16 Feb 2018

Venezuela warns against US military intervention as domestic crisis deepens

Bill Van Auken

Venezuelan officials have issued warnings that the US and its right-wing allies in Latin America are preparing a possible military intervention aimed at overthrowing the government of President Nicolas Maduro.
Tensions have escalated in the region as both Colombia and Brazil have increased their military deployments on Venezuela’s border. The moves are ostensibly in response to an accelerating flow of migrants driven by the deepening economic crisis that has led to widespread unemployment, poverty and hunger among the Venezuelan masses.
Colombia has claimed that some half a million Venezuelans have crossed its border, while the Brazilian government indicated that it is preparing to declare a state of emergency in the border state of Roraima, one of the country’s poorest, and place the army in charge. Brasilia reports that some 40,000 Venezuelans have entered the state, adding up to 12 percent of its population.
Diplomatic provocations against Venezuela have also increased, with the so-called Lima Group “disinviting” Maduro from a Summit of the Americas set to open in the Peruvian capital in the second week of April. The sanction against Maduro issued by the group—which consists of 12 out of the 35 countries that attend the Summit—was justified on the grounds that elections called by the Venezuelan government for April 22 “will lack all legitimacy and credibility.”
One of the countries issuing this charge was Honduras, whose president, Juan Orlando Hernández, was installed through an unconstitutional and blatantly rigged re-election that was accompanied by wholesale repression of popular opposition. The same countries condemning Venezuela are silent on the criminal character of the Honduran regime, a close regional ally of Washington.
Earlier this week, Venezuelan Attorney General Tarek Saab charged that Colombia was planning “a military bombing and the invasion of the fatherland.”
Colombia’s Army chief, General Alberto Mejia, responded to the charge Wednesday by insisting that the buildup of troops on the border was aimed solely at dealing with the flow of Venezuelan migrants into Colombia. He claimed that the deployment was also aimed at preventing attacks by the National Liberation Army (ELN), a Castroite guerrilla group that has as yet failed to reach a peace deal with the Colombian government. Bogota has claimed, without substantiation, that Venezuela has offered the ELN sanctuary.
Suspicions surrounding Colombia’s military actions were heightened by a visit to the country last weekend by Admiral Kurt Tidd, the chief of the US Southern Command, which oversees Washington’s military operations in the region. Tidd held meetings with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, senior government officials and commanders of the Colombian armed forces.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee last year, Tidd stated that Venezuela’s crisis was a source of “instability” that “could eventually compel a regional response.” The admiral’s warning was in line with US President Donald Trump’s statement last August that he would not rule out a “military option” in dealing with Venezuela.
Threats of military intervention have been accompanied by increasingly open appeals by Washington to the Venezuelan military to overthrow the Maduro government.
Last week, Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who is largely directing US policy toward Latin America under the Trump administration, declared on Twitter, “The world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator.”
This explicit call for restoring “democracy” by overthrowing an elected president merely made more explicit remarks by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson earlier this month on the eve of his five-nation Latin American tour, which was directed at solidifying an anti-Venezuelan bloc aligned with Washington.
“In the history of Venezuela and South American countries, it is often times that the military is the agent of change when things are so bad, and the leadership can no longer serve the people,” Tillerson declared. No doubt, the secretary of state was thinking of the long and bloody record of US imperialism in orchestrating military coups in Brazil, Chile, Argentina and other countries in the 1960s and 1970s, leading to decades of dictatorships and police state repression of the Latin American working class.
Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, said in the same speech that a key aim of Washington is “integrating the wealth of energy resources within the hemisphere,” adding that “Venezuela boasts the world’s largest proven oil reserves.”
Overlaying the naked profit motives of US imperialism and the American-based energy conglomerates in the turn toward intervention in Venezuela are broader strategic considerations. These have been spelled out in the recent series of national strategy and defense documents issued by Washington, which define Russia and China as “revisionist powers” seeking to challenge US hegemony, and define an orientation toward “great power” conflicts as the central orientation of the Pentagon.
While the US has imposed a series of sanctions that have driven down Venezuela’s oil exports to the US, China has doubled its share of the Venezuelan oil market, while exports to Russia’s state-owned oil company Rosneft PJSC have more than tripled. Both countries have also provided the country with loans and favorable debt restructuring in return for guaranteed oil exports.
The Trump administration is reportedly discussing the imposition of more punishing sanctions against Venezuelan oil. It has already blocked the state-owned oil company PdVSA from access to the international bond debt-refinancing markets.
The US accounts for roughly 40 percent of Venezuela’s oil exports. In his remarks Thursday, Maduro dismissed the threat of US sanctions on Venezuelan oil, declaring, “If the US puts an oil embargo on us, we will take our boat and go somewhere else.”
The reality, however, is that Venezuela is equally dependent upon imports of technology, light crude and other products needed to blend Venezuelan oil for export. A cutoff of these supplies could prove just as devastating, if not more so, to the country’s oil industry as the loss of the US market.
The imposition of such sanctions would be aimed at triggering a catastrophic deepening of Venezuela’s already severe economic and social crisis.
Soaring inflation, pegged at 2,600 percent in 2017, has left large sections of the population without the means to procure adequate food. The value of the monthly minimum wage has fallen to the equivalent of US$3. This has led to forms of protest quite distinct from the mass rallies of the privileged layers of the middle class that have been mounted against Maduro and his predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez.
Workers’ strikes and protests as well as food riots and looting have broken out across the country in poor and working class neighborhoods. These have been met with police repression and violence by a government that, its pseudo-socialist rhetoric notwithstanding, has ruthlessly defended capitalist private property and enriched a whole layer of foreign investors, financiers, contractors and corrupt government officials, while masses of workers face extreme poverty.
In one recent incident reflecting the immense social tensions building up in Venezuela, Venezuelan army troops killed 18 miners at an illegally operated gold pit in the jungle region of Guasipati in the south of the country. The government is carrying out a campaign to close down the illegal mines, which are often controlled by criminal gangs, as part of its proposed Arco Minero del Orinoco megaproject, which aims to open up a vast area of the Guayana region to foreign mining conglomerates for investment and exploitation.
Washington’s appeal to the Venezuelan military to overthrow Maduro has yet to produce the desired results. In 2002, the CIA working in conjunction with a section of the military command and Venezuelan big business groups mounted an abortive coup that briefly removed Chavez from office before he was restored to the presidential palace by mass popular protests.
Today, the military is the principal pillar of the government, with active and retired officers directing several ministries and serving as governors. The armed forces control key sectors of the economy that have allowed a layer of senior officers to enrich themselves. Faced with a revolutionary challenge from below, however, the military command could seek to save itself at Maduro’s expense.

Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu faces possible corruption charges

Jean Shaoul

Israeli police have confirmed there is enough evidence in two separate cases to indict Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust and to show he had acted “against public interests.”
Their very belated decision highlights the corrupt relations that exist between Israeli politicians and big business and the media networks. It shreds Israel’s pretensions to be the Middle East’s “only democracy.” No less than its counterparts throughout the region, the Israeli political system is the criminal instrument by which the corporate and financial elite enforce their dictates on the Jewish and Palestinian working class.
State prosecutors and the attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, a former military prosecutor and one-time Netanyahu aide, must now examine the recommendations and decide whether to press formal charges. The process, including a hearing with Netanyahu’s lawyers, is expected to take months. Netanyahu could therefore still serve out his term and even run for re-election in September 2019.
Under Israeli law, it is not clear that a prime minister—as opposed to ministers and mayors—is required to resign if indicted. Given the long legal process that lies ahead, Netanyahu’s position depends on broader political machinations, both at home and in Washington, and whether his friends in high places will be enough to shield him from rising popular discontent with his government’s anti-working class policies.
There have been large weekly demonstrations calling for Netanyahu to resign. The latest opinion polls say that 53 percent of Israelis believe the police, and around half believe he should resign.
Netanyahu, while not denying many of the facts, denied any wrongdoing and vowed to fight on, saying that no police recommendation would prompt his resignation. This is in stark contrast to a decade ago when, as opposition leader, he demanded that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resign after police recommended his indictment. A leader “sunk up to his neck in interrogations” could not govern properly, Netanyahu declared.
Netanyahu, with his coalition partners thus far standing by him, at least until a formal indictment, now says, “Let me reassure you: the coalition is stable. No one, not I and no one else, plans to go to elections. We will continue to work together with you for the people of Israel until the end of our term.”
He insisted that the police report was “biased, extreme, full of holes like Swiss cheese and doesn’t hold water.” He accused the police of vastly inflating their figures and trying “to create a false impression of exchanges that never existed.”
The first case against Netanyahu, known as Case 1,000, involves the receipt of substantial gifts and benefits totalling nearly $300,000 from several wealthy businesspeople, including Netanyahu’s well-known billionaire benefactor and Hollywood producer, Arnon Milchan, Ronald Lauder, an American businessman whose family founded the cosmetics giant Estee Lauder, and the Australian billionaire James Packer.
The quid pro quo for Milchan was Netanyahu’s lobbying then-US Secretary of State John Kerry to support his bid to obtain a 10-year visa, which was ultimately successful, efforts (unsuccessful) to legislate generous tax breaks for him and intervention to prevent the collapse of TV Channel 10, in which he was a shareholder.
Packer, Milchan’s business partner, had, it is believed, sought to obtain Israeli citizenship or permanent-resident status for tax purposes.
In the second case, known as Case 2,000, which is far more serious, Netanyahu sought to make a deal with Arnon “Noni” Mozes, the boss of Israel’s daily Yediot Aharonot and its online site Ynet, to rescue its falling circulation and advertising revenues. He offered to back a law banning free newspapers, including Israel Hayom, founded and published by US casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson in 2008 at a cost of $261 million, which functions as Netanyahu’s mouthpiece. In return, Yediot Aharonot would ensure more favourable coverage of the prime minister and allow him to nominate journalists.
The proposed deal came to nothing. After months of trying but failing to block the introduction of a bill banning free newspapers, Netanyahu dissolved parliament, called an early election just two years after the previous one in 2013, and even made it a condition of the new coalition agreement that there would be no further attempts to introduce a similar ban.
Like almost all of Israel’s prime ministers after the first, David Ben-Gurion, Netanyahu and his family have faced numerous allegations of corruption. Both his and his wife’s lavish life style have given rise to the moniker “King Bibi and Queen Sara.”
This is not the first time the police have recommended charges, although the attorney generals closed both cases. In the late 1990s, the police recommended Netanyahu’s indictment for fraud and breach of trust for trying, when prime minister, to appoint an attorney general who would turn a blind eye to a minister under investigation for corruption, in return for that minister’s political support.
In a second case, in March 2000, when he was out of office, the police recommended his indictment for bribery, fraud and breach of trust for holding on to $100,000 in gifts that were state property, and getting the state to pay for private work on his home.
The net is also closing in on Netanyahu’s family and close associates. His wife Sara faces criminal charges of using state monies to buy $100,000 in catered meals.
Among those caught up in an even more explosive scandal, called Case 3,000, involving the $2 billion purchase of submarines and missile ships from a German supplier, are David Shimron, Netanyahu’s personal lawyer and second cousin, and Yitzhak Molcho, a lawyer, friend and close adviser.
Questions are also being raised over gifts from a close friend of Netanyahu who owns Bezeq, Israel’s telecommunications corporation, in return for favourable media coverage of Netanyahu.
His immediate predecessor, Ehud Olmert, served a jail term for bribery offences committed when he was mayor of Jerusalem prior to becoming prime minister.
Israel’s so-called left and centrist parties have issued pro forma statements calling on Netanyahu to resign, but they have done nothing during the last 13 months, when he was subject to police questioning, to challenge him. They did not even try to get the necessary 40 signatures—out of a possible 54 opposition legislators—to force the prime minister to answer questions on the bribery allegations.
Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist opposition Yesh Atid, has given testimony to the police about Netanyahu's attempts to help Milchan during his term as finance minister, when he blocked the legislation—prompting Netanyahu to claim that the charges are politically motivated.
As a former journalist, Lapid worked for Milchan and Mozes at Yediot Ahronot. His wife still works there and they all remain friends.
According to two opinion polls carried out since the announcement, despite the scandal, Netanyahu's Likud would win the largest number of seats in the Knesset, Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid would come in second, and the Zionist Union would come in a poor third.
Emboldened by what he believes is strong support from the Trump administration, Netanyahu is likely to distract public attention by escalating tensions against Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Palestinians.

