22 Oct 2018

Nineteen sentenced to death over 2004 grenade attack in Bangladesh

Rohantha De Silva

On October 12, a Bangladesh special tribunal sentenced 19 people connected to the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) to death over a 2004 grenade attack at a political rally held by current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who was then the leader of the opposition.
The verdict, delivered 14 years after the attack, comes amid mounting conflicts within the political establishment. Hasina’s Awami League-led government is seeking to cripple the opposition BNP and intimidate any opposition to its rule.
The grenade attack killed two dozen people and wounded around 300, including Hasina. In his sentencing remarks, Judge Shahed Nuruddin said the attack was intended to kill the Awami League’s leadership.
The convicted include former Home Affairs Minister Lutfuzzaman Babar and a deputy minister of industry, Abus Salam, both of the previous BNP government. Tarique Rahman, the son of the main opposition leader Khaleda Zia, was sentenced to life imprisonment. Rahman, who is in exile, was tried in absentia.
Others who face the death penalty include alleged members of Jarkat-ul-Jihad, a banned Islamic fundamentalist group. Seventeen others received life imprisonment. Another eleven received sentences of between six months and two years.
The ruling Awami League welcomed the decision, but those convicted protested their innocence. Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, the BNP’s general secretary, claimed the verdict and sentencing was a “naked manifestation of political vengeance” orchestrated by the Awami League.
The BNP is known for brutal attacks against political opponents and may well have been behind the crime. However, the harsh sentences dovetail with the attempts of the Awami League to eliminate opposition to its rule, in the lead up to a general election slated to be held later this year or early 2019.
Khaleda Zia was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment last February, on trumped-up corruption charges. She is now in a state-run hospital, afflicted by multiple medical problems. Khaleda and her son Rahman, the BNP’s most prominent figures, cannot contest the election because of their convictions.
The infighting within the ruling elite comes amid a turn toward increasingly autocratic forms of rule by the Hasina government. Amid mounting social tensions, it has taken steps to muzzle the media and attack protesting workers and youth.
The administration is preparing to enact a new digital security law that will further erode press freedom and curtail dissenting voices online. The Digital Security Act was approved by the country’s president, Abdul Hamid, on October 8. It combines the draconian colonial-era Official Secrets Act with new repressive measures.
Information Minister Hasanul Haq Inu claimed that the law was necessary to “safeguard the digital space and society.” He stated: “It is not a law against mass media or democracy.”
Journalists and human rights groups rejected these assertions. Amnesty International warned that the legislation could be used to limit online political discussion and crack down on dissent, labelling it a “dangerous restriction on freedom of expression.”
Dr. Asia Nazrul, a professor of law at Dhaka University, told Prothom Alo, a Bangladesh newspaper, the laws were one expression of “the darkest period in the name of Bangladesh’s democracy.”
Under Section 25(a) of the legislation, individuals can be sentenced to up to three years in prison for publishing information that is “aggressive or frightening.” Section 31 provides for sentences of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for posting information that “ruins communal harmony or creates instability or disorder or disturbs, or is about to disturb, the law or order situation.”
Media organisations are already under attack. Bangladesh ranks 146 on Reporters Without Borders’ world press freedom index, behind Burma, Cambodia and South Sudan. Its ranking was 118 in 2002, when the index began.
There are also reports of opposition leaders, students and activists disappearing under suspicious circumstances. The Dhaka-based human rights group Odihikar commented: “The fear that opposition leaders and activists could be subjected to enforced disappearance ahead of upcoming elections is now taking place in reality.”
A report released by Odhikar this month said 30 people were picked up by law enforcement agencies in September alone for political reasons, a sharp increase from a total of 28 in the first eight months of the year. Three of the latest victims were found dead and one remains missing, while 26 were belatedly confirmed to have been arrested. Meetings and protests of the opposition also have been obstructed.
On August 5, Shahidul Alam, a prominent photo-journalist, was arrested for giving an interview to Al Jazeera, in which he accused the government of clinging to power by “brute force.” Despite 25 human rights organisations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and Amnesty International, issuing a statement calling for his release, Shahidul remains behind bars.
The Awami League government fears that the growing discontent among ordinary people will trigger a social explosion. In July, the government brutally suppressed protests by university students and unemployed graduates who were seeking changes to quotas for entry into government jobs.
Anger among the country’s 40 million garment workers, over poor working conditions and poverty wages, is also growing. Hundreds of workers demonstrated in Dhaka last month for a minimum monthly wage of 16,000 Taka ($US189.63).
The government and the major employers rejected the demands, seeking to ensure that the industry remains globally competitive, on the basis of super-exploitation.
The increasingly autocratic measures of the government are a further warning that it is preparing to unleash the full force of the state against the emerging struggles of the working class.

