9 Sept 2017

New Zealand: The right-wing politics of the Opportunities Party

Sam Price & Tom Peters 

The Opportunities Party (TOP), founded by multi-millionaire businessman Gareth Morgan last November, has received significant promotion by the corporate media in the lead-up to the New Zealand election on September 23.
By presenting itself as “anti-establishment,” the party is seeking to exploit widespread discontent with the status quo, particularly among young people over the rise in social inequality and the high cost of housing. TOP’s website states that it opposes “policies that allow people to get rich at the expense of others or our environment.” One of its slogans is “Not left. Not right. But... what works.”
This is a sham. In fact, TOP is seeking to channel opposition behind a right-wing, nationalist agenda aimed at boosting New Zealand capitalism at the expense of workers’ living standards.
Morgan is one of the richest people in the country. During the 1980s, just before the pro-business de-regulation of the 1984–1990 Labour Party government, he co-founded economic forecasting company Infometrics Limited, one of the largest businesses of its kind in the country.
In 1999, Morgan founded the investment company Gareth Morgan Investments, which he sold in 2012 to the state-owned Kiwibank for a sum estimated between $50 and $100 million. The Morgan Foundation was established to manage Morgan’s philanthropic activities, for which he is lauded in the media.
TOP is polling around 2 to 3 percent at this stage, below the 5 percent threshold needed to enter parliament.
There is widespread hostility to the National Party government and opposition Labour Party, which both support the program of austerity and militarism. The last two elections saw historically low voter turnouts with more than a million people abstaining, in a country of just 4.8 million.
While he tries to posture as an “outsider,” Morgan has stated that he could work with either of the major big business parties. On August 24, he told Newstalk ZB he expected the recently elevated Labour leader Jacinda Ardern to be the next Prime Minister “and I think that’s fantastic for New Zealand.”
So far, TOP has made no statement on the most pressing issue facing the working class: the immense danger of nuclear war. In response to Trump’s aggressive and reckless threats against North Korea, both Labour and National have publicly signalled the possibility of joining a US-led war.
Like the major parties, TOP supports New Zealand’s de facto military and intelligence alliance with the US and increasingly aggressive stance against China. Writing on his foundation’s website on July 1, 2015, Morgan endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, promoted by the Obama administration to establish a US-dominated trade and investment bloc to counter China.
Morgan approvingly quoted Obama’s statement that “if we don’t write the rules, China will write the rules” in Asia and declared it “a no-brainer” that New Zealand should align with the US against “non-democratic” China. He endorsed the US “military steps such as beefing up its presence in Asia” to counter Chinese “expansionism” in the South China Sea.
Trump’s administration has scrapped the TPP and is instead threatening trade war, while increasing the US military build-up against China and North Korea.
TOP has also joined the established parties in stoking anti-immigrant xenophobia as a means of diverting acute divert social tensions. It calls for a 30 percent cut in immigration and attacks the government for allowing “desperate economic refugees from India and China” to study and work in New Zealand. It also advocates tougher immigration measures, including more stringent “English language” criteria, to require migrants to work in NZ for five years (up from two) to qualify for Permanent Residency and 25 years for pensions (up from 10).
The Labour Party, the right-wing populist NZ First and the Maori nationalist Mana Party advocate similar policies. They have scapegoated Chinese people in particular for the housing crisis, low wages, drugs and other social problems—a campaign that is also bound up with further integrating New Zealand into the US preparations for war with China.
TOP’s economic and social policies are not aimed at reducing inequality, but further enriching New Zealand capitalists.
One of TOP’s billboards misleadingly states: “Rich pricks should pay more tax, including me,” i.e. Morgan. The party’s tax policy actually says “New Zealand companies are bearing an unfair and unsustainable tax load” and should “get relief.”
While lowering corporate tax by an unspecified amount, TOP would impose an “assets tax,” which it claims would be paid by the rich. In fact, the tax would not just apply to investment properties, but indiscriminately to every house, which would be regarded as a “productive asset” and taxed on its estimated annual rent. The party’s website asserts that home owners should be taxed on the “benefit of ‘free’ accommodation,” even if they receive no rent or capital gains on their home.
TOP claims that the tax would address the country’s speculative housing bubble by diverting investment from property to other economic activities. In March, the Economist wrote that New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland, was among the least affordable housing in the world, with modest homes frequently selling for over $1 million.
TOP’s housing policies would only make the crisis worse. It does not propose any cap on rents, meaning landlords could pass on the extra tax to tenants. At the same time, many home owner-occupiers would have to take on debt to pay the tax. Retired people would have the tax deducted from the sale of their house after they die.
In addition, TOP calls for the privatisation of the country’s entire public housing stock, saying it should be “gifted” to “not-for-profit” organisations. Far from increasing the stock of affordable housing, this would end any responsibility by the state to house the poorest people in society.
Another central TOP policy is its call for a so-called “unconditional basic income” (UBI) of $200 a week, which it cynically portrays as a form of wealth redistribution that would help to alleviate poverty.
In fact, the UBI would initially be available only to families with children under three years old. It would be funded, not by taxing the rich, but by cutting pensions through means testing. A single retired person is currently entitled to a maximum of just $390 a week, which TOP says is “just too high.” Speaking to Radio LIVE on March 28, Morgan said approximately half of pensioners should have their payments cut in half.
TOP states that it eventually wants a UBI “for all” adults. It would be funded by eliminating or drastically reducing existing targeted welfare payments, most of which (invalid benefits, pensions and unemployment benefits plus accommodation supplements) are higher than the UBI.
The UBI is so low that nobody could realistically survive on it. The average rent in Auckland or Wellington is over $500 a week, more than twice the level of the UBI, and single rooms are rented at around $200 or higher.
If TOP gains seats in the next parliament, far from narrowing the gulf between rich and poor, it will use its numbers to assist in deepening the assault on the working class. The fraud that TOP is “anti-establishment” is being promoted by the corporate media, as well as the trade union funded Daily Blog, as another political safety value to prop up a parliamentary system which is already under severe stress.

