13 Nov 2018

Is Russia Arming the Taliban to Avenge Loss of Ukraine?

Nauman Sadiq

On November 9, Russia hosted talks between Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, the members of the Taliban from its Doha, Qatar office and representatives from eleven regional states, including China, India, Iran and Pakistan. The meeting showcased Russia’s re-emergence as a proactive global power and its regional clout.
At the same time when the conference was hosted in Moscow, however, the Taliban mounted concerted attacks in the northern Baghlan province, the Jaghori district in central Ghazni province and the western Farah province bordering Iran.
In fact, according to a recent report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the US-backed Afghan government only controls 55% of Afghanistan’s territory. It’s worth noting that SIGAR is a US-based governmental agency that often inflates figures. Factually, the government’s writ does not extend beyond a third of Afghanistan. In many cases, the Afghan government controls city-centers of districts and rural areas are either controlled by the Taliban or are contested.
If we take a cursory look at the insurgency in Afghanistan, the Bush administration toppled the Taliban regime with the help of the Northern Alliance in October 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attack. Since the beginning, however, Afghanistan was an area of lesser priority for the Bush administration.
The number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan did not exceed beyond 30,000 during George Bush’s tenure as president, and soon after occupying Afghanistan, he invaded Iraq in March 2003 and American resources and focus shifted to Iraq.
It was the Obama administration that made Afghanistan the bedrock of its foreign policy in 2009 along with fulfilling then-President Obama’s electoral pledge of withdrawing the US troops from Iraq in December 2011. At the height of the surge of the US troops in Afghanistan in 2010, they numbered around 140,000 but still did not manage to have a lasting effect on the relentless Taliban insurgency.
The Taliban are known to be diehard fighters who are adept at hit-and-run guerilla tactics and have a much better understanding of the Afghan territory compared to foreigners. Even by their standards, however, the Taliban insurgency seems to be on steroids during the last couple of years.
They have managed to overrun and hold vast swathes of territory not only in the traditional Pashtun heartland of southern Afghanistan, such as Helmand, but have also made inroads into the northern provinces of Afghanistan which are the traditional strongholds of the Northern Alliance comprising Tajiks and Uzbeks.
In October 2016, for instance, the Taliban mounted brazen attacks on the Gormach district of northwestern Faryab province, the Tirankot district of Uruzgan province and briefly captured the city-center of the northern Kunduz province, before they were repelled with the help of US air power.
This outreach of the Taliban into the traditional strongholds of the Tajiks and Uzbeks in northern Afghanistan bordering the Russian satellite states Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan has come as a surprise to perceptive observers of the militancy in Afghanistan.
It is commonly believed that the Taliban are the proxies of Pakistan’s military which uses them as “strategic assets” to offset the influence of India in Afghanistan. The hands of Pakistan’s military, however, have been full with a homegrown insurgency of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) since 2009 when it began conducting military operations in Swat and the tribal areas.
Although some remnants of the Taliban still find safe havens in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan, the renewed vigor and brazen assaults of the Taliban, particularly in the Afghanistan’s northern provinces as I described earlier, cannot be explained by the support of Pakistan’s military to the Taliban.
In an August 2017 report for the New York Times, Carlotta Gall described the killing of the former Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour in a US drone strike on a tip-off from Pakistan’s intelligence in Pakistan’s western Balochistan province in May 2016 when he was coming back from a secret meeting with Russian and Iranian officials in Iran. According to the report, “Iran facilitated a meeting between Mullah Akhtar Mansour and Russian officials, Afghan officials said, securing funds and weapons from Moscow for the insurgents.”
It bears mentioning that the Russian support to the Taliban coincides with its intervention in Syria in September 2015, after the Ukrainian Crisis in November 2013 when Viktor Yanukovych suspended the preparations for the implementation of an association agreement with the European Union and tried to take Ukraine back into the folds of the Russian sphere of influence by accepting billions of dollars of loan package offered by Vladimir Putin to Ukraine, consequently causing a crisis in which Yanukovych was ousted from power and Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula.
Although the ostensible reason of Russia’s support – and by some accounts, Iran’s as well – to the Taliban is that it wants to contain the influence of the Islamic State Khorasan Province in Afghanistan because the Khorasan Province includes members of the now defunct Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Russia’s traditional foe, the real reason of Russia’s intervention in Syria and support to the Taliban in Afghanistan is that the Western powers are involved in both of these conflicts and since a New Cold War has started between Russia and the Western powers after the Ukrainian crisis, hence it suits Russia’s strategic interests to weaken the influence of the Western powers in the Middle East and Central Asian regions and project its own power.
In order to grasp the significance of the New Cold War between Russia and the Western powers, on March 4, Sergei Skripal, a Russian double agent working for the British foreign intelligence service, and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious on a public bench outside a shopping center in Salisbury. A week later, another Russian exile Nikolai Glushkov was found dead in his London home.
Skripal was recruited by the British MI6 in 1995, and before his arrest in Russia in December 2004, he was alleged to have blown the cover of scores of Russian secret agents. He was released in a spy swap deal in 2010 and was allowed to settle in Salisbury. Theresa May’s government concluded that Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a Moscow-made, military-grade nerve agent, Novichok, and expelled 23 Russian diplomats. In a tit-for-tat move, Kremlin also expelled a similar number of British diplomats.
Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump assured their full support to Theresa May and also expelled scores of Russian diplomats. Thus, the relations between Moscow and the Western powers have reached their lowest ebb since the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in December 1991.
Although Russia might appear as an aggressor in these instances, in order to understand the real casus belli of the New Cold War between Russia and the Western powers, we must recall another momentous event that took place in Deir al-Zor province of Syria a month before the poisoning of Skripals who have since recovered.
On February 7, the US B-52 bombers and Apache helicopters struck a contingent of Syrian government troops and allied forces in Deir al-Zor that reportedly killed and wounded scores of Russian military contractors working for the Russian private security firm, the Wagner group. The survivors described the bombing as an absolute “massacre” and Kremlin lost more Russian citizens in one day than it had lost during its entire military campaign in support of the Syrian government since September 2015.
The reason why Washington struck Russian contractors working in Syria was that the US-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – which is mainly comprised of Kurdish YPG militias – had reportedly handed over the control of some areas east of Euphrates River to Deir al-Zor Military Council (DMC), which is the Arab-led component of SDF, and had relocated several battalions of Kurdish YPG militias to Afrin and along Syria’s northern border with Turkey in order to defend the Kurdish-held areas against the onslaught of the Turkish armed forces and allied Free Syria Army (FSA) militias in their “Operation Olive Branch” in Syria’s northwest.
Syrian forces with the backing of Russian contractors took advantage of the opportunity and crossed the Euphrates River to capture an oil refinery located east of Euphrates River in the Kurdish-held area of Deir al-Zor.
The US Air Force responded with full force, knowing well the ragtag Arab component of SDF – mainly comprised of local Arab tribesmen and mercenaries to make the Kurdish-led SDF appear more representative and inclusive – was simply not a match for the superior training and arms of Syrian troops and Russian military contractors. Consequently, causing a carnage in which scores of Russian citizens lost their lives, an incident which became a trigger for the beginning of a New Cold War which is obvious from the subsequent events.

