IIEP-UNESCO 2019/2020 Short Course and Training Programmes for Education Managers (Funded)

Application Deadline: 8th January 2019

About the Award: Designed to bolster the individual capacities of educational planners and managers, our programmes contribute to the institutional capacity that ministries of education require to carry out education sector analyses and plans that reflect both national priorities and their commitments to Sustainable Development Goal 4.

All of the programmes described below are offered in English and French with simultaneous translation during the face-to-face courses. Participants can also pursue our courses in a modularized way, meaning that they can, for example take the Education Sector Planning course first, and complete the ATP later.

2019 SPECIALIZED COURSES PROGRAMME (SCP)
From April to May 2019, IIEP will offer six two-week courses at IIEP in Paris, France. Each of the courses cover a specific area, such as teacher management and quantitative methods for monitoring and evaluating the quality of education. Participants must successfully complete three of these short courses if they are studying for the ATP, but these courses are also open to others who want to enhance their skills in a particular thematic area. Development partner staff often join Ministry staff on these short courses.

Key features of the SCP:

• Intensive courses that last two-weeks,
• Focus is on a specialized topic in education sector analysis or management,
• Stimulating learning activities, including group work and practical exercises,
• Successful course completion is recognised as part of the ATP.

THE 2019-2020 EDUCATION SECTOR PLANNING (ESP) COURSE
This course combines 12 weeks of online learning and a 13-week residential training phase at IIEP. Providing participants with the fundamentals of educational planning, it covers areas such as an education sector analysis/diagnosis, plan preparation, and the implementation and monitoring of an education sector plan. The course begins in September 2019 with an online phase in-country and finishes in March 2020 in Paris, France. The ESP can count towards completion of the ATP one-year programme in educational planning and management.

Key features of the ESP:

• 12 weeks online and 13 weeks at IIEP in Paris,
• Covers main areas of planning from sector analysis/diagnosis, plan preparation, to monitoring and evaluation,
• Group and individual course work and field visits in France and in a neighbouring country,
• IIEP International Certificate of Advanced Studies in Education Sector Planning given upon successful completion.

THE 2019-2020 ADVANCED TRAINING PROGRAMME
This year will mark the 55th session of the Advanced Training Programme, the flagship one-year programme offered by IIEP-UNESCO in educational planning and management. This programme includes the ESP course and the SCP, as well as a tutored project that participants complete in their home countries. An intensive and practice-oriented course, the ATP prepares its graduates to enhance their performance and future careers as education planners and managers.

Key features of the ATP:

• Three months online learning, followed by six months in Paris and a project completed in the participant’s country of residence to ensure the relevance of the course to the participants and their organisations,
• Develops practical and theoretical skills in educational planning and management, as well as leadership skills,
• Covers all facets of educational planning and management, from education policy analysis to monitoring and evaluation,
• Includes a study visit in France and a neighbouring country to learn about their education systems,
• IIEP Master’s equivalent level certificate awarded upon successful completion.

Type: Short Course, Training

Eligibility: Participants at IIEP come from all parts of the world (however, they must be proficient in either English or French). Here are some of the professional backgrounds of previous participants:

• Educational planners and managers involved in policy formulation and implementation;
• Other officials from education ministries;
• Professionals from other governmental bodies in charge of education matters;
• Education specialists who wish to strengthen their knowledge and expertise in specific areas;
• Education officers involved in analysis, design, planning, implementation, and evaluation of education policies and programmes at different levels of government;
• Technical officers specialized in research, planning, statistics, management, human resources, assessment, curriculum, and teacher professional development;
• Professionals developing or managing educational programmes and projects in other types of organizations, including development partners and NGOs;
• Holders of a first degree, or equivalent qualification.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: UNESCO member states may submit a request for funding from the UNESCO participation programme through the UNESCO National Commission. The procedure and schedule for the submission of funding requests are available at the UNESCO web site.

Duration of Programme: Programmes vary in length from our two-week specialized courses to the Master’s level equivalent Advanced Training Programme (ATP), which takes one year to complete, including six month’s residential training in Paris.

How to Apply: Interested applicants must apply online. For a complete application, applicants must upload the following documents:

• The Authorization of Participation form, duly completed and signed/stamped by your employer and, if possible, your UNESCO National Commission representative. (You can download the form from the ‘Practical Information’ section of the application form.)
• A scanned copy of the name and date page of your passport.
• An Organizational chart of your Ministry or organization (please indicate exactly where you fit within the structure with an X or other mark).
• Scanned copies of diplomas, degrees, and other relevant training certificates.
• A language proficiency certificate, if your first language is neither English nor French.

• GOODLUCK!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

HEINEKEN International Graduate Programme 2019 for Graduates Worldwide

Application Deadline: 10th February 2019

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): Mostly Amsterdam, The Netherlands

About the Award: You will begin the journey at our Head Office in Amsterdam where you will be introduced to the HEINEKEN history, products and values, and start meeting the people that make the company great!With three one-year assignments you will have challenging and contrasting learning experiences within a Function. Every year, you explore a new country, start a new job, and learn a different culture, professionally and personally. This will test your learning agility and provide you with unforgettable experiences.