Ramaphosa installed as South African president

Nick Beams

Former trade union boss Cyril Ramaphosa has been sworn in as president of South Africa following an intense battle within the ruling African National Congress (ANC) which led to the ousting of Jacob Zuma who had held the presidency since 2009.
The move against Zuma was set in motion last December when Ramaphosa won a closely fought struggle within the ANC to become its leader, narrowly defeating the candidate favoured by Zuma.
The campaign against Zuma, waged on the basis of “corruption”, has now seen the elevation of one of the richest men in South Africa to the top position. It is the incarnation of “black economic empowerment,” installed after the dismantling of apartheid, which has benefited a thin layer of black businessman, enriched at the expense of the South African masses who are experiencing worsening social conditions.
The campaign to remove Zuma, which has enjoyed the backing of major international financial and business interests, has been motivated by two concerns.
The first is that the activities of a network of Zuma cronies has impacted adversely on other business interests, both domestic and international. During the course of his campaign, Ramaphosa emphasised that corruption was a barrier to international capital investment in the country.
The second is the growing concern that under Zuma, the ANC, which has played the key role in maintaining the stability of capitalist rule in post-apartheid South Africa, is losing support in the face of growing hostility and discontent in the working class and oppressed masses.
In local elections held last August, it lost control of Johannesburg, the commercial centre, in the capital Pretoria, and most significantly in Port Elizabeth, which is an industrial city, with its vote falling to close to 50 percent for the first time since it came to power in 1994.
Financial markets welcomed the new regime. The Johannesburg stock market surged more than 3 percent on the news, and the rand hit a three-year high against the US dollar on the basis of “hopes” as the Financial Times put it, that “Mr Ramaphosa would now begin the work of reviving the broken economy.” In other words, that his elevation to the presidency would create a more favourable environment for the business and financial interests for which this newspaper speaks.
Ramaphosa’s campaign was laced with references to the need to tackle unemployment and poverty in an attempt to curry favour with the masses, but he will act in the interests of the forces he has always represented.
Pointing to some of the conflicts which led to Zuma’s ouster, he cited corruption and questions concerning “how we can straighten out our state-owned enterprises” and deal with “state capture”, that is, influence peddling.
Ramaphosa is set to deliver a state of the nation address this evening in which he will set out the agenda of the government before bringing down a budget next week. He is also likely to move against ministers appointed by Zuma. On the day of his accession a so-called anti-corruption unit raided the Johannesburg home of the Gupta family which has been accused of using its relationship with Zuma to influence government affairs.
The anti-corruption campaign has nothing to do with improving the conditions of the working population but is being waged on behalf of one section of the ruling elites, along with their international allies, who have been disadvantaged by others because of their close ties with Zuma.
In the installation of Ramaphosa, the South African bourgeoisie is placing in power a tried and trusted pair of hands.
Ramaphosa began his political career as the head of South Africa’s largest trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers, and was elected general secretary of the ANC in 1991.
This was a period of sharp transition. Key sections of South African and international capital recognised that the apartheid regime and its system of regulations was no longer viable under conditions of economic globalisation and that changes were necessary.
Moreover, there was a growing fear that under conditions of a rising movement of the working class, which threatened to explode into a revolutionary struggle, the very stability of capitalist rule was under direct threat. Hence it was necessary to carry out a change from above in order to head off an explosion from below.
The decision was taken to organise regime change and bring the ANC to power, while ensuring the enrichment of a tiny upper layer of a black capitalist class.
This program was implemented above all through the leadership of the ANC under Nelson Mandela with the crucial support of the Stalinist South African Communist Party which threw its full support behind “black economic empowerment.”
The role played by the ANC represented the consummation of its program, explicitly based on the Stalinist two-stage theory, renouncing the introduction of socialism and maintaining that a non-European black bourgeoisie had to come to power.
Within the ANC, Ramaphosa played a central role in this political operation and has been richly rewarded for his services, becoming one of the wealthiest men in post-apartheid South Africa with a net worth estimated at $675 million. He is a former chairman of the South African telecom giant MTN and has interests in corporations and banks in the country and internationally.
The class role of Ramaphosa, as well as the ANC, the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the National Mineworkers, was written in blood in August 2012 when he played a direct part in the events that led to the massacre of striking mineworkers at the Lonmin mines in Marikana.
At the time, Ramaphosa held a 9 percent share in Marikana and demanded that the authorities take action against what he called the “plainly dastardly criminal acts” of the strikers—a call that was carried out when security forces gunned down the strikers, killing 34 and wounding 78 others.
A whitewash inquiry, the Farlam Commission, organised under president Zuma, cleared Ramaphosa and other political leaders of any responsibility for the killings.
The elevation to the presidency of Ramaphosa, the consummate representative of “black economic empowerment” and its backers in international finance capital, further underscores the necessity of the South African working class breaking completely from the ANC and its capitalist program and undertaking the task of constructing a revolutionary socialist party if it is to achieve its emancipation.

