29 Aug 2018

The “spice” drug crisis in Britain

Anna Mayer 

The drug “spice” is increasingly popular among the most vulnerable groups in Britain—including the young, homeless and imprisoned.
The drug has horrific effects, with users, often homeless, invariably found in a semi-comatose state, slumped in the centre of cities such as Manchester and Sheffield.
Although the drug was designed to be a harmless alternative to cannabis, it is anything but. Known by a multitude of other names such as K2 and fake pot, spice is a mixture of herbs and synthetic cannabinoids, intended to mimic the effects of cannabis.
Effects range from anxiety to paranoia to hallucinations; with users exhibiting violent behaviour and feeling brain-dead, hence the label “zombie drug.” Spice can also raise blood pressure, sometimes leading to heart attacks and even death.
One of the factors contributing to the dangers of spice is the fact that its production does not involve a controlled environment and it is not professionally tested, which means that any potentially harmful effects of the drug are unknown until it is taken. Due to its ever-changing composition, users are often unaware of the chemicals it contains.
Spice is among a multitude of cheap, synthetic drugs that are widely accessible and popular with vulnerable layers. These include the stimulant “monkey dust,” available for as little as £2, that causes severe hallucinations, paranoia and a loss of sense of pain. Emergency services spoke of a monkey dust “epidemic” in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, with users exhibiting dangerous behaviour such as jumping off buildings and running into traffic.
Staffordshire Police report they have taken 950 monkey dust related calls in the last three months alone. Its use has led to several deaths, with one 54-year-old man, Anthony Pepper, found dead by his girlfriend with packets of the drug in his hand. A 35-year-old man, John Rigby, died after he took the drug and climbed over a safety barrier onto the A50 road and was hit by a truck as he tried to weave through oncoming evening traffic.
Although the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 made the production and supply of psychoactive drugs such as spice illegal, manufacturers have gotten around this by changing ingredients.
A paper, “Adding spice to the porridge,” by researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University noted that 60-90 percent of prisoners were regular spice smokers. Addiction to spice in prison often leads to addicts amassing huge debts to dealers and becomes a source of violence. In an indication of the social crisis, some prisoners are deliberately getting themselves arrested just to smuggle spice back into prison to repay debts or make money.
Interviewed by Vice magazine, Andy, who had been released from prison recently, said, “You make sure you are plugged when you go and commit a crime, in case you go straight back in. So you go with spice up your arse for a burglary. You deliberately get yourself arrested or break your license so you can go back in jail and sell spice.”
Users said the drug makes them feel happy and that they experience a “blackout” when taking it. Speaking to Daily Star about his spice use Dan Nicholson, a 31-year old homeless man, said, “I did them [legal highs] once when they were legal in shops [before 2016]. I had a really bad experience. I blacked out for six hours. I woke up not knowing who I was, where I was or anything.” He had lost his job, which led to his eviction from his flat.
Another spice user, Jed, who has been homeless for 20 years, said, “Yes I take spice, but who wouldn’t if they were living my life? It makes me feel good, it puts me to sleep, it blocks stuff out. It passes the time, and I have a lot of that.”
Dr. Robert Ralphs, a lecturer and researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University, says that prisoners use the drug to “kill time” and that it provides a “warm blanket” that apparently gives a sense of comfort and security to those experiencing the most insecure conditions.
The prevalence of the drug and the correlation of homelessness with its use highlights that the roots of the spice pandemic are social, not individual—homeless and prison-bound people use the drug to ameliorate the material conditions in which they find themselves.
A 2015 report carried out by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research estimates that around 35,000 young people are homeless at any one time across the UK. Moreover, 26 percent of young people surveyed by the study said that they had slept rough, constituting the “hidden homeless.”
Last month, a House of Commons briefing on youth unemployment said that 524,000 young people aged 16-24 were unemployed. Although official statistics show unemployment is decreasing, the number of “hidden” unemployed—those not in education, employment or training (NEETs)—is increasing. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated: “There were 808,000 young people (aged 16 to 24 years) in the UK who were not in education, employment or training (NEET) in January to March 2018. The number increased by 14,000 from October to December 2017.”
Not only is unemployment widespread, so is insecure work on low pay. According to the ONS, the number of zero-hour contracts rose by 100,000 to 1.8 million in the UK in 2017, with prevalence among youth, students and women. Zero-hour contracts are those in which the employer is not obliged to provide a minimum number of hours for a worker.
With uncertainty over whether they will be able to provide for themselves, people on zero-hour contracts are 50 percent more likely to have mental health problems.
Last week the Guardian reported that, according to NHS figures, 400,000 under-18s were in contact with mental health services. Although these numbers are rising, constant cuts to the NHS mean that less help is available to match the demand. There has been a 30 percent fall in the number of hospital beds for the mentally ill since 2009. Young people must wait for exorbitant amounts of time to access services and, at times, the hardships and pressures upon youth are so great that some decide to end their own lives.
The global capitalist crisis finds youth everywhere struggling to get by, with the resort to drugs, including spice, a desperate attempt at escaping their situation.
The New York Times reported that in Brooklyn, 33 people were suspected of overdosing on spice in just one day in July. Witnessing three spice users collapse on his way to work, Brian described the scene to the NYT as something “out of a zombie movie, a horrible scene.”
In the richest country in the world, a health catastrophe is steadily unfolding. In 2016, drug overdoses accounted for 64,070 deaths and more Americans have died from drug use in this century than in all of America’s wars. This disaster likewise has its roots in unemployment and poverty, as the country’s working class has been bled dry by the profit hungry capitalist elites.
In Australia, the drug “ice”—otherwise known as crystal meth—gained popularity, as shown by a study by the Medical Journal of Australia, which found that the number of regular ice users aged 15-34 doubled over a five-year period from 2009 to 2014. “These are young people whose lives are very precarious. We can’t just give them drug treatment ... and then send them on their way,” said Dr. Nathan, a researcher from the University of New South Wales in Australia.
In South Africa, which has the second highest youth unemployment in the world, 80 percent of male youth deaths are alcohol or drug related, according to the SACENDU project. This correlates with the hardships and a lack of future that youth face.
In the bourgeois media, the growth of the use of spice and similar drugs is never linked to the fundamental social problems that underlie any addiction because doing so would mean criticising the system they defend. In typical disdainful fashion, David Nutt of the Guardian exclaimed, “Spice ruins lives and costs taxpayers a fortune.” It is undoubtedly the case that the National Health Service and emergency services, already overwhelmed by a chronic lack of funding, are struggling to cope with an influx of spice users.
But such commentary only serves to channel the outrage at the pillaging of the NHS and other services away from its source in the capitalist system, based on the accumulation of vast profits for the owners of the means of production, whilst condemning the producers of the wealth of society—the working class and its future generations—to a life of poverty, disease and ignorance.
For these young people, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality offers the only perspective of ending the exploitation, poverty and misery that is the ultimate source of drug addiction. We fight to build a new revolutionary movement with the aim of overthrowing capitalism and establishing socialism, a system based on the common ownership and enjoyment of society’s resources.