Fields of Employment:  
Marketing & Sales
Finance
Procurement
Human Resources
Supply Chain

Type: Internships/Jobs

Eligibility: We are looking for learning agile graduates that show us where we should go next. You are an ideal candidate if you are self-sufficient, aspirational, open to feedback and bold enough to take ownership wherever you are. If you value passion for quality, enjoyment of life and respect for people and for our planet, then you can have great success here.
To apply for this programme, you should at least:

• Have a degree or will graduate by September 2019 – preferably a Masters degree
• Have affinity with Finance, and a degree in Finance, Economics, Business or any similar field
• Have no more than 2 years of professional work experience in February 2019 (voluntary and internships do not count)
• Be at least fluent in English – preferably multilingual
• Have the ambition to have an international career at HEINEKEN together with a genuine interest in other cultures – preferably already lived abroad

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: People are in the heart of our company. Next to meaningful work, we believe it is important that you are satisfied with your remuneration, and that it motivates you in relation to your development and performance.

• Salary according to Dutch market conditions, plus additional allowances
• Accommodation
• Private health insurance
• Flights and Immigration support
• 30 leave days per assignment, excluding national holiday

How to Apply: Apply for the distinct positions on the Program Webpage (see Link below).

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Resistance is Not Terrorism

Nino Pagliccia

Resistance is not terrorism. And yet we do have resistance against oppressing rightwing neoliberal policies, and we do have spreading terrorism; but those words should never be associated in a causal relationship. If anything resistance is self-defense against warfare and terrorism!

Let me explain.

Why do we have resistance?

Today we live in a continuous state of warfare at different levels of intensity. The bully U.S. Empire keeps busy maintaining that level of aggression by using huge amounts of resources taken away from uninformed USAmericans and others.

We have quite a wide range of “conflictive relationships” masterminded by the U.S. government.

It’s interesting to see the corresponding proliferation of terminology associated with different types of warfare that we have come to use in describing those conflicts.

These are the tools of warfare we hear about today. We have:

Undeclared wars. And here we have to be careful how we use the term “war”. There is no war in There is a war onSyria. Semantic is important here.

New Cold War. I don’t know what’s new about it. It’s still the same permanent threat of war that the “Old” Cold War was.

Infowar. The production of false news with media participation in order to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of a government by demonizing it.

Economic war. This is the one that is caused through sanctions and blockades.

Incitation to commit political crimes. For example, the life attempt against Maduro and other high-ranking officials last August 4 in Venezuela.

Incitation to mutiny. Repeated calls to the military to overthrow a government.

Hybrid war or color revolutions. How colorful we have become!

Coups d’état. We still have those…with a soft touch now.

Now we also have Soft Coups. These are the ones that have been at play in Latin America in the last few years. They oppress and kill people all the same.

We even misuse the law to make war. It’s called Lawfare.

This is quite a repertoire of acts of war that can be used in any combination or mix!

All of these actions are a form of warfare, and all have embedded an element of illegality. They are not used as legitimate self-defense. They are used to subvert democracy.

They extend the notion of weapons to situations where everything can be weaponized with total disregard to legality, morality, humanity and ethical considerations.

Take for instance the term “humanitarian crisis” whose real meaning has been devalued to be used as infowar to justify a military intervention. This is currently the weapon of choice against Venezuela.

The U.S. has used all of these actions for regime change at one time or another, in some place or another; namely in Latin America and more intensely today in Venezuela, knowing very well that any of those tools of war constitute acts of terrorism.

Paradoxically, earlier this month, we have learned that the Trump administration is considering adding Venezuela to the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The idea that Venezuela is a state that sponsors terrorism is bizarre. Even a U.S. official admitted that it would be very difficult to provide any proof that Venezuela sponsors terrorism. That’s because it doesn’t!

But the U.S. uses the arrogance of its so-called doctrine of exceptionalism to make such claims.

Notice the outrageous irony.

+ The U.S. government actually creates international terrorism. There is ample evidence of that, especially in the Middle East. 

+ But the U.S. accuses Venezuela of being a State that sponsors terrorism.

+ There is not a shred of evidence that Venezuela supports terrorism.

+ There is only a small proportion of the rightwing Venezuelan opposition terrorists that support U.S. terrorism even on their own country; and that collective self-destructive behaviour is a typical trademark of terrorism.

On the contrary, the Maduro government has made public calls for peace and dialogue even while the guarimbas were carried out by the rightwing terrorists in Venezuela in 2014 and 2017 when they literally terrorized the population.

Venezuela has been the victim of terrorism and is resisting in order to defend its sovereignty and self-determination.

We claim that we have a right to resist against unlawful attacks, but why do we say that resistance is not terrorism. For that we need to understand what terrorism is.

