Thomas Cook collapse leaves hundreds of thousands stranded and 22,000 workers facing the axe

Richard Tyler

Britain’s largest package holiday operator Thomas Cook was placed in compulsory liquidation in the early hours of Monday morning after failing to secure funding to keep the firm going. The consequences have been immediate and massive.

The Financial Times described the collapse as spreading “chaos through the international travel industry.”

The overnight collapse has left hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers, and those who had purchased flights, stranded overseas. The UK government has been forced to implement an emergency repatriation operation, the largest in peacetime, to bring back the 150,000 UK-based individuals from 55 airports. The 800,000 future bookings with Thomas Cook have all been cancelled.

TV news reports have shown angry tourists all around the globe who were left in the dark till the very last minute, not knowing if they would have a flight home, and tearful members of staff who have lost their jobs.

The company’s demise will see the loss of all 21,000 jobs of those directly employed, with tens of thousands more in overseas resorts put at risk as many local businesses are unlikely to see the bills incurred by Thomas Cook being paid.

The knock-on effect of the company failure will be enormous, as it is very doubtful that “minor” creditors, such as 1,000 smaller foreign hotel companies in Europe said to be “largely dependent” on Thomas Cook, will get any money back. In Tunisia alone, the company owes hotels £53 million for stays in July and August—with staff employed on considerably lower wages compared to their European counterparts—facing the prospect of no pay cheque for months to come, or jobs going altogether if hotels close.

There are 150,000 UK-based tourists whose return flights with Thomas Cook have been cancelled and some 350,000 non-UK nationals stranded on its holiday packages abroad. Some 50,000 holidaymakers are stranded in Greece alone, with the head of Crete’s union of tour operators Michalis Vlatakis likening the collapse of Thomas Cook to a “7-magnitude earthquake,” saying the local tourism sector was now “waiting for the tsunami.” Some 140,000 German travelers are affected, and local subsidiaries have stopped selling holidays. The Turkish Hoteliers Federation warned that the impact could be devastating for those hotels contracting solely with Thomas Cook. In Spain, thousands of jobs are at stake in popular holiday destinations such as the Canary Islands and Balearics.

The fact that the Thomas Cook Group—which includes some 26 associated companies—has been placed into liquidation means that there will be no rescue—as the liquidators seek to sell off the company’s assets to meet its debts. As well as unpaid bills for those currently on holiday, and fuel and airport charges, the company was servicing £1.7 billion in unsustainable debt it took on through a series of mergers and acquisitions in previous years.

The UK government refused a last-minute appeal to provide just £150 million to enable the company, which had revenues of £9.5 billion in 2018 and assets of £2.1 billion, to continue operating. The funding asked for is far less than the cost of repatriation, with the UK operation alone estimated at £600 million in public funds, even before the human cost of such massive job losses is taken into account.

Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson opposed using state funds to enable the company to continue trading, saying this would create a “moral hazard” for other companies who might also seek funding. Such a “moral hazard” was never posed when it came to a Labour government, backed by the Tories, bailing out the banks to the tune of around a trillion pounds in public funds following the 2008 crisis.

The crisis at Thomas Cook was exacerbated when its lenders, including Royal Bank of Scotland—which was taken into public ownership at vast public expense after the 2008 crash—suddenly demanded the company increase its cash holdings to keep it going through the quieter winter period.

Thomas Cook employed 21,000 worldwide, with 9,000 jobs now gone in the UK, including 1,000 at its Peterborough headquarters. Nearly one third of the UK workforce were based at Manchester Airport—home to the Thomas Cook Airlines fleet of 34 aircraft. The company also owned Thomas Cook Airlines Balearics, Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia and Condor, based in Germany. In total, it operated a fleet of 105 aircraft this summer.

Australian government “balances” budget at expense of disabled

Mike Head

A temporary spike in international iron ore prices and a $6.4 billion “under-spend” on disability and other welfare services enabled the Liberal-National government to declare last week that it had almost eliminated the federal budget deficit for the first time since the 2008–09 global financial breakdown.

The outcome illustrates the ongoing transfer of wealth to the financial elite at the expense of the working class, particularly its most impoverished and vulnerable layers. In effect, successive Liberal-National and Labor Party governments have imposed the burden of the 2008–09 crash on the back of the working class, even as another global economic crisis develops.