Australia: Welfare cut leaves asylum seekers facing destitution

Max Newman

In April, the Liberal-National Coalition government, then headed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, announced it would strip welfare payments from those asylum seekers temporarily living in Australia on bridging visas, and force them to look for work.
Since August, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has continued the policy, which affects refugees still waiting, often for many years, to have their protection visa applications finalised.
As of February, some 13,300 people relied on these payments. So far, roughly 1,000 people have been cut off. A new report by the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) reveals that this has placed almost 80 percent of them at risk of homelessness and destitution.
The Labor Party fully backed the decision to end the Status Resolution Support Service (SRSS). Shayne Neumann, Labor’s immigration spokesman, declared that welfare “abuses” needed to be stamped out.
The paltry level of the SRSS payment has already pushed people into deprivation. It was set at 89 percent of the poverty-level Newstart unemployment benefit, leaving asylum seekers with just $270 a week.
The SRSS provided essential casework services to help asylum seekers find cheap accommodation, as well as torture and trauma counselling. Now, overburdened charities are the sole suppliers of food and housing supports.
The RCOA surveyed the clients of 24 of these non-government organisations and concluded that 79 percent were at risk of homelessness and destitution without the SRSS. Of the 24 organisations, 17 were already providing emergency food and housing relief to people.
Just 8 percent of respondents had full-time work and only 20 percent were considered “job ready.” Two-thirds were unable to find employment or were not looking because of care requirements, age or poor health.
The Home Affairs Department claims to be cutting off only asylum seekers who have the capacity to support themselves. In April a departmental spokesperson said: “Individuals on a bridging visa with work rights and who have the capacity to work are expected to support themselves prior to being granted a substantive visa or departing Australia.”
The RCOA survey, however, revealed extensive evidence that very vulnerable people have been affected. “It’s undeniable,” RCOA deputy director Rebecca Eckard said. “We know of people who are already couch-surfing, people staying in parks, living in each other’s cars. It is, unfortunately, very much happening.
“If it weren’t for some of the community organisations providing not just emergency relief but giving free housing or heavily subsidised housing, people would be completely on the streets.”
The government specifically targeted people studying full-time. The departmental spokesperson said: “If an adult chooses to study full-time, when they are able to work, they are not eligible for SRSS income support.”
A young female asylum seeker, Sarvenaz, told the Guardian she lost her benefit payments on her first day of study. “They actually didn’t tell me, they just cut it off without explanation,” she said. “I went to Centrelink to check what’s going on and they said because you were studying we have to automatically stop your payment from the beginning of the semester.”
Sarvenaz and her family had been on bridging visas for over four years. Initially forbidden to work, and then unable to find jobs, Sarvenaz and her sister volunteered with a charity organisation and enrolled at a university. Sarvenaz’s course required full-time attendance and she was ineligible for any student welfare support.
Sarvenaz commented: “How do people expect someone to arrive to this country—who doesn’t have access to the services, who is stressing from the trauma they have been through and is an applicant who hasn’t been processed, and doesn’t have skills to work with and whose education history isn’t accepted—[to] find work?”
The government has branded these people the “legacy caseload.” The Greens-backed Gillard Labor government placed approximately 30,000 asylum seekers on bridging visas in 2012, when it scrapped permanent protection visas. The visas denied the right to family reunion and to work.
In dealing with the “legacy caseload,” the government has introduced measures to speed up their deportation. In 2014, the Fast Track Assessment Program abolished previous rights to appeal visa refusals to a tribunal. Instead, the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) performs “on paper” reviews, in which applicants have no right to produce additional evidence. Since the IAA commenced operation, the application success rates have dropped from 90 percent to 70 percent.
In March 2017, with Labor’s support, the government announced that refugees on bridging visas had 60 days to complete complex visa application documents or face deportation.
This year, the government stripped income support from around 190 refugees who had been transferred to Australia for medical treatment from the immigration prison camps on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island. The refugees were thrust onto bridging visas and evicted from community detention houses.
Successive Coalition and Labor governments in Australia have pioneered the cruel and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers. Their “border protection” regime seeks to make refugees scapegoats for the deteriorating working and living conditions inflicted on the working class.

