IMF-WB Bali conference 2018

Finn G.

A collective of peoples’ movements under the banner of ‘Peoples’ Global Conference Against IMF-World Bank’ (PGC) had their efforts to hold an anti-globalisation, anti-IMF and World Bank conference hampered recently in Bali.

The people’s conference was to coincide with the IMF-WB annual meeting being held in the Southern Bali area of Nusa Dua on October 12-14.

Around 32,000 delegates made up of central bankers, multinational executives, parliamentarians and the like get together and pretend that their concern is for the welfare of the planet and humanity. Those at all familiar with these organisations know the truths behind their virtuous blustering, that they are the hand of modern day colonialism and a tool of U.S Imperialism.

It has been reported that the Indonesian government spent upwards of AUD 89 million dollars in preparation for this event, a slap in the face for the people of Indonesia who have been hit hard by numerous natural disasters causing many deaths and damages costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are among the most powerful institutions on earth, wielding an enormous amount of influence in the structure of the global economy and on issues such as poverty and the environment.

Their main tool of oppression comes in the form of Structural Adjustment Policies (SAP), these policies are implemented in countries where loans have been given by the IMF-WB who in doing so guarantee the interests of it’s wealthy member nations. The largest stakeholder and the possessor of the greatest voting power is unsurprisingly the U.S.A (17.46%) who holds vastly more voting rights than any other nation, as can be seen by those who follow: Japan (6.48%), China (6.41%), Germany (5.60%), France (4.24%), United Kingdom (4.24%).

These SAP’s are implemented to ensure the repayment of loans by developing or third world countries. They do so by forcing countries to cut spending on health, education, climate initiatives and the abolition of government subsidies for transport and local agriculture, and all other standard forms of austerity.

Any chance of these countries have of working towards a diverse, domestic economy of self determination is quashed by the forceful prioritisation of export production and the removal of tariffs in order to make goods as cheap as possible for plunder nations to seize. Incentives such as reduced labour and environmental protections are provided for multinationals to set up shop, forcing the closure of small businesses and ousting agricultural workers, all of whom are then compelled to work under sweat-shop conditions for the newly arrived corporations.

Any state owned utilities and natural resources are sold to foreign investors at insanely low rates, making it incredibly easy for capital to stake its claim on the country and its people.

Protests, resistance in the face of repression

In September, the Indonesian government ordered bans on all forms of public assembly and gatherings during the period of the IMF-WB annual meeting, clearly aimed at quelling the planned activities of the PGC and other groups involved in the movement and to restrict them from airing the grievances of the most downtrodden people on earth.  

Organisers received assurances from the Bali Police that they would be allowed to proceed with the events scheduled at the Radio Repulik Indonesia Audotorium. However, not long after these assurances were given the venue suddenly withdrew the booking citing “urgent renovations” as the cause. Organisers also applied for permits in order to carry out the conference, which were denied.

Approximately 100 activists conducted a demonstration at Bali Police headquarters on the 5th of October to protest the ban, this led to the Chief of the Bali Intelligence Police agreeing to lift the ban on the PGC and contacted the venue to have the initial conference plans reinstated, written approval was received on October 6.

One day later a barrage of anonymous text messages were sent to volunteers and citizens containing warnings about joining the PGC and slurring the movement as “anti-development”. Further text messages were received by the PGC national coordinators and the Bali Legal Aid Director informing them that they were being monitored and strongly suggesting that they withdraw plans to hold the peoples conference.

The government's next move was to have police inform the organisers that they must now produce copies of passports and other identification documents for any international delegates of the People's Global Conference, three days prior to it’s planned commencement date. Following this request organisers received correspondence from the venue that they were once more retracting the groups' booking, this time due to “lacked permit from National Police in Jakarta” and that they violated national government policies, policies that were left unspecified.