New Australian government to intensify pro-US militarism and class war

James Cogan

In the wake of the August 24 ousting of Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister, his replacement, former Treasurer Scott Morrison, has flagged an intensification of the economic nationalism, anti-Chinese xenophobia, scapegoating of immigrants and pro-US militarism that has dominated official Australian politics for the past decade and more.
Morrison named his cabinet on Monday. His ministerial appointments represent an explicit overture to the most right-wing layers of the Liberal Party who were responsible for tearing Turnbull down.
Peter Dutton, the candidate of the right in the leadership ballot, was reinstated into the powerful Home Affairs ministry, where he will continue to oversee the witch hunting of Muslims and other immigrants and refugees, as a “threat” to internal security.
Mathias Cormann, whose desertion from Turnbull provided Dutton and his backers with the numbers to oust the prime minister, was reinstated as Finance minister and leader of the government in parliament’s upper house, the Senate.
Angus Taylor from the right grouping, a public opponent of wind-powered energy generation, was given the Energy ministry. Alan Tudge, who has denounced immigrants for forming “cultural bubbles” in Australia’s major cities and has advocated that new migrants should be required to pass an English-biased “Australian values test,” was given the new “Cities and Population” portfolio.
Morrison failed to give ministries to two of Dutton’s main backers and relative newcomers, former special forces officer Andrew Hastie and former army general Jim Molan. The profile of both, however, has been dramatically raised and they will function as powerbrokers within the government.
Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who was stripped of the leadership in September 2015 by a party coup launched by Turnbull, and who then led the protracted campaign to bring him down, was also not given a cabinet position. He intends to remain in the parliament and Morrison has named him “Special Envoy on Indigenous Affairs,” giving him a high-profile media role touring Aboriginal communities.
Despite losing the leadership contest to Morrison after ousting Turnbull, the right faction, which enjoys the backing of the Rupert Murdoch-owned media, will put its stamp on the government’s agenda. This is indicated by the policies that Morrison and his new cabinet are flagging for the Liberal-National Party Coalition government’s campaign for the next election, which must be held by May 2019 at the latest.
In terms of foreign policy, the Morrison government will remain firmly aligned with Washington’s economic and military confrontation with China, to ensure the US remains the dominant power in Asia and internationally. Morrison has already invited President Trump to visit Australia as soon as possible. The new foreign minister, former Defence Minister Marise Payne, has confirmed that Chinese communication companies Huawei and ZTE will be banned from any role in the development of a 5G mobile phone network on “national security” grounds.
Julia Gillard’s previous Labor government, which had fully committed Australia in 2011 to the US anti-China “pivot to Asia,” had already proscribed Chinese companies from participating in the country’s new broadband internet network.
In June 2018, the Coalition and Labor joined forces to push through draconian “foreign interference” legislation. The new laws are, above all, aimed at developing a xenophobic witch hunt against alleged “Chinese agents of influence” in Australian business, politics, academia and media.
On energy policy, Morrison has signalled that his government will repudiate any Australian commitment to reducing its carbon emissions by expanding renewable generation, and may subsidise the construction of new coal-fired and gas-fired power plants. Australia is among the largest exporters of coal and natural gas, and a powerful section of its corporate elite has a vested interest in pushing back against any move away from fossil fuels, regardless of the long-term consequences.
The new cabinet is also discussing stepped up attacks on recipients of social welfare benefits. These include increased drug testing and the extension of the so-called “cashless” payment system, in which the most disadvantaged layers of the population are issued debit cards that can only be used at selected stores and for specified items. The demeaning and stigmatising “cashless” policy has been trialled for more than a decade in impoverished indigenous communities and some working-class suburbs.
On immigration, Morrison has indicated that his government will look to forcing new migrants to spend up to five years living in Australia’s regional areas. This policy, which has been discussed over recent years, is a direct overture to right-wing attempts to blame the lack of infrastructure and services in the major cities, such as Sydney and Melbourne, on “too many people,” rather than on the real cause—decades of underfunding and unplanned development.
Taken together, the various policies being rolled out or considered underscore the fact that one of the main objectives behind Turnbull’s ousting was to refashion the Liberal Party into a far more right-wing movement. Under conditions of immense international geostrategic tensions, and intense social antagonisms within Australia, the dominant faction of the ruling class is demanding that the entire political establishment commit to suppressing opposition to its military alliance with the US, and to the ever worsening social and economic conditions facing the majority of the population.
The ruling elite is acutely aware that Australian capitalism is spiralling toward an economic crisis that will inevitably provoke explosive class conflict. The Trump administration’s “America First” trade war measures against China and other US competitors are leading toward a global slump. Canberra’s backing for Washington is likely to result in retaliatory measures from China, Australia’s largest export market. The steady rise in US interest rates, aimed at sucking international investment into Wall Street, is causing currency falls and generating enormous pressure to follow suit in numerous countries, including Australia.
The impact has already been predicted. At present, due to a speculative property market boom, causing staggering increases in housing prices and rents, 25 percent of mortgage holders are in “housing stress”—that is, they cannot pay down their mortgage repayments and meet other household costs. Just a one percent rise in interest rates will increase that figure to 40 percent. A two percent rise in rates—back to the level of 2012—will put 50 percent of mortgage holders under stress. If rates rose by four percent, which would return them to their average, then over two thirds of households would be left hovering on the brink of default.
The underlying cause of the social crisis is the decades-long suppression of working-class wages and the shattering of permanent, secure employment under successive Labor and Coalition governments. Incomes have fallen so low that, as far back as 2015, at least 54 percent of those surveyed reported that they suffered financial stress, defined as not being able to afford regular meals, pay their mortgage, rent or bills on time, or having to borrow or ask family or friends for assistance to make ends meet.
On the other hand, as is the case around the world, the capitalist and upper-middle classes have enriched themselves through the hardship inflicted on the working class. A Credit Suisse study in 2017 estimated that the top 1 percent controlled 23 percent of all wealth—more than the bottom 70 percent of the population combined.
While hundreds of billions of dollars are being allocated to expanding the military, intelligence and police agencies during the coming years, public health, education and other essential services are being starved of resources and teeter on the brink of dysfunction.
Combined with the prospect of war with China, social inequality is the over-riding factor behind the continuous right-wing lurch of the entire political establishment—into seeking to divide the working class with anti-immigrant demagogy and toward authoritarian forms of rule.

