asiapacificresearch--2020-08-09--Selective Maritime Rules: The United States, Diego Garcia and International Law

There are few more righteous sights than the paunchy US Secretary of State savaging the People ’ s Republic of China with his next volley on Chinese territorial aspirations .
In July , Mike Pompeo released a statement putting any uncertain minds at ease on where Washington stood on the matter .
International politics , for all that confidence , rides on the stead of hypocrisy .
The more vehement a condemnation regarding a course of conduct , the more likely the stead is about to turn .
For all the promises of freedom of navigation and repudiation of Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States nurses its own questionable readings of international law .
The term “ rule based order ” is a lovely one seemingly shorn of realpolitik ( nothing of the sort ) , but collapses on closer inspection .
When it comes to the matter of alleged Chinese violations of maritime law in the South China Sea , odd messages bubble from the mouths of US officials on , for instance , violations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea .
Pompeo speaks of preserving “ peace and stability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seas in a manner consistent with international law , maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce ” and opposing “ any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes.
” He also refers to UNCLOS , a document the United States has not ratified despite President Barack Obama ’ s previous plea that the Senate , were it to do so , “ should help strengthen our case [ against China ’ s actions in the South China Sea ] .
” Smugly , Pompeo cites the ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding on July 12 , 2016 rejecting “ the PRC ’ s maritime claims as having no basis in international law.
” The same can be said of the enormous air base known as Diego Garcia , located in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean .
It is worth noting that predatory behaviour was very much part of the policy towards the indigenous populace of the island , which had been a dependency of the British colony of Mauritius .
In 1965 , the Chagos Islands was separated from Mauritius in exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million .
What was created in its place was a legal misnomer of some nastiness : the British Indian Ocean Territory .
In 1966 , the US was promised a strategic tenancy on Diego Garcia for five decades .
The UK Permanent Under-Secretary promised to be “ tough about this .
The object of the exercise was to get some rocks which will remain ours ; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a Committee ( the Status of Women does not cover the rights of Birds.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was done as part of Britain ’ s continued need to feel relevant in the post-colonial power game , a supposedly sagacious proxy for the projection of US power .
It was also done against the spirit of decolonisation stressed in UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 ( XV ) , which noted that “ [ a ] ny attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the indigenous population between 1967 and 1973 was forcibly relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles , with the US paying $ 14 million for the effort .
The way for the establishment of a military base was cleared but only after pockets of Chagossian resistance were crushed through threats and intimidation .
Analysts from the US perspective look at this situation as one forced upon the United States and find China , as tends to be the pattern these days , the catalyst of encouragement .
The Kennedy administration obliged by sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrier with the express purpose of deterring China in the event of any push towards Calcutta .
The analysis by McDevitt is bloodless , mechanical , and makes no mention of the Chagossians .
Absent are US methods of terroristic pummelling .
What he does describe is the indispensable nature of the base , “ perfect … for US Navy maritime patrol aircraft and especially US Air Force heavy bombers.
” These were not views shared by many members of the UN General Assembly .
In June 2017 , the General Assembly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion from the International Court of Justice on whether the decolonisation of Mauritius had been lawfully completed with regards the separation of the Chagos Archipelago .
A second question also arose on the legal consequences of the UK ’ s “ continued administration … of the Chagos Archipelago including with respect to the inability to implement a programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals , in particular those of Chagossian origin ” .
In its February 25 , 2019 opinion , the ICJ found that “ the process of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when that country acceded to independence ” .
The UK was “ under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
” The judges acknowledged resolution 1514 ( XV ) as “ a defining moment in the consolidation of State practice on decolonisation ” and that “ [ b ] oth State practice and opinio juris at the relevant time confirm the customary law character of the right to territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory as a corollary of the right to self-determination.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an administering power ’ s detachment of part of a non-self-governing territory , certainly for the purposes of maintaining colonial rule over it , was shown .
“ States have consistently emphasised that respect for the territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory is a key element in the exercise of the right to self-determination under international law.
” The UN affirmed the 13-1 opinion in May 2019 , calling upon Britain to “ withdraw its colonial administration ” within six months and duly acknowledge Chagos as forming “ an integral part ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month were ignored by the British , showing that the Anglo-American reverence for the sacred “ rules-based international order ” can be selectively profane when it needs to be .
“ The United Kingdom is not in doubt about our sovereignty over the British Ocean Territory , ” insistedBritain ’ s ambassador to the UN , Karen Pierce .
The territory had never been part of Mauritius and it had “ freely entered into an agreement ” covering fishing rights and marine resources .
The question left begging here was how the entity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain over Chagos if the territory had never formed the basis of Mauritian control .
The spirit of Neville Chamberlain , one approving the ceding and dividing of territory not his own , is still very much alive .
It is worth nothing that the approval of the ICJ findings , along with international law bodies in general , is very much dependent on favourability towards the great power .
Playground bullies are always bound to ignore them ; small states , less likely to .
Just as China refuses to acknowledge the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maritime claims , the US and Britain refuse to acknowledge determinations regarding the status of Diego Garcia and the Chagossians .
That ’ s the rules-based order in international relations for you .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
He is a frequent contributor to Global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ email protected ] Featured image : The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson ( DDG 114 ) steams near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea .
July 14 , 2020 © U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Anthony Collier

There are few more righteous sights than the paunchy US Secretary of State savaging the People’s Republic of China with his next volley on Chinese territorial aspirations. In July, Mike Pompeo released a statement putting any uncertain minds at ease on where Washington stood on the matter.
“We are making clear: Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them.”
International politics, for all that confidence, rides on the stead of hypocrisy. The more vehement a condemnation regarding a course of conduct, the more likely the stead is about to turn. For all the promises of freedom of navigation and repudiation of Chinese claims to the South China Sea, the United States nurses its own questionable readings of international law. The term “rule based order” is a lovely one seemingly shorn of realpolitik (nothing of the sort), but collapses on closer inspection.
When it comes to the matter of alleged Chinese violations of maritime law in the South China Sea, odd messages bubble from the mouths of US officials on, for instance, violations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Pompeo speaks of preserving “peace and stability”, upholding “freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law, maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce” and opposing “any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes.” He also refers to UNCLOS, a document the United States has not ratified despite President Barack Obama’s previous plea that the Senate, were it to do so, “should help strengthen our case [against China’s actions in the South China Sea].” Smugly, Pompeo cites the ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in accordance with UNCLOS, as its finding on July 12, 2016 rejecting “the PRC’s maritime claims as having no basis in international law.”
The same can be said of the enormous air base known as Diego Garcia, located in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean. It is worth noting that predatory behaviour was very much part of the policy towards the indigenous populace of the island, which had been a dependency of the British colony of Mauritius. In 1965, the Chagos Islands was separated from Mauritius in exchange for an “indemnity” of £3 million. What was created in its place was a legal misnomer of some nastiness: the British Indian Ocean Territory.
In 1966, the US was promised a strategic tenancy on Diego Garcia for five decades. The UK Permanent Under-Secretary promised to be “tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a Committee (the Status of Women does not cover the rights of Birds.” Very droll.
This brutal endeavour was done as part of Britain’s continued need to feel relevant in the post-colonial power game, a supposedly sagacious proxy for the projection of US power. It was also done against the spirit of decolonisation stressed in UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), which noted that “[a]ny attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
The British authorities were true to their word: the indigenous population between 1967 and 1973 was forcibly relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles, with the US paying $14 million for the effort. The way for the establishment of a military base was cleared but only after pockets of Chagossian resistance were crushed through threats and intimidation.
