US backs deployment of UN military unit for offensive operations in South Sudan

Eddie Haywood

Tens of thousands of refugees from South Sudan flooded into Kenya, Uganda and Sudan last week, amid an eruption of civil strife in the South Sudanese capital at Juba.

Nearly 60,000 South Sudanese are reported to have crossed into neighboring countries in August alone. Kenya reported the arrival of around 1,000, while 7,000 crossed into Sudan and 52,000 traversed to Uganda, bringing the total number of South Sudanese currently displaced into neighboring countries to 900,000. More than 85 percent of the number of refugees entering Uganda are women and children, with many children having lost one or both parents to the violence.

The clashes in the streets of Juba last week represent the latest outburst in a factional conflict between the South Sudanese government of President Salva Kiir Mayardit and former Vice President Riek Machar that has increasingly destabilized the country since Machar led a failed coup attempt in December 2013. The clashes have already been seized upon by the American and German governments as a pretext for new deployments of ground and air forces to South Sudan, including the dispatch of dozens of US Marines. Since July, flareups of the Mayardit-Machar conflict have been accompanied by growing reports of armed militants carrying out acts of mass violence, including scores of rapes, killings, and looting of villages.

South Sudan is increasingly becoming a leading contributor to the world-historic refugee crisis gripping world society. The explosion of the world refugee total, now estimated at over 60 million by the Global Peace Index, has sent entire peoples streaming across national borders, in a desperate effort to escape the destruction of their societies at the hands of the American military and its alles.

Violence and instability has racked the country of South Sudan since its formation and independence in 2011. The country’s formation, through secession from the Khartoum government in the north, was brought together under the close direction of Washington and Britain, in an effort to install a puppet government in Juba by manipulating the decades-long civil war between the north and south—a war that culminated in the Darfur genocide—to force Khartoum to accept a 2005 peace agreement that included an initial framework for separating off South Sudan as an independent state.

Washington fueled and stoked the civil war, cultivating allies among the southern elites, as a means of gaining control over the oil resources in the country, mostly located in the south. The US supported the south economically and militarily, including shipments of arms in order to neutralize Khartoum and counter Chinese influence.

The government of Omar al-Bashir in Khartoum has been the subject of long-standing geopolitical tensions in the Horn of Africa, running afoul of the Western powers as his government turned toward a partnership with China, whose growing influence in Africa is driving Washington to step up its military and strategic interventions across the continent.

China is currently the leading recipient of Sudan’s oil. The Chinese National Petroleum Company (CNPC) is the major oil investor in Sudan, and agreed to a major expansion of north Sudan’s largest oil refinery last October. The CNPC relies on the Greater Nile Oil Pipeline, which traverses through Sudan to the Red Sea coast, to export its oil to the world market.

The growth of Chinese interests in the Horn of Africa, abutting the sea lanes for shipment of the world’s largest petroleum reserves through the Gulf of Aden from the Middle East, is turning the region into an area of great strategic importance to Washington.

Last week the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) convened an emergency summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in response to the sharpening of the crisis of the US-backed regime in Juba. A delegation from South Sudan attended, as did the presidents of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, and Djibouti.

IGAD, an eight-country trade bloc in Eastern Africa, was created under the auspices of the African Union in 1996, essentially as an instrument for enhancing the grip of US and European capital over the region.

The nature of IGAD and its aims are clear enough from its founding mission documents, which commit the membership to “harmonize policies with regard to trade, customs, transport, communications, agriculture, and natural resources,” “promote free movement of goods, services, and people within the region,” and “create an enabling environment for foreign, cross-border and domestic trade and investment.” The United States and the World Bank are among the leading “international partners” acknowledged by IGAD’s constitution.

The explicit purpose of the gathering in Addis Ababa was to hammer out an agreement to deploy a “Force Intervention Brigade” to South Sudan, patterned after a similar brigade that was deployed to Congo in 2013, in operations to crush the M23 rebels. A military brigade organized under these auspices has a mandate that is much more aggressive than the current UN peacekeeping mission (UNMISS) currently deployed to South Sudan. UNMISS’ mandate is to protect civilians but is forbidden to carry out offensive operations. The Force Intervention Brigade will have a mandate to engage in such targeted offensive operations, much like an invading military force.

The deployment of such a force will most certainly lead to far greater bloodshed. The brigade has the backing of Washington and the eight-country trade bloc, but is vehemently contested publicly by President Salva Kiir Mayardit, although he has been effectively forced to agree to its deployment by US pressure.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power urged the UN security council to back the special intervention brigade, saying: “The United States believes the region’s proposal offers a basis to re-establish a secure environment in Juba, which is critical for the parties to make progress on implementing the peace agreement.”

The New York Times, the voice of the foreign policy establishment in the United States, expressed agreement for the more brutal policy in South Sudan in an editorial on August 9 titled, “Time to get serious with South Sudan.” The Times lent support to the bloody operational mandate, appealing to the false pretext of “humanitarianism” with its usual hypocrisy-soaked moralizing over the horrific violence brought about by the conflict.

In an expression aimed at the recalcitrance of the government in Juba to support the brigade, the Times ’ editors brandished previous ultimatums by Washington to impose an arms embargo against Juba if the terms of the deployment of the brigade are not met.

In a clear signal that support among the US elite may shift in favor of the Machar faction, and that powerful factions in Washington soon turn to a different puppet to carry out their neo-colonial enterprises in South Sudan, the Times went on to parrot growing accusations by Western leaders that the government of Salva Kiir Mayadit is responsible for a large part of the current bloodshed.

The turmoil in South Sudan is only one part of the mosaic of destruction Washington has created across the continent and the Middle East as it strives to utilize its military as a means of reversing its declining global economic position. In this, American imperialism relies on the eager collaboration of sections of the national elites, who are being whipped up into ever more violent fratricidal conflicts, as they seek to cement their own strategic ties to Washington and push aside their rivals. Like all other such “national independence” movements of the present day, the secession of South Sudan, far from securing any form of independence or autonomy for its inhabitants, has served as the basis for ever greater imperialist penetration of the country.

UK: Hinkley Point nuclear plant delay provokes angry response from China

Robert Stevens

Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to delay signing a deal to build the first new UK nuclear plant in 20 years has major implications for geo-political relations internationally.