UN panel cites massive war crimes in US-backed war on Yemen

Bill Van Auken

A draft report prepared by a United Nations human rights panel has spelled out in detail the massive and savage war crimes that have been carried out against the people of Yemen in the three-year-old war waged by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with indispensable military and political backing from Washington.
The report was produced by the Group of Independent Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen, a body formed by the United Nations human rights council in September of last year with a year-long mandate to investigate human rights abuses in the impoverished and war-ravaged country.
The group’s formation represented a reversal for Riyadh and Washington, which had successfully fought off previous attempts to mount an investigation into the near-genocidal war against the Yemeni people. Nonetheless, the group of experts lacked even the limited power of a full-scale UN commission of inquiry to recommend prosecution for war crimes in the international criminal court.
The report attributes the vast majority of civilian casualties—which it places at 6,475 killed and 10,231 wounded, while admitting that the real toll is far higher—to Saudi air strikes that “have hit residential areas, markets, funerals, weddings, detention facilities, civilian boats and even medical facilities.”
The report comes in the immediate wake of two horrific atrocities in the space of just two weeks that claimed the lives of at least 60 children and over a dozen others. The first took place on August 9, when a Saudi warplane launched a 500-pound bomb against a bus carrying students from their summer camp to a traditional end-of-summer ceremony, killing 40 children and at least 11 others. While Saudi officials denied responsibility for the attack, and the Pentagon claimed it was still investigating the matter, CNN reported from the scene that remains of the bomb dropped revealed it was made by the giant US arms contractor, Lockheed Martin.
This was followed by another murderous attack on women and children fleeing a neighborhood in the besieged port city of Hodeidah on August 23. A Saudi missile struck the truck in which they were riding, killing at least 22 children and four women.
As the report makes clear, these massacres are by no means an aberration.
The Group of Experts reviewed 60 cases in which Saudi air strikes were carried out against residential areas, killing more than 500 civilians, including 84 women and 233 children. It investigated 29 cases in which strikes were carried out against public spaces, including hotels, killing another 300 civilians. It reviewed 11 air strikes targeting marketplaces, killing and maiming hundreds more. It also probed bombing raids staged against funerals and weddings, most infamously the October 2016 attack on Al-Kubra Hall in the city of Sana’a during the funeral of the father of a senior official, which killed at least 137 civilians and injured 695.
Also investigated were air raids against detention facilities, civilian boats carrying both fishermen and refugees, and numerous medical facilities and ambulances as well as “educational, cultural and religious sites.”
The panel also cited the use by the Saudi warplanes of “double strikes,” in which a second attack is carried out against a target quickly after the first in order to kill first responders and others rushing to the scene to help the wounded.
The incidents cited in the report are by no means a comprehensive list of all the air strikes – estimated at over 18,000 – conducted against Yemen over the past three years, but only representative of the carnage that is taking place.
The report uses mealy-mouthed language that conceals the murderous campaign to force the Yemeni people to submit to Saudi domination. It questions the “targeting process” and the “effectiveness of precautionary measures” adopted to protect civilians by the Saudi-led coalition, and expresses “serious concerns about the respect of the principle of distinction” between military and civilian targets.
At the same time, it acknowledges that Saudi warplanes are employing US-supplied precision-guided munitions that “would normally indicate that the object struck was the target.”
Precisely. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and their allies are carrying out a protracted and deliberate massacre of a largely defenseless Yemeni population.
Also cited as a “violation of international human rights law and international humanitarian law,” i.e., a war crime, are the Saudi-led and US-backed “de facto blockades” of Yemen’s borders, as well as its sea ports and airports.
“The impact of these developments on the civilian population has been immense,” the report states, referring to the blockades. “The accessibility of food and fuel has significantly declined, due to increased costs of bringing goods to markets. These costs have been passed on to consumers, rendering the limited goods available unaffordable for the majority of the population. The problem has been exacerbated by the Government’s non-payment of public sector salaries, affecting one quarter of the population, since August 2016. The effects of the price increases coupled with the erosion of their purchasing power have been disastrous for the population.”
As a result, the report adds, “As of April 2018, nearly 17.8 million people were food insecure and 8.4 million were on the brink of famine. Health-care facilities were not functioning, clean water was less accessible and Yemen was still suffering from the largest outbreak of cholera in recent history.”
The blockade has also prevented people from seeking medical treatment that they are unable to secure inside Yemen. Last August, the Ministry of Health in Sana’a reported that 13,000 Yemenis had died from health conditions that could have been treated if the Saudis had not shut down the country’s airports. Just this week, the health minister issued an appeal to suspend the blockade so that victims of the recent bombings, including badly wounded children, could travel to hospitals abroad.
The report also cites as war crimes the systematic forced disappearances, arbitrary detention and systematic torture and rape of Yemenis taken into custody by the Saudi-led coalition, in particular military forces deployed in the country by the UAE.
“At Bir Ahmed Prison, forces of the United Arab Emirates raided the facility and perpetrated sexual violence,” the report states. “In March 2018, nearly 200 detainees were stripped naked in a group while personnel of the United Arab Emirates forcibly examined their anuses. During this search, multiple detainees were raped digitally and with tools and sticks.”
In addition, detainees have been “beaten, electrocuted, suspended upside down, drowned, threatened with violence against their families and held in solitary confinement for prolonged periods.”
The report also cites the rampant torture and rape of refugees, particularly Somalis and Eritreans, at the hands of Security Belt Forces, comprised of Islamist militias deployed by the Saudi-led coalition on Yemen’s borders.
The report concludes that the panel of experts “has identified, where possible, individuals who may be responsible for international crimes, and the list of individuals has been submitted” to the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights.
There is no indication, however, that this list includes the names of individual political and military officials without whose participation the war in Yemen would have been impossible. These would include Barack Obama, Donald Trump, James Mattis, Gen. Joseph Votel and many others in the top ranks of the Pentagon and CIA, as well as the Democratic and Republican parties.
The only oblique reference to Washington’s role is a recommendation that the “international community … refrain from providing arms that could be used in the conflict in Yemen.”
US support for the Saudi-led war, initiated under Obama, has included not merely supplying the tens of billions of dollars’ worth of US weaponry that has been turned on the Yemeni people, but also indispensable collaboration by the Pentagon in providing mid-air refueling for Saudi warplanes, without which they could not carry out their murderous bombing raids. A joint logistical center has been set up in Riyadh to supply US intelligence for Saudi strikes and, since last December, US special operations troops have been secretively deployed on the ground to aid Saudi forces.
The White House and the Pentagon have no intention of halting their participation in the Yemen war, which they see as part of a region-wide campaign to roll back Iranian influence and establish US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East.
This was made clear Tuesday by Defense Secretary Mattis at a Pentagon press conference at which he dismissed the recent atrocities that claimed the lives of over 60 children. He claimed that the US was working with the Saudis to reduce civilian casualties, but “we recognize we are not going to achieve perfection.” He referred to the bus full of children blown to bits by an American bomb as a “dynamic target.”
The UN’s “experts” make no pretense of holding Washington accountable for the war crimes in Yemen, just as the international body has done nothing to bring to justice the US officials responsible for the series of wars, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya and Syria, that have claimed the lives of millions and turned tens of millions into refugees.
In any genuine accounting for the slaughter in Yemen, as well as the wider sociocide carried out by US imperialism throughout the Middle East, figures like Mattis, Obama, Trump, et al., would be standing in the dock like the surviving leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich in Nuremberg.
Settling accounts with Washington’s war criminals is the task of the American working class, united in struggle with the working people of the Middle East and the entire planet.

