31 May 2017

Institute of Tropical Medicine (ITM) Journalist-in-Residence Program for Journalists in Developing Countries 2017 – Belgium

Application Deadline: 30th June 2017
Eligible Countries: Journalists in countries in  Africa, Asia and Latin-America are encouraged to apply.
To be taken at (country): Antwerp, Belgium
About the Award: ITM’s Journalist-in-Residence 2017 gets the opportunity to deepen his/her understanding of topical issues in tropical medicine and global health during a two-week stay in Antwerp.
Through fundamental and applied research, advanced education and expert services, ITM advances medical science to solve tropical, poverty-related and global health threats. The Journalist-in-Residence programme offers a unique opportunity for reporters, producers, and editors to work on an exciting project in the realm of tropical medicine and global health (a documentary, or a series of articles, for instance).
Type: Training
Eligibility: Interested candidates must be talented print, broadcast, and online journalists from Africa, Asia and Latin-America
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Program: The selected journalist will interact with world experts in a wide range of topics in biomedical sciences, clinical sciences and public health. As ITM journalist-in-residence, s/he will have time to explore different areas or delve deeply into a single topic. There is also plenty of opportunity to participate in a variety of scientific meetings, seminars and other learning experiences, as well as enjoy quiet time for reading and independent study.
Duration of Program: 2 weeks
Award Provider: The initiative is part of ITM’s capacity building programme in developing countries financed by the Belgian Directorate-General for Development (DGD).

Lake Forest Graduate School of Management (LFGSM) President’s Scholars Scholarship 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st December 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): USA
About the Award: Each year ten newly enrolling students are selected as President’s Scholars. They are proven leaders who share a genuine commitment to developing their leadership potential.
Type: MBA
Eligibility: A President’s Scholar:
  • Demonstrates a high level of self-awareness and the ability to adapt to different situations.
  • Has a track record of unique accomplishments working with and through others.
  • Possesses a genuine curiosity and openness, and a strong commitment to  continued learning.
  • Has shown the ability to develop and sustain relationships with a diverse set of people.
  • Is held in high regard as a person with very high potential.
Number of Awards: 10
Value of Program: 
Scholarship
  • $10,000 in tuition credit awarded over the course of the graduate business degree program
Relationships
  • Comprehensive leadership assessment and one-on-one mentoring throughout the graduate degree program with LFGSM President and CEO Jeff Anderson
  • Part of an exclusive community of President’s Scholars with whom you share your experience
  • Exclusive networking and continued learning events during graduate degree program and as alumni
  • Quarterly learning sessions led by President Jeff Anderson and/or key executives and faculty
  • VIP access to LFGSM events
  • Opportunities to represent fellow students and the School at special events
Duration of Program:
How to Apply: To be considered for a scholarship for the Winter 2 2017 term, candidates must:
  • Complete the Lake Forest admissions process by December 1
  • Submit an executive summary outlining leadership skills and achievements on the student portal by December 15*
  • Interview with Jeff Anderson, LFGSM President and CEO*
*by invitation only
Award Provider: Lake Forest

IMD MBA Alumni Scholarships for Students in Africa, Asia etc 2018/2019 – Switzerland

Application Deadline: 30th September, 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Scholarship Worth: CHF 30,000
Number of scholarships: Five(5) (one from each region)
Eligible regions: Africa / Middle East, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Western Europe / North America / Oceania
Eligibility
  • Candidates who have already applied to the full-time IMD MBA program and who are citizens, but not necessarily current residents, of the above geographical areas are eligible to apply for scholarship. Candidate should be accepted into the IMD MBA Program.
  • The scholarship is both based on financial need and academic merit.IMD Business School Scholarship
Selection Criteria: Applicants must have been accepted into the IMD MBA program prior to their application.
Scholarship applications are essay based, with winning essays typically including the following features:
  • Relevance to the essay title
  • Organization and structure
  • Fully developed arguments
  • Persuasiveness
  • Personal element and/or passion
IMD reserves the right not to award a scholarship if the criteria are not met to the satisfaction of the jury / sponsors.
Essay Topic: Candidate must Submit a 1,000-word essay on:
Identify one tangible social, business or cultural issue in your region or country which you consider a priority to address. Why would you choose this issue and what makes you care about it? How would you, as a business leader (not a 3rd party or government), personally address it and ensure your business action has a sustainable impact?
Please draw on your own experiences in your answer, rather than on general, broad statements. The committee is looking for essays that are personal, visionary and demonstrate leadership, which include a clearly articulated description of how the solution could be implemented. (See link below for easy template)
For questions about this scholarship and submission of Scholarship essays, send mail to:
mbafinance@imd.ch
Award Provider: IMD MBA Alumni, Switzerland

Can the Impossible Happen in Britain?

