Tens of thousands of teachers demonstrate in Glasgow for better pay

Robert Stevens 

Tens of thousands of teachers marched in Glasgow, Scotland, on Saturday to demand higher pay and reject a derisory “final” pay offer of 3 percent from employers for the year 2018-2019.

Members of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) are demanding a pay rise of at least 10 percent in response to their remuneration falling by nearly a quarter over the past decade of austerity measures imposed by the Scottish National Party (SNP) administration in Scotland. For the past seven years, teachers in the United Kingdom have been subjected to a 1 percent maximum pay rise cap fixed by the government—with the cap only being scrapped this year in Scotland.

The demonstration was far larger than the EIS anticipated, showing the desire of teachers internationally to fight back against decades of pay cuts. The march won the support of not only teachers but also that of parents and their families. Protesters marched from the city’s Kelvingrove Park to George Square. So large was the march that as the first marchers arrived in George Square, others were still waiting to set off from Kelvingrove, over two miles away.

The march took place despite the systematic suppression of the teachers’ fight by the unions.

In March, EIS members voted to throw out the 3 percent pay offer and gave the union leaders a mandate to call industrial action. This took place as thousands of teachers in unions across the UK and internationally simultaneously voted to strike over pay and pensions. In the UK, teachers at conferences of the National Education Union (NEU) and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) voted during this time to walk out. In the seven months since, the unions have done nothing but suppress these demands.

The EIS, opposed to a fight to mobilise teachers and other education staff, instead launched a petition writing campaign aimed at persuading Scottish MPs to back a 10 percent pay deal.

The petition gave 10 reasons why MPs should support a pay increase, with the fourth being an indictment of the unions, which have collaborated in forcing teachers to increase productivity for less pay.

It states, “Scotland’s teachers have delivered. Despite cuts in teacher numbers and resources, teachers have gone the extra mile to protect pupils at a time of significant curricular change and new qualifications. Workload and stress have soared – whilst pay has been declining. Teachers are delivering more, for less.”

After 25,000 signatures were delivered to SNP Education Secretary John Swinney’s office, EIS President Alison Thornton reiterated that the main aim of the union was to prevent the eruption of industrial action. “We are happy to hand over our postcards here today and these will provide Mr [sic] Swinney with plenty of reading material for the summer period. Whilst it is unfortunate that the Deputy First Minister was unable to accept the cards personally today, we will be taking him up on his offer to meet with us in the near future to discuss the pay campaign. The EIS remains committed to seeking a negotiated solution in order to remove any prospect of a formal dispute and would urge the Scottish Government and local authorities to return to the negotiating table with a substantially improved pay offer in the next round of talks.”

The suppression of the independent struggle of teachers is at the heart of why the EIS called Saturday’s demonstration. It was timed to coincide with yet another ballot initiative they have called on the same 3 percent offer already rejected in March. The ballot opens on October 30 and will close on November 20, with nothing being organised against the attacks for the entire duration of the vote.

While the EIS is calling on members to reject the offer, it is using the anger of teachers as a bargaining chip for more negotiations with the employers, with their objective to impose another sellout deal. The ballot paper makes no reference to strikes or any action being organised in the event of another vote to reject the offer.

Prior to the demo, EIS General Secretary Larry Flanagan said, “Thousands of Scottish teachers will march through the streets of Glasgow to send a clear message to the Scottish Government and COSLA [Convention of Scottish Local Authorities] that they must improve their pay offer to teachers.”

The demobilisation of teachers is taking place through the unions and leading figures of all the main parties, including the governing Scottish National Party. Also speaking at the rally was Scottish Trades Union Congress president Lynn Henderson, Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard, SNP MP Chris Stephens, Carole Ford for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish Greens education spokesman and MSP Ross Greer, and Liam McCabe from the National Union of Students.

Leonard, who is a supporter of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, offered no alternative for teachers, instead calling on them to rely on the good graces of the SNP—which is insistent on continuing budget cuts. “It’s time for Mr. Swinney to put a fair pay deal on the table to provide teachers with the respect and due recognition they deserve,” Leonard bombastically declared.

In a statement, Swinney claimed that teachers would receive a larger pay deal of between 5 and 18 percent, but this was based on the conflating of a low pay increase with incremental pay that teachers were due to receive anyway.

Not only are the unions ensuring that the struggles of education workers are isolated from one another; everything is being done to prevent a unified offensive of public sector workers who are facing a common assault on their pay, terms and conditions.

Teachers in Glasgow demonstrated just days after around 6,000 mostly female local government workers took strike action in pursuit of equal pay. They were supported by many of their male co-workers who refused to cross picket lines in solidarity. The male workers, including every refuse worker in Glasgow, walked out in support even as the SNP government threatened them with the use of the Conservative government’s anti-strike laws.

Under US pressure, Maldives president accepts election defeat

Rohantha De Silva 

In a televised speech on October 17, Maldives President Abdulla Yameen accepted his defeat in the presidential elections held on September 23. After attempting to have the country’s Supreme Court judges annul the election results, he was forced to retreat after US and European Union threats of punitive responses.

The outcome directly cuts across Beijing’s interests in the tiny island country, strategically located 400 kilometres southwest of India and close to the world’s busiest shipping lanes, from the Middle East and Africa to East Asia.

In September’s election, the pro-US joint opposition candidate, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, obtained 58 percent of the declared vote while Yameen polled 42 percent. In the run-up to the poll, the US, EU and India had, for their own political purposes, intensified criticism of Yameen’s anti-democratic rule. They warned of sanctions if the elections were not “free and fair” and demanded the reinstatement of ousted opposition MPs.

Yameen conceded defeat immediately after the election, but later claimed to have evidence that election results were rigged and filed a case in the Supreme Court to annul them. After the Supreme Court decided to hear Yameen’s appeal, the US and EU issued another round of warnings.

On October 13, US State Department spokesman Robert Palladino said on Twitter: “The US is concerned by troubling actions that threaten to undermine the will of the Maldivian people, and will consider appropriate measures against anyone who undermines a peaceful transfer of power in Maldives.”

Amid these warnings, the judges decided not to hear Yameen’s “secret witnesses” about the alleged vote rigging. Then a five-judge Supreme Court bench unanimously ruled that the president failed to prove his claim.

The country’s judiciary is highly politicised. In February, Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and another judge were jailed after ordering the release of opposition MPs convicted earlier on trumped-up charges. At that time, Yameen declared an emergency and jailed the two judges with the help of the remaining judges. Now these same judges have thrown out Yameen’s case.

After the court ruling, Robert Hilt on, the chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Sri Lanka, issued a statement saying Washington was “looking forward to working with president-elect Ibrahim Mohamed Solih after his inauguration in November.” He added: “It’s a new and positive era for the Maldives.”