Under a proposed deal, which May delayed at less than 24 hours’ notice, French state owned-firm EDF was to build the £18 billion plant at Hinkley Point in England, with one-third of the cost to be provided by nuclear companies closely tied to the Chinese state.

The delay angered France and China, who both view their involvement in the Hinkley Point project as strategically important. Tens of thousands of jobs are at stake if the deal is scrapped.

On Monday, China responded with a prominent article by its ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming in the opinion pages of the Financial Times. Under the headline, “Hinkley Point is a test of mutual trust between UK and China”, Xiaoming warns, “Right now, the China-UK relationship is at a crucial historical juncture… I hope the UK will keep its door open to China and that the British government will continue to support Hinkley Point—and come to a decision as soon as possible so that the project can proceed smoothly.”

May’s decision cuts across the policy adopted by her predecessor David Cameron and his Chancellor George Osborne, who made economic ties with China, centring on Chinese investment in the UK, a central axis of economic policy.

Xiaoming revealed the extent of this investment to stress what is at stake in Hinkley Point. “Britain takes pride in being a country that is open to foreign investors… It is exactly because of such openness that China has become the UK’s second-largest non-European trading partner. Britain is one of the key destinations for Chinese companies seeking to invest overseas. Over the past five years, such companies have invested more in the UK than in Germany, France and Italy combined.” [Emphasis added]

The Financial Times endorsed Xiaoming’s intervention, editorialising that “May should seize opportunities ahead of and during the G20 summit in China in September to reassure Chinese counterparts that the UK’s new government values ties to China and Chinese business. After all the UK’s pending exit from the EU makes a thriving commercial relationship with China indispensable.”

The export of nuclear technology is central to China’s global ambitions. Xiaoming stated that the China General Nuclear Power Corporation “is the biggest nuclear power provider in China” and “the world’s biggest builder of nuclear reactors, involved in the construction of one-fifth of the nuclear generators worldwide.”

China sees its role in the Hinkley project as a stepping stone, as laid out during last October’s state visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Britain, to constructing its own nuclear power station in the UK. The Financial Timesnoted, “The real goal for Beijing in Britain is not so much Hinkley Point itself, but the opportunity to build and finance another nuclear power station of its own design at another of EDF’s sites in Bradwell, Essex.”

It cited an unnamed government minister who said, “This is all about Bradwell. I’m sure Theresa [May] would be happy to take £6bn off the Chinese for Hinkley but it’s not clear whether she is happy about the next stage.”

China views nuclear power plant construction in Britain as central to its Silk Road Economic Belt or One Belt One Road (OBOR) strategy. By offering substantial investment in infrastructure and trade and economic benefits, Beijing is hoping to draw countries across Eurasia, the Middle East and Africa into its plans and thereby bypass US efforts to isolate China diplomatically, economically and militarily through its “pivot to Asia.”

The Hinkley deal was provisionally agreed during Xi Jinping’s visit. It followed Cameron’s decision for Britain to become the first Western power to sign up to China’s Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in March 2015. These moves antagonised Washington. May’s intervention was widely seen as her response to opposition from the US and leading figures in the intelligence services and military to deepening UK commercial ties with China.

In response to Xiaoming’s FT article, a UK government representative issued a statement Tuesday in an attempt to dampen growing tensions. “[T]his decision is about a huge infrastructure project and it’s right that the new government carefully considers it. We cooperate with China on a broad range of areas from the global economy to international issues and we will continue to seek a strong relationship with China,” it read.

The Cameron government’s turn to China was accompanied by claims that investment from Beijing was critical to the economic growth and stability of the UK economy. Its “Northern Powerhouse” project of linking up England’s deindustrialised northern cities to facilitate the exploitation of a 15-million strong population by international corporations was centred on Chinese investment. Prior to Xi Jinping’s visit, the then Chancellor George Osborne spoke in Chengdu, China and urged firms to bid for seven contracts worth £11.8 billion, covering the first phase of the proposed HS2 high speed train service between London and Birmingham. He invited bids for £24 billion of further investment in northern England.

May has signalled that Osborne’s project will be shelved, in favour of a strategy to boost productivity nationwide.

The Hinkley project is expected to be hugely profitable for France in the long-term, with revenue and price guarantees for its projected 35-year lifespan. The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins complained, “Hinkley Point is bad business.” Cameron had effectively “stuffed” the pockets of its Chinese and French builders “with gold”, he said, “in the worst deal in the history of procurement.” May should “put it out of its misery.”

But the EDF board only agreed the deal just the day before May announced the delay. Only a small majority of the board of EDF, which is already in debt to the tune of tens of billions of Euros, voted in favour of the deal, in face of strenuous opposition from a number of EDF shareholders, allied with trade unions. This week it was revealed that the overall cost of financing the project could be as much as £2.7 billion more than the already planned £18 billion, which could push up EDF’s share of the cost from £12 billion to £13.8 billion.

On Monday, the ruling Socialist Party of President Francois Hollande issued a statement warning that doubt over Hinkley was a grave danger to EDF and the French economy. It stated, “The Socialist Party believes that a project that is so important that it could jeopardize the solidity and survival of the national energy company requires that all doubts and hesitations be cleared up before the project continues.”

May’s decision is part of the continuing economic and political fallout from June’s Brexit vote. On taking office, following Cameron’s resignation, she stated she would be tough in demanding the optimum economic conditions for the UK following Brexit. The first fruit of this policy is essentially a demand that, as the Financial Times put it, EDF comes up “with a much better offer.”

The Labour Party responded by denouncing May, with Shadow Business Secretary Jon Trickett stating, “During the referendum, one of the few firm proposals coming from the Brexit camp was that Britain’s economic prosperity outside of Europe could be secured by furthering our relations with China and other large, fast-growing economies in the east.” The “prime minister has put that—and £40bn of inward investment—in jeopardy by bungling negotiations over Hinkley Point.”

Peter Mandelson, a key ally of former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is playing a leading role in the attempts to remove Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, insisted Wednesday that May allow Hinkley Point to proceed. Mandelson, who holds the presidency of the Great Britain China Centre lobby group, told the BBC that in the aftermath of Brexit, “We can’t be too fussy about who we do trade with... despite the size of our market we are probably less relevant to China out of the European Union because we would be unable to influence that huge bloc’s future trade policies anymore and out of the EU we are probably more dependent on China’s goodwill because we will need to replace trade lost in Europe.”

