Women's Participation in Myanmar's Peace Process

Akanksha Khullar


For years, women in Myanmar have been powerful advocates for comprehensive peace and good governance, calling for reconciliation and democratic transition; demanding legislations that protect women’s rights; and leading civil society initiatives for reform. Yet, as Myanmar chugs forward with its ongoing peace process with the numerous Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAO) operating in the country, women’s meaningful inclusion in this mammoth exercise is yet to become substantial and comprehensive.

For instance, women-led and focused organisations have been conducting mass advocacy campaigns to secure women’s representation and involvement in the process by means of a 30 per cent reservation for women at different levels of political dialogue and peace negotiations. This demand not only arises from the need for affirmative action to facilitate women’s participation in the process, but is also in line with the country’s obligation as a signatory to the Convention to End Discrimination against Women. Nonetheless, these demands were neither included in the initial 2011 peace negotiations nor in the landmark peace accord—Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA)—signed between Naypyidaw and eight EAOs in October 2015. In fact, the text of NCA simply calls for the inclusion of a “reasonable number of women representatives in the political dialogue process.” 

The effect of this ambiguity is palpable. In January 2016, only 2 women served on the 48-member Union Peace Dialogue Joint Committee (UPDJC)—the leadership body of the Union Peace Conference (UPC); and women comprised merely 7 per cent of the 700 participants at the UPC when it first convened. However, by the end of January 2016 UPC, pressure from civil society organizations (CSOs) to remedy this severe under-representation of women resulted in the decision to “strive to achieve 30 percent women’s participation in political dialogue.”

The subsequent years have witnessed an increase in women’s participation in the UPC, but the minimum target threshold of 30 per cent has not yet been achieved. To illustrate, women comprised 13 per cent of the 663 participants at the August 2016 UPC; 17 per cent of the 910 participants at the May 2017 UPC; and 22 per cent of the 1,112 attendees at the July 2018 UPC. The uneven growth in numbers suggests that structural barriers and other challenges still remain, and need to be addressed for a more robust involvement of women to become a reality. In fact, the 2018 UPC was marked by controversy and disagreement as the military objected to retaining the 30 per cent representation proposal, citing the failure of the previous UPCs to achieve the necessary numbers.

Currently, there are only 4 women among 78 participants within Myanmar’s NCA mechanisms; women comprise only 9 per cent of the Joint Ceasefire Monitoring Committee (JCM) members; and have no representation at the union level. This demonstrates a lack of a gender equitable approach in Myanmar’s national peace process, where women’s participation is extremely limited not only at the highest levels but also at the operational levels such as in ceasefire monitoring and substantive peace negotiations.

Need for More Women Peace-BuildersFundamentally, Myanmar’s peace process can be viewed as having two broad components: a) formal dialogues with EAOs who have signed the NCA; and b) engagement with those who have not yet signed the NCA. Although formal negotiations with the signatory EAOs are ongoing, it is the Tatmadaw’s (military) predominantly militarised approach towards the non-signatory EAOs interspersed with informal discussions and occasional ceasefires that impedes progress. Moreover, existing dialogue mechanisms have been unable to address inter-ethnic conflicts between the non-signatory EAOs. Considering that neither the JCM nor the government is in a position to take constructive action where non-signatory EAOs are involved, informal and community level peace-building processes might be better approaches to address these internal tensions.

In both situations, third party mediation by women could potentially fill the critical gaps as women in Myanmar are at the forefront of civil society advocacy. Numerous women’s CSOs that emerged from areas affected by the conflict are already helping with back-channel discussions and advising stakeholders in the peace process. As such, they are already contributing towards the agenda of nationwide peace. However, their efforts have been consistently marginalised with restricted formal participation in peace talks. With adequate recognition and increased representation, they can make the much needed impact towards reducing, preventing and eventually ending the ongoing armed conflict.

As far as inter-EAO conflicts are concerned, women from different ethnic groups can collaborate to build trust to overcome ethnic and other differences, and pursue programs through well-established CSOs and women’s networks to achieve the mutual goals of peace, reconciliation and equitability. In addition to women’s participation at the grassroots level, a greater participation of women is needed at the top-most decision-making levels for two fundamental reasons:

Firstly, given how the overall agenda of peace negotiations is derived from the high-level bodies, increased and equitable representation of women in these bodies is essential for ensuring that the differential impact of conflict and peace agreements on women, and respect for women’s rights feature comprehensively in Myanmar’s overall peace settlement frameworks and mechanisms.

Secondly, gender equality and equity are among the essential factors that determine the quality and sustainability of peace agreements. Women’s inclusion at higher decision-making levels could serve as an example and even facilitate trickling down of gender equitable practices in the overall structures, agendas and different rungs of the peace bureaucracy. Comprehensive participation of women will also contribute towards the greater legitimacy and inclusivity of the peace process.

Looking AheadIn the past, to overcome their limited representation during peace talks, women in Myanmar explored alternative ways to participate, such as by means of informal peace-building activities like tea-break advocacy, where female peace campaigners lobbied male delegates while serving them tea during breaks. Such efforts, however, must now be translated into meaningful representation of women in the formal peace-building mechanisms. Strengthening women’s participation at both macro and micro levels is necessary for Myanmar’s peace process to result in effective, sustainable and equitable peace.

Amelia Earhart Fellowship 2020 for Women in Aerospace/Mechanical Engineering

Application deadline: 15th November 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Women from Any Country

To be taken at (country): Any University or College offering Accredited Degrees in any country.

