29 Feb 2020

Financial Times/IFC Transformational Business Awards 2020 for Innovative financial & non-financial Start-ups

Application Deadline: 31st March 2020.

Eligible Countries: All

To be Taken at (Country): London, UK

About the Award: The 2020 edition of the FT/IFC Transformational Business Awards marks 15 years of collaboration between the Financial Times and the International Finance Corporation on awards that have had a substantial impact on the way financial and non-financial organisations approach sustainable investment. The Awards highlight ground-breaking, long-term private sector solutions to major development issues, with the core categories directly related to global efforts to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The winners will be announced at a special dinner in London on 16 June, preceded by the FT/IFC Transformational Business Conference, a major gathering of thought leaders who will explore and debate the issues generated by the Awards.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: The programme is open to all financial and non-financial private sector organisations. Start-ups with innovative solutions and a clear roadmap to financial sustainability are encouraged to apply. On the financing side, special attention will be given to entries that embrace best practice in impact investing.
We welcome entries from productive sector companies, investment institutions and advisory firms involved in projects addressing key challenges in urbanisation, climate, education, healthcare, technology, food and water security, and inclusion with respect to developing economies, including:
  • Infrastructure developers
  • Energy companies
  • Engineering companies
  • Technology companies
  • Healthcare providers
  • Pharmaceutical companies
  • Design houses
  • Pension funds
  • Sovereign wealth funds
  • Life insurance companies
  • Impact investors
  • Private equity firms
  • Investment banks
  • Fund managers
  • Consultancies
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: If your entry is short-listed in one of the awards categories:
  • Your organisation and the initiative that has been short-listed will be promoted in an advertisement in the global FT newspaper and through  FT Live social media channels
  • You will be invited to attend the FT/IFC Transformational Business Awards dinner, where the winners in each category will be announced.
    • All short-listed entries are presented in detail at the Awards dinner before the winners are revealed. You will also be able to network with other organisations short-listed for the awards.
If the judging panel selects your entry as a winner in one of the categories:
  • Your organisation and the award-winning initiative will be promoted in an advertisement in the global FT newspaper and through FT Live social media channels
  • A summary of your entry will be featured on the Awards website
How to Apply: Apply
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

EcoBank Fintech Challenge 2020 for Programmers and Developers in Africa

Application Deadline: 12th April, 2020

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Top teams will be selected to pitch at the bank’s Innovation Fair, which will be held at the global headquarters of Ecobank in Lomé.

Eligible Fields: Teams are to submit applications addressing one or more of the following challenges
  • Customer Experience
  • Credit Scoring
  • Ecosystem Aggregation
  • Internal Tools
  • Payments
  • Any Other Relevant Product Categories
About the Award:  Ecobank is challenging Africa’s new generation of entrepreneurs to find lasting solutions to the continent’s most pressing banking issues. Submit entries in one or more of our key areas of interest for your Chance to win up to $500,000 funding.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 
  • All African startups and technology innovators are eligible to apply for the challenge. They are to choose from different areas of interest as listed on the website and build a demo to serve as prototype — applicants without demo would be disqualified.
  • The Challenge is open to both teams and individuals.
  • Teams can submit solutions for more than one challenge but are limited to only one entry per challenge (“Entry”).
  • Individuals are not allowed to participate in multiple teams. Switching teams after applying is not allowed. Ecobank will cover travel and accommodation costs for up to two participants from each team.
Number of Awardees: 20 teams

Value of Contest:
Become a finalist; get inducted as an Ecobank Fintech Fellow and stand a chance to explore the following opportunities:
  • Multinational Product Roll Out
  • Competition Cash Prizes
  • Service Provider Partnerships
  • Access To Ecobank’s Pan-African Banking Sandbox
  • Mentoring And Networking Support
  • Integration With Existing Ecobank Digital Offerings
How to Apply: Interested participants can apply here

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Sankore Fellowship 2020 for Young Africans (to work with African presidents)

Application Deadline: 4th May 2020 before 11:59pm GMT.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country): African countries

About the Award: The Sankore Program is the “Caravan Scholars Program”, under the big umbrella of the “Caravan Africa Project”, to provide young people the opportunity to work with African Presidents (Leaders) to conceive ground-breaking ideas and identify viable strategies to bring them to life. Each year, a diverse group of mid-career professionals will begin a journey to hone their leadership abilities through interactions with presidents and key presidential staff and administration officials.
Sankore Program connects ambitious young leaders from various professional backgrounds with respected African presidents, equips them with the skills and abilities to execute projects that the African leaders will uphold and promote as essential components of their legacy. Built on the foundation of the Caravan African model, the presidential projects will focus on areas such as, but not limited to, agro-industrialisation, digital transformation, rural tourism, innovation and leadership, etc. It will serve as an opportunity for young leaders to shadow iconic African presidents and learn from their leadership skills while building their own network.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