Likewise, the EU said it looked forward to “working with the future government of Maldives” and expected “the full restoration of democratic institutions.”

However, the Western powers have no concern for the democratic rights of Maldivian people. Their statements underscore the intense pressure applied by the US and EU for a regime change in their geo-strategic interests.

After opening an embassy in 2012 under the previous president, Mohamed Nasheed, China became the country’s main investor and currently holds 70 percent of its foreign debt. It has invested in many infrastructure projects, including a main port built at the expense of India, its regional rival and US ally. Yameen’s government had pledged to become a partner in Beijing’s flagship project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to link China to Europe.

Washington is determined to undercut China’s influence and bring Maldives firmly into its orbit as part of its aggressive diplomatic, economic and military moves against China. The Indian capitalist elite is developing close strategic ties with the US as New Delhi also wants to stop China from challenging its regional and global great power aspirations.

In response, China is seeking to maintain its investments in Maldives. Beijing has declared it will continue its relations with the new government in Maldives.

Yameen will have to step down on November 17, according to the constitution. President-elect Solih said “the Maldivian people can finally enjoy clarity over the outcome of the election.” Despite Solih’s claims, the Maldivian people will not enjoy a flourishing of democratic rights.

Solih was a parliamentary leader of the opposition Maldives Democratic Party (MDP), led by Mohamed Nasheed.

Though Yameen’s government jailed Nasheed, the US and UK pressured Yameen to allow him to travel to London. Abroad, he conducted a pro-US and anti-China campaign. He is operating from Colombo where a similar pro-US regime change was orchestrated in January 2015. Nasheed has declared he will return to Maldives on November 1.

The MDP and other opposition parties have begun a campaign to suppress Yameen’s influence. They have held protests demanding the police stop him “escaping from the country” and are reportedly preparing to lay corruption charges against him.

Solih has quickly indicated he will distance his government from China and strengthen relations with India and the US in particular. He has publicly expressed support for US and Indian strategic interests in the Indian Ocean, which could lead to military conflicts with China.

The pro-US shift in Maldives will only intensify the political instability in the archipelago and the geopolitical tensions between China and the US.

Far-right candidate Bolsonaro elected as Brazil’s president

Miguel Andrade

Brazil’s presidential run-off election Sunday confirmed what had been anticipated in the first round vote earlier this month and by subsequent electoral polls, with the election of the fascistic reserve Army captain and seven-term federal representative for the state of Rio de Janeiro, Jair Bolsonaro, as president.

Bolsonaro won 58 million votes, or 55 percent of the total, against 47 million, or 45 percent, for Workers Party (PT) candidate Fernando Haddad. The run-off also saw a repeat of the record abstention and spoiled ballots of the first round, with over 40 million out of a total of 146 million adults able to vote choosing not to cast a ballot for either candidate.

The election of Bolsonaro, an open defender of the US-backed, 21-year military dictatorship that ruled Brazil until 1985, and of its murderous and barbaric repression, marks a thorough-going breakdown of the regime of civilian bourgeois democratic rule that emerged in Brazil after the military ceded power.

It also represents a shipwreck for all of the parties that previously held power, first and foremost the PT, which served as the preferred instrument of rule for the Brazilian bourgeoisie for 13 years. Also decimated was the party that emerged out of the former legal opposition to the dictatorship, the Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB), and the country’s former main right-wing party, the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB). The first round had already seen the Congressional elections cut both the PSDB’s and MDB’s caucuses in half, and a drop of 20 percent in the number of seats held by the PT.

The election marks widespread opposition to the whole political setup dominated by the PT and the former right-wing opposition, which is seen by wide layers of Brazilians as responsible for the worst economic crisis in the country’s history—with an 8 percent GDP drop between 2015 and 2016 and the slowest recovery ever since. The unemployment rate has remained stagnant at 12 percent—with some 13 million jobless—and extreme poverty and infant mortality are on the rise.

Moreover, the PT and the other two main bourgeois parties are seen as co-responsible for wholesale corruption, with the MDB swinging between the other two to give them support for almost 30 years. Since the PSDB first came to the presidency in 1994, being succeeded by the PT from 2002 for four terms, corruption schemes have spanned from vote-buying in Congress by the PT and PSDB, to fraudulent privatizations under the PSDB, to bribes and kickbacks for public contracts involving construction, industrial and energy monopolies under the rule of the PT—the central scheme uncovered by the Lava-jato (Carwash) investigation, whose tentacles have spread as far as the United States, Africa and virtually the whole of the rest of Latin America.

Against this backdrop, Bolsonaro was able, with populist criticisms of corruption and cronyism, to pose as the sole opposition to the anti-working class policies of these three parties. With a candidacy backed by an array of senior military officers and gradually embraced by big business, Bolsonaro’s election will mark the first time since 1985 that the reviled Brazilian military, formerly completely demoralized by the exposure and abject failure of its brutal repression and class war policies, will play a dominant role in government.

Following first-round trends, the electoral breakdown showed the PT being roundly defeated in virtually all of its former strongholds, where it first gained strength in the 1980s and from which it finally rose to national power. This was most notable in the so-called ABC region of industrial cities surrounding São Paulo, as well as the so-called “red belt” of working class areas in the city’s outskirts.

Traditionally left-wing states that used to give the PT electoral victories long before it took control of the national government, such as Rio Grande do Sul and Rio de Janeiro, gave Bolsonaro stunning victories of over 63 percent.

The city of São Bernardo in the ABC region, where the PT was born and where its former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—now jailed on charges related to the Carwash probe—led metalworkers in a series of major strikes beginning in 1978, leading to the end of the dictatorship, gave Bolsonaro 60 percent of the vote, while other ABC cities gave him up to 75 percent.

The PT was only able to retain support in the country’s impoverished and neglected northeast, a region it first penetrated in Lula’s presidential victory of 2002 and where it has been associated with modest, IMF-approved poverty reduction schemes.

In the run-up to the election, Bolsonaro issued a series of provocative statements declaring that his opposition in the PT, whom he described a “red criminals”, would have to choose between either exile or prison. He similarly vowed a to stage a “clean-up the likes of which has never been seen in Brazilian history.”

Bolsonaro’s vice-presidential running mate, the right-wing general Hamilton Mourão, who retired from the military only this year after making speeches affirming the need for “military intervention” to secure “law and order”, stated bluntly on the eve of the election that the first task of the new government would be to carry out economic adjustment programs, including a sweeping pension “reform.”

The general said that the new government would take advantage of the “honeymoon” after it takes office to “hammer in some nails.”