28 Aug 2018

Jay Jordan IFLA/OCLC Early Career Development Fellowship Programme for Librarians from Developing Countries 2019 – USA

Application Deadline: 28th September 2018.

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

About the Award: OCLC and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) are now accepting applications for library professionals to participate in the 2019 Jay Jordan IFLA/OCLC Early Career Development Fellowship Program.
The Fellowship Program, sponsored by IFLA and OCLC, is a four-week program based at OCLC headquarters in Dublin, Ohio, USA, that provides education and professional development opportunities for early career librarians from countries with developing economies.
The IFLA/OCLC Fellowship Program offers advanced continuing education and exposure to a broad range of issues in information technologies, library operations and global cooperative librarianship. To date, the program has welcomed 90 librarians and information science professionals from 39 countries.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: The Fellowship Program is for library and information science professionals who are in early stages of career development and from countries with developing economies. Eligibility is limited to those who are from a qualifying country, have a degree in library or information science obtained within the past five years, and have at least three years, but no more than eight years, of library or information science experience.

Number of Awards: 5

Value of Award: The Fellows visit many libraries, cultural heritage institutions and library organizations. They also observe OCLC’s governance structure in action, gaining insight into issues affecting the global library cooperative. In addition, Fellows give presentations about their home countries and libraries and discuss real-world solutions to the challenges facing libraries today.

Duration of Programme: Program to run from 16 March to 12 April 2019

How to Apply:  

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: IFLA, OCLC

Finland Government Scholarships for International Students (EUR 1500 monthly allowance) 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 15th February, 2019.
CIMO will inform both successful and unsuccessful candidates of the results by June annually.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: The Finland Government scholarships are based mainly on cultural agreements or similar arrangements between Finland and the following countries:
  • Australia
  • China
  • Cuba
  • Egypt
  • Israel
  • Japan
  • Mexico
  • Mongolia
  • Namibia
  • Peru
  • Republic of Korea
  • Turkey
  • Ukraine
  • USA
To be taken at (country): Finland

About the Award: The Finland Government Scholarship Pool programme is open to young researchers from all academic fields. The scholarship cannot be applied for Master’s level studies or post-Doctoral studies/research. The Finnish Government Scholarship Pool programme application form is not an application for a study/research placement. It is merely an application for funding.

Type: Doctoral (PhD)

Eligibility: In order to be an eligible applicant for the Finland Government scholarships, candidate must first successfully apply for a study/research placement at a Finnish university/public research institute – in other words, you must be at least provisionally accepted either as a visiting Doctoral-level student/researcher, or as a full-time Doctoral degree student. Please see section Doctoral Admissions for information on how to apply for a Doctoral-level study or research placement in Finland.
To be eligible, the applicant must:
  • have established contact with the Finnish receiving institution before applying (see section ‘Doctoral Admissions’)
  • have a letter of invitation from the academic supervisor in Finland; the invitation should also explain the commitment of the host institution to the project
  • have earned a Master’s-level degree before applying
  • intend to pursue post-Master’s level studies as a visiting student, participate in a research project or teach at a university or public research institute in Finland; priority will be given to doctoral studies
  • not have spent already more than one year at a Finnish higher education institution immediately before the intended scholarship period in Finland
  • be able to give proof of sufficient skills in speaking and writing the language needed in study/research*
  • be a national of one of the eligible countries listed above
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship includes:
  • a monthly allowance of EUR 1500. The allowance is sufficient for one person only.
  • Expenses due to travel, international or in Finland, are not covered by the programme. Scholarship recipients are recommended to make arrangements for sufficient insurance coverage for their stay in Finland.
Duration of Scholarship: The Finnish Government Scholarship Pool programme can be applied for a study/research period of 3-9 months, 9 months being the maximum time for an individual applicant.

How to Apply: Applications for the Finnish Government Scholarship Pool funding should be made to the appropriate authority in the applicant’s country. The scholarship authorities in each country are invited to present applications for up to 10 candidates for the Finnish Government Scholarship Pool.
You can download the 2019/2020 application form using the below link.