  • Each successful scholar shall be between the ages of 25 and 39 at the time of applying.
  • Successful scholars must have 5-15 years of working experience.
  • Experience in visioning and/or the research/analytical work essential for designing, executing and managing complex projects.
  • Fluent in oral and written English. Ability to communicate in French and/or Portuguese shall offer candidates a strong advantage.
  • Fellow must be African and currently living in Africa at the time of the application or temporarily based outside Africa for educational, business or professional reasons.
  • Be willing to dedicate 12 months of his/her time to this fellowship and its activities and commit to focus solely on fellowship activities during the fellowship duration.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value and Duration of Award: Fellows will have the opportunity to work with renowned and respected African presidents in a manner coordinated by the AfroChampions Initiative to promote synergies among the Caravan-related projects of the selected leaders.
Selected Fellows will typically spend a year working as assistants to presidents, vice presidents, senior government staff, cabinet secretaries and other top-ranking government officials but with an exclusive focus on harnessing practical opportunities arising from the policy development and national budgeting process to drive the success of field incubators for youth-led microenterprises and grassroots interventions, particularly those sponsored through Caravan.
Fellows also will participate in an education program consisting of roundtable discussions with leaders from the private and public sectors, and trips to study government policy in action both domestically and internationally. Fellowships are awarded on a strictly meritocratic basis. The Sankore Fellowship activities include:
  • PRESIDENTIAL INTIATIVE: Scholars will have the opportunity to work with African presidents’ staff to develop projects that will be considered legacy projects for African president to lead after their term of office has ended. Participants will develop project concept notes, budget and implementation strategies for identified projects.
  • SHADOWING: Scholars will have the opportunity to follow and observe the selected president’s daily activities and political trips while executing tasks such as taking briefing notes, drafting memos for Staffing and presidential advisors, shuttling between cabinet meetings, attending presidential briefing sessions and field excursions. This gives participants a peep into the cockpit, of the African presidents, as a co-pilot in a real environment which not many can experience throughout their professional life.
  • VIDEO CONFERENCING: Participants shall engage in monthly videoconferencing with other participants working in the different presidential palaces to learn from each other and identify opportunities for collaboration on presidential projects.
  • ANNUAL GATHERING: Annual in-person gatherings for fellows to learn skills building around leadership development, communications, public policy and project management. Scholars will have the opportunity to present project developed at the annual AfroChampions Summit.
  • BLOGGING: Participants will have the opportunity to write short reflection blogposts about their experience and leadership lessons learnt from working with the African presidents.
  • EDUCATIONAL TRAINING: Scholars will take tailored online courses focused on four core leadership skills: Vision and Communication, Decision Making, Persuasion and Influence, and Strategic Partnerships and project management.
How to Apply: To apply, click here.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Access to disability funding for Australian children depends on wealth

Max Newman

Waiting times for children under the age of six to access disability support under the Australian government’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) depend on the wealth of the suburb in which the child lives.
An investigation carried out by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has revealed this latest example of how social inequality produces unequal access to health and related services, intensifying the gulf between rich and poor.
Children born with developmental delays, such as autism, require an assessment before receiving funding under the NDIS. These assessments, used to discover the underlying cause of the developmental delay, are typically completed by a multi-disciplinary team, including a physiotherapist, occupational therapist, psychologist and speech pathologist.
It is critical for these children to receive early intervention supports as rapidly as possible. Research demonstrates that early supports are crucial for development and can enable some people with a disability to live with little to no assistance.
In Sydney, Australia’s largest city, children living just one hour away from each other face dramatically different times to receive an assessment. In the wealthy suburb of Randwick, at Sydney’s Children’s Hospital, children wait two to ten months for an assessment.
By contrast, in the poorer suburb of Campbelltown, hospital records demonstrate children are waiting at least a year for an assessment. One child waited 697 days and another 640 days.
Shanice Rees told the ABC that her son William waited 15 months to see the specialist team at Campbelltown hospital, where he was diagnosed with autism. While waiting she received no funding from the NDIS.
Speaking on ABC radio, Rees said: “They say, ‘early intervention, you’ve got to catch it early.’ I’d love to catch it early, but it’s up to you to help me get it early, and not wait until we’re 12 months out from school, and that’s when we get the help—it’s ridiculous.”
The situation is similar in Melbourne, the country’s second largest city. In the inner-city suburb of Parkville, wait times at The Royal Children’s Hospital are, on average, six months. However, children in the southeastern suburb of Clayton wait, on average, 12 months for an assessment at Monash Children’s Hospital.
The disparity may even be greater. The ABC revealed that Monash Children’s Hospital rejected half of all referrals for developmental delays because it lacked service capacity. Freedom of Information (FOI) data revealed that if these referrals were accepted “wait times would be in excess of four years.”
Moreover, the statistics fail to capture the number of children not seen in the public sector. Many families, who are desperate for support, are turning to the private health system to get assessments, which can cost thousands of dollars.
Federal Government Services and NDIS Minister Stuart Robert tried to dismiss the investigation, stating: “If you have a child under the age of 6 who you believe has a developmental delay, you can take them straight into an early childhood, early intervention partner.” He claimed: “You do not need a diagnosis to seek access to the NDIS.”
In practice, this is a lie. To access the Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) program, a professional must identify a developmental delay. For any long-term early intervention supports, a diagnosis must be made.
“Without a diagnosis you’re not helped” commented April Whitley, who lives in Campbelltown with her two-year-old son Ayden, who is diagnosed with autism. “If you have a diagnosis you can get funding to help you whereas if you don’t have it, it’s like you’re not there.”
Robert, the minister, also told the ABC that the wait times for a diagnosis was strictly a state government issue, stating the federal government does “not have any plans to step in and solve the failings of state hospitals because that is their responsibility.”
While state and federal governments blame each other, all work together to transfer wealth from public services into big business. In New South Wales, Labor and Liberal-National Coalition governments alike have overseen the dismantling of the public health services, creating a social crisis in the state’s poorest suburbs.
In Victoria, a Liberal state government undertook a wrecking operation of the public healthcare system in the 1990s, closing 17 hospitals across the state. Subsequent state Labor governments continued this process, introducing public-private partnerships (PPPs), which saw the looting of public assets and became a national model for the demands of big business.
The NDIS is part of this process. First introduced by the Greens-backed federal Labor government in 2012, the scheme was supported by the Coalition and the trade unions. It was modelled on recommendations by the Productivity Commission, a pro-market body that specialises in the privatisation of public services.
Heralded as a progressive social reform, the reality was that the NDIS is designed to further privatise the provision of social services, leading inevitably to greater health and social inequality.