China growth slows to lowest level since financial crisis

Nick Beams

The growth rate of the Chinese economy has fallen to its lowest level since the beginning of 2009 in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis.
Official figures released at the end of last week put the annual growth rate for the third quarter at 6.5 per cent. This was below market expectations of 6.6 percent and down from the rate of 6.8 percent for the first half of the year.
While the trade war launched by the US has yet to make a significant impact on growth, the official government statement accompanying the release of the data referred to what is called the “severe international situation.”
One of the main contributors to the growth decline was the reduction in industrial output growth which weakened to 5.8 percent in September from 6.1 percent in August. Retail sales growth for the first three quarters was 9.3 percent compared to 10.4 percent in the same period last year. Car sales are significantly down, falling for a third straight month in September, with the Chinese market on track for its first annual decline in nearly three decades.
Exports were up, but this has been attributed, at least in part, to exporters front-loading their shipments in an effort to escape the effects of further US tariff increases. In addition to the 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion of industrial goods, the Trump administration has imposed a 10 percent duty on an additional $200 billion worth of goods, covering a range of consumer products, which is set to rise to 25 percent at the start of next year. Trump has also threatened tariffs on a further $250 billion worth of products, which would mean that all China’s exports to the US would be covered.
Moreover, the trade war is set to intensify with the White House top economic adviser Larry Kudlow accusing Beijing of doing “nothing” to defuse trade tensions. In an interview with the Financial Times, Kudlow said: “We gave them a detailed list of asks, regarding technology for example, [which] basically hasn’t changed for five or six months. The problem with the story is that they don’t respond. Nothing, Nada.”
While China has offered to increase its imports of US goods, the reason for its lack of response to the core demands of the Trump administration, first issued last May, is that they are impossible to meet. In essence, they amount to a demand that China shelve its plans for technological and industrial development under its Made in China 2025 plan.
The slowing economy and the intensifying trade war are compounding the concerns of the government and financial authorities over the sharp fall in the stock market which is down by around 25 percent so far this year. This is a loss of $3 trillion, equivalent to more than the market capitalization of the French stock market.
Shortly before the release of the growth data, three top officials, the governor of the Peoples Bank of China (PBoC), the top security regulator, and the key banking and securities regulator, issued statements urging investors to remain calm. The PBoC governor, Yi Gang, said “abnormal fluctuations” in Chinese stock markets did not reflect economic fundamentals and the country had a “stable financial system.”
The Chinese President, Xi Jinping, added his voice to official reassurances about the state of the economy. According to the official Xinhua News Agency, he has vowed “unwavering” support for the country’s private sector.
“Any words and practices that negate and weaken the private economy are wrong,” he said in a letter to business chiefs. “Supporting the development of private enterprises is the Party Central Committee’s consistent policy.”
These comments followed a meeting between Vice Premier Liu He with policymakers on Saturday in which he said they needed to implement measures to encourage a healthy development of the economy, according to a statement in the State Council’s web site.
In an interview with Xinhua last week, Liu, the government’s chief trade negotiator, said the overall economic situation was stable. He sought to dispel concerns over the effect of US trade war measures, saying the “psychological impact is bigger than the actual impact.”
Commenting on the fall in growth, Liu said if the analysis of the Chinese economy was only on one period then “you might feel it faces difficulty”. “But if you look at it from a larger historical perspective, the outlook is very bright.”
Notwithstanding these assurances, the National Bureau of Statistics issued a statement accompanying the growth data in which it said China faced “an extremely complex environment abroad and the daunting task of reform and development at home.” While emphasising the country’s “resilience,” it warned that the economy would experience “greater downward pressure” in the future.
China expert Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University, told the Financial Times that China’s “slower but strong headline growth masks rising domestic and external vulnerabilities that are likely to presage a further growth slowdown in the absence of concerted policy measures.”
The growth figure is always of central political concern for the Chinese government. Previously it considered a growth level of at least 8 percent was necessary to maintain “social stability.” Now the official growth target is down to around 6.5 percent.
Among the “daunting” tasks facing the regime is the reduction of debt levels while at the same time maintaining the spending infrastructure that has played a crucial role in the continued expansion of the Chinese economy since the global financial crisis of 2008.
Last week S&P Global Ratings issued a report that the actual level of debt issued by local governments could be several times higher than is officially reported. With the central government cutting back on quotas for the issuance of local government bonds, local authorities have resorted to local government financial vehicles (LGFVs) to fund infrastructure projects that support regional growth.
According to the report, the off-balance-sheet local government debt could range between $4.3 and $5.8 trillion above official levels. “The potential amount of debt is an iceberg with titanic risks,” the S&P credit analysts wrote.
The result could be a rise in defaults, according to the S&P report, because the LGFVs do not necessarily have the full backing of local governments, and central authorities may allow more of them to go under as they seek to reduce debt levels.

20 Oct 2018

Kuwait-Turkey military cooperation alarms Saudi Arabia