Vietnam bases long-range rocket launchers in South China Sea

Peter Symonds

Reuters revealed yesterday that Vietnam has in recent months secretly fortified several of its islands in the Spratly group in the South China Sea with mobile long-range rocket launchers. While the launchers are reportedly yet to be armed, it would take only days to make them operational with rockets capable of striking Chinese-held islets.

Hanoi’s move is certain to further accelerate the arms race that is already underway and to heighten the risk that an incident or provocation could lead to military conflict. That danger has escalated in the wake of the ruling last month by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in favour of a US-backed case brought by the Philippines to challenge China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

The Reuters report based on multiple diplomatic and military sources stated that Vietnam has shipped the launchers to five of its Spratly islands and carefully hidden them from aerial surveillance. The launchers are believed to be part of Vietnam’s EXTRA rocket artillery system purchased recently from Israel.

According to Reuters, the EXTRA system uses targeting drones, is highly accurate up to 150 kilometres and can deliver a 150 kilogram warhead that can hit ships and land targets. Chinese installations on Subi, Fiery Cross and Mischief Reef would be well within the range of Vietnamese rockets.

Siemon Wezeman, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Institute, told the news agency: “When Vietnam acquired the EXTRA system, it was always thought that it would be deployed on the Spratlys… it is the perfect weapon for that.”

Vietnam has denied the report but at the same time justified such measures. “It is within our legitimate right to self-defence to move any of our weapons to any area at any time within our sovereign territory,” Deputy Defence Minister Senior Lieutenant-General Nyugen Chi Vinh told Reuters.

Washington’s response has been very muted. US State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau acknowledged that Washington was aware of the reports, adding pro-forma that the US “calls on all South China Sea claimants to avoid actions that build tensions” and “intensify efforts that find peaceful, diplomatic solutions to disputes.”

Such remarks are utterly cynical. The Obama administration and its confrontational “pivot to Asia” against China bears central responsibility for transforming the South China Sea into a dangerous international flashpoint. Having declared in 2010 that it has “a national interest” in the South China Sea, Washington has actively encouraged the Philippines and Vietnam to more aggressive press their claims against China.

Obama conducted a three-day official visit to Vietnam in May during which he announced the full lifting of a four-decade-old arms embargo which was described in the media as a decisive step towards the “normalisation” of relations between the two countries. Hanoi undoubtedly informed Washington in advance of its decision to deploy the rocket launchers.

The US reaction to the Vietnamese rocket launchers is in marked contrast to its response to every step taken by China that can be construed as “militarisation.” The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the think tank that has been central to Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” has just released satellite photographs of what it claims are reinforced hangers for military aircraft on Fiery Cross, Subi and Mischief Reefs built since The Hague ruling.

While the CSIS acknowledged that apart from a brief visit by a military transport earlier this year, “there is no evidence that Beijing has deployed military aircraft to these outposts.” That has not stopped the CSIS from doctoring its photographs to show the outlines of various Chinese warplanes parked in the hangers, or from declaring that their deployment was now likely.

The release of the photographs on Monday coincided with a visit to China by the commander of the US Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott Swift, who took the opportunity to again publicly criticise Beijing for destabilising the South China Sea.

Speaking on Tuesday, Swift referred to the hangers, saying: “What doesn’t reduce tensions are these reports of this continued militarisation of the islands, if that is indeed the case.” He acknowledged that it was not clear if the hangers would be used for military aircraft, but added: “That increases the angst and the uncertainty—that lack of transparency—that is generally destabilising.”

Washington and its allies have repeatedly called for greater “transparency” on the part of China—a standard that is not applied to increased US activities in the South China Sea and neighbouring countries. The US has not only boosted its naval presence but also secured and begun to implement a new military basing agreement with the Philippines as well as strengthening military ties with Vietnam and other South East Asian countries.

Swift also criticised the announcement by China and Russia to hold joint naval exercises next month in the South China Sea, declaring that the choice of location was not conducive “to increasing the stability within the region.” Over the past year, the US Navy has been involved in multiple joint war games in or near the South China Sea.

The Pentagon has also carried out three provocative “freedom of navigation” operations by sending a destroyer within the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit surrounding Chinese-controlled islets in the South China Sea. Swift foreshadowed further naval provocations in the wake of The Hague decision, saying that he was confident that US warships could continue to sail close to China’s islands.

Swift warned Beijing again against declaring an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea which he declared would be “very destabilising from a military perspective.” When China announced an ADIZ over the East China Sea in November 2013, the US immediately dispatched B-52 bombers into the area to make clear that the US had no intention of abiding by China’s declaration.

The Pentagon’s determination to maintain its military presence in waters and in the skies immediately adjacent to the Chinese mainland is just part of the US military build-up taking place throughout the Asia-Pacific in preparation for a potential war with China. Its AirSea Battle strategy envisages a massive aerial and missile attack on Chinese military and civilian facilities, supplemented by a naval blockade of the mainland, to cripple the Chinese economy.

Swift made his comments will visiting the northern Chinese port of Qingdao, supposedly as part of US efforts to build trust and understanding between the navies of the two countries. It coincided with a visit by a US guided-missile destroyer, USS Benfold, to the same port—the first such visit by an American warship since The Hague ruling.

Swift’s remarks simply underscore the fact that Washington has no intention of building better military relations and intends to intensify its confrontation with Beijing in the wake of legal decision through every means. The US aims at nothing less than the subordination of China to American economic and strategic interests, even if that risks a disastrous war.

US sells battle tanks to Saudi Arabia as it renews assault on Yemen

Thomas Gaist

In a clear signal of American imperialism’s unrelenting commitment to the Saudi monarchy and its ongoing war against Yemen, the United States’ State Department approved the sale of one hundred and fifty Abrams main battle tanks to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

The tanks, designed for large-scale ground warfare, are part of a larger package of American weaponry, valued at $1.15 billion, that includes a bevy of additional military hardware.

The US-Saudi deal, which also includes $155 million worth of Gatling guns and $200 million worth of training to the Saudi military, is geared to strengthen the US-Saudi alliance and deepen Washington’s already intimate military partnership with the regime.

