Global Social Venture Competition 2019 for Aspiring Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 3rd December, 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Applicant’s chosen country and Graduate School Business and Society at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.

About the Award: The Global Social Venture Competition (GSVC) empowers the next generation of social entrepreneurs by providing them with mentoring, exposure, and over $80,000 in prizes to transform their ideas into ventures that address the world’s most pressing challenges.
GSVC awards prizes to early-stage social venture teams that show the highest, most integrated financial and social returns – businesses that demonstrate blended value.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 
Eligibility Requirements for Ventures

• Submitted ventures should aim to be: financially sustainable or profitable; whether it is a for-profit, non-profit, or hybrid business model, your venture must aim to be self-sufficient on earned revenue.
• Submitted ventures should be scalable long term. This criterion will mean different things for each business. Scalability will take into account the potential for growth of the business, both financially and in its social impact.
• Submitted ventures must have a quantifiable social and/or environmental bottom line incorporated into their mission and practices.
• Your entry must include a financial analysis as well as a Social Impact Assessment (SIA), including the Social Value Proposition and Social Indicators. Learn more on the SIA page of the website.
• Submitted ventures must be less than 2 years old (with the start of the venture marked by incorporation or first income, whichever occurred first) as of December 31, 2017.
• Submitted ventures may not be a wholly owned subsidiary of an existing entity (of either a for-profit or nonprofit entity).
• Submitted ventures must not have received more than $250,000 in funding from venture capital, private investors, grants (government or foundation), loans, or other funding sources (excluding in-kind) as of December 31, 2016.
• Lifetime revenue should not exceed $500,000 as of December 31, 2017.
• GSVC has the right to investigate funding and qualifications of ventures to assure that they are truly early stage.

Eligibility Requirements for Teams

• Your team must include a student, current or recent graduate*, from any level of higher education (undergraduate, masters level/graduate, or doctoral) in any area of study in the world;
• Recent students must meet the following criteria:  
  • Recent Bachelor’s degree holders must have completed their degree with four (4) years of the application deadline (December 31, 2017).
  • Recent Master’s or Doctoral level degree holders must have completed their degree within two (2) years of the application deadline (December 31, 2017)
• The student or recent student must be actively involved in the venture (i.e., a founder or co-founder, actively participating in development of the business or actively working on the business)
• Your team should include a statement describing the student’s level of involvement.
• The student or recent student must be one of the team’s presenters and must be available to answer judges’ questions regarding the business in the final two rounds of the competition.

Selection: The Global Social Venture Competition leads entrant teams through an experiential learning process to develop innovative, scalable solutions to the world’s greatest challenges.  Through our global network of 14 partner schools and competitions, we give teams the connections, support, and exposure needed to advance their social ventures.
Each of the competition’s three rounds also asks teams to build on past learnings and focus on distinct emphasis areas. A team’s ability to demonstrate progress in these areas will be an important determinant of its venture’s overall score, which in every round is evaluated on business potential, social impact potential, and likelihood of success.

Number of Awardees: 6

Value of Programme: 

• FIRST PLACE AWARD: $40,000
• SECOND PLACE AWARD: $25,000
• THIRD PLACE AWARD: $10,000
• PRIYA HAJI MEMORIAL AWARD: $2,500
• PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARD: $1,500
• QUICK PITCH AWARD: $1,000

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for details

International Foundation of Science (IFS) Individual Research Grants 2019 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 30th November 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: See list below

To be taken at (country): A Developing Country

Eligible Fields: Proposals are sought under one of three research areas:

• Biological Resources in Terrestrial Systems: Including but not limited to: Biodiversity, Forestry, Natural Products, Renewable Energy and Climate Change.
• Water and Aquatic Resources: Including but not limited to: Water Resources Research; Research on all aspects of freshwater, brackish and marine aquatic organisms and their environments.
• Food Security, Dietary Diversity and Healthy Livelihoods: Including but not limited to: Research on Food Production; Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine; Crop Science including Underutilized Crops; Food Science and Nutrition, and Food Security issues.

About the Award: Providing early-career support to promising young developing country researchers has been the mandate of the International Foundation for Science (IFS) for many years.
Within the Individual Research Approach (IFS Strategy 2011–2020), IFS continues its commitment to support excellent individual research and to build capacity of early-career scientists in the developing world to undertake research on the sustainable management of biological and water resources. Applicants are encouraged to tackle research issues linked to these areas, and to develop solutions that are relevant to local contexts. By encouraging local researchers to work in their home countries, generating cutting-edge and locally relevant knowledge, we hope to contribute to strengthening their countries’ research capacity and ultimately contributing to a global research community aimed at reducing poverty and supporting sustainable development.

Offered Since: 1974

Selection Criteria: To qualify for IFS funding, research projects must be

• related to the sustainable utilisation, conservation or management of the biological or water resource base
• conducted in a developing country
• of a high scientific standard
• feasible
• relevant for the country/region

Eligibility:

• To be eligible, applicants must be citizens of a developing country that is eligible for IFS support, and carry out the research in an eligible country (this does not have to be the country of citizenship).
• Individual research grants will be awarded to individual early-career scientists in eligible developing countries in support of excellent science.
• Researchers applying for a first IFS research grant must be at the beginning of their research careers and have a minimum academic degree of an MSc/MA or the equivalent. To be of eligible age, men must be younger than 35 years and women must be younger than 40 years. If the applicant’s 35th (men)/40th (women) birthday is on the closing date of the call, he/she is still eligible.
• Applicants must be attached to a national research institute (e.g. university, non-profit making research centre, or research-oriented NGO) in an eligible developing country. The institution is expected to: administer the grant, guarantee that the applicant has a salary (or other source of income), and provide basic research facilities. Researchers employed at international research institutes or NGO’s are NOT eligible.  However, researchers doing part of their project at an international institute can apply for an IFS grant, if their principal affiliation is with a national institution.