War clouds gather over Munich Security Conference

Peter Schwarz

“One of the most curious features” of the last two years before the first World War, writes Christopher Clark in his book The Sleepwalkers, was “that even as the stockpiling of arms continued to gain momentum and the attitudes of some military and civilian leaders grew more militant, the European international system as a whole displayed a surprising capacity for crisis management and détente.”
One is reminded of these lines as one considers the Munich Security Conference, which begins today in Germany.
The annual meeting brings together hundreds of high-ranking political and military representatives, who participate in the main programme’s debates, hundreds of events on the sidelines, and numerous secret meetings. Both sides from several conflict zones around the world are represented.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ukrainian President Petro Pooroshenko are both in Munich. Heads of government from the Middle East in attendance include Binali Yildirim (Turkey), Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel), Haider al-Abadi (Iraq) and Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (Qatar), and foreign ministers Mohammed Javad Zarif (Iran) and Adel al-Jubeir (Saudi Arabia).
The United States is represented by Defense Secretary General James Mattis, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, CIA head Mike Pompeo and chief of the National Security Agency Dan Coats. Although Germany currently only has an acting government, it is represented by four ministers: Ursula Von der Leyen (Defence), Sigmar Gabriel (Foreign Affairs), Thomas de Maiziere (Interior) and Gerd Müller (Development).
Other European countries and institutions are also strongly represented: Britain by Prime Minister Theresa May and Intelligence Chief Alex Younger, Poland by Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak, and the European Union (EU) by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Foreign Policy High Representative Federica Mogherini.
Also attending are UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, high-ranking military figures, and leading representatives of international organisations like the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the International Criminal Court, the African Union, the Red Cross, and as a fig leaf, Human Rights Watch.
The conference takes place amid signs of growing international conflicts and an acute danger of war. German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger, the MSC chairman, wrote in the introduction to the Munich Security Report, which will serve as the basis for the conference, “In the last year, the world has gotten closer—much too close!—to the brink of a significant conflict.”
Examples referred to by Ischinger included the tensions between North Korea and the United States, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the tensions between NATO and Russia, the unraveling of landmark arms control treaties, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the rise of nationalism and illiberalism.
However, anyone expecting the high-level conference to strive for a relaxation of tensions and deescalation of the situation would have been left disappointed. Instead, at the heart of the discussions is the question of how the assembled great powers, and the Europeans in particular, can rearm in preparation for future wars.
The Munich Security Report, which outlines a scenario of the collapse of the international order, has the apocalyptic title, “To the brink—and back?” In answer to that question, the conference is not pulling back from the brink, but preparing to leap into the abyss. Along with the 90-page Security Report, Ischinger presented a 50-page European Defence Report entitled “More European, More Connected and More Capable. Building the European Armed Forces of the Future.” It contains a crazed rearmament program for Europe, the likes of which have not been seen since Hitler, in an unprecedented show of force, prepared the Wehrmacht for World War II.
Ischinger engaged the corporate consultants McKinsey to work out in detail what weapons systems could be purchased and which wars could be fought if the European powers increase their defence spending to 2 percent of GDP and coordinate their armies and arms programs.
If this goal is achieved by the 28 EU members and Norway by 2024, according to the paper, “about USD 114 billion of additional funds would be available for defense each year, which is the equivalent of two times the UK’s 2017 defense budget.” Total European military spending would then amount to $378 billion, an increase of 50 percent. Half of this increase “would have to come from Germany, Italy, and Spain—as those countries have high GDPs and a relatively low defense budget in terms of percent of GDP.”
Barely concealing their satisfaction, Ischinger and McKinsey calculate how many tanks, missiles and weapons systems Europe could purchase for this sum. “Rising defense budgets could open a unique window of opportunity to shape the European armed forces of the future,” they write. “The United States launched an analogous increase in spending in response to the 9/11 attacks.”
At one point, they acknowledge the lack of tanks in Europe: “For example, the United States has more than 2,800 main battle tanks, while the armies of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy have around 200 to 350 each.”
Or they pose the question, “How long would it take to purchase, from scratch, all the necessary equipment for an Operation Unified Protector-like mission [the air campaign over Libya in 2011]?” The answer, “Europe would actually need to invest 1.3 years of its 2024 total equipment spending (percent of GDP as is) to purchase the 670 weapon systems required. This shows that buying the entire equipment for just one large mission by itself is a rather tall order in terms of the investment required.”
The NATO defence ministers meeting, which was held in Brussels a day prior to the beginning of the Munich Security Conference, underscored that these are not merely hypothetical questions. “Burden sharing was a key topic of discussion,” reported NATO. “Ministers took stock of progress in implementing NATO’s Defence Investment Pledge. By 2024, 15 Allies are expected to spend 2% of their GDP or more on defence. ‘We are moving in the right direction, and I look forward to even more progress in the years ahead,’ said Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.”
The coalition agreement between Germany’s conservative parties and Social Democrats, which is to form the basis for the incoming government’s policies, advocates a major military build-up and closer defence cooperation in Europe. Ischinger, a retired career diplomat, has consulted closely with Germany’s Defence and Foreign Affairs ministries.
The Munich Security Report made clear who the target of this mad program of rearmament is. Alongside China and Russia, it identified the United States as a potential opponent. The most significant attacks on “the so-called liberal international order, a set of institutions and norms conceived in the aftermath of World War II,” surprisingly “come from unforeseen sources,” states the report. “As G. John Ikenberry notes, ‘the world’s most powerful state has begun to sabotage the order it created. A hostile revisionist power has indeed arrived on the scene, but it sits in the Oval Office, the beating heart of the free world.’”
Future areas of conflict are identified as Central and Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. But the collapse of the European Union, cyber-attacks and internal disturbances are also named as potential causes of war.
One chapter is devoted to nuclear rearmament. “Nuclear-armed powers are modernizing their arsenals, smaller nuclear-armed states are building capabilities, and arms control agreements are fraying,” it states. “A second nuclear age, with more actors and less stability, is taking shape.”
The documents and rearmament plans which set the stage for the Munich Security Conference leave no doubt about the fact that the imperialist powers’ war plans are far advanced. The risk of dying in a nuclear conflict is much higher for the generation alive today than death by common causes of fatality like a heart attack or cancer. Despite this, no anti-war movement exists.
The reason for this is that all of the parties which protested in the past against rearmament and war have made their peace with the capitalist order. Riven by social inequality, national tensions and financial instability, capitalism is the fundamental cause of the war danger. Only an international mass socialist movement of the working class, which connects the struggle against war with the fight against capitalism, can effectively resist the war danger.