Sri Lankan political crisis deepens: Prime minister splits from president

W.A. Sunil 

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s unconstitutional decision last Friday to dissolve parliament and call a general election has only deepened the political crisis in Colombo following his dismissal of Ranil Wickremesinghe and installation of former president Mahinda Rajapakse as prime minister on October 26.
Less than 36 hours after the dissolution of the parliament, Rajapakse abruptly quit the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), of which Sirisena is the president, to join the relatively new Sri Lanka Podujana Party (SLPP) led by his brother Basil Rajapakse, and to launch his election campaign.
Under pressure of a deepening economic crisis, rising social discontent and intensifying geo-political tensions, the political establishment in Colombo is fracturing. In the 2015 presidential election, Sirisena broke from Rajapakse and ran against him with the support of the opposition United National Party (UNP) and the backing of the US and India.
The resultant “national unity” government of Sirisena and UNP leader Wickremesinghe collapsed on October 26. Now the opportunist reunion of Sirisena with Rajapakse is falling apart, leaving the president isolated and the SLFP, one of Sri Lanka’s two longstanding bourgeois parties, facing a potential collapse.
The Rajapakses formed the SLPP, based on their faction of the SLFP, to contest local elections earlier this year. Exploiting mass hostility to the “unity” government, they won a convincing victory over both the UNP and Sirisena’s faction of the SLFP. This widespread opposition, which is also expressed in strikes and protests by workers, students and peasants, is a key factor in the political crisis.
While Sirisena has been politically weakened by Rajapakse’s decision, he has over the past two weeks concentrated significant state power in his own hands as president. He controls the military and police as well as the state media and other ministries. Having already acted in flagrant disregard of the constitution on two occasions, Sirisena could use the autocratic powers of the executive presidency again in a desperate bid to stay in power.
Workers, youth and the rural poor must be warned: none of the factions of the ruling class will defend the basic rights of working people. They will ruthlessly impose the austerity dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and big business. The sham claims of all these politicians of big business that they defend democracy must be rejected.
In a Tweet on Saturday, Mahinda Rajapakse declared that “a general election will truly establish the will of the people and make way for a stable country.” His younger brother and former defense secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, told a public meeting on the same day that “there is no stronger step than this to strengthen democracy in the country.”
However, both Mahinda Rajapakse and his brother were notorious while in power for their ruthless prosecution of the communal war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Tens of thousands of civilians were slaughtered in the final government offensive in 2009. The Rajapakse government presided over a police-state regime responsible for assassinating or “disappearing” political opponents, journalists and many Tamil youth.
Moreover, Rajapakse backed the unconstitutional actions of Sirisena in sacking Wickremesinghe, proroguing parliament, and, when a parliamentary majority could not be achieved through bullying and bribery, calling a new general election. The election is scheduled for January 5 and the new parliament will meet on January 17, allowing enough time for backroom horse-trading in case no single party wins a majority.
The UNP, with the support of two opposition parties, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), has vowed to go to the Supreme Court to challenge the dissolution of parliament. However, the chief justice and supreme court judges are appointees of the president and are likely to rule in his favour, despite his obvious breaches of the constitution.
A UNP leader and former finance minister Mangala Samaraweera declared to the media on Saturday, that his party would fight against the “tyrant” President Sirisena’s “shock sacking of the legislature.” Grandstanding as a “democrat,” he proclaimed: “We will fight in the courts, we will fight in parliament and we will fight at the polls.”
Like Rajapakse and Sirisena, the UNP uses the constitution when it suits and dispenses with democratic and legal forms when it does not. The UNP has a long history of anti-democratic measures, including the abolition of the citizenship rights of Tamil plantation workers in 1948, the imposition of the draconian Public Security Act and the establishment of the executive presidency in 1978.
UNP leader Wickremesinghe was central to the regime-change operation orchestrated in Washington to oust Rajapakse as president and install Sirisena via the 2015 elections. The US, which had backed Rajapakse’s war against the LTTE and turned a blind eye to the military’s atrocities, was hostile to his government’s close ties with China.
Not surprisingly, the US and its allies—the UK, EU and now Australia—have lined up with the UNP and Wickremesinghe. The latest US statement on Saturday warned that the dissolution of the parliament “jeopardizes Sri Lanka’s economic progress and international reputation” and called on the president to “respect his country’s democratic tradition and the rule of law” and fulfil “the commitments to good governance and democracy upon which he and his government were elected.”
What utter hypocrisy! With the assistance of the pseudo-left organisations, the trade unions and various NGOs, Washington dressed up its 2015 behind-the-scenes machinations to oust Rajapakse as the defence of “good governance and democracy.” If it does not get its way, US imperialism will not hesitate to carry out another regime-change operation to ensure Colombo toes its line.
The intervention of the major powers will only compound the intense political crisis in Colombo that left the ruling class divided, perplexed and fearful. The editorial in this weekend’s Sunday Island declared: “The president of this so-called Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka has thrown the country from the frying pan into the fire… The country is now in untested waters and a return to stability must be a priority.” But it stopped short of stating how.
As in 2015, the pseudo-left Nava Sama Samaja Party (NSSP) has lined up with UNP and Wickremesinghe, while others such as the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) and the United Socialist Party (USP) have again begun to campaign for a “broader front of left parties, civil organizations and mass organizations.” Either directly or indirectly, they all function to keep workers and youth tied to one or the other bourgeois party and to block a struggle to overthrow the crisis-ridden capitalist system.
The working class must break from all these political charlatans. It cannot postpone the necessary practical and political preparations for the defence of democratic and social rights. It is vital that workers—Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim—unite and start to take matters into their own hands. A political struggle against all the bourgeois factions is needed so as to rally the urban poor and rural masses in the fight for a workers’ and peasants’ government based on socialist policies. That is the perspective for which the Socialist Equality Party fights.

Fujimori’s new detention sets reconfiguration of Peruvian politics

Armando Cruz

After a seven-day judicial hearing, Keiko Fujimori, longtime leader of the right-wing populist fujimorista movement and its party Fuerza Popular (FP), was sentenced to 36 months (three years) of “preventive detention” by Justice Richard Concepcion Carhuancho. Fujimori is now detained along with four other people, her closest political advisors, while being investigated for forming a “criminal organization” inside the FP and using it as a cover for laundering money received from the giant Brazilian construction multinational Odebrecht as part of its program of bribing the whole Peruvian political establishment as well as those of other countries in the region.