Analysts from the US perspective look at this situation as one forced upon the United States and find China, as tends to be the pattern these days, the catalyst of encouragement.
“The policy trigger,” writes retired Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, “was the 1962 Sino-Indian war, when Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had pressed Washington for military assistance to India.”
The Kennedy administration obliged by sending the USS Kitty Hawk, an aircraft carrier with the express purpose of deterring China in the event of any push towards Calcutta. The analysis by McDevitt is bloodless, mechanical, and makes no mention of the Chagossians. Absent are US methods of terroristic pummelling. What he does describe is the indispensable nature of the base, “perfect … for US Navy maritime patrol aircraft and especially US Air Force heavy bombers.”
These were not views shared by many members of the UN General Assembly. In June 2017, the General Assembly, in resolution 71/292, requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on whether the decolonisation of Mauritius had been lawfully completed with regards the separation of the Chagos Archipelago. A second question also arose on the legal consequences of the UK’s “continued administration … of the Chagos Archipelago including with respect to the inability to implement a programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in particular those of Chagossian origin”.
In its February 25, 2019 opinion, the ICJ found that “the process of decolonisation of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence”. The UK was “under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.” The judges acknowledged resolution 1514 (XV) as “a defining moment in the consolidation of State practice on decolonisation” and that “[b]oth State practice and opinio juris at the relevant time confirm the customary law character of the right to territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory as a corollary of the right to self-determination.” No evidence of approval of the practice of an administering power’s detachment of part of a non-self-governing territory, certainly for the purposes of maintaining colonial rule over it, was shown. “States have consistently emphasised that respect for the territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory is a key element in the exercise of the right to self-determination under international law.”
The UN affirmed the 13-1 opinion in May 2019, calling upon Britain to “withdraw its colonial administration” within six months and duly acknowledge Chagos as forming “an integral part” of Mauritius. Eviction orders received that month were ignored by the British, showing that the Anglo-American reverence for the sacred “rules-based international order” can be selectively profane when it needs to be. “The United Kingdom is not in doubt about our sovereignty over the British Ocean Territory,” insistedBritain’s ambassador to the UN, Karen Pierce. The territory had never been part of Mauritius and it had “freely entered into an agreement” covering fishing rights and marine resources. The question left begging here was how the entity could lawfully enter into any arrangements with Britain over Chagos if the territory had never formed the basis of Mauritian control. The spirit of Neville Chamberlain, one approving the ceding and dividing of territory not his own, is still very much alive.
It is worth nothing that the approval of the ICJ findings, along with international law bodies in general, is very much dependent on favourability towards the great power. Playground bullies are always bound to ignore them; small states, less likely to. Just as China refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of international judicial rulings on its maritime claims, the US and Britain refuse to acknowledge determinations regarding the status of Diego Garcia and the Chagossians. That’s the rules-based order in international relations for you.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image: The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) steams near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. July 14, 2020 © U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Anthony Collier


asiapacificresearch--2020-08-10--Asian Network Mounts Week-long Protest vs Golden Rice

Stop Golden Rice Network ( SGRN ) will be launching its week long activity to protest the possible commercialization of Golden Rice this week .
The campaign will comprise different sets of activities per day and will conclude on August 8 , the “ International Day of Action Against Golden Rice.
” Now in its 7th year , the said day of action is to commemorate the historic event when more than 400 farmers , urban poor , youths , and consumers uprooted Golden Rice in Pili , Camarines Sur back in 2013 .
With the theme “ Defend our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the week-long protest aims to raise the public ’ s awareness of the “ recent developments in Golden Rice and the current corporate agenda to food and agriculture amid COVID-19.
” SGRN is a regional campaign network geared towards strengthening network support and campaign collaboration against the onslaught of corporate control in food and agriculture .
It has more than 30 members coming from India , Indonesia , Bangladesh , Philippines , Japan , Vietnam , Thailand and Sri Lanka among others , as well as several regional formations forwarding food sovereignty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agriculture .
In a recent post on the MASIPAG page , the farmer-scientist network collated statistics on the state of food security of the Philippines .
It includes data from the Social Weather Stations pointing out to a whopping 4.2 million Filipino families who experienced involuntary hunger in the three-month government-imposed lockdown .
International movement of grassroots group People ’ s Coalition on Food Sovereignty ( PCFS ) also released a statement saying “ the signs are clear that food security amid the global pandemic is a time bomb if not addressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to food and peoples ’ welfare.
” “ There are enough reasons to safely conclude that multinational corporations are exploiting the dire situation of our food system during COVID-19 as a pretext for further greedy gains , ” Mr. Cris Panerio , MASIPAG National Coordinator , revealed .
According to Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific , Bayer and Corteva AgriScience backed the Philippine government ’ s agricultural program “ Plant , Plant , Plant.
” This program has been hugely criticized by different farmer organizations and alliances to be prone to corruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penetrate the market in Mindanao ( Southern Philippines ) with a new product , Vt Double Pro Dekalb , which is genetically modified to be glyphosate-tolerant and resistant to the fall armyworm .
GM Free NZ noted that a variety of genetically engineered ( GE ) corn developed to survive spraying with up to twelve different pesticides risks exposing consumers in New Zealand or Australia to increased levels of toxic chemicals .
Bayer Crop Science has applied to Food Standards Australia New Zealand ( FSANZ ) for approval of the most extreme ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Standards Australia New Zealand ( FSANZ ) is calling for submissions on the latest GM corn MON 87429 , resistant to the toxic sprays : glyphosate , dicamba , glufosinate , 2,4-D and eight aryloxyphenoxypropionate group herbicides ( ‘ FOPs ’ ) .
The seed is also coated with the systemic bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticide .
GM Free NZ has also campaigned against the safety approval of Golden Rice last 2018 .
In India , despite a moratorium on GM Bt eggplant was imposed last 2010 , several GM crops are being planted without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a report , the government is investigating the distribution of illegally procured herbicide-tolerant Bt cotton seeds to pave way for the acceptance of the said crop .
GM mustard and Bt Eggplant is still being relentlessly pushed for commercialization.In Bangladesh , news circulated that Golden Rice will approved by the Biosafety Core Committee under the environment ministry last November 15 , 2019 .
While there were no updates yet , proponents are optimistic that the approval of the application in Bangladesh is very likely to push through .
In August 2019 , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( BB Padi ) have grown Golden Rice in their testing field in Sukamandi , West Java .
Kartini Samon of research group GRAIN is wary of the growing influence of corporations on the local and international institutions on food and agriculture .
“ Global research on biofortified crops like GM provitamin A rice is led by the CGIAR system , which is the single biggest recipient of grants from the Gates Foundation .
CGIAR has spent $ 500 million on biofortification since 2002 .
Of this , about $ 100 million has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rice high in provitamin A .
Money from the Gates Foundation is providing CGIAR and its Green Revolution model a new lease on life , this time in direct partnership with seed and pesticide companies ” said GRAIN .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .

Stop Golden Rice Network (SGRN) will be launching its week long activity to protest the possible commercialization of Golden Rice this week. The campaign will comprise different sets of activities per day and will conclude on August 8, the “International Day of Action Against Golden Rice.” Now in its 7th year, the said day of action is to commemorate the historic event when more than 400 farmers, urban poor, youths, and consumers uprooted Golden Rice in Pili, Camarines Sur back in 2013. With the theme “Defend our Rice, Fight for our Rights,” the week-long protest aims to raise the public’s awareness of the “recent developments in Golden Rice and the current corporate agenda to food and agriculture amid COVID-19.”
SGRN is a regional campaign network geared towards strengthening network support and campaign collaboration against the onslaught of corporate control in food and agriculture. It has more than 30 members coming from India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand and Sri Lanka among others, as well as several regional formations forwarding food sovereignty and campaigning against corporate control on food and agriculture.