The deal is designed, according to the State Department, to “contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic regional partner which has been and continues to be a leading contributor of political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.”

The sale includes various forms of military aid by American personnel and contractors for the Saudi military, including equipment maintenance, training and logistical support, which are intended to “increase the Royal Saudi Land Force’s (RSLF) interoperability with U.S. forces” and “conveys U.S. commitment to Saudi Arabia’s security and armed forces modernization,” the top US diplomatic agency said.

The further lavishing by Washington of instruments of death and destruction upon the government in Riyadh, which already purchases advanced weaponry, almost entirely from American suppliers, at a rate of some $20 billion annually, highlights the central role of American imperialism in organizing and facilitating the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

The murderous war against Yemen has been enabled, from the start, by comprehensive support from Washington, which, from the very beginning of the war last March, has deployed US military advisors and intelligence officers to coordinate the air war with Saudi counterparts, while working from a joint planning cell in the Saudi capital.

The contents of the latest sale, above all its inclusion of the fleet of tanks originally designed for massive land battles against the militaries of the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc during the Cold War, strongly suggest that the monarchy has secured support from its American patrons for a major expansion of its ground operations.

Sixteen months of war in Yemen have already made clear the savage purposes to which the equipment included in the latest weapons deal will be put. The Saudi-led war against Yemen, launched in March of 2015 in response to the seizure of the capital at Sana’a by Houthi Shi’ite militias, has killed at least 6,500 civilians, destroyed most of Yemen’s social infrastructure, turned 2.5 million into internal refugees, and pushed more than 80 percent of the Yemeni population to the brink of starvation.

The Saudi war coalition has regularly and indiscriminately attacked civilian areas, including dense residential neighborhoods and markets, and has employed illegal cluster bombs against villages in northern areas, where the Houthi insurgency is based.

Yemeni society, already impoverished by decades of imperialist-backed civil war and dictatorship, has been completely shattered since the launching of “Operation Decisive Storm” last April, as Saudi forces have pummeled the poorest country in the Arab world with untold quantities of advanced military hardware, ruthlessly destroying the country’s social infrastructure, including some 250 medical centers, 800 schools and hundreds of electricity plants and fuel storehouses.

Amid the chaos produced by the war, Islamist militias, including Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), succeeded in overrunning much of southern Yemen, all while enjoying near complete immunity from Saudi air strikes.

The port city of Mukallah, a main port city and transit hub for resource flows traversing the southern coastline of the Arabian peninsula, was left fully at the mercy of AQAP, touted by American media as the “most dangerous terror group in the world,” for nearly a year after the war began, even as the US provided target selection and aerial refueling for the Saudi coalition’s relentless bombardment of civilian targets throughout the rest of the country.

It is already clear that the breakdown of peace talks between the Saudi-backed government-in-exile of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi and the Houthi government, announced over the weekend by a sharp escalation of Saudi airstrikes and on Tuesday by the resumption of direct Saudi attacks against Sana’a, will mark the resumption of Riyadh’s murderous assault against Yemen’s civilian population and working class.

On Sunday, Saudi war planes bombed civilian targets in Yemen, including the Al Mawdeed market in Nehm district and residential areas in the northern Sada’a province, killing at least 18. Saudi bombing runs on Tuesday killed at least 21, including 10 workers at a potato chip factory in Sana’a’s al-Nahda district.

Responsibility for the ever-growing civilian death toll in Yemen lies squarely at the feet of the masters of imperialist war in Washington. While wary, amid the catastrophic debacles produced by its wars in Syria and Iraq, of launching a full military intervention in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire, the American ruling class has effectively sponsored and outsourced the Yemen war, from its planning stages up to the present.

The Pentagon has relied on the Saudis and their Gulf allies to provide the bulk of the frontline forces, while backing their combat-support functions to the hilt. In May, the US announced the deployment of small teams of Special Forces in support of Saudi and UAE operations around Mukallah, officially reengaging the covert war waged by US commandos inside Yemen continuously during the decade following the September 11th attacks.

The vast bloodshed and suffering imposed upon Yemen by Washington and its regional allies has been carried out with the aim of reimposing the government of President Hadi, a neocolonial stooge “elected” in February 2012 in a “democratic transition” process, in which Hadi was the only candidate on the ballot.

Hadi, who was forced to flee the capital after central government compounds in Sana’a were captured by Houthi fighters in January 2015, was anointed to become president by the US- and Saudi-dominated Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), after the 2011 mass struggles in Egypt and Tunisia triggered a protest movement in Yemen that threatened to completely destabilize the US-backed state apparatus controlled by longtime dictator and American puppet Ali Abdullah Saleh.

With Saleh’s credibility shattered, Washington and Riyadh sought to promote Hadi as a means to preserve the core network of the regime and maintain their grip over the military and security services. They have responded to Hadi’s humiliating ouster with a military policy that can only be characterized as sociocide, the destruction of an entire society.

Chicago Public Schools announces 1,000 layoffs, threatens new cuts

Kristina Betinis

Chicago Public Schools (CPS) unveiled a $5.4 billion budget on Monday, just days after having announced 1,000 layoffs on August 5. The layoffs affect about 500 teachers and 500 teaching assistants and support staff. The announcement comes amid a protracted 13-month Illinois state budget crisis in which universities, state and social service agencies and health providers have been forced to cut offerings, and in some cases, close altogether.

In the sixth week of the fiscal year, and less than one month from the opening of the school year, CPS officials only this week presented their budget to the public. For many months the school district has claimed a deficit of more than $1 billion, which is used to try to force teachers, students and families to accept ever greater cuts to education and staffing as the district’s debt payments soar.

This year’s budget is $232 million less than last year’s and covers a $300 million shortfall arising from recent stopgap funding legislation, CPS officials stated. While declaring it the first “balanced” budget the district has put forward in many years, two sources of the hundreds of millions in funding it includes have not materialized yet: a seven percent de facto cut in teacher pay—based in an overhaul of pensions that forces teachers to pay directly into the fund themselves—and funding from the state of Illinois.

The budget indicates there are 1,268 fewer total positions in the school district this year compared with last year, including 766 fewer teachers and 405 fewer nurses, custodians and support staff.