Most of the budget deficit, which peaked at more than $50 billion in 2009–10, was incurred by the last Labor government in order to prop up and guarantee the solvency of the banks and finance houses, including by boosting government infrastructure spending. Over the past decade, that cost has been extracted mainly via reduced social spending.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg revealed last Thursday that the deficit for 2018–19 fell to $690 million, or 0.03 percent of the economy’s output. He declared the budget was “back in balance.” This was said by the corporate media to be a “big improvement” on the $14.5 billion deficit predicted by the government at the time of the May 2018 budget.

The result was perverse, however. Higher corporate profits, boosted by falling real wages for most workers, pushed company tax collections $4.6 billion higher. Much of the revenue rise was also thanks to the iron ore price averaging $US72 a tonne, compared to a forecast of $US55. This surge, which peaked at $US110 a tonne in July, was due to a catastrophic iron ore dam collapse at a Vale project in Brazil that killed more than 300 people and cut global iron ore production.

The budget figures underscored the reality of falling living standards. There was a $2.3 billion drop in the predicted goods and services tax (GST) revenue, reflecting lower wages and consumer spending. Total indirect taxation revenue, which includes GST, petrol, alcohol and tobacco taxes, was down almost $5 billion compared to the May 2018 estimate, due to reduced spending by working-class households.

In addition, the government “saved” $4.6 billion by under-funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It also made lower GST payments to the states and territories ($1.4 billion), cut outlays from the Disability Care Australia Fund ($1.3 billion) and reduced family tax benefit payouts ($0.7 billion)—making a total of $6.4 billion taken from social programs. Stagnant wages also resulted in lower wage-indexed welfare payments to the unemployed and pensioners, many of whom live in poverty.

The budget “balance” was achieved despite the economy growing by only 1.9 percent during the financial year—the deepest slump since the global financial crisis. This is part of a deepening worldwide downturn, compounded by the intensifying trade and economic war launched by the US against China and the collapse of a six-year housing bubble.

The slide toward recession has continued even though the central bank has cut official interest rates to a record low of 1 percent. Car sales and other retail spending indicators have continued to fall. Expecting worse to come, the financial markets are banking on further rate cuts, perhaps to 0.5 percent by next year.

Australian prime minister endorses US trade war and militarism

James Cogan

The state visit to the US by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has, thus far, largely unfolded according to the script developed in Washington and Canberra. Morrison has performed his expected role. He has conducted himself as the head of a middle-order imperialist power that has functioned since World War II as the willing enabler of the predatory economic and military policies of its great power ally.

On behalf of the Australian corporate and political establishment, Morrison has endorsed the Trump administration’s diplomatic provocations, trade sanctions and even threats of nuclear annihilation against various countries that are viewed as a challenge to American global dominance.

The role of Australian imperialism as an adjunct of American foreign policy is the main reason for the pomp and ceremony accorded Morrison on his visit. This has included both a ceremonial White House lawn welcome and only the second state dinner put on by Trump since he became president.

President Donald J. Trump listens to remarks by Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison Friday evening. Sept. 20,2019, during the State Dinner in the Rose Garden of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

During a joint press conference on Friday, the Australian leader listened on as Trump threatened war over the US accusation that Iran was behind last week’s drone attacks on Saudi Arabian oil facilities. “We all hope, and Scott [Morrison] hopes,” Trump asserted, “that we never have to use nuclear.”

Morrison dutifully responded that, in his opinion, the US had taken a “very measured and calibrated approach to date.” Encouraged by his stage-prop, Trump proceeded to boast that the “easiest thing” he could do was order immediate military strikes and “knock out 15 different major things in Iran…. But I think restraint is a good thing.”

Morrison proceeded to back Trump’s “America First” trade war against China on the pretext of “unfair” competition. While asserting that Australia and China “work well,” he declared that “there can’t be special rules” and “we need to make sure that we all compete on the same playing field.”

Provided such an opening, Trump launched into an impromptu rant that his administration’s tariffs on Chinese exports worth $US362 billion had caused it to have the “worst year in 57 years”—an obscure reference to the economic impact in 1962 of the collapse in relations between Beijing and the Soviet Union.