Hotel Nirmala was confirmed as the new venue for the conference, payments were made for the rental of rooms and for food and drink for those partaking. The next morning police informed Hotel Nirmala management that a police permit must be submitted to them by the PGC organisers in order to hold the event, soon after these managers contacted organisers to withdraw the booking because they didn’t know the event was against the World Bank and IMF.

Later that morning local and international civil society groups gathered at the hotel for a debriefing with the PGC organisers, a rally and subsequent press conference was to be held, but they were pushed out by hotel staff. Members of the Bali Intelligence Police were seen in the area taking pictures and filming participants. It also emerged that the night before a village paramilitary group threatened, harassed and drove away a group of 20 PGC youth volunteers who were staying at the Bali Legal Aid headquarters.

Claims of violence at the hands of Indonesian police and military have been made in regards to their conduct during the demonstrations over the following days, many of whom were wearing civilian clothing and preventing protesters from coming near the venue of the annual meeting.

Regardless of the obstacles put in place, the PGC managed to hold various workshops and gatherings over the period of the meetings due to the hard work and dedication of all who were involved. Many justice oriented and fair minded organisations from all over the world were signatories to a statement made by the PGC speaking out against the treatment handed to them by authorities and the restriction of their freedoms.

No matter what Indonesian police and officials might say, their purpose is clear for all to see. Making the meeting as smooth and “trouble” free as possible for those who feather their nests is of far higher importance than any action that would benefit the everyday inhabitants and workers. The global market and its play makers will not yield to populations that wish to have a say on their own lives and society, especially at the expense of wealth accumulation and power of the minuscule minority.

Papua New Guinea embroiled in US-China rivalry

(Contributed)

 

Recent decisions by Canberra to strengthen the Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF) have potentially far-reaching implications for the peoples of the country.

 

It will have a divisive influence: the US-led military planning has run counter to recent political initiatives within PNG for closer diplomatic links with China.

 

While ostensibly concerned with the external threat posed by China, the military planning also has implications for internal defence and security provision in PNG, a country where deep ethnic divisions are commonplace.

 

A recent announcement that the Australian government was funding an upgrade of the PNG military facilities at Lombrum Base on Manus Island has remained shrouded in secrecy. Eventually, information was reluctantly released following much lobbying from journalists. A terse media release from the Defence Department subsequently provided information about a $2 million Australian defence budget allocation to establish a communications centre at Lombrum to enhance 'existing security cooperation' between the Australian Defence Forces and their PNG counterparts. (1)

 

Far from funding an 'upgrade' to Lombrum, however, the Australian government appears to have far grander military obectives which include 'planning to build a new naval base'. (2) Information provided from reliable sources also included Australian military planning for a'deep water port'. (3) The developments would appear to rest upon a recently published military paper calling for a fleet of nuclear-powered fast attack submarines to counter 'faster, quieter boats being developed by rising powers such as China'. (4)

 

PNG has formed part of Australian military and security planning since the end of the Second World War with the Defence of Australia doctrine: an attack on Australia was assessed as likely to come from the north, the countries of Melanesia were therefore to act as a buffer to repel adversaries. For seventy years, PNG, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu have remained close to Australian military planning, with PNG regarded as the most important of the three: Australian involvement with defence and security considerations with PNG is the largest of any country. (5) The diplomacy, however, is not conducted as amongst social equals. In fact, despite an official diplomatic statement to a 'mutually beneficial defence relationship', a recent Australian diplomatic statement from Port Moresby actually referred to 'our security', with reference to PNG. (6)

The military links between Australia and the Melanesian countries form only part of the equation: the relationship was, and remains, based on colonial and later neo-colonial ties. Successive Australian governments from the pre-independence days of the colonial administration to the present neo-colonial relations have not been generous, sincere or straightforward.

 

Control from Canberra has been both a means and an end in itself: in 1960, GDP growth rates were 6.2 per cent, they fell to 0.9 per cent with independence in 1975. (7) The Australian colonial administration, far from preparing PNG for self-government, had created a subservient country, dependent upon its former colonial master for further support and expertise: the economic base of the country had been drained.