Subject Areas: PhD/Doctoral degrees in Aerospace-related Sciences and Aerospace-related Engineering

About the Award: Zonta International established the Amelia Earhart Fellowship in 1938 in honor of legendary pilot and Zontian, Amelia Earhart. Today, the Fellowship of US$10,000 is awarded annually to 35 talented women, pursuing Ph.D./doctoral degrees in aerospace-related sciences or aerospace-related engineering around the globe.

Offered Since: 1938

Type: PhD/Doctoral

Eligibility:

• Women of any nationality pursuing a Ph.D./doctoral degree who demonstrate a superior academic record in the field of aerospace-applied sciences or aerospace-applied engineering are eligible.
• Students must be registered in a full-time Ph.D./doctoral program and completed at least one year of that program or have received a master’s degree in an aerospace-applied field at the time the application is submitted.
• Applicants must not graduate from their Ph.D. or doctoral program before April 2021.
• Please note that post-doctoral research programs are not eligible for the Fellowship.
• Members and employees of Zonta International or the Zonta International Foundation are also not eligible to apply for the Fellowship.
• Note that previous Amelia Earhart Fellows are not eligible to apply to renew the Fellowship for a second year.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Benefits of Fellowship:

• Fellowship of US$10,000 is awarded annually
  
• The Fellowship enables these women to invest in state-of-the-art computers to conduct their research, purchase expensive books and resource materials, and participate in specialized studies around the globe.
• Amelia Earhart Fellows have gone on to become astronauts, aerospace engineers, astronomers, professors, geologists, business owners, heads of companies, even Secretary of the US Air Force.

Duration of Fellowship: One year (current fellows can reapply to renew the fellowship each year)

How to Apply: The Zonta International Amelia Earhart Fellowship Committee reviews the applications and recommends recipients to the Zonta International Board of Directors. All applicants will be notified of their status by the end of April.

Apply Now

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: Amelia Earhart Fellowships are made possible by generous contributions to the Zonta International Foundation Amelia Earhart Fellowship Fund.

Important Note: Please note that post-doctoral research programs are not eligible for the Fellowship. Members and employees of Zonta International or the Zonta International Foundation are also not eligible to apply for the Fellowship.

World Bank Group Africa Fellowship Programme 2020 for sub-Saharan African Graduates

Application Deadline: 25th August, 2019

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries

To be taken at (country): World Bank offices in Washington, D.C. or in a Sub-Saharan country

About the Award: Launched in 2013, the World Bank Group (WBG) Africa Fellowship Program targets young talented African nationals who are completing or recently completed a Ph.D. in an area relevant to the World Bank’s work. The fellowship program has been very successful since its inception, building a strong pipeline of young African talent interested in a career in development, in international institutions, African governments, think tanks, and academia.
The program offers chosen fellows a six-month assignment at World Bank Group (WBG) offices in Washington D.C. or in country offices to gain hands-on experience in the operations of the WBG. This includes knowledge generation and dissemination, design of global and country policies, and the building of institutions to achieve inclusive growth in developing countries. While benefiting from research and innovation in multiple sectors, fellows will also work on research, economic policy, technical assistance, and lending operations that contribute to the World Bank’s goal of eliminating poverty and increasing shared prosperity. Through the fellowship, we aim to build the capacity of the next generation of African change makers in development, policy-making and promote the goals of reducing poverty in the region.
The 2020 WBG Africa Fellowship Program expects to host up to 15 fellows. This year, with the support of the Think Africa Partnership, a private sector window provides support for 10 additional fellowship positions with a special focus on private sector development and finance. The additional 10 fellows will work on improving the macroeconomic, business and financial frameworks to enhance private sector investment, strengthen economic policy making and ultimately promote economic growth across the region.

Type: PhD, Fellowship

Eligibility: A candidate of the World Bank Africa Fellowship must:

• Be a Sub-Saharan national who are recent Ph.D. graduates, or current doctoral students within a year of completing or graduating from a Ph.D. program in all relevant field of development, including, but not limited to economics, education, health, governance, energy, agriculture, infrastructure and demography.
• Have an excellent command of English, both written and verbal
• Be under the age of 32 by the closing of the application period. Preference may be given to those born on or after Oct 1, 1988.

Selection Criteria: The following additional attributes are highly desirable:

• a command of an additional World Bank official language
• national from fragile and conflict-affected countries
• candidates from refugee and internally displaced communities and/or with proven experience on forced displacement

After submitting an application online, the most promising candidates for the World Bank Africa Fellowship will be identified, and their application packages forwarded to World Bank Africa Region managers and participating departments for consideration. Departments and managers will then indicate their preferences, as well as the project to be undertaken.
Selected candidates will then be notified and, upon acceptance, will be hired as short-term consultants for a minimum of six months.

Number of Awardees: 25

Value of Fellowship: Fellows will receive consultant fees, round-trip economy class air travel to Washington, D.C. or a WBG country office from their university, and worker’s compensation insurance.

Duration of Fellowship: Fellows will spend a minimum of six months. The fellowship period of engagement is January-June 2020.