India, Bangladesh support Burmese military repression of Rohingya

Wimal Perera 

During a visit to Burma (Myanmar) this week, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi explicitly endorsed the ongoing military repression of Rohingya Muslims in Burma’s northwestern Rakhine state. His government and Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina are both moving to forcibly deport thousands of poverty-stricken Rohingya refugees.
Since August 25, the Myanmar military (Tatmadaw) has stepped up its violent attacks on Rohingya in Rakhine state where most of the Muslim minority live. Rohingya have been tortured, women raped, houses torched and villages destroyed in “ethnic cleansing” operations throughout the state.
According to UNICEF, over 400 Rohingya have been killed and 164,000 have been forced to flee—80 percent are women and children. Tens of thousands are seeking refuge in neighbouring India and Bangladesh. The Burmese government claims the military operations are in response terrorist attacks by insurgency groups linked with the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army which purportedly killed 12 security officers.
During his visit, Modi fully backed the military repression declared, “We share your [the Burmese government’s] concerns about the extremist violence in Rakhine state and especially the violence against the security forces and how innocent lives have been affected and killed.”
Modi praised Myanmar Foreign Minister Aung San Suu Kyi for her “courageous leadership” and issued a joint statement in which he promised to work with her to solve the “terrorist problem.” In return, she thanked “India for its strong stance with regard to the terrorist threat” and claimed her government was “defending all the people” in Rakhine state.
Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy are directly responsible for the brutal repression, having given a blank cheque to the military and defended all it has done. Last week she attempted to deny the military violence unleashed against Rohingyas, claiming that news reports about the attacks were “a huge iceberg of misinformation.”
Modi signed 11 joint agreements in Myanmar last week, his first trip to the country. The Hindu newspaper reported on September 6 that these included “maritime security, strengthening democratic institutions in Myanmar, health and information technology.”
Prior to the trip, Deputy Home Minister Kiren Rijiju declared that India would deport Rohingya refugees, including those registered under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). “They are illegal immigrants in India, he declared, and “as per law, they stand to be deported.”
Early last month, Rijiju told the Indian parliament that about “40,000 [Rohingyas] were staying in India illegally.” The Home Affairs Ministry also declared that Rohingya refugees and others deemed to be “illegal immigrants” were responsible for the “rise of terrorism in last few decades” and called on Indian’s state governments to deport them.
Thousands of Burmese Rohingya have sought refuge in India from previous persecutions, settling in Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan. In these areas, poor and oppressed Rohingya communities are being targeted for racialist attacks. According to thewire.in website, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Jammu in April “threatened to ‘identify and kill’ Rohingya refugees in Jammu if they were not immediately deported.” Up to 7,000 have taken refuge in the north Indian state.
These threats are encouraged by the Modi government, which is promoting racialist and religious divisions in an attempt to divide Indian workers and undermine the growing opposition to New Delhi’s social austerity attacks on the working class and the poor.
The government’s support for the ethnic cleansing attacks on the Rohingya are in line with its attempts to develop closer ties with Myanmar and undercut Beijing’s influence in that country. This is directly connected to India’s active involvement in the US-led diplomatic and strategic confrontation with China.
Burma is also crucial to India’s so-called “Act East Policy”—a strategic outreach to South East Asia and East Asia. This includes boosting Indian trade and investment with Myanmar to exploit the country’s rich resources. Much of this has focused on Rakhine, where India has completed work on the Paletwa Inland Waterways Terminal and Sittwe port as part of the Kaladan project. Both countries share a 1,600 kilometre border.
Last week two Rohingya immigrants—Mohammad Salimullah and Mohammad Shaqir—filed a petition with the Indian Supreme Court opposing any deportation of Rohingyas. Both men are registered refugees under the UNHCR.
Their plea states that their deportation is illegal under the Indian constitution and violates the principle of “non-refoulement” which bans sending a refugee back to where his or her life or freedom is “threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” The two men stated that they were forced to seek refuge in India due to widespread discrimination, violence and bloodshed in Myanmar.
India’s threat to deport thousands of Rohingya refugees has been widely condemned. Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, said the UN was concerned about India’s treatment of refugees. “Once refugees are registered they are not to be returned back to the countries where they fear persecution,” he said.
Bangladesh has also declared that it wants to expel Rohingya refugees. There are currently 400,000 Rohingyas living in desperate conditions in Bangladesh, having fled there in response to previous attacks by the Myanmar military and anti-Muslim thugs.
The Bangladesh government has mobilised security forces along its border to prevent more refugees entering the country. Late last month 20 Rohingyas, including 12 children, died when boats carrying them across the Naf River, which borders both countries, capsized. The International Organization for Migration said last week that thousands of others are stranded in a “no man's land” between the two countries.
While there are no accurate figures, the Inter Sector Coordination Group of Humanitarian Agencies in Bangladesh estimates that over 160,000 Rohingyas have entered Bangladesh since the latest pogroms began on August 25.

