sensationalised, that she was arrested. Her family even faced social boycott for months together. Her husband was arrested for the crime who was agitated that she had brought disrepute to the house.
Much like neighbouring Pakistan where people who are accused of blasphemy and acquitted by judiciary also face death at the hands of Islamists, it then becomes free for all.
Are we ready for that ?

Closing Loopholes: Taxing the Digital Giants

Binoy Kampmark

The treasurers of various countries seem to be stumbling over each other in the effort, but taxing the digital behemoths has become something of an obsession, the gold standard for those wishing to add revenue to state coffers.  Back in May, when Australia’s then treasurer Scott Morrison oversaw the purse strings of the country, it was declared that, “The new economy shouldn’t be some sort of tax-free environment.”  (Low tax environment was not be confused with a no-tax one.)  He had his eye on the $7 billion in annual Australian sales recorded by Google, eBay, Uber, Linked-In, and Twitter.
As always, such statements must be seen for all their populist worth.  A treasurer keen to secure more revenue but happy to compress the company tax base must be regarded with generous suspicion.  Trickle-down economics, with its fanciful notions of job creative punch, still does the rounds in certain government circles, and Morrison, both as treasurer and now as Australian prime minister, is obsessed with the idea of reducing, let alone imposing company tax.  But the Australian Tax Office has not been left entirely out of pocket: the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law (MAAL) and Diverted Profits Tax have both done something to draw in some revenue from the likes of Facebook and Google.
What is lacking in approaches to the digital company environment is consensus.  At the specialist level, there has been no end of chatter about how to rein in cash from the earnings of the digital world.  But action has been tardy, inconsistent and contradictory.  The OECD-G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Plan (2015), the product of 12,000 pages of comments, 1400 contributions from interested parties, 23 drafts and working documents and two years of deliberation, is one such imperfect effort.
According to the OECD, “Under the inclusive effort framework, over 100 countries and jurisdictions are collaborating to implement the BEPS measures and tackle BEPS.” Their enemy is a phenomenon described as “tax avoidance strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in the tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax situations.”
The tech giants, however, remain examples of singular slipperiness.  The idea of a digital tax, undertaken in the absence of international understanding will, it has been said, be not merely problematic but dangerous.  The European Commission, for one, has also considered the prospect of a 3 percent tax on the turnover off digital revenue, estimated to yield some 5 billion euros.
In making the March announcement, the Commission conceded that the growth of social media companies, digital businesses and “collaborative platforms and online content providers, has made a great contribution to economic growth in the EU.” The tax regime, however, was obsolete, creakingly incapable of covering “those companies that are global, virtual or have little or no physical presence.”  Profits derived from the sale of user-generated data and content fell outside current tax regulations.
A two-pronged approach was suggested: the first, aiming to “reform corporate tax rules so that profits are registered and taxed where businesses have significant interaction with users through digital channels”; the second, a response “to calls from several Member States for an interim tax which covers the main digital activities that currently escape tax altogether in the EU.”
When the plan surfaced, opponents closed ranks.  Ministers from Luxembourg and Malta expressed their displeasure at a meeting of EU ministers in Sofia in April.  German finance minister, Olaf Scholz, was obviously cognisant of the disagreements and confined his remarks to claiming that digital companies had to pay more tax as part of a “moral question”.  His proposed answer, however, remained vague.  The pro-taxing grouping was hedging.
Two prongs essentially became one: the interim measure might be implemented in the absence of a global strategy, one featuring a temporary levy on corporate turnover.  Companies would merely be charged on their profits but no tax in their absence. (This remains the great loophole of company tax: where there are losses, there can be no tax revenue.) “The idea,” claimed economy minister Ramon Escolano, “is to introduce it as soon as possible and for it to take effect from 2019 onwards.”
Unilateral tax approaches have been considered the enemy in this debate.  Not aligning the system with those of other states might, for instance, stir US anxiety and trigger a trade war.  But we live in an age of vibrant, aggressive unilateralism, exemplified by that man of bullied deals, US President Donald J. Trump.
The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, is one who has gotten impatient with the foot-dragging over an international agreement on how best to cope with tax avoidance on the part of the digital giants.  A “narrowly targeted tax”, coming into force in April 2020, is intended to raise more than £400 million a year for the public purse.  The Office for Budget Responsibility is less optimistic even on that projection, suggesting, in all likelihood, that the figure is more likely to be a mere £30 million.  This will provide little cheer to the campaign and research group Tax Watch, which has argued that the digital giants deprive the exchequer of some £1 billion annually.
All taxes are pot-holed matters, fabulously effective on initial inspection, but worn on a closer inspection.  Hammond’s digital services tax is aimed at online advertising revenue generated from Twitter, Google and Facebook.  Direct sales (the likes of Amazon, in this regard) are not the subject of the measure. As Martin Vander Weyer of the conservative Spectator noted, “I doubt it will make a jot of difference to the ragtag rearguard of bricks-and-mortar shopkeepers.”
Nor to the digital tax giants, given the versatile tax avoidance strategies they have proven more than adept at deploying.  Tax avoidance remains the forgiven misdemeanour, the dirty dispensation.  As if to prove this finest of points, Facebook has appointed a previous Liberal Democrat leader, former deputy-prime minister and pro-tax figure, the now knighted Nick Clegg, chief of its global policy and communications.  Brazenly cunning, but expected.