How to Apply: Apply for the Africa Fellowship Program now


Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Vital Voices GROW Fellowship Accelerator Program 2020 for Female-Owned Businesses

Application Deadline: 31st August 2019

Eligible Countries: Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa

About the Award: The VV GROW Fellowship is a highly competitive one-year accelerator program for women owners of small and medium businesses in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa. The program includes customized business skills training, technical assistance, leadership development, and access to networks to grow their businesses and increase their leadership impact.
Through global and regional online and in-person interventions, fellows focus on strategy and long-term business value paired with action-oriented plans. They amplify their role as leaders in their businesses and their communities to create jobs, stimulate long-term economic growth and produce wider social benefits.
The one-year program includes:

1. Global Virtual Learning: Over 4 months, fellows complete a series of weekly webinars, assignments, online courses, assessments, and one-on-one calls with peers, Vital Voices staff, and trainers. Fellows begin to build their knowledge about marketing, networking, business planning, financial management and leadership, the core topics of the program. Fellows assess the current state of their business and leadership in order to determine where they are; analyze their business to identify opportunities for growth; and define specific business growth goals to identify where they want to go.
2. Regional In-Person Training: Each year, fellows from each region gather in one country in their region to participate in a four-day, in-person training workshop that will guide them in creating an action plan outlining how they will accomplish their business growth goals. Fellows also get the opportunity to meet, network with, and learn from other fellows from their region, Vital Voices staff and trainers.
3. Growth Services and Support: Following the in-person training, fellows carry out their action plans, revise them, and evaluate their progress towards their growth goals. Throughout the last 6 months of the fellowship, Vital Voices staff connects fellows to individualized growth services and support based on the goals and action items in their action plan

Type: Fellowship/Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Women business owners in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa, who:

• Own a business that has been in operation for at least 3 years,
• Employ at least 3 full time staff, and
• Generate at least USD $40,000 in annual sales
• Reside in the same country as your business for at least 7 months out of the year
• Are proficient in spoken and written English

Selection Criteria: As an interested applicant, you:

• Are motivated to build the skills and make the changes needed to grow your business
• Have the authority to make critical decisions within your business
• Have demonstrated leadership within your community
• Are enthusiastic about participating in a one-year business accelerator program
• Are willing to have Vital Voices track your business growth for 1 year during the Fellowship, and up to 5 years afterwards and are committed to participate in data collection methods including online surveys and phone calls

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: A limited number of need and merit based scholarships will be available. Details will be provided in the notifications of acceptance into the program.
The VV GROW Fellowship is a highly competitive program that provides customized business skills training and support valued at over US $25,000 per participant. Through the Fellowship, participants receive:

• Strengthened knowledge, skills, and confidence in 5 core areas: business planning, leadership, financial management, networking, and marketing
• Access to highly qualified staff and business consultants
• Interactive webinars led by expert trainers from across the globe
• A 4-day in-person, regional training workshop
• Joining a network of women business leaders from across the globe
• Referral(s) to business support services tailored to your needs
• A certificate of program completion
• Entry into the Vital Voices Global Leadership Network upon graduation

Duration of Program: 1 year

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

NED Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellowship 2020 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 1st October, 2019.

Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at (country): Washington, D.C., USA

Eligible Fields of Study: Topics focusing on the political, social, economic, legal, or cultural aspects of democratic development

About the Award: The Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellows Program offers five-month fellowships to practitioners to focus on strategies and best practices for developing democracy in their country of interest; and to scholars to conduct original research for publication. Projects may address the economic, political, social, legal, or cultural aspects of democratic development and include a range of methodologies and approaches.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world. Established in 1983 with funding from the U.S. Congress, the Endowment makes hundreds of grants each year to support pro-democracy groups in Africa, Asia, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East.
Two different Tracks exist for participants: Practitioner Track and Scholarly Track

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Proficiency in the English language. Eligibility differs according to the Track an interested candidate may belong:

1. Practitioner Track:
The Reagan-Fascell program was established with the primary purpose of supporting democracy activists, human rights advocates, journalists, and others who work on the frontlines of building democracy in emerging and aspiring democracies. The program provides practitioners with a needed break from their daily routine so that they may reflect on their work, exchange ideas and experiences with counterparts in the United States, and reevaluate techniques for building democracy in their country of origin.
Practitioner fellowships are typically five months in duration and culminate in a report, short article, op-ed, handbook, or another product, as well as a formal presentation of the fellow’s analysis and ideas.

Eligibility
Applicants interested in the practitioner track are expected to have substantial practical experience working to promote democracy or human rights in their country of origin or interest. There are no specific degree requirements for the practitioner track. A Ph.D., for instance, is not required of practitioner applicants. While there are also no age limits, applicants on the practitioner track are typically mid-career professionals with several years of professional experience in the field of democracy and human rights.
Examples of eligible candidates for the practitioner track include human rights advocates, lawyers, journalists, labor leaders, political party activists, diplomats, professional staff of civic or humanitarian organizations, and other civil society professionals from developing and aspiring democracies.


2. Scholarly Track
In recognition of the importance of intellectual contributions to the theory and practice of democracy, the Reagan-Fascell program offers a scholarly track for scholars, professors, and established writers. Applicants for this track may be scholars from emerging and aspiring democracies or accomplished scholars from the United States and other established democracies.
Fellowships on the scholarly track are typically five months in duration. Scholars make at least one public presentation of their work and complete a substantial piece of writing (typically an article or book) for publication.

Eligibility
Applicants interested in the scholarly track are expected to possess a doctorate (a Ph.D., or academic equivalent) at the time of application, to have a proven record of publications in their field, and to have developed a detailed research outline for their fellowship project.
Examples of eligible candidates for the scholarly track include college and university professors, researchers, journalists, and other writers from developing and aspiring democracies. Distinguished scholars from the United States or other established democracies are also eligible to apply. Occasionally, a professional who is planning to write a book or other scholarly publication may qualify to apply on the scholarly track.