Journalist who exposed Hindu right assassinated in Bangalore

Kranti Kumara

Gauri Lankesh, a 55-year old former Times of India journalist and the publisher/editor of a Kannada-language weekly named Gauri Lankesh Patrike, was assassinated Tuesday night as she was entering her home in Bengaluru (Bangalore). Two motorcycle-borne assailants, aided by a third who was waiting near her house, reportedly shot seven bullets at Lankesh, three of which struck her head, neck and chest.
Lankesh had used her publication to expose and denounce the Hindu right and its Hindutva ideology, which are the political bedrock of India’s BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) government led by the arch-communalist prime minister, Narendra Modi. She was also reportedly in the process of writing a series of articles exposing the corrupt nexus between big industrialists and Karnataka state politicians in the run up next year’s state assembly elections. Bengaluru is the capital of Karnataka, India’s eighth largest state.
Lankesh had become the target of seething hatred from powerful BJP politicians and Hindu communalist and fundamentalist groups. Two state BJP leaders had sued her in court for “defamation” over an article she had written in 2008 about their involvement in corruption. Last year, Gauri Lankesh was sentenced to six months in jail on these trumped-up charges, but was allowed to post bail pending an appeal in a higher court.
Lankesh’s murder bears all the hallmarks of the Hindu extremist right. There has been a surge in Hindu right vigilantism and violence since Modi and his BJP came to power in 2014, exploiting mass disaffection with the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and the Stalinists who propped up the UPA for its first four years in office.
That a journalist could be stalked and killed in such a cold-blooded manner has provoked widespread shock and revulsion. Hundreds of people took to the streets of Bengaluru and other Indian cities to demand justice for Gauri Lankesh and other targets of Hindu-supremacist groups.
Lankesh is the fourth victim of such a targeted assassination in the past four years.
On August 20, 2013, Dr. Narendra Dabholkar—a medical doctor and crusader against self-styled “godmen,” an endemic phenomenon in India—was shot dead during a morning walk in Pune, the second largest city in Maharashtra, Karnataka’s neighbor state to the north. Dabholkar had played a leading role in the campaign for an anti-superstition bill banning various activities religious hucksters use to exploit popular superstition. Right-wing Hindu groups have denounced even the highly-watered down bill the Maharashtra Assembly passed in the aftermath of Dabholkar‘s death as “anti-Hindu”.
Then on February 10, 2015, Communist Party of India (CPI) national executive member Govind Pansare and his wife were shot at close range by two men on a motorcycle when they were returning home from their morning walk. Pansare, who had come in the cross-hairs of Hindu-supremacist groups for being a strident opponent of the caste system, died from his gunshot wounds, but his wife survived. Pansare’s daughter, Smitha Pansare, has blamed the BJP and the RSS—the shadowy Hindu nationalist “cultural organization” from which Modi and much of the BJP’s leading cadre have emerged—and their relentless promotion of Hindu extremism and intolerance for her father’s death.
Six months later, on the morning of August 30, 2015, Dr. Malleshappa Kalburgi, a 76-year old retired professor and vice-chancellor of Karnataka’s Hampi university, was shot dead by two assailants who came to his home posing as students. Kalburgi had been vehemently denounced by violent Hindu-supremacist groups such as the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad or World Hindu Council) and the RSS, after having declared his opposition to idolatry during a June 2014 seminar in Bengaluru. He then recollected how “as a curious child” he had urinated on idols of various Hindu gods “to see if it would elicit instant divine retribution.”
The assassinations are widely recognized to be a product of the noxious communalist view of Indian society promoted by the RSS-led network of Hindu supremacist organizations which the BJP government has been promoting, including through the systematic naming of Hindu chauvinists to leading positions in educational, cultural, and scientific organizations.
Modi, a self-styled autocrat who gained notoriety as the chief instigator and enabler of the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat, relies upon Hindu bigotry and bellicose nationalist appeals to rally popular support for his government and its unabashed pro-business agenda.
Earlier this year, Modi appointed Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu high-priest who commands his own Hindu communalist militia, as the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state.
Since taking office, this retrograde, saffron-clad swami has used various pretexts to order the wholesale shutting down of slaughterhouses, putting large numbers of Muslim and Dalit laborers out of work. He has also threatened to book Muslims under the “Gangster Act” if they slaughter cow, buffalo, camel or ox during the Muslim Bakrid festival.
In the aftermath of Modi’s election, BJP state governments either adopted or began to more aggressively enforce “anti-cow slaughter” legislation. Emboldened by this, and sometimes with the active support of BJP politicians, the BJP’s Hindu right allies intensified their anti-cow slaughter campaigns, setting up vigilante “cow protection” groups. Lynchings of poor Muslims and Dalits soon followed.
Only after months of public outcry did Modi make a pro forma statement condemning the violent attacks on villagers alleged to have eaten-beef or to be engaged in cow-slaughter. Not only are beef and buffalo meat an important source of protein for many poor Indians, the leather-industry is a major source of employment.
Some have suggested that the primary motivation for Lankesh’s murder could have been her impending e xposé of political-corporate corruption. But even if that was the case, BJP politicians through their ties to the RSS, have links with all sorts of extremist and criminal elements.
Many of Gauri Lankesh’s friends and journalist colleagues have said there is much evidence pointing to the involvement of a Hindu extremist group named Sanatan Sanstha in her assassination. All the named suspects in the murders of Pansare and Dabholkar were linked to this organization. However, neither of these murders has been solved.
India’s police are notoriously incompetent and corrupt. But the Indian state has consistently failed to seriously investigate, arrest and convict those responsible for acts of Hindu communalist terror, whether it be the orchestrators of anti-Muslim riots or the killers of opponents of the Hindu right.
Last month, India’s Supreme Court ordered the release on bail of Lieutenant-Colonel Shrikant Purohit, an Indian Army intelligence officer accused of supplying the military-grade RDX explosive used in the 2007 Samjhauta Express train bombing, which killed 70 people, and bombings in 2008 in Malegaon and Modasa that killed 8 people.
These bombings were all initially blamed on Islamists, but subsequently authorities conceded they were the work of Hindu terrorists with ties to the military.
All this came out almost a decade ago, yet no one has been convicted in any of the bombings and all the alleged leaders have been released. In Purohit’s case, India’s highest court said there was a “contradiction” in the charges two different investigative agencies had filed against him.
One of the lead prosecutors in the Samjhauta-Malegaon case has said that she was instructed by higher-ups to “go soft” on these Hindu terrorists after the BJP came to power in 2014.
The discredited Congress Party and the Stalinist parties—the CPI and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM—bear the primary politically responsibility for the rise of the Hindu right, which until the 1980s was a marginal player in Indian politics. The Stalinist parties have systematically suppressed the class struggle, including by propping up corrupt Congress governments that have connived with Hindu right (as in the Dec. 1992 razing of the Babri Masjid) and implemented socially incendiary neo-liberal reforms.
The rise of the BJP is the Indian expression of a global phenomenon whereby the crisis-ridden bourgeoisie is vomiting up social reaction and increasingly employing authoritarian methods of rule. Only through the development of a mass working class-led political movement for socialism uniting India’s toilers across caste, religious, and ethnic lines can the depredations of the BJP and its cohorts be defeated.