The Parkland massacre and the dysfunction of American society

Patrick Martin

Wednesday’s school massacre in Parkland, Florida took the lives of 17 people. Fourteen were students, ranging in age from 14 to 18 years old: Alyssa Alhadeff, Martin Duque, Nicholas Dworet, Jaime Guttenberg, Luke Hoyer, Cara Loughran, Gina Montalto, Joaquin Oliver, Alaina Petty, Meadow Pollack, Helena Ramsay, Alex Schachter, Carmen Schentrup, and Peter Wang. Three were coaches: Chris Hixon, Aaron Feis, and Scott Beigel, who was also a biology teacher.
There are many aspects of this horrific act of mass murder that will require extensive investigation, from the alleged connection of the shooter Nikolas Cruz with a white supremacist group, to the fact that he had posted on social media the aspiration to become a “professional school shooter,” a declaration that was subsequently reported to the FBI months before Cruz came to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School armed with an AR-15 rifle.
The initial details about Cruz indicate that he has experienced from his youngest years a series of traumatic events. Adopted as an infant, Cruz lost his stepfather early on, and then, last November 1, his adoptive mother, a casualty of the flu epidemic. He was clearly disturbed throughout his high school years, exhibiting tendencies toward violent behavior that culminated in his expulsion from Douglas High School about a year ago.
The nature and extent of his psychological disorders remain to be determined. As more information becomes available, the particular traumas that conditioned and triggered his homicidal outburst will be more fully detailed. However, given the fact that the presence of mental illness was certainly visible—to his family, his school, his acquaintances—one must ask why there did not exist social institutions and support systems that might have intervened to provide Cruz the medical care he needed before this tragedy occurred.
But the fact is that the case of Cruz is hardly unique. The United States is a society that is producing substantial numbers of severely traumatized and psychologically damaged people. The crime of which Cruz is accused cannot be comprehended and explained in purely individual terms. In the final analysis, this latest massacre, like all the previous episodes of mass killings, is a manifestation of the extreme dysfunctionality of American society.
According to a tally by the Washington Post, since the Columbine massacre in 1999, 150,000 students at primary and secondary schools in the United States have experienced a school shooting on their campuses, with more than 400 deaths.
Indiscriminate killing inside a public school has become a mass phenomenon. The very words “school shooting” are a catchphrase that instantly conveys the images of dozens of bloodied bodies, a crazed, heavily armed young man (or men) firing at random, and students fleeing with their hands raised above their heads, crossing paths with police SWAT teams moving in the opposite direction.
Only the day before the Parkland massacre, a similar bloodbath was narrowly averted at a high school in Everett, Washington, just outside Seattle, when a grandmother alerted police when she found indications that her grandson, who lived with her, was planning to attack his school. The youth was found in possession of both guns and explosives sufficient to cause a massive death toll.
The crime that Cruz allegedly committed is horrifying. Many lives have been lost, and the survivors—families and friends—will never really recover emotionally from their terrible loss. The word “closure,” when applied to the aftermath of such events, is among the most dishonest in the American idiom. It is understandable that people such feel anger and outrage over such an inhuman act. But Cruz did not emerge from hell. He is product of American society.
Cruz was born in 1998, making him only a few months old at the time of the massacre at Columbine High School, in April 1999. Throughout the entire course of his life, America has been waging its never-ending “War on Terror,” in which war overseas has been accompanied by relentless promotion of an atmosphere of fear, suspicion, xenophobia, and glorification of military-style violence.
The brutal harshness of every-day American life extracts a terrible toll in human suffering. Loneliness and alienation underlie the depressive illnesses that afflict so many millions of Americans. The social despair leads all too frequently to suicidal impulses. But it also erupts in episodes of homicidal violence.
During Cruz’s adolescence, there were four mass shootings in the space of five years in south and central Florida: seven killed at a Hialeah apartment building in 2013; the 2016 massacre at the Pulse night club in Orlando, where 49 were killed; a mass shooting at the Ft. Lauderdale International Airport in January 2017, leaving six dead; and the killing of six people in June 2017 at an Orlando factory. As recently as October 1, a gunman opened fire from his hotel room in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and wounding 851.
Adding to this atmosphere of violence, Cruz was enlisted in the Army ROTC, which promotes militarism on high school and college campuses. No doubt he could familiarize himself there with the use of the AR-15, the “civilian” version of the weapon which American soldiers carry on patrol in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and other countries.
The social context of massacre in Parkland will be, as it always is, ignored by the political leaders and corporate media. The dominant narrative in the “elite” media and political establishment is that everything is basically fine in America. After all, what can be wrong when the stock market rises to dizzying heights and money is raining down on the lucky few? If there is discontent, then it must be the product of interference by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But the Parkland tragedy exposes and refutes the ruling class’ delusionary evasion of the terrible truth about the state of this country.
American capitalism has produced a society in which the killing of children as they attend school has become a common occurrence. One student who witnessed the carnage said in a television interview that the killing must stop. Yes, it must. But this will require the overthrow of this pathologically sick and inhuman capitalist society and its replacement with socialism.

Budget 2018-19: Beginning the 2019 Election Campaign

Prerana Priyadarshi


The 2018-19 union budget is a clear indication that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi led-National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has started its groundwork for the 2019 Lok Sabha (LS) elections. This budget seeks to revive the Modi government's tagline, "garibo ki sarkar," which had led them to power in 2014. The announcements related to agriculture, healthcare, and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) seem to support this conclusion. Changes to taxation regulations too are neatly tied to government's effort of widening the tax base, commonly understood to be demonetisation's 'final objective'.