Eligibility Requirement for all Applicants

• Citizens of any country may apply
• Proficiency in the English language
• Topics focusing on the political, social, economic, legal, or cultural aspects of democratic development
• Availability to be in residence at the International Forum for Democratic Studies in Washington, D.C., during the year for which candidates are applying for a fellowship

English Language Requirement: Under new visa regulations, exchange program sponsors are required to ascertain prospective J-1 exchange visitors’ proficiency in the English language prior to their arrival in the United States. In compliance with these regulations, fellowship finalists seeking J-1 visa sponsorship will be invited to participate in brief video interviews via Skype with Reagan-Fascell staff.
All application materials must be submitted in English. While fellows’ primary product may be in their native language, they should have a solid command of written and spoken English for general communication purposes.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Fully-funded

• Research
• Capacity Building
• Impact
• Exchange

Duration of Fellowship: Five (5) months.  

How to Apply: There are five steps to the online application process:
Step 1: Applicant Information
Step 2: Project Proposal for the Practitioner Track or for the Scholarly Track
Step 3: Letters of Recommendation
Step 4: Resume/CV and Biography
Step 5: Certification

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Foundation

Important Notes: The Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellows Program does not award scholarship funds, loans, or any other type of financial aid to university students, graduate students, or postdoctoral researchers. In addition, our fellowship program is not an educational or training program leading toward an academic degree.

A “No Deal” Brexit Would Spark an Economic Cold War with the EU

Patrick Cockburn 

Bluff was a central feature of British power even when the British empire covered a large part of the globe. A story illustrating this tells of a royal navy captain who was sent with a small ship to the far east to force a defiant local ruler to obey some orders issued by the British authorities.

“What do I do if he refuses to do what I tell him?” the captain asked his superiors before departing. “We don’t have any more ships available, so you’ll just have to turn around and come home again,” was the less than comforting reply.

The captain sailed on his mission and transmitted the British demands to the recalcitrant ruler. “What will happen if I refuse to obey?” he asked. “In that case,” replied the captain menacingly, “I will have no alternative but to carry out the second half of my instructions.”

On that occasion, the British got their way, but it is only great powers that can afford to bluff like this and get away with it. Their bluff is not called because nobody wants to find out the hard way if they mean it. A mistake of Theresa May was to make the vague threat of a no-deal Brexit so central to her strategy and expect this to be taken seriously by Brussels. Most there thought she was bluffing because they believed that Britain would not do anything so economically self-destructive and politically divisive. Boris Johnson is now refurbish the no-deal threat to give it credibility, but this does not change the balance of forces which are, as always, skewed against Britain and in favour of the EU, something the Eurosceptics never seem to understand.

Analysis of a no-deal Brexit frequently lacks realism because the focus is on economics rather than politics. This contradicts the experience of the last three years when the prospect of Britain’s departure from the EU has generated great political destruction, but only limited economic damage for the obvious reason that Britain has yet to leave the EU. A British no-deal departure from the EU would, on the contrary, be opposed by so much of the population that it would produce a political earthquake, widening still further the fault lines within British society that are already gaping wide.

The hard-right cabinet appointed by Johnson implicitly recognises that the divisions within the Conservative are so rancorous as to be a recipe for paralysis if all factions are represented in government. But temporary cohesion achieved by giving almost all ministries to a single faction of the Conservative Party, which itself is a minority in parliament, may well prove more explosive. The fact that the most important decision taken in Britain for eighty years is being taken by such an unrepresentative group delegitimises it from the beginning.

A no-deal Brexit would only be the opening shots of an economic cold war waged against the rest of Europe in a conflict that might go on for years. This is unsurprising because a new feature of conflicts between nation states globally is that economic hostilities are replacing military hostilities, though the degree of confrontation varies vastly from country to country. The conflict between the US and Iran in which President Trump is trying to batter the Iranians into submission by an ever-tightening economic siege is the closest to a shooting war.

US and EU sanctions on Syria are similarly an attempt at economic strangulation. Their purpose according to US special envoy James Jeffery is to “make life as miserable as possible for that flopping cadaver of a regime and let the Russians and Iranians, who made this mess, get out of it”. In practice, it is ordinary Syrians who are expiring because of collapsing living standards and lack of medical attention while the Syrian leadership suffers scarcely at all.

Sanctions and tariffs are central to Trump’s effort to make America great again and it is not an unintelligent strategy. It puts intense pressure on China as America’s great rival, but also on Canada and Mexico. America’s vaunted military superiority failed to win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan leading Trump to avoid similar debacles. In two and a half years he has not started a single military conflict, but he has started a series of trade wars. He understands that the US Treasury has a more impressive record in waging economic warfare than the Pentagon does in fighting hot wars. Sanctions and tariffs, unlike shooting wars, can be switched on and off and are less politically tricky because there are no dead American bodies coming home.

This approach matters to the UK because outside the EU it will inevitably be even more dependent on the US. A sign of this was the highly provocative and dubiously legal seizure by royal marine commandos of the Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 off Gibraltar on 4 July. This predictably led to the Iranian tit-for-tat capture of the British-flagged Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz on 19 July. In one of his last statements as foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt said that Britain was not joining the US policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran, though it seemed to have just done that, and was looking to European states, notably France and Germany, to set up a shipping protection force in the Gulf.

Many are pointing out the irony of the UK looking for EU states to provide naval escorts in the Gulf at the very moment that Johnson is asserting his intention to take Britain “do-or-die” out of the EU on 31 October. A UK decision to openly join – as it already seems to have done covertly – the US-led alliance against Iran would be an early pointer to the emergence of an Anglo-Saxon Trump/Johnson coalition in the Middle East.

Even more important would be the unavoidable reliance of Britain on the US in the event of a no-deal Brexit or a British departure from the EU so ragged and contentious that it would start a long-lasting economic cold war between the two. In such a confrontation, Johnson would look to Trump and Washington not just for a trade deal but for all-embracing political support against the EU.

