Erasmus Mundus Scholarships in Journalism, Media and Globalization 2018/2020

Application Deadline: 10th January, 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: international

To be taken at (country): A consortium of eight universities from Europe, North and South America, and Australia run the Erasmus Mundus Journalism Master’s.

Eligible Field of Study: Journalism, Media and Globalisation

About Scholarship: As the Mundus Journalism programme is selected by the EU to receive Mundus scholarships (€34.000/€47.000) for EU/non-EU nationals respectively), the Mundus Journalism Consortium is able to offer a number of scholarships for the programmes running in 2017-2020. All Mundus Journalism students, who do not receive an Erasmus Mundus scholarship, can apply for an Erasmus+ stipend for the second year of the Mundus Journalism studies.

Type: Masters degree

Eligibility: 

• Students fulfilling the eligibility criteria for both Category A and B (students with a double nationality) must select the Category of their choice. As a result, they are only entitled to apply to one of the two categories of scholarships.
• Students must have obtained a first higher education degree before the course start of the Mundus Journalism
• Individuals who have already benefited from an Erasmus Mundus scholarship for a Master’s programme are not eligible for a second scholarship for another Erasmus Mundus Master’s programme
• Students benefiting from an Erasmus Mundus scholarship cannot benefit from another European Commission grant while pursuing their Erasmus Mundus Master’s studies.

Selection Criteria: During the admission process, all applications are assessed and graded in each of the categories below:

• Academic background
  The applicant’s academic ability, previous academic record and academic references.
• Journalism experience
  Based on the applicant’s examples of journalistic work and references.
• Motivation
  Based on the applicant’s personal statement – strong, clear statement that demonstrates the applicant’s motivation, commitment and relevant skills.
• Life experience
  Based on the applicant’s personal statement, CV and reference letters – cultural awareness, organisational skills, language ability, international experience, etc.
• Language skills
  In addition, applicants are expected to have a minimum Academic IELTS band score of 7.0 if they are not native English speakers (we only accept IELTS tests). Applicants who want to study at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chili are expected to submit a certified copy of their DELE results or other documentation of their Spanish skills if they are not native Spanish speakers.

Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:

• Category A scholarships (for international students) are expected to be worth €47,000.
• Category B scholarships (for European students) are expected to be worth €34,000.

Duration of Scholarship: for the duration of the program

How to Apply: To apply for the Mundus Journalism programme you will have to fill in an online application form as well as sending an email with a PDF-version of the required documents.
It is important to go through the Application requirements and admission process on the Program Webpage (see link below) before applying.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Sponsors: European Commission

Important Notes: Please note that both the application form and ALL supporting documents must be sent in before the deadline – 10 January: otherwise your application cannot be considered.

Is Peace at Hand in Afghanistan?

Conn Hallinan

The news that the Americans recently held face-to-face talks with the Taliban suggests that longest war in U.S. history may have reached a turning point. But the road to such a peace is long, rocky, and plagued with as many improvised explosive devices as the highway from Kandahar to Kabul.

That the 17-year old war has reached a tipping point seems clear.

The Taliban now controls more territory than they have since the American invasion in 2001. Casualties among Afghan forces are at an all time high, while recruitment is rapidly drying up. In spite of last year’s mini-surge of U.S. troops and air power by the Trump administration, the situation on the ground is worse now than in was in 2017.

If any one statement sums up the hopelessness — and cluelessness — of the whole endeavor, it was former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s challenge to the Taliban: “You will not win a battlefield victory. We may not win one, but neither will you.”

Hearts and Minds

Of course, like any successful insurgency, the Taliban never intended to “win a battlefield victory” — only not to lose, thus forcing a stalemate that would eventually exhaust their opponents. Clearly the lessons of the Vietnam War are not part of the standard curriculum at Foggy Bottom.

Why things have gone from bad to worse for the U.S./NATO occupation and the Kabul government has less to do with the war itself than a sea change in strategy by the Taliban, a course shift that Washington has either missed or ignored. According to Ashley Jackson of the Overseas Development Institute, the Taliban shifted gears in 2015, instituting a program of winning hearts and minds.

The author of the new strategy was Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, who took over the organization following the death of founder Mullah Omar in 2013. Instead of burning schools, they staff them. Instead of attacking government soldiers and police, they strike up informal ceasefires, and even taking turns manning checkpoints. They set up courts that aren’t tainted by corruption, collect taxes, and provide health services.

Mansour also made efforts to expand the Taliban from its Pashtun base to include Tajiks and Uzbeks. According to Jackson, both ethnic groups — generally based in northern Afghanistan — have been appointed to the Taliban’s leadership council, the Rahbari Shura.

Afghanistan’s main ethnic divisions consists of 40 percent Pashtuns, 27 percent Tajiks, 10 percent Hazara, and 10 percent Uzbeks.

It’s not clear how much of the country the Taliban controls. NATO claims the group dominates only 14 percent of the country, while the Kabul government controls 56 percent. But other analysts say the figure for Taliban control is closer to 50 percent, and a BBC study found that the insurgents were active in 70 percent of the country.

Jackson says the “Taliban strategy defies zero-sum notions of control” in any case, with cities and district centers under government authority, surrounded by the Taliban. “An hour’s drive in any direction from Kabul will put you in Taliban territory.”

Taliban leaders tell Jackson that the group is looking for a peace deal, not a battlefield victory, and the new approach of governance seems to reflect that.