Kenneth Surin

To state the obvious: two weeks can be a long time in western electoral politics.
The Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn has been gaining steadily in the opinion polls, despite a massive media campaign to undermine him, extending from the BBC and the supposedly “liberal” Guardian to the UK’s famously ghastly tabloids. When Theresa May called the election, Labour was 20 or more points behind the Conservatives, but this figure was down to as little as 5 points in some polls conducted before the Manchester bombing atrocity occurred.
The policies put forward in Labour’s manifesto are popular (especially when they are not identified as Labour’s!), Corbyn has been an effective campaigner, but Labour has also been aided by a woefully inept Tory campaign.  The Tory spin doctors and election strategists somehow convinced themselves that the largely untried Theresa May was their trump card, so much so that only her name (accompanied by the vacuous slogan “strong and stable”), and not her party affiliation, featured on their election propaganda.
While the hunch behind this decision of the election strategists was probably the marketing of May as a Thatcher Mark II, she has been a disaster so far.  A stodgy performer in debate, famously unable to think on her feet, May refused to take part in televised debates.  Her few attempts at “connecting with the public” have seen the wheels come off the proverbial car.
She scuttled off rapidly when booed on a visit to a social-housing estate in Bristol– people living in social housing have been under an unrelenting cosh since Thatcher became prime minister in 1979, and only someone in a fantasy conjured-up by Lewis Carroll would envisage a Tory leader being greeted with warmth and affection on a visit to such an estate.  Someone on May’s support team needs to be sent forthwith to a dungeon in the Tower of London for this Carrollian mishap.
Another walk-about in Abingdon (Oxfordshire), potentially less hostile territory, saw May confronted by a voter with learning disabilities visibly upset at having her disability benefit cut by the Tories.  The easily flustered May, seemingly unable to distinguish between learning disabilities and mental health issues, sought desperately to reassure the distressed voter that the Tories had a bunch of new initiatives on the latter.  The massed TV cameras recorded the entire episode, and May became an immediate object of derision.  She retired to her bunker at Tory HQ, and has not been seen in public since.
May’s two one-on-one television interviews have likewise been a disaster.  UK TV interviewers, even those not known for their leftist inclinations, are a much less calmative bunch than their American counterparts (the Orange Swindler would not last 60 seconds with the routinely ill-disposed and aggressive Jeremy Paxman), and May suffered her predictable meltdown.  The sight of her waffling and prevaricating when interviewed by Andrew Marr and Andrew Neil while trying to pull-out her “strong and steady” soundbite as often as possible, was utterly delicious to behold.
So, what’s next for the maladroit May?  TV debates are out, and so it would seem are walk-abouts and one-on-one interviews.  The halt to campaigning observed by all parties after the Manchester carnage has given her some breathing space, but it is hard to see what can be improvised by her handlers.
Theresa May apart, the Tory manifesto has also been a hostage to misfortune.  A grab-bag of vague promises and uncosted policies, it soon suffered from media scrutiny.  The manifesto, and the accompanying vapid sloganeering, are thinly disguised attempts to deflect attention from the one big issue the Tories can’t campaign on and must therefore keep out of public view, namely, the cruel and irresponsible austerity policy they have pursued since 2010.  In parliament, May has voted for every legislative item underpinning this policy, despite touting herself as a “compassionate Conservative”.  Here in the manifesto we are told: “We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism. We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality”.  They could have fooled me, and perhaps this was the Tory intention.
Paraded as “fiscal prudence”, Tory austerity has been quite the opposite.
The UK economy has grown since 2010, but, according to the Guardian, 7.4 million Brits, among them 2.6 million children, live in poverty despite being from working families (amounting to 55% of these deemed poor) – an increase of 1.1 million since 2010-2011 (i.e. the first year of austerity).
The report discussed by the Guardian, produced by the reputable Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), shows that the number living below the Minimum Income Standard – the earnings, defined by the public, required for a decent standard of living – rose from 15 million to 19 million between 2008/9 and 2014/5.  The UK’s population is 65 million.
These 19 million people, or just under 1/3rd of the UK’s population, are its “just about managing” families (JAMs).
An important contributory factor in these shifts, the JRF said, was the increased number of people living in basically unaffordable private rental properties, with the number of people in poverty in private rentals doubling in a decade to 4.5 million.
“Failures in the housing market are a significant driver of poverty,” the JRF study said. “This is primarily, but not entirely, due to costs.”
The number of rental evictions has risen by 60% over 5 years to 37,000 annually.   Over the same period mortgage repossessions have fallen from 23,000 to 3,300.
According to an article by Frances Ryan in the Guardian:
For a government to cut in-work social security, reduce child tax credits and freeze working-age benefits in this climate is the equivalent of knowingly removing the life rafts from the millions of citizens who are struggling to stay afloat. Drowning comes in many forms: perhaps eviction notices or hungry children. The Children’s Society says that by 2020, when all the new tax and benefits changes will have been implemented, low-income families making a new claim for support could be up to £9,000 worse off a year. The government’s four-year freeze on working age benefits alone will make four million families poorer.
Social care has become increasingly unaffordable for these struggling families, the NHS is starting to charge for treatment as it undergoes a stealth privatization, they have fewer opportunities for upskilling in order to raise their incomes, and so on.  This while their wages are stagnant even as the cost of living is increasing for them.
“Austerity” always was a hoax attempting to magic the banking-induced crisis of 2007-2009 into a crisis of the welfare system.
It has nothing to do with the “deficit”— if it did, Cameron and Osborne would have serious steps to reduce the “deficit”, instead they chose policies that increased it.
And indeed, UK public sector debt has risen since 2010–  according to the Office of National Statistics, from 60% of GDP in January 2010 to 85.3% in January 2017.
The Tories and their banker pals are determined to make ordinary UK citizens pay for the bankers’ mistakes with reduced wages and pensions, reduced health care, reduced education opportunities, reduced real employment (job “growth” is largely confined to “bullshit” jobs or McJobs), and reduced social services.
Their public position is that ordinary UK citizens are “living beyond their means”, thereby using this as a subterfuge to get the ordinary citizen to pay for the bankers’ fecklessness and criminality.
So far, no politician from any party has stood up and said it is the stock-portfolio class, and not ordinary Ukanians, who live beyond the Ukay’s means!
With the ideological dragooning supplied in endless doses by the rightwing tabloids, the “slackers” and “scroungers” always seem to be the not so well-off or totally indigent, as opposed to predatory bankers and avaricious landlords.  The former tend not to vote under the present electoral system because nothing really changes for them come election-time, while the latter make a point of donating generously to the Tories in order to safeguard their gravy trains.