Brexit in Britain has long ceased to be solely about leaving the EU and has become a vehicle for hard-right wing policies seeking to remodel Britain along lines closer to Trump’s America than the EU. In the event of rivalry with the EU, the UK would look to deregulation and lower taxes for business to attract companies away from the EU states.

Turning Britain into a “Singapore on Thames” sounded zany and impractical when first raised as an option after the referendum, but it is more feasible today – and attractive to much of the present cabinet – in the context of a permanent hostile relationship between Britain and the EU.

From Trump’s point of view, standing with Britain in such an economic cold war would be a way of weaponising the post-Brexit situation to destroy or damage the EU, the world’s largest trading bloc, to which he has always been opposed.

Guardianship System Eased, but Saudi Arabia Still Oppresses Women

Medea Benjamin

The Saudi government announced it will be eliminating part of the male guardianship system, finally granting women the right to obtain passports and travel (if 21 years of age or over), and obtain family identification cards without the need for male authorization.

The change comes in the context of the bad publicity that Saudi Arabia has been receiving about “runaway girls,” a growing number of Saudi women who have been fleeing the country to seek asylum abroad. Several of these high-profile cases of women claiming intense gender-based repression and receiving asylum in countries like Canada have placed global scrutiny on the male guardianship system.

The latest decrees also come in the context of intense criticism of the government’s appalling treatment of women’s rights activists. In 2018, when the government announced it was lifting the ban on women drivers, it then went on to arrest the very women who had campaigned for that right. Some of these women are released pending trial; others are still languishing in prison, enduring terribly abusive conditions. When making the announcement about the easing of the guardianship system, the government made no mention of the plight of these women activists.

While the easing of the guardianship system is indeed welcome news, Saudi Arabia remains one of the world’s most repressive societies for women.

Key aspects of the guardianship system are still in place. One particularly onerous restriction is that women need the permission of a male guardian to marry or divorce.

* Saudi Arabia is one of the only Muslim-majority countries that legally imposes a dress code. By law, in public places women must cover their everyday clothing with an abaya– a long cloak – and a head scarf.

* When it comes to family issues such as child custody, child support and divorce laws, they all favor men over women. Women can easily lose access to their own children when they separate from their husbands.

* In certain types of court cases, female testimony is worth half as much as male testimony.

* While Saudi women have made great gains in education, they still make up only 23% of the labor force, and they are mainly employed “women’s jobs” such as education and public health. Women are discriminated against in the hiring process, and then must endure gender segregation in the workplace.

Saudi Arabia is the most gender-segregated society in the world. The majority of public buildings have separate entrances for men and women; some even ban women from entering. Most workplaces are segregated, so are schools. The separation in restaurants has been somewhat easing, but most eating areas are still separated to keep unrelated men and women apart–with one section for “singles,” meaning men, and one for “families,” meaning women, children, and close male relatives like husbands.

* Saudi Arabia and Yemen are the only Arab countries that do not have laws setting a minimum age for marriage. Child brides are still acceptable, especially among poor, rural families where girls may be married off to richer, older men.

* Regarding representation, there are no women elected at the national and provincial level, because there are no national or provincial elections. It was only in 2015 that women were granted the right to vote and to run in municipal councils, but in 2019 women still represent just 1 percent of those local seats (19 women elected and 15 appointed).

* As of 2013, women were granted 20% of the seats on the Shura Council–an appointed 150-member body that advises the king. In July 2019, women on the Shura Council introduced a proposal to have 30% women on the municipal councils, but the proposal was rejected. By law, the proposal cannot be brought up again for two years.

Saudi women have a long way to go to achieve equality. Onerous laws remain in place and conservative traditions that give men control over women will be hard to transform. The best way to do this, however, is to grant Saudi women the freedom to openly advocate for their rights. Now, these rights are “bestowed upon them” by male rulers while women who fight for their rights are jailed, tortured, fired from their jobs, and in other ways silenced. The Saudi rulers must free the women activists languishing in prison and open the system so that women can freely advocate for the society they want to live in.

Greece – Suicide or Murder?

Peter Koenig

Pundits from the left, from the right and from the center cannot stop reporting about Greece’s misery. And rightly so. Because Greece, the vast majority of her people live in deep economic hardship. No hope. Unemployment is officially at 18%, with the real figure closer to 25% or 30%; pensions have been reduced about ten times since Syriza – the Socialist Party – took power in 2015 and loaded the country with debt and austerity. In the domain of public services, everything that has any value has been privatized and sold to foreign corporations, oligarchs, or, naturally – banks. Hospitals, schools, public transportation – even some beaches – have been privatized and made unaffordable for the common people.

While the pundits – always more or less the same – keep lamenting about the Greek conditions in one form or another, none of them dares offer the only solution that could have rescued Greece (and still could) – exiting the euro zone; return to their local currency and start rebuilding Greece with a local economy, built on local currency with local public banking and with a sovereign Greek central bank deciding the monetary policy that best suits Greece, and especially Greece’s recovery program. – Why not? Why do they not talk about this obvious solution? Would they be censured in Greece, because the Greek oligarchy controls the media – as oligarchs do around the (western part of the) globe?

Instead, foreign imposed (troika: IMF, European Central Bank – ECB – and European Commission – EC; the latter mainly pushed by German and French banks – and the Rothschild clan) austerity programs have literally put a halt on imports of affordable medication, like for cancer treatments and other potentially lethal illnesses. So, common people get no longer treatment. They die like flies; a horrible expression to be used for human beings. But that’s what it comes down to for people who simply do not get the treatment they humanely deserve and would have gotten under the rights of the Greek Constitution, but do simply not get treated because they can no longer afford medication and services from privatized health services. That is the sad but true story.