Terrorism

Terrorism is the ultimate destructive tool to be used against another nation or people. The U.S. is using it widely, not only in the Middle East but also in Latin America and other regions. The goal is always the same: illegal intervention for regime change. Just recently, during a meeting with visiting Nicolas Maduro in Moscow, Vladimir Putin stated, “Of course, we condemn any action that is clearly of a terrorist nature, any attempt to change the situation with the help of force.” 

We usually think of terrorism as indiscriminate bombing of public places by suicidal extremists. That’s the image we are given by the mainstream media; so when people hear that “Venezuela supports terrorism” they are immediately led to make the association that Venezuela supports those violent actions. The truth is that Venezuela does not engage in any kind of terrorism.

That image, however, is only true with the proviso that often the U.S. is fully responsible of facilitating or condoning those terrorist actions, and even guilty of indiscriminate bombings from the safety of fast planes or drones, which can also constitutes war crimes. Venezuela condemns those actions.

But what is terrorism really?

Title 18 of the United States Code regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure defines international terrorism against U.S. nationals. It says in part:

The term ‘international terrorism’ means activities that:

(A) Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State…

(B) Appear to be intended to

(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Is the definition different if it’s not against “U.S. nationals”? Only through the lens of exceptionalism can the U.S. acknowledge terrorism when it is inflicted on U.S. nationals but not on other citizens.

The U.S. government has rejected many other definitions of terrorism because they all seem to suggest that it is involved in those actions.

Venezuela is very clear about what constitutes unlawful “violent acts dangerous to human life”, “coercion”, and “affect the conduct of a government”. This is a paragraph from a Venezuela Report of last July:

The policy of imposing unilateral coercive measures, known as “sanctions” … violates the Charter of the United Nations, and conceals an aggressive model of intervention…  Beyond the rhetoric that justifies it in the name of “democracy”, sanctions are an instrument of war, designed to make people suffer in order to bend sovereign States.” Compare to the U.S. definition of terrorism in Title 18.

Of course it is not only about sanctions or blockades. The life attempt against Maduro and other high-ranking officials is also a gross act of terrorism.

Yes. Even by its own definition some reported actions by the U.S. government could be construed as international terrorism practiced on other nations and nationals.

When we speak of the U.S. government we do not exclude other governments in the use and support of terrorism. Many countries have some kind of definition of terrorism. They all coincide on the use of “coercion for political purpose”. 

Finally, let’s consider the definition given by NATO, and we all know which governments those are.

For NATO terrorism is “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives“. 

When Trump threatens Venezuela with a military invasion, what part of the definition of terrorism does he not understand?

Conclusion

To conclude I want to emphasize that there is nothing in the presence of currently increasing warfare, and the general notion of terrorism to which I have referred that says that resistance is terrorism.

I repeat. Resistance is not terrorism. If anything resistance is self-defense against warfare and terrorism!

A final point I want to emphasize is the need to have a strong, united and informed voice to denounce all actions of warfare and terrorism as the only effective way to stop them. We need to be prepared to counter misinformation and disinformation with sound arguments and analysis.

We have to counter rhetoric with information, facts and, yes, resistance.

AFRICOM: A Neocolonial Occupation Force?

Eric Draitser

Amid the George HW Bush imperial death-orgy, the endless saga of Midtown Mussolini’s daily news cycle, the seemingly unprecedented political upsurge in France, and countless other show-stopping news stories, you likely missed three very sad, yet revealing, incidents out of the Sahel region of West-Central Africa.

First, on November 18th, a massive offensive against a Nigerian military base by a faction of the Boko Haram terror group known as the Islamic State West Africa (ISWAP) killed upwards of 100 soldiers. The surprise attack came at a time when Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, who famously (and repeatedly) has declared victory against Boko Haram and terrorism, has faced a crisis of legitimacy, falling approval ratings, and an impending election in early 2019.

Just days later, on November 22^nd, while most Americans were gathering with family and eating turkey on Thanksgiving, a contingent of about 50 armed militants kidnapped at least 15 girls in Niger, just outside a town in the Diffa region, near the border with Nigeria. While Boko Haram did not officially claim responsibility, many have attributed the action to the terror group, or one of its factions, given their propensity to use kidnappings for propaganda and fundraising.

And on the very same day, also in Diffa near the Niger-Nigeria border, suspected Boko Haram militants killed seven employees of Foraco, a French well drilling and mining company.

This spate of deadly, and rather brazen, attacks on civilians along the Niger-Nigeria border paints a troubling picture of the continued instability of the region, and give the lie to the idea that counter-terrorism operations, ongoing for a number of years now, have put Boko Haram and other terror groups on the back foot.

This reality is undoubtedly a political liability for Nigerian President Buhari who was elected on the promise of stamping out terrorism and bringing stability and the rule of law to Nigeria. Of course, a number of uncomfortable questions can and should be asked of Buhari, his top military commanders, and other bureaucrats in his administration.

But perhaps the more salient questions should be posed, not to Nigeria’s government, but to the US Government itself, and specifically its African Command (AFRICOM). For it is Washington, not Abuja, that has poured billions of dollars into counter-terrorism and surveillance in the Sahel and West Africa. Considering the laundry list of attacks and killings, one could naturally ask the question: What exactly is the US doing over there, if not counter-terrorism?