We Can’t Let Britain Become a Vast ISIS Recruiting Station

Patrick Cockburn

The massacre in Manchester is a horrific event born out of the violence raging in a vast area stretching from Pakistan to Nigeria and Syria to South Sudan. Britain is on the outer periphery of this cauldron of war, but it would be surprising if we were not hit by sparks thrown up by these savage conflicts. They have been going on so long that they are scarcely reported, and the rest of the world behaves as if perpetual warfare was the natural state of Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, South Sudan, North-east Nigeria and Afghanistan.
It is inevitable that, in the wake of the slaughter in Manchester, popular attention in Britain should be focussed on the circumstances of the mass killing and on what can be done to stop it happening again. But explanations for what happened and plans to detect and neutralise a very small number of Salafi-jihadi fanatics in UK, will always lack realism unless they are devised and implemented with a broad understanding of the context in which they occur.
It is necessary at this point to emphasise once again that explanation is not justification. It is, on the contrary, an acknowledgement that no battle – certainly not a battle to defeat al-Qaeda and Isis – can be fought and won without knowing the political, religious and military ingredients that come together to produce Salman Abedi and the shadowy Salafi-jihadi network around him.
The anarchic violence in the Middle East and North Africa is underreported and often never mentioned at all in the Western media. Butchery of civilians in Baghdad and Mogadishu has come to seem as normal and inevitable as hurricanes in the Caribbean or avalanches in the Himalayas. Over the last week, for instance, an attack by one of the militias in the Libyan capital Tripoli killed at least 28 people and wounded 130. The number is more than died in Manchester, but there were very few accounts of it. The Libyan warlords, who pay their fighters from the country’s diminished oil revenues, are thoroughly criminalised and heavily engaged in racket from kidnapping to sending sub-Saharan migrants to sea in sinking boats. But their activities are commonly ignored, as if they were operating on a separate planet.
Britain played a central role in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 without considering that there was nothing but such warlords remaining to replace his regime. I was in Benghazi and Tripoli at that time and could see that the rebel bands, financed by Gulf oil states and victorious only because of Nato airstrikes, would be incapable of filling the vacuum. It was also clear from an early stage that among those taking advantage of this void would be al-Qaeda and its clones.
But it is only since last Monday that people in Britain have come to realise that what happened in Libya in 2011 dramatically affects life in Britain today.
British Libyans and Libyan exiles in Britain, who saw their “control orders” lifted and their passports returned by MI5 six years ago so they could go and fight Gaddafi were never going to turn into sober citizens the day after his fall. Just as the link is undeniable between the perpetrators of 9/11 and the US and Saudi backing for Jihadis fighting the Communists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, so too is the connection between the Manchester bombing and the British Government using Salafi-jihadis from the UK to get rid of Gaddafi.
The British Government pretends that anybody making this obvious point is seeking to limit the responsibility of the killers of 9/11 and the Manchester attack. The Conservative response to Jeremy Corbyn’s common sense statement that there is an obvious link between a British foreign policy that has sought regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya and the empowerment of al-Qaeda and Isis in these places has been dismissive and demagogic. The venom and hysteria with which Mr Corbyn is accused of letting the bombers morally off the hook has much to do with the General Election, but may also suggest a well-concealed suspicion that what he says is true.
The Manchester bombing is part of the legacy of failed British military interventions abroad, but is this history useful in preventing such calamities as Manchester happening again? Analysis of these past mistakes is important to explain that terrorists cannot be fought and defeated while they have safe havens in countries that have no governments or central authority. Everything should be done to fill these vacuums, which means that effective counter-terrorism requires a sane foreign policy devoted to that end.
It is no advertisement for President Bashar al-Assad to say that any well-informed assessment of the balance of forces in Syria from 2012 onwards – and the powerful foreign allies supporting each side – showed that Assad was likely to stay in power. Fuelling the war with the expectation that he would go was unrealistic and much to the advantage of al-Qaeda, Isis and those who might target Britain.
Eliminating the bombers’ safe havens is a necessity if the threat of further attacks is to be lifted. Security measures within Britain are never going to be enough because the al-Qaeda or Isis targets are the entire British population. They cannot all be protected, particularly as the means of murdering them may be car or a kitchen knife. In this sense, the bomber will always get through, though it can be made more difficult for him or her to do so.
Better news is that the number of Salafi-jihadi networks is probably pretty small, though Isis and al-Qaeda will want to give the impression that their tentacles are everywhere. The purpose of terrorism is, after all, to create pervasive fear. Experience in Europe over the last three years suggests that the number of cells are limited but that committed Jihadis can be sent from Libya, Iraq or Syria to energise and organise local sympathisers to commit outrages.
Another purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction, in this case the communal persecution or punishment of all Muslims in Britain. The trap here is that the state becomes the recruiting sergeant for the very organisations it is trying to suppress, The ‘Prevent’ programme may be doing just this. Such an approach is also counter-effective because so many people are regarded as suspicious that there are too little resources to focus on the far smaller number who are really dangerous.
Atrocities such as Manchester will inevitably lead to friction between Muslims and non-Muslims and, if there are more attacks, sectarian and ethnic antipathies will increase. Downplaying the religious motivation and saying the killers “have nothing to do with real Islam” may have benign intentions, but has the disadvantage of being glaringly untrue. All the killers have been Muslim religious fanatics.
It might be more useful to say that their vicious beliefs have their roots in Wahhabism, a very small portion of the Muslim world population living in Saudi Arabia. Of course, this would have the disadvantage of annoying Saudi Arabia, whose rulers Britain and much of the rest of the world are so keen to cultivate.
There should be nothing mysterious about the cause and effect which led to the Manchester bombing. Yet the same mistakes have been made by Britain in Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2006, Libya in 2011 and in Syria over the same period.