Anwar Ibrahim wins seat and returns to Malaysian parliament

John Roberts

The return of Anwar Ibrahim, former opposition leader, to parliament last month will only heighten tensions within the unstable ruling five-party coalition, Pakatan Harapan (PH), which presented its first state budget last week.
Anwar was jailed on trumped up charges by the previous United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)-led government, which suffered a historic defeat in the May 9 general election. UMNO had clung to power since formal independence from Britain in 1957 as a result of an electoral gerrymander and its use of police state measures against its opponents.
Anwar returned to parliament after winning a by-election on October 13 in the west coast town of Port Dickson with 72 percent of the vote. He was able to stand after Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad obtained a pardon from the head of state, King Sultan Muhammad V, for his conviction on sodomy charges.
The pardon was part of a deal worked out in January, in which, if the PH won the election, Anwar, now 71, would enter parliament, and then in the latter half of 2020, succeed the 93-year-old Mahathir as prime minister.
Anwar has made clear that, for now, he was sticking to the deal. He told the media he was not seeking a cabinet post and that Mahathir should be given “the space and latitude to continue unaffected by the constraints of time or pressure.” Anwar added that the decisions that have to be made by “Doctor Mahathir” must have “total unequivocal support by Pakatan Harapan, and that includes me.”
Such effusive expressions of loyalty should not be accepted at face value. After all it was “Doctor Mahathir” who first framed-up and jailed Anwar on sodomy and corruption charges in 1999 after the two fell out over how to respond to the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998. Anwar was physically beaten by the country’s police chief while in custody leaving him with lifelong injuries.
The differences over economic policy that erupted in 1998 remain. Both were members of the UMNO-led government at the time—Mahathir as prime minister and Anwar as deputy prime minister and finance minister. Mahathir, who was intent on imposing currency and capital controls to protect the crony businesses associated with UMNO, expelled Anwar and his supporters after Anwar sought to follow the International Monetary Fund’s demands for an opening up of the Malaysian economy.
The defeat of UMNO this year was driven by widespread concerns over the cost of living, low wages and salaries, housing, and hostility towards corrupt and anti-democratic government and its racialist policies of preference for the ethnic Malay elite. UNMO’s policy, which Mahathir had long supported, was pursued at the expense of the country’s Chinese and Indian minorities and the working people as a whole.
Anwar and the parties closest to him in the ruling coalition—his own People’s Justice Party (PKR) and the ethnic Chinese based Democratic Action Party (DAP)—represent layers of the ruling class more oriented to international investors and markets that are seeking an end to preferences for Malays in jobs, business and education, and pro-market policies.
In the May election, the PKR gained support from urban Malays on the more developed west coast of Peninsular Malaysia and in Johore, while DAP depended largely on the votes of ethnic Chinese. Mahathir and his United Malaysian Indigenous Party (PPBM) won support among rural Malays in more economically backward areas.