Number of scholarships: several grants are awarded

Value of Award: Individual Research grants are awarded on merit in amounts up to USD 12,000 for one to three years. Grants are intended for the purchase of basic tools for research: equipment, expendable supplies and literature, as well as field activities.

Duration: Up to 3 years

Eligible African Countries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Republic of, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cote d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Other Countries: Asia and the Pacific: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, East Timor, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Kiribati, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam
Latin America and Caribbean: Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines, Suriname, Venezuela
Middle East and North Africa: Algeria, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen

How to Apply

• A researcher may submit only one application at a time for consideration by IFS.
• Applications for IFS Research grants must be submitted using the standard IFS Application Form in English or French.
• It is important to go through the Application instructions on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Online News Association (ONA) Women’s Leadership Accelerator 2019 – Funded to New Orleans, USA

Application Deadline: 30th November 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

About the Award: The Women’s Leadership Accelerator is aimed at leaders who are pushing innovation in digital media. In addition to learning leadership skills and tools for navigating change, you will get practical feedback on a challenge specific to your career — a realistic obstacle you’d like to overcome, or an aspirational goal you’d like to achieve, either within your organization or as an independent project.

Type: Training

Eligibility: The Accelerator is designed for practitioners working in digital media, including freelancers, entrepreneurs and independent journalists, who are pushing innovation in digital media. This means we’re looking for women who not only have an understanding of the digital journalism landscape but who are helping to advance it in innovative ways.

• Women from a range of disciplines, including startups, digital-only, legacy media and blended newsrooms, broadcast and technology companies.
• Applicants should have leadership experience, which can mean managing people or projects, and be committed to further developing their skills.

Number of Awards: 25

Value of Award: The Women’s Leadership Accelerator provides:

• A week of hands-on personal and professional work; candid discussions about leadership, work-life balance and problem-solving in the newsroom; deep dives on developing leadership and management skills; inspiring visits to digital media organizations; and one-on-one mentoring from some of the top women leaders in digital journalism.
• A year of check-ins and practical, targeted guidance and personal coaching on individual challenges.
• Registration, travel and accommodations for the Online News Association Conference in New Orleans.
• Workshops tailored to the needs of the cohort, including a half-day workshop for women in the program during ONA18.
• The opportunity to be a part of a cohort of peers to serve as a strong career-long support system.

Duration of Program: 

• Oct. 31, 2018: Applications open
• Nov. 30, 2018: Applications close
• January: Cohort announced
• Feb 10-15, 2019: Accelerator at the UCLA Meyer & Renee Luskin Conference Center in Los Angeles
• Sept. 14, 2019: Final workshop at ONA annual conference in New Orleans

How to Apply: Apply Now

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Online News Association

The United Nations: Challenges and Leadership

Rene Wadlow

To dream of vast horizons of the Soul
Through dreams made whole,
Unfettered free – help me!
Help me make our world anew.

Langston Hughes

The United Nations remains the only universally representative and comprehensively empowered body the world has to deal with challenges to the security and welfare of the world society. However, the awareness of these challenges grows unevenly. Often the awareness first develops among the representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who present these ideas to governments. In other cases, awareness will be developed by some governments who face these challenges most directly and who then try to build support among other governments.

The response of the United Nations to new challenges has been of two types:

The first is the incorporation of separate intergovernmental organizations into what is called the “U.N. system” or the “U.N. family”.

The second is to create a program within the existing U.N. Secretariat, often after having held a world conference on the issue.

The incorporation of the International Organization for Migration in 2016 into the U.N. system as a “related organization” is an example of the first type. It is a sign that both U.N. officials and major governments recognize that the issues of migration are important and that these migration issues will continue to be a major challenge to the world society.

The International Organization for Migration had been officially created in 1951 to deal with the large number of refugees and displaced people in Europe as a result of the Second World War. In practice, the Organization had started its work three years earlier to help displaced persons and refugees migrate from Europe toward South America which had not been a victim of the war as Europe had.

The United Nations system of Specialized Agencies, Associated Organizations, and Programmes have grown in a pragmatic fashion as governments and NGOs have come to realize that there are long-standing issues that require cooperation. Some of these bodies had already been created and were associated with the League of Nations. This was the case of the International Labour Organization led by the strong-willed Albert Thomas, which like the League of Nations had its headquarters in Geneva. Geneva was also the home of the International Bureau of Education headed by the path-making child psychologist Jean Piaget. The Bureau’s aim was to develop cooperation among Ministries of Education and to improve formal education, especially at the primary and secondary levels by sharing research on the needs of children and pedagogical advances. The Bureau is now incorporated into UNESCO but its office remains in Geneva. The Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome is a continuation of the Agriculture Institute created by the King of Italy and associated to the League of Nations.

Other international institutions were created as a response to the monetary disorder of the 1930s and the destruction caused by the Second World War: The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, both in Washington D.C. and the World Trade Organization in Geneva, originally the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Programs within the regular U.N. Secretariat have developed as awareness of issues has grown. This has been the case for the programs on development, on the environment, on women.

The U.N. Specialized Agencies and related institutions did not grow up in a planned way, although many correspond to government ministries within national governments: Education, Health, Transportation, Agriculture, Finance, Housing, Environment. All these institutions have grown as governments realize that all issues transcend national frontiers and must be worked on in a cooperative way.