Following the release of the results of the election, Bolsonaro delivered a rant on social media denouncing socialism and communism. Shortly afterwards, he appeared on national television vowing his support for democratic rule of law and property rights as well as fiscal responsibility. He also signaled that he would more closely align Brazil’s foreign policy with that of Washington. He added that he had received a congratulatory call from US President Donald Trump who said that the two could reach “great partnerships.”

The election of Bolsonaro clearly signals a sharp turn to the right by the Brazilian bourgeoisie in confronting the deepest economic crisis in the country’s history and steadily rising class tensions.

His path to power was paved by the PT, which over its 13 years of rule allied itself with Bolsonaro and a whole series of right-wing politicians in congress to impose economic policies demanded by the IMF that placed the full burden of the country’s economic crisis onto the backs of the working class.

Many had pointed to the jailing of Lula—which barred him from running again for the presidency—as the principal cause for the PT’s defeat. Polls, however, have indicated that a majority of the Brazilian population believes that he should be jailed, and the PT itself dropped his image from the campaign in the second round, while changing their party’s trademark color red to the same green and yellow of the Brazilian flag used by Bolsonaro.

The reality is that the election represented a stunning rejection of the PT by masses of Brazilian workers, many of whom voted for Bolsonaro and even more of whom refused to vote for anyone out of disgust for the entire political setup.

The PT was itself unable and unwilling to make any class appeal to workers to oppose the right-wing threat posed by Bolsonaro’s coming to power. No attempt was made to bring workers out into the streets in advance of the second-round vote, and if there had been it is unlikely that many would have answered a call from the PT. Instead, the party pitched its appeal to a broad “democratic front,” attempting to pick up the support from the discredited parties of the bourgeoisie, which themselves had lost whatever small popular base that they once had.

The entire pseudo left in Brazil attempted to give this bankrupt and reactionary policy a “left” façade, portraying a vote for Haddad as the only means of stopping the advent of fascism in Brazil. This attempt to corral workers back under the wing of the party that had betrayed them over the course of decades proved itself an abject failure.

The reality is that the right-wing social and economic policies that Bolsonaro will now attempt to introduce would have been adopted by an incoming PT government as well. And his move to bring the military into the government also would have been seen under a PT government, with Haddad making one of his first visits after the first-round vote to the chief of staff of the Brazilian armed forces for a political discussion.

It will take far more than an election to impose a fascist dictatorship over a country of some 210 million people. Great class battles lie ahead. The decisive question confronting the working class is to assimilate the lessons of the decades of betrayals at the hands of the PT, its affiliated union confederation, the CUT, and the coterie of pseudo-left groups that orbit around them. A new revolutionary movement must be built, based on the program of socialist internationalism and the fight to link up the struggles of Brazilian workers with those of the working class throughout the Americas.

Anti-Semitic violence erupts in America

Joseph Kishore

The anti-Semitic massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has raised the crisis of American politics and society to a new level. More and more, the conditions in the United States have the character of a civil war, in which the most backward and reactionary forces are being encouraged and promoted.

Eleven people were killed in the slaughter in Pittsburgh, which occurred during religious services Saturday morning. Among the predominantly elderly victims were two brothers and a husband and wife, aged 84 and 86. Another victim was Rose Mallinger, 97, a survivor of the Holocaust. The shooter, Robert Bowers, has been charged with 11 counts of criminal homicide and 13 counts of ethnic intimidation.

While the United States is no stranger to anti-Semitism, an act of mass violence targeting Jewish people on this scale is unprecedented. As one commenter in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote, the “illusion that ‘this can’t happen here’ has been shattered. American Jews will wake up the next day to a new and far more frightening future, knowing not only that it has happened here, but that the attack could portend similar assaults in the future.”

To understand the significance of this act it is necessary to place it not only in its domestic, but also its international and historical context.

The attack is a direct product of the open appeals to fascist violence by the Trump administration. Bowers was evidently motivated by a combination of rabid anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant chauvinism. He posted comments on social media just prior to the attack linking his hatred of Jews to the efforts of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), with which the Tree of Life synagogue is affiliated, to assist refugees fleeing Central America. “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people,” he wrote. “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered.”

The language he employed, including the use of “invaders” to refer to migrants fleeing poverty and violence in Central America caused by US imperialism, is that of the Trump administration. In a speech last week, Trump referred to the caravan of migrants heading for the US border as “an assault on our country.” He called it an invasion that threatened to destroy “your neighborhoods, your hospitals, your schools.” In remarks laden with anti-Semitic and fascistic tropes, Trump denounced those who “want to turn the clock back and restore power to corrupt, power-hungry globalists…”

The attack on in the synagogue follows the string of pipe bombs sent by a Trump supporter to prominent Democrats.

Trump himself is a symptom, however, not an explanation. What brought Trump to power?

The consequences of the financial crisis of 2008 and the pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama administration, which enabled the right wing to posture as defenders of the “forgotten man.” The impact of more than a quarter-century of unending war, 17 years under the banner of the “war on terror.” The turn by the ruling class and both Democrats and Republicans to ever more authoritarian forms of rule in response to growing resistance from the working class.

While Trump seeks to cultivate an extra-parliamentary movement of the far-right, the Democrats promote the FBI, the CIA and the military as the guarantors of stability against those who “sow divisions” and discontent.

The international context underscores the fact that far more is involved than simply the Trump administration. The growth of far-right and fascistic movements and governments is a global phenomenon.

In the Philippines, it has produced Rodrigo Duterte, who has praised and helped organize vigilante death squads.

In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a member of the fascistic RSS. As chief minister of Gujarat, he helped organize the 2002 riots that killed hundreds of Muslims.

In Brazil, elections held yesterday elevated to power the far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro.

Throughout Europe, far-right and fascistic parties have been systematically promoted by the ruling class. Particularly significant are the developments in Germany. In the country that produced Hitler and the most horrific crimes of the 20th century, including the slaughter of six million Jews in the Holocaust, fascism is once again a major political force.

The fascistic Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the main opposition party, deliberately cultivated by the parties of the political establishment, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, which have at every turn adapted to and embraced its anti-immigrant chauvinism.

Last month, AfD head Alexander Gauland published a column in the leading newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that paraphrased a speech by Hitler. The state, meanwhile, in alliance with the AfD, has moved to criminalize left-wing opposition to fascism.

The significance of the rise of fascism in Germany has been almost entirely ignored by the American media, including the New York Times. The efforts of reactionary historians to rewrite German history and relativize the crimes of the Nazis have provoked no opposition from the liberal establishment, including a corrupt academia in the United States.