Nigeria, Niger, and AFRICOM

These most recent incidents paint a worrying portrait of the on-the-ground reality in the region where terror groups not only continue to exist, but seemingly are thriving. Lucrative trade in illicit goods, drugs, human trafficking, and more has continued to line the pockets of these militant organizations. But the very fact that these killings are continuing calls into question the efficacy of, and agenda behind, the US AFRICOM force.

As the Washington Post reported back in 2013, the US has chosen Agadez, Niger as the site of a massive new drone facility that will act as a “strategic foothold” in West Africa, specifically with regard to the stated mission of surveillance of terrorist networks. And the US has been flying drones from the facility for more than five years.

However, as The Intercept’s Nick Turse has reported, what was originally intended to be a relatively small facility hosting a few US drones and military advisers has ballooned into a more than $100 million investment that will be one of the US’s most costly foreign military construction projects. And instead of simply housing a handful of Predator drones, the facility will be the base for MQ-9 Reaper drones before the end of next year. Naturally, it’s unclear just how many drones are already flying out of the facility, though knowledgeable observers assume a significant number already are.

This base, which will act as a hub of the broader AFRICOM drone surveillance network sprawling over much of the African continent, is just a short flight from where these latest horrific incidents have taken place. And yet, it seems the US either was unable or unwilling to do anything to stop them. Even with the most advanced surveillance and communications equipment, somehow groups of dozens or hundreds of fighters are moving into towns conducting mass kidnappings, pillage, and worse all under the nose of Washington.

And beyond the Agadez base, the US has a military presence in both Niger and Nigeria, with both countries routinely hosting US soldiers and military advisers, often with the specific intent of assisting local forces in the fight against Boko Haram and other terrorist groups. An ambush attack against 4 US soldiers in Niger has recently brought the issue into the headlines as Washington considers reducing the number of ground operations its soldiers directly participate in.

It should also be noted that the US operates a number of other clandestine surveillance hubs throughout the continent, at least one of which is in relatively close proximity to the area where the attacks took place. As the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock reported in 2012:

“A key hub of the U.S. spying network can be found in Ouagadougou, the…capital of Burkina Faso… Under a classified surveillance program code-named Creek Sand, dozens of U.S. personnel and contractors have come to Ouagadougou in recent years to establish a small air base on the military side of the international airport. The unarmed U.S. spy planes fly hundreds of miles north to Mali, Mauritania and the Sahara.”

Moreover, AFRICOM leads annual, large-scale military exercises throughout the region, as well as focusing on broad strategic initiatives that embed US military forces into the military command structures of these countries.

A Little History

It should be noted that the US has been involved in the Sahel region going back to the early years of the George W. Bush administration, even before the establishment of AFRICOM, which was later greatly expanded by the Obama administration.

After 9/11, the United States began to grow its military footprint on the African continent under the guise of a ‘War on Terror’, selling this notion to a United States gripped with fear of terrorism. With programs such as the Pan-Sahel Initiative, later broadened into the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative, Washington managed to provide military and financial assistance to compliant countries in North Africa – a policy whose practical application meant that the US military became the dominant force in the Sahel region, supplying the human and material resources for which the governments of the region were starved. Naturally, this meant an implicit subservience to US military command.

And with the establishment of AFRICOM, these relationships were further cemented such that today we see annual, massive military exercises such as Exercise Flintlock which brings together numerous African countries under the auspices of US military leadership. While this year marked the first time that the more than 20 nations’ militaries were led by African forces, it remains US military at the head of the table.

Any guesses where Flintlock 2018 took place? That’s right, Niger.

It’s the Resources, Stupid

President Obama was not the architect of AFRICOM, which was established in 2007 under Bush, but he was perhaps its greatest champion, greatly expanding its scope and funding.

Obama grandly proclaimed in 2014:

“Today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized Al Qaeda leadership. Instead, it comes from decentralized Al Qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they operate…We need a strategy that matches this diffuse threat; one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military thin, or stir up local resentments.”

As with all things Obama, the truth and disinformation so seamlessly blend together that it can be difficult to parse one from the other. While no doubt there is truth in what he stated, the underlying subtext is much more interesting to consider. For while Obama and his cohorts would endlessly wax poetic about security and stability, the true mission of AFRICOM is neocolonial in nature.

Yes, it must be said that in fact AFRICOM is an occupying force that in no way functions to guarantee the security of African people (see Libya, among others), but rather to guarantee the free flow of resources out of Africa and into the Global North, particularly former colonial powers like France and Britain, and of course the US.

In case there’s any doubt, consider the following statements from Vice-Admiral Robert Moeller, military deputy to former commander of AFRICOM General William ‘Kip’ Ward, who told an AFRICOM conference in 2008 that AFRICOM’s goal was “protecting the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market.” Furthermore, Moeller wrote in 2010, “Let there be no mistake. AFRICOM’s job is to protect American lives and promote American interests.”