That’s not to suggest that the group has somehow gone pacifist, as a quick glance at newspaper headlines for October makes clear: “Taliban assassinate Afghan police chief,” “Taliban attack kills 17 soldiers,” “On 17th anniversary of U.S. invasion 54 are killed across Afghanistan.”

A Decentralized Taliban

The Taliban aren’t the centralized organization that they were during the 2001 U.S./NATO invasion. The U.S. targeted Taliban primary and secondary leaders — Mansour was killed by an American drone strike in 2016 — and the group’s policies may vary from place to place depending who’s in charge.

In Helmand in the south, where the Taliban control 85 percent of the province, the group cut a deal with the local government to open schools and protect the staff. Some 33 schools have been re-opened.

In many ways there’s an alignment of stars right now, because most of the major players inside and outside of Afghanistan have some common interests. The problem is that the Trump administration sees some of those players as competitors, if not outright opponents.

The Afghans are exhausted, and one sign of that is how easy it’s been for Taliban and local government officials to work together. While the Taliban can still overrun checkpoints and small bases, U.S. firepower makes taking cities prohibitively expensive. At the same time, the U.S. has dialed down its counterinsurgency strategy, and, along with government forces, redeployed to defend urban areas.

The Taliban and the Kabul government also have a common enemy: the Islamic State (IS), which, while not a major player yet, is expanding. The growth of the IS and other Islamic insurgent groups is a major concern for other countries in the region, in particular those that share a border with Afghanistan: Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan.

Regional Terrorism

But this is where things get tricky, and where no alignment of stars may be able to bring all these countries into convergence.

Pakistan, China, Iran, and Russia are already conferring on joint strategies to bring the Afghan war to a conclusion and deepen regional cooperation around confronting terrorism. China is concerned with separatists and Islamic insurgents in its western provinces. Russia is worried about the spread of the IS into the Caucasus region. Iran is fighting separatists on its southern border, and Pakistan is warring with the IS and its home-grown Taliban. And none of these countries are comfortable with the U.S. on their borders,

Russia, China, and Pakistan are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and Iran has applied to join. The SCO consults on issues around trade and energy, but also security. While India is also a member, its relationship to Afghanistan is colored by its competition with Pakistan and China. New Delhi has border issues with China and has fought three wars with Pakistan over Kashmir, but it too is worried about terrorism.

All of these countries have been discussing what to do about ending the war and getting a handle on regional terrorism.

A Way Out

A path to end the war might look like this:

First, a ceasefire in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the Kabul government and a pull back of American troops. The argument that if the U.S. withdrew, the Kabul government would collapse and the Taliban take over as they did during the civil war in 1998 is really no longer valid. Things are very different locally, regionally, and internationally than they were two decades ago.

The Taliban and the Kabul government know neither can defeat the other, and the regional players want an end to a war that fuels the kind of terrorism that keeps them all up at night.

The SCO could agree to guarantee the ceasefire, and, under the auspices of the United Nations, arrange for peace talks. In part this is already underway, since the Americans are talking to the Taliban, although Washington raised some hackles in Kabul by doing so in secret. Transparency in these negotiations is essential.

One incentive would be a hefty aid and reconstruction package.

There are a number of thorny issues. What about the constitution? The Taliban had no say in drawing it up and are unlikely to accept it as it is. What about women’s right to education and employment? The Taliban say they now support these, but that hasn’t always been the case in areas where the group dominates.

The Trump Factor

All this will require the cooperation of the Trump administration, and there’s the rub.

If one can believe Bob Woodward’s book Fear, Trump wants out and the U.S. military and the CIA are trying to cut their losses. As one CIA official told Woodward, Afghanistan isn’t just the grave of empires, it’s the grave of careers.

However, Washington has all but declared war on Iran, is in hostile standoffs with Russia and China, and recently cut military aid to Pakistan for being “soft of terrorism.” In short, landmines and ambushes riddle the political landscape.

But the stars are in alignment if each player acts in its own self-interest to bring an end to the bloodshed and horrors this war has visited on the Afghan people.

If all this falls apart, however, next year will have a grim marker: Some young Marine will step on a pressure plate in a tiny rural hamlet, or get ambushed in a rocky pass, and come home in an aluminum casket from a war that began before he or she was born.

Why Is Israel Afraid of Khalida Jarrar?

Ramzy Baroud

When Israeli troops stormed the house of Palestinian parliamentarian and lawyer, Khalida Jarrar, on April 2, 2015, she was engrossed in her research. For months, Jarrar had been leading a Palestinian effort to take Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Her research on that very evening was directly related to the kind of behavior that allows a group of soldiers to handcuff a respected Palestinian intellectual, throwing her in jail with no trial and with no accountability for their action.

Jarrar was released after spending over one year in jail in June 2016, only to be arrested once more, on July 2, 2017. She remains in an Israeli prison.

On October 28 of this year, her ‘administrative detention’ was renewed for the fourth time.

There are thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, most of them held outside the militarily Occupied Palestinian Territories, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

However, nearly 500 Palestinians fall into a different category, as they are held without trial, detained for six-month periods that are renewed, sometimes indefinitely, by Israeli military courts with no legal justification whatsoever. Jarrar is one of those detainees.

Jarrar is not beseeching her jailers for her freedom. Instead, she is keeping busy educating her fellow female prisoners on international law, offering classes and issuing statements to the outside world that reflect not only her refined intellect, but also her resolve and strength of character.

Jarrar is relentless. Despite her failing health – she suffers from multiple ischemic infarctions, hypercholesterolemia and was hospitalized due to severe bleeding resulting from epistaxis – her commitment to the cause of her people did not, in any way, weaken or falter.