The universality of this process is underscored by the fact that among those countries where fascism is on the rise is Israel itself. The hatred of Jews is a specific form of a virulent brand of nationalism that in Israel is expressed in state-sanctioned and organized violence against Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently oversaw the passage of the “Nation-State Law” enshrining Jewish supremacy, has made common cause with far-right and fascistic forces in Europe, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Finally, the international growth of fascistic movements must be placed in its historical context. What is the significance of the reemergence of fascism, 85 years after the coming to power of Hitler and nearly 80 years after the outbreak of the Second World War?

Today, approaching 30 years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union by the Stalinist bureaucracy, the essentially reactionary character of what transpired in 1989–1991 is exposed before the entire world. The fascist disease, which was somewhat in remission during the period following World War II, has powerfully reemerged. The end of the USSR produced not a flowering of democracy, as the propagandists of capitalism prophesied, but an explosion of inequality, imperialist war, authoritarianism and a revival of fascism.

Fascism is a political expression of extreme capitalist crisis. Trotsky explained in “What is National Socialism?” (1933) that with the rise of Nazism, “capitalist society is puking up [its] undigested barbarism.” Fascism, he wrote, “is the most ruthless dictatorship of monopoly capital.”

So too today, capitalism is vomiting up its undigested barbarism. The most immediate targets are migrants and refugees who are fleeing the consequences of imperialist war and capitalist exploitation. In the United States, concentration camps have been erected on the US-Mexico border that are holding immigrants—including children—under the most barbaric conditions.

In one of his last major writings, the “Manifesto of the Fourth International on Imperialism and War,” published in May 1940, Trotsky wrote: “[D]ecaying capitalism is striving to squeeze the Jewish people from all its pores; seventeen million individuals out of the two billion populating the globe, that is, less than one percent, can no longer find a place on our planet! Amid the vast expanses of land and the marvels of technology, which has also conquered the skies for man as well as the earth, the bourgeoisie has managed to convert our planet into a foul prison.” Such is the condition facing millions of immigrants today.

As the massacre on Saturday has once again demonstrated, a period of political reaction and war is inevitably associated with the revival of anti-Semitism, one of the oldest forms of chauvinism. Among the illusions that must be dispelled is the notion that the existence of Israel is some sort of protection against anti-Jewish persecution and violence.

The most fundamental target of right-wing reaction is the working class. Just as fascism arises out of capitalism, so does the class struggle. The development of the class struggle and the growing interest in socialism terrify the ruling class. Masses of workers are moving to the left, not the right. There is deep and growing hostility to social inequality and the preparations of the ruling class for war.

It is a sign of the desperation of the ruling class that, at the first sign of social opposition, it calls forward fascist violence. In the 1930s, while fascist movements acquired a mass base, what made possible their ascension to power in Germany, Italy and Spain were the political conspiracies of the ruling elites. Today, the deliberate instigation of fascism from above is an even more dominant factor.

Capitalism is again posing before mankind the alternatives: socialist revolution or capitalist barbarism. All the talk in the media about the need to “restore civility” and end “divisive political rhetoric” are empty platitudes that evade all the critical issues. What must be abolished is the capitalist system itself.

Eighty years ago, in 1938, the Fourth International was founded to resolve the crisis of revolutionary leadership in the working class in response to the betrayals of Stalinism and Social Democracy. At the very center of the political program of the new international was an assimilation of the lessons of the victory of fascism in Germany in 1933, the greatest defeat of the working class in history.

The most important lesson was the impossibility of fighting fascism except on the basis of a revolutionary socialist and internationalist program. As the horrors of the 1930s reemerge once more, this understanding must be brought into the working class through the building of a socialist leadership, the Socialist Equality Party, which connects the fight against fascism with opposition to inequality, war and the capitalist system.

ACI Foundation International Fellowships in USA & Canada 2019/2020 for Undergraduate and Graduate Students

Application Deadline: 1st November, 2018.

Eligible Countries: All

To be Taken at (Country): ACI Foundation Fellowships can be awarded to anyone in the world; however, you must attend a U.S. or Canadian university during the award year.

About the Award: The ACI Foundation offers several Fellowship and undergraduate Scholarship opportunities for students and E-Members. ACI Foundation Fellowships and Scholarships are awarded annually to help students with an interest in concrete achieve their educational and career goals. The student must be considered a full-time undergraduate or graduate student as defined by the college or university during the award year. Applications will be accepted from anywhere in the world but study must take place in the United States or Canada during the award year.

Fields of Study: Structural Design, Materials, Construction

Type: Undergraduate, Graduate (Masters, PhD)

Eligibility: Before beginning the application have the answers ready for these four questions.

• When submitting the application, what is your educational status (undergrad, grad, or PhD)?
• When the award year begins next fall, what will your status be (undergrad, grad, or PhD)?
• Following the application season, can you attend an interview at the Spring ACI Convention on March 25, 2018? Travel and hotel arrangements will be made through and paid for by the ACI Foundation.
• Can you fulfill a 10 to 12-week internship the summer before the award year?

During the award year, you must be a full-time student for the regular school year.

Selection Criteria: Based on essays, submitted data and endorsements, the Scholarship Council of the ACI Foundation will select scholarship and fellowship recipients who appear to have the strongest combination of interest and potential for professional success in the concrete industry.

How to Apply: Now Open! Apply Now!
It is important to go through the Application instructions on the Scholarship Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for more details

Award Provider: American Concrete Institute

A sustainable global population -and why we cannot achieve it

Bernard Gillan

In the period 1975 – 2018, world population increased at an average of 83 million per year, and reached 7.6 billion in 2018. The increase in 2017 was the difference between approximately 145 million births and 62 million deaths. Despite population growth, the global average daily food supply per person rose from 2440 kilocalories in 1975 to 2940 kilocalories in 2015 (1). However, over 800 million people are undernourished and 300 million adults are obese.

Cereals are the most important crops for food and feed; globally, 45 percent of the cereal production is consumed by humans, and 35 percent by livestock. The remainder is used for industrial purposes, including ethanol, beer, whisky and vodka. The rise in world cereal production since the 1960s is mainly due to two technological advances. The first was Haber-Bosch ammonia synthesis, in which atmospheric nitrogen is fixed as ammonia (containing 82 percent nitrogen) which plants utilize for protein formation. Production of Haber-Bosch ammonia began in 1913, but did not begin to rise rapidly until the 1960s. The second advance was the Green Revolution that began in the mid-1960s, after agronomist Norman Borlaug had bred varieties of dwarf wheat that give higher yields in response to heavier applications of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation. The breeding and use of semi-dwarf rice and hybrid maize paralleled that of wheat.