Another major round of cuts is expected if the state, led by former private equity mogul and billionaire Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, does not provide $215 million to its largest school district. CPS CEO Forrest Claypool threatened that additional cuts will impact classrooms if the teachers do not accept concessions they turned down earlier this year.

Conditions are so desperate in many schools that any additional cuts would be intolerable to teachers and students. Since Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel privatized janitorial service in 2014, schools have become dangerously filthy and neglected and dilapidated structures go unrepaired.

It is already a long-standing practice for teachers and staff to spend substantial sums of their own money to provide basic amenities like paper towels, soap, pens, paper, markers and other learning materials. In recent months, several schools have held fundraisers and some have partnered with local businesses to help make up drastic funding shortfalls. School athletics coaches are using crowdfunding web sites like GoFundMe to cover the program costs in addition to taking donations from parents and other institutions.

A series of public hearings on the budget are scheduled for mid-August, with several scheduled during midday hours, making it virtually impossible for working parents who want to oppose the cuts to attend.

Mass layoffs have become a routine event in recent years, taking place in the weeks just before the school year begins and creating a panicked atmosphere in schools and among teachers. This speaks not only to the ruthlessness of the Democratic city administration but also to the total complicity of the Chicago Teachers Union, which has overseen the gutting of the school district, including the closure of 50 elementary schools, and the proliferation of several charter school networks.

The district’s 27,000 teachers have been working without a contract since July 1, 2015. In April the CTU called a one-day stunt strike to promote illusions that Mayor Emanuel and the state Democrats could be relied on to increase funding and protect pensions.

The next month it was revealed that the CTU officials had given their pledge not to strike to city and school authorities even as they were telling members a strike was possible. The union’s sham “plan” to move to strike was revealed by none other than Emanuel himself and made public just two days prior to a May 4 vote by union delegates on whether or not to call a strike.

The CTU announced last week that its leaders had begun a fresh round of negotiations on August 1. Just five days later, the district announced the 1,000 layoffs. In a typically duplicitous pair of remarks, Karen Lewis was quoted on the CTU Twitter account August 8, saying, “If the Board of Education moves to impose a seven percent cut in our salary, we will move to strike.” A few minutes later, she was reported by CTU’s Twitter to have said, “There are no plans currently in place to strike, but our members will NOT go another year without a contract.”

Acting as a junior partner in the Emanuel administration, CTU has worked systematically to block any struggle against the mayor’s cuts, while rising anger among teachers and other sections of the working class threatens to burst out into the open. Back in January, another of the union’s plans was blown, when details of a concessions contract were leaked that CTU president Karen Lewis had hailed as a “serious offer.” That agreement included the seven percent pay cut demanded by Emanuel for pensions, as well as health care cost hikes. Facing angry teachers who openly expressed their opposition to the union-backed plan on social media, the CTU bargaining team was forced to turn down the agreement.

Last year, in emphasizing the “seriousness” of the budget crisis, the union leadership—which includes Jesse Sharkey, a leading member of the pseudo-left International Socialist Organization—stated teachers were willing to accept a pay freeze. In an appeal to Emanuel, CTU even put forth its own proposed school funding plan this year, which included gas and other transportation tax hikes that would hit working people. The union makes these reactionary proposals at a time when Illinois is home to around 18 billionaires and many tens of thousands of millionaires. Meanwhile the working population sits second lowest in the nation, just after Nevada, for personal income recovery coming out of the 2008 crash.

Teachers, parents and students face a turning point in the fight to defend public education, a social right that continues to be targeted for spending cuts across the country. This assault, which has been spearheaded by the Obama administration, will be escalated following the November presidential vote, no matter which candidate is elected.

Public education and the rights of teachers will not be defended by the CTU. If the CTU were to call a strike at some point, it would be aimed at putting on a show of opposition before forcing through concessions—just as its did during the betrayal of the 2012 strike. To defend public education teachers must advance their fight through their own independent organizations of struggle, and appeal to workers in all sectors to join in a common fight against the Democratic and Republican parties and the capitalist system they defend.

New emails shed further light on Hillary Clinton’s corruption as secretary of state

Evan Blake

On Tuesday, the conservative legal group Judicial Watch released 296 pages of State Department records spanning Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. These records include 44 email exchanges that were deliberately withheld from the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton gave the State Department for their investigation into her use of a private email server.

The newly released emails, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, implicate Clinton in incriminating conflict-of-interest deals, in which Clinton's aides worked to hire a Clinton Foundation associate and provided political connections for at least one of the Foundation's wealthy donors. Another email directly connects the finance giant and Clinton backer Morgan Stanley to her diplomatic maneuvers in China.

Upon being appointed secretary of state by Obama in 2009, Clinton sent a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin that read in part, “For the duration of my appointment as secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party.”

The most recent email leak exposes this as a complete lie, as Clinton continually did the bidding of her Wall Street donors, while her office secured prestigious positions for those connected to the Clinton Foundation.

The most damning email exchange revealed Tuesday took place in February 2009, between Hillary Clinton and Stephen Roach, then chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia.

Shortly before Clinton began her first diplomatic tour in Asia, Roach sent her a copy of his upcoming testimony before Congress, requesting a meeting with her in person and saying, “Best regards and good luck on this important and timely trip.” Clinton then instructed one of her top aides, Huma Abedin, to set up a meeting between herself and Roach in Beijing, where Roach traveled on February 19 and 20.

In his statements before Congress, Roach condemned US efforts “to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers,” according to Judicial Watch.

Days later, evidently after meeting with Roach, Clinton pressured Beijing to continue its massive purchases of US Treasury notes, which by that time already exceeded $700 billion. As the World Socialist Web Site wrote at the time, “On her first overseas trip since being tapped by President Barack Obama, [...] Clinton assumed the role of an official high-pressure bond saleswoman.”

Over the course of her political career, Clinton has received over $550,000 from PACs affiliated with Morgan Stanley, as well as employees of the firm, making the firm her sixth biggest donor. In 2014, Morgan Stanley donated over $25 million to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation.

The other significant email exchanges involve Doug Band, a Clinton Foundation official and longtime personal advisor to former President Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton’s former top aides at the State Department, Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

While still working for the State Department in 2012, Abedin received a special designation that enabled her to hold positions at the Clinton Foundation and at Teneo, a global advisory firm founded by Band in 2011 with assistance from the Clintons. During her time with Teneo, she earned upwards of $15,000 per month as a consultant.