Fortress Europe; The Rise Of Fascism And Racism In The Netherlands

Thomas C. Mountain

A few days ago I returned from Veldhoven, The Netherlands, where last April 13 in a breathtakingly fascist act of racism the Mayor of this small Dutch town deported over 600 Eritrean youth attending a conference, kicked out of their hotel and forced to leave the city in the middle of the night.
I am not talking about Eritrean youth from Eritrea, these were mainly citizens of EU countries of Eritrean ethnicity, 600 of them, threatened with arrest and forced onto buses at 0 dark thirty and expelled from the city limits.
Their “crime”? Being Eritrean, that is supporting their country publicly in the midst of a racist and fascist fullisade of attacks by right and left wing Europeans against any and all things Eritrean.
These over 600 kids were attending a conference that has been held in a European country every year for the past 12 years, and was previously held in the Netherlands in 2008. Not one time has there every been a complaint against these youth and their conferences, members and supporters of the Youth Popular Front for Democracy and Justice (YPFDJ), what used to be the Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front (EPLF) before Independence in 1991. I, and other prominent western journalists (i.e. Eric Draitser and Glen Ford), have spoken at seminars sponsored by the YPFDJ and can vouch for their consciousness and discipline.
While I was in Veldhoven I made a futile attempt to talk to the Mayor about why he had tried his damnest to stop the conference from the get go, and went so far as to publicly invite hooligans, many of them actually Ethiopian refugees pretending to be Eritreans, to come to his town and attack the conference? So he would have some reason, anything really, to get his local buddy, the fascist judge, to put the kibosh on the Eritrean youth conference?
The Mayor declared, and the judge upheld, a “State of Emergency” due to a “Threat to Public Order” and the fascist “rule of law” saw over 600 young, black, mainly EU citizens, guilty of no offense other than their ethnicity and political beliefs, evicted not just from their hotel but from the entire city in the middle of the night. Can one imagine the effect on 15 and 16 year Eritrean kids, to be kicked out of their hotel and run out of town, riding a bus in the darkness not knowing where to go, with maybe another fascist “welcoming committee” in the next town?
The conference started on Thursday and over 100 “Eritrean protestors” showed up, nary an Eritrean flag amongst them, and began their best to raise hell outside the Hotel and Conference center. Three Eritrean youth attending the conference got beat up pretty badly and several cars entering the facility were attacked and damaged.
Interestingly enough this was being actively supported if not directed by a well known Dutch “human rights activist” ( a good buddy of the honchos at Amnesty and HRW as well as the Director General of MSF/Doctors Without Borders) and University professor, cell phone footage shows her ranting and raving against Eritrea and provoking the “protesters” to carry out their attacks. Finally the towns police force stepped in and arrested most of the demonstrators, with not a one of the Eritreans attending the conference being arrested.
While in Veldhoven I spoke with a couple of policemen who had been a part of arresting the counter revolutionaries at the demonstration and they were not happy about the Mayor having them all released without charge shortly after. Their point, being that they associate the African refugee community with a spike in crime in their neighborhoods, was if those seeking political asylum act like hooligans attacking persons and property and were arrested for it they should have been turned over to the Immigration authorities to be deported for cause.
I spoke with an employee from the Hotel Conference Center who had been working during the Eritrean Youth Conference and they confirmed that there had not been any problems with the Eritrean youth attending and they were surprised that they were kicked out of their hotel in the dead of the night en masse, that they knew of no reason it should have happened.
Doesn’t the EU have a “Constitution” protecting all of its citizens from such a blatant, unprovoked, racist act of fascism by public authorities? Isn’t the so called “Human Rights” movement supposed to be up in arms at such naked oppression of an ethnic minority? Isn’t the European media supposed to broadcast this crime far and wide and expose such illegal acts by the fascist mayor of Veldhoven, The Netherlands?
Not a word of protest, not a word, from anyone in Europe other than the Eritreans and their supporters, few that they are in these increasingly fascist of times.
It is turning into Fortress Europe, facism pure and simple with its early exemplifications being its rabid treatment of a particular ethnic group, the Dutch version of “Nigger Trouble”, the well organized and active Eritrean Youth Popular Front for Democracy and Justice and their racist midnight deportation by the fascist Dutch authorities in Veldhoven, The Netherlands.