German department store chain Real to be broken up, threatening 34,000 jobs

Dietmar Gaisenkersting

The piecemeal breakup of the Real department store chain has begun following Metro AG’s announcement last week of the sale of the chain to a property investor.
The CEO of the wholesale giant Metro, Olaf Koch, sold Real to the Russian investor SCP Group, which cooperates with the German real estate investor X+Bricks. The 300 million euro deal affects 276 stores plus Real’s digital business, including the online marketplace real.de, and 80 other properties.
“Around 34,000 employees will be taken over with their contracts under the previous conditions,” Metro declared last Friday. But the jobs of the 34,000 employees will not stand in the way of the real estate sharks making a profit: the new owners announced they will not retain a single store for more than two years if necessary.
In an interview with business daily Handelsblatt, the head of the SCP group, Marjorie Brabet-Friel, indicated that the department store chain will be broken up. “Real as it is today is not sustainable,” she said. Most of the 276 stores will likely be resold to competitors, such as Kaufland and Edeka.
Some of the Real department stores are to be converted for variable use, so that several companies, such as grocery and drugstore chains Rewe, Aldi, Lidl and DM, can move in. At least 30 stores will be closed. The SCP Group is also giving up the digital business.
Werner Klockhaus, chairman of the General Works Council, warned that there could immediately be “about 10,000 unemployed,” i.e., almost one in three employees.
Not even 20 percent of the stores will continue to operate under the Real brand. Some 50 stores will remain under the umbrella of the SCP Group for two years. Savings are to be achieved primarily by obtaining lower prices in purchasing. In other words, the employees of the suppliers—workers at wholesalers and meat factories, as well as farmers—are to be further exploited so as to secure the profits of the real estate speculators. If the resulting businesses do not make sufficient profits, they too will be closed or resold. In view of the already ruinous price war, the outlook for these stores appears bleak.
All employees whose jobs are sold off along with their stores will have to prepare for new wage cuts because Real’s competitors are expected to pay even lower rates. The daily Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote that Real’s already low wages were not “competitive” with “market-dominant competitors” such as Edeka and Rewe, which pay their cashiers and warehouse staff up to 30 percent less.
At present, it is not even known which Real stores are to be closed, sold or converted. “You have to look at each location separately,” Brabet-Friel explained in Handelsblatt. “Some are already very successful, others need a new partner to become successful again.”
The workers are to be strung along for another four to five months, when it should be clear which Real stores will close.
Meanwhile, competitors are circling the ailing company like vultures. Kaufland already has a list of stores in which the company, part of the Lidl empire, is interested, reports Lebensmittel Zeitung. Kaufland wants to take over at least 100 stores, mainly in North Rhine-Westphalia and Northern Germany, where the company has opened only a few so far. Apparently, the focus of interest is on smaller stores with an average of 5,500 square metres of sales area. But Kaufland also plans to take over two large Real stores in Baden-Württemberg, in the towns of Karlsruhe-Durlach and Böblingen-Hulb.
Real employees face a similar fate as the 25,000 mainly women who worked for Schlecker. They lost their jobs in 2012 when the drugstore chain went bankrupt.
And like Schlecker, the Verdi trade union has supported and prepared all this. In 2007, Real had almost 350 stores, today there are 276. Verdi has protested loudly against the store closures and wage cuts Real has implemented in recent years. But it has never mobilized Real employees nationwide to take industrial action, let alone appealing for support from other sectors. Metro AG has long been able to rely on the unions, with which it works behind the workers’ backs.
For example, Werner Klockhaus, head of the works council, is also deputy chairman of the Metro AG Supervisory Board. He is in close contact with company management and also with the chairman of the Supervisory Board, Jürgen Steinemann, who, according to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, pushed through the resolution to sell off the chain using his double vote in the 20-member body.
Klockhaus and Verdi have been conning Real employees for years with ever new demands on the group’s owners, management and federal politicians. Last July, almost 600 Real works council members demanded “a socially acceptable sale of Real” in a petition to the federal government.
The works council members knew that the sale was a foregone conclusion, writing, “As things stand today, it looks like a break-up.” Led by Verdi, they had nothing better to do than ask the federal government to “face up to your responsibility and support us.” As if the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats represented workers’ interests and not those of big business!
It was therefore not difficult to foresee that Labour Minister Hubertus Heil (Social Democratic Party—SPD) would not keep the promise he had made in 2018 to protesting Real workers. Heil had pledged that he would “send a signal against abandoning collective agreements” and “stand up for the industry-level wage agreement.” At that time, the World Socialist Web Site wrote, “Nothing has happened to date, and the federal government will also do nothing.”
The government and the whole of federal politics represent the political and economic interests of the ruling elites, the banks, shareholders, real estate funds and large corporations. The trade unions have represented the same interests for many years. They have totally aligned themselves with their national governments and corporations.
Now that the sale has been sealed, Verdi is continuing business as usual. “Everything seems to revolve around retail real estate and other profitable properties,” the union complains in a recent leaflet about the sale of the Real chain. It impotently protests that Metro and Real have shirked their social obligations. Now it is “up to the current and future buyers to behave differently and show responsibility,” the union declares.
A month ago, the WSWS wrote: “Workers must draw political conclusions from this situation. The trade unions do not speak on the workers’ behalf. Real workers must take their fate in their own hands and take up a fight to defend their jobs and their standard of living. The conditions for such a struggle exist—but the crucial thing is to organize independently of the unions. Their representatives must not be politically trusted.”
The initiative for an alternative to Verdi and the other unions must come from workers themselves. Independent action committees must be formed. These must stand up internationally against internationally operating corporations and represent the social interests of the working class without compromise. The interests of the real estate companies, banks, corporations and big shareholders cannot be reconciled with those of Real employees.
In January, the WSWS pointed out that the need for an international strategy was particularly evident in the case of Metro AG. “Only last October, the group divested all parts of the company in China and put the Chinese workers at 97 wholesale stores in essentially the same situation as the Real workers.”