Trump boasted that the tariffs had generated $100 billion for the US Treasury while forcing Beijing to devalue its currency and implement emergency stimulus spending. He gloated: “They’ve lost over three million jobs. Their supply chain is crashing, and they have a lot of problems.”

China is Australia’s largest export market and trading partner. Economic think tank Deloitte has estimated that the halving of China’s economic growth due to the trade war will plunge Australia into a severe downturn. At least 500,000 jobs will be lost, with massive social consequences. Morrison, however, refused to raise even a hint of disagreement with Trump over the destructive impact of US policies.

In the course of the joint media appearance, Trump referred in passing to the private discussions that would be held on Australia’s role in the US confrontation with China, and whether Washington would ask for direct participation in any war with Iran.

Australian imperialism was among the only countries to deploy military forces alongside the US in the brutal colonial war in Vietnam, the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and 2003 invasion of Iraq. Australian forces took part in the subsequent occupations of both countries, as well as the 2014 US-led operations in Syria.

The present Liberal-National Coalition government has already announced the deployment of a warship—but not until January—to take part in the US naval operation in the Persian Gulf—the only country to do so apart from the United Kingdom and the tiny oil kingdom of Bahrain. If Canberra does not commit anything beyond this symbolic gesture, it is because the Australian military is preoccupied with preparing for involvement in a US war with China in the Asia-Pacific.

Department of Homeland Security counterterrorism strategy targets left-wing politics as “violent extremism”

Kevin Reed

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a new strategy document entitled, “Framework for Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence” which expands the definition of terrorism to include what it calls “domestic actors inspired by violent extremist ideologies.”

The document was released by acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin K. McAleenan on September 20 during an event to announce the strategy that was cohosted by two important think-tanks of the American ruling establishment, the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation.

Although the document references recent right-wing violence and mass shootings in the United States, it does so in order to arrive at a key conclusion: the state apparatus previously erected after the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the name of the “war on terror” is now being redirected against domestic social and political opposition in the name of fighting “anti-authority and anti-government violent extremism.”

The attempt to identify left-wing and socialist political organizations with “violent extremism” is spelled out in relationship to opponents of US immigration policy. The DHS document gives the example of an event in July 2019 where “an anarchist claiming affiliation with the ‘antifa’ movement” allegedly attempted to firebomb a US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement facility in Tacoma, Washington and threatened to shoot law enforcement officers as evidence of its claims.

Kevin K MacAleenan being sworn in a Acting DHS Secretary

The document then goes on to state, “In recent years, adherents to particular violent extremist ideologies have sometimes abandoned them for other ideologies with similar sets of perceived enemies.” In other words, workers and young people who go through political experiences and begin to draw broader socialist revolutionary conclusions from their struggles should be identified as “domestic terrorists.”

That the purpose of the updated DHS strategy is to connect political opposition with violent extremism was articulated by acting Secretary McAleenan in releasing the 34-page document. “While the threat posed by foreign terrorist organizations like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda persists,” he said, “we are acutely aware of the growing threat from enemies, both foreign and domestic, who seek to incite violence in our Nation’s youth, disenfranchised, and disaffected, in order to attack their fellow citizens and fray at the seams of our diverse social fabric.”

McAleenan’s reference to the danger that the youth, disenfranchised and disaffected can cause the “social fabric” of American society to “fray at the seams” is highly significant. The most conscious elements within the state—who are entrusted by the ruling elite with protecting and defending the capitalist “homeland”—have concluded that the US is on the brink of significant social and political struggles and that preparations must be made to suppress them. Above all, this means identifying left-wing and socialist political organizations and groups with “violent extremism.”

Permeating the DHS strategy is the conception that the methods deployed outside the country in the aftermath of 9/11 must now be used to confront the growth of mass social and political struggle within the US. For example, the document states in the Executive Summary, “In an age of online radicalization to violent extremism and disparate threats, we must not only counter foreign enemies trying to strike us from abroad, but also those enemies, foreign and domestic, that seek to spur to violence our youth and our disaffected—encouraging them to strike in the heart of our Nation, and attack the unity of our vibrant, diverse American society.”