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Turkey has recently signed a military cooperation agreement with Kuwait, member of the six-state Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). According to the agreement, signed during the Turkey-Kuwait Military Cooperation Committee meeting, the two countries are planning to share their military experiences and coordinate their activities beginning in 2019.
The GCC alliance includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Turkey already has a military base in Qatar, another GCC member state.
Editor of the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al-Youm, Abdul Bari Atwan, wrote that the Kuwaiti-Turkish accord could lead to deployment of Turkish troops in Kuwait. “The accord doesn’t rule out deployment of Turkish troops in Kuwait and purchase of Turkish weapons, including armored vehicles, along the lines of the Qatar-Turkey accord that defends Doha against Gulf countries.”
Turkey’s efforts to sell defense industry products to Kuwait are not a secret. Turkey participated in the 2017 Kuwaiti Defense and Aeronautics Fair with 23 companies.
Kuwait-Turkey agreement came in the backdrop of close Turkish ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkish moves to become a shield for Qatar against the Saudi-United Arab Emirates alliance, the decision by Riyadh to assist Kurds in Syria and the tensions that erupted with this month’s disappearance of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.
Tellingly, Kuwait-Turkey agreement follows Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Ben Salman’s brief unsuccessful visit to Kuwait on September 30, 2018. This was his first formal visit as Saudi crown prince to a Gulf Cooperation Council country since becoming the heir apparent.
A source at Kuwait’s emiri court told Reuters that the visit took place in a highly tense atmosphere, and that no political or economic agreements were signed by the two sides. The Kuwaiti daily al-Rai al-Youm, quoted a high-level source as saying that the visiting Saudi prince and his delegation appeared visibly displeased and angry. He only exchanged a few inconsequential words with the Kuwaiti ruler, and headed for his private plane along with his delegation as soon as the dinner was over, and flew back to Riyadh.
According to Kristin Smith Diwan, a senior resident scholar at the Washington-based Arab Gulf States Institute, the visit had gone badly, and that key issues – the proposed reopening of production in the Neutral Zone oil fields or the Qatar crisis – had generated disputes.
A top priority of the visit was discussions to restart production in oilfields located in the Neutral Zone shared by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The need to increase oil capacity has intensified as Iranian oil output drops under the pressure of U.S. sanctions, and Venezuelan oil production continues to slide. The administration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump has been publicly hounding OPEC, and swing producer Saudi Arabia, to provide the additional production necessary to smooth oil markets, Diwan said adding:
“With questions mounting  as to whether Saudi Arabia has the spare capacity needed to meet these demands, the untapped potential of the Neutral Zone oilfields of Wafra and Khafji loom large. The fields could contribute half a million barrels toward the 1.5 million barrels of additional output sought by Saudi Arabia. Production was halted in the Neutral Zone over the course of late 2014 and spring of 2015 due to disputes that have never been fully understood. The complex situation in which the two national oil companies jointly manage the fields alongside foreign oil groups with equity stakes seems to have raised difficult issues of sovereignty. It appears that the meetings in Kuwait have thus far failed to resolve the issue, with  Bloomberg reporting that talks stalled over the role of Chevron.”
According to al-Rai al-Youm, the crisis over the oilfields began when Kuwait refused to issue visas to maintenance technicians from the Chevron corporation who had been sent to supervise work on the fields to increase their output and oversee further exploration in the area. Their company had positioned equipment on the Kuwaiti side without consulting the Kuwaiti government. The Saudi government responded by halting production from both fields on the pretext of undertaking maintenance. This maintenance has lasted for four years, shutting the fields down and costing Kuwait some $18 billion in lost production.
Relations between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have not been good for the past 15 months, Abdel Bari Atwan said, adding:  “They have been merely ‘proper’, due to Kuwait’s neutrality in the Gulf Crisis and its failure to send significant numbers of troops to fight in Yemen as part of Operation Decisive Storm. Its warplanes played a merely symbolic role in that war. Tensions increased as a result of Kuwait maintaining diplomatic relations with Iran. It also condemned the recent shooting in Ahvaz that caused the deaths of 85 people, unlike Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which indirectly supported the attack. Their media outlets justified it and hosted guest commentators who backed it and deemed it to be a legitimate act of resistance and not terrorism.”
Lebanese researcher Ali Mourad said Kuwaitis are seriously worried about being invaded. He told Al-Monitor, “Kuwaitis need a regional force like Turkey to deal with Saudi ill intentions. They are truly afraid of a Saudi invasion because of a hegemony crisis in the oil fields, Kuwait’s ties with Qatar and the blank check Trump has issued to MBS [Mohammed bin Salman].”
Mourad said, “Because of his prevailing fears, Amir of Kuwait Sheikh Al-Sabah went to Washington in September 2017 to beef up ties with Trump. For the past three years the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington has been hosting the Kuwaiti National Day receptions at the Trump International DC hotel. They are of course trying to take steps to free themselves from Saudi hegemony.”
Mourad added, “But the situation is not the same nowadays. Kuwaitis fear a critical threat from a rogue clique in Saudi Arabia. This is why they call MBS ‘little Saddam.’ Amir Sheikh Sabah is in a weak position. This is why he is looking for alliance with Turkish President Erdogan. This is not really what they want but they have no other choice. As a regional force they can’t ask for help from Iran. There is no regional power other than Turkey.”