Forrest Donations And False Charity

Binoy Kampmark


It is easy to sneer, and availing oneself of this chance, let’s. The celebratory guff floating on the media glow of mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest for giving away $400 million to charitable pursuits is reminiscent to that of Mark Zuckerberg.   At least he did not dig up the earth in the process.
Within the kernel of philanthropic generosity lies a deception: charity, its great fruit, is born from fundamental inequality, and more to the point, the assumption that such inequality can never truly end. You are kind, because you can be; you are generous, because your wallet provides the cream that enables you to do it.  As a caustic H. L. Mencken observed, the nature of such altruistic projects conceals self-interest.
More saliently, the issue of social, even political influence, an appropriation of causes and select projects over which the philanthropist can exert control, is an unavoidable fact.  This does not bother supporters of the philanthropic project who see it as “risk capital for social change.”
Judith Rodin, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, sees philanthropy in that light, with risk being its motivating “calling card”.  Accountability, surmises Rodin, does, in fact exist, leveraged through the notion of risk.  The risk takers are the great catalysts, and for that reason, are the anointed warriors of change.
Consider Rodin’s motivational speak, designed to bore: “I tell my board that if we succeed at everything we do, we’re not taking enough risk, and if we’re not taking enough risk, we’re clearly not doing everything in our power to maximise impact for the poor and vulnerable.”
Forrest had already etched himself in Australia’s philanthropic records, channelling money through the Minderoo Foundation.  This particular donation drive has several projects.  $75 million is parcelled out for the international effort to end modern slavery. The same amount is set aside for developing a program for child development in Australia and outside. Even more is inked for cancer research.
These are questions of priorities – and who, ultimately, should be entrusted with such tasks.  Government, being often an arbitrary, appropriating gang of members rather than an effective one, is bypassed in such acts.  But philanthropy, ultimately, remains the poorer deliverer in terms of welfare.
This point is missed by Australia’s prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who sees philanthropy in terms of influence as “greater than that of government, because it comes with the love of the philanthropist, a love of mankind.” This view is highly conventional, and heavy with dust: governments can only ever spoil what the people might do better for themselves. (Leave aside, for a moment, the fact that the people might be divided between the billionaires and the paupers.)  For philanthropy, reminded the prime minister on the occasion of the Forrest donation, was an “act of love” in Greek.
Turnbull’s deformed understanding of love did not convince critics of Forrest’s methods of wealth redistribution.  His power and influence have already gone so far as to suggest, through government solicitation, welfare reforms.  Having wheedled his way into the house of power, he wishes to make marks on the very way government policy operates.  These include suggestions on how welfare recipients use their money, and the cashless welfare card.
Former NSW premier Kristina Keneally certainly wished that Forrest, for all his “great” philanthropic gestures, could have simply paid more tax.”  Such philanthropy vested “massive power in the hands of the giver to determine how much money is available and what causes merit support.”
Keneally’s point is affirmed in the conduct of Forrest and Fortescue Metals Group, at least in terms of the contempt shown towards the tax collector.  (To give a sense of scale, FMG is the fourth largest producer of iron ore on the planet.)  In a senate hearing in 2011, officials of FMG revealed that the company had never paid company tax, though it had forked out $450m to $500m in mining royalties each year.
As then government senate leader Chris Evans explained, “They have never paid a dollar in company tax to date and they want to resist having to pay the Mining Resource Rent Tax.”  Such a state of affairs was “not something the Australian people should accept.”
Such misgivings did not stop there, for behind Forrest’s wealth lies the eager hand of historical appropriation, the coloniser’s prerogative to make good the use of natural resources.  Forrest’s great-grand-uncle, Sir John Forrest, set the trend as a plundering pioneer when he took some 2000 hectares of Crown land, offering the Indigenous inhabitants poor compensation: the possibility of employment and a paternal patronage.
This state of affairs was incarnated in modern form, with West Australia’s Yindjibarndi people in the Pilbara battling FMG over a certain matter of compensation for the site where the Solomon Mine is located. All Forrest was doing, claimed Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation CEO Michael Woodley, was surrendering money “from the country that he’s mining, which belongs to the Yindjibarndi people, and other traditional owner groups as well around the Pilbara.”
Initial negotiations begun in 2008 with 700 traditional owners for a meagre 0.5 percent of mining royalties collapsed.  Forrest preferred to keep matters down to standing promise of cash payments capped at $4 million a year, with $6.5 million promised in terms of business opportunities, training, jobs and housing.[8]  Certainly a more generous offer than that of his predecessors, but still not much.
The impression left by FMG and Forrest’s gesture is a hollow one, a matter of surrendering loot and plunder obtained from a line of work that is becoming increasingly unpopular.  It could even be construed as a form of elaborate money laundering.  Twiggy may have seen the writing on the wall: best make a name in the philanthropy books now when matters are easy, before it all goes under.