Taken to its logical conclusion this means that the military-intelligence apparatus is preparing to use the methods pioneered under the “war on terror” against anyone seeking to demonstrate the class character of American society and expose the fraudulent national unity between the working class and the ruling class.

Protests in Egypt shake al-Sisi’s bloody military dictatorship

Johannes Stern

The recent events in Egypt bring back memories of the revolutionary uprisings that brought down the long-standing imperialist-backed Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, in 2011. Numerous demonstrations reportedly took place throughout Egypt last weekend. This time, they are directed against General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, who seized power in 2013 and has brutally subjugated the country ever since.

Chants of “Irhal, Irhal” [Leave, Leave], “The people want the overthrow of the regime” or “Say it! Don't be afraid! Sisi must go” echoed through numerous Egyptian cities over the weekend. The protests began in the capital, Cairo, where on Friday evening several hundred demonstrators gathered on Meidan al-Tahrir, the central square of the Egyptian Revolution.

They quickly spread to other regions, far from the capital. Thousands of mostly young demonstrators took to the streets in the coastal cities of Alexandria and Damietta, in Mansoura and in Suez, the metropolis at the entry of the Suez Canal. So far, there have been no reports of the strikes or factory occupations that spread like wildfire eight years ago. But there were also protests in important industrial cities such as Mahalla al-Kubra, the centre of the Egyptian textile industry in the Nile delta.

Protesters chant slogans against the regime in Cairo, Egypt, early Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019. Dozens of people held a rare protest in Cairo during which they called on Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi to quit. Security forces dispersed the protesters and no casualties were reported. (AP Photo/Nariman El-Mofty)

The regime reacted nervously and brutally. In Cairo, heavily armed security forces dispersed the demonstrators on Saturday morning, and armoured vehicles sealed off Tahrir Square. In other cities, too, protests were broken up by force. According to the limited reports that are available, there were over two hundred arrests. Videos on social media showed emergency forces hunting down peaceful demonstrators and attacking them with tear gas and rubber bullets.

In Suez, where demonstrators gathered again in the central Arbaeen Square during the night of Saturday to Sunday despite massive police violence, the security forces even used live ammunition. “They (security forces) fired tear gas, rubber and live bullets and there were injuries,” a man who took part in the demonstration and did not want to be identified told AFP.

Another resident reported that the tear gas was so thick that it had reached her apartment a few kilometres from the city centre: “My nose started burning up. The smell was seeping through the balcony. I also saw some youth run and hide in our street.”

The immediate trigger for the protests was a series of videos published by Egyptian actor and contractor Mohamed Ali, who lives in Spain, on his Facebook account. In them he accuses Sisi of embezzling public money for personal purposes and of building expensive palaces for his family, while the mass of the population lives in bitter poverty. It is time for the Egyptian population to rise up, he said, as it is “numerically stronger than the army and police.”

The Arab hash tag #Kifaya_baqi_yaSisi ["Sisi, it's enough"] was shared more than 1.5 million times within hours of Ali, who as an entrepreneur himself worked with the Egyptian army for many years, posting the videos on Twitter. Many users also posted pictures and videos of the revolutionary protests in 2011 on the social networks and announced via Twitter: “We'll be on the streets again tomorrow!” Ali himself calls for a “million-man march” against the regime next Friday.

Even though the protests at the weekend have not yet reached the extent of the mass protests of 2011, they triggered shock on the Egyptian stock exchange. Trading was suspended on Sunday, after the EGX 100 collapsed by 5 percent. This is “definitely” due to the “small escalation over the weekend, which is making investors cautious,” said Ashraf Akhnoukh, director of Arqaam Capital in Cairo.

Georg Forster Research Award for Developing and Transition Countries 2020 – Germany

Application Deadline: 31st October 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries (excluding People’s Republic of China and India). See List below

To be taken at (country): Germany

Eligible Fields: Research programmes offered by the university

About Scholarship: The Georg Forster Research Award is granted in recognition of a researcher’s entire achievements to date to academics of all disciplines whose fundamental discoveries, new theories, or insights have had a significant impact on their own discipline and beyond and who are expected to continue developing research-based solutions to the specific challenges facing transition and developing countries.

Type: Research/Grants

Selection Criteria: 

• The Selection Committee makes its decision solely on the basis of the nominees’ academic qualifications and the relevance of their research to the development of their own countries.
• The applicants must have had their main residence and place of work in one of these countries for at least five years at the time of their nomination.