“The pandemic exposed what we feared a long time ago – that our food system has become so flawed and weak, it will inevitably fail to sustain our needs,” said Cris Panerio, National Coordinator of farmer-scientist group MASIPAG.
In a recent post on the MASIPAG page, the farmer-scientist network collated statistics on the state of food security of the Philippines. It includes data from the Social Weather Stations pointing out to a whopping 4.2 million Filipino families who experienced involuntary hunger in the three-month government-imposed lockdown.
International movement of grassroots group People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) also released a statement saying
“the signs are clear that food security amid the global pandemic is a time bomb if not addressed with a strong resolve to uphold the right to food and peoples’ welfare.” “There are enough reasons to safely conclude that multinational corporations are exploiting the dire situation of our food system during COVID-19 as a pretext for further greedy gains,” Mr. Cris Panerio, MASIPAG National Coordinator, revealed.
According to Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific, Bayer and Corteva AgriScience backed the Philippine government’s agricultural program “Plant, Plant, Plant.” This program has been hugely criticized by different farmer organizations and alliances to be prone to corruption. Bayer announced plans in March to penetrate the market in Mindanao (Southern Philippines) with a new product, Vt Double Pro Dekalb, which is genetically modified to be glyphosate-tolerant and resistant to the fall armyworm.
GM Free NZ noted that a variety of genetically engineered (GE) corn developed to survive spraying with up to twelve different pesticides risks exposing consumers in New Zealand or Australia to increased levels of toxic chemicals. Bayer Crop Science has applied to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) for approval of the most extreme ‘gene-stacked’ food ever grown. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is calling for submissions on the latest GM corn MON 87429, resistant to the toxic sprays: glyphosate, dicamba, glufosinate, 2,4-D and eight aryloxyphenoxypropionate group herbicides (‘FOPs’). The seed is also coated with the systemic bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticide. GM Free NZ has also campaigned against the safety approval of Golden Rice last 2018.
In India, despite a moratorium on GM Bt eggplant was imposed last 2010, several GM crops are being planted without authorization from the government. According to a report, the government is investigating the distribution of illegally procured herbicide-tolerant Bt cotton seeds to pave way for the acceptance of the said crop. GM mustard and Bt Eggplant is still being relentlessly pushed for commercialization.In Bangladesh, news circulated that Golden Rice will approved by the Biosafety Core Committee under the environment ministry last November 15, 2019. While there were no updates yet, proponents are optimistic that the approval of the application in Bangladesh is very likely to push through. In August 2019, it was confirmed that Indonesia rice research centre (BB Padi) have grown Golden Rice in their testing field in Sukamandi, West Java.
Kartini Samon of research group GRAIN is wary of the growing influence of corporations on the local and international institutions on food and agriculture. “Global research on biofortified crops like GM provitamin A rice is led by the CGIAR system, which is the single biggest recipient of grants from the Gates Foundation. CGIAR has spent $500 million on biofortification since 2002. Of this, about $100 million has been spent on efforts to develop GM rice high in provitamin A. Money from the Gates Foundation is providing CGIAR and its Green Revolution model a new lease on life, this time in direct partnership with seed and pesticide companies” said GRAIN.
“We are in a global crisis. And we have no one else to blame but the tycoons behind programs that reoriented our agriculture, from a sustainable, need-based production into a profiteering business venture at the expense of millions of citizens across the globe,” Panerio added.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


asiapacificresearch--2020-08-21--Underpaying Casual Staff and Forgetting Education: The Australian University Formula

Scandalous underpayment has become common fare at Australia ’ s universities .
An inverse relationship can be identified here : the wealthier the institution , the more likely it will short change staff and avoid coughing up the cash .
If anything is coughed up , it will be meagrely rationed .
We are not all in this together .
The casualization of the Australian university workforce is a process that has chugged along for three decades or so .
Doing so alleviates the need to pay an ongoing workforce in conditions that are less secure in terms of employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s management line .
There is no need to pay sick leave ; holidays are unremunerated .
Lengthy dry spells exist for such casuals during times where teaching does not take place .
They are voiceless , fearful and oppressed .
The University of Melbourne , for instance , possesses a chest of AU $ 4.43 billion in reserves .
But keeping in the best traditions of nineteenth century capitalism and working poor exploitation , it has 72.9 percent of staff in insecure employment .
Not happy with such a favourable state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a call to further axe , underpay and trim .
In July , a survey conducted by the University of Sydney Casuals Network in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences found that casual academics have been underpaid during the COVID-19 crisis .
The findings are grim : 77 % concerned about losing employment ; 82 % reporting that extra unpaid work had been done in the first semester of 2020 and 60 % “ likely to leave academia.
” The move to online forms of course delivery have also seen employees within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is discouragingly interesting in the survey is that coronavirus was merely a catalyst for inspiring a situation already rotten .
It did not help that the University of Sydney ’ s reliance on its Chinese student base , as with a good number of Australian teaching institutions , was scandalously disproportionate .
This month , the institution finally admitted that it had underpaid staff .
The errors , it assured critics , were unintentional .
Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence went so far as to suggest that the university had been vigilant in pursuing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after we proactively initiated a preliminary review of payroll records ” .
With dreary predictability , it transpired that the “ identified errors mainly affect some professional casual employees.
” While seemingly apologetic , Spence insisted on minimising the nature of the harm , with a view to placating the corporate investor : “ we expect that the total amount involved will be less than 0.5 % of our annual payroll cycle.
” The list of offenders is bulking .
In June , the University of New South Wales Business School was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic staff for a goodly number of years .
The University of Melbourne is in the process of repaying up to 1,500 academics across four faculties in what was nothing less than wage theft .
Central to the dispute was a rebadging of tutorials as “ practice classes ” , a typical obscenity of management speak .
Different wording , different level of pay ( a third , to be exact ) .
Cheerily for students and underpaid staff , only three minutes had been allocated to mark student assessments .
Within an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digest 4,000 words and comment on the assessments .
A miserable return for all , except for the miscellany of unnecessary departments and services that support the modern university .
Others have also joined the underpayment club , much of it centred on the speedy manner academics are supposedly meant to dispatch assessments .
The University of Queensland , University of Technology Sydney ( UTS ) and Murdoch University have been identified for practices of low marking rates and , in some cases , ungraded assessments .
At RMIT , the marking rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Melbourne University counterpart : a princely 10 minutes , but still absurdly small in halving the previous allocation .
It is now the subject of a claim being made to the Fair Work Commission by the National Tertiary Education Union .
Such employment practices in Australian universities have been aided and abetted .
Alison Barnes , the NTEU president , has mastered the art of speaking with a forked tongue .
She boasts about the NTEU recovering millions in lost wages for members and promises “ to launch a wave of class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theft is confined to the ten universities that have admitted to it.
” The same sanctimonious Barnes , along with fellow national executives , attempted to foist a “ national framework ” upon members and university management to accept some 18,000 job losses across the tertiary sector along with reduced pay .
It was advertised in a manner least candid and most monstrous .
“ The Jobs Protection Framework , ” noted an NTEU propaganda booklet in May , “ means everyone gets a lifejacket .
Casuals , fixed term , permanent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The measure was defeated by a grass roots revolt of some fury culminating in the NTEU Fightback campaign , a surprise to both union executives and management .
17 universities rejected the plan .
But from the still burning cinders , some Vice-Chancellors saw conspiratorial hope .
La Trobe University Vice-Chancellor John Dewar urged colleagues to take heart : the collapse of the framework had not been “ a complete failure because … .
it has shown what could be done through a collaborative approach between unions and management ” .