So, if we strip away the flowery rhetoric about stability and security, both, of course, vital to resource extraction and export, it becomes clear that it is, in fact, natural resources that drive the US strategic interest in Africa, along with countering the growing Chinese footprint on the continent.

The last decade has seen major oil discoveries throughout the Lake Chad Basin which have transformed how the states of West Africa view their economic future. At the heart of the basin is Lake Chad, surrounded by the countries of Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Niger.  According to a 2010 assessment from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Chad Basin has “estimated mean volumes of 2.32 billion barrels of oil, 14.65 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 391 million barrels of natural gas liquids.”  The potential size of these resources has attracted the attention of political and business leaders, both in the region and internationally.

Those oil reserves have gained the attention of each of the Lake Chad littoral states, and led to something of a scramble among them to siphon off as much oil from their neighbors as possible. Of course, it’s not only oil and gas that are of interest, especially since the US has become a net exporter of oil.

But for France, the former colonial power in the region, which still maintains a large military presence in the Sahel under the auspices of Operation Barkhane, oil remains an essential priority in Africa.

As a top oil executive in Chad told Nigerian daily This Day that, “Currently, oil from Lake Chad being drilled by the Republic of Chad is…shipped through tankers to the international refineries at the Port of Le Havre in France.”

And in Niger, a country rich in mineral deposits such as uranium which are vital to France’s vast nuclear energy sector, France remains the dominant economic player. As Think Africa Press reported in 2014:

“France currently sources over 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy and is dependent on Niger for much of its immediate and future uranium supply. This dependence could grow even further when production at the recently-discovered Imouraren uranium deposit is up and running in 2015. The mine is set to produce 5,000 tonnes of uranium per year and would help make Niger the second-largest uranium producer in the world. Areva, which is 87 percent owned by the French state and holds a majority share in three out of the four uranium mining companies operating in Niger, is funding the new mine.”

And oh, by the way, Niger’s president Mahamadou Issoufou is a former employee of Areva, the French company that dominates the uranium trade in Africa.

Perhaps then we should return our thinking to the recent attack that killed seven employees of the French drilling company Foraco. Was this part of the broader efforts by French capitalists to continue extracting uranium and/or other minerals for shipment back to the “mother country”? One has to wonder, considering Foraco does not confine itself solely to drilling wells for water.

Is the US surveillance architecture so brittle and inept that it simply missed the movement of hundreds of members of the very organizations Washington is allegedly fighting in the region? Is it simply that the US is unable to effectively spy on this area until its massive Agadez base is complete? Is it that these terror groups have grown in sophistication such that they are able to elude the most advanced military and spying capabilities in the world?

The answers to these questions might take some time to fully emerge. But what we do know is that US military in Africa is effectively an occupation and resource extraction force that uses local militaries as proxies for its own agenda. The terror groups operating in the region have made untold millions and committed countless atrocities right under the noses of the purportedly benevolent American military forces.

So, if counter-terrorism is really what the US is interested in in the Sahel and West Africa, then the AFRICOM mission is an abject failure. Of course, seen as a neocolonial occupying force utilizing both hard and soft power to entrench US hegemony and guarantee the free flow of resources from Africa, it is a rousing success.

Peace is possible between India and Pakistan

Pamela Chatterjee

People choose various methods of resistance when dealing with ideological issues – from outright belligerence and violence to democratic collectivism. It depends on their perspective,  beliefs, or sometimes there is just a selfish agenda.

In the long run such methods cannot provide solutions for serious issues which hang on for years, like an incurable ailment which drains the human condition.

Let us deal specifically with the impasse facing India and Pakistan, which has been an ‘ailment’ ever since we parted company after Independence in 1947.

Times have changed in these past 75 years and today, there are many players in this global world, each intent on the benefit to be gained for their own turf , without much consideration for moral issues. We need to solve our problems by narrowing our canvas to negotiate directly as neighbours. Sabre rattling, surgical strikes, killing each others’ soldiers , sometimes barbarically, terrorism; or indeed military hardware (supplied to both sides), is not is not going to frighten either side or solve any problems. It will only fan the flames in both countries and weaken us both.   Also, make us more vulnerable to those with commercial interests, for the sale of the latest ‘killer equipment’ in the international market.

Let us look at the commonalities and strengths of both India and Pakistan and see what is possible for us both, to lead us gradually to non-violent action, to live as good neighbours:

Both countries share so much ..a long common history, tradition, language, after all we were one country, not so long ago. This background has solid foundations, and the cracks and harsh breaks which have emerged in the comparatively short span of less than 75 years, are repairable and in time will not be discernible.

Political parties have their own agenda and often the larger issues in a country, are postponed or forgotten in their own battles to win at any cost. However, there is sympathy and yearning for peace within the rank and file of people, in both countries. People in different stratas of society, be they Intellectuals, professionals, shopkeepers, or people on the street,  speak with such warmth and friendship, eager to learn as to what is really happening ‘there’ – across the barrier. Visitors from both countries are assured of a warm welcome whenever they come to either country.