As a consequence, the suicide rate is up, due to foreign imposed (but Greek government accepted) debt and austerity, annihilating hope for terminally ill patients, as well as for pensioners whose pensions do no longer allow them to live a decent life – and especially there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Now, these same pundits add a little air of optimism to their reporting, as the rightwing New Democracy Party (ND Party) won with what they call a ‘landslide’ victory on the 7 July 2019 elections; gathering 39.6% of the votes, against only 31.53 for Syriza, the so-called socialist party, led by outgoing Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who represents a tragedy that has allowed Greece to be plunged into this hopeless desolation. The ND won an absolute majority with 158 seats in the 300-member Greek parliament. Therefore, no coalition needed, no concessions required.

The new Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis (51), son of a former PM of the same party, in his victory speech on the evening of 7 July, vowed that Greece will “proudly” enter a post-bailout era of “jobs, security and growth”. He added that “a painful cycle has closed” and that Greece would “proudly raise its head again” on his watch.

We don’t know what this means for the average Greek citizen living a life of despair. What the “left” was unable to do – stopping the foreign imposed (but Greek accepted) bleeding of Greece; the strangulation of their country – will the right be able to reverse that trend? Does the right want to reverse that trend? – Does the ND want to reverse privatization, buy back airports from Germany, water supply from the EU managed “Superfund”, and repurchase the roads from foreign concessionaires, or nationalize hospitals that were sold for a pittance and – especially – get out from austerity to allow importing crucial medication to salvage the sick and dying Greek, those who currently cannot afford treatment of their cancers and other potentially deadly diseases?

That would indeed be a step towards PM Mitsotakis’ promise to end the “painful cycle” of austerity, with import of crucial medication made affordable to those in dire need, with job creation and job security – and much more – with eventually a renewed Greek pride – and Greek sovereignty. The latter would mean – finally – it’s never too late – exit the euro zone. But, that’s an illusion – a pipe-dream. Albeit – it could become a vision.

If the ND is the party of the oligarchs, the Greek oligarchs that is, those Greek who have placed literally billons of euros outside their country in (still) secret bank accounts in Switzerland, France, Lichtenstein, Luxemburg and elsewhere, including the Cayman islands and other Caribbean tax havens – hidden not only from the Greek fiscal authorities, but also impeding that these funds could, crucially, be used for investments at home, for job creation, for creation of added value in Greece – if the ND is the party of the oligarchs, they are unlikely to make the dream of the vast majority of Greek people come true.

Worse even, these Greek oligarch-billionaires call the shots in Greece – not the people, not those who according to Greek tradition and according to the Greek invention, called “democracy” (Delphi, some 2500 years ago) have democratically elected Syriza and have democratically voted against the austerity packages in July 2015. Now, that they are officially in power, they are unlikely to change their greed-driven behavior and act in favor of the Greek people. – Or will they?

Because, if they do, it may eventually also benefit them, the ND Party and its adherents – a Greece that functions like a country, with happy, healthy and content people, is a Greece that retains the worldwide esteem and respect she deserves – and will by association develop an economy that can and will compete and trade around the world, a Greece that is an equal to others, as a sovereign nation. – A dream can become a reality – it just takes visionaries.

Back to today’s reality. The Greek Bailout Referendum of July 5, 2015, was overwhelmingly rejected with 61% ‘no’ against 39% ‘yes’, meaning that almost two thirds of the Greek people would have preferred the consequences of rejecting the bailout, euphemistically called “rescue packages”, namely exiting the euro zone, and possible, but not necessarily, the European Union.

Despite the overwhelming, democratic rejection by the people, the Tsipras government reached an agreement on 13 July 2015 – only 8 days after the vote against the bailout – with the European authorities for a three-year bailout with even harsher austerity conditions than the ones rejected by voters. What went on is anybody’s guess. It looks pretty obvious, though, that “foul play” was the name of the game – which could mean anything from outright and serious (life) threats to blackmail, if Tsipras would not play the game – and this to the detriment of the people.

President Tsipras’ betrayal of the people resulted in three bailout packages since 2010 and up to end 2018, in the amount of about €310 billion (US$ 360 billion). Compare this to Hong Kong’s economy of US$ 340 billion in 2017. In that same period the Greek GDP has declined from about US$ 300 billion (€ 270 billion) in 2010 to US$ 218 billion (€ 196 billion), a reduction of 27%, hitting the middle- and lower-class people by far the hardest. This is called a rescue.

The democracy fiasco of July 2015 prompted Tsipras to call for snap elections in September 2015, hélas – he won, with a narrow margin and one of the lowest election turnouts ever in Greek postwar history; but, yes, he ‘won’. How much of it was manipulated – by now Cambridge Analytica has become a household word – so he could finish the job for the troika and the German and French banks, is pure speculation.

Today, the ND has an absolute majority in Parliament, plus the ND could ally with a number of smaller and conservative parties to pursue a “people’s dream” line policy. But they may do the opposite. Question: How much more juice is there to be sucked out of broken Greece? Of a Greece that cannot care for her people, for her desperate poor and sick, cannot provide her children with a decent education, of a Greece that belongs into the category of bankruptcy? – Yes, bankruptcy, still today, after the IMF and the gnomes of the EU and the ECB predict a moderate growth rate of some 2%? – But 2% that go to whom? – Not to the people, to be sure, but to the creditors of the €310 billion.