Inhuman conditions on US airlines driven by Wall Street pressure

Gabriel Black

The global airline industry has seen a profit bonanza the past five years as air carriers have sought to profit from the “ultra-low-fare revolution.”
The average operating profit margin for US-based airlines more than tripled between 2012 and 2015, according to data from Morgan Stanley. This trend was even more dramatic among low-cost carriers, which, on average, almost quadrupled their profit margins during this period.
For example, United Airlines, the carrier responsible for brutalizing Dr. David Dao on an overbooked flight last month, saw its profit margin increase from about 4 percent to 15 percent in 2015. At the same time, the lowest-cost airline, Spirit, saw its margin increase from roughly 12.5 percent to 24 percent.
Never in the history of the US airline industry have these kinds of profits been achieved. The industry has only once broken the 10 percent mark, and that was in 2006 following a year in which airlines had double-digit negative profit margins.
Underlying this record surge in airline profit is a turn to a new ultra-low-fare flying model, which, while cutting costs for consumers, has turned economy-class flying into a humiliating and inhuman experience.
Most airlines have introduced a slew of new fees to charge passengers for what previously were assumed standards of airfare such as checked and overhead bags. The space between seats and the size of seats have been reduced. Planes are, as a matter of policy, overbooked, with the intention of maximizing profits. In-flight service, especially on longer flights, includes charges for the various goods and amenities offered.
These changes are largely driven by increased pressure from Wall Street bankers seeking the highest short-term profits. Robert L. Dilenschneider, a PR executive who advises companies and CEOs, told the New York Times, “There’s always been pressure from Wall Street, but I’ve been watching this for 30 years, and it’s never been as intense as it is today.”
Jamie Baker, a leading JPMorgan Chase airline analyst, told the Times, “Fifteen years ago, airlines competed with each other over who could buy the most planes or have the most routes. Executives are just as competitive today, but it’s about who can achieve an investment-grade rating first, who can be a component in the S & P 500, and who has better returns for investors.”
This pressure from Wall Street has completed a transformation already under way in the airline industry. Following the deregulation of the industry in the 1970s, airlines steadily clawed back the gains of pilots and airplane staff, while cheapening and undermining the comfort and safety of flying. In pursuit of profit, they have reoriented the industry toward cost-cutting, penny-pinching, and tiers of service.
For example, the size of seats and the distance between the seat and the next row have been substantially reduced over the past several decades. In the 1970s, seats averaged 18 inches wide. Now, they are only 16 and a half inches, even though the average American is larger. Leg room used to be about 35 inches on average; now, the average is 31 inches, with airlines like Spirit going as low as 28 inches—the minimum the federal government allows.
After years of cost-cutting and bankruptcies, four airline carriers hold a virtual monopoly on the American market with 80 percent of all flights. This monopoly limits competition—further inflating profits.
Incidents like the brutalization of the United passenger last month are only the sharpest expression of the general degradation of conditions for both passengers and staff. A short look at reviews of working at Spirit on the jobs site Glassdoor shows how underpaid, exhausted employees must routinely ignore and deny requests to flyers because the company will not allow it—making everyone, except the investors, unhappy.
One worker writes, “Stressful and hostile environment with mad passengers due to the company’s awful policies so you have to be cold blooded to tell NO to passengers even when most of the times they are right, cheap/crappy equipment and systems, mandatory overtime, lots of arguing with passengers because they have to pay for breathing.”
These conditions, mixed with low fuel costs, have given airlines record profits in the past few years. However, with the introduction of many upstart low-cost carriers such as Norwegian, Spirit, and Ryanair, the European and American flight market has entered a period of more-savage competition with signs pointing to lower future profits.
According to the International Energy Association, costs for jet fuel will probably rise significantly this year and next, cutting into profits. In addition, despite the best efforts of the airline unions to help the corporations contain labor costs, analysts are expressing fear of a “wages push” by pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, baggage handlers, ticket agents and other workers.
The ultra-low-fare model is a recognition that the mass of working people—who have also suffered years of stagnant or falling income—are already hard-pressed to pay for air travel, and higher-cost tickets would push these consumers away.
Any sign of a downturn in profits will only intensify Wall Street’s drive to discipline the airline industry into further cost-cutting, which has already transformed flying into a type of human-cargo service.
Travel should be a basic human right. The companies, which are in the end owned and controlled by a handful of wealthy investors, should be taken over, turned into publicly owned enterprises democratically run by the working class. Without breaking the grip of the financial aristocracy over air transportation, the degrading conditions on planes for the majority will worsen.