The key element in each case of creative responses to major challenges has been leadership. Enlightened leadership with clear vision and with political courage in articulating the way the world has changed and the directional flow of the next cycle has been the motor for creation. Such leadership within the U.N. Secretariat, within national governments and within non-governmental organizations is needed so that the U.N. will continue to be an instrument of transformation to benefit all the world’s people.

Government declares child refugees will not remain in Australia

Max Newman

About 40 refugee children and their families reportedly have arrived in Australia in recent weeks, after being medically transferred from the tiny Pacific island of Nauru, where successive Australian governments have indefinitely detained asylum seekers.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton last week indicated that the remaining 27 children on the island—many of whom have severe mental health problems after years of trauma and detention—would be evacuated by the end of the year. However, Dutton declared that none of the families would be permitted to stay in Australia.

In effect, they may receive limited medical treatment but will be subjected to equally cruel detention onshore until they can be removed from the country, either by “resettlement” or forced transfer back to the states they fled.

Rather than signalling a relaxation of the inhuman incarceration of innocent people, the move is a cynical bid to placate a public outcry over the barbaric treatment of children, while reinforcing the underlying “Operation Sovereign Borders”—the use of the military to repel all asylum seekers.

The Liberal-National Coalition government is continuing to challenge the right of Australia’s Federal Court to order such medical evacuations, even in the direst of circumstances, in which children suffer “resignation syndrome,” refusing to eat.

Australia’s imprisonment of refugees in concentration-style camps, whether “offshore” or “onshore,” has provided a precedent for the measures announced last week by US President Donald Trump to arrest and imprison all the desperate asylum seekers who manage to enter the US.

This has been a longstanding bipartisan assault on the basic democratic right to flee persecution and seek asylum.

* In 1992, the Keating Labor government first introduced the mandatory detention of refugees arriving by boat.

* In 2001, the Howard Liberal-National government imposed the “Pacific Solution” of forcibly transporting asylum seekers to remote islands in former Australian colonies—either Nauru or Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island.

* In 2012, the Gillard Labor government reopened the Pacific camps and vowed that no detainee would ever be allowed to settle in Australia—the policy being enforced by Dutton and the Coalition government today.

The current temporary transfers have come after numerous medical professionals, risking possible jail time, exposed the brutal conditions on Nauru. In August, medical staff and social workers blew the whistle on the treatment of detainees, above all the children. They reported widespread instances of abuses, self-harm and high risks of suicide.

The Australian government, supported by the Nauruan government of President Baron Waqa, which depends on Australian financial assistance, has made every effort to suppress the revelations, in order to hide the abuses from public scrutiny.

Against the backdrop of the 18-member Pacific Island Forum held on Nauru, which concluded on September 5, Waqa made clear that all reports of the treatment inflicted on the detainees would be blocked. A New Zealand reporter who interviewed a refugee was arrested.

Backed by the Australian government, Waqa’s regime blocked the court-ordered medical transfers of numbers of detainees, both during the forum and in the following weeks. The Australian Border Force, a para-military body overseeing the capture and imprisonment of asylum seekers, endorsed the Nauruan government’s stand, saying that any criticism of it would affect their “working relationship.”

Undoubtedly with the close collaboration of the Australian authorities, the Waqa government began the deportation of medical professionals who exposed the horrors inflicted on the children. On the October 17, Dr Nicole Montana was deported after allegedly taking a photo of a child, a practice that had been banned in order to censor images that expose the conditions on the island.

Montana’s deportation came just one week after Médecins Sans Frontières health workers were forced to leave the island. Nauru’s government said the charity’s essential psychological and psychiatric services were “no longer required.”

Despite decades of anti-refugee rhetoric by the corporate media and both the Coalition and the Labor Party, there is widespread sympathy for asylum seekers. A recent survey conducted by YouGov Galaxy reported that nearly 80 percent of respondents wanted the children off Nauru, while 61 percent of young respondents said the government had a moral obligation to find permanent accommodation for them.

Nevertheless, the Coalition and Labor have reiterated their unity, insisting that none of the children ever be permitted to settle in Australia. Last month, in the lead-up to a crucial by-election in the Sydney seat of Wentworth, Prime Minister Scott Morrison canvassed finally accepting a longstanding offer from New Zealand to take 150 refugees, but only on the proviso that legislation in both Australia and New Zealand barred them from ever travelling to Australia.

Labor’s immigration spokesman Shayne Neumann signalled the Labor Party’s willingness to support the plan. Last week, however, Home Affairs Minister Dutton ruled out such an arrangement, claiming it would encourage “people smugglers” to offer voyages to asylum seekers.

A similar bill to bar all asylum seekers from entering Australia for life, even as tourists or to visit relatives, was proposed in 2016, but it was eventually dropped amid doubts about its legality.

At a speech at the Lowy Institute last month, Labor leader Bill Shorten vowed that Operation Sovereign Borders would be “fully resourced” under a Labor government. He claimed, however, that “stopping the boats was never meant to leave people languishing in indefinite detention.”

That is a lie. When the Greens-backed Gillard Labor government, in which Shorten was a key minister, reopened the prison camps on Nauru and Manus Island in August 2012, it insisted that lengthy detention was essential to deter refugees. The following year, the Rudd Labor specifically decreed that no detainee would ever live in Australia, effectively consigning them to indefinite detention.

The Greens have indicated their support for a New Zealand resettlement bill and said they would not agree to a lifetime travel ban. While occasionally posturing as refugee advocates, the Greens fundamentally agree with the entire framework of restrictive national borders, and back the mandatory detention of all asylum seekers to vet so-called non-genuine refugees. They call for the closure of the offshore detention facilities, but only to be replaced by UN-run assessment centres in impoverished countries, such as Indonesia.