Eligible

• -Nominees must be nationals of a developing or transition country (excluding People’s Republic of China and India; cf. detailed list of countries).
• -Furthermore, at the time of nomination, they must have had their main residence and place of work in one of these countries for at least five years.
• -The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation particularly encourages the nomination of qualified female researchers.

Number of Scholarships: up to six Georg Forster Research Awards annually.

Value of Scholarship: The award amount totals €60,000. In Germany, research awards are generally exempt from income tax under German tax law.

Duration of Scholarship: The project duration of about six to twelve months may be divided into segments.

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Ecuador, Macedonia, Samoa Albania, Egypt, Madagascar, Sao Tomé, Príncipe Algeria, El Salvador, Malawi, Senegal, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia, Serbia, Antigua and Barbuda, Eritrea, Maldives, Seychelles, Argentina, Ethiopia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Armenia, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Azerbaijan, Fiji, Mauritania, Somalia, Mauritius, South Africa, Mexico, South Sudan, Bangladesh, Gabon, Micronesia, Fed. States, Sri Lanka, Belarus, Gambia, Moldova, Rep. St. Kitts and Nevis, Belize, Georgia, Montenegro, St. Lucia, Benin, Ghana, Morocco, St. Vincent, Bhutan, Grenada Mongolia, the Grenadines, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mozambique, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Guinea, Myanmar, Suriname, Botswana, Guinea-Bissau, Swaziland, Brazil, Guyana, Syria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Namibia, Tajikistan, Haiti, Nauru, Tanzania, Honduras, Nepal, Thailand, Nicaragua, Timor-Leste Cambodia, Indonesia, Niger, Togo, Cameroon, Iran, Nigeria, Tonga, Cape Verde, Iraq Niue Tunisia, Central African Republic, Turkey, Chad, Jamaica, Turkmenistan, Chile , Jordan, Tuvalu, Colombia, Pakistan, Comoros, Kazakhstan, Palestinian territories, Congo, Dem. Rep. of Kenya, Palau, Uganda, Congo, Rep. of the Kiribati, Panama, Ukraine, Cook Islands, Korea, Dem. PR of Papua New Guinea, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Kosovo, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Cote d’Ivoire, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, Cuba, Philippines, Vanuatu, Laos, Venezuela, Lesotho, Rwanda, Vietnam, Dominica, Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Liberia, Djibouti, Libya, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

How to Apply

• To apply, please register and create an online nomination for a Georg Forster Research Award.
• Please visit the Guidelines for completing the nomination on the Humboldt Foundation’s website for further information on the selection procedure.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Government of Canada Francophonie Scholarship Program (CFSP) 2020 for Francophonie Developing Countries

Application Deadline: Deadlines vary by country

Eligible Countries: Bénin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodge, Cameroun, Cap-Vert, Comores, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Kinshasa),Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominique, Égypte, Gabon, Guinée, Guinée équatoriale, Guinée-Bissau,  Haiti, Laos, Liban, Madagascar, Mali, Maroc, Maurice, Mauritanie, Niger
République Centrafricaine, Rwanda, Sainte-Lucie, Sao Tomé-et-Principe, Sénégal, Seychelles, Tchad, Togo, Tunisie, Vanuatu, Vietnam.

To be taken at (country): Canada (Quebec, Canada)

Fields of Study: All

About the Award:Funding for this program is entirely within the Government of Canada has entrusted the management consortium Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) and the World University Service of Canada (WUSC).
The long-term goal of the program is to promote the development of recipient countries by giving priority to:

• Training of trainers, particularly in the field of technical and vocational education
• Improving the skills of college and university personnel in the field of education and research
• Increasing and strengthening the skills of specialists and managers in the public and private sectors

Type: Masters and Doctorate

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Canada Francophonie Scholarship Programme:

• Candidates identified and selected may apply for university studies leading to a master’s and doctoral degree, for technical and vocational training, or for short-term internships.
• Institutions targeted by recipient countries conduct internal recruitment campaigns to identify qualified candidates who show the greatest aptitude for helping strengthen their institution’s capacities when they return to their country.
• Clinical training in pharmacy, medicine and dentistry is excluded.