Finnish Government Scholarship Pool application form 2018-2019
It is important to go through the Application instructions on the Scholarship Webpage (see link below) before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Government of Finland

Total Nigeria Young Graduate Programme for Nigerian Students 2018

Application Deadline: 10th September 2018

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To Be Taken At (Country): Nigeria

Offer ID: 13960BR

Field: Finance, Sales, Operations/Exploitation

Type: Internship

Eligibility: 
  • Must not be more than 26 years of age
  • Recent graduate with post graduate work experience not more than 2 years
  • A bachelors graduate with a minimum degree of 2nd Class Upper
  • Must be geographically mobile
  • He/she should be able to work in a multi-cultural environment.
  • He/she should be able to work in a team, be self-driven, innovative and willing to learn.
  • Good command of English.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Paid

Duration of Programme: The YGP is an 18 months program which commences  with a 6 month – 9 months program in Total Nigeria

How to Apply:

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Total PLC

Pope Francis’s Bumpy Road to the Catholic Church’s Redemption

Cesar Chelala

These are not easy times for Pope Francis. Within two days he received strong criticism for Catholic priests’ sexual abuse of more than a thousand children in Pennsylvania. He was also confronted by Ireland’s Prime Minister and then by a high officer of the Catholic Church.
During his recent visit to Ireland, the first papal visit in almost 40 years, Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s Prime Minister, told Pope Francis, “Magdalene Laundries, Mother and Baby Homes, industrial schools, illegal adoptions, and clerical child abuse are stains on our state, our society and also the Catholic Church [Magdalene Laundries, and Mother and Baby Homes are places where nuns mistreated single mothers and illegally gave their children up for adoption]. Wounds are still open and there is much to be done to bring about justice and truth and healing for victims and survivors.”
While the Pope listened as Varadkar talked about the children abused in Pennsylvania detailing the “brutal crimes perpetrated by people within the Catholic Church and then obscured to protect the institution at the expense of innocent victims.” This is a story,” he said, “all too tragically familiar here in Ireland.”
Not all of Varadkar’s words were critical of the Church. In measured tone he told Pope Francis, “Holy Father, we thank you for your care for the Earth, for emphasizing the urgent challenge of climate change, and for reminding us of our responsibilities.  We thank you for the empathy you have shown for the poor, for migrants and for refugees.”
But Varadkar also added, “There can only be zero tolerance for those who abuse innocent children or who facilitate that abuse. We must now ensure that from words flow actions. Above all, Holy Father, I ask for you to listen to the victims.”
Prime Minister Varadkar made his position clear on other topics where there is divergence with the Church’s position saying, “We have voted in our parliament and by referendum to modernize our laws –understanding that marriages do not always work, that women should make their own decisions, and that families come in many forms including those headed by a grandparent, lone parent or same-sex parents or parents who are divorced.”
Varadkar’s words echoed a similar –but even stronger stand—taken by his predecessor, Enda Kenny. In 2011, Mr. Kenny openly confronted the Vatican for its handling of the children’s abuse question, and for failing to cooperate with the investigation carried out by the Irish government.
Pope Francis responded, “I cannot fail to acknowledge the grave scandal caused in Ireland by the abuse of young people by members of the church charged with responsibility for their protection and education.” And added, “It is my hope that the gravity of the abuse scandals, which have cast light on the failings of many, will serve to emphasize the importance of the protection of minors and vulnerable adults on the part of society as a whole.”
Just as Pope Francis was ending his visit to Ireland, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who was apostolic nuncio in Washington D.C. from 2011 to 2016, accused Pope Francis and several senior prelates of complicity in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s allegations of sexual abuse. Archbishop Viganò claimed that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, but not only chose to repeal them and made him his trusted advisor.
Archbishop Viganò said that Pope Francis “is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren,” urged him “to acknowledge his mistakes” and “set a good example to cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.” The Vatican press office refused to respond to Archbishop Viganò’s letter.
These are trying times for Pope Francis and for the Catholic Church. The determination with which abusers are punished and effective policies are put in place to  prevent further abuses will be an indication of how seriously Pope Francis decides to reform the Church and honor the survivors of abuse at the hands of catholic clergy.