On April 22, 2009, three months after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state, Band received an email from a source whose name was redacted by the State Department. The email, titled “A favor...” reads, “I really appreciated the opportunity to go on the Haiti trip; it was an eye-opening experience seeing both the depravity and the promise of that island.” The rest of the email was entirely redacted.

Ten minutes later, Band forwarded the email to Abedin and Mills, writing, “Important to take care of _____,” to which Abedin immediately replied, “We have all had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.”

The Clintons and the Clinton Foundation have a long history in Haiti. During his time as president, Bill Clinton imposed three years of devastating economic sanctions against the country, in an effort to destabilize the military junta. With the failure of this policy, Clinton sent Marines to Haiti to restore Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the presidency. During Aristide's term, Clinton demanded Haiti's adherence to brutal IMF austerity policies, while cracking down on Haitian migrants trying to flee the devastated country to the US.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which killed upwards of 300,000 people, Clinton was dispatched as a UN special envoy and co-chairman of the Interim Haiti Recovery Committee to oversee the international aid and investment efforts in the country. Under his watch, there has been a continual looting of the country, with investment designed to exploit the country's low-paid working class.

At the time that the email was sent, Band was a paid employee of the CGI, which he helped found in 2005. Clearly, the redacted associate of Band and the Clinton Foundation was sent to Haiti, and upon their return may have gotten a position within the Obama administration in a blatant conflict of interest. The State Department deleted details about the associate, including his name and the outcome of the job referral, when it turned over the emails to Judicial Watch.

Another incriminating email exchange released Tuesday was written on April 25, 2009, and is less heavily redacted. In this one, Band writes to Abedin and Mills, “We need Gilbert chagoury to speak to the substance person re lebanon. As you know, he's key guy there and to us and is loved in lebanon. Very imp[ortant].”

Abedin replied, “Its jeff feltman. I'm sure he knows him. I'll talk to jeff,” referring to Jeffrey Feltman, the American ambassador to Lebanon at the time. Band quickly responded, “Better if you call him. Now preferable. This is very important. ____________ He's awake I'm sure.”

Gilbert Chagoury is a billionaire Nigerian-Lebanese construction magnate and friend of former President Bill Clinton who was closely connected to the military dictatorship of Sani Abacha in Nigeria during the mid-1990s. Chagoury was convicted of money laundering in Switzerland in 2000 and paid a $66 million fine in a plea deal. In 2009, his company pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative, and he has personally donated between $1 and $5 million, according to the Clinton Foundation's website.

Seeking to curry favor with the Clintons, a broad swath of the international corporate and financial elite, including 168 individuals and organizations that have each given more than $1 million, donate to the Clinton Foundation. Some of the most influential donors include defense contractors such as Boeing and Booz Allen Hamilton, finance giants Barclays and Goldman Sachs, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Foreign governments, in particular the reactionary Persian Gulf monarchies, are some of the largest and most frequent donors to the Clinton Foundation. Last year, these included Saudi Arabia ($10 to $25 million), Kuwait, ($5 to $10 million), Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates ($1 to $5 million).

These favors were handsomely returned. The State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors while Clinton was at the helm.

The most recent Clinton email leaks—following those that detailed her numerous war crimes committed as secretary of state—reiterate Clinton's thoroughgoing corruption and her political role as a lackey for Wall Street and the Pentagon.

The Clinton Foundation, which has raised roughly $2 billion since its inception 19 years ago, has been the vehicle through which the Clintons have amassed a vast fortune of over $111 million, placing them in the wealthiest 0.1 percent of society. If elected president in November, Hillary Clinton will continue to protect the interests of her fellow multimillionaires and billionaires.

The slump in US productivity: Another symptom of capitalist crisis

Andre Damon

On Tuesday, the US Labor Department reported that labor productivity fell 0.5 percent in the second quarter of this year, the third consecutive quarterly decline. This prompted the Wall Street Journal to lead its Wednesday edition with a worried article, entitled “Productivity Slump Threatens Economy’s Long-Term Growth,” noting that the US is in the midst of the worst productivity growth since the late 1970s.

The fall in productivity adds to other data indicating that the ongoing stagnation in the US economy is part of a global tendency. US economic growth in the second quarter was only at 1.2 percent, far below expectations, while in Europe economic growth in the second quarter was even more dismal, at only 0.3 percent. Growth in China is slowing sharply, while much of Latin America is in depression.

Economists have noted with particular concern that the slump in productivity is driven by the sharp decline in business investment that has characterized the advanced capitalist countries in recent years. Last quarter, business investment in the US fell 9.7 percent, the third straight quarterly decline.

In 2015, the International Monetary Fund noted in its annual report that the decline of business investment is at the heart of the failure of the global economy to recover from the 2008 crisis, despite the flooding of financial markets with cheap credit.

Major corporations are hoarding trillions of dollars in cash, which they are not investing in production or research and development. Instead, they are using it to buy back stocks, increase dividends, and carry out mergers and acquisitions, all of which increase the payouts of Wall Street CEOs and shareholders.

As a result, stock markets around the world are at or near record highs, corporate profits are surging, and the wealth of the top 0.1 percent in the United States and internationally continues to soar at the expense of the working class.

These developments are the expression of the domination of financial parasitism over economic life in the United States and internationally. Vast resources are being diverted into speculative activities that not only do nothing to increase the productive forces, but actively facilitate their destruction.

The decades-long growth of financial parasitism is among the most visible manifestations of the mounting crisis of world capitalism, centered in the decline of American capitalism and the virtual dismantling of its industrial base.

There are deep historical roots to the present crisis. The United States emerged as the dominant capitalist power at the end of World War II, above all through its highly developed and advanced industry, which dominated global steel and auto production. A key milestone in the unraveling of US economic supremacy was the effective end of the Bretton Woods system with the suspension of dollar-gold convertibility by the Nixon administration in 1971.

In the 1970s—a period marked by militant wage struggles of the American working class—the continuing decline in US economic hegemony resulted in what was called stagflation: the combination of economic stagnation and double digit inflation. At the end of that decade, the American bourgeoisie made a sharp turn toward the policies of financialization and deindustrialization with the manufactured recession that began in 1979 and the crushing of the PATCO strike in 1981. The latter initiated a decades-long attack on the social position of the working class.