The new government has made limited economic concessions aimed at defusing anger over deteriorating living conditions. It has abolished the floating price for RON95 petrol and diesel and fixed prices at 2.20 Malaysian Ringgit (RM) and RM2.18 per litre until the end of the year when it will move to implement the fuel subsidy policy in the PH manifesto.
In addition, the government has replaced the goods and services tax, which hit lower-income families hard, with a sales and service tax, and changed the arrangements for student loan repayments. At the same time, it is reviewing all expenditures on unpopular mega-infrastructure projects connected to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
In an interview in September, Mahathir warned that the 2019 budget would entail sacrifices due to the RM1 trillion in debts and liabilities incurred under Prime Minister Najib Razak which include up to $US6 billion allegedly looted by Najib and his cronies from the 1MDB state investment fund. “Everyone will have to sacrifice. We can’t spend more than our earnings.” Mahathir declared.
While the financial elite was expecting the government to rein in spending after Najib’s 2018 election budget of RM280.25 billion ($US67.35 billion), Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng handed down a budget last week with a record expenditure of RM314.5 billion, with some limited assistance to low income households. As a result, the budget deficit is set to rise to 3.8 percent of GDP, up from 2.8 percent.
Prior to the budget, Ramon Navaratnam, chairman of the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute’s Centre of Public Policy Studies, told the media that he agreed with budget restraint and helping the poor. But what was needed, he said, was to ensure qualitative growth was the reduction of, or better, the elimination of, monopolies, protective policies and race-based programs.
This is the program favoured by the PKR and DAP and the more competitive sections of Malaysian capital which is likely to bring about conflict with Mahathir, who retired as prime minister in 2003 after 22 years in the job. However, he re-entered politics in 2014 and ended his support for Najib after the government signed up to the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership. Mahathir declared that it would turn Malaysia into an economic colony of the United States.
Mahathir latched onto the 1MDB scandal in which Najib was directly implicated to build an alliance to topple the UMNO-led government. He offered Anwar and the opposition coalition a common platform to exploit the mass discontent, and formed his United Malaysian Indigenous Party (PPBM) to garner enough Malay votes from traditional UMNO voters to defeat the gerrymander. These offers were accepted in January by the PKR and DAP and the Muslim based Amanah at Anwar’s insistence. A deal done by Mahathir brought the Sabah-based Warisan party into PH before the election.
As well as his economic concessions, Mahathir has sought to appease mass discontent by prosecuting Najib and his cronies in the courts. At the same time, he has presented his purge of hundreds of senior police officials and public servants with close connections to UMNO as “democratic reforms”. In reality, these moves are to strengthen Mahathir’s position both against UMNO and also Anwar and his supporters.
While there is an uneasy truce in the ruling coalition, factional warfare is likely to break out, sooner rather than later, as the contradictions inherent in the deal struck between Mahathir and Anwar are by worsening global economic instability and sharpening geopolitical rivalry, particularly between the US and China.