Fujimori and Co. were originally detained on October 10 under orders by Concepcion on the same money laundering charges. The decision shocked the whole country as Fujimori—with her extensive connections in Peru’s judiciary and business elite—was seen as an “untouchable.” Moreover, at the start of the year, she had been the leading politician, according to polls.
Under Peruvian law, a judge can order the detention of a presumptive criminal under investigation to minimize the risk of escaping the country. Fujimori’s lawyers appealed the initial decision, and three judges unanimously overturned the detention order. Fujimori and her fellow party leaders were freed after seven days of their ten-day detention. The judges argued that Fujimori and the rest posed no risk of flight or obstruction of justice.
Then, state anti-corruption attorney Jose Domingo Perez, who is part of the legal investigation team into the Odebrecht “Lava Jato” corruption scandal in Peru, announced that he had sufficient evidence to start an investigation into money laundering schemes involving Fujimori and a large group of FP members and requested that Concepcion hold a hearing where he could make the case for 36 months of preventive detention.
The judicial hearings started on October 24 and were televised, achieving record viewing audiences and capturing most of the attention of the national media. Outside the building where the hearings were taking place, fujimorista followers and anti-fujimoristas engaged in street skirmishes.
On October 31, after seven days, Concepcion ordered Fujimori and her four close advisors to be detained for 36 months. Today, Fujimori is in a woman’s prison in the Chorrillos district of Lima, after District Attorney Domingo Perez ordered her detention. Also, Perez has announced he will solicit further hearings for other FP members.
Concepcion had previously placed former president Ollanta Humala (2011-2016) and his wife/accomplice Nadine Heredia under preventive detention for 18 months, while prosecutors investigated if and how they received Odebrecht’s bribes. Fujimori and Co. received a far longer detention because they are being investigated under the framework of the “Law against Criminal Organizations”.
Perez—who has been lionized for having managed to put Keiko Fujimori, a widely hated figure, behind bars—was helped by fresh evidence supplied by a secret witness. The witness voluntarily brought to the investigators’ office screenshots of a message chat used by the fujimorista caucus in Congress on which they discussed, among many other machinations, how to “shield” two high-ranking members of the judiciary: former Supreme Court member Cesar Hinostroza and current Attorney General Pedro Chavarry.
Both men were exposed by audiotapes leaked by an independent journalist group in July as being part of a secret criminal organization (labeled the “Port’s White Collars”) inside the judiciary. The audiotapes made clear that Hinostroza, Chavarry and many other judges and attorneys were part of a corrupt scheme that sold favorable sentences or major posts inside the state to wealthy individuals, businesses and even drug cartels. The audiotapes mention fujimorista congressmen and Keiko herself as being their most important allies. Hinostroza stopped an investigation into then-FP secretary Joaquin Ramirez, who had been accused of laundering money obtained through drug trafficking.
Fujimorista congressmen obstructed at least two petitions to investigate Hinostroza for participation in the “White Collars” group. Then, at the beginning of October, amid mounting political and public pressure, Congress—controlled by the fujimoristasfinally lifted its protection of Hinostroza. However, it delayed the decision, in a seemingly deliberate manner, so that Hinostroza could secretly escape the country on October 17, flying to Spain, where he was, nonetheless, detained under a petition of the Peruvian government. Peruvian authorities have declared that they will seek his extradition.
Meanwhile, Chavarry is currently being protected. Fujimorista congressmen have voted against petitions by other congressmen for his removal as Attorney General. During the last months, from his position of power, Chavarry sacked prominent attorneys investigating either Fujimori or APRA’s former president, Alan Garcia, and their ties to the Lava Jato scandal. He also has been engaged in a war of words with District Attorney Perez, after he called Chavarry “morally unfit” for his post.
On top of the detention of its leader, the FP has also been hurt by several resignations inside the Congress caucus and the party. With Fujimori’s detention, the party’s abysmally low approval ratings and its disastrous results in the last municipal and regional elections, there is mounting fear within the FP that the party is entering its terminal stage and the time has come to jump ship as fast as possible.
Given the extremely personalistic character of FP and the whole fujimorista movement, it cannot survive without a member of the Fujimori family leading it. Keiko is now detained; her father Alberto (who ruled between 1990 and 2000) is holed up in a private clinic in order to avoid going back to jail after a judge nullified the pardon provided by then-president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski last December; and Keiko’s brother Kenji has retired from politics after being politically destroyed in a vote-buying scandal set up by Keiko that precipitated Kuczynki’s fall.
Fujimorismo was a right-wing populist movement that appealed to working class and lower-middle class layers on the basis of the “legacy” of the original Alberto Fujimori’s government: especially its limited welfare programs for the poor and its defeat of the nationalist-Maoist guerrilla group Sendero Luminoso.
On the other hand, it was the favorite party of wide layers of the ruling class, many of whom were the main beneficiaries of Alberto Fujimori’s regime, whose other key “legacy” was a set of neoliberal reforms that privatized national industries and eliminated labor rights, creating major profit increases for multinationals and national companies.
The political obliteration of fujimorismo may push some of its disillusioned followers—or at least, those who voted for Keiko in the last election thinking that she would improve their conditions—toward the pseudo-left coalitions of Frente Amplio (FA) and its split-off, Nuevo Peru (NP).
FA’s candidates Veronika Mendoza and Marco Arana managed to achieve third place in the last elections (behind Kuczynski and Fujimori), and this was seen as comeback for “left-wing” politics in the country after having been nearly absent for more than two decades.
Then, Mendoza and her followers decided to split from FA and form their own coalition. In part, this was to exploit the growth of Mendoza’s popularity among a generation that has only known right-wing governments, but more important was the tacit preference the political establishment has given to Mendoza over Arana, the main leader of FA, who is seen in ruling circles as an unreliable “left-wing extremist” after his years as an activist against mining multinationals in the environmentally damaged region of Cajamarca.
Amid their break-up, both factions demonstrated their utter subordination to the stabilization of bourgeois rule. They made clear their opposition to the independence of the working class by telling workers and youth that they had to vote for Kuczynski in the run-off against Fujimori, or Peru would be under the grip of a “narco- fujimorista” dictatorship.
NP spokesmen have confirmed that they won’t be able to present the necessary signatures needed for achieving ballot status for their movement by the current deadline of this month; meaning that they won’t be able to participate in the next elections as an independent party. They managed to obtain just 6 percent of the 750,000 signatures needed. They cited the lack of funds for the logistics of collecting the signatures throughout the country and the lack of interest from their own members. In order to further the electoral aims of their movement, NP officials are now considering entering into alliances with right-wing parties.