The 55-year-old Palestinian lawyer has championed a political discourse that is largely missing amid the ongoing feud between the Palestinian Authority’s largest faction, Fatah, in the Occupied West Bank and Hamas in besieged Gaza.

As a member of the Palestine Legislative Council (PLC) and an active member within the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Jarrar has advocated the kind of politics that is not disconnected from the people and, especially, from the women who she strongly and uncompromisingly represents.

According to Jarrar, no Palestinian official should engage in any form of dialogue with Israel, because such engagement helps legitimize a state that is founded on genocide and ethnic cleansing, and is currently carrying out various types of war crimes; the very crimes that Jarrar tried to expose before the ICC.

Expectedly, Jarrar rejects the so-called ‘peace process’, a futile exercise that has no intention or mechanism that is aimed at “implementing international resolutions related to the Palestinian cause and recognizing the fundamental rights of the Palestinians.”

It goes without saying that a woman with such an astute, strong position, vehemently rejects the ‘security coordination’ between the PA and Israel, seeing such action as a betrayal to the struggle and sacrifices of the Palestinian people.

While PA officials continue to enjoy the perks of ‘leadership’, desperately breathing life into a dead political discourse of a ‘peace process’ and a ‘two state solution’, Jarrar, a Palestinian female leader with a true vision, subsists in HaSharon Prison. There, along with dozens of Palestinian women, she experiences daily humiliation, denial of rights and various types of Israeli methods aimed at breaking her will.

But Jarrar is as experienced in resisting Israel as she is in her knowledge of law and human rights.

In August 2014, as Israel was carrying out one of its most heinous acts of genocide in Gaza – killing and wounding thousands in its so-called ‘Protective Edge’ war – Jarrar received an unwelcome visit by Israeli soldiers.

Fully aware of Jarrar’s work and credibility as a Palestinian lawyer with an international outreach – she is the Palestine representative in the Council of Europe – the Israeli government unleashed their campaign of harassment, which ended in her imprisonment. The soldiers delivered a military edict ordering her to leave her home in al-Bireh, near Ramallah, for Jericho.

Failing to silence her voice, she was arrested in April the following year, beginning an episode of suffering, but also resistance, which is yet to end.

When the Israeli army came for Jarrar, they surrounded her home with a massive number of soldiers, as if the well-spoken Palestinian activist was Israel’s greatest ‘security threat.’

The scene was quite surreal, and telling of Israel’s real fear – that of Palestinians, like Khalida Jarrar, who are able to communicate an articulate message that exposes Israel to the rest of the world.

It was reminiscent of the opening sentence of Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial: “Somebody must have made a false accusation against Joseph K., for he was arrested one morning without having done anything wrong.”

Administrative detention in Israel is the re-creation of that Kafkaesque scene over and over again. Joseph K. is Khalida Jarrar and thousands of other Palestinians, paying a price for merely calling for the rights and freedom of their people.

Under international pressure, Israel was forced to put Jarrar on trial, levying against her twelve charges that included visiting a released prisoner and participating in a book fair.

Her other arrest, and the four renewals of her detention, is a testament not just to Israel’s lack of any real evidence against Jarrar, but for its moral bankruptcy as well.

But why is Israel afraid of Khalida Jarrar?

The truth is, Jarrar, like many other Palestinian women, represents the antidote of the fabricated Israeli narrative, relentlessly promoting Israel as an oasis of freedom, democracy and human rights, juxtaposed with a Palestinian society that purportedly represents the opposite of what Israel stands for.

Jarrar, a lawyer, human rights activist, prominent politician and advocate for women, demolishes, in her eloquence, courage and deep understanding of her rights and the rights of her people, this Israeli house of lies.

Jarrar is the quintessential feminist; her feminism, however, is not mere identity politics, a surface ideology, evoking empty rights meant to strike a chord with western audiences.

Instead, Khalida Jarrar fights for Palestinian women, their freedom and their rights to receive proper education, to seek work opportunity and to better their lives, while facing tremendous obstacles of military occupation, prison and social pressure.

Khalida in Arabic means “immortal”, a most fitting designation for a true fighter who represents the legacy of generations of strong Palestinian women, whose ‘sumoud’ – steadfastness – shall always inspire an entire nation.

Religion and Politics in Pakistan

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

In a replay of 1977 anti-government demonstration against the government of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the government of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan is facing violent protests by religious parties to destabilize the newly elected government.

In 1977, the so-called Pakistan National Alliance, comprising three main religious parties – Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP), some other political parties and fringe groups – launched a violent campaign with a single point agenda to remove the elected government of Prime Minister Bhutto accusing him of rigging the March 1977 elections in which religious parties performed poor. Their election agenda was to establish Islamic rule in the country. The PNA was successful in its mission as the Army Chief General Ziaul Haq deposed Bhutto and imposed martial law.

Fast forward to 2018, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) an alliance of five religio-political parties that include Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadith (JA), Tehreek-e-Jafaria Pakistan (TJP) and Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP), plans to hold a ‘million march’ in Karachi on Thursday (Nov 8) against the Supreme Court’s recent acquittal of Asia Bibi — a Christian woman who was previously sentenced to death on blasphemy charges by lower courts.

Ironically, three of the five MMA parties include three religious parties which were members of the 1977 anti-Bhutto alliance.