AgricultureThe Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) entered the 2017 Gujarat assembly election with high agrarian distress and rural discontent riding on its back. This was one of the factors that led to a fall in the BJP's vote share from 59.1 per cent in 2014 to 49.3 per cent in 2017. The government witnessed the impact of the agricultural and rural sector's distrust on the Gujarat elections, particularly how it challenged the BJP's pro-farmer narrative that was created in 2014. Budget 2018-19 thus was an opportunity to placate the numerous disillusioned poor and rural voters and restore credibility before next year's LS elections.
In this budget, the government has announced that  minimum support price (MSP) for all unannounced kharif crops will be increased to at least one and half times of their production cost. This step is to safeguard agriculture produce from price fluctuations in the market.
However, the definition of cost is left unclear. It will be important to know how the government will ensure that this does not reward inefficient usage of inputs, and whether it will conduct audits to ensure that the cost is not inflated. This is a risky step that has the ability to introduce an upward pressure on food prices and cause some inflation, but has been taken anyway so the government can pitch itself as pro-farmer.
Another important aspect of this announcement is the mathematics of it: the payment of the differential between mandi price and MSP to farmers, if implemented, could increase the government's burden by over INR 20,000 crore. At this point, it is difficult to ascertain whether  the government has done its calculations, and if the economics of the decision have been taken into consideration before deciding the fiscal deficit figures.

UnemploymentUnemployment was another issue highlighted during the Gujarat elections, and will continue to be a major challenge for the government in the run up to LS elections. In the wake of dipping jobs during its tenure, especially in rural and sub-urban areas, the government has increased the budgetary allocation for rural road construction by 12.4 per cent, which will involve employing rural people in augmenting rural infrastructure. This will increase employment opportunities and can help absorb agricultural labourers. Besides this, 95,000 direct and indirect jobs will be created through the new mega food parks, and another 75,000 jobs will be created for building cold chains and other agricultural infrastructure. Even the Pradhan Mantri Employment Generation Programme is estimated to create 294,000 jobs. The government this year will push to reform the labour laws to maintain continuity with these job-related announcements.

Healthcare
Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas” is another tagline that the government will be looking to use again during the 2019 election campaign. The announcement of new National Health Protection Scheme (NHPS) seems to be an effort in this direction, given its focus on the economically disadvantaged.
NHPS proposes to provide cover of up to INR five lakh per family per annum for 10 crore families (approximately 50 crore individuals) for secondary and tertiary healthcare and hospitalisation expenses. However, various industry experts feel the actual spend by the government will be much higher than the meagre allocation of INR 2000 crore. Further, the timelines for the scheme's implementation look uncertain as the structure of the scheme is yet to be finalised.
Regardless, this has given the government a talking point for the 2019 elections.

MSME
Post demonetisation and the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the government has drawn flak over the sliding growth in the MSME sector. By announcing a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 30 to 25 per cent for entities with a turnover of less than INR 250 crore, the government has sought to neutralise the negative sentiment emerging from the sector. Approximately 99 per cent of companies paying tax will benefit from this announcement.  This decision is also a message to the MSME sector that the government has delivered on its promise made in the 2014 budget to structurally reduce the corporate tax.

Widened Tax BaseThe 2018 budget witnessed the reintroduction of long term capital gains (LTCG) tax on sale of listed equity shares and the units of equity-oriented funds with an exemption to the extent of INR 100,000 in a financial year. Further, the gains made till 31 January 2018 are grandfathered, which is a great respite for existing investors as the impact will not be with retrospective effect.
However, the announcement negatively impacts long-term equity investors. Firstly, this is in addition to the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) that an investor already pays on the total consideration paid or received in a share transaction. Secondly, indexation benefit, which would have taken into account inflation from the time an asset is bought till it is sold, is absent.
The introduction of 10 per cent Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) on listed equity and units of equity-oriented funds is another adverse announcement for capital markets, and impacts the investor community at large. This impact intensifies as there is already a 10 per cent tax on dividend income of above INR 1,000,000 from listed equity shares (equity-oriented funds are exempt) in a financial year resulting in double taxation on the same income.
While these two announcements are not investor-friendly, it opens an additional income stream which is in sync with the government’s agenda to widen the tax base. These taxes will help the government accentuate the poor-rich divide, and help demonstrate how the government is working for the poor by making the rich pay for it.

ConclusionBudget 2018-19 did not contain surprises considering that it is an election-year budget. It represents the government's efforts to put to rest the criticism that the ruling BJP was not sensitive to farm distress and the marginalised sections of the population. The government has still a year to go to implement these schemes, and if they falter there, it can certainly change the game come election season.

Harvard University Tunisia Office of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies Postdoctoral Fellowship 2018

Application Deadline: 1st April 2018

Eligible Countries: Tunisia

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

About the Award: The call for applications is open to scholars in the Humanities or Social Sciences who have received their PhD within the past seven years. The fellowship extends for 10 months, from September 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. The successful candidate will reside in the greater Boston area and will be required to teach a one-semester course on the area of specialization, in English or in Arabic. Preference will be given to the most qualified applicant whose research includes Tunisia and North Africa.

Type: Call for application

Eligibility: The following criteria must be met:
  • Preference will be given to postdoctoral researchers who are residents and/or citizens of Tunisia or postdoctoral researchers who are studying topics related to Tunisia.
  • Doctoral qualification should have been obtained in one of the following disciplines: Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, or Political Sciences, with preference given to those whose credentials are from a Tunisian university.
  • Postdoctoral fellow is required to teach a one-semester course in English or in Arabic. Priority will be given to candidates with a research interest in Tunisia and North Africa.
Selection Criteria: Applications will be evaluated by a CMES committee based on the relevance and the quality of the research proposals and the applicants’ language proficiency for teaching in either English or Arabic. The successful applicant will be notified by June 1, 2018.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The 10-month salary for this position will range from $47,500 to $56,000 and should cover the successful applicant’s accommodation, food, and visa fees. A round-trip economy class ticket from Tunis to Boston will be issued in addition to the stipend. It is estimated that the successful applicant will spend 30 hours per week on research and 5 hours per week on teaching and advising students. The fellow will work with the Director of CMES on the course design and matters pertaining to research.

