16 May 2016, MSF, IF EUROPE TURNS ITS BACK NOW THE CONCEPT OF ‘REFUGEE’ WILL CEASE TO EXIST. This week Europe celebrated unity and peace on Europe Day. But in 2016 we fear its leaders, like Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, are united in turning their backs on those seeking our protection. In March, Europe’s leaders passed a deal with Turkey that allows Greece to send people back to Turkey in exchange for, among other things, a multi-billion Euro financial aid package. Sound familiar? Just like Australia’s “push back” policy and offshore detention program this new agreement, the so-called “EU-Turkey Deal”, threatens the right of all people to seek asylum and violates governments obligations to assist each man, woman or child asking for protection. Putting people’s lives or health at risk and causing suffering in asylum seekers is not a justifiable way to stop others risking their lives at sea, or worse, to control borders. Pushing people back to their country of last transit or banishing them to offshore detention transforms asylum into nothing but a political bargaining chip to keep refugees as far away from our borders and the eyes of the voting public as possible. “It betrays the humanitarian principle of providing impartial aid based on need, and need alone, without political strings attached” In exchange for this deal, Europe promises “humanitarian” and development aid to fulfill the needs of Syrian refugees and presents these funds as a measure to ease human suffering. But this aid to willing neighbours such as Turkey (just like the aid given to Papua New Guinea and Nauru), is conditional on shipping suffering offshore. It betrays the humanitarian principle of providing impartial aid based on need, and need alone, without political strings attached. By offering billions of euros to care for people out of sight in Turkey, Europe is also asking aid agencies to become complicit in their border control scheme. The Australian government has also referred to its push back policy as ‘humanitarian’. It has similarly funded it at the cost of its overseas development aid budget. But there is nothing whatsoever humanitarian about denying people their right to seek protection, and instead leaving people to suffer or die out of sight.Read More here
Category Archives: People Stress
3 May 2016, New York times, Resettling the First American ‘Climate Refugees’. ISLE DE JEAN CHARLES, La. — Each morning at 3:30, when Joann Bourg leaves the mildewed and rusted house that her parents built on her grandfather’s property, she worries that the bridge connecting this spit of waterlogged land to Louisiana’s terra firma will again be flooded and she will miss another day’s work. Ms. Bourg, a custodian at a sporting goods store on the mainland, lives with her two sisters, 82-year-old mother, son and niece on land where her ancestors, members of the Native American tribes of southeastern Louisiana, have lived for generations. That earth is now dying, drowning in salt and sinking into the sea, and she is ready to leave. With a first-of-its-kind “climate resilience” grant to resettle the island’s native residents, Washington is ready to help. “Yes, this is our grandpa’s land,” Ms. Bourg said. “But it’s going under one way or another.” In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems. One of those grants, $48 million for Isle de Jean Charles, is something new: the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change. The divisions the effort has exposed and the logistical and moral dilemmas it has presented point up in microcosm the massive problems the world could face in the coming decades as it confronts a new category of displaced people who have become known as climate refugees. Read More here
14 April 2016, Kelvin Thompson MP, Population Growth Driving Infrastructure Deficit. Josh Gordon is absolutely right to raise the problems associated with Melbourne’s rapid population growth of the past decade. It is absolutely correct that politicians and economists are allowed to get away with murder by talking about economic growth when they should be required to talk about GDP per capita. It is like saying that because more people have moved into your street, that the street has more money, and therefore you are richer. You are not personally richer at all – indeed the probability is that your street is more crowded and that in amenity you are poorer. Melbourne’s rapid population growth is the reason there is an infrastructure problem. The Queensland academic Jane O’Sullivan has done research which shows that in a stable population the community needs to set aside around 2 per cent of its income to repair and replace ageing infrastructure, but that in a community growing by 1 per cent it needs to set aside 3 per cent of its income to keep up, and in a community growing by 2 per cent it needs to set aside 4 per cent of its income. The infrastructure task doubles, with only 2 per cent extra people to pay for it. Read More here
17 March 2016, BIEN, On why basic income has not yet been deployed. The hypothesis: basic income has not been deployed in South Africa in part because the powers that be do not let go of their interest and ability to explore people. The following article attempts to demonstrate the validity of this hypothesis. Let’s begin with some background. Basic Income (BI) is not a new idea in South Africa. In fact a thorough economic analysis for BI implementation has existed since 2004. The analysis was drawn from the work of recognized economists, specialists in the field, and the findings were summarized in what became known as the Taylor Committee. The Basic Income Coalition (composed of Black Sash, COSATU and SAAC), used these results to prove that BI is feasible, or at least should be tested, in South Africa. More than 10 years have passed, and yet nothing resembling BI has been implemented or even tested in South Africa. Why not? It is not due to lack of need: 54%1 of South Africans – over 29 million people – live under the country’s poverty line, and over 40% of the labor force is unemployed2. Moreover, according to the BIG Financing Reference Group report, it is also not due to a lack of funds: “The Basic Income Grant is an affordable option for South Africa. Although the four economists [Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI), Prof. Pieter le Roux, Prof. Charles Meth and Dr. Ingrid Woolard] posit slightly different net costs for the BIG, representing transfers to the poor of different amounts, there was consensus that the grant is affordable without necessitating increased deficit spending be government.” In spite of this, the same report also states that government officials believe that BI cannot combat poverty. They have refused to consider a BI, despite knowing that current social assistance plans fail to reach over 50% of those living under the poverty line, or nearly 15 million people. These officials have continued to say that BI would not be effective despite demonstration by the Taylor Committee that basic income is the best way to diminish or even eradicate poverty in the shortest amount of time. They also ignore fiscal collection and social security savings when speaking of BI, which more than doubles its actual net cost of about 24 million ZAR/year (1.35 billion €/year), according to the calculations of the Taylor Committee. In short, most government officials completely ignore these very consistent and thought-out analyses from the Taylor Committee. Why is that? Read More here