Already in 2011, the British Lancet stated “the Greek Ministry of Health reported that the annual suicide rate has increased by 40%”, presumably since the (imposed) crisis that started in 2008. From this date forward the suicide rate must have skyrocketed, as the overall living conditions worsened exponentially. However, precise figures can no longer be easily found.

The question remains: Is the Greek population dying increasingly from diseases that could be cured, but aren’t due to austerity- and privatization-related lack of medication and health services – and of suicide from desperation? – Is Greece committing suicide by continuing accepting austerity and privatization of vital services, instead of liberating herself from the handcuffs of the euro and very likely the stranglehold of the EU? – Or is Greece the victim of sheer murder inflicted by a greed-driven construct of money institutions and oligarchs, who are beyond morals, beyond ethics and beyond any values of humanity? You be the judge.

Is the Indian School Education system prepared for the future?

Giri Shankar K

With the increasing pace of technological advances and globalisation rapidly taking over, India is all set to become the next hub for economic growth. Adding to this is a young population with an average age of 29 years, which puts India at an advantage. But is India’s human capital prepared to face the challenge? The role of education is crucial in this aspect, and it is high time that we rethink our approach towards necessary education policies. The focus here is on basic school education as it lays the foundation for an individual’s future and career and is also facing some severe problems. India’s education system is in dire need of a change right now than ever.

The government has indeed done a great job in establishing awareness of Right to Education among the masses. Nowadays, most parents are aware of school education being compulsory for children. But what they do not realise is the real benefit and importance of availing school education. Even school going children seem to be not very invested in attending school. The reason is that schools in India do not provide enough exposure to the children and their parents in terms of the long term benefits of education. This is especially common among families from Under-Represented Groups (URGs). As a result, children enrolling to schools are dropping out, and minimal efforts are made in stopping them from doing so.

This is where the Indian schooling system has failed. It has been unable to generate interest in learning among the students. The first thing that a school should teach a child is the art of learning, and everything else follows. But mechanistic, factual and rote learning is what is being done in schools. Also, too much emphasis on academic scores and minimal focus on co-curricular and extra-curricular activities such as arts, skills and physical education have pushed us into this worrisome situation.

By making school education compulsory for children within the age bracket of 6 to 14 years, our government had thought that it had solved the problem of illiteracy in India. And to the credit of the government, it did to an extent. According to the figures indicated in NITI Aayog, adult literacy in India stands at about 74%, which is one of the lowest among developing nations but is still an improvement over the last decade. But one also needs to look at how literacy is defined – “Literates are people above the age of 7 who can both read and write”.  This is what a child graduating primary school is capable of, and as a coincidence one can observe a sharp rise in the number of dropouts right after primary school.

It also brings us to another problem, which is that even school going children are not well versed in basic literacy and numeracy skills despite graduating primary school. The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2018 states that almost 30% of Class 8 students cannot read a Class 2 level text, which is alarming. The situation is even worse in the case of basic numeracy skills.

In the current education system, once a student gets left behind, there is little to no hope for them to catch up with their peers. This situation is further aggravated by the fact that there are also not enough teachers to teach the students. According to ASER 2018, the Pupil to Teacher Ratio for overall India is 57.8. The government should note that this is a huge employment opportunity sitting right in front of us and take necessary actions to recruit enough teachers for the betterment of everyone.

This begs the question, Has the education system in India achieved the goal that it had set out to achieve? If enrolling children to schools is the first step in achieving literacy, it has certainly achieved that. The government has solved the problems in the accessibility of education. But will that alone suffice in building a substantial human capital for our nation?

How can this situation improve?

Now is the time to focus on improving the quality of education across India. With the rapid advancements being made in the tech industry, there has arisen a high requirement for skilled individuals more than ever. Some steps to be taken in ensuring a quality education system in India and thus a better future are,

• Introducing children to interactive and interrogative methods of learning right from their nursery phase.
• Exposing students to different career paths right from primary school.
• Maintain the Pupil to Teacher ratio at an optimal level by recruiting and training new teachers. The quality and method of teaching should also be improved. Regular training modules should be designed to check and enhance teachers performance continuously.
• Evaluation should be based on the all-round development of children and should not be a way to measure a student by their scores.

The government should realise that it still has a long way to go in ensuring quality education for all and start making investments in improving school education in India.

“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest” – Benjamin Franklin.

The National Education Policy Draft 2019 does bring in some hope in this aspect, such as the Emphasis on Early Childhood Education (Age 0 to 3 and Age 3 to 8),  Focus on Foundational Literacy and Numeracy, Development of a Balanced Curriculum and Focus on hiring more local teachers. The vision set by the committee for the future of school education in India seems to be bright. But how it will accomplish these goals and generate the financing required for them are not laid out and remains to be seen.

Saudi Iranian rivalry polarises Nigerian Muslims

James M. Dorsey

A recent ban on a militant, Iranian-backed Shiite group raised the spectre of the Saudi Iranian rivalry spilling onto Nigerian streets as security forces launched a manhunt to find the alleged Boko Haram operatives who killed 65 people attending a funeral.

Nigeria, Africa’s foremost oil producer, banned the Iranian-backed Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) this weekend after demonstrations in the capital Abuja to free its leader, Ibrahim El-Zakzaky turned violent. At least six people were killed.

“The Saudis watching the Iranians trying to break into northern Nigeria is almost like watching someone else try to befriend your best friend,” said Ini Dele-Adedeji, a Nigerian academic at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, referring to the region’s religious elites that have aligned themselves with the kingdom.

Saudi cables released in 2015 by WikiLeaks reveal concern about Iranian-funded Shiite expansion in West African and Sahel nations including Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and Nigeria.