Pakistan witnessed violent demonstrations for three days as the Supreme Court announced the verdict on Wednesday Oct 31.  The demonstrations were called by a new religious party, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP)

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling was pronounced, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) leaders Khadim Rizvi,  led a major protest outside government buildings in the eastern city of Lahore, with fellow TLP leaders declaring the three judges who acquitted Bibi to be “liable to be killed”.

The sit-in protest in Lahore remained the largest TLP demonstration on Thursday, with other major demonstrations being held in the southern city of Karachi, Pakistan’s largest. Protesters are also blockading a major highway into the capital, Islamabad.

Most schools and many businesses remained closed in all three cities through the day, with hospitals on high alert in case the protests turned violent. Highways were partially shut down and the federal cabinet held an emergency meeting to discuss the law and order situation.

On November 2, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan agreed with the government to end the violent demonstrations which had paralyzed the country and caused extensive material and economic damage.

According to agreement, a review appeal has been filed in the case of Asia Bibi which is the legal right of complainants and government will have no objection on it.

It was also agreed to initiate legal proceedings to prevent her from traveling abroad. She has been offered asylum by several countries.

The agreement adds that people who have been arrested against the acquittal of Asia Masih from October 30th onwards will be immediately released.

Tehreek-e-Labbaik says judges who acquitted Christian woman ‘deserve death’

Tehreek-e-Labbaik has called for the death of the country’s Supreme Court judges responsible for overturning the death sentence of a Christian woman accused of blasphemy.

“The patron in chief of TLP, Muhammad Afzal Qadri, has issued the edict that says the chief justice and all those who ordered the release of Asia deserve death,” party spokesman Ejaz Ashraf said, as cited by the news agency.

The party also demanded Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government be ousted following the court’s order.

Religious leaders had also demanded the ouster of the head of Pakistan’s military, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, accusing him of acquiescing to Ms. Bibi’s release. Soon after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Pir Muhammad Afzal Qadri, another prominent protest leader, urged army generals to revolt against their top commander.

The military said Friday that it had nothing to do with Ms. Bibi’s release. “The armed forces hope that this matter is resolved without disruption of peace,” Maj. Gen. Asif Ghafoor, the army’s spokesman, was quoted by state-run media as saying.

Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan

The TLP, founded in 2015,  is known for widespread (often countrywide) street power and massive protests in opposition to any change to Pakistan’s blasphemy law.

The TLP party came into existence, and subsequently rose to fame, after the hanging of Mumtaz Qadri, the killer of Salmaan Taseer, an outspoken secular governor of Punjab Province who had campaigned for Asia Bibi’s release and for changes in the blasphemy laws

In October 2017, the government of Pakistan controversially changed the language in its 2017 elections bill. The Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan and its leader Khadim Hussain Rizvi strongly opposed the new language, and demanded the resignation of Pakistan’s Minister for Law and Justice Zahid Hamid, who had changed the law.

The TLP held a large protest against the controversial amendment, stopping traffic at the Faizabad Interchange at first, which then led to further protests across the country. The party led a three-week sit-in protest that paralyzed the entire country including Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. At least six protesters were killed and 200 were injured when police unsuccessfully tried to disperse the sit-in, the protest had already spread out nationwide.

That protest forced the resignation of the federal law minister Zahid Hamid and paved the way for the group to poll more than 2.23 million votes in the July 25, 2018 general election, in what analysts called a “surprisingly” rapid rise.

What did the Supreme Court say?

Asia Bibi, a Christian who spent eight years on death row under Pakistan’s divisive blasphemy law, had her conviction overturned on October 31 by the Supreme Court . She was convicted in 2010 under the blasphemy law after she was accused of insulting the Prophet.

The Supreme Court judges in their verdict said the prosecution had “categorically failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt”.  The case was based on flimsy evidence, they said, and proper procedures had not been followed.

Blasphemy laws have often been used to get revenge after personal disputes, and that convictions are based on thin evidence.

The Supreme Court while acquitting Asia Bibi pointed out: “Sometimes, to fulfill nefarious designs the law is misused by individuals leveling false allegations of blasphemy. Stately, since 1990, 62 people have been murdered as a result of blasphemy allegations, even before their trial could be conducted in accordance with law. Even prominent figures, who stressed the fact that the blasphemy laws have been misused by some individuals, met with serious repercussions. A latest example of misuse of this law was the murder of Mashal Khan, a student of Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, who in April 2017 was killed by a mob in the premises of the university merely due to an allegation that he posted blasphemous content online.”

The Supreme Court also mentioned another instance of the misuse of the blasphemy law. The court said: “Reference may also be made to the case of one Ayub Masih, who was accused of blasphemy by his neighbour Muhammad Akram. The alleged occurrence took place on 14th October 1996, the accused was arrested, but despite the arrest, houses of Christians were set ablaze and the entire Christian population of the village (fourteen families) were forced to leave the village. Ayub was shot and injured in the Sessions Court and was also further attacked in jail. After the trial was concluded, Ayub was convicted and sentenced to death, which was upheld by the High Court. However, in an appeal before this Court, it was observed that the complainant wanted to grab the plot on which Ayub Masih and his father were residing and after implicating him in the said case, he managed to grab the seven-marla plot. The appeal was accepted by this Court and the conviction was set aside.”