Increase in self-harm and suicides in UK immigration detention centres

Simon Whelan

A horrendous picture is emerging of the brutal and barbaric conditions faced by those held in British immigration detention centres.

Such conditions have led to approximately two suicide attempts by inmates every day in detention centres, according to a freedom of information (FoI) request seen by the Guardian newspaper.

These represent a doubling since 2016. The previous suicide attempt figure in the centres was itself an all-time high, according to official figures. In 2016, there were 393 recorded suicide attempts in detention centres—up 11 percent from 2015.

Figures published in April by the Independent newspaper showed more than one person a day requiring medical treatment for self-harming in UK detention, with the number of detainees on regular “suicide watch” also reported to be inexorably rising.

But between April and June of this year, there was a 22 percent increase in the number of detainees who made attempts to take their own lives. This information was obtained by the No Deportations rights organisation, via an FoI response from the Home Office.

In total, 159 attempts were recorded, more than half of them at just two sites, Colnbrook and Harmondsworth, which are located in the proximity of Heathrow Airport, to aid in the swift removal of detainees out of the country.

Suicides in removal centres are kept secret by the Home Office, which is why FoI requests have to be used to reveal deaths, according to former prison ombudsman Stephen Shaw. He was commissioned by the government to carry out a review of the immigration detention system. Shaw has raised concerns that the Home Office does not conform to the practice, followed by the Ministry of Justice, of publishing data on the deaths of immigration detainees.

Nevertheless, figures collected by the Inquest rights organisation, whose specialist casework includes deaths in immigration detention centres, suggest there were six deaths in immigration removal centres last year. Four of these were self-inflicted, making it the highest year for suicides on record. Through April 2018, the charity’s figures show there have been 35 deaths since 2000, 14 of which were self-inflicted.

People who have suffered torture are being held despite Home Office official policy that torture victims should not be detained under usual circumstances. Another FoI response passed to the Guardian revealed that over the past four years, medical professionals made more than 10,000 reports to Home Office officials about detainees believed to have experienced torture before arriving in the UK.

If they had not already suffered forms of abuse before arriving in Britain, many suffer it when arriving in detention camps. According to figures released by the Inspector of Prisons, in the year ending December 2016, 28,908 people entered immigration detention. At any time, more than 3,500 people are in immigration detention in the UK. They are held mainly in one of the nine Immigration Removal Centres, three Short Term Holding Facilities, or in prisons. During just one day, October 3, 2016, prisons held 442 people detained under immigration powers.

In October, the Guardian reported that from a sample of almost 200 migrants held in British detention centres, at least half were suicidal, victims of torture or seriously ill.

In February around 120 detainees at Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre in Bedfordshire, England began a hunger strike, protesting the “inhumane” conditions that dominate Europe’s largest detention facilities. The mainly women detainees demanded an end to indefinite detention, describing “systematic torture” by the Home Office and the private security firm, Serco.

Yarl’s Wood is designated a “detention” or “removal centre.” To all intents and purposes, however, it operates as a prison, located in the middle of miles of open fields and surrounded by high fences and barbed wire. Those under detention are kept under lock and key, while their appeals for asylum are processed and until they are due for deportation or released.

The most recent case of a suicide to be made public was that of Marcin Gwozdzinski, a 28-year-old Polish national immigration detainee. He had been detained for months on end and was increasingly depressed. He killed himself in September 2017, just two days after Harmondsworth detention centre staff determined in a cursory three-minute meeting that his distress was caused by mere “toothache”.

It remains unclear why Gwozdzinski was even being held at the detention centre. According to information from Gwozdzinki’s former fellow detainees at Harmondsworth, his mother travelled by bus from Poland to see her son before his life support machine was turned off. Detainees claimed Gwozdzinski had been granted bail two weeks before his death but the Home Office had failed to release him.

Fifty-nine detainees at Harmondsworth signed a protest letter after Gwozdzinski’s death stating, “It’s a disgrace that no one has been held accountable for such poor care. We are human beings not animals.”

Just the day before Gwozdzinski took his own life, the BBC aired a documentary that showed detention centre guards at another British detention facility mistreating vulnerable detainees, including some who were suicidal. In 2015, an undercover film by Channel 4 News provided disturbing evidence of the brutalised atmosphere detainees live under. In relation to 74 incidents of self-harm in 2013 which needed medical treatment, one guard was heard saying callously, “Let them slash their wrists. It’s attention seeking.”

Further research conducted by the Guardian and others provides more evidence that, of the 25,000-plus people interned every year, many hundreds, if not thousands, are deeply traumatised. A snapshot survey, taken on August 31 with the help of lawyers and charities that deal with deportation cases, found that almost 56 percent of detainees were either physically or mentally ill, or had suffered torture. The research found that the average detainee had been held four months and that 84 percent of those detained had not been told when they would be deported. Most of those surveyed had lived in the UK for more than five years, with the newspaper reporting that some had lived in the country for over 20 years.

The UK has one of the largest immigration detention systems in Europe and is the only country in the region without a statutory time limit on length of detention. There is no statutory limit on immigration detention but the courts have held that detention with a view to removal is lawful only if there is a realistic prospect of this occurring within a reasonable period. Campaigners say this is not closely adhered to.

Workers and young people must demand the end to the systematic brutalisation of immigrants and asylum seekers. The Socialist Equality Party demands the immediate closure of all immigration detention centres and upholds the right of all workers and young people to live in the country of their choice, with full citizenship rights and access to welfare, housing, health care and education.