Britain and European Union on collision course in Brexit talks

Peter Schwarz

The European Union and the British government presented documents this week outlining their goals for upcoming talks on their future relationship. The documents contradict each other so sharply that an agreement seems all but impossible. Bitter conflicts with unpredictable economic, political, and social implications are immanent.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has threatened to break off talks if an agreement is not in sight by the end of June. London would then focus its preparations on a no-deal Brexit when the transitional period expires at the end of 2020, Johnson said.
For his part, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier stated that he expects “extremely difficult talks.” “We will not reach an agreement at any price,” he warned.
The 27 ministers from the EU member states agreed on red lines for the talks on Monday. They are offering Britain a free trade agreement with no tariffs or quantitative restrictions, but only if London sticks to the majority of EU rules and regulations.
In concrete terms, the 46-page document refers to rules for state assistance to private companies, economic competition, state-owned companies, labour and social welfare regulations, environmental standards, climate change and related taxes, all of which must be in line with EU policies.
These demands are being justified with reference to “fair competition.” European social democratic politicians in particular are leading calls to oppose “wage dumping” and the “junking of environmental regulations,” which is an absurdity if one considers the miserably low wages workers are forced to accept in Eastern Europe, Greece and other countries.
There are two reasons why the EU is adopting such a hardline approach.
First, it is focused on securing its own economic benefits. The main issue is “to protect the interests of the Europeans,” commented French State Secretary Amelie de Montchalin. France has long been pushing for even tougher language in the passages of the document dealing with competition. EU Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen warned at the beginning of the month, “There is no free pass into the common market, but merely rights and obligations.”
The second reason is the fear of a break-up of the EU if concessions are made to London. Eastern European countries could feel emboldened to demand a relaxation of regulations from Brussels.
German and French government officials have therefore repeatedly praised the unity with which the 27 member states have approached the negotiations with London. “We cannot allow ourselves to be divided,” remarked German State Secretary for Europe Michael Roth. French State Secretary de Montchalin enthused, “The unity among us is complete.”
One can be certain that behind the scenes a large number of “offers you can’t refuse” are being made to retain this unity.
For Johnson and his government of hard Brexiteers, these conditions are unacceptable. One of their main goals in their Brexit campaign was to free themselves from the EU’s rules and regulations so as to press ahead with the deregulation of the economy.
Although the British negotiating mandate calls for “a liberalised market for trade in goods, with no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions on trade in manufactured or agricultural products,” it opposes the EU conditions connected to this. London also wants to negotiate certain issues separately, including those in which it feels it has a strong position or particularly vital interests.
For example, it wants to “regain control over our waters” by allowing EU fishing boats only limited access to lucrative British fishing grounds, in line with a quota system to be revised each year. This threatens the livelihoods of many French and Spanish fishermen.
The British government also demands “an agreement on equivalence on financial services to be decided before the end of June.” Additionally, it no longer intends to accept rulings from the European Court of Justice, or European arrest warrants and arbitration rulings.
The British government categorically opposes lengthening the 11-month transitional period during which nothing changes in the relationship between London and the EU, even though experts say it will be virtually impossible to reach a deal within this time frame.
Michael Gove, the minister responsible for Brexit, told the House of Commons that there “should be no doubt: At the end of the transition period, on December 31, the United Kingdom will fully recover its economic and political independence.” He added, “We want the best possible trading relationship with the EU, but in a pursuit of a deal we will not trade away our sovereignty.”
Opponents of Brexit believe that Johnson has already decided to prepare for a no-deal exit. Scottish National Party spokesman Pete Wishart described the British government’s offer to the EU as “a load of bunkum, baloney and codswallop.” He continued: “This is nothing other than a routemap to the cherished no deal—the real ambition of these Brexit zealots.“
The economic consequences of a separation without an agreement would be horrendous for both sides. Trade relations would be regulated only by the terms of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), with correspondingly high tariffs. Trade between the EU and Britain, which in 2017 amounted to goods worth a total of £423 billion, would collapse. International supply chains would be broken by tariffs and long delays, and access for banks and service providers would be restricted.
But although economic experts and industry bosses are warning of the consequences of failing to reach an agreement, London and Brussels are on a collision course. The reason for this seemingly irrational behaviour is the advanced stage of the bankruptcy of global capitalism.
The struggle for markets and profits is resulting in the incitement of nationalism and war, as it did a century ago. Donald Trump’s slogan of “America first” has been translated into every language and dialect.
The working class cannot afford to tie its fate to any of the competing camps. Instead, it must unite its forces in a cross-border struggle against war, social spending cuts and dictatorship. The British section of the International Committee of the Fourth International refused from the outset to join either the Brexit or remain camps. The Socialist Equality Party called for an active boycott of the Brexit referendum and continues to fight for the international unification of the working class in the struggle for the United Socialist States of Europe.