Manuel Noriega and US militarism

Bill Van Auken

Manuel Noriega, the former military strongman of Panama and longtime “asset” of the US Central Intelligence Agency, died Monday night following brain surgery in a Panamanian hospital.
He had ruled Panama as a de facto head of state following the suspicious death of the country’s former military ruler, Gen. Omar Torrijos, who had come to power in a 1968 coup. Torrijos had initiated social assistance programs for the poor and pressed for the US to cede sovereignty over the Panama Canal to Panama, which was negotiated with the Carter administration in a 1977 treaty that was bitterly opposed by the Republican Party. The cause of Torrijos’s death was widely believed to have been a bomb supplied by the CIA and planted with the collaboration of Noriega.
Noriega was toppled in a December 1989 US invasion that Washington dubbed “Operation Just Cause.” He was to spend the last 27 years of his life in prison, first in the US, then in France and finally in Panama itself, on charges relating to drug trafficking, racketeering and repression.
The death of the former Panamanian ruler received scant attention in the US corporate media. With the passage of nearly three decades, the issues surrounding Washington’s intervention to overthrow him have faded in public memory.
The events surrounding “Operation Just Cause,” however, deserve to be reviewed, as they in many ways set a pattern that would be repeated in a series of steadily escalating US wars and military interventions around the globe.
At the time, the invasion of Panama was by far the largest operation launched by the US military since the end of the Vietnam War. Some 26,000 US troops participated in the invasion. More than half of them were already in place in the US-occupied Panama Canal Zone, and they outnumbered the entire Panamanian military by five to one. Thousands of Panamanian civilians were killed or wounded in this early incarnation of “shock and awe,” which was unleashed in large measure against the shantytown district of El Chorrillo, which surrounded the Panamanian military headquarters.
The administration of President George H.W. Bush claimed that the invasion was launched to protect American lives after a US soldier was killed when the car in which he was riding sped through a Panamanian military roadblock without stopping. In reality, this incident was merely the pretext Washington sought for an operation it had been planning for months.
Two days after the onset of the Panama invasion, the Political Committee of the Workers League, the predecessor organization of the Socialist Equality Party in the US, issued a statement denouncing the US intervention as an act of imperialist aggression.
The statement noted, “The attack on Panama shows the increasing resort of US imperialism to military force.” It continued: “Far from a sign of strength, the resort to military force is an expression of the weakness and crisis of American capitalism. With its financial system in a shambles, facing escalating trade and budget deficits, and hammered by the competition of more efficient imperialist rivals, especially Japan and West Germany, US imperialism is seeking to assert by force what it no longer has the economic resources to sustain—its domination of the nations of Latin America.”
Noting the increasing influence of European and Japanese investment in a region Washington had long regarded as its “own backyard,” the statement continued: “The US is thus flexing its muscles not merely to chase out Noriega, but to send a warning to its principal economic rivals in Europe and Asia that while in decline economically, the United States still possesses decisive military advantages.
“The combination of economic weakness and military power is an explosive mixture. But in the long run, the first factor is far more decisive, and the increasing recklessness in the use of American military power means that inevitably, US imperialism is headed for a monumental debacle.”
The Panama invasion came barely one month after the fall of the Berlin Wall and little more than a year before the first Gulf War, in which US imperialism subjected Iraq to the most intensive bombardment in military history. Washington was determined to seize upon the opportunities opened up by the Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy’s drive to restore capitalism to assert US global dominance by means of military aggression.
The US ruling establishment was also intent on “kicking the Vietnam syndrome,” as George W. Bush later put it, erasing the legacy of US imperialist defeat under conditions of mass opposition and social struggles at home.
Military intervention in Panama, and the inevitable victory of US forces, was meant to reverse a series of international debacles, from the bloody US-backed wars in Central America to the expulsion of US Marines from Lebanon. It also served to distract from domestic economic and social crises, including 1987’s “Black Monday,” the largest one-day market crash in history.
The one-sided war in Panama was, to a large degree, launched as a dress rehearsal for US imperialism’s first major war in the oil-rich Middle East. It provided the Pentagon with the means of testing out its weapons and command-and-control systems, as well as bloodying its troops, even if only in limited combat.
The attack on Panama created a template for the various US military interventions that were to follow in the way it was sold to the American public, based on the demonization of Noriega as the incarnation of evil.
There is no doubt that the Panamanian general headed up a corrupt and repressive regime. But the crimes of Noriega paled beside those of the other regimes in Central America that Washington backed with military aid and advisors. The victims of the death squad dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador numbered in the hundreds of thousands.
Moreover, Noriega’s alleged crimes were carried out in close collaboration with the CIA. As William Casey, the CIA director who died two years before the intervention, said of the Panamanian ruler, “He’s my boy.”
Noriega had collaborated with US intelligence since his high school years, informing on fellow students. He steadily advanced to become the highest paid CIA “asset” in Latin America, reportedly given $200,000 a year. He used his perch atop Panamanian military intelligence and then as the country’s strongman to aid US imperialism’s counterrevolutionary wars in Central America and provide a conduit to the Castro government in Cuba, as well as to the powerful drug cartels in Colombia.
When he was flown back to the US and tried on drug trafficking and racketeering charges in Miami, Noriega attempted to introduce in his defense documents proving that he had carried out his alleged crimes in close collaboration with the CIA. The court sided with the government’s argument that allowing such documents into evidence would compromise US national security and “confuse the jury.”
In fact, the US intelligence agencies and the White House utilized Noriega’s drug connections in the so-called Iran-Contra affair, with the White House and the CIA overseeing the smuggling of Colombian cocaine to provide a covert means of financing and arming the contra mercenaries attacking Nicaragua.
For then-president George H.W. Bush to vilify Noriega as a “drug lord” and “murderer” was the height of hypocrisy. As CIA director in the 1970s, he had flown to Panama to meet with Noriega and was ultimately responsible for approving his paychecks.
The propaganda campaign waged against Noriega would be replicated in one war after another, from the demonization of Somali “warlord” Mohamed Farrah Hassan Aidid, to the labeling of Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein as modern-day “Hitlers,” to the vilification of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad as war criminals. Like Noriega, all of them had previously been courted by and collaborated with Washington.
Panama also set a pattern in terms of the complete absence of any democratic debate over the question of war or any critical coverage by the corporate-controlled media. There was no prior notification to the American people before US troops were sent in, and no debate in Congress, much less a vote to declare war. US reporters tipped off about the impending invasion kept it to themselves, remaining loyally “embedded” with the Pentagon throughout the operation.
Finally, the record of the war on Panama gives the lie to the justification that Washington has given for the acts of military aggression it has carried out for the past 16 years: the so-called “war on terror.” All of the tactics and methods employed by American militarism were already present in 1989, well before any act attributed to Islamist terrorists. Utilized then to subjugate an oppressed Central American semi-colony, they have been repeated over and over again in the drive by US imperialism to assert its global hegemony by means of war and aggression.