US, Turkey risk direct military clash as they escalate war in Syria

Barış Demir

As it pursues its war with US-backed Kurdish-nationalist organizations, the Turkish government is threatening an outright military occupation of large parts of Syria that could provoke war with Syria and a direct clash with US forces.

On Tuesday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced joint patrols by US forces and Kurdish-led militias as “unacceptable.” Speaking to reporters in Ankara, he said: “Not only can we not accept (the joint patrols), such a development will cause serious problems at the border.”

This came after Turkey shelled positions of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the Zor Magar region east of the Euphrates River and the town of Tal Abyad starting on October 28, killing at least 10 Kurdish fighters. Two days earlier, Erdogan had delivered a “final warning” to Syrian Kurdish fighters to retreat. He also warned that Turkey’s next target would be positions of the People’s Protection Units (YPG, a Kurdish force that is the key component of the SDF) east of the Euphrates.

On October 30, as shelling continued, Erdogan stepped up threats to invade Syria to attack the US-backed Kurdish forces: “We are going to destroy the terrorist organization… preparations and plans have been completed. We’ve made our plans and programs, and initiated it in the previous days. We will come down on the terrorist organization’s neck with more extensive, effective operations. We could arrive suddenly one night.”

This provoked an angry warning from Washington on October 31. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Palladino said: “Unilateral military strikes into northwest Syria by any party, particularly as American personnel may be present or in the vicinity, are of great concern to us … Coordination and consultation between the United States and Turkey on issues of security concern is a better approach.”

Ankara, however, is determined to crush the YPG, which it views as an affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Turkish Kurdish separatist movement against which it has waged a bloody counter insurgency campaign for more than 30 years. Ankara also fears Kurdish autonomy in Syria, worried it will provoke demands for Kurdish autonomy in eastern Turkey.

In an apparent attempt to placate Ankara, Washington announced on Tuesday that it would place bounties on the heads of three PKK leaders. Visiting Turkey, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Palmer announced that the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program is offering money for information leading to the capture of the PKK officials. The bounties are $5 million for Murat Karayilan, $4 million for Cemil Bayik and $3 million for Duran Kalkan.

But Ambassador James Jeffrey, the US special representative for Syria engagement, said Washington did not see the YPG and PKK as the same entity. He declared: “For us, the PKK is a terrorist organization. We are not of the same opinion on the YPG. We ensure that the YPG operates as part of the Syrian Democratic Forces in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant [ISIL] in a way that does not pose a threat to Turkey.”

Turkish presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin rebuffed the US initiative, saying Ankara would treat it “with caution” and demanding that Washington sever all ties with the YPG.

Turkey’s ever-deeper involvement in the bloodshed across the region is the product of Erdogan’s decision to support the proxy war for regime change launched by the NATO imperialist powers in Syria in 2011.

As the WSWS previously noted: “All Erdogan’s calculations were upended by the intensification of the war and of the class struggle in the Middle East. In 2013, amid growing working class anger against Egypt’s Islamist President Mohammad Mursi and social protests in Turkey centred in Gezi Park, the imperialist powers backed an army coup that toppled Mursi. As the Islamic State (IS) militia grew in Syria and invaded Iraq, moreover, they turned to the use of Kurdish nationalist groups as their proxies against IS.

“Erdogan could not adapt himself to these sudden, violent shifts in imperialist war policy, and Ankara’s imperialist allies rapidly came to see him not as a ‘strategic partner,’ but as an unreliable one.”

After Russia intervened militarily to prevent NATO-backed Islamist militias from overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Turkish jets shot down a Russian jet over Syria in November 2015, with US support. After Russia escalated its military posture in response and threatened economic sanctions in retaliation against Turkey, however, Ankara tacked back toward Russia and China. Ankara turned first to China and then Russia for an air defence system, while its relations with the Obama administration and its European allies rapidly deteriorated.

In July 2016, a section of Turkey’s military, encouraged by Washington and Berlin, launched an abortive putsch out of NATO’s Incirlik air base, aiming to murder Erdogan and carry out regime change in Turkey.

Erdogan responded to the coup by stepping up the war against the Kurds and imposing a state of emergency, seeking to strangle all political opposition. Ankara also maneuvered closer to Moscow and Tehran, setting up talks in Astana for a “solution” to the Syria war. And Erdogan ordered the Turkish army to launch its own invasions of Syria, “Operation Euphrates Shield” (in August 2016) and “Operation Olive Branch” (in January 2018), directed against the YPG.

The brief warming of US-Turkish relations that followed the gruesome state murder on October 2 of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul appears to have quickly ended. Ankara clearly saw the investigation of the Khashoggi assassination as a means of promoting Turkish interests in relation to Riyadh and Washington. It had shared tense relations with both the Saudi regime and US imperialism, including over the Saudi blockade of Qatar, a key Turkish ally, and the US alliance with the YPG in Syria.

Erdogan sought to improve relations with Washington by investigating the killing of Khashoggi, who worked extensively for US publications, including the Washington Post. Ankara also released US pastor Andrew Brunson, whom it had accused of helping prepare the 2016 coup. But Washington soon dropped the Khashoggi murder, focusing instead on strategies for intensifying the war in Syria.

Ankara is responding by moving closer to the European powers and seeking to exploit their growing differences with Washington. It joined a new mechanism with Germany, France and Russia to work out a peace deal in Syria acceptable to the European imperialist powers. An inconclusive October 27 Istanbul summit on Syria, hosted by Erdogan, was attended by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and Russia President Vladimir Putin.