ECB makes first move to wind back quantitative easing

Nick Beams

The European Central Bank has given its strongest indication yet that it will set out proposals to start to reduce its holdings of €2 trillion worth of financial assets—corporate and government bonds—when it holds the next meeting of its governing council in October.
Speaking at a press conference following its September meeting on Thursday, ECB president Mario Draghi said the bank was likely to take the “bulk of decisions” next month on winding down its €60 billion per month asset purchasing program. There had only been “very, very preliminary discussion” so far.
The meeting was preceded by further pressure from Germany for a winding down of the ultra-low interest rate policy and the bond buying program that began in 2015.
In an address to a banking conference in Germany earlier this week, German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble called on the ECB to end its program of bond buying and negative interest rates. He said that the economic recovery in the euro zone was now strong enough for a return to a more “normal” monetary policy.
Schäuble was supported by the chief executive of Deutsche Bank, John Cryan, who called for an end to the policy which has hit banks’ profitability. “The era of cheap money in Europe should come to an end—despite the strong euro,” he told the conference in Frankfurt.
But the rise in the euro poses a dilemma for the ECB as it considers its next policy move. The official rationale for the low-interest rate regime is that it is necessary to lift euro zone inflation to near, but below, 2 percent.
However, the fall in the value of the US dollar is pushing up the value of the euro—it is now around $1.20—having risen more than 14 percent against the US currency this year and 6 percent on a trade-weighted basis. The rise in the value of the euro tends to push down the rate of inflation which the ECB is trying to lift.
The impact of the higher euro value was reflected in the ECB estimates for euro zone inflation set out by Draghi in his remarks to the press conference. Inflation was expected to be 1.5 percent for 2017, falling to 1.2 percent in 2018 and rising to 1.5 percent in 2019, well below the ECB’s target. Draghi said the estimate for inflation had been “revised down slightly, mainly reflecting to recent appreciation of the euro exchange rate.”
While economic expansion appeared to be solid and broad-based, Draghi said, “the recent volatility in the exchange rate represents a source of uncertainty” which had to be monitored with regard to the implications for the medium-term outlook for price stability.
Economic expansion had yet to translate into “stronger inflation dynamics,” he said. Therefore “a very substantial degree of monetary accommodation is still needed for underlying inflation pressures to gradually build up.”
Accordingly, the ECB made no change to its interest rate policy leaving the main refinancing rate at zero with its deposit rate at minus 0.4 percent. Draghi said the ECB expected rates to remain at their current levels “for an extended period of time, and well beyond the horizon of our net asset purchases.”
As in the US, where inflation is also significantly below the Fed’s target of 2 percent and has been exhibiting a downward trend, one of the main reasons for low inflation in the euro zone is that wages are not increasing despite the increase in job numbers. This is because many of the additional jobs are either low-paying part-time or casual positions.
Draghi acknowledged that corporate profits in the euro zone have increased as a result of the low-interest rate regime but cost pressures “notably from labour markets are still subdued.”
He made it clear that the essential class agenda of the ECB—cheap money for the finance houses and corporations coupled with worsening conditions for workers—will continue and be intensified.
Draghi said that, in order to reap the “full benefits” of monetary policies, other policy areas had to contribute. “The implementation of structural reforms needs to be substantially increased to increase resilience,” he said.
In response to a question, Draghi further elaborated on the impact of the so-called “flagship reform” of the labour market by the Macron presidency in France, which aims to “liberalise” the labour market by eliminating previous protections. The questioner pointed out that, in as much as many of these jobs would be “precarious” or “low paid,” this would make the inflation target of the ECB much harder to achieve.
Draghi’s response could be described as a baring of the teeth. He expressed “full confidence” that the French government knew exactly what it was doing to undertake needed “structural reforms” and that one of the main targets had to be what he called “dualism” in the labour market.
“Dualism” refers to the situation where certain sections of the labour market were “rigid”—that is, governed by regulations restricting to some extent the ability of employers to hire and fire at will—while other sections were “very, very flexible.”
According to Draghi, the experience of the economic crisis was that it was in these latter areas that job losses had been the most significant. His prescription was not that further measures had to be introduced to prevent a recurrence of this experience, but rather that “all reforms of labour markets should aim at decreasing or eliminating this dualism.”
In other words, the Macron measures should be extended more broadly to remove what remains of regulatory protections for the jobs and wages of workers across the euro zone.