Duration of Program: 10 months

How to Apply: Applicants are required to submit the following materials as one PDF document:
  • A current curriculum vitae, in English.
  • A research proposal (statement of purpose) not to exceed 1500 words, in English.
  • A writing sample not to exceed 5000 words that can be in English, Arabic, or French.
  • A letter of recommendation written by the candidate’s dissertation advisor, in English, Arabic, or French. This letter should be submitted directly by the recommender via email to cmes_tunisia@fas.harvard.edu before April 1, 2018.
All application materials must be submitted electronically to cmes_tunisia@fas.harvard.edu before April 1, 2018. Late or incomplete applications will be not considered.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Harvard University

UNFCCC–UNU Early Career Climate Fellowship Program for Young Leaders in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadlines: 
  • Phase 1: 1st February – 28th February 2018
  • Phase 2: 16th July – 16th August 2018
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Bonn, Germany

About the Award: The UNFCCC-UNU-EHS Early Career Climate Fellowship is offered as a collaborative programme between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS).
Upon completion of the UNFCCC–UNU Early Career Climate Fellowship Programme, the Early Career Climate Fellows will be able to work in their home countries or internationally, deploying the valuable experience and insights they have gained in Bonn. Academically outstanding young graduates from developing countries who are in early stages of their career, especially women from least developed countries, are encouraged to apply.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • Applicants must be enrolled in their final term or have recently graduated with top marks plus other indicators of academic excellence from an advanced university degree programme (masters or doctorate) in environment, climate change, communications, international relations or a related field.
  • No professional experience is required, but candidates with up to two years of experience can be considered.
  • Applicants should display a strong interest in the interface between international climate policy development and research. Furthermore, applicants should be highly motivated to work and learn in a multicultural and interdisciplinary environment.
  • Qualified women candidates and candidates from least developed countries are especially encouraged to apply.
Selection Criteria: Fellows will be selected based on their skills and backgrounds vis-à-vis the needs of UNU and UNFCCC.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Duration of Program:  Fellowships may last from six months to two years.

How to Apply: Interested Applicants

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS).

Important Notes: Applications will only be accepted during the two aforementioned time-frames. Applications handed in either before, or after, these application phases will not be considered.

Australia Awards John Allwright Fellowship for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018.

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be Taken at (country): Australia

About the Award: The Australia Awards John Allwright Fellowship is a scholarship offered by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and co-funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. John Allwright Fellowships are awarded to partner-country scientists involved in ACIAR supported collaborative research projects to undertake postgraduate training at Australian universities.
The primary aim of the John Allwright Fellowship is to enhance research capacity in ACIAR’s partner country  institutions. Whilst individual awardees will benefit from the Scheme, it is important to note that partner country institutions are the key targets.
The study and research opportunities provided by Australia Awards Scholarships develop skills and knowledge of individuals to drive change and contribute to the development outcomes of their own country.


Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants must be citizens of the country in which they are working.
To be eligible for selection, a candidate must:
  • at the time of applying, hold qualifications that would be assessed to be equivalent to at least an Australian bachelor’s degree in a discipline that is relevant to the proposed area of postgraduate study;
  • be a scientist or economist from the developing country partner, who is actively involved in a collaborative research project supported by ACIAR at the time of application (in some cases, ACIAR will consider supporting researchers from “advanced pipeline” projects, i.e. in cases where a full project proposal has been approved by ACIAR);
  • be jointly supported in the application by the Australian and partner country Project Leaders;
  • obtain approval from the employing institution who must agree to the absence of the candidate should he/she receive a Fellowship for the period involved in obtaining the postgraduate qualification; and
  • demonstrate that he/she is employed on a permanent rather than short-term contract basis.
Within the Fellowship Scheme, ACIAR strives to meet the Australian government policy on gender equity, and reflect ACIAR’s training policies and strategies.

Value of Award: The following benefits generally apply:
  • Full tuition fees
  • Return air travel—payment of a single return, economy class airfare to and from Australia, via the most direct route
  • Establishment allowance—a once only payment of A$5,000 as a contribution towards accommodation expenses, text books, study materials
  • Contribution to Living Expenses (CLE) is a fortnightly contribution to basic living expenses paid at a rate determined by the department. From 1 January 2013, CLE payable to Scholars studying under an Australia Awards John Allwright Fellowship is A$30,000 per year.
  • Introductory Academic Program (IAP)—a compulsory 4-6 week program prior to the commencement of formal academic studies covering information on life and study in Australia
  • Overseas Student Health Cover (OSHC) for the duration of the award (for award holder only)—provided to cover the student’s basic medical costs (with the exception of pre-existing conditions)
  • Pre-course English (PCE) fees—if deemed necessary PCE may be available for students for in-country and/or in-Australia training
  • Supplementary Academic Support may be available to ensure a Scholar’s academic success or enhance their academic experience
  • Fieldwork (for research students only)—may be available for eligible research students for up to two return economy class airfares for a Masters student or up to three for a PhD student, via the most direct route to their country of citizenship
Duration of Program: The Awards are offered for the minimum period necessary for the individual to complete the academic program specified by the Australian higher education institution, including any preparatory training.

How to Apply: 
  • Go to the Online Australia Scholarships Information System (OASIS) here. The first step is to register in OASIS as this will enable you to logon, create and complete an application.
  • For instructions on how to register and create an application in OASIS please see the OASIS Applicant User guide here.
  • It is important to go through the Application and eligibility requirements before applying.
Visit Program Webpage for Details

15 Feb 2018

UNFPA/Government of Indonesia International Training Scholarships for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 5th March 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Yogyakarta, Indonesia

About the Award: As part of the initiative, the Government of Indonesia will provide a maximum of 20 scholarships for participants from other developing countries and members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation to join this training programme.

Type: Conferences, Training

Eligibility: 
  • Citizens of developing countries are eligible to apply.
  • The SSTC training course is open to religious leaders, mid-level managers/program officers in government, faith-based and nongovernmental organizations involved in planning and implementation of population, family planning, and reproductive health programmes.
  • The course will be conducted in English. Non-English speaking participants are welcome but they should make their own arrangements for an interpreter service.
Number of Awards: 20

Value of Award: These scholarships will cover tuition fees, accommodation,  their meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) throughout the training, and airport transfer in Yogyakarta. Please be advised, however, that the sponsoring organization should be responsible for covering the air-transportation costs to Yogyakarta from their respective countries, and also a partial daily allowance for incidental expenses.