Brazil’s Bolsonaro prepares most right-wing government since end of US-backed dictatorship

Miguel Andrade

The first two weeks since the election of the far-right populist Jair Bolsonaro as Brazil’s president are further confirming that the next administration will be the most right-wing since the return to civilian rule after a 21-year US-backed military dictatorship in 1985.
Bolsonaro defeated Workers Party (PT) candidate Fernando Haddad in what became a referendum on the catastrophic social conditions facing Brazilians after 16 years of rule by the PT and its former allies. He built his campaign mainly around anti-corruption demagoguery and an economic nationalist platform—on many issues emulating Donald Trump’s “America First” rhetoric. This was mainly directed at Chinese investments in Brazil and what he called “handouts” to “ideological allies” of the former PT government, i.e., Brazilian foreign investments in African and other Latin American nations.
Bolsonaro blamed the worst economic crisis in Brazilian history and a stagnant 12 percent unemployment rate on the massive corruption uncovered by the so-called “Lava-Jato” (Carwash) investigation into a bribes and kickbacks operation centered on a Brazilian economic pillar, the state-run oil giant Petrobras, and—in Trump-like fashion—supposedly uneven economic relations with China, Africa and the rest of Latin America.
However, as has been the case with Trump and other right-wing populists succeeding Latin America’s “pink tide” governments, the real content of Bolsonaro’s economic nationalism is the destruction of workers’ living standards. This includes the rolling back of environmental regulations, which Bolsonaro repeatedly blamed for an “industry of environmental fines” against capitalist industry and agribusiness. All of his policies are being justified in the name of “increasing national competitiveness,” joining the race to the bottom in the destruction of working class rights that has been vastly accelerated by world governments since the 2008 crisis.
The first warnings of the situation facing the working class came with the announcement that Bolsonaro’s senior economic adviser, Paulo Guedes, would not only head Brazil’s traditional Finance Ministry, but would be given a “super-ministry” for the economy, incorporating the functions of the Planning Ministry, the Industry and Foreign Trade Ministry and the Labor Ministry. This massive reorganization is to take place in order to “phase in” the implementation of a sweeping deregulation program including massive privatizations, an increase of capital concentration and, most importantly, the slashing of workplace regulations, wages and pensions.
Guedes has already stated that the first issue on the government’s agenda—to be negotiated with Congress even before Bolsonaro takes office on January 1—is to approve a pension reform. The reform is set to raise the minimum age for retirement to 65 and create an individual capitalization scheme. This would end Brazil’s public pension system, enshrined in the 1988 Constitution, which is the sole guarantee of old-age income for millions of workers who work most of their lives in the informal sector, the situation of fully 40 percent of the workforce. Furthermore, the northern regions of Brazil, where 40 percent of the population is concentrated, have a male life expectancy of barely 68.7 years.
Guedes, who is considered a radical “Chicago Boy,” took a full professorship at the government-controlled Chile University under Augusto Pinochet’s fascist-military rule before heading back to Brazil to work in private investment funds for almost 40 years. He is reportedly using Pinochet’s pension system as a model for the proposed “reform.”
The extinction of the Labor ministry places Guedes’ control over the ministry’s “treasury,” the Employment Policies Department, which controls most of the funds paid into by employers and which are used for paying unemployment insurance and benefits provided for by Brazil’s 1943 Labor Code.
The Economy “super-ministry” is thus expected to facilitate Bolsonaro’s plans for a full-blown attack on labor rights, vaguely described during the campaign as the creation of a “green-and-yellow” work permit—Brazil’s work permits have a blue cover, and green and yellow are considered the national colors.
The so-called “green and yellow” work permit was only mentioned in the campaign as a “patriotic” work permit, reminiscent of Brazil’s history of corporatist trade unionism and in line with Bolsonaro’s declarations that in order to fix the economy it was necessary “to end all activisms.” The true content of the policies it embodies—although it is unclear whether a new work permit will actually be proposed—was hidden beneath the anti-corruption and anti-Chinese demagoguery.
Bolsonaro’s plan would also create the possibility of individual work contracts, through which workers would “voluntarily” choose to work outside of conditions covered by the Labor Code or collective-bargaining agreements, regulated only by the Labor articles in the Constitution—which covers the eight-hour day, but not overtime, for example, nor the bulk of workplace regulations specific to each sector.
For its part, the Labor Code—covering only 60 percent of the workforce—was already largely weakened by the 2017 labor “reform” laws, approved by Congress, allowing for generalized contract work, part-time contracts, workday extension to up to 12 hours and, most significantly, allowing unions to negotiate away provisions of the Code, the measure which was most hated by workers mistrustful of the treacherous unions controlled by the Workers Party, the Communist Party, and the pseudo-lefts. The “reforms” passed with no resistance from unions, amply confirming workers’ fears.
Significantly, even with the main trade unions canceling at least three proposed general strikes to protest proposed pension reform, the measure is considered so toxic that it has been discussed for almost three years without even the most right-wing Congress since 1985—elected in 2014, and now surpassed by the incoming one elected on October 7—able to vote for it for fear of voter punishment. The reform was first proposed by the Workers Party to fend off the 2016 impeachment by appealing not to workers, but to the Congressional right wing. Until today, it has failed to make it to the floor of Congress.
With most of the cabinet so far unknown, Bolsonaro has been quick to announce his nomination for Justice Minister: district court justice Sergio Moro, who first sentenced former PT president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to jail on money-laundering charges. The sentence was later upheld by Brazil’s 4th Appeals Circuit court, resulting in Lula being arrested and barred from the elections under the so-called “Clean Slate” (Ficha Limpa) law Lula himself had signed in 2010, suspending political rights for those with corruption sentences upheld by an appellate court.
Beyond a sop to Bolsonaro’s far-right base, Moro’s nomination signals the aim of vastly expanding state powers.
The PT’s sprawling corruption schemes and hated austerity policies gave the right wing plenty of ammunition for pushing the whole political system far to the right. The Lava Jato prosecutorial team has shown systematic contempt for democratic rights, most notably by wiretapping lawyers and treating them as “collaborators.”
As soon as he accepted Bolsonaro’s nomination, Moro declared to the press that he considered the fascistic former army captain a “moderate,” and that he agreed with a whole series of his far-right proposals, including reducing the age of criminal responsibility to 16, exempting police and army officers from charges if they murder suspects, and bringing criminal charges against demonstrators, especially the PT-linked Landless and Homeless Workers movements.
These groups, successors to the Land Reform movements from the pre-1964 military coup period, work strictly legally under the provisions of the Brazilian Constitution, covering the conditions for urban or rural properties to be declared of public interest in case it is proven they are being used in speculative operations.
Members of these groups have been the target of numerous massacres by mercenaries working for land speculators. Bolsonaro’s program promised to scrap “any questioning of the right to private property,” essentially pushing these movements and tens of thousands of unorganized squatters into illegality.
Bolsonaro’s first two weeks as president-elect have already succeeded in pushing the PT to the right, with the defeated party casting itself as the “respectable” trustee of the interests of the Brazilian state and focusing its opposition almost exclusively on Bolsonaro’s economic and foreign policy “blunders.”
The language of the PT’s mouthpiece, Brasil247, is indistinguishable from that of Brazil’s traditional right wing, consisting largely of denunciations of the “unpreparedness” of Bolsonaro’s team and expressions of concern over the “national interest.”
The Workers Party is unable and unwilling to challenge Bolsonaro on his extreme neoliberal policies, which it largely shares, and his lies on the campaign trail.
The PT was deserted by the working class precisely after it nominated the “Chicago Boy” Joaquim Levy as finance minister on the first day of Rousseff’s second term. Levy is now set to join Bolsonaro’s cabinet as head of the National Development Bank (BNDES).
For decades, the PT’s affiliated CUT trade union federation has defended corporatist union-management agreements, imposing upon angry workers exactly the policy advocated by Bolsonaro when he says: “you can have every right and no jobs, or less rights and jobs.”
The PT’s opposition has thus been concentrated on finding common ground with what it expects will be dissenting business circles, first and foremost industrial and agribusiness monopolies. After attempting to red-bait Bolsonaro over Venezuela in the second round of the elections, the PT-oriented circles are rallying against Bolsonaro’s “ideological” environmental and foreign policies, which they warn will hurt Brazil’s “geopolitical position.”
To Bolsonaro’s nomination of a “beef caucus” hardliner as agriculture minister and his threats to shut down the Environmental Ministry, with his far-right allies accusing “international NGOs” of “hidden interests,” Brasil247 has counterposed the “warnings of the European Union” that they will not “reopen negotiations” on issues “affecting the quality of our agricultural imports.” Under the suggestion of the agribusiness moguls themselves, Bolsonaro has decided to keep the Environmental Ministry.
In reaction to Bolsonaro’s stated intention to transfer the Brazilian embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and to scrap commercial agreements with Argentina—both with the potential of hurting Brazilian exports (the first announcement provoked the canceling of the Brazilian chancellor’s visit to Egypt)— Brasil247columnist Jeferson Miola wrote that the Industry Federation (CNI) should “react to the ultraliberal policies which threaten the very existence of industrialists as a class.”
After the commander of the Brazilian Army, Gen. Eduardo Villas Bôas, admitted in an interview with Folha de São Paulo on Sunday that he had threatened the Supreme Court on the eve of its decision regarding Lula’s habeas corpus plea on April 4 that freeing the former PT president could lead to “a breakdown of the hierarchy” within the armed forces—i.e., a potential coup—Rousseff’s former spokeswoman Helena Chagas praised the general for distancing from Bolsonaro. She wrote: “Villas Bôas’ words should be widely reproduced as reassuring” of the Army’s restraint, which “displeased Bolsonaro’s allies.”
There is nothing progressive in the attempt to present institutions tearing themselves apart, like the European Union or a coup-monger like Villas Bôas, as pillars of the “reasonable” democratic order, or disagreeing with Bolsonaro on which side to take in the trade war initiated by Trump. The PT is exposing that it will not, as many of its pseudo-left apologists say, react to its electoral defeat by “turning left.” On the contrary, it is shifting further to the right. An irreconcilable break with the PT and those who cover up for it is the first task of Brazilian workers.