After the summit, they called for a new Syrian constitution to be drafted before the end of this year, “paving the way for free and fair elections,” according to a joint statement.

Visiting Tokyo on Tuesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu also criticized US sanctions against Iran, which have been the subject of escalating conflict between Washington and the European powers. “While we were asking (for) an exemption from the United States, we have also been very frank with them that cornering Iran is not wise,” he said. “Turkey is against sanctions, we don’t believe any results can be achieved through the sanctions.”

Sri Lankan political coup: Rajapakse makes bogus promises to ease social crisis

Saman Gunadasa

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse, installed in a political coup on October 26, has also appropriated the post of finance and economic affairs minister. Last week, in a bid to deflect the opposition of working people, he announced cosmetic measures to ease the economic and social crisis facing workers, peasants and the poor.

Rajapakse is trying to paint himself as “people-friendly” in contrast to Ranil Wickremesinghe who was unconstitutionally sacked as prime minister by President Maithripala Sirisena. In fact, whichever faction of the Sri Lankan ruling class finally consolidates power in the ongoing bitter political struggle, it will certainly deliver further blows to the living conditions of working people.

On Monday, Mangala Samaraweera, former finance minister, responded to Rajapakse’s announcement by warning that the measures would “put the economy in peril” and expressed concern that they would undermine the austerity program dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Rajapakse’s announcements included small reductions in the prices of petrol, diesel, dhal, chickpeas, wheat grain and sugar. Other measures reduced the telecom levy on phone charges from 25 to 15 percent; increased the value added tax (VAT) threshold from 12 million to 24 million rupees; waived interest on farmer’s loans below 50 million rupees for the past three years; and reduced fertiliser prices for crops other than paddy rice by a third.

At the same time, however, Rajapakse claimed that his government was “confident” of achieving the target for 2018 of limiting the budget deficit to around 4.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), so as to support “further fiscal consolidation to provide economic stability.” This figure had been announced previously by the Central Bank and approved by the IMF.

Rajapakse’s remarks are a signal that he will abide by the IMF’s demands, even if it means ditching his latest price and tax reductions. When Wickremesinghe’s government obtained a $US1.5 billion bailout in June 2016, the IMF insisted that the budget deficit be reduced to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2020.

A senior finance ministry official yesterday told the media that several of Rajapakse’s measures could not be implemented immediately, including the reduction of VAT and telephone charges and a proposal to simplify the nation building tax. He said such reductions could be made only next January because cabinet approval was necessary, followed by parliamentary approval of amended regulations.

The Wickremesinghe-Sirisena government ruthlessly attacked living and social conditions as demanded by the IMF. However, Rajapakse’s attempt to pose as people-friendly is utterly false. Between 2005 and January 2015, when he was ousted, Rajapakse’s policies were devastating for working people.

The Rajapakse government resumed the communal war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in mid-2006 and exploited it to divide and suppress the working class. The burden of the huge loans to finance the war was imposed on workers and the poor through increased taxes and the freezing of wages.

Under the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis, Rajapakse’s government deepened its attacks on the working class. In June 2009, it was forced to take a bailout loan and implement the IMF’s austerity demands. In 2011, Katunayake Free Trade Zone workers who protested against changes to the pension fund were violently suppressed by police, who killed one worker. In 2012, police attacked fishermen protesting against increased fuel prices and killed one fisherman.

The economy is now in acute crisis, leaving the Sirisena-Rajapakse government with no room to manoeuvre.

Increased US interest rates have triggered an outflow of more than 85 billion rupees ($US494 million) from the Colombo stock market up to the end of October. The current political impasse since the ousting of Wickremesinghe has resulted in the outflow of another 11 billion rupees.

As a result, there is a balance of payments crunch looming. Over the first seven months of the year, the trade deficit rose to $6.4 billion. Huge debts mean that the servicing bill for 2019 has risen to more than $4 billion. At the same time, the Sri Lankan rupee has depreciated by about 14 percent compared to the US dollar this year, fuelling skyrocketing prices for imports.

Commenting on the country’s political standoff, the Fitch rating agency warned last week that “policy decisions that derail the IMF program or lead to a loss of investor confidence could increase external financing challenges.” Referring to the country’s worsening debt situation, Fitch effectively signalled a possible downgrading of the country’s rating.

IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice told the media this week that the IMF had taken note “of recent developments.” While he said it was “premature” to assess the implications for the IMF’s program for the country, some economists have expressed doubts that the IMF will deliver the final $250 million installment of its bailout loan.

The US and its allies have already expressed concern about Wickremesinghe’s removal as prime minister and backed his call for the immediate reconvening of parliament as a means of demonstrating his majority. Washington is opposed to a government led by Rajapakse as it considers him pro-China. The US could well try to push the IMF to withhold its final installation as a means of putting pressure to reinstall Wickremesinghe.

Facebook and Twitter intensify censorship in 2018 elections

Kevin Reed 

Stepping up its online censorship less than a day before polls opened for the 2018 mid-term elections, Facebook announced on Monday the shutdown of 115 social media accounts on its Facebook and Instagram platforms. Nathanial Gleicher, Head of Cybersecurity Policy at Facebook wrote in a newsroom blog post that US law enforcement had “contacted us about online activity that they recently discovered and which they believe may be linked to foreign entities.”