Israel’s deepening poverty, social inequality ignored in election campaign

Jean Shaoul

In the run up to the general election on March 2, there has been virtually no mention of the deepening crisis facing the Israeli working class.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz’s blocs both ignore the soaring cost of living, high levels of social inequality, the 26 percent poverty rate and the impact of a rising military budget on already woeful social services and public infrastructure.
Several reports, including those of Israel’s National Insurance Institute (NII) and the Adva Center, an anti-poverty advocacy group, highlight the impact that decades of neo-liberal policies, introduced by Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he was finance minister in the National Unity Government in the 1980s, have had on Israeli workers and their families.
According to the NII, some 26 percent of households were in poverty or near poverty in 2018. The depth of poverty had also increased, with poor families averaging an income 32 percent below the poverty line, up from 27.7 percent the previous year. This puts Israel at 10 percent higher on the Gini index of income inequality than the OECD average.
The young and the old have been particularly badly affected.
Of the 1.8 million people living below the poverty line, a massive 841,000 were children. This is an underestimate because the report was unable to include data from East Jerusalem, illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967 war and predominantly Arab, due to unreliable data and sampling problems. The children’s poverty rates place Israel second to the bottom, after Turkey, in the OECD rankings.
The NII report noted that in 2016, nearly half of Arab households—49.2 percent—were below the poverty line, up from 42.6 percent the previous year, compared with 13.2 percent of Jewish households. Among the Jewish population, the group with the highest poverty rate was that of Ethiopian immigrants—22.8 percent—who face widespread discrimination.
According to the Adva Center, more than 22 percent of workers earn low wages, a much higher figure than the 15 percent average for OECD countries in 2017, where a low wage is defined as less than two-thirds of the median wage. In 2017, 33.6 percent of Israeli workers earned no more than the minimum wage, up from 30.8 percent in 2015, indicating that many of the new jobs are low-paid jobs.
Israel’s middle class has shrunk more than almost all those of other OECD countries except Estonia and Lithuania, with only 54 percent of households considered middle class.
The plight of the elderly is particularly shocking. Israel has some of the highest rates of poverty among pensioners, with nearly half of elderly households in 2018 without a pension, compared to an OECD average of 12 percent. It is even worse among older pensioners: one in every four pensioners over the age of 76 lives in poverty.
This is set to get worse, with 21 percent of households headed by salaried or self-employed persons unable to save for retirement, while the government plans to cut the already inadequate state-funded pension. While the government agreed to postpone the cut until April, following protest demonstrations, pensioners have vowed to return to the streets if the cuts go ahead. Some 22 percent of those over the age of 65 and a staggering 12 percent of those over 70 are forced to continue working, adding to Israel’s pool of cheap labour.
State pensions, at only 28 percent of the average wage, are among the lowest in the developed world, just over half the OECD average, with the government spending only 4.8 percent of GDP on pensions, compared to the OECD average of 8 percent.
Among some of the poorest in Israeli society are the disabled. According to Israel's Statistics Bureau, poverty levels among people with disabilities rose from 19 percent in 2003 to 24 percent in 2014. Earlier this month, hundreds of disabled people returned to the streets of Tel Aviv carrying banners stating, “Promises are meant to be kept,” to demand the government honour its commitment, enacted in legislation, to raise disability benefits, following a long, drawn-out campaign marked by road blocks and confrontations with the police.
The cost of medical insurance marketed by health funds and insurance companies, along with co-payments for medications and treatments, has become a huge financial burden, rising from NIS 4.6 billion (in 2018 prices) or $1.35 billion, in 2000, to NIS 14.4 billion or $4.21 billion, in 2018, a threefold increase. This has forced the elderly and disabled to cut back on treatment and medication.
The enormous cost of housing, which sparked nationwide weeks-long protests in 2011 and has impoverished hundreds of thousands of families, serves as yet another mechanism for transferring wealth to the rich. Some 70 percent of all housing rents (NIS 17.06 billion or $4.99 billion) goes to households in the top three income deciles, with the top income decile alone raking in a massive 42 percent of all rental income.
The Latet organization, which provides various welfare and food aid services to the poor, warned that it expected these trends to worsen in the 2019 report, to be published next December, and accused the government of “a continued policy that forsakes a quarter of Israeli citizens and a third of its children.”
Its report, published last December, paints an even worse picture than that of the NII, with some 2.3 million Israelis, including one million children, living below the poverty line. It found that nearly one-fifth of Israelis, over 1.6 million people, suffer from food insecurity, a 2-point increase over the previous year.
Vered Windman, executive director of the Israel National Council for the Child, said the NII report showed the failure of the government’s economic and social policies, “which dooms almost one in three children to lacking health, education and welfare and harms their human dignity.” She also blamed the lack of a functioning government over the past year.
These social conditions testify to the decay of bourgeois democracy and the rise of a financial aristocracy in the 71-year-old state. They have developed amid a global eruption of inter-imperialist antagonisms provoked by the bitter competition between rival powers for control of the world’s markets and the turn to protectionism, trade war and stepped-up threats of war. The growth of these tensions is expressed politically in the lurch to the right by all the major parties and imperialist governments. To remain globally competitive means an endless assault on the jobs, wages and conditions of the working class that demands authoritarian forms of rule.
Social conditions make in Israel today constitute a veritable powder keg. As the different factions representing Israel’s financial and corporate elite fight it out for control, a vast movement is building among the working class in the Middle East and internationally.

WHO says coronavirus danger is “very high”

Benjamin Mateus

The World Health Organization (WHO) has upgraded its assessment of the danger posed by the coronavirus to “very high,” stopping short of calling the outbreak a pandemic. Director-General Tedros said at a recent press conference, “For the moment, we are not witnessing the uncontained global spread of this virus, and we are not witnessing large-scale severe death or disease.” The coronavirus has now been documented in at least 56 countries.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the 2019-nCoV virus has caused death resulting from the illness as well as sustained person-to-person spread criteria. The worldwide spread is the third criterion in determining a contagion as a pandemic. According to Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization, “If we say there’s a pandemic of coronavirus, we’re essentially accepting that every human on the planet will be exposed to that virus.”
These statements reflect the WHO’s belief that containment measures can still bring the “epidemic” under effective control. However, as the number of cases outside of mainland China continues to outpace China with new countries being added to the growing list of countries that have confirmed new cases of Covid-19, it seems that time is of the essence. Still, some countries like Vietnam, Nepal, and Singapore, as well as more recently China, have shown early indications that the infection has slowed or stopped in these countries.
A declaration of a pandemic would employ emergency-grade response plans at local and state levels. These measures would include school closures, the use of essential personnel only, use of telecommunication for the conduct of business, closure of public events – sporting events, conferences, political rallies and conventions – and the possible use of massive quarantine measures to include the deployment of military or police forces to enforce regulations. These measures have been employed by many nations who are essentially preparing for massive outbreaks in their communities.
The last time the WHO declared a pandemic was in 2009 when the H1N1 flu, better known as the swine flu, infected over 1 billion people on the globe and killed over half a million people. The WHO was severely criticized for its declaration of a pandemic and handling of the crisis. They were cited for the needlessly complex definition of a pandemic, potential conflict of interest with the vaccine industries, and responding with lack of resolve after declaring the pandemic. According to the New York Times, “Countries that needed technical help could not obtain it in enough languages, and the WHO bureaucracy created an unmanageable number of documents.”
During a 2011 review of the pandemic, they noted in their draft that the “core national and local capacities called for in the International Health regulation (IHR) are not yet fully operational and are not now on a path to timely implementation worldwide.” Essentially, the WHO lacks enforceable sanctions. In other words, it cannot make countries ascribe to their recommendations.
In their Summary conclusion 3: The world is ill-prepared to respond to a severe influenza pandemic or any similarly global, sustained, and threatening public health emergency. Beyond the implementation of core public health capacities called for in the IHR, global preparedness can be advanced through research, strengthened health-care delivery systems, economic development in low and middle-income countries ad improved health status.
There are presently 84,175 cases of Covid-19, with 2,876 deaths so far. Thirty-six thousand eight hundred eighty-four people have recovered. The three countries posing serious acceleration in cases – Iran, Italy, and South Korea – have reported more than 3,500 infections on Friday, doubling in two days. On Friday, Iran had 388 cases (+143 from the day before) with 34 deaths (+8); Italy 889 (+234) with 21 deaths (+4); South Korea 2,337 (+571) with 16 deaths (+3). The high number of deaths in Iran is worrisome as it suggests the epidemic is much more expansive than reported. Additionally, a case confirmed in Nigeria has the WHO worried that the outbreak could take a foothold in Africa, which could have devastating consequences. China has only had eight new cases and no new deaths.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average has lost over 3,200 points in one week, suffering its worst week since the financial crisis in 2008. Goldman Sachs has told its investors that they do not expect US companies to generate earnings growth in 2020. With the warning by the CDC that it is only a matter of time that the coronavirus will find impact, the US has sent the markets into an epileptic fit. Supply chains are almost non-existent, and production and shipping have come to a grinding halt.
A high-ranking whistleblower informed the Washington Post that federal health employees sent to Travis Airforce Base to assist with quarantined evacuees from Japan openly interacted with them without proper medical training or protective gear.
This followed news that a California woman, currently in critical condition at UC Davis Medical Center, had been infected with no direct link to anyone traveling from the affected countries raising the suspicion that the source of her infection may have come from someone at Travis Air Force Base. It is unclear if any of the HHS personnel were contaminated or are the source of the infection in California. A second person in Santa Clara County has now been identified without any links heightening the suspicion that the infection is taking hold there.
The US Navy also confirmed on Friday that they had ordered ships in the Pacific Fleet that have traveled to affected countries, approximately 30 to 40 vessels, to remain at sea for fourteen days while they monitor the several thousands of sailors for possible signs of infection. One American military soldier based in Daegu, South Korea, has tested positive for Covid-19.
Meanwhile, new infections are erupting in Europe with its porous borders as France and Germany are reporting new cases without travel links suggesting the infection, given its two-week incubation period, has become well established in these regions. Mexico has also confirmed its first case. It is not a matter of if but a matter of when the WHO will declare a pandemic.