What then can be done to build a bridge between us both? Importantly there is the legacy of non-violence passed on by leaders of both countries which beckon towards a solution. Gandhiji and and his revered friend Abdul Ghaffar Khan have left a strong inheritance, which is warmly accepted by many thinking people, especially the young. But apart from protest and solidarity  marches, they are thwarted by taking desired action in the thorny situation that exists in both countries.

We have to remember that satyagraha and non-violence were major factors which led to Independence from British rule. It could have been in a less violent way, if more people subscribed to non-violent beliefs. And this was a much more difficult problem to dislodge the  British, with their sprawling empire, at the time – than the settlement now, between us two neighbours.

The road to Gandhi ji’s approach will require patience and persistence. At the time it was the recognition of his stature in India and abroad,  as an outstanding man of moral, innovative ideas and action, which made non-violent action possible. But the legacy is very much there for us both and we can use this effective tool today, to build peace and firm friendship between us.

A strong,united India and Pakistan can deal with terrorists and others stirred up by bellicose speeches from both sides by politicians and unthinking people. And this unity will enable us to deal on an equal footing with other nations and deter interference from countries who have their own agendas.

With no takers in our two countries for ‘killer hardware’, the money saved will be channelized for our economic benefit. ‘Garibi hatao’ will become a reality in this sub-continent.  And with better opportunities, better nourishment, the intellectual acumen latent in our people will flower,for the benefit of people in both our countries, and elsewhere in the world.

Role of women in food security

Sheshu Babu

One of the major goals to be achieved in Sustainable development goals (SDG) policy by countries globally is ‘ food security.’ The UNDP made a ‘ universal call to action to end poverty , protect the planet , and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity’  in the year 2016 and India was one of the countries which agreed to implement plans towards attaining the goals by 2030. Gender equality is most important goal in itself as well as in achieving other goals.

Pathetic picture

Women, as key producers, managers of food at home and consumers, play a vital role in attaining food security . There are many women engaged in production. In India, about 35% of women work in agriculture.( NSSO 2011- 12).  Women farm operators grew from 12.8% to 13.9% from 2011-12 to 2015-16 according to agricultural censuses. (She is the answer, by Bina Agrawal  updated December 10, 2018, indianexpress.com). Yet, their productivity is dependent on factors like social bias towards male in respect of land possession,  inheritance, government transfers, access to markets and credits and modern technology.

In Sub – Saharan Africa, micro- level studies have shown that women play a crucial role in many aspects of crop production. Female – headed households are on the rise. About 31 percent of rural households are headed by women. In Latin America and the Caribbean and Asia, women head 17 percent and 14 % respectively. (Women and sustainable food security, www.fao.org ). But women have limited access to finance.

Animal and seafood

Women are also engaged in animal rearing, feeding, milking and other food systems like fishing, marketing of animal products, etc. A number of women look after animals at home while men are engaged in other jobs or occupations or migrate to cities in search of organised or unorganized labor.

Equal Distribution

Despite their key role in food production, the women, specially rural women, live in poor condition.  Attention should be drawn to rights of women on inheriting land since they are vulnerable in male dominated and controlled society. ‘ Women’s rights have to be protected when land rights are formalized through titling or certification, through simple steps like women’s names on land documents’.  (Rural women and food security – of myths and facts,  date 4.9.2018, www.rural21.com). Legal literacy programs and mobilising community workers as para- legals may also help in awareness of their land rights.

Empowering women and achieving gender equality are the most cost effective ways to ensure food security, says U. N. Special rapporteur on right to food. Women’s education alone resulted in a 43 percent reduction in hunger from 1970 to 1995, while women living longer led to an additional 12 percent decline in hunger levels,  according to the report by the U. N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Asian  Development Bank, ADB ( Women and girls are key to ensuring food security- report, by Alisa Tang, Friday 26  July, 2013,  news.trust.org) . Gender equality is ‘ the single most important determinant of food security’ wrote Oliver De Schutter the U. N special rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report ‘ Gender Equality and Food Security: Women’s Empowerment as a Tool Against Hunger’. He said that neither strong economic growth nor increased food availability per capita are sufficient to reduce hunger, and especially, child malnutrition, unless gender dimension is integrated more fully.  This requires socio- cultural shift in the thought and political commitment for a long period.

Japanese government rams through new immigration law

Gary Alvernia

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government has pushed through legislation that will ease Japan’s highly restrictive immigration policies. The law passed the lower house last week and the upper house on Saturday, despite stalling tactics by the opposition parties. It will come into effect next April.

While portrayed as a “liberalisation” of existing policy, the law reflects concerns within ruling circles over the economic impact of Japan’s declining workforce. The opposition parties have criticised the legislation’s vague wording and alleged lack of safeguards, saying it will lead to an influx of cheap labour.