 

Subsequent Australian governments and their development programs, likewise, have not enabled PNG to gain sufficient power to stand-alone from Canberra; even by 2016 after more than forty years of so-called independence, PNG could only manage 2.4 per cent GDP growth rates. (8) The relations between Australia and PNG have altered little since independence: economic exploitation has also merged with military and security considerations.

 

Elsewhere, in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, a similar pattern of exploitation took place. 

 

The 22nd PNG-Australia Ministerial Forum in 2013, for example, noted in official communiques that 'Minsters agreed to expand the relationship to one of economic and strategic partnership', with a'focus on expanding trade and investment ties', to enhance 'security cooperation'. (9)

 

The ordinary peoples of PNG have seen little benefit from the neo-colonial relationship thrust upon their country by a business agenda from Canberra. About forty per cent of the population of PNG live in officially recognised poverty, with many others only a little better off. (10) Infant mortality, a good indicator of general female health and living conditions with hospital and health-care access, has remained at 45 per thousand live births, placing PNG among one of the poorest countries. (11)

 

The rapid rise of China, however, has been particularly strongly noticeable in the South Pacific. It had led to a situation whereby 'there is now a consensus among the leaders of our intelligence agencies that Australia's strategic outlook is more uncertain than at any time since 1942, when Australians feared military invasion by Japan'. (12) A recent report by Retired Rear-Admiral Peter Briggs, for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, likewise, also drew attention to what was regarded as 'a deteriorating strategic environment'. (13) Many of the intelligence assessments conducted by Australia have concentrated upon ethnic Chinese minorities and their role in the South Pacific.

 

The Melanesian countries of the South Pacific have had Chinese ethnic groups since the nineteenth century; for generations they have been part of a localised business culture. In recent times many have become more strongly linked to China through business and trade and have formed an important part of the dialogue through which Chinese diplomacy has taken place in the region. It is, therefore, not surprising recent high-level diplomatic talks between PNG and China included among the hundred strong delegation from PNG about fifty local Chinese business-people. (14)

 

The recent high-level diplomacy also rested upon previous Chinese initiatives; in the period 2006-16, China invested $854.4 million in 27 projects across PNG. (15)

 

While Australia has tended to monitor Chinese involvement in PNG closely, diplomacy between Canberra and Beijing historically has been conducted on relatively favourable terms. With the strong emphasis upon the US-Australia alliance and the present Trump administration, however, diplomacy has now become tense and even hostile as the new Cold War takes shape across the wider region. There has been little ambiguity with Australian far-right political figures slavishly following the US-led political line laid down by the Trump administration. A recent media release from Senator Concetta Fieravanti-Wells, in Canberra, for example, openly accused China of using 'Port Moresby' as a 'conduit for Beijing's outreach', and that 'this should be of serious concern to us'. (16)

 

The recent military planning for the Lombrum base, therefore, would appear part of a later US-led initiative. The caution with which Canberra has dealt with the matter is perhaps best explained by official military consultation procedures with the Pentagon.

The Lombrum military facilities would appear, however, to form part of US-led military planning through the alliance with Australia to establish 'a combat support brigade responsible for reconnaissance and intelligence and target selection' where, 'the primary responsibility was to protect Australia' in a regional situation 'to secure the nation's interests away from the geographical landmass'. (17)

A small media release in October dealt with the bigger picture surrounding the Lombrum military facilities.  An announcement that 'the Australian government plans to increase cooperation with both the PNGDF and PNG Department of Defence in the decade ahead' has shown Canberra has every intention of drawing PNG closer, despite political initiatives in PNG to establish stronger diplomatic links with China. (18)

 

Apparently, an Australia-PNG Defence Cooperation program conference in September in Adelaide also included discussion about re-organising the PNGDF into a separate army, navy and air force from 2025. (19) Planning for the PNGDF has also included the expansion of forces from the present 4,000 to over double, and 10,000 troops by 2030. (20)