The most striking achievement of chemical agriculture is the maize yield in the U.S., which rose from 2.5 tonnes per hectare (40 bushels per acre) in 1950 to 11.0 tonnes per hectare (175 bushels per acre) in 2016. The global cereal yield rose from 2.81 tonnes per hectare in 1992-96 to 3.91 tonnes in 2012-16 (2). Linear extrapolation of the 1992 – 2016 yield trend (52.3 kg per hectare per year) gives a yield of 5.73 tonnes per hectare in 2050. If the population in 2050 is taken as 9.85 billion (3), and the harvested cereal area remains 718 million hectares (as in 2016), production per person in 2050 would be 420 kg, 10 percent above the 2016 level of 382 kg; the uncertainty is about 10 percent either way. Assuming that the global average cereal yield without using nitrogen fertilizer is 1.6 tonnes per hectare, and that fertilizer increases grain yield by 30 kg per kg nitrogen applied, the global average nitrogen application on cereal crops, 80 kg per hectare in 2015, would be approximately 140 kg per hectare. If the incremental yield-nitrogen ratio rises to 35 by 2050, the nitrogen application would be 120 kg per hectare.

The success of the Green Revolution created three major ecological problems:

1. Globally, about half the applied nitrogen is taken up by the crop plants; the remainder volatilizes in the form of ammonia and nitrous oxide (a powerful greenhouse gas) or leaches to groundwater, resulting in eutrophication (the formation of algae) in rivers, lakes and coastal waters; this creates “dead zones” in which fish cannot live.
2. Applying nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer to crops changes the balance between these nutrients and those needed in small or trace amounts; the latter include calcium, sulphur, magnesium, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, cobalt, boron and selenium.
3. Approximately 40 percent of global irrigation water is obtained by pumping groundwater from tube wells; this has resulted in the depletion of aquifers and the lowering of groundwater levels, thereby contributing 0.4 mm to the global sea level rise of 3.4 mm per year (4).

As population growth increases the need for fertilizer, it follows that population reduction would ultimately solve the ecological problems. Unfortunately, human nature is such that global population reduction is not feasible. The reasons for this are given in the following.

In 1950, France had a population of 42 million and 20 million hectares of arable land, i.e. 2 persons per arable hectare. The nitrogen fertilizer application on cereals was negligible, and cereal production per person was about 400 kg per year, slightly higher than the present world average. If the ratio of population to arable land were 2 persons per hectare on the world’s 1.6 billion arable hectares, world population would be 3.2 billion. Reducing world population to this size would mean reducing the global average fertility rate (currently 2.5 children per woman) to 1.5 by 2050 and holding it at that level until 2200. The proportion of the population in the 65+ age-group would rise to 35 percent. Such a drastic change in the age distribution would mean raising the pensionable age to 70 years or more.

Adopting and enforcing a population limit for each country would be an insurmountable obstacle, as Charles Galton Darwin pointed out in 1952 (5). To lower the global average to 2 inhabitants per arable hectare, countries such as Canada, Russia, Australia and Argentina would not be required to reduce their populations, but would not be permitted to reach 2 inhabitants per arable hectare; they would be obliged to have a grain surplus for export to countries that need grain imports. China and India would each have to reduce its population to roughly 300 million; the combined population of the two countries would then be 20 percent of the world population instead of the present 35 percent (6). The relative population reductions in Japan and Egypt, which have 30 and 33 inhabitants per arable hectare respectively, would be much greater (6).

The population of China is projected to peak at 1.45 billion around 2030 and decline to one billion by 2100. This is partly a result of the so-called one-child policy launched in 1979 (in reality a 1.5-child policy). It was replaced by a two-child limit in 2016, but the fertility rate remains 1.6. Japan has a population of 126 million and a fertility rate of 1.4; the population is projected to decline to 102 million in 2050 and 60 million in 2100. These projected long-term declines are likely to be halted by pro-natalist policies based on the advice of growth-obsessed economists who believe that population decline results in a shortage of labour. A world population peak of at least 10 billion is almost inevitable, and this would make 70 percent of the world’s population dependent on Haber-Bosch ammonia. This is not sustainable, but there is no solution in sight. As a sustainable population cannot be attained by fertility decline alone, a mortality rise is highly probable. We can only guess when.

Privatisation of Education is dis-empowering the Poor

Manoj Suna

The pillar of a society that ensures the all round development of its members is ” EDUCATION ” . It enlightens the mind from darkness towards the path of right ideology, right concept and also right decisive action. Education has been framing the minds which is the integral instrument to make true person . In old days, the relationship between teacher and student was sacred, bond of knowledge, cohesiveness of intellectuality.

The mentors were imparting holistic education to their disciples selflessly or by levying minimal charges .

So, the disciples were trained all sorts of essential aspects of life , skills not merely for professions or earning rather enabling them to challenge the difficulties of life. As a result, the parents of disciples were well convinced about the doctrines, methodologies of mentors who were really shaping the right minds of their disciples . The doctrines comprised of both corporal as well as intellectual training.

The above ancient academic scenario was found during the periods of kings , emperors. Later on, it took a drastic change with the flow of time. Many schools, colleges & universities were set up to impart various courses namely vocational, legal, medical, agriculture, engineering etc to aim at making the students job ready.

After the independence of India, Union government brought certain policies on education , set up commissions , formulated programs for educational awareness among rural masses , removal of illiteracy etc for educational transformation in the entire country.

The educational system was designed in such a way so that poor parents could send their children to schools , aspire for higher education in colleges and universities . Initially, the standard of education was satisfactory. The government run institutions were affordable for most citizens. It was even free for poor students. This was the time when the faculties, students were sincere to their respective duties. As a teacher, he/she had to be honest in his duty & tried his best to provide quality teaching . The students could highly benefit from the government institutions. The government schools produced millions of doctors ,engineers, bureaucrats, politicians, writers for building the nation. There was no concept of special coaching , tuition or handy notes available in market these days. Notwithstanding , the educators were strict disciplinarians and concerned with all round developments of pupils. This opened the door for all communities to gain education as it’s mentioned in the constitution that guarantees equality of opportunity, right to education to all its citizens.

Article 021A declares right to education. Here, the concerned article makes it mandatory for all states to provide free and compulsory education to the children of the age of 6 to 14 years. It has bestowed an opportunity for poor , marginalized children who dreamt of schooling . However, the system in government schools has deteriorated. It merely keeps its promise of providing education but not quality education. It has been felt essential to bring it to the notice of public. The issue emerged the day when the schools, colleges, universities were mushroomed with privatisation .

Today, there is a scenery of exponential growth of private institutions ranging from nursery to post graduate level which are owned by capitalists , businessmen who have colored the educational system with the identity of commercialization . There’s agitation in some corners of particular cities to ban private institutions. We live in a country where rich is getting richer but poor is getting poorer day by day. So, this luxurious, well furnished , full of amenities are seen in the schools, colleges which are privatized & mainly established in urban areas where high income groups can invest without a bit of hesitancy for their children .