The 30 Facebook and 85 Instagram accounts were blocked, according to Gleicher, because they “may be engaged in coordinated inauthentic behavior” and some of the accounts “appear to be in the French or Russian languages.” Acknowledging the threadbare character of the assertions, Gleicher also wrote that Facebook had not even completed an investigation before shutting down the accounts. He added, “Once we know more—including whether these accounts are linked to the Russia-based Internet Research Agency or other foreign entities—we will update this post.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reported on November 2 that Twitter had deleted 10,000 “automated accounts” in September and October that “wrongly appeared to be from Democrats” and “discouraged people from voting” on election day. Admitting the political motivation behind the censorship, the report said that Twitter took that action “after the party flagged the misleading tweets to the social media company.”

Reuters additionally reported that three sources “familiar with the Democrats’ effort” confirmed that the request to shut down the accounts came from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), an organization that is devoted to the election of Democrats to the House of Representatives. The DCCC was launched after the 2016 presidential elections in response to the barrage of social media posts indicting presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as a stooge of Wall Street, among other things.

Twitter has acknowledged working closely with federal law enforcement, ruling governments around the world and the political parties of the US ruling elite. Del Harvey, Twitter’s head of Trust and Security, told the New York Times that the company began asking for help in 2016. It began coordinating with Homeland Security and is now in regular contact with the FBI and secretaries of state for various states, as well as Democratic and Republican campaign committees and nonprofits that track misinformation, Ms. Harvey said.

The latest censorship measures have been taken for two reasons: (1) to prove to the two-party political establishment that Facebook and Twitter are willing and active participants in the stifling of online speech; and (2) to perfect anti-democratic methods in the era of mass online communications, in cooperation with state institutions, against the growing struggles of the working class and young people.

The pre-election day censorship comes on the heels of the October 26 announcement by Facebook that it had removed 82 pages, accounts and groups “that originated in Iran” for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior on its Facebook and Instagram social media platforms. No evidence was presented to substantiate this claim of Iranian influence other than “some overlap with the Iranian accounts and Pages we removed in August.”

As was the case in August, the latest Facebook censorship moves are specifically directed against left-wing and oppositional content on Facebook that is critical of government policies in the US and UK. Under the cover of unprovable claims of inauthentic behavior—an Orwellian phrase that purports to identify people and organizations who misrepresent themselves on social media—Facebook has dropped any reference to “fake news” and is engaging in outright censorship of free speech.

In a Facebook Newsroom post, Gleicher wrote that the shuttered accounts, groups and pages “posted about politically charged topics such as race relations, opposition to the President, and immigration.” Exposing the preposterous and unsubstantiated claims of Iranian influence, Gleicher added, “It’s still early days and while we have found no ties to the Iranian government, we can’t say for sure who is responsible.”

Gleicher shared examples of several posts taken down by Facebook. Among them was a meme of Donald Trump that stated a well-known fact: “The Worst and Most Hated President in American History!” Another contained a widely reported quote by British Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn from December 2015 regarding Trump’s anti-Muslim travel ban: “The idea that somehow or other you can deal with all the problems in the world by banning a particular religious group from entering the USA is offensive and absurd.”

As further justification for shutting down the 30 pages, 33 accounts and three groups on Facebook as well as 16 accounts on Instagram, Gleicher incredibly pointed to $100 in social media advertising and seven events which 110 people expressed interest in attending. He added, “We cannot confirm whether any of these events actually occurred.”

The pre-election censorship moves are the result of a collaboration between members of Facebook’s election “war room,” US and UK government officials and law enforcement, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Lab and other unnamed technology companies. Facebook now has more than 20,000 people on its staff working on “safety and security” issues and has also engaged a frantic implementation of artificial intelligence technologies aimed at scanning and moderating the social media activity of its nearly two billion users.

According to a report in the New York Times, Facebook launched an election “war room” at its Menlo Park, California campus in mid-September supported by 300 employees. The ostensible purpose of the initiative was to root out “foreign meddling” on its platform in the run up to the midterm US elections. Monitoring political activity on Facebook has become a top priority according to Samidh Chakrabarti, who leads Facebook’s elections and civic engagement team. He said, “We see this as probably the biggest company-wide reorientation since our shift from desktops to mobile phones.”

The open censorship of “divisive” content on Facebook is part of the adoption by the Silicon Valley tech monopolies of a strategic shift away from “unmediated free speech” on the Internet. As explained in a recently leaked internal Google briefing called “The Good Censor,” the “early utopian period of the Internet has collapsed under the weight of bad behavior” and the tech companies are moving away from a commitment to “the American tradition that prioritizes free speech for democracy over civility” in favor of “civility over freedom.”

This policy shift mirrors the demands by US Congressional figures that the social media monopolies must be placed under government regulation. It also corresponds to the completely false assertion in the capitalist media that the Internet—a technology that heralds an era of unprecedented democratic potential and the unification of people around the world—is responsible for the growth of extreme right-wing and fascistic political tendencies worldwide.

Meanwhile, the mainstream corporate media has mobilized behind censorship by the social media monopolies. Readers will search in vain for a news report or analysis that does not accept without a shred of criticism the unproven assertions about Iran-backed “bad behavior” on Facebook and “automated accounts” on Twitter.

This is true of the New York Times as well as major tech publications such as Wired magazine along with the online journals of the pseudo-left such as Jacobin and Socialist Worker. Their complicity and silence on these questions has allowed the far right such as Breitbart and InfoWars to posture as opponents of online censorship and defenders of free speech.

The World Socialist Web Site has been in the forefront of the fight against Internet censorship since the summer of 2017 following Google’s suppression of results on its search engine directed to our site. We have consistently explained that the fight to defend democratic rights and free speech is bound up with the struggle of the working class against the capitalist system and for socialism.