Stock market fall continues at record speed

Nick Beams

The global stock market plunge continued yesterday, bringing to a close the worst week since the financial crisis of 2008.
On Wall Street, the Dow fell more than 600 points on opening and continued to decline by more than 1,000 points. After a day of swings, it finished the day down by 357 points, or 1.38 percent, after a surge in the last 20 minutes of trading.
A measure of the speed of the fall can be seen from the fact that when Wall Street indexes reached an all-time record high on Wednesday of last week, the Dow was within touching distance of 30,000. Yesterday it dropped to below 25,000 at times.
As one somewhat stunned investment funds manager cited by the Wall Street Journal commented: “This has been really quick, really deep, and in some respects unbelievable.”
Leuthold Group chief investment strategist Jim Paulsen told the business channel CNBC there was a “full panic,” reminding him of the dramatic fall in October 1987.
The VIX index, which measures volatility and is regarded as Wall Street’s “fear gauge,” reached over 47 yesterday, one of its highest levels since the global financial crisis.
Another indication of the mounting crisis and its effects on the real economy is the continued fall in the yield on the 10-year US Treasury bond. Yesterday it hit a new all-time record low of 1.157 percent, as investors sought a safe haven.
Yesterday’s fall was eased for a short time following a statement by Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell indicating that he stands ready to intervene with a further cut in interest rates. But this was short-lived and the slide resumed.
The Fed statement said that while the fundamentals of the US economy “remain strong,” the coronavirus posed “evolving risks” and the Fed was “closely monitoring” developments and would “use our tools and act as appropriate to support the economy.”
The central bank is almost certain to cut interest rates, perhaps even before its scheduled March meeting, by at least 0.25 and possibly 0.50 percentage points. But apart from providing a potential short-term boost to the stock market, any rate cut will have little or no effect.
This is because the dangers posed by the coronavirus to the economy are linked not to a lack of demand, but to a halt in production.
Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Olivier Blanchard said a Fed cut of 25 basis points would not make much of a difference because the spread of the coronavirus represented a “supply shock,” taking workers out of production.
“Cuts in rates would be symbolic but not useful,” he said.
The deputy governor of the Bank of England, Sir Jon Cunliff, told economists at a forum in London that if the coronavirus proved to be “a pure supply shock, there is not much that we can do about it.”
Yesterday’s further fall on Wall Street followed a sell-off in Asian and European markets, which are all down by at least 10 percent over the past week. The Stoxx Europe 600 index was down 3.5 cent yesterday, while the Japanese, South Korean and Australian markets all closed more than 3 percent lower.
Every financial storm has its own peculiarities, but this one is displaying features indicating that long-term mechanisms that have sustained the stock market may be starting to break down. For the past three decades and more, stretching back to the stock market crash of 1987, the US Federal Reserve has acted as backstop for the market in any significant downturn.
It has fueled a vast inflation of asset values, enabling the stock market to serve as the chief mechanism for the funneling of wealth from the working class to the financial elite.
Given this record, and the belief that the Fed would once again ride to the rescue, coupled with the view that the coronavirus crisis and its economic effects could be confined largely to China and would be relatively short-lived, global stock markets powered ahead from the start of the year.
Ten days ago, even as it was becoming clear that both the virus and its economic effects were spreading, Wall Street reached a record high.
Since then, the S&P 500 index has fallen by 12 percent, its fastest decline from a record high into so-called “correction” territory in history, with some $3.4 trillion wiped off share values.
The markets will no doubt welcome an interest rate cut and the injection of further cash via quantitative easing if the Fed decides to go down that road. But the effects will be limited because monetary measures can do nothing to secure the resumption of production and the restoration of global supply chains disrupted by the spread of the coronavirus.
Furthermore, the very measures undertaken by the Fed and other central banks since the crisis of 2008, while securing the rise of financial markets, have created the conditions for another disaster, rooted in rise of debt, and particularly corporate debt.
The provision of ultra-cheap money to financial markets, both through interest rate cuts and quantitative easing, has resulted in the overwhelming majority of corporate bonds being either below investment grade status, so-called junk bonds, or rated BBB, just one notch above junk status.
This means that a recession, or even a significant downturn, could set off a financial crisis more serious than that of a decade ago. There are already warnings that US profit growth will be zero this year and global growth will fall to levels not experienced since 2009.
While it is not possible to predict the exact outcome of this so-called “black swan” event—a completely unanticipated economic shock—one thing is certain. If the economic and financial effects of the coronavirus outbreak continue to deepen, the reaction of the state and financial authorities, which function in the US and around the world as executive committees for the protection of the financial oligarchy, will be the same.
They will intensify the attacks on the social conditions of the working class through the further destruction of jobs, the lowering of wages and the continued gutting of social services. This is not a mere prediction. It emerges from the historical record, especially since the financial crisis of 2008, one of the consequences of which is the incapacity of health services in every country to deal with a coronavirus pandemic because of endless cuts.