But nobody is concerned with the miserable situation of the poor. Can a student dream of such school when he strives for two meals a day? Can the parents send their children to such schools   who devote their labour & time only for  two square meals a day? Here, the question arises – why there’s educational discrimination between private & government schools ? We know that quality education isn’t imparted in government school but the teachers are paid high remuneration. It’s peculiar that a teacher working in government school earns handsome salary but sends his own children to private school because he’s well aware that only the private schools can meet his educational expectations. Only the people of high income groups such as jobholders, businessmen can give their children better education as it requires huge amount of money whereas a common man fails to satisfy the desires of his own kids. He surrenders his debt-ridden life in servitude to landlords .

It’s miserable, pathetic that the education sector take such steps .There is the dream of education for poor children. They’ll lag behind all kinds of competitions. The government of India should frame such educational policies which should be equal for all irrespective of caste, colour, creed, sex, place of birth, economical status etc. The mushrooming of private institutions must be curbed & rebuild all government institutions that must be accessible to all. Egalitarian educational set up must be maintained by the government in the country. Let not the flavour of education be enjoyed by a handful of people .

It’s high time for intellectuals, educationists, social activists to wake up. Let all the children of this nation be provided education of equal standard & quality . Discrimination in educational set up should be removed. If the above tasks can be accomplished in due time, then there will be a dawn of a healthy, transparent, equal, sustainable educational system across the nation.

Argentine workers and students march against “hunger budget”

Rafael Azul 

In the early hours of Thursday morning, following an 18-hour debate that unfolded amid violent clashes outside the national legislature, the lower house of Argentina’s Congress approved a draconian austerity budget that will slash public spending by US$10 billion. The vote was 138 in favor to 103 against.

The austerity budget had been demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), together with other attacks on jobs and social benefits, as the price for a rescue operation for the heavily indebted Argentine government. The IMF has pledged US$57 billion over three years to balance government finances, with the lion’s share of the funding going into the coffers of Argentine and international finance capital.

On Wednesday, October 25, tens of thousands marched on the national legislature carrying banners repudiating President Maurico Macri’s proposed austerity budget and the IMF. Striking teachers, health care workers, workers from Buenos Aires’ industrial suburbs and students denounced the measure as “the hunger budget” and joined the protest march, opposing the proposed measure and demanding a wage re-opener to break through the government-imposed 15 percent increase (according to one estimate, prices are set to rise over 40 percent this year) and the dollarization of the economy.

On Tuesday, protesters began congregating in the vicinity of Argentina’s national congress building in anticipation of the debate and vote on the budget.

The Evita Movement (Peronist), The People’s Economic Federation (CTEP, Peronist), the Fighting Class Movement (Stalinist-Maoist), and The Darío Santillán Popular Front (left populist), plus groups representing the unemployed and other community organizations set up soup kitchens for the overnight vigil in response to Wednesday’s debate in the lower house on the so-called Public Accounts Adjustment.

As the congressional debate began on Wednesday, angry demonstrators clashed against police barricades that had been erected in anticipation of the mass demonstration. Following the pattern established last December against pension reform protesters, the Buenos Aires police responded with brutal and indiscriminate acts of repression, using rubber bullets and sending clouds of tear gas into the legislative chamber itself. Dozens were injured, and 30 demonstrators were arrested.

The Peronist labor bureaucracy, the CTA and CGT, which five days earlier had cynically organized a mass Catholic mass in the Buenos Aires suburb of Luján, dedicated to the workers and pensioners, largely ignored the protest.

In order to meet IMF-imposed goals, the budget slashes education spending by 16 percent, public works by 30 percent, labor education by 40 percent and transportation by 30 percent (with the elimination of transportation subsidies), while fully servicing the Argentine debt to Wall Street. Interest on Argentine dollar debt represents 20 percent of the budget, after accounting for the effects of inflation.

This budget places debt servicing ahead of the needs of working-class families and youth. It is the only budget item that has been increased.

Payments on the debt amount to 26 times what is budgeted for housing programs, 16 times the science and technology budget, 11 times the amount for social assistance, 5 times the allocations for health and transportation, 3 times more than for education and culture and twice the social security budget.

Taking inflation into account, infrastructure investments will be slashed by 77 percent, kindergartens by 68 percent, school technology programs by 69 percent, teaching scholarships by 60 percent, teacher training by 39 percent and student scholarships by 35 percent.

The budget sets itself a goal of a zero-budget deficit in 2019 and anticipates two years of negative economic growth.

While the Argentine Senate has yet to vote on this measure, the government of President Macri wanted it at least partially approved prior to a meeting with the IMF that took place on Friday, the day after the lower-house vote. With that vote in hand, the IMF approved the immediate release of US$5.4 billion, less than half the US$13.6 billion that Macri had hoped for.

The mass outpouring of anger against the austerity policies of the Macri administration signals the eruption of a social explosion across Argentina that goes beyond the repudiation of the debt to Wall Street, much like the social explosion of 2001 and 2002. But that explosion, which resulted in the fall of a succession of governments in just a few weeks, ultimately left the ruling class in charge.

What is now required is that the working class be armed with an internationalist socialist program to reorganize society. As a first step in Argentina, it must break with the Peronist parties and trade unions, as well as the nationalist programs of the pseudo-left, and build an independent movement, linking up with workers across the Americas.

Pakistan caught up in intensifying US-China rivalry

Pradeep Ramayake

In response to the turn by Pakistan’s newly-elected government to an emergency bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), China has cautioned against the loan, saying it could affect economic cooperation between Islamabad and Beijing.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a press briefing in Beijing last week: “China wants an ‘objective and professional’ evaluation of the loans. The measures to be worked out by the IMF should not affect the China-Pakistan relations,” he warned.

Prime Minister Imran Khan announced on October 10 that Pakistan’s government had to borrow from the IMF since the country’s foreign reserves had fallen last month to $US8.4 billion. Khan said he would also be seeking financial help from “friendly countries,” by which he meant China and Saudi Arabia.

Amid a worsening balance-of-payments crisis, the Pakistan government desperately needs an estimated $12 billion and is looking toward China for further financial assistance. It is under pressure from the US, however, to distance itself from China and wind back projects associated with the massive proposed China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo effectively warned the Khan government in late July that any IMF loan would be contingent on lessening Pakistan’s economic dependence on China. “Make no mistake: we will be watching what the IMF does. There is no rationale for IMF tax dollars—and associated with that, American dollars that are part of the IMF funding—for those to go to bail out Chinese bondholders or China itself.”

The US has added to the pressure by demanding that Pakistan do more to suppress militias that use its border areas to mount attacks on US-led occupation forces and government targets inside Afghanistan. Last month the Trump administration cut off $300 million in military aid to Islamabad.