UK: May government finalises Grenfell Tower Inquiry cover-up

Robert Stevens

The public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower inferno, called by Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, will begin its deliberations with a preliminary hearing on September 14. Its findings are not due to be published until next Easter, fully 10 months after the fire took place.
The Socialist Equality Party has consistently warned that the inquiry is a fraud—aimed at covering up for those responsible for the economic, social and political decisions that led to at least 80 people perishing terribly.
Even today, the full number of those killed has not been confirmed, such is the contempt of the ruling elite for the working class residents who suffered. Not a single person has been arrested, or even questioned under caution. This is despite it being a matter of public record that the fire was the result of the decision made by Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation and its contractors to use combustible cladding, during the tower blocks refurbishment, to save money. Grenfell Tower residents who warned of the dangers of an impending catastrophe were silenced and threatened with legal action.
The fate of those who died in Grenfell was sealed by the implementation of austerity measures that further compromised safety, including the closure of 10 fire stations and the loss of 600 firefighters’ jobs by then London Mayor Boris Johnson, all of which left firefighting measures woefully inadequate.
While the inquiry’s appointed chairman, Sir Martin-Moore Bick, has been engaged in a fraudulent “consultation” with survivors and local residents, the reality is that most of the survivors remain in temporary accommodation, with inadequate support. Some 20 survivors are estimated to have tried to commit suicide since the fire, as a result of their trauma and the continued indifference to their suffering.
The inquiry has no intention of achieving real justice for the victims of Grenfell—nor remedying the dangers faced by thousands of other tenants across the country, who live in tower blocks clad in the same inflammable materials.
Its terms are restricted to “the immediate cause or causes of the fire and the means by which it spread to the whole of the building.” While it is meant to consider the adequacy of regulations relating to high-rise buildings, and the actions of the local authority and the London fire brigade, no one can expect anything but a whitewash.
The inquiry was called under the 2005 Inquiries Act, which states, “An inquiry panel is not to rule on, and has no power to determine, any person’s civil or criminal liability.”
Critically, it will not consider broader issues of “social housing policy,” i.e., of the social cleansing policies of successive Conservative and Labour governments over the last three decades that played a significant role in the inferno.
Moore-Bick recommended that any issues of a “social, economic and political nature,” should be barred from the inquiry, which May was only too happy to accept.
A former judge, Moore-Bick is notorious for ruling in 2014 that Westminster council—the equally wealthy neighbouring borough to Kensington & Chelsea—could rehouse an ill single mother of five more than 50 miles away in Milton Keynes.
Many local residents have rightly denounced the inquiry as a cover-up. But May is only able to proceed with this criminal farce due to the support of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the trade unions, including the Fire Brigades Union.
Corbyn endorsed the inquiry from the beginning, with the sole caveat that it be held in two parts. In a letter to May, he wrote, “It is ... a relief that the inquiry is now up and running, and that survivors are one step closer to the answers they so desperately need.”
While calling on May to “immediately set out a clear, independent and thorough process for identifying and addressing the broader failings that led to the Grenfell fire,” Corbyn added, “This process should work closely with Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s inquiry where appropriate...”
The various proponents of identity politics are also supporting the inquiry, as a means of concealing the essential class divide that it laid bare.
A critical role in this is being played by BME (Black Minority Ethnic) Lawyers4Grenfell, an umbrella group that includes, among others, the Association of Muslim Lawyers, the Society of Black Lawyers, Operation Black Vote, NHS BME Network and Society of Asian Lawyers.
In a BMELawyers4Grenfell press release, Peter Herbert, Chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, stated that Moore-Bick “has little or no personal or professional insight into the cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity represented by the Grenfell community.”
A letter addressed to May and Moore-Bick from a law firm representing the family of one of the victims of the fire, Hesham Rahman, states in part, “It is important that there is trust and confidence in the inquiry by the bereaved families, survivors and affected local residents, otherwise this could undermine the inquiry, its findings and any recommendations. ”
It adds, “Given the concerns already expressed … we are sure that you would wish to avoid any further criticisms [so] we ask that you appoint panel members who have the ability to reflect the diverse multi-faith community who will make up the majority of the core participants for the inquiry.”
Herbert welcomed this letter, stating that it stressed the “the importance of ensuring trust and confidence in the Inquiry in order to achieve justice” (emphasis added).
The fraudulent character of the inquiry is not fundamentally the result of the racial or religious make-up of its panel, which can be remedied by greater “diversity.” It is a fraud because it has been convened, and will be overseen and directed, by the very capitalist state apparatus and its political representatives that are responsible for turning Grenfell Tower into a death trap.
Time and again, official inquiries and inquests—lasting decades in some instances—have been utilised by the British ruling elite to conceal the truth of events that have resulted in massive loss of life, including those after the Aberfan and Hillsborough disasters.
No faith can be placed in the government inquiry or the police investigation. Workers must demand that all those guilty of the social murder at Grenfell are immediately arrested, charged and put on trial.
In the coming weeks and months, the WSWS will dissect the inquiry and expose its lies and evasions. The work of political exposure is an essential part of mobilising workers and youth independently of the political establishment to secure genuine justice for all those affected. This must include full and immediate compensation; permanent, decent rehousing in the borough, and an emergency programme of public works nationally—funded out of the ill-gotten gains of the banks and super-rich—to ensure all social housing meets the needs of working people, not private profit.