India seizes “shadow bank” to avert potential “catastrophic” impact on financial system

Kranti Kumara 

Earlier this month, India’s BJP government seized control of a little-known company, Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services (IL&FS), saying the “shadow bank’s” collapse could potentially inflict “catastrophic” damage on India’s “financial stability.”
In explaining the government’s sudden intervention, financial observers have said the collapse of IL&FS, the country’s largest non-bank lender, could have been India’s “Lehman Brothers moment”—a reference to the September 2008 bankruptcy that triggered the global financial meltdown.
IL&FS had a triple-A credit rating as recently as August, but defaulted on a series of payments last month including a Rs 4.5 billion ($41 million) short-term loan from the state-owned Small Industries Development Bank of India. Subsequently, the government learned IL&FS has to repay a massive Rs 37 billion ($500 million) over the next 6 months, but currently has just Rs. 2 billion ($27 million) in cash reserves.
Moreover, the company is also carrying a huge debt-load of Rs 911 billion ($12.5 billion), 63 percent, or Rs 574 billion ($7.9 billion) of which is owed to banks.
India’s banks are themselves mired in crisis. Indeed, in recent years there has been a rapid expansion of lending through shadow banks such as IL&FS, because the country’s banks, themselves burdened by loans that have gone bad, have become chary in extending credit. India’s state-owned banks have a gargantuan Rs 13 trillion ($178 billion) in delinquent loans. At least $70 billion of these are “Non-Performing Assets” (NPAs), i.e., loans on which the banks have received no payment from borrowers for 90 days or more.
IL&FS’s default has severely shrunk India’s already restricted debt market, further limiting access to credit, even at relatively high interest rates, for India’s small and medium businesses.
Following the government’s seizure of IL&FS, the Corporate Affairs Ministry filed a petition with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), a juridical body constituted in June, 2016 to hasten corporate bankruptcy. The ministry charged the ousted IL&FS board of directors with numerous acts of malfeasance, including siphoning off funds through excessive executive pay, financial mismanagement, and outright fraud.
In its petition, the government said “any impairment in (IL&FS’s) ability to finance and support … infrastructure projects would be quite damaging to the overall infrastructure sector, financial markets and the economy.”
The Hindu supremacist Narendra Modi-led BJP government never tires of promoting the supposed wonders of “free-market capitalism,” and has used executive fiat to dismantle a massive number of workplace and environmental regulations that it considers a hindrance to the profit interests of corporations.
Yet it acted with great haste to intervene in the markets and seize control of the privately-owned IL&FS, to reassure the financial markets that the Indian government will backstop the company, using untold public funds to prevent the total collapse of IL&FS and bail out its creditors.
By “nationalizing” the bankrupt IL&FS, the government aims to prevent the non-bank debt market, which serves as the primary vehicle for numerous Indian companies to raise working and investment capital, from completely seizing up.
A second objective is to bail out various government-owned entities, such as the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), which are large investors in the fraud-stricken IL&FS.
LIC is the biggest investor in IL&FS, with 25.3 percent ownership. The state-owned Central Bank of India and State Bank of India own 7.7 and 6.4 percent respectively. Other key owners are Japan’s Orix Corporation—23.5 percent, and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority—12.6 percent.
In a fashion similar to the US government’s 2008 rescue of AIG and, ultimately all the banks, the Modi government, by taking over IL&FS, has implicitly guaranteed massive—if not unlimited—funds to rescue the company, its investors, and lenders..