The CPEC is a crucial component of China’s infrastructure strategy—the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—which is aimed at linking Eurasian landmass and countering US efforts to strategically isolate and encircle it. Washington is mounting an offensive against BRI on all fronts, including in the media with a growing drumbeat in the US and international media accusing China or luring countries into “debt traps.”

The CPEC includes the development of road, rail and pipeline links between the Pakistani port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea and western China. For Beijing, such a corridor would secure China’s links to Africa and the oil-rich Middle East and strengthen its ability to resist a US naval blockade of China’s vital shipping routes through South East Asia in the event of conflict.

Facing pressure from the US, the Pakistan government is seeking to “remodel” the terms of the CPEC to lessen the financial burden and focus the project on economic rather than strategic issues. In preparing for his first visit to China as Pakistan’s premier next month, Khan is insisting that the emphasis of the CPEC shift from infrastructure to agriculture, job creation and foreign investment.

Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry told the media: “Earlier, the CPEC was only aimed at construction of motorways and highways, but now the prime minister decided that it will be used to support the agriculture sector, create more jobs and attract other foreign countries like Saudi Arabia to invest in the country.”

Earlier this month, Sheikh Rashid, the railways minister, said the cost of the rail projects in Pakistan as part of the CPEC had been brought down, but had to be further reduced. The main rail project is a major upgrade to the major line stretching 1,872 kilometres from Karachi in the south to Peshawar in the north of the country.

“We have brought down railways projects’ cost to $6.2 billion from $8.2 billion. It’s my wish to further bring it down to $4.2 billion,” Rashid said. “I am the biggest supporter of CPEC, but I also want that the railways have minimum burden.”

China is committed to pressing ahead with the CPEC, which entails nearly $60 billion in infrastructure funds. Speaking to Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi during UN sessions last month, China’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, hailed his country’s “all weather” partnership with Pakistan.

While not naming the US, Wang pointedly warned that “any conspiracies attempting to incite disharmony or interfere in China-Pakistan relations will not prevail.” He declared that China and Pakistan should continue to make “all-out” efforts to promote the economic corridor, expand trade and reduce poverty.

China is also seeking to strengthen ties with Pakistan on other fronts. In mid-September, at a meeting with Pakistan Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Chinese President Xi Jinping said: “Pakistan is our time-tested iron friendship and the Pakistan army has a pivotal role towards this lasting relationship.” He praised the Pakistani armed forces and declared: “China shall continue to support Pakistan as a strategic partner.”

Just days before Bajwa’s visit to China, Commerce Minister Abdul Razak Dawood had suggested that the government might suspend CPEC projects for a year. Facing pressure from Washington and Beijing, Pakistan is engaged in a desperate balancing act as it confronts a deepening economic and social crisis at home.

Pakistan is not the only country seeking to modify its BRI projects. Malaysia has suspended or cancelled $26 billion in Chinese-funded projects, while Myanmar is negotiating a significant scaling back of a Chinese-funded port project on the Bay of Bengal. Undoubtedly, the US and its allies are applying pressure behind the scenes in a bid to undermine China’s plans.

Pakistan is also seeking funds elsewhere. Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry has announced that Islamabad and Saudi Arabia have signed three major investment deals involving CPEC projects, including a new oil refinery at the deep-sea port of Gwadar.

This week, Prime Minister Khan ignored the uproar over the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi to attend the showcase Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh and was promised at least $6 billion in financial support. The US, no doubt, backs the loan from one of its key allies in the Middle East as a means of lessening Pakistan’s economic dependence on China.

As the Trump administration intensifies its confrontation with China, countries like Pakistan are finding it increasingly difficult to balance their relations with Washington and Beijing. This intense manoeuvring is another indication of sharpening geo-political tensions and the rising dangers of war.

Saudi airstrike kills 21 civilians in Yemen

Jacob Crosse 

A United Nations (UN) report released on Thursday confirmed that at least 21 Yemeni civilians were killed and 11 more injured in an October 24 airstrike carried out by Saudi-led coalition forces. The latest civilian target destroyed by Washington’s despotic ally was a vegetable packaging facility, located in the town of Bayt el-Faqih, located approximately 43 miles southwest of Hodeidah. The dead and injured consisted of workers, farmers and children.

According to a Yemen health ministry source, as reported to the Middle East Eye, about half of the fatalities were instant. The remaining deaths were a result of rescuers being unable to reach medical facilities in a timely manner. What should be a one-hour drive from Bayt el-Faqih to Hodeidah now takes over six hours to accomplish as the warring factions have set up checkpoints and roadblocks along the contested highway.

Houthi rebels were not seen in the area, nor was any military equipment found in the aftermath of the slaughter. The Associated Press and Al-Jazeera have confirmed via an unreleased video that charred human remains were scattered throughout the facility and marketplace. This is third airstrike launched by the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) in the last week that has resulted in civilian casualties. The RSAF is well equipped and supplied by Western imperialism, featuring US manufactured Boeing F-15 Eagles and the British Aerospace (BAE) Panavia Typhoons.

On Saturday October 20, RSAF jets bombed Zayed Street in Hodeidah, killing a civilian and injuring four others. Prior to the massacre in Bayt el-Faqih on Wednesday, Saudi jets pummeled a motorcyclist in a residential section of Hodeidah, killing 3, including a child, and wounding 6 more, according to Middle East Eye.

The town of Bayt el-Faqih, and the market surrounding it were regarded by civilians as a “safe” place to prepare fruits and vegetables away from the besieged port city of Hodeidah. Saudi-led strikes have decimated Yemen's infrastructure, reducing water treatment plants and sanitation facilities in the area to rubble. Because of this, workers and farmers have been obligated to travel to the vegetable plant, washing their crops, before making the dangerous journey to the besieged Red Sea port markets.

In response to these latest war crimes, the reliably ineffectual UN, has, once again, called for an investigation into the Saudi air strikes. It is has been established fact since the beginning of the war, that the US and UK have supplied the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with over 12 billion dollars in aircraft and ordinance and vital intelligence in coordinating “appropriate” targets for Saudi warplanes. If no “targets” are immediately available, US Air Force KC-135’s are prepared to refuel Saudi bombers, keeping them in sky, ensuring their deadly payload is delivered.

In a January 2016 report, filed by a UN panel to the Security Council, this targeting has included, “...civilians and civilian objects, in violation of international humanitarian law, including camps for internally displaced persons and refugees; civilian gatherings, including weddings; civilian vehicles, including buses; civilian residential areas; medical facilities; schools; mosques; markets, factories and food storage warehouses; and other essential civilian infrastructure, such as the airport in Sana'a, the port in Hodeidah and domestic transit routes."