Dewar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of truth to it .
Undeterred by its abysmal failure , the NTEU executive has gone full blackguard , making piecemeal deals with individual universities to achieve the same object .
This initiative is taking place alongside handholding gestures with big business in an effort to secure more Commonwealth government funding .
Barnes , for instance , is encouraged by the words of Business Council Executive Jennifer Westacott praising the need for leaders with a “ humanities mindset ” , one understanding of “ the human condition.
” When will platitudes end ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s notable scalp for tertiary sector skulduggery , with Acting Vice-Chancellor Mike Brooks accepting a deal between management and the NTEU ’ s national executive “ in principle ” .
Under clause 19.2 of the agreement , wage reductions can be made to “ an amount equivalent to a maximum total of 15 percent of staff member ’ s salary in any given pay period.
” Reductions will be achieved via the purchasing of compulsory leave , deferrals of pay rises , the scrapping of annual holiday pay loading .
The union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been abandoned by the executives within the NTEU who have long collaborated with university management through such beastly compromises as the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement .
The only enterprise shown in such agreements tends to be the bargaining away of basic rights and liberties .
Work casualization has been one of its most noxious fruits .
The battle , in short , is being waged both within the union movement and against university management .
Much bloodletting is promised and the one word not mentioned in all of this : education .
Having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may it rest in undisturbed peace .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Email : [ email protected ]

Scandalous underpayment has become common fare at Australia’s universities. An inverse relationship can be identified here: the wealthier the institution, the more likely it will short change staff and avoid coughing up the cash. If anything is coughed up, it will be meagrely rationed. We are not all in this together.
The casualization of the Australian university workforce is a process that has chugged along for three decades or so. Doing so alleviates the need to pay an ongoing workforce in conditions that are less secure in terms of employment but more beneficial to the institution’s management line. There is no need to pay sick leave; holidays are unremunerated. Lengthy dry spells exist for such casuals during times where teaching does not take place. They are voiceless, fearful and oppressed.
The University of Melbourne, for instance, possesses a chest of AU$4.43 billion in reserves. But keeping in the best traditions of nineteenth century capitalism and working poor exploitation, it has 72.9 percent of staff in insecure employment.
Not happy with such a favourable state of affairs, universities have taken COVID-19 as a call to further axe, underpay and trim. In July, a survey conducted by the University of Sydney Casuals Network in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences found that casual academics have been underpaid during the COVID-19 crisis. The findings are grim: 77% concerned about losing employment; 82% reporting that extra unpaid work had been done in the first semester of 2020 and 60% “likely to leave academia.” The move to online forms of course delivery have also seen employees within the Faculty incur additional expenses.
What is discouragingly interesting in the survey is that coronavirus was merely a catalyst for inspiring a situation already rotten. It did not help that the University of Sydney’s reliance on its Chinese student base, as with a good number of Australian teaching institutions, was scandalously disproportionate.
This month, the institution finally admitted that it had underpaid staff. The errors, it assured critics, were unintentional. Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence went so far as to suggest that the university had been vigilant in pursuing the matter. The situation was revealed “after we proactively initiated a preliminary review of payroll records”. With dreary predictability, it transpired that the “identified errors mainly affect some professional casual employees.” While seemingly apologetic, Spence insisted on minimising the nature of the harm, with a view to placating the corporate investor: “we expect that the total amount involved will be less than 0.5% of our annual payroll cycle.”
The list of offenders is bulking. In June, the University of New South Wales Business School was the subject of interest, having underpaid casual academic staff for a goodly number of years.
“Any underpayments for existing or former casual academic staff identified in the review,” noted the university’s official publication, “will be fully rectified, including payment of additional superannuation and interest.”
The University of Melbourne is in the process of repaying up to 1,500 academics across four faculties in what was nothing less than wage theft. Central to the dispute was a rebadging of tutorials as “practice classes”, a typical obscenity of management speak. Different wording, different level of pay (a third, to be exact). Cheerily for students and underpaid staff, only three minutes had been allocated to mark student assessments. Within an hour, the marker was required to digest 4,000 words and comment on the assessments. A miserable return for all, except for the miscellany of unnecessary departments and services that support the modern university.
Others have also joined the underpayment club, much of it centred on the speedy manner academics are supposedly meant to dispatch assessments. The University of Queensland, University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and Murdoch University have been identified for practices of low marking rates and, in some cases, ungraded assessments.
At RMIT, the marking rate has proven a touch more generous than its Melbourne University counterpart: a princely 10 minutes, but still absurdly small in halving the previous allocation. It is now the subject of a claim being made to the Fair Work Commission by the National Tertiary Education Union.
Such employment practices in Australian universities have been aided and abetted. Alison Barnes, the NTEU president, has mastered the art of speaking with a forked tongue. She boasts about the NTEU recovering millions in lost wages for members and promises “to launch a wave of class action. We do not believe wage theft is confined to the ten universities that have admitted to it.”
The same sanctimonious Barnes, along with fellow national executives, attempted to foist a “national framework” upon members and university management to accept some 18,000 job losses across the tertiary sector along with reduced pay. It was advertised in a manner least candid and most monstrous. “The Jobs Protection Framework,” noted an NTEU propaganda booklet in May, “means everyone gets a lifejacket. Casuals, fixed term, permanent, low paid, high paid, everyone.”
The measure was defeated by a grass roots revolt of some fury culminating in the NTEU Fightback campaign, a surprise to both union executives and management. 17 universities rejected the plan. But from the still burning cinders, some Vice-Chancellors saw conspiratorial hope. La Trobe University Vice-Chancellor John Dewar urged colleagues to take heart: the collapse of the framework had not been “a complete failure because …. it has shown what could be done through a collaborative approach between unions and management”.
Dewar’s assessment had a certain ring of truth to it. Undeterred by its abysmal failure, the NTEU executive has gone full blackguard, making piecemeal deals with individual universities to achieve the same object. This initiative is taking place alongside handholding gestures with big business in an effort to secure more Commonwealth government funding. Barnes, for instance, is encouraged by the words of Business Council Executive Jennifer Westacott praising the need for leaders with a “humanities mindset”, one understanding of “the human condition.” When will platitudes end?
The University of Adelaide was this month’s notable scalp for tertiary sector skulduggery, with Acting Vice-Chancellor Mike Brooks accepting a deal between management and the NTEU’s national executive “in principle”. Under clause 19.2 of the agreement, wage reductions can be made to “an amount equivalent to a maximum total of 15 percent of staff member’s salary in any given pay period.” Reductions will be achieved via the purchasing of compulsory leave, deferrals of pay rises, the scrapping of annual holiday pay loading.
The union movement is in freefall. The rank-and-file have been abandoned by the executives within the NTEU who have long collaborated with university management through such beastly compromises as the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. The only enterprise shown in such agreements tends to be the bargaining away of basic rights and liberties. Work casualization has been one of its most noxious fruits. The battle, in short, is being waged both within the union movement and against university management. Much bloodletting is promised and the one word not mentioned in all of this: education. Having been abandoned, humiliated and shamed, may it rest in undisturbed peace.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]


asiapacificresearch--2020-08-24--Permitted Unlawfulness: The New Zealand Coronavirus Lockdown

“ Limitation is essential to authority .
A government is legitimate only if it is effectively limited.
” – Lord Acton It is a study both troublesome and perplexing .
To what end can a state trample on human rights ostensibly to preserve such objects a public health ?
The coronavirus lockdowns have become a feature of global politics and relentless mandatory intrusion , the health department made sovereign , assisted by vigorous policing .