At least 1,472 people were charged under the law between 1987 and 2016, according to the Center for Social Justice, an advocacy group. Of those, 730 were Muslims, 501 were Ahmedis — a sect that is declared as non-Muslim in Pakistan — while 205 were Christians and 26 were Hindus.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws open to misuse

Those opposing the apex court’s verdict on Asia Bibi should go back to re-educating themselves on what Islam is truly all about , says Tariq A. Al Maeena, a Saudi journalist. Commenting on the violent reaction to the acquittal of Asia Bibi  Al Maeena said:

“Alluding to the fact that the arguments involved insults on both sides, with Jesus Christ’s name thrown in, the court stated: “Blasphemy is a serious offence, but the insult of the appellant’s (Asia Bibi) religion and religious sensibilities by the complainant party and then mixing truth with falsehood in the name of the Holy Prophet [PBUH] was also not short of being blasphemous.”

“The verdict did not sit well with many fundamentalists who took to the streets to vent their anger. From burning rickshaws, cars and lorries to bringing traffic — including ambulances on their way to hospitals — to a standstill, the protesters vented their rage and not just at the court. Posters of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan were burnt. Some even threw shoes at Imran’s pictures.

“These religious fanatics, as I see them, are the worst examples of what Islam truly is. Far from respecting the verdict, they have become a law unto themselves and have set about creating mayhem and anarchy, something that Islam specifically does not condone. With very little understanding of the true meaning of Islam, these hordes are no different from those ignorant non-Muslims who deride or insult Islam. The actions of these Pakistanis are just as despicable.

“It was during the military dictatorship of former Pakistan president General Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s when blasphemy laws were radically introduced in the legislature, including punishment by death for those charged with defiling the sacred name of the Prophet (PBUH).

“Over the years, it became evident that the blasphemy law was used more and more for political gain, to settle land disputes or political rivalries than as an agent to maintain sanctity. The law became a way to challenge someone’s status and a powerful tool to intimidate anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim. Most of these cases reveal personal vendetta or are often used by extremists as a cover to persecute religious minorities.”

Papua New Guinea: Thousands strike over extravagant APEC spending

John Braddock 

Thousands of people joined a one-day strike in Papua New Guinea (PNG) on October 26 to protest the purchase of a fleet of luxury cars for use during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, beginning on November 17. The government of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill presides over one of the world’s most impoverished countries.

The stoppage, dubbed the “Maserati strike,” was organised after the government imported 40 high-end Maseratis, costing up to $350,000 each, and three luxury Bentleys, to ferry dignitaries during the conference in the capital Port Moresby.

The 21-member APEC summit, the first to be held in a Pacific island nation, will be attended by US Vice President Mike Pence, China’s president Xi Jinping and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, along with 9,000 delegates, staff and media. Amid deepening geo-strategic tensions across the Asia-Pacific and the drive to war, Canberra and Beijing have vied to provide millions of dollars in financial, logistical and infrastructure backing for the event.

The Guardian reported that O’Neill’s extravagant vehicle purchase was greeted with widespread “anger and disbelief,” particularly in the desperately impoverished provincial areas. Martyn Namorong, a PNG commentator and one of the protest organisers, said the fact the purchase was only revealed in a news report highlighted the lack of “transparency” around government spending.

Namorong declared that the strike was not a protest against the summit. “It’s a protest against the corruption associated with the hosting of APEC. It’s not a protest against world leaders, it’s a protest against our own corrupt, unaccountable politicians,” he said.

The Minister for APEC, Justin Tkatchenko, claimed the costs would be recouped by selling the cars to the private sector, predicting they would be snapped up “like hot cakes.” Transparency International (TI) said O’Neill had failed to reveal procurement documents, let alone any likely purchasers. A TI spokesman told Radio New Zealand the cars would likely be on-sold to people “in the know,” at knock-down prices and minus freight charges or import duties.

Opposition MPs called the national day of protest, urging people to boycott work and stay at home. Strikers reportedly included transport drivers and airport staff. Bryan Kramer, MP for Madang, said the boycott was successful and there was “very little traffic on the road” during Port Moresby’s peak hour. In the north of the country, bus drivers refused to work in Wewak, and in Lae, PNG’s second largest city, many people simply attended an agriculture show.

The strikers defied threats from government officials. Chief Secretary Isaac Lupari declared that public servants who failed to report for work would be “in breach of the Public Service Act and their employment conditions.” Police commissioner Gary Baki warned that police would “not tolerate” protests or marches.

In response to growing social opposition, the government has increasingly turned to repressive measures. Last month parliament passed legislation giving unprecedented powers to foreign forces and security personnel during APEC. A former PNG defence force commander Jerry Singirok told Radio NZ that the legislation violates the country’s constitution. He said that under the law change, basic rights of citizens could be over-ridden by external security forces.

The “Maserati strike” was supported by some trade unions, including the PNG Banks and Financial Institutions Workers Union. However John Paska, president of the PNG Trade Union Congress, distanced the central union organisation from the boycott. He said wages, housing, health and education were more pressing issues to protest than the Maseratis, and APEC was “too important” to risk it being “derailed.”

In fact, the escalating spending on APEC is intensifying widespread anger over the country’s dire social conditions and the government’s austerity measures. The entire ruling elite, which is mired in corruption, is responsible for a growing economic catastrophe. The culprits include opposition MPs, who organised the protest in order to head off spiralling disenchantment with the whole political establishment.

A Radio NZ report broadcast on October 28, headed “PNG to host APEC—but is it leaders before locals?” outlined the “social turmoil” and failure of basic services facing the country’s eight million citizens. Severe health crises are worsened by chronic shortages of medicines and inadequate vaccination programs. In June, health authorities confirmed that the country was experiencing its first outbreak of polio in 18 years. Deadly diseases such as Malaria, TB and HIV AIDS are also resurgent.