Polish government officials march with the far-right

Clara Weiss

On Sunday, officials of the Law and Justice (PiS) government made a point of marching alongside neo-fascist forces to celebrate Poland’s 100th Independence Day. The “March of Independence” in Warsaw attracted some 250,000 people, according to the Polish police. This would make it the largest single march in the history of Warsaw, a city of 2 million people. Smaller demonstrations took place throughout the country.
On November 11, 1918, Poland was officially granted independence from what was then Soviet Russia, Germany and Austria. This followed some 123 years during which the country, formerly the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was partitioned between the Habsburg Empire, the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia. In the ensuing 21 years, up to the Nazi invasion in 1939, Poland became a major bulwark of French and US imperialism in their struggle against the Soviet Union.
For many years, the anniversary of this date has been exploited by Polish nationalists and fascists. However, Independence Day has also been claimed by other forces across the political spectrum, including the liberal opposition, which has long joined in the glorification of the authoritarian Piłsudski regime that ruled Poland for much of the inter-war period.
Last year, November 11 was the occasion for an internationally organized gathering of far-right forces. With about 60,000 participants, including white supremacists from the US and Europe, it was the largest far-right march in post-World War II European history. Banners at the rally, which sent shockwaves throughout the world, included: “White Europe of Brotherly Peoples,” “Europe Will Be White or Depopulated,” “Pure Poland, White Poland!” “Death to the Enemies of the Fatherland,” “Pray for Islamic Holocaust,” and “Refugees, Get Out!”
The announcement that government officials, including President Andrzej Duda and Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, would join the march with far-right nationalist groups such as the National Radical Camp (ONR), came only on Friday. The ONR is an openly neo-fascist organization. It is named after the organization in the inter-war period most closely linked to the fascist terror against both workers’ organizations and Jews that swept Poland in the 1930s. Before the Nazis invaded Poland, the ONR distinguished itself by its fascination with and admiration for Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, particularly its anti-Jewish policies, which inspired the ONR’s own political program.
Another co-organizer was the far-right All-Polish Youth (MÅ‚odzież Wszechpolska), also named after an inter-war youth and student organization of the same name, which was responsible for anti-Semitic assaults and murders at universities. On its Twitter feed, the organization posted a picture of its procession with the comment “Life and Death for the Nation.”
Government officials had reportedly tried to form a coalition of organizers that would have included the government, the liberal opposition and the far-right. However, that failed and the liberal opposition parties ended up boycotting the march. An attempt last week by Warsaw’s outgoing mayor, from the opposition party Civic Platform (PO), to ban the march was thwarted by a court decision.
The participation of Duda and Morawiecki in the march was also meant to underscore the fact that they were staying away from the celebrations of the end of World War I in Paris that same day.
Military police were deployed to protect the marchers, and Polish soldiers stood side-by side with members of the ONR and the Italian neo-Nazi party Forza Nueva. At the beginning of the march, Duda addressed the far-right crowd, saying: “I want us to walk under our white-and-red banners together [the colors of Poland’s national flag] and with an air of joy. To give honour to those who fought for Poland and to be glad that it is free, sovereign and independent.” He then led the crowd in chants of “Glory and praise to the heroes” and sang the national anthem with them.
Most participants carried Polish flags, but some also displayed the falanga, a symbol of European fascism in the 1930s and the main symbol of the ONR, as well as white supremacist symbols such as the Celtic cross. Racist chants were reported. At one point, an EU flag was reportedly burned by rightists shouting, “Down with the European Union.”
Spokespeople for Duda and the government tried to downplay the involvement of far-right forces in the march, but it is clear that the open alignment of the government with the far-right was a calculated political move. It was encouraged by the general lurch to the right by the entire ruling class in Europe, and is aimed at intimidating workers and youth in Poland and Europe who are opposed to the policies of war and austerity of the bourgeoisie.
A few days before the PiS announced that it would march with the far-right, French President Emmanuel Macron hailed the fascist dictator of the collaborationist Vichy regime during the Second World War, Philippe Pétain, as a “great soldier.” In neighbouring Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) enjoys close ties with leading circles in the state. It has been promoted by the entire media and political establishment and placed in the official position of leading opposition party in parliament. In the US, the Trump administration has systematically encouraged far-right racism and anti-Semitism, resulting in several violent attacks before the midterm elections, including the massacre of 11 people at a Pittsburgh Synagogue.
In Poland, the PiS has for years encouraged the far-right and integrated it into the state apparatus. A huge paramilitary militia has been created under the supervision of Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz, himself a notorious anti-Semite. This force relies largely on the organized far-right.
The government has promoted anti-Semitism and racism toward refugees for years. Earlier this year, it passed a law censoring speech on the Holocaust that mentions the involvement of Polish nationalists in the murder of the Jews. Most recently, a leaked tape brought to light anti-Semitic remarks by Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki dating from 2014.
Beyond a significant overlap of political views, the PiS government relies on the far-right for its preparations for war against Russia and the suppression of the working class at home. With the support of the Trump administration, it is pursuing a revival of the “Intermarium” strategy of the inter-war period, in which the PiÅ‚sudski regime, with the support of sections of the French and British elites, sought to undermine both the Soviet Union and Germany through an alliance of right-wing nationalist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe. Similarly today, with the support of US imperialism, the PiS government seeks to build an alliance of far-right regimes throughout Eastern Europe to counter the threat of revolution, undermine Germany’s position in Europe and prepare for war against Russia.
There is widespread hatred of fascism among workers and youth throughout Europe, including in Poland, which was turned into a center of fascist terror and destruction under the Nazi occupation during World War II. Poland was the geographical center of the genocide of 6 million European Jews, over 3 million of whom had lived in Poland before the war.
Within the framework of the current political system, however, this opposition to war and fascism finds virtually no expression. In order to fight the preparations for war and civil war by the bourgeoisie and its promotion of the far-right, workers and youth need to turn to an internationalist and socialist program.