States have used , and continue to use all manner of measures to confine individuals to homes , mask them , restrict movement , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up as dissenters and hurrying them into obscurity .
The end sought : viral suppression , flattening the curve , elimination .
But what might be saved in terms of health will be lost in terms of liberties .
One country made the brave , somewhat quixotic journey to battle the coronavirus to elimination .
New Zealand ’ s Ardern government was determined to quash it .
In doing so , it imposed one of the most onerous of lockdowns over the course of March and April , 2020 .
It was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Borrowdale took issue with its sheer expansiveness .
A particular point of interest for him were the early stages of the five-week lockdown , specifically the calls between March 26 and April 3 by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her officials for New Zealanders to stay home under pain of penalty .
The timing is important here as the stay home restrictions were only formally passed on April 3 .
The country ’ s 1956 Health Act provides for what is called a “ Section 70 ” notice , issued by a Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be done if the relevant minister has issued an Epidemic Notice pursuant to the Epidemic Preparedness Act of 2006 .
This , the Prime Minister did on March 24 .
Unfortunately for Ardern , the Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield ’ s Section 70 notice , which came into effect on March 26 , only covered the closure of businesses .
It was , in other words , defective .
There had been , for instance , no formal instrument legitimising the need for New Zealanders to stay at home in their “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public spaces as the beach .
In an assessment by insolvency practitioner and columnist Damien Grant , Ardern proceeded to imperially “ issue a slew of orders that were outside her remit .
Parliament had deliberately kept that power out of our elected representatives and placed it into the hands of competent medical officials.
” Those elected representatives were now running amok – at least for a short time .
Other officials also did the same .
The then police commissioner Mike Bush , charges Grant , was operating outside his jurisdictional remit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay on the comfort of your own couch or your own home than be cooling yourself on a very cool bench in a police cell.
” The result of this bungling in drafting was only rectified by another Section 70 notice , designed to square the implemented lockdown measures with what authorities could legally do .
But it had taken nine days of over-extended and illegitimate power .
The finding by the New Zealand Supreme Court was not exactly a sweeping triumph for Borrowdale or his lawyer Tiho Mijatov , who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such health provisions should not happen even during the course of a pandemic emergency .
The court took with one and gave with another .
But with that , Borrowdale had made a salient and pressing point .
The three judges acknowledged that , even during “ times of emergency , and even when the merits of the Government response are not widely contested , the rule of law matters.
” The executive was not entitled to behave absolutely .
While the court dismissed two out of the three grounds , they did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in part .
They noted announcements by the executive between March 26 and April 3 stating or implying that all New Zealanders needed to “ stay at home and in their ‘ bubbles ’ when there was no such requirement.
” These duly limited “ certain rights and freedoms affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 , including in particular , the rights to freedom of movement , peaceful assembly and association.
” The court accepted “ that the requirement was a necessary , reasonable and proportionate response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it “ was not prescribed by law.
” The substantive effect of the decision will be minimal , even if the lesson on illegitimate power is telling .
Prosecutions for breaching the lowdown rules will remain , for the most part , valid .
Attorney General David Parker emphasised the didactic point behind the measures : the State as instructor and guide on how to cope with a dangerous pandemic .
“ The Government was trying to educate people about the health risks and transition them quickly to take actions that curtailed normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of the virus.
” He claimed these actions to be a success .
“ In the end the measures taken by the government worked to eliminate COVID-19 , save lives and minimise damage to our economy.
” The virus , however , has shown a guile to throw off epidemiologists , health specialists , and politicians .
Like Galileo ’ s observation on the earth , it moves .
Even the harshest measures have not guaranteed elimination .
Where there is mobility , there is transmission .
Even the most sedentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to step outside .
COVID-19 , and more lockdown measures , are now in place in Auckland .
To date , Ardern ’ s reassurance , and one that may have to be revised in due course , is that community transmission has been prevented .
She is bound to be more legally attuned this time around .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Email : [ email protected ]

“Limitation is essential to authority. A government is legitimate only if it is effectively limited.” – Lord Acton
It is a study both troublesome and perplexing. To what end can a state trample on human rights ostensibly to preserve such objects a public health? The coronavirus lockdowns have become a feature of global politics and relentless mandatory intrusion, the health department made sovereign, assisted by vigorous policing. States have used, and continue to use all manner of measures to confine individuals to homes, mask them, restrict movement, while, in some cases, shutting them up as dissenters and hurrying them into obscurity. The end sought: viral suppression, flattening the curve, elimination. But what might be saved in terms of health will be lost in terms of liberties.
One country made the brave, somewhat quixotic journey to battle the coronavirus to elimination. New Zealand’s Ardern government was determined to quash it. In doing so, it imposed one of the most onerous of lockdowns over the course of March and April, 2020.
It was not without controversy, and Wellington lawyer Andrew Borrowdale took issue with its sheer expansiveness. A particular point of interest for him were the early stages of the five-week lockdown, specifically the calls between March 26 and April 3 by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her officials for New Zealanders to stay home under pain of penalty. The timing is important here as the stay home restrictions were only formally passed on April 3.
The country’s 1956 Health Act provides for what is called a “Section 70” notice, issued by a Health Officer to restrict movement. This can be done if the relevant minister has issued an Epidemic Notice pursuant to the Epidemic Preparedness Act of 2006. This, the Prime Minister did on March 24. Unfortunately for Ardern, the Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield’s Section 70 notice, which came into effect on March 26, only covered the closure of businesses. It was, in other words, defective. There had been, for instance, no formal instrument legitimising the need for New Zealanders to stay at home in their “bubbles” or not go to such public spaces as the beach.
In an assessment by insolvency practitioner and columnist Damien Grant, Ardern proceeded to imperially “issue a slew of orders that were outside her remit. Parliament had deliberately kept that power out of our elected representatives and placed it into the hands of competent medical officials.” Those elected representatives were now running amok – at least for a short time.
Other officials also did the same. The then police commissioner Mike Bush, charges Grant, was operating outside his jurisdictional remit in saying “you’re better to stay on the comfort of your own couch or your own home than be cooling yourself on a very cool bench in a police cell.”
The result of this bungling in drafting was only rectified by another Section 70 notice, designed to square the implemented lockdown measures with what authorities could legally do. But it had taken nine days of over-extended and illegitimate power.
The finding by the New Zealand Supreme Court was not exactly a sweeping triumph for Borrowdale or his lawyer Tiho Mijatov, who had argued that generous and permissive interpretations of such health provisions should not happen even during the course of a pandemic emergency. The court took with one and gave with another. But with that, Borrowdale had made a salient and pressing point. The three judges acknowledged that, even during “times of emergency, and even when the merits of the Government response are not widely contested, the rule of law matters.” The executive was not entitled to behave absolutely.
While the court dismissed two out of the three grounds, they did accept Borrowdale’s first contention, in part. They noted announcements by the executive between March 26 and April 3 stating or implying that all New Zealanders needed to “stay at home and in their ‘bubbles’ when there was no such requirement.” These duly limited “certain rights and freedoms affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, including in particular, the rights to freedom of movement, peaceful assembly and association.” The court accepted “that the requirement was a necessary, reasonable and proportionate response to the COVID-19 crisis at that time” but it “was not prescribed by law.”
The substantive effect of the decision will be minimal, even if the lesson on illegitimate power is telling. Prosecutions for breaching the lowdown rules will remain, for the most part, valid. Attorney General David Parker emphasised the didactic point behind the measures: the State as instructor and guide on how to cope with a dangerous pandemic. “The Government was trying to educate people about the health risks and transition them quickly to take actions that curtailed normal freedoms like staying at home to stop the spread of the virus.” He claimed these actions to be a success. “In the end the measures taken by the government worked to eliminate COVID-19, save lives and minimise damage to our economy.”