Radio NZ correspondent Johnny Blades noted: “Shortages of basic drugs and supplies echo shortages of health workers, rather like the situation in schools, where there are often not enough teachers for overcrowded classrooms, where up to 70 students can be taught at once, or funding shortfalls force closure.” The remote Highlands region is still suffering from February’s magnitude 7.5 earthquake which caused almost 200 deaths and extensive devastation.

While most of the population lives in abject poverty after decades of imperialist exploitation, PNG is resource-rich. It is the site of lucrative transnational mining projects, including the Ok Tedi copper and gold mine, oilfields in the highlands and the $US20 billion ExxonMobil liquefied natural gas plant. Corrupt business leaders and politicians, operating in the interests of foreign banks and corporations, have systematically looted these resources at the expense of working people.

There has been an upsurge in social and political unrest since the 2017 election. O’Neill’s government, now in its second term, is widely regarded as illegitimate. An analysis by the Australian National University, cited this week by the Guardian, concluded the election was “hijacked.” The vote was undermined by brazen electoral fraud—including failures in the electoral roll, theft and destruction of ballot boxes, and payments by candidates for votes—amid unprecedented violence and insecurity.

The report further exposes the contempt for the basic rights of ordinary people held by all the parliamentary parties. Tribal violence has surged again, adding to the death toll from fighting between supporters of rival candidates in the elections. A state of emergency was declared in June across the Southern Highlands after major unrest erupted, in which an Air Niugini passenger plane was destroyed at Mendi airport.

Preparations for APEC are being carried out under the closest scrutiny of the US and local imperialist powers—Australia and New Zealand. PNG is of vital economic and strategic importance to both Canberra and Washington in their drive to dominate the Asia-Pacific and block the rise of China.

Australia, PNG’s former colonial overlord, has already stepped up its military presence. Special force soldiers have been secretly despatched, supposedly to help secure Port Moresby ahead of the summit. Australian navy warships will be stationed off the coast, purportedly to protect the cruise ships that will be used for temporary APEC accommodation. A contingent of Australian Federal Police, already deployed to PNG, is to remain on duty.

New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Ron Mark announced yesterday that the Labour-led government will deploy a naval ship, a military surveillance aircraft and 30 Special Operations soldiers to APEC at the request of the PNG government.

UK students face rising debts, poor wages and further marketisation of higher education

Thomas Scripps

MPs on the Commons education committee have released a report titled “Value for Money in Higher Education.” They draw attention to figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) that indicated 49 percent of recent graduates (within five years of achieving their degree) were in non-graduate roles in 2017.

This is a significant increase over the proportion at the start of 2009, just after the 2008 financial crash, when 41 percent of recent graduates were in that position. It is matched by a very similar rise even among the population of graduates taken as a whole—including mature students—from 31 percent to 37 percent in the same years.

The report stated: “Higher education institutions must be more transparent about the labour market returns of their courses.” It came with the warning that “too many universities are not providing value for money, and ... students are not getting good outcomes from the degrees for which so many of them rack up debt.”

These comments reflect serious concerns about the toxic political legacy of tuition fees. But what they obscure are the deeper, more serious issues underlying the grim situation facing British students which is rooted in class exploitation.

Graduate earnings have fallen considerably in real terms following the recession. The average wage for a recent graduate in 2010 was £24,000; for graduates as a whole it was £32,000. By 2017, the totals had “risen” to £25,000 and £33,000 respectively. Given the average inflation rate of around 2.86 percent over the intervening years, these represent real terms losses of four to five thousand pounds. Student debt, meanwhile, has risen to absurd levels, with the average graduate now owing over £50,000 upon graduating, rising to £57,000 for those from poorer backgrounds.

The fall in real wages has taken place in the context of a supposed recovery in employment figures: unemployment rates for recent and older graduates dropped to 5 percent and 2 percent respectively last year, from 9 percent and 4 percent at a 2011 peak. The recovery, in other words, has in fact been a restructuring, based on effective pay cuts and increasingly enforced by pushing graduates into lower-skilled employment.

Even these statistics present too rosy a picture. Average figures for graduate earnings obscure significant variations. High-end salaries are captured by a very narrow layer of privileged students, often privately educated and taking up the majority of the places at the most prestigious universities. Graduates from the wealthiest fifth of families earn 30 percent more on average than the rest of the graduate population.

For large numbers of poorer students the only thing gained financially by taking a degree is an insurmountable debt. Among graduates of non-Russell group universities (the “top” 24 institutions), the average salary after five years is just under £24,000. One study showed that, of all students who graduated in 2004, one quarter of those in work were earning less than £20,000 a year a decade later.

The declining position of many graduate workers is the result of two main processes.

Firstly, the raising of qualifications thresholds as the number of university entrants has grown. In the decades since the 1980s, the number of jobs requiring a degree has increased substantially, to include, for example, school teachers, nurses, a range of office-based workers and even many part-time positions. So while the quality of many jobs working- and lower-middle-class youth might expect to enter has not improved, the level of qualification required to enter them has greatly increased.

Secondly, and most importantly, the graduate figures are an expression of the declining wages and conditions of the working class. According to the Resolution Foundation, UK millennials have suffered the second worst collapse in pay in the developed world, at 13 percent. Only Greece, savaged by EU-dictated austerity, has worse figures.

The number of zero hours contracts in the UK has ballooned, as have the numbers of self-employed, 80 percent of whom were in poverty in 2012-13. In total, according to an estimate from the GMB union, nearly 10 million UK workers—almost a third of the workforce—are in insecure work of this kind. These positions are disproportionately staffed by young, recent entrants into the labour force.