Echoing the UN’s commitment to injustice, Colonel Turki al-Malki, a spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition stated the Bayt el-Faqih bombing will be, “fully investigated...using an internationally approved process.”

The last time the coalition investigated itself was after Saudi jets savagely bombed a school bus in August, killing 51 people, including 40 children. That investigation concluded the bus, was not a “legitimate military target,” and that those “responsible should be held accountable.” (Emphasis added)

These terror bombings, in addition to the US/Saudi naval blockade of Hodeidah, has placed Yemen on the brink of starvation. Over 70 percent of the country’s imports once passed through the Red Sea ports. Now, due to the blockade, 14 million people—over half of the country’s population—faces famine if the war continues through the rest of the year. UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mark Lowcock warned this week that, “there is a clear and present danger of an imminent and great big famine engulfing Yemen.”

In addition to severe food and water insecurity, Yemen’s currency, the rial, has plunged in value while inflation has nearly doubled from 24.7 percent in 2017 to an estimated 41.8 percent in 2018. The collapse of Yemen’s economy has exacerbated social conditions for what was already the poorest country in the Middle East. According to a World Bank report, as of September 2018, 52 percent of the population subsists on less than $1.90 a day, while 81 percent make due with less than $3.20.

Compounding the effects of food shortages and a collapsing economy, Yemen is also suffering the largest cholera outbreak in modern history, with over 1 million suspected cases in 2017. According to the World Health Organization, 30 percent of the cholera cases in Yemen are in children under 5 years old. A 170 percent increase in cholera cases was reported by hospitals run by Save The Children between June and August 2018.

The latest gruesome Saudi airstrikes portend more suffering for the civilian population in Yemen, especially in Hodeidah. A ground offensive by Saudi/UAE forces is being prepared, as anonymous Yemen government officials, loyal to Saudi Arabia, reported that tanks and armored personnel carriers from the United Arab Emirates had arrived in the country on Wednesday.

Suddenly discovering US involvement in Yemen along with other US State Department socialists in the aftermath of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi hit squad in Turkey, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, took to the op-ed section of the New York Times on Wednesday, calling for an “end to the carnage.” Cynically, Sanders declared the war “unconstitutional,” as Congress had not authorized its prosecution. The reason why Sanders did not bring this urgent constitutional crisis to the public’s attention when President Backed Obama facilitated and backed the Saudi-led war at its outset in 2015 was left unstated.

One Young World Facebook Social Entrepreneurship Award 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 21st November 2018 1:00pm GMT

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: Facebook is the world’s largest social network and connects over 2 billion people monthly. As part of its mission to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together, it connects people on the platform with over 70 million businesses. Facebook not only helps businesses get discovered and find customers, but also helps people develop meaningful connections to products and causes. To better support cause-driven businesses, Facebook has partnered with One Young World for the second year in a row to launch the 2018 – 2019 Facebook Social Entrepreneurship Award.
In line with Facebook’s mission, the Facebook Social Entrepreneurship Award will present a prize to 10 non-profit or for-profit entrepreneurs with advertising credits and Facebook mentors who will share digital marketing expertise.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility:

• One Young World Delegates and Ambassadors exclusively. Ambassadors can apply as individuals or teams in groups (up to 5 individuals).
• Those who operate businesses or a non-profit charity that address a major social and/or economic issue in their region and empowers their community.
• • The Participant and each team member (if any) must lead or be employed by a non-profit charity or a for-profit business legal entity, which is registered and/or formed under applicable laws in their jurisdiction
• Ambassadors must live and operate enterprises within Facebook’s 5 regions: Latin America (LATAM), Europe (EUR), the Middle East and Africa (MEA), North America (NA), and Asia Pacific (APAC).
• Government officials, political figures and businesses politically affiliated (all as determined by Facebook and One Young World in its sole discretion) are not eligible to participate in the Contest.
• You are not eligible to participate in this Contest if you are a national or legal resident of those countries in which the United States has embargoed goods (including, without limitation, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Syria).

Selection Criteria: Candidates of the Facebook Social Entrepreneurship Award will be assessed based on:

• Probability of increased impact following ad credit investment – 40%
• Evidence of social impact – 30%
• Innovation/originality – 30%

Number of Awards: There will be 10 regional Awards: 2 from LATAM, 2 from North America, 2 from Europe, 2 from MEA and 2 from APAC.

Value of Award: Each regional winner will receive:

• A regional mentor
• A marketing consultant
• USD$5,000 in ad credits

​Out of the 10 regional Award recipient, 1 Grand Prize Awardee will be selected to receive an additional USD$50,000 in ad credits and an additional mentor.

Apply Here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

World Food Programme (WFP) Internship in Innovation & Change Management 2019 (Funded to Rome, Italy)

Application Deadline: 4th November 2018

VA reference no:  100132

Eligible Countries: International (Female applicants and qualified applicants from developing countries are especially encouraged to apply.  WFP has zero tolerance for discrimination and does not discriminate on the basis of HIV/AIDS status)

To be taken at (country): Rome, Italy

About the Award: The mission of WFP is to end global hunger. Every day, WFP works worldwide to ensure that no child goes to bed hungry and that the poorest and most vulnerable, particularly women and children, can access the nutritious food they need.
In emergencies, WFP gets food to where it is needed, saving the lives of victims of war, civil conflict and natural disasters. After an emergency, WFP uses food to help communities rebuild their shattered lives. Present in nearly 80 countries, the organization has the global footprint, deep field presence and local knowledge and relationships necessary to provide access to nutritious food and contribute to the lasting solutions, especially in many of the world’s most remote and fragile areas.

Type: Internship

Eligibility:

• Currently enrolled and have attended University courses in the last 12 months inclusive of having completed at least two years of undergraduate studies or have recently graduated in the last 6 months with a BA or MA and attended courses in the past 12 months;
• Proficiency in Windows, MS Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, Outlook);
• Fluent in written and spoken English.

Desirable competence: The candidate would ideally be a high-performing and motivated student, a communicative and cooperative team player with strong problem solving skills. Prior relevant work experience is a plus.

• Candidates who bear any of the following relations to WFP staff members are not eligible to apply: sons, daughters, brothers or sisters.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Interns receive a monthly stipend from WFP up to the maximum amount of US$1000 per month depending on the duty station of assignment.
• WFP is not responsible for living expenses, arrangements for accommodation, necessary visas and related costs.
• WFP will reimburse travel ticket for candidates who are nationals of developing countries and are pursuing their studies in their home country.
• WFP will recognize candidates’ educational credentials from recognised institutions that have been certified by competent international or national authorities such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) or Ministries of Education.

Duration of Programme: 6 months

How to Apply: Apply in Link below

Visit Programme Webpage for Details