Masters in Research and Innovation in Higher Education (MARIHE) Scholarships 2019/2020 for International Students – Erasmus Mundus

Application Deadline: 5th December 2018, 11:00 p.m., central European time

Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at (country): 

• Danube University Krems, Austria
• Beijing Normal University, China
• University of Applied Sciences Osnabrueck, Germany
• University of Tampere, Finland
• Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest / HUNGARY
• Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (deemed to be University) Punjab, INDIA

Field of Study: View all eligible programs via the Universities’ links in the webpage (link below)

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Applicants to the MARIHE programme must:

• hold a first university degree
• show a strong motivation and interest
• have sufficient knowledge of English for academic purposes

Other acceptable ways of indicating English language proficiency are:

• proof of a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree delivered in English from a university in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom or United States, excluding MBA degrees and online degrees, with the applicant having stayed in the respective country when studying for the degree.
• proof of secondary education conducted in English language in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom or United States.

In addition to submitting proof of an adequate degree or secondary education as described, applicants may also be interviewed before being exempted.

Selection Criteria: All eligible applications to MARIHE will be reviewed by members of the MARIHE Consortium partners. The reviewers will assess:

• the applicant’s academic quality, judged primarily from the results of prior university studies.
• the applicant’s motivation and justification of the application in relation to prior studies, work experience (if applicable) and future career plans towards the aims of MARIHE, judged from the letter of motivation in combination with CV and the two letters of recommendation.
• the applicant’s personal skills, judged from the results of prior studies and the letters of recommendation.
• the applicant’s English language skills, judged from the certificate provided.

The scores from the review will form a ranked list of applications which will be used for student selection by the MARIHE Admission Board. In the event that two or more applications on this ranked list show the same score the Admission Board will decide on their ranking.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded. The Erasmus Mundus scholarship covers tuition fees and allows to cover all expenses that non-EU students normally face during their studies.

Duration of Scholarship: Two years. September 2019 – August 2020

How to Apply: MARIHE only accepts electronic applications submitted through the MARIHE application Database.
It is important to go through the Application requirements and before applying.


Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

100 Jim Ovia Scholars Program 2019 for Nigerian Students

Application Deadline: 26th December 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (university): Nigerian universities

Eligible Field of Study: All courses offered at Nigerian universities

About Scholarship: The Jim Ovia Scholarships was founded since 1998. It is fully funded by Mr. Jim Ovia to provide financial aid to outstanding Nigeria youths. The scholarship was previously known as the MUSTE scholarship. Since October 2010, Mr. Ovia has invested over 100 Million Naira in the program to support 1500 beneficiaries and counting.
In establishing the Jim Ovia Scholarships, Mr. Ovia hoped to create a network of future leaders within Nigeria who can compete globally with their peers, bring new ideas, creativity and are committed to improving the lives and circumstances of people in their respective communities.
Over time it is expected that the Jim Ovia Scholarship beneficiaries will become leaders in helping to address challenges related to health, technology, and finance, all areas in which the foundation is deeply engaged.

Offered Since: 1998

Type: undergraduate and graduate degrees

Eligibility: The scholarship is open to all potential students of Nigerian citizenship. One hundred (100) awardees are selected each year from a pool of eligible applicants.

Selection Criteria: Scholarships are awarded on the basis of personal intellectual ability, leadership capability and a desire to use their knowledge to contribute to society throughout Nigeria by providing service to their community and applying their talent and knowledge to improve the lives of others.

Number of Awards: The scheme offers an average of 100 opportunities each year for new applicants while renewing applicants are supported annually, conditional on meeting all eligible requirements of the scholarship

Value of Program: Scholarship covers tuition fee and maintenance allowances up to 150,000.

Duration of Program: for the period of the program

How to Apply: Apply here
It is important for interested applicants to visit the Application Guide and read the FAQs for information on how to apply.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Scholarship Provider: Jim Ovia Foundation

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Scholarships 2019/2020 for Study in Europe

Application Deadline: Most consortia will require applications to be submitted between October and January, for courses starting the following academic year.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: EU and Non-EU Countries

To be taken at (country): European Universities/Institutions participating under approved Erasmus Mundus Action Joint Programmes.

Eligible Fields of Study: See links below

About the Award: About 116 Masters courses are supported by the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMDs) scholarships. The field(s) of study covered are usually: Agriculture and Veterinary, Engineering, Manufacture and Construction, Health and Welfare, Humanities and Arts, Science, Mathematics and Computing, Social Sciences, Business and Law.

Type: Masters (Degree)

Eligibility: Erasmus Mundus Joint Programme defines its own selection criteria and admission procedures. Students or scholars should contact the Consortium offering the Masters Programmes for more information.

Number of Awardees: Not specified.

Value of Scholarship: The programme offers full-time scholarships and/or fellowships that cover monthly allowance, participation costs, travelling and insurance costs of the students.  Scholarship amounts can vary according to the level of studies, the duration of studies, and the scholar’s nationality (scholarships for non-EU students are higher than for EU students).

Duration of Scholarship: EMJMDs last between 12 and 24 months.

How to Apply: Students, doctoral candidates, teachers, researchers and other academic staff should address their applications directly to the selected Erasmus Mundus masters and doctoral programmes (Action 1) and to the selected Erasmus Mundus partnerships (Action 2), in accordance with the application conditions defined by the selected consortium/partnership

You are advised to consult in advance the websites of each of the Erasmus Mundus Joint Programmes that interest you. There you will find all necessary information concerning the content of the course, its structure, the scholarship amounts as well as the application and selection procedures. Deadline varies depending on the programme but falls around December to January.
It is important to visit the official website (link below) and an EMJMD site for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Award Provider: European Commission