With poorer university graduates experiencing their own decline in living standards, the 59 percent of those aged 21-64 without a degree are left in an even worse position. On average, they earn five to ten thousand pounds less a year than a graduate, they are more likely to be unemployed and much more likely to be economically inactive—having to stay at home to look after family, for example.

These individuals come overwhelmingly from working-class backgrounds. Just 24 percent of pupils receiving free school meals—an indication of deprivation—go on to university. In 2017, according to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), while the most advantaged fifth of the population by area have a university participation rate of 47.1 percent at 18 years old, the rate for the whole remaining four-fifths is just 29.4 percent.

The real problem behind graduate prospects, therefore, is not the “value for money” offered by degrees (though many institutions are doubtless ripping off their students), but the decaying state of British capitalism.

MPs are discussing the issue in terms of “return on investment” both to divert from this reality and to point the way towards a further marketisation of higher education.

There are suggestions that the ongoing review into higher education, due to report early next year, is considering a variable fee system. Tuition fees for some courses would be cut—apparently down to £6,500—while others, mainly in the sciences, would rise to £13,500. A spur was given to such moves when the Universities and Colleges Union organised the defeat of a massive strike of university staff earlier this year that had raised opposition to further marketisation as central to the defence of their conditions.

Depriving less financially rewarding subjects of funds would be a significant attack on arts and culture and would greatly entrench what is already a two-tier university system. Low-reward subjects and universities will be priced more cheaply (though still at eye-watering rates) and signed up to by those desperate to reduce the burden of future debt. High-reward subjects and universities, the latter already the preserve of the rich, will be placed further beyond the reach of the vast majority of the population.

Nothing remains of the claims of the Blair New Labour government that widening higher education participation would usher in a new era of social mobility and rising fortunes. Students have been laden with debt for degrees, which do less and less to boost their employment and earnings. Young workers outside of the universities have endured a catastrophic collapse in their life chances. Both face the consequences of worsening social inequality and the transformation of the education system into an ever more naked instrument for securing privileged lives for the rich.

The fight for good quality higher education, accessible to all and guaranteeing a decent standard of living, is the fight of the whole working class and depends on its carrying out a socialist struggle against capitalism.

Hans-Georg Maassen: A right-wing extremist at the head of the German secret service

Peter Schwarz

The latest development in the case of Hans-Georg Maassen demonstrates that Germany’s domestic intelligence service has been run by an outright right-wing extremist for the past six and a half years.

Maassen was due to be dismissed two months ago as head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz), after backing a neo-Nazi demonstration in the East German city of Chemnitz. At the time the government decided to entrust him with a leading position at the Interior Ministry, but he continued to remain at his previous post. Now, the German Interior Minister, Horst Seehofer, has sent him into retirement.

On Sunday it was revealed that Maassen had used his position as head of the secret service to maintain his defence of the neo-Nazi demonstration in Chemnitz while denouncing his alleged critics in the government as “left-wing radicals.” In a farewell speech to leaders of European intelligence services in Warsaw on 18 October, he described himself as the victim of a conspiracy by “left-wing radical forces” inside the Social Democratic Party (SPD). The speech was then posted in the BfV intranet to be read by Verfassungsschutz employees.

Despite overwhelming proof to the contrary—there is overwhelming evidence that neo-Nazis attacked immigrants, showed the Hitler salute and vandalized a Jewish restaurant—Maassen maintained his version of the Chemnitz events at the meeting in Warsaw.

The claim that neo-Nazis had “chased” foreigners in Chemnitz was “fictitious”, he said. “I have already experienced a lot of German media manipulation and Russian disinformation. But that politicians and media freely invent a ‘chase’—or at least spread this misinformation unchecked—represents for me a new quality of fake reporting in Germany.”

He had told the appropriate German parliamentary committees that “a struggle against right-wing extremism does not justify inventing right-wing extremist crimes,” Maassen bragged. In response “the media, Green and leftist politicians” had called for his dismissal because they felt that “due to me they had been caught out with their fake reporting.”

For “left-wing radical forces in the SPD,” Maassen continued, his case provided an opportunity “to provoke the break-up of this coalition government.” He had also been forced out of office by his political opponents and sections of the media because he was “known in Germany to be a critic of an idealistic, naïve and left-wing immigrant and security policy.”

On Monday afternoon, Interior Minister Horst Seehofer placed Maassen in temporary retirement—after thanking him for his “good services.” Up to that point, Seehofer had consistently defended him. As a retired senior civil servant Maassen will receive 72 percent of his previous salary for the next three years and at least 35 percent for the rest of his life. Seehofer could have dismissed him on the grounds of a serious dereliction of duty.

Maassen’s departure and the displays of indignation by some politicians from the government and opposition camp about his recent remarks serve, above all, to cover their own tracks. Maassen’s right-wing extremist views were not only well known, they were desired. His task was to pave the way for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), in order to impose the government’s antisocial and militaristic policies in the face of growing opposition from the working class and youth. Maassen was part of the political conspiracy with which the ruling elites are enforcing highly unpopular policies.

This is particularly clear in the official annual report of the Secret Service, which Maassen presented this summer alongside Interior Minister Seehofer. The AfD and its far-right milieu are ignored in the report, while any criticism of capitalism is branded as “left-wing extremism”.