Mr. Dele-Adedji said Saudi and Iranian funding was “on the surface…about these countries helping out with ‘charitable work’ activities. But beyond that it’s also a way for those countries to almost create extensions of themselves.”

Mr. El-Zakzaky, a Sunni Muslim student activist inspired by the 1979 Iranian revolution, initially agitated for a repeat in his native Nigeria. When that didn’t work, Mr. El-Zakzaky went to Iran, converted to Shiism, and started wearing the white turban of a Shiite cleric.

Returning home in the 1990s, he became the leader of the Islamic Movement and turned it into a vehicle for proselytizing and gaining followers.

Things got out of hand when Nigerian troops killed hundreds of Shiites in the ancient university town of Zaria in December 2015 and arrested Mr. El-Zakzaky and hundreds of his followers. The army accused the Shiite group of attempting to kill Nigeria’s army chief-of-staff, a charge the movement denies.

Iran has been funding Mr. El-Zakzaky for years and the area of Zaria he worked in became the “mecca for the dispossessed in Nigeria,” according to Matthew Page, a former U.S. State Department specialist on Nigeria. The Islamic Movement has been receiving about $10,000 a month from Iran, he estimated.

Mr. El-Zakzaky used the money to fund soup kitchens and homeless shelters, Mr. Page said. “This was a very inexpensive way for Iran to have a toehold in Nigeria,” he said.

Ghanem Nuseibeh, founder of London-based consultants Cornerstone Global Associates estimated that Mr. El-Zakzaky’s organization operates more than 300 schools, Islamic centres, a newspaper, guards and a “martyrs’ foundation.” The network is similar to welfare systems established elsewhere by Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed groups.

The Nigerian government first declared the Islamic Movement a security threat in 2017, comparing it with the Boko Haram insurgency, according to Nigerian diplomats.

Peregrino Brimah, a trained medical doctor who teaches biology, anatomy and physiology at colleges in New York never gave much thought while growing up in Nigeria to the fact that clerics increasingly were developing links to Saudi Arabia.

“You could see the money, the big ones were leading the good life, they ran scholarship programs. In fact, I was offered a scholarship to study at King Fahd University in Riyadh. I never thought about it until December 2015 when up to a 1,000 Shiites were killed by the military in northern Nigeria. Since I started looking at it, I’ve realized how successful, how extraordinarily successful the Wahhabis have been.” Mr. Brimah said.

He decided to stand up for Shiite rights after the incident in which the military arrested Mr. El-Zakzaky.

The Nigerian military said that it had attacked sites in Zaria after hundreds of Shia demonstrators had blocked a convoy of Nigeria’s army chief General Tukur Yusuf Buratai in an effort to kill him.

Military police said Shiites had crawled through tall grass towards General Buratai’s convoy “with the intent to attack the vehicle with [a] petrol bomb” while others “suddenly resorted to firing gunshots from the direction of the mosque.”

A phone call to Nigerian President Mohammed Buhari in which King Salman expressed his support for the government’s fight against terrorist groups was widely seen as Saudi endorsement of the military’s crackdown on the country’s Shiite minority.

The state-owned Saudi Press Agency quoted King Salman as saying that Islam condemned such “criminal acts” and that the kingdom in a reference to Iran opposed foreign interference in Nigeria.

Mr. Brimah’s defense of the Shiites has cost him dearly, illustrating the degree to which Saudi-funded ultra-conservatism and Iranian agitation has altered Nigerian society.

“I lost everything I had built on social media the minute I stood up for the Shiites. I had thousands of fans. Suddenly, I was losing 2-300 followers a day. My brother hasn’t spoken to me since. The last thing he said to me is: ‘how can you adopt Shiite ideology?’ I raised the issue in a Sunni chat forum. It became quickly clear that these attitudes were not accidental. They are the product of Saudi-sponsored teachings of serious hatred. People don’t understand what they are being taught. They rejoice when a thousand Shiites are killed. Even worse is the fact that they hate people like me who stand up for the Shiites even more than they hate the Shiite themselves,” Mr. Brimah said.

In response to Mr. Brimah’s writing about the clash, General Buratai invited him for a chat. Mr. Brimah politely declined. When Mr. Brimah reiterated his accusation, General Buratai’s spokesman, Colonel SK Usman, adopting the Saudi line of Shiites being Iranian stooges, accused the scientist of being on the Islamic republic’s payroll.

“Several of us hold you in high esteem based on perceived honesty, intellectual prowess and ability to speak your mind. That was before, but the recent incident…and subsequent events and actions by some groups and individuals such as you made one to have a rethink. I was quite aware of your concerted effort to smear the good name and reputation of the Chief of Army Staff to the extent of calling for his resignation,” Colonel Usman said in an email to Mr. Brimah that the activist shared with this writer.

General Buratai “went out of his way to write to you and even invited you for constructive engagement. But because you have dubious intents, you cleverly refused…. God indeed is very merciful for exposing you. Let me make it abundantly clear to you that your acts are not directed to the person of the Chief of Army Staff, they have far reaching implication on our national security. Please think about it and mend your ways and refund whatever funds you coveted for the campaign of calumny,” Colonel Usman said.

Mr. Brimah’s inbox has since then been inundated with anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian writings in what he believes is a military-inspired campaign.

Mr. Brimah’s predicament reflects the fallout of the Saudi Iranian rivalry in West Africa as a result of Saudi and Iranian funding that has let the genie of intolerance, discrimination and bigotry out of the bottle.

Issoufou Yahaya, in the Sahel state of Niger, recalls his student days in the 1980s when there wasn’t a single mosque on his campus. “Today, we have more mosques here than we have lecture rooms. So much has changed in such a short time,” he said.