The rapid growth of “shadow banking”

Unlike regular banks, India’s shadow banks, or more formally Non-Bank Finance Companies (NBFC), don’t rely on customer deposits, but instead raise funds through the debt market or by borrowing from regular banks. They then turn around and lend the borrowed funds, at high interest rates, to other institutions. NBFCs are largely unregulated and hence not backed by India’s central bank, the RBI or Reserve Bank of India.
Over the past three years dubiously-run shadow banks have become a critical source of finance for cash-starved Indian businesses and customers. According to a report in India’s Economic Times, “At last count, there were over 4,000 of these shadow banks in India” and they accounted for “30 percent of all new credit in the economy over the past three years. But unlike banks, shadow lenders didn’t have access to household deposits and became increasingly reliant on wholesale funding [that is short-term debt].”
IL&FS is also India’s most prominent player in India’s burgeoning Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) sector. The World Bank and IMF have heavily promoted PPPs as a means of developing economic infrastructure, such as roads, water supply, bridges, and generating plants.
IL&FS’s sudden unraveling is bound up with the fact that it has been able, with the active connivance of the BJP, the Congress Party and the rest of the political establishment, to exploit the country’s need for infrastructure to finance long-term projects using short-term funds, and with its own subsidiaries acting as contractors.
Following the crisis at IL&FS, several major infrastructure projects have come to a sudden halt, throwing thousands of people out of work.
The government, in filing its petition of charges against the previous board with the NCLT, also sought a 90-day moratorium on creditors or other entities filing lawsuits against IL&FS or any of its large number of subsidiaries.
No matter the immediate consequences, the unraveling of IL&FS is part of a growing crisis that threatens to roil the entire Indian economy. The Indian rupee is now trading around Rs 74 per US dollar, a decline of some 15 percent since the beginning of the year. This drop has been precipitated by a massive outflow of speculative foreign funds chasing higher returns in the US in the wake of the US Federal Reserve Board’s interest rate increases. Other deleterious developments include: falling exports despite the decline in the value of the rupee; almost daily shocks from the Trump administration’s trade-war policies; and surging crude oil prices. The latter impact heavily on India, as it is the world’s third largest crude oil importer.
The crowing of the Modi government and the cheerleading from the World Bank and IMF about India registering “world-beating” economic growth notwithstanding, further major shocks to the Indian economy are inevitable in the weeks and months to come.

Divisions erupt within Sri Lankan government

K. Ratnayake 

Media reports that Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena told his cabinet on Tuesday that “Indian intelligence” was plotting to assassinate him have created a political furore in Colombo and New Delhi.
Sirisena has denied making the remarks. The response to the alleged comments, however, has revealed deepening conflicts between the coalition government’s ruling partners—Sirisena’s faction of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP).
The controversy over Sirisena’s alleged remarks comes as the government is increasingly wracked by mounting economic problems and social opposition to its widely unpopular austerity measures. Above all, the government’s deepening crisis is bound up with the geopolitical rivalry between India and the US on the one hand and China on the other.
Wickremesinghe’s UNP holds the majority of MPs in the ruling coalition. Sirisena has the allegiance of only two dozen SLFP MPs. The majority of the SLFP’s parliamentary representatives have lined up with Sirisena’s arch rival, former president Mahinda Rajapakse. Two dozen SLFP MPs quit the government last month, expressing support for Rajapakse.
The Hindu, a prominent Indian newspaper, carried a report on Wednesday alleging that Sirisena told a cabinet meeting the previous day that “Indian intelligence” was “trying to kill him.” He reportedly said that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “may not be aware of the plan.” The Sri Lankan media covered the claims.
Nervous that the reports would cause frictions with New Delhi, Sirisena telephoned Modi on Wednesday to deny that he had made the remarks. India, along with the US, is pushing for greater strategic ties with Sri Lanka, as part of a confrontation with China.
India’s ministry of external affairs issued a statement repeating that Sirisena “categorically rejected” the media claims. According to the statement, Sirisena told Modi that the allegations were “mischievous and malafide,” “intended to create misunderstanding” between him and the Indian prime minister and to damage the “cordial relations between the two friendly neighbours.”
The media outlets that reported the claims are sticking to their story. Many of Sri Lanka’s largest news outlets are aligned with the competing political factions.
Claims of a plot to assassinate Sirisena were first made by a police informant named Namal Kumara at a media conference last month. Kumara claims he has a voice recording of a conversation involving Nalaka de Silva, Sri Lanka’s Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), discussing a plan to kill Sirisena.
Kumara stated that an Indian citizen was also involved in the conspiracy. Police later arrested and detained M. Thomas, an Indian national. The Indian High Commission has described him as a “mentally unbalanced” person.
Kumara is a dubious individual, who is posing as the leader of an anti-corruption movement.
Silva was in charge of the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID). The government interdicted Silva on Wednesday. Both he and Kumara are being investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department.
On Thursday, Port and Shipping Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, a Sirisena loyalist, accused ministers of giving false information to the Hindu to “damage” relations between the president and Modi. Samarasinghe did not name the ministers but implied they were from the UNP.
The President’s media advisors told a separate press conference on Thursday that the government, by which they meant the UNP, is not interested in investigating the assassination plot. These remarks would not have been made without the president’s approval.
Cabinet spokesman and health minister Rajitha Senaratne told a press conference the previous day that there was “not sufficient evidence” yet to prove Kumara’s claims of a conspiracy.
The differences between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have nothing to do with the democratic and social rights of working people. They are over how to best advance the interests of the corporate elite.
Sirisena came to power in the January 2015 elections, ousting former President Mahinda Rajapakse. He exploited widespread opposition among workers and the poor to the previous government’s attacks on democratic rights, austerity measures and atrocities carried out in the war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
The US and India backed the regime-change in Colombo. Both were hostile to the Rajapakse government’s ties to Beijing. Sirisena immediately signalled that his government would deepen Sri Lanka’s alignment with Washington.
However, amid a deepening economic crisis, including mounting debt problems, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government has been forced to turn to China for financial aid.
In a bellicose speech last month, marking an escalation of US plans for war with China, Vice President Mike Pence cited the Sri Lankan government’s Hambantota port deal with China Merchants Port Holdings as an example of “Chinese debt trap diplomacy.”
Pence declared that Sri Lanka took on massive debt to let Chinese state companies build a port. “Two years ago, that country could no longer afford its payments, delivering the new port directly into Chinese hands,” he stated. Pence’s comments underscored intense US hostility to China’s influence on the island.
The government has also been compelled to obtain an International Monetary Fund bailout loan tied to a drastic austerity program aimed at slashing the fiscal deficit by increasing the price of essentials and gutting social spending on subsidies, health and education.
These attacks have provoked a spate of social struggles involving railway, postal and ports workers along with teachers and other sections of the working class. Students have carried out continuous protests against the privatisation of education. Farmers and fishermen have taken action against cuts to subsidies. And some 200,000 plantation workers are protesting to demand a 100 percent wage increase.
The trade unions, backed by the pseudo-left groups, have played the key role in preventing these struggles from developing into a political confrontation with the government.
Last February’s local elections underscored the deepening unpopularity of the government. Sirisena’s SLFP came third and the UNP second, while the majority of seats were won by Rajapakse’s faction.
The government is also being squeezed by a currency crisis, with the Sri Lankan rupee depreciating by 11 percent this year. This is part of a trend throughout the region wracking India, Pakistan and other so-called emerging markets.
Admitting that the economic crisis is “turning to the worse,” Wickremesinghe last week stated that he hoped “all parties will shed their political differences and support the government to overcome this crisis.”
Sirisena has hypocritically sought to distance himself from his own government’s austerity measures. He has claimed that corruption is the main cause of mounting economic problems and has publicly criticised ministers and state officials. This week, he demanded the resignation of the boards of the Bank of Ceylon and the People’s Bank over alleged corruption. UNP ministers have expressed opposition to the move.
Sirisena is also seeking to promote nationalism to divert mounting social anger in reactionary directions.
Shipping Minister Samarasinghe presented a paper to this week’s cabinet meeting calling for the development of Colombo Port’s eastern terminal by the national ports authority. Wickremesinghe countered the proposal, saying the government had already agreed to develop the terminal with Indian investment. Sirisena declared this was inimical to the country’s sovereignty.
Stating that “he can’t work with Wickremesinghe,” Sirisena even tried to establish an agreement with Rajapakse on a proposal for a “caretaker government.” The media reported that the two held a secret meeting last month. Neither Rajapakse nor Sirisena denied the claims. Rajapakse, however, appears to be aiming to exploit the government crisis to form an administration that he leads.
In an interview with the Hindu last month, Rajapakse said: “A government must be strong and speak in one voice.” He warned that investors were turning away as there was no “stable government” in Colombo. Rajapakse is rallying Sinhala chauvinist groups and appealing to the military, accusing the government of victimising “war heroes.”
The competing factions of the ruling elite have all signalled that they want to deepen Sri Lanka’s ties to India and the US.
Wickremesinghe flew to New Delhi on Thursday for discussions with Modi on Indian investments in Sri Lanka.
In September, Rajapakse visited New Delhi to seek its blessing if he was to form a future government.
The infighting within the Sri Lankan political establishment expresses a deepening crisis of capitalist rule. Each of the competing factions are calculating how best to advance the interests of the capitalist class, by lining up with the major powers and deepening the offensive against working people.
These developments underscore that workers can only defend their rights by turning to an internationalist and socialist program aimed at establishing a workers’ and peasants’ government. The Socialist Equality Party alone advances this perspective.