Germany’s federal election campaign and the danger of global nuclear war

Johannes Stern 

The media and political parties have long sought to keep the issues of war and militarism out of Germany’s federal election campaign. But reality is now catching up with them. US imperialism’s aggressiveness towards North Korea, Russia and China, and the Pyongyang regime’s testing of a nuclear weapon have brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war, which calls into question the very survival of humanity. A danger which the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGP) and International Committee of the Fourth International has been warning of for some time is now being openly discussed.
On Wednesday, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres drew parallels to the situation in 1914 and declared, “If you look at the history of the First World War, it was on a step-by-step basis, one party doing one thing, the other party doing another, and then an escalation taking place.”
In an article headlined “The firebrands,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung posed the troubling question, “Who knows whether in such a situation, things will happen in the end that at the outset nobody wanted. It is no coincidence that the sleepwalkers, who led Europe into the First World War in the summer of 1914, are being discussed once again.”
The last session of Germany’s parliament (Bundestag) prior to the election was overshadowed by the danger of nuclear war. Even before Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democrats, CDU) opened the session with a speech, deputy leader of the Social Democrat (SPD) parliamentary group on foreign and defence affairs, Rolf Mützenich, stated, “A nuclear shadow once again lies over the world—from North Korea, but also due to a careless, ranting US president, who is expanding the nuclear shadow. Mrs. Chancellor, I think you would deserve all honours if you sharply contradict such an American president in your remaining period in office.”
SPD Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel warned in his speech of “a phase in which we not only talk about conventional rearmament, but about a return to the darkest hours of the Cold War.” Globally, “all the talk is about rearmament … In China, India, Latin America, the US, Russia, Europe, Africa, everywhere we are talking about rearmament, nothing else is being discussed anywhere.”
“The political symbol, the political action that must come from Germany cannot be that we will join in with this arms race,” proclaimed the foreign minister. “Germany’s signal, regardless of who has governed this country, has always been that Germany wants to be a voice for peace and a power for peace in the world and will not participate in rearmament.” Gabriel described NATO’s decision that member states should spend 2 percent of their GDP on defence as an “error”—“Even though Social Democrats supported this compromise at the time.”
In November 1933, Leon Trotsky wrote the article “The pacifist Hitler.” He described how even Hitler pledged himself to “peace” and “international understanding” at the beginning of Nazi rule. The Third Reich, Trotsky noted, was at the end of 1933 still too weak “to be able in the next period to speak any other language than that of pacifism.” However, in the course of a few years, after it had rearmed, it would transition from “‘my peace’ to ‘my struggle’ and even to ‘my war’.”
Gabriel required less than five minutes in the Bundestag to transition from the phrases about peace and disarmament to call for the build-up of Germany’s armed forces. “Of course we must improve the armed forces’ armaments, because, by the way, cuts have been made to the armed forces for 12 years,” raged the Social Democrat. Gabriel identified the right-wing Christian Social Union (CSU) politician Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, who was defence minister from 2009 to 2011 and is currently attempting a political comeback, as the individual chiefly responsible for this.
The direction of Gabriel’s criticism of the NATO 2 percent target is clear. Germany is rearming and preparing, along with the other great powers, for war, but on its own terms.
The “main issue at stake must not be how much we spend, but rather the issue is what we spend it on,” Gabriel declared to the deputies. What is at stake is “the right strategy.” And he has been told by “every soldier who returns from a foreign deployment”: “Yes, we need the military. But dear Mr. Gabriel, don’t believe that simply through more defence and military spending you can secure peace and stability, and combat the movement of refugees. You have to fight hunger, poverty, hopelessness and the lack of a future. You have to do that.”
This is a barely concealed criticism of the US-led wars in the Middle East, to which Gabriel wants to counterpose an allegedly more “humane” European interventionist policy, dominated by Berlin.
“Europe bears responsibility for Europe’s security,” Gabriel wrote in his latest book with the revealing title “Remeasuring.” “In foreign and security policy, we have to be capable of strategic awareness and taking action, because we are not yet good enough. This includes defining our European interests and articulating them independently of the US. This obstinacy to some extent requires an emancipation from adopting positions developed in Washington.”
Gabriel’s declared goal is the establishment of a European army capable of enforcing its global interests independently of NATO and the US, and, if necessary, in opposition to the latter. It’s “not merely about purchasing new weapons. it’s about more strongly integrating Europe’s arms industry and to pool resources. It’s about the creation of a joint European security identity, which through increasingly integrated structures clears the path to a European army.”
Gabriel knows very well that US plans to strengthen its nuclear arsenal endangers this policy. A “return to the darkest hours of the Cold War” would increase Germany and Europe’s dependence on the US, and undermine Berlin’s economic and geopolitical interests, which stand in ever deepening contradiction to those of the US. He intends to utilise the remainder of the election campaign to transform the widespread fear of a US-incited nuclear war into support for German militarism.
The Left Party and Greens, who are striving to establish a government with Martin Schulz, the SPD chancellor candidate, after the election are working towards the same goal. They introduced a motion in the Bundestag on Tuesday calling on the German government to “withdraw” its support for NATO’s 2 percent target and “immediately initiate talks with the US aimed at withdrawing the US nuclear weapons stationed at Büchel from the Federal Republic as soon as possible.”
Jan Korte, who spoke in favour of the Left Party’s ultimately defeated motion, left no doubt that it was not motivated by pacifist goals, but the strengthening of German imperialism against Washington. The motion also noted “that we are independent and sovereign—including from the United States of America—and make our own policies here.”
The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei is the only party that opposes the US nuclear war plans, no less than European and German rearmament, and fights from the standpoint of the international working class against the growing war danger. In our election statement: “Against militarism and war! For socialism!” we state:
“The danger of a third world war cannot be prevented through appeals for peace to the ruling class. The struggle against war is inseparably bound up with the fight for socialism. The SGP calls for the building of an international anti-war movement based on the following principles:
“The struggle against war must be based on the working class, the great revolutionary force in society, uniting behind it all progressive elements in the population. “The new anti-war movement must be anti-capitalist and socialist, since there can be no serious struggle against war except in the fight to end the dictatorship of finance capital and the economic system that is the fundamental cause of militarism and war.
“The new anti-war movement must therefore, of necessity, be completely and unequivocally independent of, and hostile to, all political parties and organizations of the capitalist class.
“The new anti-war movement must, above all, be international, mobilizing the vast power of the working class in a unified global struggle against imperialism. The permanent war of the bourgeoisie must be answered with the perspective of permanent revolution by the working class, the strategic goal of which is the abolition of the nation-state system and the establishment of a world socialist federation. This will make possible the rational, planned development of global resources and, on this basis, the eradication of poverty and the raising of human culture to new heights.”

Strong earthquake shakes Mexico and Central America, killing at least 61

Rafael Azul 

The most intense earthquake to hit the area in one hundred years, measuring 8.2 in the Richter scale, shook Southwest Mexico and Central America on Thursday. At last count, at least 61 were dead in Mexico and at least 200 have been injured, mostly in the State of Oaxaca. The death toll is expected to rise.
The epicenter of the earthquake was forty miles (69 kilometers) under the surface of the Pacific Ocean and parallel to the to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec that separates North from Central America, sixty miles (100km) from the city of Tonalá, in the State of Chiapas. Tsunami warnings were issued for the coasts of Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala.
The earthquake struck at around midnight Thursday; some 50 million people felt it across Southern and Central Mexico. In Mexico City, the swaying buildings were reminiscent of the 1985 quake that killed well over ten thousand of its inhabitants.
While there were scenes of panic in Mexico City, there were only two casualties of people hit by falling debris. Following the 1985 earthquake, the government tightened earthquake regulations for that city and installed alarms that woke citizens up and gave them time escape.
However, given Mexico’s endemic corruption and cronyism, it is not completely possible to determine how effective the new codes are, since the epicenter of this latest earthquake was two times the distance from Mexico City relative to the one in 1985.
Power lines fell, buildings collapsed and walls fell in the eastern part of the sprawling metropolis of twenty million inhabitants. Throughout Mexico, nearly two million people were left without electricity.
The citizens of Morelia, Puebla, and Guadalajara also felt the earthquake, which triggered tsunami waves one meter high (3.3 feet), near the Oaxaca port of Salinas Cruz. The Mexican Navy evacuated eight thousand people from low-lying areas along the coast.
The earthquake also affected El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras resulting in injuries, power outages and the widespread destruction of poorly built buildings and roads. In northwest Guatemala the earthquake took a heavy toll in the impoverished communities surrounding the municipality of Tacaná, along the border with Chiapas; homes were demolished, as was the public school in Sujchay.
Both in Oaxaca and in Chiapas, and on the Guatemalan border, many homes built of adobe clay and palm leaves quickly collapsed. Many residents were rescued by neighbors but more victims may still be trapped beneath the rubble.
The destruction was not limited to adobe buildings, however, also affected where apartment and other buildings in cities across Chiapas and Oaxaca, despite higher earthquake standards that were established after the 1985 quake.
Oaxaca authorities reported damages in most of the municipalities in that state. In Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas the walls of the city hall cracked, also damaged were the two towers the Church of Saint Lucia. A historic monument was knocked over in the Chiapas capital city of Tuxla Guerrero. In the same city, the Church of San Vicente Ferrer, a sixteenth century structure, was destroyed.
In the city of Oaxaca, capital of state of Oaxaca, the city hall was partially destroyed. A hotel collapsed in Matis Romero, Oaxaca.
By far the most damage was concentrated in Juchitan de Zaragoza, a city of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants and third largest in the state of Oaxaca. A reporting team touring the city discovered many collapsed buildings and homes. There is no electricity and only intermittent Wi-Fi.
The only public hospital was heavily damaged; the injured were being treated out of doors. Also in ruins is the city’s government house, schools, churches, bridges and roads. As news reporters travelled the city, neighbors informed them of people trapped in the rubble, including in the government building.
The Juchitan Fire Department, which even before the quake was insufficient for a city of its size, was unable to fully respond to all the calls for help. Many of those that were transported to clinics outside Juchitan did so in vehicles volunteered by residents of the city, since there are not enough ambulances. Juchitan’s suburbs are in the same sad shape.
The near destruction of Juchitan is an indictment of the of authorities’ criminal neglect of public safety and the failure to implement proper infrastructure and emergency measures in anticipation of major earthquakes, particularly in an area where three major seismic faults coincide.
While Mexico City residents benefited from early warning systems, and perhaps from updated building codes, this was not the case for the residents of Oaxaca and Chiapas. The Juchitan earthquake building codes proved woefully inadequate, as did the size of its fire department, search and rescue system and the number of available emergency vehicles, leaving residents on their own.