Duration of Program: 23-28 April 2018.

How to Apply: To apply for the programme, interested applications need to fill out the enclosed registration form and send it to ssc.mrl.indonesia@gmail.com by 05 March, 2018. The joint committee will then select the top 20 participants to join the training programme in Yogyakarta.


Award Providers: UNFPA, Government of Indonesia

Academy of Medical Sciences Global Challenges Research Fund Networking Grants for Developing Countries and UK 2018

Application Deadline: 21st March 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries and the UK

About the Award: The Academy of Medical Sciences is delighted to announce the second call for applications for GCRF Networking Grant applications. The scheme allows researchers from across disciplines and from developing countries and the UK to hold networking events, to forge new links and generate innovative transdisciplinary research ideas to address global challenges. We expect that these new networks will then be better equipped to apply for larger grants offered by the GCRF programme and other funding initiatives.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: Applications should focus on building a collaborative network and therefore should be submitted jointly by a lead overseas researcher from a developing country and a lead researcher based in the UK.
To be eligible to apply, both applicants must:
  • Have completed a PhD or have experience at an equivalent level
  • Have proven research experience in their field
  • Hold a permanent position at an eligible institution (in the UK or a DAC-listed country), or a fixed term contract for the duration of the award
Lead applicants must not be affiliated to a private or commercial organisation. Applications will not be considered if there is more than one UK co-applicant or an overseas applicant not from a DAC-listed country.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • This scheme is targeted at experienced researchers who are looking to form new international collaborations. The maximum amount available is £25,000 of which £5,000 can be used for consumables for obtaining pilot data, archival research or fieldwork. The remainder can be used to contribute towards travel and subsistence costs, costs associated with networking events, administrative support and access to technical support.
  • Grants cannot be used to pay for salary costs or to employ research assistants, PhD students or postdoctoral staff.
Duration of Program: Projects must start between 1 July 2018 and 30 September 2018, and the funding will last for one year.

How to Apply: You will need to apply for the programme using the Academy’s online grant management system: Flexi-Grant. We do not require a hard-copy to be sent by post. You can download a sample of the application form and the guidance notes from the right hand side of this page when a round is open for applications. To keep up to date with news and round openings please follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Academy of Medical Sciences

MTN Solution Space Venture Innovation Pogram for African Tech Startups 2018

Application Deadline: 28th February 2018
  • Start date: 3rd April 2018
  • End date: 30th June 2018
Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Solution Space Waterfront, South Africa


About the Award: The VIP offers startups several key advantages. We’re located in the heart of the V&A Waterfront, where startups are on the doorstep of Africa’s fastest growing tech hub. We offer proof-of-concept (POC) collaboration opportunities with our industry partner MTN Group and a pool of early-stage investors.

The Venture Incubation Programme (VIP) is designed to provide a supportive ecosystem to help startups build viable and scalable innovation-driven companies. Startups have access to a range of resources including co-working space, practical learning clinics, mentors, weekly check-ins and staff advisors, and a community of peers who learn and grow together.

Focus Areas: 

  1. Fintech
  2. E-Commerce
  3. Energy Ed Tech
  4. Healthtech
  5. Sports and News
  6. IOT
  7. Agtech
Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

  • DIGITAL STARTUPS: For our current program at the Solution Space Waterfront we are looking for startups that are developing digital solutions across health, education, agriculture, fintech, energy IoT, religion, sport, news and e-commerce.
  • TEAM OF 2+: We’re not looking for single founders, but teams of at least two with the right balance of skills and ability to build, test and deliver. The founder or majority shareholder must be the lead participant and must have the ability to commit full-time to the programme over the three months.
  • PROTOTYPE / MVP: Most of our startups enter with some sort of business case, early version of a product and a couple of team members. They have a working prototype with a minimum feature set ready to conduct early-market testing to further establish product and market fit.
  • OPPORTUNITY & TRACTION: The initial concept development demonstrates deep and intimate understanding of the problem and market need or opportunity. The idea must have progressed beyond concept and should demonstrate evidence of early market testing, customers, revenues, patents or intellectual property filings.
Value of Award: 
  • MTN INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP: Selected startups will gain access to MTN APIs, MTN Service Delivery Platform, MTN technical experts and mentors to provide feedback and guidance and a package of support from technology partners.
  • FEEDBACK & GUIDANCE: Startups receive valuable feedback and guidance from our Entrepreneur-in-Residence and network of experienced mentors and industry partners. Each startup is paired with a mentor for the programme and have access to the Solution Space’s network of GSB alumni and corporate partners.
  • ENTREPRENEURSHIP SKILLS: We apply a learning-by-doing approach. At workshops and clinics, startups learn founder fundamentals and core skills focused on moving the business forward. Startups apply what they learn through practical outcomes from each session.
  • ADVISORY SERVICES: Access to pro-bono partners and a network of consultants to support with specialist expertise e.g. legal, HR, digital user experience, venture capital.
  • CO-WORKING & COMMUNITY: We focus on building a vibrant community of entrepreneurs and offer a calendar of regular events designed to increase a startup’s knowledge and expand their network. We prioritize peer learning and mentoring through access to our co-working space and regular office-hours.
How to Apply:
  • ONLINE APPLICATION: Startups submit applications online in January/February and June/July each year, before the initial start date of each Venture Incubation Programme.
  • PRE-SELECTION DESIGN SPRINT: The Solution Space team reviews the applications and the top 30 startups are selected to participate in a five-day design sprint to assess the fundamentals of the business and the team.
  • PITCH TO A SELECTION PANEL: At the end of the five-day design sprint, successful startups pitch to a final selection panel of corporate partners, early-stage investors, mentors and entrepreneurs.
  • FINAL SELECTION: The top 10-15 startups are selected to participate in the three-month Venture Incubation Programme and accelerate the development of their digital solution. Startups receive mentorship and training in addition to all the services offered by the Solution Space.
Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: MTN Solution Space