The virus, however, has shown a guile to throw off epidemiologists, health specialists, and politicians. Like Galileo’s observation on the earth, it moves. Even the harshest measures have not guaranteed elimination. Where there is mobility, there is transmission. Even the most sedentary of people will eventually feel the urge to step outside. COVID-19, and more lockdown measures, are now in place in Auckland. To date, Ardern’s reassurance, and one that may have to be revised in due course, is that community transmission has been prevented. She is bound to be more legally attuned this time around.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image is from Flickr


asiapacificresearch--2020-09-07--The “End of Poverty” Illusion: Global and East Asian Realities in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Ever tried living on $ 1.90 a day ?
That is the World Bank ’ s “ International Poverty Line ( IPL ) .
” If your income is at or below that figure , you are living in “ extreme poverty.
” In fact , it ’ s a political benchmark , low enough that the Bank can claim global poverty has been reduced significantly .
Which also means that if you ’ re making two or three times that amount per day , you ’ re supposed to be overcoming poverty .
From a critical and human-interest perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living on $ 1.90 a day—the World Bank for many years used $ 1 a day to define extreme poverty— can not possibly live a meaningful life no matter how defined .
A figure even double or triple $ 1.90 can not possibly address inadequate nutrition , schooling , and health care , for example .
By setting the figure so low , the Bank , other international lending agencies , and governments can pretend that citizens making the Bank ’ s next levels of income , $ 3.20 and $ 5.50 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their poorest cousins .
In short , the figure evades responsibility to act on behalf of the billions of people living in extreme poverty , including those in rich nations .
Fortunately , we have an impeccable source for calling out the World Bank ’ s claim : Philip Alston , who recently left his post as the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights .
In his final report to the UN in early July , Alston said : Even before COVID-19 , we squandered a decade in the fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very reforms that could have prevented the worst impacts of the pandemic .
COVID-19 is projected to push hundreds of millions into unemployment and poverty , while increasing the number at risk of acute hunger by more than 250 million .
But the international community ’ s abysmal record on tackling poverty , inequality and disregard for human life far precede this pandemic .
Over the past decade , the UN , world leaders and pundits have promoted a self-congratulatory message of impending victory over poverty , but almost all of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s international poverty line , which is utterly unfit for the purpose of tracking such progress.1 The reality about global poverty , which the World Bank would prefer that we forget , is that extreme poverty has hardly improved at all in recent decades .
“ Even before the pandemic , ” Alston says , “ 3.4 billion people , nearly half the world , lived on less than $ 5.50 a day .
That number has barely declined since 1990.
” Alston called the Bank ’ s $ 1.90 poverty line , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.1 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015 , “ scandalously unambitious.
” “ The best evidence shows it doesn ’ t even cover the cost of food or housing in many countries , ” he said .
“ The poverty decline it purports to show is due largely to rising incomes in a single country , China .
And it obscures poverty among women and those often excluded from official surveys in many countries , such as migrant workers and refugees.
” In the spring 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 60 million people will fall into extreme poverty ( under $ 1.90/day ) in 2020 , compared to 2019 .
Again , the Bank used the same flawed measurement , which means we have to add in ( by the Bank ’ s account ) anywhere from 70 to 180 million more people in the $ 5.50 a day category.2 These dire conclusions are consistent with trade trends .
Two analysts write in Foreign Affairs that it will probably take several years for the global economy as a whole to recover from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They cite a massive decline in exports ( 2020 will be “ the worst year for globalization since the early 1930s ” ) , very high unemployment , and an especially harmful impact on low-income people , who lack the education , job security , and health to survive without government support that will not be available in struggling economies .
In the less well off countries , there are no stimulus payments because they are going to be even more debt-ridden than ever.3 So far , it seems that only China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just as Alston charged , women will bear a particularly heavy burden because of COVID-19 .
An Oxfam report notes : The process of scientific discovery seems unable to keep pace with the crisis before us .
As the world scientific community warned in November 2019 : “ we declare , with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world , clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.
” : As environmental security worsens , so does human security .
The reason is simple : the intersection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Flood , drought , and other calamities compound the vulnerability of populations already hit by the virus , especially the poor , the elderly , the unemployed , ethnic minorities , and health care workers.6 Governments are put under intense pressure in terms of emergency preparedness , public health facilities , long-term unemployment , and internal security .
Food security is likely to be especially hard hit by the combination of climate change and COVID-19 .
Arif Husain , chief economist for the World Food Program , writes that “ the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond the tens of millions already facing ‘ acute hunger ’ ] into that state by December .
More than a quarter of a billion people are likely to be acutely hungry in 2020.
” 7 People working in the informal economy and export industries ; people dependent on remittances from relatives working abroad ; people in the fossil fuel sector—these are among the groups whose access to food will be deeply affected by COVID-19 .
And if they also happen to live in conflict zones , or areas hard hit by climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well beyond food.8 In general , the East Asia region ’ s economic development , measured by human development indicators , was improving somewhat before COVID-19 .
I chose nine countries at various levels of economic development to represent the region ( see Table 1 ) .
Most of the nine improved their human development index ( HDI ) ranking between 2009 and 2019—for example , Thailand , from 87 to 77 ; China from 92 to 85 ; and Malaysia from 66 to 61.9 ( Australia and Japan slipped , while Vietnam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reflected in the rich-poor gap , remained a serious problem , however , despite the overall fairly low Gini coefficient.10 The income share of the richest 10 percent of populations was much greater than the poorest 40 percent ( Table 1 , columns 2 , 3 and 4 ) , with the gap rising in four countries and falling in five.11 COVID-19 has severely impacted East Asia as it has every other region .
The East Asia and Pacific region ( fifteen countries and territories , including six added to those in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of infections and deaths , though as a proportion of world totals ( as of mid-August 2020 ) , the numbers are very low : about 2.6 percent of cases and 2 percent of deaths.12 But infection and death tolls do not display the links between a health crisis and poverty .
For East Asia and the Pacific , the World Bank estimates that COVID-19 will have a devastating effect on regional economic growth and therefore on poverty rates .
The last five years of gains will all be erased , it says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whereas before the pandemic 35 million people in East Asia and the Pacific would have escaped poverty ( at $ 5.50 ) , now some 25 million additional people will fall into poverty , plus another 11 million if economies continue to go downhill.13Malaysia , Philippines , and Thailand are all predicted to experience major economic contractions before recovering in 2021.14 In East Asia specifically , average life expectancy and schooling were improving before the pandemic .
As the last column in Table 1 shows , every country experienced growth in the HDI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading the way and the emerging middle-income countries such as Indonesia and Thailand also improving significantly .
Even so , we are all aware that average figures may obscure as much as they reveal .
Improvements in human development typically are not evenly distributed in any society because political elites allocate resources to favored groups and locales , which are expected to return the favor in loyalty to officials .
When the next Human Development Report is published , we can expect that income gaps will widen and other human development indicators for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possible exception of China ) will reflect the pandemic ’ s impact on everything from public health and childhood education to overseas remittances and small businesses .
It is already clear that food and income poverty in particular have worsened .
A World Vision survey in 2020 of nine Asian countries , for example , found that “ currently the most serious effects [ of the pandemic ] are increased food insecurity and poverty for vulnerable children and their families impacted by the pandemic .
As families are struggling to cope with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic household needs is a growing challenge.
” The survey found that over 60 percent of households—an estimated 85 million—in those countries were in deep trouble finding food , work , and income.15 A major omission from the World Bank ’ s assessment is indicators of who benefits from poverty .