Reports point to growing social inequality in Australia

John Harris

Two reports released last month cast further light on the acute class polarisation across Australia.
A report by the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) estimated that in 2017 about 3,000 ultra-wealthy individuals each had wealth of over $US50 million ($A65 million) making it the country with the fifth highest number of ultra-wealthy individuals in the world next to France and Canada.
As elsewhere globally the wealth of Australia’s richest has swollen over the past two decades. Between 2004 and 2016 the fortunes of the top 5 percent of the population increased by an average of 60 percent, and the top 10 percent by 56 percent.
Using statistics compiled by Credit Suisse research the report also disclosed the differences in wealth among the richest 10 percent, who own nearly half of all the wealth—45 percent. Within this affluent layer, the richest 1 percent, a little over 240,000 people, owns the lion’s share, controlling 15 percent of all wealth, around $A246.3 billion.
The top 20 percent of households now hold 62 percent of all wealth, 100 times greater than that of the poorest 20 percent, who own virtually nothing—less than 1 percent of society’s wealth. The bottom half of the population, approximately 12 million people, own just 18 percent of the wealth, with 6 percent of that distributed to the poorest 40 percent of homes.
An individual in the top 1 percent will have an average weekly income of 26 times that of a person in the poorest 5 percent of households ($11,682 per week vs $436 per week), thus earning roughly in a fortnight the equivalent of what the poorest people earn in a year. This does not account for additional earnings from investments and shares, which are not reported in the statistics.
The report claims that the average household wealth in 2017 was $936,000, up from $644,000 in 2003. This average figure has been inflated by a 61 percent increase in “investment property” wealth and a 119 percent rise in superannuation balances.
The primary beneficiaries of this wealth increase have been the top 20 percent of the population, who own 80 percent of all investment properties and shares, and 60 percent of superannuation assets.
This surge has fed a property bubble that is now showing signs of collapse. For millions of working class people, who have had to take out huge mortgages to buy a place to live, the bursting of this bubble could cause financial ruin, wiping out life savings and forcing many to default on their loans, losing their homes.
A Household Income and Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) report highlighted the increased financial burden on families because of stagnant real wages and rising living expenses. The report is the latest survey of approximately 9,500 households that has charted the social and economic trajectories of its participants over the past 16 years.
Between 2009 and 2016, the mean annual household income of the respondents increased by only $2,168 or 2.4 percent. This meant a decrease once a djusted for the cost of living. A clearer indicator of the worsening inequality is the absolute fall in median “equivalised” household disposable income. In 2016 half of all house holds were earning less than $46,865 per year, down from $47,085 in 2015.
Of all respondents 10 percent reported they “felt” they were in poverty and approximately 11 percent said they felt they were in financial stress in 2016. Between 2010 and 2015 over half (54 percent) of the respondents experienced financial stress, often for more than a year at a time. That meant they were not able to afford regular meals and/or were not able to pay rent or bills on time, had to pawn belongings for money or had to ask family or friends for financial assistance.
Utility costs such as gas, water and electricity all increased, with families regularly receiving heavy bills. Mean expenditure on home energy rose from approximately $1,360 per year in 2006-2008, to $2,118 per year in 2015-16.
Many families live pay cheque to pay cheque. Approximately 23 percent of respondents said they would be unable to bring together $3,000 in the event of an emergency. A medical issue, weather-related disaster, an unexpectedly large bill, an accident or loss of a job would push many households into crisis.
The financial stratification is exacerbated by astronomical housing costs. A weakness of the HILDA report is that it limits the definition of housing stress to respondents in the bottom 40 percent of income earners who spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. It proceeds from the “assumption” that those with higher incomes choose to live in housing stress and can move elsewhere if necessary.
Even by this measure around 19 percent of households reported they were in housing stress—virtually half the respondents in the bottom 40 percent. Those most impacted were single parent households and young couples. Approximately 22 percent and 14 percent respectively indicated they are in housing stress.
Many more young people are forced to keep living with their parents or are crammed into student accommodation and shared housing, often well into their 20s.
The HILDA report points to an enormous growth in underemployment over the past four decades. In February 1978, only 2.6 percent of people in the workforce were underemployed; in February 2017 it had reached an all-time high of 8.7 percent. This is a nearly four-fold increase in the proportion of workers wanting full-time work but pushed into casual, temporary or part-time work.
This process, hidden by the official unemployment statistics, is the product of the extensive destruction of jobs and working conditions enforced by successive Labor and Liberal-National Coalition governments, particularly since the wholesale restructuring imposed by the Hawke and Keating Labor governments, assisted by the trade unions, between 1983 and 1996.
This has impacted on young people above all—31 percent of workers below the age of 20 reported being underemployed. Even more revealingly, “41.2 percent of part-time, casual employees aged 15-19, and 47.1 percent of part-time employees aged 20-24” were underemployed.
The results presented in the HILDA report predate the implementation, from this July, of the Fair Work Commission’s March 2017 ruling to slash weekend penalty rates in many of the industries, such as hospitality, on which young workers and students often rely to make ends meet.
Both the ACOSS and HILDA reports point to an historic social reversal and a widening wealth and income gulf that is a product of four decades of attacks on working people by Labor and Coalition governments alike, and the long suppression of workers’ struggles by the trade unions.

Malaysian PM in China criticises “new colonialism”

Peter Symonds

In a pointed jibe at his hosts during a trip to China last week, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad warned against the emergence of a “new colonialism” as he sought to extract economic concessions from Beijing. Mahathir, who was installed after the opposition coalition won the national election in May, has suspended $20 billion worth of Chinese-funded infrastructure projects that are part of President Xi Jinping’s signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Clearly concerned about Mahathir’s anti-Chinese rhetoric during the election campaign, Chinese leaders feted the Malaysian prime minister. During the five-day visit, Mahathir toured major Chinese corporations—including the e-commerce giant Alibaba, carmaker Zhejiang and drone manufacturer DJI—and met with President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang.
Mahathir toned down his message, telling a business forum in Beijing: “It is not about the Chinese, it is about the Malaysian government. We are not against Chinese companies, but we are against borrowing money from outside and having projects that are not necessary and are very costly.”
After meeting with Premier Li, Mahathir declared that Malaysia could “learn a lot” from Beijing, adding: “I believe in cooperation with China because China has got a lot that will be beneficial to us.” For his part, Li emphasised concessions to Malaysia on trade, saying that China was willing to increase imports of palm oil and other goods.
China is already Malaysia’s third largest export market after India and the European Union. Malaysia is particularly concerned about the slump in exports of palm oil to China, which fell by 10 percent between January and July this year. China is the world’s second largest buyer of the commodity.
Mahathir’s conciliatory tone, however, could not disguise the anti-Chinese thrust of his election campaign, during which he accused the former prime minister Najib Razak of threatening Malaysia’s independence in his dealings with Beijing. Mahathir lambasted Chinese-funded infrastructure projects as “unequal treaties,” deliberately harking back to the treaties imposed on China by actual colonial powers—Britain, France, Japan andGermany—through gunboat diplomacy in the 19th century.
Mahathir’s declaration that “it is not about the Chinese” belies the anti-Chinese racism that is the stock-in-trade for Malay politicians to divide the working class and justify blatantly discriminatory policies towards the country’s ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities.
When Li suggested at their joint press conference that there was a consensus on upholding free trade, Mahathir agreed but added “of course free trade should also be fair trade. We don’t want a situation where there is a new version of colonialism happening because poor countries are unable to compete with rich countries.”
Mahathir’s call for “fair trade” echoes the remarks of US President Donald Trump as he ratchets up his trade war measures against China. The reference to China as a “new version of colonialism” does not bear up to any objective examination of the historical position of China and the present day dominance of the US and its allies. While taking a swipe at China, Mahathir is silent in particular on the role of Japanese imperialism in Asia. He has a long association with Japan and, since his return to power, has visited Tokyo twice to strengthen ties.
Mahathir’s decision to suspend work on key infrastructure schemes—the East Coast Rail Link and two pipeline projects awarded to the China Petroleum Pipeline Bureau—has been a significant blow to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The highly ambitious BRI involves huge investments in infrastructure, including roads, rail links, pipelines, telecommunications and ports, aimed at linking the Eurasian landmass and drawing Europe in particular into closer relations with China.
The plan has already run into significant political and economic difficulties
Authorities in Burma are currently in talks with the Chinese investment company Citic Group to drastically reduce Chinese loans for a port in Kyaukpyu from $7.3 billion to $1.3 billion. Termed “crazy” and “unfair” by Myanmar officials, the 25-metre deep sea port is now likely to be reduced to two berths from an original plan of ten.
The victory of the nationalist Tehreek-e-Insaf Party (PTI) in Pakistan in July calls into question the $55 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) plan, aspects of which have previously been criticised by PTI members. Any halt to the overall project would seriously undermine China’s efforts to establish transport routes including for oil and gas from the Chinese-constructed port of Gwadar in Pakistan to western China.
Zhang Mingliang, an academic at Jinan University, told the South China Morning Post: “There are not many countries like Malaysia which not only vocally support the [BRI] initiative but also worked together with China on projects. Malaysia’s cancelling of the projects will have a negative impact on the reputation of the Belt and Road.”
Prior to his visit, Mahathir had already declared that Malaysia “would like to just drop” the two pipeline projects that cost more than $1 billion each. The key bone of contention, however, is the $20 billion East Coast Rail Link, which unlike the pipelines, China has already committed significant investment. Currently, the project has been suspended, pending renegotiation of the terms of the contract.
Xu Liping, an analyst at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Financial Times: “China hasn’t invested or done much work on the pipelines. The main issue is the railroad. There’s already been a lot of work put into it. If it’s stopped, Malaysia needs to pay.”
The only reason that the issue did not flare up during Mahathir’s visit is that the infrastructure deals and disagreements over the South China Sea were simply avoided.
No public statement was made on another contentious issue—Low Taek Jho, a Malaysian financier wanted over his alleged involvement in the multi-million dollar IMDB scandal that engulfed the previous prime minister Najib. According to the Wall Street Journal, Low is currently in China.
While no obvious tensions surfaced during his trip to China, Mahathir this week dealt another economic blow to Chinese interests this week. On Monday, he announced that no foreign nationals would be allowed to buy apartments in the massive $100 billion Forest City township project in Johor state being developed by the Guangdong-based Country Garden Holdings. The decision could effectively sink the plan as most Malaysian citizens will not be able to afford the apartments.