Hurricanes Irma and Harvey: Natural disaster and political breakdown

Patrick Martin

The catastrophic impact of Hurricane Harvey in southeast Texas and the unfolding disaster of Hurricane Irma in south Florida are ruthlessly objective tests of the ability of America’s ruling elite to manage the affairs of society. By any reasonable standard, the capitalist class has failed, and failed miserably.
Two weeks after the Texas Gulf Coast was devastated by Harvey, millions of people are seeking to rebuild their lives with minimal social assistance. Hundreds of thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed, one million cars rendered inoperable, countless schools and other public facilities flooded and likely ruined beyond repair. At least twenty-two people are missing, most now presumed dead, on top of the more than 70 deaths officially acknowledged.
To address the costliest natural disaster in American history—at least until the toll of Hurricane Irma is tallied—with damage estimates approaching $200 billion, the Trump administration and Congress have approved a derisory $15 billion in federal assistance, ratified by the House of Representatives Friday.
The bulk of this money goes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which doles out funds limited to $30,000 per family, through a nearly impenetrable bureaucratic process in which the victims of the storm will be treated like criminals or con-men. Other funding is routed through the Small Business Administration, in the form of loans that those driven from their homes by the hurricane will be hard-pressed to repay.
Hurricane Irma is even more powerful than Harvey. The storm has already laid waste to several of the Lesser Antilles and to the Turks and Caicos Islands, as well as battering Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba. Irma began passing the Bahamas on Friday and is scheduled to make landfall somewhere in south Florida on Sunday afternoon.
Hurricane Irma is the most powerful storm ever recorded on this planet, with the most “accumulated cyclone energy,” one measure of overall intensity. It has sustained maximum wind speeds of at least 180 miles per hour for 37 hours, longer than any previous storm. Its size is vast: twice the extent of Hurricane Andrew, which devastated south Florida in 1992. The storm is so large that it is wider than the Florida peninsula itself, raising the possibility of simultaneous storm surges on both the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic Coast, an unheard-of phenomenon.
A lethal threat faces one of the most densely populated areas in the United States. But the response of local, state and federal officials has been to tell the potential victims of Irma: “You’re on your own.” This was the theme of several press conferences and briefings on Friday, as government officials told some six million people in south Florida to leave the region if possible, or else go to hurricane shelters.
These shelters are entirely inadequate—some sizeable cities, like Ft. Myers on the Gulf coast, have none. They are unavailable to many poor and working-class residents. The Coalition for Racial Justice complained that Miami-Dade’s shelters are open only in wealthy areas, a more than 30-minute drive from the city’s poorer neighborhoods.
Mandatory evacuations have been ordered for the Florida Keys, for Miami Beach and much of Miami-Dade, the state’s largest metropolitan area, as well as portions of Broward and Palm Beach counties and much of the southwestern corner of the state as well. Combined, they are the largest mandatory evacuation in US history, leaving all highways north completely jammed with traffic. Most gas stations have run out of supplies, leaving many residents stranded in their cars as the hurricane approaches.
The most basic measures to ensure that people can leave have not been taken, such as a mass coordination of free rail, bus and airplane transportation. Many of those leaving have no idea where they will stay, as hundreds of thousands attempt to find accommodations on the route north. Many are stuck at the airport, with no open flights and all shelters filled.
The Trump administration “prepared” for the one-two punch of Harvey and Irma by proposing to slash spending on FEMA and other relief and disaster management agencies, to say nothing of its war against climate science, waged on behalf of the oil, gas and coal producers and other big industrial polluters.
Even the succession of hurricanes—with Jose and Katia lined up to follow Harvey and Irma, four giant storms in only three weeks, fueled by ocean waters now at an unprecedented temperature of 90 degrees Fahrenheit—has not produced any rethinking by the know-nothings of the Trump administration. The unending stream of disasters proving the reality of climate change—to which one must add the fires raging on the US West Coast and the floods that have devastated South Asia—demonstrating the inability of the ruling classes of all countries to take any serious measures to address the growing threat.
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, a notorious global warming denier, denounced any discussion of climate change as “very, very insensitive” to the people of Florida. “To have any kind of focus on the cause and effect of the storm, versus helping people, or actually facing the effect of the storm, is misplaced,” he argued.
By the same logic, any discussion of plate tectonics or seismic faults should be banned during an earthquake, nor should there be any analysis of El Nino wind effects during wildfire season. Nuclear physics would be off-limits during a reactor meltdown. And, we might add, there could be no discussion of the economic laws of capitalism during a meltdown of the financial markets.
There is a distinct class content to this rejection of science, or, indeed, any serious thought. The US ruling elite, at every level, refused to plan seriously for natural disasters which were both predictable and inevitable. Once the disasters unfolded, the representatives of big business could barely conceal their indifference and annoyance at the plight of what one of Trump’s real estate colleagues, Leona Helmsley, sneered at as “the little people.”
Natural disasters have a way of exposing social and political reality. The Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1755, which destroyed much of the Portuguese city, was a significant event in the development of Enlightenment thought in Europe in the decades that preceded the French Revolution. It was proof, Voltaire noted in his Candide, of the absurdity of the claim of the philosopher Leibniz that “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.”
Who could follow Leibniz in making such an argument today? American and world capitalism is rotten to the core. The ruling class presides over unprecedented social inequality and unending war, in which resources are dedicated to greed and plunder but the most basic requirements of modern society go unmet and ignored.
Such a society is ripe, indeed overripe, for revolution. The task is to fight unceasingly to develop the political consciousness of the working class, so that it can fulfill its historical mission to become the ruling and directing force.