Germany’s grand coalition closes ranks and steps up right-wing offensive

Johannes Stern 

Germany’s grand coalition government, consisting of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Christian Social Union (CSU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD), has responded to major defeats in recent state elections and growing opposition by stepping up its right-wing policies.
Just before the official meetings to commemorate November 9, the centenary of the November Revolution and the 80th anniversary of Germany’s night of pogroms (Reichspogromnacht), it was announced Friday morning that the country’s military budget will increase next year in excess of what was originally planned. In 2018, this budget totaled €38.5 billion. It is now due to exceed €43 billion in 2019. This corresponds to an increase of 12 percent and is €323 million more than the previous planned total.
In a nearly 16-hour “clean-up” session, the cabinet made further changes to the draft budget of Social Democratic Finance Minister Olaf Scholz, paving the way for rapid military rearmament. According to media reports, so-called “commitment appropriations” were adopted permitting arms projects costing billions.
The largest single item is the purchase of a heavy transport helicopter, involving an investment of about €5.6 billion by 2031. This was reported by the military blog Augen geradeaus! An additional purchase is a new multi-purpose combat ship (type MKS180), estimated to cost about €5 billion by 2028.
According to the blog, “One of the most expensive projects,” the Tactical Air Defence System (TLVS), was “initially planned in the new budget in a merely symbolic manner.” However, “the plan provides that, if necessary, funds from other budget items can be shifted here.”
Already in its coalition agreement, the conservative “union parties” (CDU and CSU) and the SPD had pledged to increase defence spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product by 2024, resulting in an annual military budget of more than €75 billion. They are now working feverishly to achieve this goal.
“There is little public knowledge of the billions that will flow in future to the federal armed forces for procurement of the Eurofighter combat aircraft,” Augen geradeaus! notes. Some €2.5 billion in commitment appropriations have been earmarked to replace older fighter jets with new Eurofighters, which will be “upgraded for further tasks, such as combat against ground targets.” Additional appropriations target the acquiring of new submarines and some 140,000 sets of modern combat clothing.
The centenary of the November Revolution and the 80th anniversary of Germany’s night of pogroms was marked by speeches by a number of leading government politicians, whose unctuous words about “democracy” and the “lessons of history” cannot hide the fact that German imperialism is once again preparing for war, including against its allies of the post-World War II period.
Following the US midterm elections, Foreign State Minister Nils Annen (SPD), demanded a strong German-European foreign and defence policy in response to Donald Trump. “We have to do our homework in Europe and keep together, especially in the case of a trade dispute,” he said. “On those issues where we disagree, the Americans have a strong position. We can answer ‘America first’ only with ‘Europe United.’ ”
The aggressive foreign policy of the grand coalition goes hand in hand with intensified attacks on social and democratic rights. The pensions package passed by the German government on Thursday serves only to reinforce the meagre levels of pensions, which are already leading to rampant poverty in old age, while preparing for further attacks on state pensions in the future. On the same day, the government, with the support of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), tightened up the country’s asylum law and imposed further restrictions on refugees.
Following the country’s bitter historical experiences, the overwhelming majority of the population rejects war and fascism, but the ruling class is intent on reviving its anti-democratic, militaristic and authoritarian traditions.
This became clear again on November 8 in discussions in the Bundestag about the UN Global Migration Pact. The leader of the AfD, Alexander Gauland, used the occasion to rant against the “left-wing dreamers and globalist elites” who “secretly wanted to transform our country from a nation-state into a settlement area.”
Instead of drawing the obvious parallels between Gauland’s ravings and the policies of Hitler and Goebbels, the other parties in parliament accused him of acting “against the national interest of Germany.”
The UN migration pact is a measure to reduce the number of refugees in Germany, they stressed. “Is there anyone with a clear mind who seriously believes that fewer migrants come to Germany when they have no access to basic services in other countries?” declared the union party politician Stephan Harbarth, to applause from the CDU, the CSU, the SPD, the neo-liberal FDP, the Greens and the Left Party. “Not at all,” he continued. “Anyone who supports the Global Migration Pact creates the conditions that will reduce incentives to come to Germany.”
The SPD plays a key role in promoting the government’s right-wing and anti-working class policies against growing opposition. Although the SPD has slumped in the polls and is now ranked at just 13 percent, it is determined to continue its deeply unpopular alliance with the union parties.
“We have linked arms and rely on the power of cohesion,” declared SPD leader Andrea Nahles, following a meeting of the party executive committee last week. There will be no special party meeting to discuss remaining in the grand coalition. Any such proposition had been ruled out by a large majority of the executive, Nahles said.
There are two main political considerations behind the SPD’s resolve to maintain the grand coalition. On the one hand, it is determined to push ahead with the revival of German militarism and re-establish Germany as a major military power following the defeats suffered in two world wars. Germany was “too big and too strong economically for us to comment on world politics from the sidelines,” the then-foreign minister and current federal president Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) declared at the Munich Security Conference 2014.
Second, the SPD fears a mobilisation of the working class against its reactionary policies and is preparing to forcefully suppress all opposition. Significantly, during the commemoration in the German parliament of the November Revolution, Steinmeier justified the counterrevolutionary alliance between social democratic leaders and the German army (Reichswehr), which drowned the revolutionary uprising of the workers in blood.
SPD Chairman Friedrich Ebert, who took over as head of the German government on November 9, 1918, “initially wanted to prevent chaos, civil war and military intervention by the victorious powers; he was driven by the desire to give people work and bread,” Steinmeier claimed.
He admittedly had “no justification whatsoever for unleashing the brutality of the nationalist Freikorps.” At the same time, it was true, however, that “the people’s representatives around Friedrich Ebert had to defend themselves against the attempt of the radical left to prevent the elections to the National Assembly by force.”
All of the parliamentary parties—from the right-wing extremist AfD to the governing parties to the Left Party and the Greens—applauded Steinmeier. This underscores that the entire ruling class is closing ranks to press hard with its right-wing policies, while preparing for future revolutionary class struggles.
The Left Party and the Greens are vying with one another to establish closer cooperation with the grand coalition, and both demand a more aggressive government policy. When the Bundestag debated “equal living conditions” last Thursday, Left Party leader Dietmar Bartsch begged to be involved in the future work of the government. “At least those who govern in the states or have responsibilities in the municipalities” must be involved, he declared.
As for the Greens, party leader Annalena Baerbock said in an interview with Der Spiegel: “The SPD has declared that it continues. The Union has declared that it continues. The chancellor has declared she will continue in office. So we have a government and it has to do its job: govern this country and tackle problems.”
Baerbock also called for a more aggressive great-power policy: “The EU must be able to conduct world politics in a dramatically changed situation,” she said.

12 Nov 2018

Johnson&Johnson Africa Innovation Challenge 2019 for African Health Entrepreneurs ($100,000 funding + mentorship)

Application Deadline: 16th January, 2019

Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa

Eligible Fields: There are three different categories, however you can apply to all three:
  • Promoting Early Child Development & Maternal Health: Improving maternal health helps nurture happy, healthy babies and generates positive child development. We are looking for non-pharmaceutical product and technology solutions that will help ensure women and newborns in Africa stay healthy during pregnancy, childbirth and throughout child development.
  • Empowering Young Girls: Access to good education and basic needs such as feminine care products is important to make sure young girls across Africa realize their full potential. We are looking for consumer product, technology and educational innovations that address these needs, making a brighter future possible for young women.
  • Improving Family Wellbeing: Families need reliable healthcare information and access to healthcare professionals and effective products in order to thrive. We are searching for innovative technology-driven solutions that help promote access to healthcare knowledge, advice and products and enhance the well-being of consumers in Africa.
About the Award: With its focus on consumer health care, the Africa Innovation Challenge will help tackle important issues impacting local communities. We are looking for an idea that has a clear project plan to progress towards commercialization. Commercialization is the process of introducing a new product or solution into commerce – making it available on the market. As you are submitting your application, you will find a downloadable project plan template that will guide you step-by-step so that we can better understand the feasibility of your idea. If you have a business plan to share, that is great.