India: Death toll in BJP-instigated violence in Delhi rises to 38

Wasantha Rupasinghe

After three days during which Delhi was convulsed by horrific communal violence, instigated by local leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), police and government authorities claimed Thursday that “order” had been restored to India’s national capital.
By all accounts, Delhi and especially the city’s northeast—ground-zero for the city’s worst communal violence in decades— remain on tenterhooks.
Relatives and neighbors wail near the body of Mohammad Mudasir, 31, who was killed in communal violence in New Delhi, India, Thursday, Feb. 27, 2020 (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)
Yesterday, thousands of police and paramilitaries were deployed, and Delhi’s streets and the city’s northeast remained under curfew and other restrictions under Section 144 of the country’s criminal code.
With the violence subsiding, traumatized Delhi residents began to take stock of the damage to their homes, shops, neighbourhoods, and lives. Whether the Muslims who fled in terror from dwellings in integrated areas will be able to return to their homes—now, or ever—is entirely unclear.
Yesterday, as more bodies were found and several persons who had previously been hospitalized succumbed to their injuries, the official death toll rose by 10 to 38. The seriously injured number in the hundreds.
This week’s events constitute far and away the worst outbreak of communal violence in Delhi since 1984, when Congress Party leaders instigated an anti-Sikh pogrom, following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Evidence, including from CCTV footage, photographs and cell-phone videos, has begun to emerge that depicts not only vicious communalist attacks on Muslims and the torching of Muslim-owned homes and businesses, but also the connivance of the Delhi police in Hindu supremacist violence. There are numerous eyewitness accounts of police officers allowing Hindu thugs to attack Muslims unimpeded and even joining in their attacks.
Although the Delhi National Capital Territory (NCT) is governed by a rival party, the Delhi police are under the control of the national BJP government, not the NCT administration, and directly answerable to Home Minister Amit Shah, the chief henchman of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Shah, like Modi, is a notorious Hindu supremacist.
The BJP is furiously trying to shift the blame for the Delhi rampage onto its political rivals. This includes claims that the opposition parties “agitated” Muslims and encouraged “violent” anti-government protests over the past two months, with their denunciations of the recently adopted and patently anti-Muslim, Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
But nothing can cover up the political responsibility of Modi and his BJP government for the explosion of Hindu communalist violence in India’s capital.
In response to a sharp downturn in India’s economy and the growth of social opposition, above al,l from the working class, the BJP government has accelerated implementation of its Hindu supremacist agenda over the past year.
By ramming through measures that repudiate in all but name India’s claim to be a secular state and assert Hindu primacy, Modi, the BJP and their ideological mentors in the fascistic RSS aim to embolden their Hindu chauvinist supporters, and disorient and split the working class.
Since last December, Delhi has been at the centre of the wave of anti-CAA protests that has engulfed the country, uniting workers, students and professionals across ethnic, religious and caste lines.
Unnerved by the scope and intensity of the opposition to the CAA, Modi and his BJP have lashed out with state violence and communalist incitement. During the campaign for this month’s Delhi assembly election, BJP leaders boasted about the bloody suppression of anti-CAA protests by the BJP state government in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh, in which some 20 people died. They also publicly advocated violence against anti-CAA protesters, leading their supporters in chants of “shoot them down.”
By all accounts the immediate trigger for the communal violence was the “ultimatum” issued last Sunday by a local BJP leader Kipal Mishra. After mobilizing his followers to occupy a street in northeast Delhi, he announced that if the Delhi police did not clear the streets of anti-CAA protesters within “three days,” he and his supporters would do it.
Clashes between Mishra’s followers and Muslims soon followed, and on Monday, as visiting US President Donald Trump was singing Modi’s praises, northeast Delhi was engulfed in communal violence.
India’s prime minister was conspicuously silent on the violence until Wednesday, when he issued a series of vapid tweets, appealing to his “brothers and sisters” to maintain “peace and brotherhood.”
At a press conference Tuesday shortly before leaving India, Trump, eager to expand Washington’s anti-China strategic partnership with India, went out of his way to praise Modi and his government for upholding “religious freedom.”
India’s judiciary has a long and infamous record of aiding and abetting the Hindu right.
But on Wednesday, a Delhi High Court judge felt obliged to admonish the police for not taking any legal action against three BJP leaders—the aforementioned Kapil Mishra; Anurag Thakur, Modi’s Minister of State for Finance; and West Delhi MP Parvesh Verma— who had delivered anti-Muslim hate speeches, creating the political climate for this week’s events, if not directly inciting the violence.
“In this city, we cannot allow another 1984 riot,” said Justice Muralidhar, referring to the anti-Sikh pogrom which claimed more than 2,700 victims.
After noting that the police had not even filed First Information Reports (FIR), that is, opened a criminal investigation against the BJP leaders, Justice Muralidhar said, “These speeches are leading to more speeches. When you don’t register an FIR, a wrong message goes out. People aren’t deterred from repeating it. Is it not a cause for alarm?” Acting on behalf of the BJP government, Solicitor General Tusha Metha sloughed off the court’s criticisms, saying it would reply when the situation is “conducive.”
Within hours of this exchange, the Ministry of Law and Justice in a transparent act of retribution transferred Justice S. Muralidhar from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Turkey bombs Syria after losing dozens of troops to Syrian-Russian airstrike