Selection Criteria: Candidates must hold a key position so that the knowledge they acquire will benefit the capacity building of their institution.

Selection Process: 

• Candidates are selected by using a quota system for each recipient country. The quota approach allows recipient countries to define their own priorities for training, as well as the level of training required for the development of their institutions.
• A local advisory committee formed by representatives of various ministries selects candidates in their country. The accredited Canadian diplomatic mission acts as observer to ensure transparency of the selection process.
• The local advisory committee takes into account the candidates’ jobs in the sector or institution to be strengthened and the level of academic excellence as defined by host institutions. An equal number of applications by gender and country is required, and fluency of candidates in spoken and written French is also mandatory.
• Final admission to college or university is the sole responsibility of the relevant institution, and the scholarship becomes effective only when the candidate is admitted to the educational institution.

Number of Awardees: 1500 scholarships

Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded

How to Apply: Apply here

For full information on Canada Francophonie Scholarship Programme eligibility criteria, evaluation procedures, application requirements, funding levels, deadlines, and exclusions, visit the CFSP website (in French).

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Government of Canada

Isu Elihle 2019 Awards for Innovative Journalism about Children

Application Deadline: 23rd September 2019

Eligible Fields: All; seasoned journalists, fresh young talents, photographer, editor, in print, digital, radio, TV or the web.

About the Award: In a first of its kinds for our continent we are launching awards for media professionals that seek to encourage fresh reporting, innovative angles, insightful investigations and those that seek to give children a voice and elevates the status of the child in Africa.  Whether you are a seasoned journalist, a fresh young talent, photographer, editor, in print, digital, radio, TV or the web – we want your story ideas.  So get thinking!

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Please note by submitting your entry, you confirm that you have read and agree with the following rules:

1. The Competition is open to professional journalists, whether directly employed or freelancers, working in the continent of Africa.
2. No entry fee is payable.
3. Employees and their immediate families of Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) are not eligible to participate in the competition.
4. The Competition is held in English. Therefore all entries and story ideas should be in English.
5. Applicants are strictly limited to a maximum of one entry; however, each media house can have as many applicants as it wishes.
6. Entries should be made in accordance with the instructions given on the competition entry form and must be submitted on, or before, 00:00 (CAT) 23 September 2019. After this date, no extensions will be made to this closing date.
7. Late, incomplete, illegible and/or fraudulent entries will be disqualified.
8. MMA reserves the right to refuse entries that do not comply with the above rules. No correspondence will be entered into in this regard.
9. A panel of distinguished, independent judges with appropriate knowledge and experience of children and the media will judge the competition. The panel of judges will be determined by MMA in their sole discretion.
10. No handwritten applications will be accepted. All applications must be completed online using the online form, which is available here.
11. The judges reserve the right to transfer entries for consideration in other categories at their discretion, for instance the new Isu Elihle Mandy Rossouw Accountability Category.
12. The judges’ decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.
13. The top six journalists including the Mandy Rossouw Accountability Category winner, selected by the panel of judges will be taken to the final story-writing round of the competition. MMA will provide financial support to enable the journalists to write and complete their stories in the timeline provided.All finalists will be individually responsible and accountable to MMA for their costs. The journalist is also required to provide MMA with invoices and supporting documents for all expenditure on the account. Any irregular expenditure will lead to the finalist being disqualified and being held liable for the amount.
14. Should MMA require the top six finalists to travel as part of the Awards or related activities, sufficient notice will be given, however each finalist will be required to arrange for their visas and any other documentation required for travel. MMA will cover for travel and accommodation costs.
15. Finalists will be expected to be available for the duration of the programme and participate fully in the calendar of events that are expected to take place on those dates as indicated under the Isu Elihle Awards Timeline.
16. Journalists must acknowledge that this is only a competition and the awarding of any prize does not give rise to an employment agency or joint venture relationship or arrangement between journalists and MMA.
17. The top six finalists must commit in writing that they will publish the completed story otherwise the journalist may be disqualified.
18. Individuals and media houses enter this competition at their own risk. MMA and its affiliates cannot be held liable for any injury or accidents, fatalities or damage incurred whilst participating in this competition.
19. By submitting your entry, you confirm that you have read and agree with these rules and agree that should you be in breach of the terms, you may be disqualified from the competition.
20. Journalists must submit new story ideas and not ones that have been previously published.