Japanese government pushes “anti-conspiracy” laws through lower house

Gary Alvernia

Despite protests by thousands of people outside the Diet (parliament) building, the Japanese government last week pushed through the lower house legislation that enables a vast expansion in police powers and suppression of political opposition.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose government holds a two-thirds majority in the Diet, plans to see the “anti-conspiracy bill” passed in the upper house before June 18, when the legislative body will break for summer.
Aimed supposedly at disrupting “terrorist conspiracies” and “organised crime,” the bill defines 277 types of crimes to which criminal conspiracy can apply, making entire groups of people liable for surveillance and prosecution based on unsubstantiated suspicion of planning or preparing criminal activity.
While the government claims that the bill would primarily be utilised to prevent terrorism, the vague wording of “planning” and “preparing” crimes and the large range of offences covered could see people jailed for actions completely unrelated to terrorism.
“Planning” petty theft, copyright infringement, or unlicensed bike racing will now be defined as conspiracy crimes, along with theft of forestry products and exporting designated cultural properties.
In particular, the broad definition of criminal conspiracy would criminalise most forms of civil dissent, including peaceful protests and strikes. Among the list of crimes is organised obstruction of business by force, which could see a wide range of people being under police surveillance, since an action aimed at halting the construction of unwanted facilities, including a military base, could constitute a crime.
Additionally, as the bill allows for the surveillance of anyone suspected of participating in a listed criminal activity, the state would have the ability to spy legally on the slimmest of pretexts, stripping people of basic civil and legal rights.
Lawyers opposing the legislation cited the following example: Two citizens talk about a plan to carry out a sit-in at the gate of a US military base construction site. One of them buys a mat for the sit-in. Even if the sit-in is cancelled, they could be arrested on suspicion that they planned and prepared for the act.
The definition of an “organised criminal group” is vague. The police could launch operations against workers’ organisations, labour unions, citizens’ groups and political parties, if the police allege that the purpose of their activities has become criminal. Even to make a judgment on the nature of such groups’ activities, the police will claim the need to keep them under constant surveillance.
There is a significant level of popular opposition to the bill. Media polls indicate that a majority of respondents is concerned that the measures would be exploited to spy on the general population. More than three-quarters of those polled said the government had failed to explain what was contained in the bill.
Several legal scholars have rejected the government’s argument that the bill is necessary to stop terrorist attacks. Japan has not had a terrorist attack since the 1995 Subway Sarin incident, perpetrated by the Aum Shinrikyo cult, and laws already exist with regard to conspiracy for most major crimes, including murder and arson.
A professor of criminal law at Kyoto University, Kanako Takayama, quoted by the New York Times, commented: “[If] you buy a pair of scissors that may be viewed as a crime.” Another law professor, Lawrence Repata at Meiji University noted: “It is very clear that the Japanese public security sector—police and prosecutors—employ an extremely expansive interpretation of any aspect of criminal law so … regardless of the limited list of potential crimes, they will interpret it in an extremely elastic way.”
Others have branded to the bill as Orwellian in nature, referring to author George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, which describes a population under constant police-state surveillance. Such fears were validated by comments from Justice Minister Katsuoshi Kaneda, who speculated that an individual visiting a park with binoculars and a map could reasonably be suspected of plotting terrorist activity.
Many comparisons have been made between the anti-conspiracy bill and the notorious Public Security Preservation Laws of 1925 and 1941, through which the authorities criminalised all forms of political dissent and outlawed the socialist and communist parties, jailing over 70,000 people between 1925 and 1945.
Masa Ota, a 102-year-old woman arrested at age 18 for possession of communist literature, declared: “We must not allow ourselves to revert to that era … If only I could walk on my own legs, I’d be out on the streets, protesting.”
There is also deep opposition in Japan to other anti-democratic steps taken by the government, including its “reinterpretation” of the constitution to permit the deployment of the military to join allies in so-called collective self-defence actions.
The Abe government has pressed ahead, demonstrating its contempt for public opinion and democratic rights. Abe has declared his intent that the conspiracy bill come into full effect in time for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
Concerned by the potential for a public backlash, a number of corporate media outlets have expressed reservations about the bill. UN special rapporteur for human rights Joseph Cannataci published an open letter on May 19 criticising the bill’s measures and how it was being rushed through the Diet. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga immediately denounced Cannataci’s intervention, saying it was “clearly inappropriate and we strongly protested.”
Parliamentary opposition parties, particularly the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), have voiced similar differences, limiting their criticisms to requesting more “debate and public input.” One DPJ member, Shiori Yamao, declared that the Japanese public should “decide for themselves where they want their freedoms restricted in order to protect their security.” This effectively endorsed the government’s claim that stronger police powers are needed.
The DPJ’s stance is entirely hypocritical. In office from 2009 to 2012, it attempted to pass similar anti-democratic measures, a contributing factor in its defeat and the return of Abe and the LDP.
The bill has nothing to do with protecting the public. The comparisons made to the Public Security Laws are accurate. Then, as now, the Japanese capitalist class sought to stifle opposition within the working class to its reactionary measures, which included austerity and domestic repression at home combined with imperialist war abroad. Those laws were first enacted as the Japanese ruling class prepared its campaign of conquest and subjugation of the Asian mainland.
Today, confronted by a long economic stagnation, the belligerent “America First” program of the Trump administration, and the rising economic power of China, Japan’s rulers are again seeking a way out of their quagmire through militarism. Recognising that this will engender enormous public opposition, they want to pre-empt the threat of revolution by constructing a police state. That is the true aim of the “anti-conspiracy bill.”