European Union and Rome fight over Italian budget

Marianne Arens

A sharp dispute has broken out between the Italian government and the European Commission over the 2019 Italian budget, which was presented in Brussels by the right-wing coalition of Lega and the Five Star Movement (M5S) last week.
The EU has strongly criticized it because the planned new debt of 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) is well above the 0.8 percent committed to by the previous governments under Matteo Renzi and Paolo Gentiloni (both Democratic Party, PD). The 2019 draft budget was “incompatible” with EU directives, complained EU Budget Commissioner Günther Öttinger (Christian Democrat).
EU Economic and Financial Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici presented Italian Finance Minister Giovanni Tria with an EU official letter on October 18. It states that Italy’s departure from the Stability and Growth Pact constitutes “a source of serious concern for the European Commission.” In the new Italian debt plans, the EU sees “particularly serious non-compliance” with the obligations of the Stability and Growth Pact. The EU is urging the Italian government to explain its plans no later than Monday noon.
For its part, the Italian government is using the criticism from Brussels to present itself as a champion of the little man against foreign rule by Brussels and powerful financial interests.
Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, the leader of the neo-fascist Lega, ranted, “We say to the gentlemen in Brussels: The Italians will decide for Italy. Let us work.” Brussels, Berlin and Paris had no right to interfere in Italian affairs. At an election campaign meeting in Bolzano, Salvini accused the EU of wanting to “keep Italy in precarious conditions and impoverished.” He said he would bring down the old EU, at the latest in the upcoming European elections in May 2019.
Economics and Social Affairs Minister Luigi Di Maio of the M5S accused the EU Commission of pursuing “market terrorism.” He also threatened that the upcoming European elections would trigger a “political earthquake.”
In this conflict, no side represents a progressive position. As in the case of Greece, the EU Commission clearly takes the side of the banks, stock exchanges and credit agencies. The EU worries that the Italian crisis could affect the capital market throughout Europe and insists that the Italian population be further fleeced.
The Milan Stock Exchange has been falling for days and interest rates on Italian government securities is skyrocketing. The interest rate on 10-year bonds stands at 3.7 percent, 3 percent more than Germany pays. It is the highest level for almost five years. The international rating agencies are already threatening to downgrade Italy.
The planned new debt is below the Maastricht limit of 3 percent. However, with total debt at €2.3 trillion, or 130 percent of GDP, more than twice the 60 percent that the EU had once agreed, Brussels is pushing for a reduction in the debt burden.
The right-wing government in Rome also does not care about the concerns of the Italian people. Its budget plan is really anything but a rebellion against the dictates of the financial markets. Behind the flowery but vague promises of a “basic income” and “pension reform” lie right-wing policies of militarism and harsh attacks on immigrants and the entire working class.
This is exemplified by the budget item for military expenditure. As long as the Five Star Movement was in opposition, it had fulminated against the high military budget. “At least ten billion euros” could be saved in defence spending, M5S founder Beppe Grillo wrote in his blog at that time. In particular, Grillo repeatedly attacked the purchase contract for 90 F-35 fighter jets and demanded “draconian cuts.” The F-35, a stealth fighter jet of the American defence manufacturer Lockheed Martin, is assembled in Cameri, northern Italy, as the only European location.
Barely in power, the Five Star Movement dropped all its promises. In July, the new Defence Minister Elisabetta Trenta, who is a member of the Five Star Movement, pledged to meet NATO’s goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on armaments. The new budget contains just one short paragraph on the armaments targets, which states very generally that “cuts of 500 million euros” are planned, but neither concrete figures nor facts are provided.
Rather, the paragraph gives the impression that the government is covering up a lot here and keeping it a secret. In fact, Minister Trenta has made it clear that she is holding on to the contract with Lockheed Martin; termination would have a negative impact on workers in Cameri and, moreover, it could be more expensive to exit the contract than to fulfil it. At the same time, the media reported that the aircraft carrier Cavour would soon need 22 new F-35 fighter jets to remain operational.
Even under the Lega/Five Star government, militarism is being vigorously promoted. According to figures from the defence ministry, already over 6,700 Italian soldiers are involved in operations outside the country’s borders. Italian soldiers are currently stationed in 12 countries, seven of them in Africa—Libya, Niger, Tunisia, Egypt, Djibouti, Somalia and Mali. Outside Africa, they are present in Lebanon, Iraq and Kuwait, Afghanistan, Latvia and on the Mediterranean.
In any case, the police will receive more funding in the new budget, with €380 million planned for this.
The government is also continuing its racist course against immigrants and refugees with the new budget. Having already blocked the escape routes across the Mediterranean, paralyzing NGO maritime rescue operations and condemning thousands of people to drown, the new budget cuts the amount of money needed to take in migrants by half a billion euros.
On the other hand, the announcements about pensions and the basic income are very vague. The only thing that is clear is that the “unconditional basic income” (Reddito di cittadinanza) will be anything but “unconditional.” It is more reminiscent of Germany’s Hartz IV unemployment benefit, which is used as a cudgel against the unemployed to force needy people to accept any work at all and lower wages generally.
The basic income announced in the budget from March 2019 is pegged at €780 a month, but only for people with an Italian passport. It is also linked to a means test and involves a strict compulsion to work: anyone who cannot find a job is required to perform social service. And those who turn down a job offer twice will probably lose everything—not just the basic income, but also any kind of social assistance.
The government is boasting that it will overturn the hated Fornero pension reform, which raised the retirement age to 67 in one fell swoop. In future, the “formula 100” should apply, according to which someone can retire if their age and the number of years they have paid contribution add up to 100. However, here too the exact details are still unknown. The following restrictions have already been indicated: a minimum age of 64 years and a minimum of 35 contribution years should apply.
The Lega and Five Star government employs militant anti-EU rhetoric to fuel nationalism and divide and paralyze the working class. Without the passive acceptance of the trade unions and the “left” parties, however, it could not stay in office for a single day.
The silence of the mighty umbrella union CGIL, which alone has more than 5 million members, is deafening. The CGIL had responded to the announcement of the budget by previous governments with major demonstrations and at least a one-day national strike, but not in this instance.
In fact, numerous trade unionists and former Communist Party supporters had already supported the Five Star in the election campaign. Today, they share the government’s nationalism and present its propaganda measures about a “basic income” and “pension reform” as progressive. At the same time, they refuse to defend immigrants. So far, not a single effective solidarity action by the unions has been organised in defence of refugees.