The law is aimed at attracting semi-skilled workers to Japan. From next year to 2025, half a million overseas workers will be permitted to work in areas of labour shortage and stay as long as five years, with the possibility of qualifying for an additional five-year period.

Changes implemented in April mean that skilled workers and professionals can reduce the time needed to acquire permanent residency from 5 years to either 3 or 1, based on income, experience and job description.

Japan has historically and consistently maintained strict policies against immigration, making the acquisition of citizenship, and even permanent residency, difficult for low-skilled workers who cannot prove ethnic Japanese descent. The policy of Jus sanguinis (“right of blood”) in granting citizenship means that even a child born in Japan will not become a citizen unless at least one parent is ethnically Japanese and a citizen.

In addition, foreign-born residents of Japan often have been subject to persistent xenophobia and discrimination in job hiring, wages and political rights, with little effort made by the government to assist with language training and other support.

This discrimination is rooted in Japan’s geographical isolation and the exclusion of foreigners in feudal times. Following World War II, anti-immigrant measures were continued, in particular through the 1952 dis-enfranchisement (loss of citizenship) of ethnic Koreans and Chinese who had immigrated to Japan, or been brought over as forced labourers before and during the war. Racist and nationalist claims of a “racially homogenous” Japan as necessary for social harmony have served as a key ideological pillar of capitalist rule.

Although some of the most overt and racist forms of discrimination against foreigners were relaxed from the 1980s, ongoing restrictions have meant that the number of non-citizens in Japan, including around 400,000 descendants of those disenfranchised in 1952, is only 2.5 million, or barely 2 percent of the population. By contrast, other developed nations currently have immigrant numbers of around 10-25 percent of their population.

Even this small proportion of immigrants in Japan reflects a substantial change. Since the early 1990s, the immigrant population has more than doubled, and foreign-born youth increasingly make up a larger proportion of the population in the major cities. Demographic research published by NHK news this year estimated that roughly 1 in 8 people under the age of 20 in Tokyo was foreign-born, with the proportion rising to 20 percent in six of the city’s 23 wards.

The immigration intake in 2016 was roughly 430,000, placing Japan fourth among the developed nations. In addition, whereas immigrants previously came predominantly from Korea, China, Taiwan and Brazil, growing numbers now originate from Vietnam, India, Iran and Western Europe.

The primary motivation for increasing immigration is to boost the workforce. As a result of steeply declining birth rates since the 1980s, Japan’s population peaked in 2004. By some estimates, Japan’s population will fall from 125 million to less than 100 million by 2050, with its labour force dropping from 65 million to 40 million. The shrinking population is ageing also. The proportion of people over 65 years old has risen to 28 percent—one of the highest levels in the world.

Japan is already confronting labour shortages, particularly in low-wage sectors like aged-care nursing, hospitality, agriculture, residential construction and shipbuilding, with roughly three jobs for every two available workers. This is not the result of a booming economy, but a diminishing workforce.

While Japan is often held up by the right-wing in other countries as a model of restricted immigration, the result has not been higher wages or better living standards, as is often claimed. On the contrary, the average wage rise of just 2.1 percent this year was the highest increase in 21 years, despite the acute labour shortages.

The cause of the population decline is the persistent stagnation of Japan’s economy since the late 1980s, the deep inroads into living standards by governments and corporations through the casualisation of the workforce, and attacks on essential services such as education. Without the prospect of a stable future, many workers and youth have put off having families.

Incapable of addressing these social issues, the ruling class is looking for other sources of cheap labour. Abe’s initial strategy was to force the elderly and women to enter the workforce by cutting their meagre welfare benefits. Now he is looking to ease, but not remove, immigration restrictions that have an overt class-based character. A points-based system ensures there is an ongoing preference for skilled and wealthier migrants.

The new law formally includes some safeguards such as equal wages, but the detail is yet to be spelled out. There is no guarantee that workers entering the country under the new law will not suffer from the exploitation and discrimination facing foreign workers at present.

Ippei Torii, director of Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (SNMJ) outlined to CNN how workers are exploited. He described how unskilled workers, especially from poorer nations, are often forced to enter Japan through “backdoor” routes, working without a valid visa, and thus face constant threats of deportation unless they accept terrible working conditions.

Others are subject to abuse through programs like the Technical Intern Training Program (TITP), which claims to provide useful training, but in reality condemns them to menial work under harsh conditions.

During a parliamentary hearing in November, trainees described attempting suicide due to long hours and extremely low wages. One Chinese worker stated that she worked 16 hours a day for just 300 yen ($2.63) per hour. Roughly a quarter-million foreign workers are hired under the TITP.

The new law will not lessen the exploitation of foreign workers or “liberalise” Japanese society. On the contrary, unable to recruit the necessary manpower using its current methods, the Japanese ruling class is seeking other means to increase the flow of cheap, vulnerable migrants to exploit.

Demonstrations in Bolivia hit court decision allowing Evo Morales to run for fourth term

Cesar Uco

Protests have continued in Bolivia this week after demonstrators blockaded highways and marched on the country’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal (known by its Spanish acronym, TSE) on December 6 over the TSE’s decision to place President Evo Morales on the ballot for the 2019 election. The action effectively overrides the popular vote in a national referendum held on February 21, 2016, that rejected Morales’s bid for a fourth consecutive term.