Categories: Citizens and permanent residents of African Countries can apply. Applications should only be submitted by authorized representatives of the Applicant applying for the AIC. To qualify, each Applicant must submit an innovative idea in at least one of the following categories:
  1. Botanical Solutions – we are seeking naturally-derived, plant-based solutions that tap into traditional knowledge and deliver consumer health and wellness benefits through topical application;
  2. Packaging Innovations – We are seeking sustainable innovations for packaging of single dose units and other affordable product sizes that will reduce or eliminate waste, while protecting the product;
  3. Mental Health – We are seeking innovations that create awareness for mental illness as a public health problem and offer solutions for patients, caregivers, and their communities to address these issues.; and
  4. Essential Surgical Care – We are seeking innovations that promote access to timely, safe and skilled surgical care.
  5. Digital Health Tools – For one or more of the areas of HIV, Tuberculosis, Mental Health, Maternal Health and Ebola, We are seeking digital tools (including apps and other mobile/web/data enabled tech) for these important health care areas that can inform, educate, communicate and connect people to treatment, support and care through their reach and information and improve health outcomes especially for women.
  6. Health Worker Support – We are seeking innovations that support the wellbeing and resilience of nurses, midwives and community health workers at the heart of delivering care.
Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

Selection Criteria: One or more individuals, teams or companies from Africa are encouraged to make their submissions. Solutions will be evaluated based on their ability to meet the following criteria:
  • Solution submission addresses at least one of the three critical health areas mentioned earlier.
  • Submission must be innovative and creative.
  • Submission must be scalable.
  • Submission outlines a commercialization plan and how the award would help the applicant reach a critical milestone within the timeframe of a single yea
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Participant(s) with the best solutions will receive up to $100,000 in funding and mentorship from scientists, engineers and researchers in the Johnson & Johnson Consumer Research & Development organization. The winner(s) of the challenge could also receive dedicated space at a lab facility in Africa throughout their product or service development, dependent on the needs of the solution submission.

How to Apply: To apply to the challenge, visit the Africa Innovation Challenge application page

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: Johnson and Johnson

WHO Africa Innovation Challenge 2019 for African Entrepreneurs (Fully-funded to Brazzaville, Congo)

Application Deadline: 10th December at midnight (GMT+1).

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: “This Innovation Challenge recognizes the critical need for innovations to address the continent’s challenges in healthcare,” said Dr Matshidiso Moeti, WHO Regional Director for Africa. “WHO champions the promotion of homegrown solutions to address health challenges in reproductive, maternal and child health, infectious diseases, noncommunicable diseases and other key areas. We hope this challenge will spark the entrepreneurial spirit of innovators and lead to credible health innovations across the continent”.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: This Challenge is open to solutions that comply with the following eligibility criteria listed below – solutions that are:
  • Solutions that are developed in and/or relevant to Africa in addressing one or more health-related problems or applying an innovative approach for delivering solutions in Africa.
  • Solutions that address one or more problems in a new and different way often through a simpler and more effective means that is novel.
  • Solutions that are realistic and have the capability and potential to be enlarged and replicated.
Other eligibility criteria include that:
  • This Challenge is open to individuals, teams, for-profit, non-profit entities (including hybrid entities i.e. social enterprises), academic institutions or research institutions.
  • Entrants are not required to be formally registered in order to qualify for the Challenge
  • Applicants must be:
    1. Africa nationals residing in Africa or outside of Africa; or
    2. Foreign nationals either based in Africa or, if not based in Africa, then working with an African-based entity.
Selection Criteria: 
  • This Challenge will prioritise innovative and scalable healthcare solutions for selection. The three submission categories are Product, Service and Social Innovation.
  • Entries will be assessed by a panel of independent evaluators based on the innovation’s potential impact on health in Africa as well as the possibility of being replicated or scaled-up.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Selected Finalists will be awarded a sponsorship covering flights, accommodation to attend the Forum. At this event, they will get the opportunity to exhibit their innovations and meet with top political, government and business leaders in the health space. They will also get a chance to exhibit their solutions at the annual meeting of Ministers of Health from the WHO African Region in August 2019, in Brazzaville, Congo.

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

African Business Education Initiative for Youth (ABE Initiative) Masters Scholarship + Internship Program 2019 for African Students – Japan

Application Period: Late November 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries:  African countries

Eligible Group: Target participants are from among the following three types of personnel.
  1. Persons from the Private Sector
    Young individuals who are or will be involved in economic activities in the local private sector maintaining and developing strong ties with Japanese companies.
  2. Governmental Officials
    Young officials, such as civil servants, who take part in governance and policy-making in order to enhance industries to whose development Japanese companies can contribute, and has a recommendation by a Japanese company.
  3. Educators
    Young individuals who are responsible for educating in Higher Education and TVET (Technical and Vocational Education and Training) institutions in Africa, in order to enhance capacity building in related industries, and has a recommendation by a Japanese company.
To be taken at (country): Japan

Eligible Field of Study: In this program, participants will be accepted in any fields of study for master’s courses at Japanese universities while engineering, agriculture and economics/business administration are specified as key fields. Proposed research topics must be relevant to the program objectives to form network of potential contributors to the development of African industries, who have strong ties with Japanese companies.
A full list of eligible study fields can be found on the scholarship webpage (link below)

About the Award: The objective of the ABE Initiative master’s degree and internship program is to support young personnel who have the potential to contribute to the development of industries in Africa. This programme offers opportunities for young African men and women to study at master’s courses in Japanese universities as international students (hereafter referred to as participants) and experience internships at Japanese enterprises. The aim is for them to develop effective skills in order for them to contribute to various fields. Beyond acquisition of skills and knowledge, this program also intends to cultivate excellent personnel who can recognize and understand the contexts of Japanese society and systems of Japanese enterprises. The expected outcome of the program is a network of potential contributors to the development of African industries who will also lead Japanese businesses to engage further in economic activities in Africa.
JICA has been appointed to implement a master’s degree and internship program within the ABE initiative framework developed for countries whose official requests have been approved by the Government of Japan.

Offered Since: 2011

Type: Masters, Internship

Eligibility: 
    1. Citizens of one of the 54 African countries
    2. Between 22 and 39 years old (as of April 1st in the year of you arrival in Japan)
    3. A bachelor’s degree
    4. Applicants from government sectors/ educators who have both of the following:
-At least 6 months working experience at their current organization -Permission from their current organization to apply
  1. Have adequate English proficiency, both in written and oral communication (IELTS score of over 5.5 is preferred)
  2. Clearly understand the objective of this program and have a strong will to contribute to the industrial development of their country while broadening and strengthening the linkage between their country and Japan
  3. Not currently applying or planning to apply to scholarship programs offered by other organizations
  4. Have good health condition, both physically and mentally, to complete the program
Number of Awardees: 200 participants from the 54 countries in Africa

Value of Scholarship and Internship: JICA will provide the following expenses for participant of the program which is equivalent to similar JICA schemes.
  • Tuition at Japanese university master’s degree programs (and research student)
  • Allowances for living expenses, outfit, shipping etc.
  • A round-trip airfare
  • Expenses for support programs during the study in Japan, including the costs of observation tours and internship
  • Other costs should be covered by the participants’ organizations or other individuals.
Participants are not allowed to work while their stay in Japan.

Duration of Scholarship and Internship: It is expected that the duration of stay in Japan will be a maximum of 3 years. (6 months as a research student, 2 years as a student for master course and 6 months as an intern)

How to Apply: Visit the scholarship webpage to apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Award Provider: The African Business Education Initiative for Youth (ABE Initiative)