French government announces plan to undermine pension system

Francis Dubois

Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron’s government announced a new raft of austerity measures focused on pension cuts, continuing the social attacks of the first year of his term. After trade unions organized token strikes this spring that blocked a class struggle against the privatization of the railways, Macron is stepping up his offensive aiming to destroy basic social rights established at the Liberation from Nazi Occupation in 1945.
While it stresses its determination to “go all the way,” the government knows it is isolated and unpopular. French and international media are openly expressing their concerns that Macron is weak and facing growing social opposition, on top of which he faces low economic growth.
According to an Elabe poll published last Wednesday, only 16 percent of the population believe that Macron’s policies affect the country positively. Only 6 percent believe that Macron and Prime Minister Edouard Philippe are improving their personal situation.
While announcing measures to undermine basic social rights, the government is proclaiming that it will work more closely with the trade unions. “Since it wants to show that it is responding to critiques of its isolation, the executive plans … to pay attention to its relations with the trade unions, which the president has promised to … associate more directly to social reforms,” Le Monde wrote.
Nothing concrete has been revealed about the social cuts, due to fear of a social explosion that could swamp the union bureaucracies, during what Le Monde called the “high-risk back-to-school period.”
Macron is imposing deep austerity policies worked out by the European Union (EU). The Cour des Comptes, the institution that oversees the strict implementation of the EU budget diktat, wrote in a memo last week: “In 2017, the very limited improvement of the budget deficit [€67.7 billion] was the product of a sharp increase both in spending and in tax receipts,” due to a spike in economic growth figures. Now, amid a noticeable slowdown of economic activity, it is demanding deep cuts to social spending.
While France’s sovereign debt is very high (96.8 percent of gross domestic product, one of the highest in the EU), Macron hurried to eliminate the Tax on Wealth (ISF) and slash corporate taxes, handing tens of billions of euros over to the super-rich.
According to Le Monde, Macron plans to initially cut “roughly 10,000 public sector jobs in 2019 and even more in 2020, ‘as the reforms go into effect.’” During his election campaign, Macron announced plans to cut 120,000 jobs in the public sector.
The central focus of these attacks, however, is two key sectors of social life that will affect the entire working population: the so-called “hospital reform” and, above all, pensions. The cut to pensions was discussed and arranged with the trade unions in the first half of the year. La Tribune calls it a “systemic reform,” while Le Monde calls it “the most dangerous for the executive.”
The government demagogically claims it is creating “a universal system where each euro paid in gives the same rights to all, whenever it was paid in and whoever paid it.” In fact, what is being prepared is a complete undermining of the pension system whose current foundations date back to the Liberation, despite various reforms in favor of the financial aristocracy since the 1990s and the aftermath of the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union.
A pension “by points” is to replace the current “pay-as-you-go” system. Pensions are to be calculated based on points accumulated in a personal “virtual account,” and converted into money at retirement. Workers would get no points during periods of unemployment, casual work or work disability. As the official tasked with implementing the reform, Jean-Paul Delevoye, bluntly said: “No one gets free points.”
Various mechanisms would further slash pension payments. If, for example, life expectancy rises, pensions—that the state therefore anticipates it would pay out over a longer period—will be cut.
The social right to a pension of stable and legally guaranteed value would disappear, as the government can now modify the value of a “point” at its discretion.
Moreover, the legal retirement age, no longer relevant in the “points” system, is to be eliminated.
Workers are to be forced to work until they have enough “points” to retire. For millions of workers, this means working indefinitely: the age of 62 is to be retained only as the minimum age for retirement. Delevoye stated, “in a points system, the notion of a fixed-length working life disappears. Your number of points allows you to make a personal decision: I have enough points, my pension looks big enough, so I retire. If not, I don’t have enough points, I keep working.”
The “pay-as-you-go” pension system, created by the authorities of the National Council of the Resistance (CNR) in 1945, was the cause of the collapse of poverty rates for older workers starting in the 1970s—poverty that had been automatic and widespread in previous generations.
Moreover, a pension “by points” system can pave the way to funding pensions via investment accounts, with workers forced to pay for their own pensions, favoring high earners and the forming of private pension funds. Amid the 2008 crash, many European retirees lost pensions this way.
Macron is not ruling out requiring workers to privately fund their pensions, as Delevoye admitted: “In our future universal regime, this will be raised for higher earners … Many scenarios are on the table. Do we need obligatory private pensions? Or individual accounts, possibly by capitalization?”
The reform would also undermine “reversion pensions,” paid to spouses or partners of deceased workers. In 2016, 4.4 million people were dependent on such pensions, over a quarter of France’s 17.2 million retirees.
Another key effect of the reform would be to force retirees to bear the impact of future financial crises by automatically varying pension payments based on availability of funds, without requiring the state and trade unions of going through the motions of negotiating further cuts.
To pass its reform, the Macron government also needs to eliminate so-called “special regime” pensions, notably in the public service, that were also established after World War II. This would affect some 5 million workers.