Inviting Trump to Paris, Macron evokes the specter of fascism and the 1930s

Alex Lantier 

As he prepares to host US President Donald Trump on Saturday in Paris for the centenary of the armistice that ended World War I, French President Emmanuel Macron gave a long interview last week to Ouest France. In it, he warned that Europe faces the same threats today as 100 years ago, in the years between World War I and the rise of fascism and the eruption of World War II in 1939.
Amid rising working class anger at his policies, the “president of the rich” continued his empty posturing as a “progressive” opponent of nationalism and of far-right critics of the EU like Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. With protests called against Trump’s visit on November 11, and against austerity and fuel price hikes on November 17, he tried to speak to popular concern over the danger of dictatorship and war.
He declared: “I am struck by the resemblance between the era we live in and the inter-war period. In a Europe that is today divided by fears, nationalist resentments, the consequences of the economic crisis, we are seeing the almost methodical re-emergence of everything that shaped the life of Europe between the end of World War I and the 1929 stock market crash. We must keep this in mind, be lucid, and know how to resist this.”
Macron’s statement amounted to an acknowledgment from the French head of state of what millions of workers worldwide sense: the danger of war and authoritarian rule is real and growing. Yet Macron, a so-called “progressive” investment banker, only proposes policies that intensify these dangers, rooted in the grotesque social inequality and historic bankruptcy of capitalism. The only force that can offer a way forward in the struggle against the danger of a relapse into the barbarism of the 1930s is the working class.
Macron did not even try to reconcile his criticisms of nationalism with his invitation to Trump, the parasitic billionaire who personifies more than anyone the attempt to stir up fascistic nationalism and anti-immigrant hatreds to pursue militaristic and anti-social policies.
Less than two weeks before, Trump had cancelled the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Shortly before that, US Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson had threatened to bomb Russia in order to “take out” Russian missiles she claimed violate the treaty. As he scrapped the INF treaty, a measure expected to produce nuclear arms races both with Russia and China, Trump was also deploying thousands of US troops to the Mexican border to set up mass prison camps and threaten to shoot defenseless migrants seeking asylum.
Yet Macron warmly greets Trump in Paris while hypocritically denouncing Salvini and Orban.
These denunciations are essentially false, as Macron makes them in the service of the same class interests as Trump or Macron’s neo-fascist rivals in Europe. His plans for the European Union (EU) to spend hundreds of billions of euros more on the army, and for pension cuts, rail privatization and austerity targeted against workers aim to fuse the EU into a militarized imperialist bloc. As Macron then explained to Ouest France, verbal criticisms of nationalism in Europe aim to preserve this bloc’s crumbling unity and to advance its geopolitical interests.
He said: “Ours is an era of great powers who develop their policies on a planetary scale; rules for competition and order still have to be established. Europe faces a danger: to be torn apart by the nationalist cancer, thrown about by foreign powers, and to lose its sovereignty. This means having its security depend on US decisions, having China more involved in key infrastructure, Russia sometimes tempted by manipulation, big financial interests and markets sometimes going beyond the weight that states can have.”
In fact, Macron’s presidency marked the breakdown of the EU’s ability to posture as a democratic alternative to the far right. Last year, Macron was elected by default against neo-fascist candidate Marine Le Pen, who had hailed Trump’s election. And Macron was hailed as part of a tandem with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that would make the European Union (EU) the new “leader of the free world,” perhaps through an alliance with the US Democratic Party, after Trump’s election.
A year later, these pretensions are in tatters. Merkel has announced her retirement as chancellor amid a furious campaign to rearm Germany, legitimize German militarism and promote German fascist traditions. Interior Minister Horst Seehofer declared that he would have joined a neo-Nazi riot in Chemnitz, amid growing evidence of collusion between the state and far right circles and mass protests mobilizing hundreds of thousands across Germany.
German intelligence also placed the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGP, the German section of the International Committee of the Fourth International) on a list of “left extremist groups” for opposing far-right militarism, while acknowledging that the SGP did not engage in violent activity.
As Macron’s allies in Berlin chart a far-right course and threaten to suppress oppositional sentiment at home, Macron is on essentially the same course. His forced privatization and wage cutting at the National Railways (SNCF), first proposed under a state of emergency suspending democratic rights and imposed despite strike action and overwhelming opposition by rail workers, has discredited his austerity agenda and shattered his presidency.
His raids on La France insoumise (LFI), an organization whose presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon received 20 percent of the vote, signaled that the vast police state powers built under the French state of emergency can and will be mobilized against peaceful political opposition.
This evolution vindicates the position taken by the Parti de l’égalité socialiste (PES, the French section of the ICFI) during the 2017 presidential election. It called for an active boycott of the run-off between Macron and Le Pen, in order to give a political line for the building of a movement in the working class against whichever candidate won. In doing so, the PES was not in the least unmindful of the danger of authoritarian rule in France. However, it warned correctly that Macron is no alternative to the far right danger and xenophobic nationalism represented by Le Pen.
And in Ouest France, Macron insisted that his model is Georges Clemenceau, the French president at the end of World War I. A ferocious defender of the Versailles peace treaty aiming to cripple and humiliate Germany, Clemenceau also demanded the execution of anti-war soldiers and draconian suppression of socialist, anti-war sentiment. Hailing “Clemenceau’s message,” Macron said he was “the father of victory, when all seems lost and the troops are in despair, he does not submit.”
In fact, the international upsurge of protests and strikes is an indication that masses of workers are moving into opposition to the European bourgeoisie’s militarism and austerity. The emerging movement against far right politics across Europe can only be waged as a political struggle, posing the issue of the transfer of power to the working class and the building of workers states pursuing socialist policies. This signifies, as the European sections of the ICFI insist, the struggle against the EU and for the United Socialist States of Europe.