The fortunes of the richest 1 percent and 10 percent never fall , nor do the tax havens that enable multinational corporations to hide a large percentage of their profits disappear .
Again , Philip Alston , in his final report : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draw guaranteed profits from public coffers [ such as through tax havens ] , while poor communities are neglected and underserved .
It ’ s time for a new approach to poverty eradication that tackles inequality , embraces redistribution , and takes tax justice seriously .
Poverty is a political choice and it will be with us until its elimination is reconceived as a matter of social justice.
” Alston ’ s parting shots resonate with critical scholarship on globalization .
For example , a recent study done for the Asian Development Bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty even before COVID-19 .
The three authors found that although income in Asia generally was rising , its potential benefits were being undermined by growing inequality in income distribution ; that globalization was mainly benefiting people with skills , education , and regional resource advantages ; and that inequality was adversely affecting economic growth , mainly by limiting productivity and consumption among low-income households , and by increasing the likelihood of social unrest.16 Clearly , these trends were , and are , the result of political decisions .
We in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
Robert Reich , the former labor secretary who often writes on inequality in America , says : “ Over the last four decades , the median wage has barely budged .
But the incomes of the richest 0.1 % have soared by more than 300 % and the incomes of the top 0.001 % ( the 2,300 richest Americans ) , by more than 600 % .
The net worth of the wealthiest 0.1 % of Americans almost equals that of the bottom 90 % combined .
This grotesque imbalance is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not take much imagination to come up with solutions to the current wave of poverty .
Oxfam , for example , advocates direct cash grants to the poor , debt relief , subsidies to small businesses , and taxes on both private and corporate wealth .
Similarly , the Asian Development Bank study urges government targeting of poor populations and poor districts within countries for educational , health , and work opportunities .
But if “ poverty is a political choice , ” as Alston says , redistributing wealth and providing the ingredients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a political revolution .
Quick fixes and “ reforms ” can not correct the “ grotesque imbalance ” that is truly global in scope .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and Senior Editor of Asian Perspective .
His latest book is America in Retreat : Foreign Policy Under Donald Trump ( Rowman & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more about him in his blog , “ In the Human Interest.
” 6 C.A .
Phillips , A. Caldas , R. Cleetus et al.
, “ Compound Climate Risks in the COVID-19 Pandemic , ” Nature Climate Change ( 2020 ) .
10 Economists seems to consider that the worst cases of inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient are Brazil ( 53.3 between 2010 and 2017 ) and South Africa ( 63.0 ) .
In that case , none of the nine East Asian countries examined here comes close , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to South Korea ( 31.6 ) .
Human Development Report 2019 , Table 3 .
11 Only in Thailand did the income share of the richest 1 percent exceed that of the poorest 40 percent .
However , no figures were reported for the Philippines , Indonesia , and Vietnam .
Human Development Report 2019 , Table 3 .
12 Compiled from the New York Times coronavirus data set .
The additional countries and territories are Singapore , Hong Kong , New Zealand , Cambodia , Taiwan , and Myanmar .
13 World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pacific in the Time of COVID-19.
” 17 Robert Reich , “ State of Disunion : Democrats Must Not Give In to Trump ’ s Hateful Speech , ” The Guardian , February 4 , 2019 .

The World Bank’s Poverty Illusion
Ever tried living on $1.90 a day? That is the World Bank’s “International Poverty Line (IPL).” If your income is at or below that figure, you are living in “extreme poverty.” In fact, it’s a political benchmark, low enough that the Bank can claim global poverty has been reduced significantly. Which also means that if you’re making two or three times that amount per day, you’re supposed to be overcoming poverty.
From a critical and human-interest perspective, the IPL is nonsense. Anyone living on $1.90 a day—the World Bank for many years used $1 a day to define extreme poverty—cannot possibly live a meaningful life no matter how defined. A figure even double or triple $1.90 cannot possibly address inadequate nutrition, schooling, and health care, for example. By setting the figure so low, the Bank, other international lending agencies, and governments can pretend that citizens making the Bank’s next levels of income, $3.20 and $5.50, are poor but still better off than their poorest cousins. In short, the figure evades responsibility to act on behalf of the billions of people living in extreme poverty, including those in rich nations.
Fortunately, we have an impeccable source for calling out the World Bank’s claim: Philip Alston, who recently left his post as the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. In his final report to the UN in early July, Alston said:
Even before COVID-19, we squandered a decade in the fight against poverty, with misplaced triumphalism blocking the very reforms that could have prevented the worst impacts of the pandemic. COVID-19 is projected to push hundreds of millions into unemployment and poverty, while increasing the number at risk of acute hunger by more than 250 million. But the international community’s abysmal record on tackling poverty, inequality and disregard for human life far precede this pandemic. Over the past decade, the UN, world leaders and pundits have promoted a self-congratulatory message of impending victory over poverty, but almost all of these accounts rely on the World Bank’s international poverty line, which is utterly unfit for the purpose of tracking such progress.1
The reality about global poverty, which the World Bank would prefer that we forget, is that extreme poverty has hardly improved at all in recent decades. “Even before the pandemic,” Alston says, “3.4 billion people, nearly half the world, lived on less than $5.50 a day. That number has barely declined since 1990.” Alston called the Bank’s $1.90 poverty line, which it uses to claim that over 1.1 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015, “scandalously unambitious.” “The best evidence shows it doesn’t even cover the cost of food or housing in many countries,” he said. “The poverty decline it purports to show is due largely to rising incomes in a single country, China. And it obscures poverty among women and those often excluded from official surveys in many countries, such as migrant workers and refugees.”
The COVID Connection
In the spring 2020, the World Bank estimated that 40 million to 60 million people will fall into extreme poverty (under $1.90/day) in 2020, compared to 2019. Again, the Bank used the same flawed measurement, which means we have to add in (by the Bank’s account) anywhere from 70 to 180 million more people in the $5.50 a day category.2 These dire conclusions are consistent with trade trends. Two analysts write in Foreign Affairs that it will probably take several years for the global economy as a whole to recover from the contraction brought on by the pandemic. They cite a massive decline in exports (2020 will be “the worst year for globalization since the early 1930s”), very high unemployment, and an especially harmful impact on low-income people, who lack the education, job security, and health to survive without government support that will not be available in struggling economies. In the less well off countries, there are no stimulus payments because they are going to be even more debt-ridden than ever.3 So far, it seems that only China has avoided this prediction on export decline.
Just as Alston charged, women will bear a particularly heavy burden because of COVID-19. An Oxfam report notes:
Although the virus appears to be killing men at a higher rate than women, cutting down on child and elderly care and public health systems traps women at home, a home that is not always safe: girls who are forced to stay home from school are at increased risk of sexual violence and early pregnancy women will suffer more in other ways. Some 70% of the world’s health workers – the most exposed to the virus – are women. Women workers are most likely to have precarious jobs without labour protections. In the poorest countries, 92% of women workers are employed informally. Women also provide 75% of unpaid care, a burden that is expanding exponentially in the face of stay-at-home orders. The problem will also be compounded if this pandemic were to be followed by austerity, as with the 2008 financial crisis. Reports are already showing that domestic violence has doubled in provinces in China where restrictions have been imposed– and this pattern is being repeated all over the world.4
Enter the Climate Crisis
The process of scientific discovery seems unable to keep pace with the crisis before us. As the world scientific community warned in November 2019: “we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”:
Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address [the climate crisis]. The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. . . . It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity. . . . Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points and nature’s reinforcing feedbacks (atmospheric, marine, and terrestrial) that could lead to a catastrophic “hothouse Earth,” well beyond the control of humans. . . . These climate chain reactions could cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable.5
As environmental security worsens, so does human security. The reason is simple: the intersection of worsening climate conditions and the pandemic. Flood, drought, and other calamities compound the vulnerability of populations already hit by the virus, especially the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, ethnic minorities, and health care workers.6 Governments are put under intense pressure in terms of emergency preparedness, public health facilities, long-term unemployment, and internal security.