 

Two considerations have arisen: US-led military planning has every intention of militarising PNG as part of regional defence and security provision using Australia as a hub. Secondly, in a society as ethnically diverse as PNG the likelihood of military intervention into civil political affairs is a very great danger. The political institutions of state remain weak when confronted with ethnic conflict. PNG has already experienced internal military problems with both Bougainville and the Sandline affair. The latter included a full-scale military revolt which toppled a democratically-elected government in Port Moresby and bitterly divided the country. Australian involvement with the Sandline affair was also never straightforward: corporate interests hired mercenaries and used Australian port facilities to attempt to ship armaments to those wanting to re-open the Bougainville mine. A repeat of these tragedies must be avoided.

 

Australia requires an independent foreign policy, free from the interference of the US.

1.     Website: Australia further strengthening regional maritime security,  Australian Government, Department of Defence, 22 September 2018; and, Australia starting upgrade, NAVALTODAY.COM
2.     Australia eyes PNG military base, news.com.au, 21 September 2018.

3.     NAVALTODAY.COM, op.cit.

4.     'Nuclear subs key' to stay ahead of rivals, Australian, 16 October 2018.

5.     Website: Section 28, PNG-Australia Ministerial Forum, 11 December 2013.

6.     Website: Section 26, PNG-Australia Ministerial Forum, ibid., 11 December 2013; and,
        Website: PNG-Australia Defence Cooperation Program,  Australian High Commission, PNG.

7.     GDP Growth, PNG, World Bank.

8.     Ibid.

9.     Section 3, PNG-Australia Ministerial Forum, ibid., 11 December 2013.

10.   On the frontline in PNG, Australian, 16 October 2018.

11.   Ibid.

12.   Intelligence expands to take on China and the new world order, The Weekend Australian, 13-14 October 2018.

13.   Australian, op.cit., 16 October 2018.  

14.   PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neill visit Beijing,  ABC News, 20 June 2018.

15.   Ibid.

16.   Bellicose China Is Popping Up Everywhere, Australian, 5 October 2018.

17.   Army overhaul gets under way, Australian, 22 September 2018.

18.   Bigger PNG military part of talks over Manus Island base, Australian, 15 October 2018.

19.   Ibid.

20.   Ibid.

International students learn first hand the meaning of wage swindling

Ned K.

International students in Australia pay big dollars to study at Australian secondary and tertiary institutions. The fees and subsidiary money that international students bring in to this country are substantial.

According to an OECD report in 2015, Australia has the world’s second highest proportion of international to local students after Luxemburg with 16% of Australia’s tertiary students from overseas. In 1994 international student enrolment was 93,722. In 2017, such enrolments had increased to 792,422. The international students come from many different countries, but the largest number come from China.

International students are in theory required by the federal government to be financially self-sufficient as a condition of being granted a visa. According to research from the University of Sydney Business School, international student visa applications must provide evidence of “financial capacity” such as funds sufficient to cover travel to Australia, course costs, and living costs of approximately $20,000 per year. Alternatively, they can provide evidence that they or their parents earn at least $60,000 Australian per year.

Apart from those from very wealthy families back home, most international students have to find work to supplement expenses to live day to day in Australia. Studies from the University of Sydney and the Fair Work Ombudsman demonstrate that international students account for a large number of low skilled workers in poorly unionised industries such as cafes, restaurants, cleaning, farm work and hospitality. 

 

So although their primary purpose in coming to Australia is to study, many of them also form part of the working class in Australia during their student years, as do many other local students.

 

A 2017 University of Sydney Business College research paper “Why International Student Workers In Australia Tolerate Underpayment” found that 73.5% of Chinese international students in Sydney working in restaurants and cafes were being paid less than the award minimum wage. A massive 43% were paid $12 per hour or less.

 

The researchers found that this massive wage swindling usually went unreported not because the international students were unaware they were being paid less than they should have been according to capitalism’s own industrial law system, but because there was too much to lose if they complained. 