Alex Lantier

The Turkish military bombed targets across Syria last night and early this morning, after dozens of its soldiers died in airstrikes near the strategic town of Saraqeb in northern Syria’s Idlib province.
Anonymous Western officials told the press early this morning that Turkey has requested an urgent meeting of the NATO alliance under Article 5 of the alliance’s founding treaty, which calls for military consultation among members when one member state’s security is threatened. The danger is growing that all-out war could erupt between NATO and the Syrian government’s major international backers, Iran and Russia.
Turkish backed rebel fighters fire a howitzer toward Syrian government’s forces positions near the village of Neirab in Idlib province, Syria, February 20, 2020 [Credit: AP Photo/Ghaith Alsayed]
For weeks, Syrian government troops backed by Moscow have fought to expel Turkish-backed militias from their last stronghold they built up inside Syria during the nine-year NATO proxy war in Syria. In recent weeks, Russian-backed Syrian government troops had taken back control of dozens of towns including Saraqeb. Yesterday, however, Syrian Al Qaeda-linked militias backed by Turkish troops briefly retook Saraqeb.
Earlier yesterday, Russia’s Rossiya 24 television reported that Russian warplanes were under fire from Turkish troops firing antiaircraft missiles, stating: “Syrian and Russian planes are stopping the rebels again and again. But the sky above Idlib is also dangerous. The rebels and Turkish specialists are actively using portable air defence systems.”
As of this writing, multiple fragmentary and conflicting reports are circulating on the initial air strike yesterday evening that killed Turkish troops. The US-backed Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that 34 Turkish soldiers had been killed in a bombing between the towns of Baluon and Al-Bara. The governor of Turkey’s neighboring Hatay province, Rahmi Dogan, issued a series of announcements that nine, then 22, 29 and finally, Friday morning, 33 Turkish troops had died, and 36 had been wounded in the attack.
Turkish officials speaking anonymously told the German news magazine Der Spiegel that “at least 50 Turkish troops had died.” However, the official speaking to Der Spiegel claimed it is unclear whether it was Syrian or Russian airplanes that launched the attacks.
Ankara took Twitter offline inside Turkey for several hours, amid signs of an explosive political crisis unfolding inside the Turkish government, including its mounting fear of domestic popular opposition to the war in Syria.
While Turkish television stations took normal programming off the air and ran back-to-back reports that Syrian regime forces have lost 1,709 soldiers and large quantities of military equipment, the Turkish cabinet held an emergency meeting. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan personally chaired the meeting, which was also attended by members of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) as well as National Intelligence Organization (MİT) chief Hakan Fidan.
During the meeting, the government announced investigations into 91 Twitter accounts for allegedly spreading criticisms of the government during the crisis.
Once Twitter was functioning again, Yeni Şafak editor İbrahim Karagül issued hysterical denunciations of opponents of Erdogan’s war policies on social media: "Tonight, one should carefully note down traitors, Turkey's enemies, influence agents of the [Syrian] regime, those who undermine the national solidarity ... domestic intruders on social media."
Early this morning, as the Turkish emergency cabinet meeting continued to unfold, Turkey launched artillery attacks on Idlib province and missile attacks on Latakia, Homs, and nearby areas of western Syria. It was also reported later that Israel had attacked the Syrian government’s military positions in Quneitra province, from the vantage point offered by Israeli-held territory in the Golan Heights.
At the same time, Turkish officials launched a series of emergency calls to contact their US and NATO counterparts, including US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, US National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
A Russian delegation headed by Vladimir Putin’s special envoy for Syria Sergey Vershinin was in Ankara yesterday for talks, but they reportedly ended in a stalemate without any agreement.
The current danger of an all-out clash between Russia and Turkey is the product of nine years of a NATO proxy war for regime change waged since 2011 in Syria. Washington together with other NATO member states, along with their Middle East allies, have backed militias linked to Al Qaeda in a bid to overthrow the Syrian government, while Russia and Iran have supported President Bashar al-Assad. Both sides have proceeded as if, despite this explosive situation, they would never come to a direct NATO-Russia confrontation. Yet that is precisely what is now emerging.
The danger of a military clash that could escalate out of control into a confrontation between the NATO alliance and Russia, both of which are armed with nuclear weapons, is now very real. While contradictory messages came out of Washington last night, several top officials made clear they would consider all-out war is “on the table” as a possible response.
Told by journalists of the bombing of Turkish troops, US Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson said: “Let me say this because I just learned this: Of course, everything is on the table. This is a new development. This is a big development.”
US Senator Lindsey Graham similarly issued a statement yesterday calling for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Idlib—that is, for shooting down Russian and Syrian fighters over that region. “The world is sitting on its hands and watching the destruction of Idlib by Assad, Iran, and the Russians,” Graham declared in a statement. “I am confident if the world, led by the United States, pushed back against Iran, Russia, and Assad that they would stand down, paving the way for political negotiations to end this war in Syria.”
However, Turkish media also cited a tweet by Congressional staffer Alan Makovsky, who said: “I hope US officials’ frequently stated support for ‘our NATO ally Turkey’ of late isn’t raising false expectations in Ankara… US won’t risk war with Russia to preserve Turkey’s position in Syria.”
As Turkish forces bombed targets across Syria, Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) appealed to the NATO alliance for military support against the Russian-backed Syrian regime.
AKP spokesperson Ömer Çelik all but called for a declaration of war on Syria, telling CNN Türk: “The regime has become an enemy element with all its land and air elements. The necessary answer is given. The regime elements are now enemies of the Republic of Turkey. … We will inform NATO. We call on NATO to consult. We see this as an attack by a killer regime on the international community. We expect a total reaction. Our attempts on this are continuing. The consultation process with NATO begins tomorrow morning. We expect concrete support from now on.”