Saudi regime admits Khashoggi was killed in its Istanbul consulate

James Cogan

The Saudi Arabian monarchial regime finally admitted late Friday that dissident Saudi journalist and Washington Post correspondent Jamal Khashoggi was killed on October 2 inside its consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. The acknowledgment comes after more than two weeks in which Saudi officials insisted that Khashoggi left the consulate unharmed and that they had no knowledge of his whereabouts.
The admission that Khashoggi was in fact killed was presented by the country’s chief public prosecutor in a statement delivered on national television. It was made in the face of detailed reports by Turkish investigators that a 15-man team of Saudi intelligence agents, with close ties to the heir to the throne and de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was flown into Istanbul to assassinate Khashoggi. The journalist was viewed with hostility by the Saudi regime because of his criticisms of the crown prince and the murderous US-backed war being waged by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
Khashoggi had visited the consulate on September 28 to finalise divorce proceedings from his Saudi wife so he could marry his Turkish fiancée. He returned on October 2 to pick up documents.
Turkish officials say that audio and video recordings in their possession show that the journalist was seized by the hit squad and brutally tortured and murdered, after which his body was dismembered and taken out of the building in suitcases by the Saudi operatives. The remains may have been flown to Saudi Arabia, though Turkish police have been conducting searches in forested areas on the outskirts of Istanbul.
The alternative version of events advanced by the Saudi regime is a fantastic and brazen attempt to substantiate its absurd claim, echoed by the Trump administration, that “rogue killers” carried out the murder without the knowledge of the crown prince or other key figures in the Saudi ruling elite. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo held meetings with Saudi King Salman and the crown prince on Tuesday, during which they agreed that an “accounting” of what had happened to Khashoggi would be presented.
The prosecutor asserted that the intelligence team had gone to Istanbul because Khashoggi had indicated an interest in returning to Saudi Arabia. A discussion “developed in a negative way” and “led to a fight and a quarrel between some of them and the citizen.” The fight purportedly “aggravated to lead to his death and their attempt to conceal and cover what happened.” The Saudi monarchy, he declared, “expresses it deep regret at the painful development and stresses the commitment of the authorities in the Kingdom to bring the facts to the public.”
The prosecutor stated that 18 unnamed people had been arrested in connection with Khashoggi’s death. It appears that this group will be the patsies offered up by the regime as the “rogue” elements who carried out the killing and sought to conceal it from the government.
Five top-ranking Saudi officials have been removed from their positions but not charged with any crime. They are the crown prince’s advisor Saud al-Qahtani, deputy intelligence chief Major General Ahmed as-Assiri and three other generals in the country’s military-intelligence apparatus. The official Saudi news outlet reports that the king has ordered an unspecified restructuring of the General Intelligence Presidency, the country’s main intelligence agency.
The commission to pursue the investigation and oversee the reorganization is reportedly to be headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman himself.
Almost universally, the Saudi narrative is being dismissed in the US political and media establishment and around the world as a crude attempt at cover-up based on an improbable patchwork of lies.
Ahead of the US congressional elections, the Democratic Party and publications such as the New York Times and Washington Post are seeking exploit the situation to denounce Trump for his well documented financial relations with the Saudi monarchy and his endorsement of its cover-up of the murder of Khashoggi.
Times correspondent Nicholas Kristof wrote in an op-ed piece published this week: “The United States should quietly make clear to the Saudi royal family that the Mad Prince has gone too far— not just with this murder, but also his war in Yemen, his confrontation with Qatar, his kidnapping of Lebanon’s prime minister—and will forever be tainted. A murderer belongs not at state dinners but in a prison cell.”
Such rhetoric from the Democratic Party-linked faction of the American establishment is the height of hypocrisy. The brutal, semi-feudal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has been backed by US imperialism for over 80 years. The near-genocidal war that Saudi Arabia is waging against the people of Yemen was launched in 2015 with the full support and assistance of the Obama administration.
Moreover, Donald Trump is far from alone in the American capitalist class in reaping benefits from relations with the Saudi royal family. The Clinton Foundation, for example, has received up to $25 million in Saudi donations since it was founded in 1997.
For all the feigned indignation over the criminality revealed in Khashoggi’s murder, the US government and ruling class will come together to ensure the stability of the Saudi regime. It is one of American capitalism’s main assets in the Middle East and among the top international purchasers of American military hardware.
More immediately, the Trump administration intends to rely on Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production to prevent major price rises when harsh new US sanctions go into effect against Iran on November 5, following Washington’s unilateral renunciation of the 2015 “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” under which the Iranian regime curtailed its nuclear program.
Washington will be particularly concerned over any sign that the fall-out from the assassination fuels what is already burgeoning discontent in Saudi Arabia and mounting demands for sweeping social change. Seven years after the revolutionary movement that swept the Mubarak dictatorship from power in Egypt, the oil-rich country looms large as a potential scene of mass political upheaval.
To the extent that calls are made by factions within the US ruling class and the state for token democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia, and even for the sidelining of the crown prince, the sole motivation is fear of a social explosion against the monarchy and a desire to dampen unrest and prop up the regime.

19 Oct 2018

Erasmus Mundus Masters Program in Public Policy (MAPP) Scholarships 2019/2021 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 3rd January 2019 at 23:59 CET

Eligible Countries: Developing countries (Partner Countries)

A part of Partner Country scholarships are earmarked for applicants coming from the following specific geographical regions:
ENI – EAST:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine

ASIA – Least Developed Countries:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal

CENTRAL ASIA – Lower or Lower Middle Income Countries:
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan

ACP COUNTRIES:
Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Democratic Republic of Timor Leste, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe


To be taken at (country): MA in Public Policy, accredited in Hungary, The Netherlands, Spain and UK

About the Award: Mundus MAPP/MUNMAPP is a two-year-long international joint Masters program in Public Policy, offered by  four top-ranked European institutions: Central European University, Budapest (Hungary), International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (the Netherlands), Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (Spain) and the University of York (UK). Established in 2007, the program operates as an Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Program funded by the European Commission.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Mundus MAPP is open to both European and third country national students.
Minimum requirements are:

1)    Educational background
For all tracks of the program, candidates need to have a Bachelors degree comprising at least three years of studies at a recognized university or institute of higher education. Applicants must have obtained at least class 2.2 (Lower Second), B or equivalent but preferably class 2.1 (Upper Second), B+ or equivalent. Normally applicants with a preliminary degree in any of the social sciences or equivalent are given preference. Candidates with a Bachelors degree in Natural Science or Engineering are not eligible to apply.
Further, for CEU tracks (CEU-York and CEU-IBEI) only Bachelors degrees in the Social Sciences and some disciplines in the Arts and Humanities are eligible. Specifically:
  • Applicants with Bachelors degrees in the following fields are eligible to apply: International Studies (incl. International Relations), Political Science, Sociology, Social Studies; Administration Management, International Administration; Applied Economics, Economic Analysis, Public Service.
  • Applicants with Bachelors degrees in the following fields are eligible to apply only if the candidate has at least half a year’s professional or research experience, in the following fields: any other field of the Social Sciences; Legal and Administration Sciences; Economics; National Defense and Military field and Security studies.
  • Other Bachelors degrees in the Arts and Humanities may be eligible on a case-by-case basis, if the Consortium’s admissions evaluators can verify from the submitted transcripts that the applicant has followed courses and/or has done research in the fields listed above.
The fields above are defined broadly, national equivalent degrees or specialized degrees of the above fields (e.g. political economy or international political economy, regional and environmental economics, social policy etc.) are eligible. If you have questions about the eligibility of your degree please contact the consortium.
For IBEI tracks (CEU-IBEI, ISS-IBEI), according to the regulations of the Spanish Ministry of Education, applicants need to have successfully completed an undergraduate degree from a fully accredited institution of higher education (within or outside the European Higher Education Area), provided that this undergraduate degree grants access to master’s level studies in the country in which the undergraduate degree diploma was issued.

2)    High motivation and interest in European and international public policy

3)    Work experience
Applicants with relevant work experience (internships, jobs) will be ranked higher.