8 Sept 2017

Nelson Mandela’s African Leaders of Tomorrow Fully-funded Scholarship 2018/2019 – Canada

Application Timeline: 
  • Deadline to complete the Preliminary Questionnaire: 13th October, 2017
  • Selection process: 16th October to 31st December, 2018
  • Pre-selected candidates notified by email: January-February 9 2018
  • Admission to universities: January to March 2018
  • Pre-departure process (visa, accommodation, pre-departure orientation): February to July 2018
  • All other candidates notified of results: May 2018
  • Orientation session in Canada: Mid- August 2018
  • Start of study programs: End of August/beginning of September 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries in sub-Saharan Africa
To be taken at (country): Canada
Fields of Study: Public Administration, Public Policy or Public Finances
About the Award: The Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) administers the International Scholarships Program (ISP) of Global Affairs Canada. The ALT Scholarship Program by the CBIE grants full scholarships based on merit to women and men from sub-Saharan Africa to pursue a Master’s degree in public administration, public policy or public finances in Canada
The African Leaders of Tomorrow Scholarship Programme has two components:
  • An academic component
  • A professional component
Offered Since: 2015
Type: Masters
Eligibility: You must meet ALL the requirements to be eligible:
  • Be a citizen AND resident of sub-Saharan Africa;
  • Be between 22 and 35 years old (at the beginning of the study program);
  • Have completed a university degree meeting the minimum academic requirements for admission into a Master’s degree in Canada;
  • Have a minimum of two years and a maximum of five years of full-time work experience in the public sector, civil society sector or a research institute in Africa;
  • Be fluent in  French or English;
  • Meet all the academic requirements of the study program of choice.
You are not eligible if:
  • You are a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident or you have applied for permanent residency in Canada.
  • You are already enrolled in a degree or any program of study at a Canadian university.
  • You are currently employed by the Government of Canada.
Selection Criteria: Eligible candidates with complete files will be assessed against the following criteria by a national selection committee:
  • Academic merit;
  • Professional experience;
  • Relevance and merit of the case study;
  • Recommendation letters;
  • Demonstrated leadership capacity; and
  • Potential contribution to public administration and public policy upon the candidate’s return to his/her home country.
In awarding the scholarships, considerations will be given to gender equity and equitable representation from across sub-Saharan Africa
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded
Duration of Scholarship: The African Leaders of Tomorrow Scholarship Programme funds studies in a Master’s degree programme in public administration, public policy or public finance for a maximum period of two years (24 months). There are no other eligible programs.
How to Apply: 
  • Eligible candidates must click here to complete the Preliminary Inquiry Questionnaire.
  • You will need to provide information about your GPA from your undergraduate degree and any post-graduate programs (if applicable).
It is important to go through the Application requirements on the Scholarship Webpage (see link below) before applying.
Award Provider: The Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) manages the ALT Scholarship Program in partnership with the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) and in collaboration with the African Association of Public Administration and Management (AAPAM) and the Canadian Association of Programs in Public Administration (CAPPA).
Important Notes: During the application process you select three choices of universities and programs. You should consult the admission requirements and the program description to ensure that it meets your interest and qualifications.  At this time, you do not need to apply to the university separately.

Swedish Institute She Entrepreneurs Program for Women in MENA Region 2018

Application Timeline:
  • Application opens: 8th September, 2017
  • Application closes: 4h October 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) regions: Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine*, Sweden, Syria, Tunisia or Yemen
To be taken at (country): Sweden
About the Award: She Entrepreneurs is a recognised leadership programme for young emerging women social entrepreneurs in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA) and Sweden. Intended for women who have already started to build a social business, She Entrepreneurs offers participants a chance to take their social business initiative to a whole new level.
The She Entrepreneurs programme is an intensive programme with a full-day schedule and many evening activities and all selected participants have to commit to participating in all activities of both module 1 and 2.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Offered Since: 2011
Eligibility: To apply to She Entrepreneurs you have to:
  • have the drive, ambition and interest to use social entrepreneurship to implement a social business initiative that you have already started working on
  • your social business initiative should be based and implemented in your country of citizenship or in one of the countries of the She Entrepreneurs programme listed above
  • be between 20 and 36 years old
  • have a good working knowledge of both written and spoken English.
Selection Criteria: A selection committee consisting of staff from the Swedish Institute as well as representatives from partner organisations and field experts evaluates the applications according to the following criteria:
  • applicant’s social business initiative that will be the focus of the programme
  • applicant’s drive, motivation and commitment, as well as her answers to the questions of the She Entrepreneurs application form
  • assessment of the applicant’s CV.
Selection Process: Around 60 shortlisted applicants are called for interviews as a second step in the selection process. The interviews are conducted through Skype. This offer is valid only under the condition that the participant obtains a visa to travel to Sweden. SI will facilitate the visa application process, but cannot guarantee a visa. In recent years, applicants living in conflict-ridden areas have in a few cases seen their visa applications rejected.
She entrepreneurs will accept references who speak English, Arabic and French.
Number of Awardees: Around 28
Value of Programme: She Entrepreneurs participants will build on their knowledge of business elements, from branding to risk-taking. The programme offers a competitive advantage as participants develop their own social business initiative and acquire personal skills and innovative tools.
The programme also allows women entrepreneurs to meet, inspire each other and share experiences on common challenges. Participants will emerge with a strong and active network of likeminded women who support each other in driving important changes in society.
Duration of Programme: A total of two and a half weeks
How to Apply: Follow these steps to submit your application:
It is important to go through the Application instructions on the Program Webpage before applying.
Award Provider: Swedish Institute
Important Notes: Please note that there are no exceptions to the eligibility requirements. Only completed applications will be considered.