The policy of the ruling class over the past three decades has been centered on ensuring a perpetual rise in share values, linked to the intensification of the exploitation of the working class and a vast redistribution of wealth. The growth of financial parasitism has produced one financial bubble and collapse after another: the stock market crash of 1987; the savings and loan crisis of 1989; the 1994 derivatives crisis and Mexican Peso collapse; the Asian financial crisis of 1997; the failure of Long-Term Capital Management and the Russian debt default in 1998; the popping of the dot.com bubble and the Enron scandal in 2000-01. The speculative mania culminated in the collapse of the subprime mortgage and housing bubble that burst in 2008, provoking the deepest crisis since the Great Depression, from which the capitalist system has not recovered.

The ruling class has responded to each crisis by flooding the markets with cash through low interest rates and now “quantitative easing.” However, this policy has failed to produce a new economic equilibrium. It is becoming clear to the ruling elite itself that there is no way out of this crisis, which is increasingly being referred to as the “new normal,” or in the words of Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, the “new mediocre.”

This growing recognition is accompanied, however, by increasingly open calls by policymakers to make the ultra-low-interest-rate regime essentially permanent. Ben S. Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve chairman, approvingly noted in a recent blog post for the Brookings Institution that as members of the central bank’s board have substantially revised down their estimates for economic growth, they have simultaneously slashed their estimate for the long-term federal funds rate, meaning they intend to pursue an easy money policy for the indefinite future.

As Bernanke puts it, “Over the past couple of years, FOMC participants have often signaled that they expected repeated increases in the federal funds rate as the economic recovery continued. In fact, the policy rate has been increased only once, in December 2015, and market participants now appear to expect few if any additional rate rises in coming quarters.”

Such measures, however, will only continue to fuel financial parasitism. The growth in the value of financial assets must be paid for with the extraction of wealth from the world’s working class. At the same time, the ruling class of each country—with the American financial oligarchy in the lead—is attempting to force its competitors to pay, fueling national antagonisms, which manifest themselves in protectionism and trade war, that threaten a military conflict between the major powers.

Wang Yi in India: Context and Significance

Manish Dabhade

The Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, is on a three day visit to India from 12-4 August, 2016. This visit is significant for numerous reasons. First, it is largely about the September 2016 G20 Summit, scheduled to take place in China and the October 2016 BRICS Summit, scheduled to take place in India. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping will meet during both events.

However, it is the backdrop of the visit that has drawn increased national and global attention. From the Indian perspective, important matters include the June 2016 Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting that took place in Seoul, South Korea, during which China blocked India’s membership to the Group on procedural grounds; the recent Chinese incursions in Uttarakhand; and repeated Chinese veto on a UN ban on Masood Azhar, the chief of the Pakistan-based terrorist group, Jaish-e-Mohammed. From the Chinese perspective, important matters include its concerns regarding India's position on the South China Sea issue, especially after the July 2016 ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal that rejected China's historical claims on the territory. In fact, one of China's primary agendas at the next few multilateral settings is to prevent any endorsing of the tribunal decision.

Other important irritants have been the recent non-renewal of Indian visas to three Chinese journalists. That Prime Minister Modi will be stopping over in Vietnam en route to China for the G20 summit has also worried Beijing as it sees it as a sign of India’s readiness to join the encirclement of China as led by the US.

In the light of the aforementioned issues in the India-China relationship, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry highlighted that during this visit, Beijing would try to identify ways to carry forward the consensus reached by President Xi and Prime Minister Modi. Xi’s 2014 India visit followed by Modi's 2015 China visit surely marked a sincere attempt by both sides to develop a strong relationship based on personal chemistry as well. But the NSG bid again proved the limits of personalised diplomacy.

Vis-a-vis the economic aspects of relations, though China is now India’s largest trading partner, there has reportedly been a drop in Indian exports to China in 2016, which has triggered alarm bells in India, especially when the Modi government sees Make in India as its priority policy. This is in addition to the ever widening trade deficit bending in China's favour that both have already pledged to resolve. India feels the discriminatory tariff regime in China is hampering its exports while the latter sees business visa procedures as time consuming and a big hurdle to increasing bilateral trade. There also seems to be a Chinese attempt to use this to warn India that it should worry more about falling exports rather than the South China Sea issue, as pointed out in recent state media reports and analyses. Some reports went on to further state that India should not add another irritant that might affect its bilateral ties and will lead to “side effects.”

What is actually taking place between India and China is that although economic partnership is actively flourishing, it is at the political and strategic levels that difficulties in finding common grounds are being felt. This is despite the increased interactions at the highest levels from both sides. The principal reason for this is that India has always viewed China through the lens of its ever growing political-economic-military alliance with Pakistan aimed at countering India, coupled with the unresolved border dispute since the 1962 war. That China remains unwilling to accept India’s global rise and rightful place in various international institutions seems to be proven by the former's refusal to endorse membership of either the UN Security Council or the NSG. Conversely, Beijing now views New Delhi's courting of the US, and of other powers in China’s periphery, such as Vietnam, as being aimed at containing and countering China.

Though this game and counter-game seems natural, it assumes greater value and high voltage for numerous reasons. On a wider global level, the gravity of power has again shifted from Europe to Asia in the past few decades, making India and China the key, and major powers in our continent. Increasing globalisation and economic integration witnessed by all have further complicated all power calculations.

We must not forget that China remains the principal trading partner for many states - including the US, India and Vietnam - that seek to oppose it in the strategic arena.

In this regard, many analysts have already predicted that Europe’s past dotted by many wars of nationalism would all likely be Asia’s future. However, this should not allow us to resign ourselves to this fate. Diplomacy provides a meaningful, purposeful instrument to manage and resolve these conflicts and develop a better, peaceful future in Asia. An economic and strategic dialogue on the lines of US and China could be a way forward for India and China.

Talking Turkey: The Attempted “Coup” And Its Aftermath

Murli Menon

Several years ago, when Turkey opened up its borders, indiscriminately, by declaring visa free regimes with seven neighbouring nations, the beginnings of a troubled existence in the future virtually triggering a “Turkish Spring" of sorts, could be seen. Now, after the attempted coup, the entire politico military edifice has been torn asunder.  President  Erdogan seeks to put the blame on exiled Turkish cleric Fethulla Gulen, seeking his extradition from the US.