4)    Fluency in English
Mundus MAPP does not require a language certificate from applicants from the following countries, provided that they have received a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree taught exclusively in English:
Australia, Botswana, Canada, Gambia, Ghana, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia,
Malawi, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Rwanda (English-speaking region), South Africa, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, UK, USA and Zambia

Applicants from countries other than these may request a waiver from the English language admissions requirement if they completed a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree taught exclusively in English in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA, the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland.
All other applicants will need to provide evidence of their English language skills with any one of the following test scores:
  • TOEFL (Paper version; taken on/after January 3, 2017) 580 or above;
  • TOEFL (Internet version; taken on/after January 3, 2017) 92 or above;
  • IELTS – Academic (taken on/after January 3, 2017) 6.5 or above;
  • Cambridge Proficiency Examination (taken on/after January 3, 2014) C or above;
  • Cambridge Advanced English Test (taken on/after January 3, 2014) B or above.
5)    Other
Although Spanish is no longer a requirement for mobility tracks involving IBEI, basic knowledge of Spanish is recommended as some electives will only be available in Spanish.


Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Partner Country scholarships consist of the following contributions:
  • a)    Contribution to participation costs (tuition fees): 9,000 EUR/academic year (18,000 EUR in total for two academic years)
  • b)    Contribution to travel and installation costs: up to 7,000 EUR in total for two academic years
  • c)    Contribution to subsistence costs (stipend): 1,000 EUR/month (24,000 EUR for two academic years)
  • d)    The remaining tuition fees (4,000 EUR in total for two academic years) will be waived by the consortium institutions.
Duration of Programme: 24 months

How to apply

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Government of Germany DAAD Scholarships 2019/2020 for Artists and Filmmakers in Developing Countries (Fully-funded)

Application Deadline: 31st October 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany         

Type: Short courses/Training, Masters

Eligibility: Foreign applicants who have gained a first university degree in the field of the Performing Arts at the latest by the time they commence their scholarship-supported study programme.
What can be funded?
In this study programme, you can complete
  • a Master’s degree/postgraduate degree leading to a final qualification, or
  • a complementary course that does not lead to a final qualification (not an undergraduate course)
at a state or state-recognised German university of your choice.
This programme only funds projects in the artistic field of the Performing Arts (Drama, Theatre Directing/Theatre Dramaturgy, Musicals, Performance Studies, Dance, Choreography). Other DAAD scholarship programmes are available for applicants from the fields of Theatre and Dance Studies or for artists with a scientific project.


Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • A monthly payment of 850 euros
  • Travel allowance, unless these expenses are covered by the home country or another source of funding
  • One-off study allowance
  • Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover
Under certain circumstances, scholarship holders may receive the following additional benefits:
  • Monthly rent subsidy
  • Monthly allowance for accompanying members of family
To enable scholarship holders to learn German in preparation for their stay in the country, DAAD offers the following services:
  • Payment of course fees for the online language course “Deutsch-Uni Online (DUO)” (deutsch-uni.com) for six months after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter
  • if necessary: Language course (2, 4 or 6 months) before the start of the study visit; the DAAD decides whether to fund participation and for how long depending on German language skills and project. Participation in a language course is compulsory if the language of instruction or working language is German at the German host institution.
  • Allowance for a personally chosen German language course during the scholarship period
  • Reimbursement of the fees for the TestDaF test which has either been taken in the home country after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter or in Germany before the end of the funding period
  • As an alternative to the TestDaF for scholarship holders who have taken a language course beforehand: the fee for a DSH examination taken during the scholarship period may be reimbursed.
Duration of Program: 
  • Masters/Postgraduate study programmes: Between 10 and 24 months depending on the length of the chosen study programme or project
  • Complementary studies not leading to a final qualification: One academic year
How to Apply: The application procedure occurs online through the DAAD portal. You are also required to send additional documents by post to the specified application address. 


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

PepsiCo Change The Game Challenge 2018 for Innovative Students and Young Professionals (Win trip to New York + Internship)

Application Deadline: 24th October 2018

Eligible Countries:
  • Middle East North Africa (MENA) Region: Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan,  United Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
  • Asia Pacific Region: Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Korea ( Nationals & Residents).
  • Indian Region: India
About the Award: Change The Game (CTG) is a 5 stage challenge open to individuals with undergraduate and/or post graduate backgrounds, and working professionals with up to 2 years’ experience, who are keen to make their mark globally.
The main objective of the challenge is to address real issues & spot the brightest spark of talent, and make their ideas come to life.
Do you have what it takes to team you up with PepsiCo on solving this year’s sustainability challenge?
You need to focus your idea around one of the two following scenarios:
  • Coming up with an idea using a new low cost technology that would allow the collection, recycling & the profitable commercialization of plastic waste in emerging markets without the use of child labor or create a hazard to humans.
  • Creating a business model to develop products in our food and beverage categories that are scalable, financially viable and minimize or eliminate plastic packaging.
Type: Contest

Eligibility: The Programme is open to the following participants:
  • Nationals of India, Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Thailand, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA)
  • Between the ages of 18 (eighteen) and 30 (thirty) years as on 10th October, 2018 and
  • Students pursuing graduation and post-graduation from any university (could be any year); or
  • Participants who have just obtained their graduate or post graduate degree(s) from any university; or
  • Having up to 3 (three) years of work experience from the date of obtaining the last bachelor or master degree.
Nationals and Residents of the Republic of Korea and Thailand who are
  • Between the ages of 18 (eighteen) and 30 (thirty) years as on 10th October, 2018 and
  • Students pursuing graduation from any university (could be any year) within or outside APAC Region; or
  • Participants who have just obtained their graduate or post graduate degree(s)- from any university within or outside the APAC Region; or
  • Having up to 3 (three) years of experience from the date of obtaining their last bachelor or master degree.
Value of Award: Win a trip to New York, a job offer with our pioneering PepsiCo teams and a $100,000 grant to bring your idea to life for PepsiCo.
  • The top regional winning teams from Asia Pacific, India and the Middle east & North Africa will receive a regional job offer or internship. They will be eligible to go on an all-expenses paid trip to Dubai where they will compete for the finals where they could win an all-expenses paid trip to New York to present their business idea to out Chairman & CEO Indra Nooyi. This will be followed by a yearlong international experience OR a 2 month international internship across one of our locations in Asia Pacific, India and the Middle East & North Africa.
  • Regional first runners up will receive either a local job offer or 1 week shadow experience with our local business leaders.
  • Regional second runners up will receive a local shadow experience for 1 day with a PepsiCo Leader.
How to Apply: Apply in the Program Webpage link below

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: PepsiCo