 

Fear of being sacked and not having enough income could lead to being unable to pay the rent and/or household bills. Or even something worse; being reported by the swindling employer to the Immigration Department for breaching some aspect of their visa requirement.

 

The most common reason given for not reporting or pursuing underpayment of wages was fear of being reported to Immigration for working more than the 20 hour per week limit during student term times. 

 

Many international students are either forced by their employers to break the 20 hour limit through threat of being sacked if they refuse, or they take on a second job for cash in hand in order to scrape up enough income to cover their cost of living while studying here.

 

The Ultimate Wage Swindle – Unpaid Work

Recently I heard first hand from some international students about their working experience in Australia which more than verified the research findings of the University of Sydney mentioned above.

 

The students from a small Asian country lived in overcrowded student accommodation in the outer suburbs of a capital city. The overcrowding helped them with affordable rent. They heard from their peers that work was available cleaning at a local private school not far from where they lived. They arrived at the school and met a cleaner who told them he had a contract with the cleaning company who in turn had the cleaning contract to clean the school. All they had to do was turn up each day during the week at the same time and he would pay them $18 per hour for four hours cleaning per night. Unknown to the students, the legal award minimum for a casual cleaner working in the evening was about $28-$29 per hour.

 

After about two months, the students had not been paid a cent. The promise of payment by their “employer” was wearing thin. The plight of these student cleaners came to the attention of some of the teachers and word got back to the school principal that something was amiss. The cleaners were paid about the equivalent of four weeks’ pay at the $18 per hour rate. The cleaning company with the contract with the school denied knowing about the plight of the cleaners, but did admit that one of “their cleaners” was actually a franchisee. Then the school and the cleaning company colluded to get rid of the franchisee and also the swindled international student cleaners and replaced them with directly employed cleaners employed by the cleaning company. It is unlikely that the swindled international students will recover their lost wage entitlements 

 

They were not members of any union which is not surprising given they had no wages at all for two months and were quite possibly working two jobs taking their weekly hours to over their student visa limit of 20 hours per week. Therefore they just move on and hope that next time they find more work, at least the wage swindling “employer” pays them rather than having no pay at all for extended periods of time.

 

Change The Rules – Change The System

The ACTU 2018 Congress policy document, “Social and Economic Justice – Temporary Migration – Changing Our System” contains some worthwhile short-term demands on government regarding international students’ rights at work. These include legislation to compel employers to release international students for the purposes of their study and stop employers from forcing them to work more than the permitted 20 hours per week during term times.

 

However the policy document is silent on the issue of whether international students should be legally able to work more than 20 hours per week. If international students are legally able to work more than 20 hours per week, they are less likely to be used by capitalists in labour supply chains as a pool of even cheaper labour than the legal award minimum labour supply, and then blackmailed with threats of being reported to Immigration “Thought Police” if they speak up about it.  

 

Removing the 20 hour per week limit should contribute in a small way to the general working class struggle against the decline in real terms of wage levels in Australia because there will be less likelihood of an overseas student labour pool willing to risk working illegal hours at extremely low wage rates way below the supposed legal minimum.

 

Will lifting on the 20 hour limit result in overseas students being more likely to join a union and being part of the general working class struggle to Change The Rules as a step towards changing the system? 

 

That remains to be seen and will vary depending on a number of factors, not least being the organising and campaign capacity of unions. 

 

Grass roots campaigns such as the Clean Start campaign included a large proportion of overseas students as active union members, some of whom became respected leaders within their unions and communities and fought alongside Australian born workers and Australian born students working part-time. 

 

Eliminating the restriction on the number of ordinary hours of work for particular types of workers (in this case overseas students) should be a unifying factor among workers and make the capitalists divide and conquer tactics within the working class more difficult. 

 

The ACTU and affiliated unions have the opportunity to build an inclusive, independent working class movement for all workers, including international students by campaigning to scrap the 20 hour per week limit on international student work.