Ex-Australian prime minister to quit, leaving government in minority

Mike Head

Malcolm Turnbull, who was ousted as prime minister last Friday, last night confirmed he will quit parliament this week, thus stripping the government of its one-seat majority until a by-election can be held in his inner-Sydney electorate. Turnbull’s decision underscores the fragility of the Liberal-National Coalition government, as well as the intensity of the rifts tearing it apart.
In a resignation letter to his constituents, made public last night, Turnbull wrote of the “shocking and shameful events of last week—a pointless week of madness that disgraced our parliament and appalled our nation.”
While Turnbull had threatened, during last week’s turmoil, to leave parliament immediately if he were removed from office, last night’s announcement came after two developments that indicated the underlying content of his ouster via backroom machinations.
One was President Donald Trump’s rapid endorsement of Turnbull’s axing. Less than a day after being installed as prime minister, former Treasurer Scott Morrison received a congratulatory phone call from Trump. “Had a great discussion with @realDonaldTrump this morning,” Morrison said on Saturday. “We affirmed the strength of the relationship between the US and Australia.”
Morrison used the call to invite Trump to visit Australia, despite the widespread public hostility towards the US president. “Both underlined the strength and depth of our alliance and the unbreakable friendship between Australia and the United States,” Morrison’s spokesperson said. “Both leaders agreed to stay in contact and to meet at an early opportunity.”
After Saturday’s call, Trump took to Twitter to declare: “Congratulations to new Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. There are no greater friends than the United States and Australia!”
This exchange, in which Trump made no mention of Turnbull, let alone any pretence of thanking him for his service, sent a clear signal of Washington’s warm embrace, and at least tacit endorsement, of the inner-party coup.
Turnbull’s foreign minister, Julie Bishop, also refused to serve in Morrison’s cabinet and announced her own departure from parliament. Both were totally committed to the US military and security alliance, on which the Australian ruling class has relied since World War II. They supported a xenophobic campaign over the past two years accusing China of “interfering” in Australia, and committed to back the US in any confrontation with North Korea or China.
However, they had baulked at sending Australian warships or planes into the South China Sea to directly challenge China’s territorial claims over reefs there, and two weeks ago Turnbull gave a speech seeking to repair relations with China, the Australian ruling class’s largest export market.
The other development was Morrison’s rewarding of the key cabinet ministers who either plotted Turnbull’s removal or delivered the final blow. In particular, on Sunday Morrison not only retained Peter Dutton, who spearheaded the challenge to Turnbull, as home affairs minister. He gave some of his most senior cabinet posts to three crucial figures in the challenge to Turnbull—Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, Jobs Minister Michaelia Cash and Communications Minister Mitch Fifield.
It is now clear, from the bitter recriminations displayed in the corporate media, that if this trio had not publicly declared that Turnbull had lost the support of the majority of Liberal Party parliamentarians, the challenge to Turnbull would have failed. The final vote to oust Turnbull, 45 to 40, itself showed that without those three defectors, no majority existed.
Ultimately, faced with defeat after the trio’s announcement, Turnbull threw his support behind Morrison last Friday in order to thwart his original challenger, Peter Dutton, who had become the figurehead of the Liberal Party’s most rabidly right-wing elements, including those associated with ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whom Turnbull had deposed in September 2015.
By handing back major ministries to the coup architects, and rewarding several others associated with the plotting, Morrison demonstrated that, while the Dutton-Abbott wing has not yet taken full control of the party, they are increasingly dictating its terms and policies. In the final party room ballet, Dutton came close to defeating Morrison, losing by just 45 to 40.
Morrison, an arch-conservative himself, was advanced as the best hope of holding the warring factions together for now. Despite being termed in the media as “a moderate,” he has a long record of supporting the most right-wing elements, including on military operations to repel asylum seekers, slashing welfare entitlements, boosting military spending and opposing same-sex marriage.
The events of the past few days confirm that the move against Turnbull is part of an ongoing campaign to refashion the Liberal Party into the means to confront both the intense opposition in the working class to the corporate austerity program of the political establishment and those sections of the ruling class that oppose direct conflict with China.
The Dutton-Abbott faction is seeking to build a right-wing base of support by demonising oppressed sections of the population such as immigrants and welfare recipients. Key US-backed figures in the faction, such as former military officers Andrew Hastie and General Jim Molan, are also determined to stoke xenophobia against alleged “agents of Chinese influence.”
These policies broadly parallel those of the pro-Trump “alt-right” in the US and the extreme-right and neo-fascist movements that have been given prominence across Europe. As international relations and parliamentary forms of rule break down, preparations are being made to use police-state measures to defend the financial and corporate oligarchy against mass opposition from the working class to social inequality and war.
Turnbull, a millionaire former merchant banker, represents financial and corporate interests that oppose the turn to “America First” style protectionism and trade war, which could have disastrous implications for Australian capitalism. They also fear that the repressive and divisive policies of the Dutton-Abbott camp could further radicalise workers and youth who already regard the parliamentary elite with hostility and disgust.
Because of this mounting public disaffection, successive governments, both Coalition and Labor, have been unable to carry through the full agenda demanded by the financial elite. Last week Turnbull finally abandoned his signature economic policy of handing multi-billion dollar tax cuts to the largest banks and corporations.
In this political crisis, the opposition Labor Party is positioning itself to return to office, promising the ruling class it will provide a more stable means of implementing savage austerity measures. The Hawke and Keating Labor governments of 1983 to 1996 and the Rudd and Gillard governments of 2007 to 2013 were instrumental in carrying out the deepening assault on the working class.
With Turnbull out of parliament, Labor leader Bill Shorten said Australia was “in the zone of minority government.” He told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio: “The last thing this nation needs is the axe of minority government hanging over the head of the nation.”
“Liberals need to do some time in opposition to understand how fundamentally people don’t like this… Why did we go through all of this? Why is Australia called the coup capital of the world of western democracies?”
On the core political agenda, however, Labor has no disagreement with the further lurch to the right and whipping up of xenophobia and militarism. Together with the trade unions, Labor supports agitation against “foreign workers,” helped push through “foreign interference” laws for use against anyone linked to China or opposition to war, and backs the $200 billion military expansion program currently underway.