The protest was organized by the Committee in Defense of Democracy (CONADE), which is led by the Central Obrera Bolivian (COB) union federation and the Higher University of San Andres—Bolivia’s leading university—as well as various civic and human rights organizations.

While the protests have brought teachers, workers and doctors to the streets, right-wing opponents of the government have also rallied behind them, raising slogans denouncing Morales for attempting to turn Bolivia into a “dictatorship like Venezuela.”

The action by Morales in overriding the referendum has allowed the right to masquerade as a champion of democracy in a country that has historically been identified with fascistic military dictatorships.

Morales called the 2016 referendum with the expectation that he would emerge victorious. The constitution that he had himself promoted in 2009 limited presidents to two consecutive five-year terms.

After losing, he had no intention of respecting the popular vote and set about manipulating the judiciary, controlled by his ruling Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), to ensure that his name would be included in the list of candidates for the presidential elections to be held next year.

On December 4, the six-member Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), the organism responsible for supervising the 2016 referendum, voted to allow the inscription of Evo Morales’s MAS and seven other political organizations on the ballot. The decision, with two voting against, validated a 2017 ruling by the country’s supreme court (the TCP) that invoked a section of the American Convention on Human Rights, saying there should be no restriction on elections, to justify overriding the constitution and the referendum results.

Morales’s leading opponent in next year’s election is Carlos Mesa, who was the president that preceded Morales from 2003 to 2005, when he was driven from office by mass protests of tens of thousands of Bolivians in a protracted period of social upheaval known as Bolivia’s “gas war,” begun over the government’s negotiations with transnational energy corporations to exploit the country’s gas reserves, which account for 45 percent of the country’s exports. Carlos Mesa was seen as a puppet of foreign capitalist interests.

Evo Morales, of Aymara origin, was first elected president 13 years ago on January 22, 2006, with 54 percent of the votes. He won his second and third term in 2009 and 2014, both times with over 60 percent of the vote

Morales’s government was promoted by the pseudo-left and proclaimed part of the “pink tide” that stretched from Lula in Brazil to Chavez in Venezuela, Kirchner in Argentina, Correa in Ecuador and Humala in Peru.

In spite of being rich in raw materials, Bolivia is the third poorest country in the Americas, largely dependent upon the export of raw materials. Its favorable contracts with the then “bourgeois left” governments of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva in Brazil allowed Bolivia to enjoy a high GDP growth. Bank profits in the country soared, even as Bolivia managed to reduce its extreme poverty rate from 37.6 percent to 16.8 percent.

Still, 40 percent of Bolivia’s population lives in poverty and it remains one of the most socially unequal countries of the Americas.

The global capitalist crisis and the corresponding decline in prices for commodity exports pulled the rug out from under the “pink tide” governments, which were also undermined by rampant corruption, economic mismanagement and pressure from US imperialism favoring more pliant right-wing regimes.

The fortunes of Morales have gone into decline as natural gas prices have fallen and the Bolivian people’s living standards have deteriorated. In August 2010, a 19-day strike paralyzed Potosi—a region rich in minerals. The year ended with the elimination of fuel subsidies, which created inflationary pressures. The government’s promotion of agribusiness interests at the expense of the country’s native population also served to alienate what had been a reliable base for Morales.

President Morales described the protests last Thursday as a failure, claiming that not more than 5,000 people participated, clearly a gross underestimate of the popular hostility to his bid to remain in power.

Activists, including UMSA (Universidad Mayor de San Andres), teachers, medical personnel, unions and indigenous organizations, demonstrated in the Abaroa square in front of the national office of the TSE, facing off with hundreds of police.

El Diario reported: “Protesters threw garbage, eggs and firecrackers at the doors of the electoral body, with the troops responding with tear gas. The police took over the plaza, and in the afternoon some 300 troops in riot gear reinforced the contingent.”

The road blockades succeeded in stopping 80 percent of economic activity in La Paz, affecting private banking, commerce, markets, universities and other daily activities.

El Alto, situated six miles from La Paz. is the second largest city and a traditional stronghold of the Bolivian working class. Marches coming from all parts of Bolivia converged in El Alto. They were received with applause, water and food.

According to La Razon Digital, demonstrators “gave a deadline of 72 hours to the members of the TSE, as of Monday,…[to] disqualify the candidacy of President Evo Morales…or else they would start an indefinite hunger strike throughout Bolivia, accompanied by vigils.”

The protest in the city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, generally a stronghold of anti-Morales forces, was large, with the Civic Committee Pro Santa Cruz bringing the city to a standstill. The events included protesters blocking roads and clashing with members of the ruling party, MAS.

The protests also largely succeeded in shutting down eight other major cities: La Paz, Oruro, Santa Cruz, Tarija, Cochabamba, Potosí, Chuquisaca and Beni.