Attempted July Coup

 

From the available inputs such as UN Human Rights fora and some such others, many a doubt exists about the modus operandi of the coup itself and the naïve manner in which the basic tenets for a successful take over – such as that of national media and the shutdown of social media and the internet – were not followed. The bombing of the Turkish Parliament and supersonic fighter jets over the cities at night also appear to have taken place without a larger strategy. It seems that the coup did not have the support of the Kemalist upper echelons of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). Western media reports, immediately after Erdogan’s much touted Skype proclamation, talked of a stage-managed affair carried out by Erdogan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), to cleanse the military, judiciary and paramilitary of “Gulenists”. Several thousands of senior and junior military officials have since been fired; the same for many jurists, academics and media personnel. Academics were prevented from travelling abroad and several army institutions and schools, some of them a couple of centuries old, have been shut down. Erdogan now plans to channelise the entire training regimen of the TSK through the portals of a Defence University, which is to be closely monitored by him.

What the future portends

Turkey has been NATO’s vital Cold War ally, considering there are 90 nuclear warheads stored at Incirlik, Turkey had also recently permitted the US Air Force (USAF) to undertake aerial missions against the Islamic State (IS), something it had denied them earlier when the Iraq invasion was underway. With NATO’s credibility at stake and its viability critical for situations such as the Russo-Ukrainian stand-off, the West is immensely concerned with what happens in Turkey. With the TSK’s morale and combat leadership adversely impacted, Turkey’s contribution to any NATO operation has become suspect and its membership of the organisation itself seems heading for uncertain times. Along with Erdogan’s attempt to bring back capital punishment (2/3 majority in a Parliament vote is required to amend the Constitution) is another aspect angering the West and the EU. It is learnt that the recent retrenchment of Gulenists has left Turkey woefully bereft of an officer cadre and specialists such as fighter pilots. According to reports, the reservists are being called in to fill in these gaps.

Whither Turkey?

Erdogan has declared a six-month emergency, virtually opting to rule without a government. Whilst his attempts to have Gulen extradited from the US are unlikely to bear fruit, there is a limit to how much longer he could extend his autocratic reign. There is only so much any system or the moderate segments of a society would tolerate before the entire edifice collapses. Many jihadi elements from Turkey have been active in Afghanistan, North Waziristan and Syria. Additionally, with time, the Shia-Sunni factor would accentuate in all the ongoing war zones and Turkey would be subject to more IS attacks. This coupled with the revived Kurdish insurgency would make Turkey’s landscape ripe for a protracted civil war. NATO’s intransigence to accede to Erdogan’s Islamism and a disenchanted civil society would make the erstwhile Ottoman state a crippled political entity. Erdogan is making a great mistake by denigrating his Army establishment in this manner and seeking to browbeat public dissent through high-handed police and intelligence agency action. Conditions would deteriorate rapidly as and when an alternate leadership option becomes available. Then the nation would rally around him or her to hark back to its halcyon days, in this case the Kemalist Turkey rather than an Islamist one.

Conclusion

As for India, several numbers of Gulen schools operate in India in cities such as Delhi, Hyderabad and Bangalore. The schools are run under the aegis of the Indo-Turkish Business Association (ITBA).The government needs to review their working and, if suspect, close them down because of their possible hidden agenda. Many Gulen schools have already been shut down by Erdogan post July's attempted coup. Indian soil cannot be allowed to be used for the germination of unconducive ideologies in the future and our own interaction with the TSK, Turkish National Intelligence Organisation (MIT) and the AK government at large need to be re-calibrated.

Apply: IBPLC Kickstart Programme for Nigerian Entrepreneurs 2016

Brief description: The International Breweries Foundation Kickstart programme is open only to Nigerians from 18 to 35 who live or have their business within the South Western region.

Application Deadline:  23:59 hours 7th September, 2016.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: South Westerners in Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Osun state, Nigeria

About the Award: Season Two of IB PLC Foundation`s KICKSTART Entrepreneurship Initiative for youths between the ages of 18 – 35 has been scheduled for commencement on August 8, this year.

This comes fresh from the heels of a very successful Season: 1 that saw 25 lucky winners receive grants to kick start their business dreams and ideas. IB PLC Foundation, a subsidiary of SABMiller wants to keep its promise of fulfilling dreams and support young and brilliant minds on how to get employed, generate employment and create wealth for themselves through its KickStart programme. The programme was first launched in Ibadan – Oyo State, a major commercial hub in the South West of Nigeria on the 6th of August, 2015 to a rousing reception.

Offered Since: 2015

Type: Entrepreneurship competition

Eligibility: 

• The competition is open ONLY to South Westerners of 18 to 35 years who live or have their business within the South Western region.
• Applicants must be at least 18 and at most 35 years with valid identification (e.g National I.D; Drivers Licence; International Passport; Voters Registration, etc.) as at the last day of the application period.
• He or she must be willing to operate the business on a full-time basis.
• Have an innovative business idea in need of a start-up capital.
• Or already have an existing small businesses needing capital to expand operations.
• Energetic and entrepreneurial in approach.
• Must be able to read and write.

Selection Criteria: A number of top entries will be selected based on the merit and quality of their business case by a team of seasoned judges. Each form will be scored against the “Screening Sheet”. The sheet will be used to grade and rank all submitted application form, the score gotten from the submission will be debated upon by the judges to ensure alignment and common ratings. For clarity of purpose and fairness to all applicants, the Screening sheet is an internal document. Scores are not shared externally.

Number of Awardees: up to 25

Value of Competition: At the grand event, winners will be announced and presented with their prizes. It will be a high profile event with government functionaries and business persons in attendance.

Duration of Competition: Successful applicants will then undergo an intensive business training sessions for one (1) week.

The modules for the training will include:

• Human Resources
• Business Plan Writing
• Book Keeping
• Income Statements

At the end of the training, applicants will be given one month to write the final competing business plan which will be submitted in person at the Head Office in Ilesha, Osun State.

How to Apply: Interested individuals should download the application form herewww.ibpkickstart.com

Visit Competition Webpage for details

Award Provider: IBPLC