The “ideological basis” of “left-wing extremists,” it states, is “the rejection of the “capitalist system” as a whole. In particular, the report states that “left-wing extremists” blame capitalism for “all societal and political ills such as social injustice, the ‘destruction’ of housing, wars, right-wing extremism and racism, as well as environmental disasters.”

The Socialist Equality Party (SGP) is noted in the report for the first time as a “left-wing extremist party” and “object for observation”, because it opposes “the EU, alleged nationalism, imperialism and militarism”.

No political organization besides the SGP protested against this report, which places all opposition to capitalism and its consequences—war, social inequality, right-wing extremism, and nationalism—into the murky category of “hostility to the constitution,” and threatens it with legal prohibition. Now it is clear that Maassen, who had met with leading representatives of the AfD and drew up the report with them, himself supports the political line of the AfD.

It is not without irony that he is now also denouncing the SPD as “left-wing extremist”—the very same party that has always vigorously defended the Verfassungsschutz and its anti-democratic methods and which has itself provided its president for many years.

Maassen has worked for the Ministry of the Interior since 1991 and was a close associate of Otto Schily (SPD), who headed the ministry from 1998 to 2005. In 2002, under Schily’s rule, Maassen ensured that Murat Kurnaz, who had grown up in the German city of Bremen, was detained for three years longer than necessary in the US Guantanamo Bay detention center, although Kurnaz had committed no crime.

The Greens and the Left Party have also supported Maassen. In 2013 the Left Party invited him to address a public meeting, where Left Party politicians cheerfully chatted with the head of the German secret service on a couch.

A right-wing figure like Maassen was only able to stay at the helm of the BfV for six and a half years because he had broad support from within the secret service itself and from leading political circles. Even now, none of the parties has called for the dissolution of the secret service or even a purge of its leadership, although it is well known that not only Maassen, but also many of his employees, are politically close to the AfD, and that the Verfassungsschutz effectively runs and finances Germany’s neo-Nazi scene via its undercover agents.

Instead, all of the parties are anxious to continue Maassen’s right-wing policies without him. His successor is the BfV’s previous deputy, Thomas Haldenwang, who worked closely with Maassen.

Green Party deputy Konstantin von Notz praised Haldenwang in the highest tones. “I'm looking forward to working with you,” he said. “I wish the new president a good hand to tackle things with determination and restore lost confidence.”

Little information has emerged from the gathering of European intelligence chiefs in Warsaw but one can assume, based on Maassen’s own words, that his right-wing course had their support. He had “enjoyed listening to this circle” and had experienced “a high degree of collegiality and solidarity,” he said. “I have found that we have the same goals, share the same values and fight against the same opponents of freedom and democracy.”

Maassen also hinted to the gathering of senior intelligence officials that he was considering going into politics himself, but did not indicate for which party. For its part the AfD was jubilant. “He is an outstanding official committed to a high work ethic and has the courage to pronounce even uncomfortable truths,” declared AfD leader Jörg Meuthen. “Of course, if he had any interest in joining us, he would be welcome.”

OutRight United Nations Religious Fellowship Program 2019 for LGBTI human rights defenders

Application Deadline: 9th December 2018.

Eligible Countries: Countries in The Caribbean, Africa, or Latin America.

About the Award: The OutRight United Nations Fellowship is a 12-month program that supports LGBTI human rights defenders from around the world to harness the New York-based United Nations (UN) system to add value to their existing work. The program is designed to support existing work defending LGBTI people from the impact of religiously motivated violence and discrimination in the African, Caribbean and Latin American regions.
The aim of the UN Fellowship is four-fold:

1. Facilitate the use of New York-based UN spaces for LGBTI activists from Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America to enhance their networks and identify new entry points for progressing the protection and promotion of LGBTI human rights in their country.
2. Increase visibility and engagement of LGBTI human rights defenders from the Global-South within high-level UN political forums, specifically in response to religiously-motivated homophobia and transphobia.
3. Build the capacity of New York-based UN and State representatives in the human rights of LGBTI people to assist in the protection and promotion of these rights at the international level.
4. Strengthen relationships with diplomats in the New York-based UN system.

Fields: The Fellowship will operate around in-person participation at five key New York-based advocacy opportunities: The Commission on the Status of Women, the High-Level Political Forum on the Sustainable Development Goals, UN General Assembly High Level week, OutRight’s annual Week of UN Advocacy and OutRight’s OutSummit Conference. The Fellowship will include advocacy training.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

• Experience working with the UN system, including UN agencies and human rights mechanisms, is not a pre-requisite for this Fellowship.
• Women, trans, gender non-confirming and intersex human rights defenders are especially encouraged to apply.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Fellows will be funded to travel to four of these five meetings, each of which generally lasts 1-2 weeks. Funding includes roundtrip airfare, accommodations, visa fees, ground transportation, and per diem.
• OutRight UN Fellows are expected to attend four of the five meetings highlighted above. They will also be required to participate in activities around communications including social media highlights during sessions and reflection blogs. Fellows will also be required to produce a final report of their experience of the fellowship as well as participate in a follow up survey 6 months after the fellowship concludes to measure the impact of the fellowship on their national advocacy.

Duration of Programme: 12 months

How to Apply: If you are an LGBTI activist from the Caribbean, Africa, or Latin America and feel you or your organization will benefit from taking part in OutRight’s UN Fellowship, please fill out the questionnaire below.
Please fill out the questionnaire at:

APPLY NOW

Applications are due by December 9th 2018. The successful applications will be confirmed on January 7th 2019.

Please email applications@outrightinternational.org if you have any questions.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details