Food security is likely to be especially hard hit by the combination of climate change and COVID-19. Arif Husain, chief economist for the World Food Program, writes that “the pandemic could drive 130 million more people [beyond the tens of millions already facing ‘acute hunger’] into that state by December. More than a quarter of a billion people are likely to be acutely hungry in 2020.”7 People working in the informal economy and export industries; people dependent on remittances from relatives working abroad; people in the fossil fuel sector—these are among the groups whose access to food will be deeply affected by COVID-19. And if they also happen to live in conflict zones, or areas hard hit by climate change, they face insecurity that goes well beyond food.8
The East Asia Picture
In general, the East Asia region’s economic development, measured by human development indicators, was improving somewhat before COVID-19. I chose nine countries at various levels of economic development to represent the region (see Table 1). Most of the nine improved their human development index (HDI) ranking between 2009 and 2019—for example, Thailand, from 87 to 77; China from 92 to 85; and Malaysia from 66 to 61.9 (Australia and Japan slipped, while Vietnam and Philippines hardly changed.) Poverty, reflected in the rich-poor gap, remained a serious problem, however, despite the overall fairly low Gini coefficient.10 The income share of the richest 10 percent of populations was much greater than the poorest 40 percent (Table 1, columns 2, 3 and 4), with the gap rising in four countries and falling in five.11
COVID-19 has severely impacted East Asia as it has every other region. The East Asia and Pacific region (fifteen countries and territories, including six added to those in Table 1) has had its share of infections and deaths, though as a proportion of world totals (as of mid-August 2020), the numbers are very low: about 2.6 percent of cases and 2 percent of deaths.12 But infection and death tolls do not display the links between a health crisis and poverty. For East Asia and the Pacific, the World Bank estimates that COVID-19 will have a devastating effect on regional economic growth and therefore on poverty rates. The last five years of gains will all be erased, it says. Specifically, the Bank reports that whereas before the pandemic 35 million people in East Asia and the Pacific would have escaped poverty (at $5.50), now some 25 million additional people will fall into poverty, plus another 11 million if economies continue to go downhill.13Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand are all predicted to experience major economic contractions before recovering in 2021.14
In East Asia specifically, average life expectancy and schooling were improving before the pandemic. As the last column in Table 1 shows, every country experienced growth in the HDI between 2010 and 2018, with China leading the way and the emerging middle-income countries such as Indonesia and Thailand also improving significantly. Even so, we are all aware that average figures may obscure as much as they reveal. Improvements in human development typically are not evenly distributed in any society because political elites allocate resources to favored groups and locales, which are expected to return the favor in loyalty to officials. When the next Human Development Report is published, we can expect that income gaps will widen and other human development indicators for all countries in the region (with the possible exception of China) will reflect the pandemic’s impact on everything from public health and childhood education to overseas remittances and small businesses. It is already clear that food and income poverty in particular have worsened. A World Vision survey in 2020 of nine Asian countries, for example, found that “currently the most serious effects [of the pandemic] are increased food insecurity and poverty for vulnerable children and their families impacted by the pandemic. As families are struggling to cope with loss of income and livelihoods, meeting basic household needs is a growing challenge.” The survey found that over 60 percent of households—an estimated 85 million—in those countries were in deep trouble finding food, work, and income.15
Winners and Losers
A major omission from the World Bank’s assessment is indicators of who benefits from poverty.
The fortunes of the richest 1 percent and 10 percent never fall, nor do the tax havens that enable multinational corporations to hide a large percentage of their profits disappear. Again, Philip Alston, in his final report: “Instead, multinational companies and investors draw guaranteed profits from public coffers [such as through tax havens], while poor communities are neglected and underserved. It’s time for a new approach to poverty eradication that tackles inequality, embraces redistribution, and takes tax justice seriously. Poverty is a political choice and it will be with us until its elimination is reconceived as a matter of social justice.”
Alston’s parting shots resonate with critical scholarship on globalization. For example, a recent study done for the Asian Development Bank affirmed Alston’s conclusions on rising poverty even before COVID-19. The three authors found that although income in Asia generally was rising, its potential benefits were being undermined by growing inequality in income distribution; that globalization was mainly benefiting people with skills, education, and regional resource advantages; and that inequality was adversely affecting economic growth, mainly by limiting productivity and consumption among low-income households, and by increasing the likelihood of social unrest.16 Clearly, these trends were, and are, the result of political decisions.
We in the United States understand the politics of poverty very well. Robert Reich, the former labor secretary who often writes on inequality in America, says: “Over the last four decades, the median wage has barely budged. But the incomes of the richest 0.1% have soared by more than 300% and the incomes of the top 0.001% (the 2,300 richest Americans), by more than 600%. The net worth of the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans almost equals that of the bottom 90% combined. This grotesque imbalance is undermining American democracy.”17
It does not take much imagination to come up with solutions to the current wave of poverty. Oxfam, for example, advocates direct cash grants to the poor, debt relief, subsidies to small businesses, and taxes on both private and corporate wealth. Similarly, the Asian Development Bank study urges government targeting of poor populations and poor districts within countries for educational, health, and work opportunities. But if “poverty is a political choice,” as Alston says, redistributing wealth and providing the ingredients of human security will require nothing short of a political revolution. Quick fixes and “reforms” cannot correct the “grotesque imbalance” that is truly global in scope.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and Senior Editor of Asian Perspective. His latest book is America in Retreat: Foreign Policy Under Donald Trump (Rowman & Littlefield). You can find out more about him in his blog, “In the Human Interest.”
Notes
1 See the full report.
2 World Bank, “Macro Poverty Outlook,” n.d.
3 Carmen Reinhart and Vincent Reinhart, “The Pandemic Depression,” Foreign Affairs, September-October 2020.
4 See this report.
5 See this report.
6 C.A. Phillips, A. Caldas, R. Cleetus et al., “Compound Climate Risks in the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Nature Climate Change (2020).
7 Arif Husain, “After the Pandemic, a Global Hunger Crisis,” New York Times, June 12, 2020.
8 Netherlands Institute of International Relations, “World Climate and Security Report 2020,” February 13, 2020.
9 United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2009; United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2019.
10 Economists seems to consider that the worst cases of inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient are Brazil (53.3 between 2010 and 2017) and South Africa (63.0). In that case, none of the nine East Asian countries examined here comes close, with the range from Malaysia (41.0) to South Korea (31.6). Human Development Report 2019, Table 3.
11 Only in Thailand did the income share of the richest 1 percent exceed that of the poorest 40 percent. However, no figures were reported for the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Human Development Report 2019, Table 3.
12 Compiled from the New York Times coronavirus data set. The additional countries and territories are Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Cambodia, Taiwan, and Myanmar.
13 World Bank, “East Asia and the Pacific in the Time of COVID-19.”
14 World Bank, “Global Economic Prospects,” June 2020.
15 Ellie Wong, Carolyn Kabore, and Angeline Manzara, “Out of Time,” Devpolicy, July 10, 2020.
16 Bihong Huang, Peter J. Morgan, and Naoyuki Yoshino, eds., Demystifying Rising Inequality in Asia(Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute, 2019, pp. 1-5.
17 Robert Reich, “State of Disunion: Democrats Must Not Give In to Trump’s Hateful Speech,” The Guardian, February 4, 2019.
Featured image is from OneWorld