Selection Criteria: Please note that both the story idea and the published story will be judged according to the criteria below.

• The focus on or extensive voice given to children or an issue that impacts children. Children are defined as any persons between the ages of 0-17.
• Consideration for the best interests of children and the ethical manner in which children are treated and given a voice in the story (Ethical Guidelines). Journalists must adhere to ethical practices and principles in the planning and execution of the story as MMA will not tolerate the violation of children’s rights in any shape or form.
• Fresh, innovative, and different perspective to children’s issues and/or investigative angle undertaken to report on issue.
• Must be able to complete the story in the period allowed.
• Clarity of the issue and extent to which story engages and captures audiences. The story could be about an area that is not commonly given a children’s angle such as the economy or economic impact on children, land issues, investment or an existing news story and giving it a children’s focus.
• Stories need to highlight possible solutions to the problem or issues that children face.
• Extent to which story challenges common negative stereotypes about the roles of children in society, especially within the gender debate.
• The story should also explore relevant legislation of policy issues related to the issue being explored.

The Isu Elihle Mandy Rossouw Accountability Category
The Isu Elihle Mandy Rossouw Accountability prize will be awarded to the best story idea in which the powerful are held to account on issues specifically related to children.
In honour of the late Mandy Rossouw, her journalism and her immense contribution, MMA is proud to announce that the Isu Elihle Awards will now include the Mandy Rossouw Accountability Category for those journalists who are brave enough to take up the courage to hold the powerful to account in the context of fulfilling children’s rights on our continent.”
From the entries we receive in the 2018 Isu Elihle Awards, Judges will select one story idea that is practical, realistic, well planned and geared towards holding the powerful to account with regards to addressing a critical need/s faced by children in a particular country in Africa. Please note: there is no requirement to submit two stories, the judging panel will select this category from all entries received.

Number of Awardees: 3

Value of Contest: The prizes include:

Winner Categories	Financial Support	Cash prize
Overall Winner	R10 000	R25 000
First runner up	R10 000	R15 000
Second runner up	R10 000	R10 000

*Please note that the amount calculated above is in South African currency.

How to Apply: To enter the Isu Elihle competition, access the application form here

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Echoing Green Fellowship 2019 for Social Entrepreneurs ($80,000 + Leadership Development)

Application Deadline: 16th October, 2019 by 2pm

Eligible Countries: all

About the Fellowship: The Global Fellowship is the twenty-seven-year-old program for smart leaders who are deeply connected to the needs and potential solutions that may work best for their communities. Any emerging social entrepreneur from any part of the world working to disrupt the status quo may apply.

Type: Social Entrepreneurship

Selection Criteria: Successful applicants not only present an innovative way of addressing social issues, but also explain why they as individuals have what it takes to succeed. Echoing Green is not a grant-making organization. We are a fellowship program because we believe in the importance of the individual social entrepreneur as well as his/her project.  As such, we look at both the applicant and the applicant’s idea.

Applicant Criteria

• Purpose / Passion
• Resilience
• Leadership
• Ability to Attract Resources

Organization Criteria

• Innovation
• Importance
• Potential for Big, Bold Impact
• A Good Business Model

Eligibility: In order to be eligible for an Echoing Green Fellowship, the applicant must be:

• Over 18 years old
• Fluent in English
• Able to commit a full 35 hour work week to their organization.

In order to be eligible for an Echoing Green Fellowship, the organization must be:

• The original idea of the applicant(s)
• In its start-up phase, usually within the first two years of operation
• Independent and autonomous

There are often some misconceptions about what types of organizations are eligible for the Echoing Green Fellowship. Here is some clarification about organizations that are eligible:

• An organization can be either a non-profit, a for-profit, or hybrid.
• An organization does not only have to be run by one individual. Partnerships can apply for a Fellowship
• Organizations still in the idea phase are eligible

The following types of organizations are not eligible to apply:

• Students, scholarships, or research projects (Students may apply for the Echoing Green Fellowship while they are full time students in a degree program. However, they must have completed their studies by July at the beginning of their fellowship period.)
• Lobbying or faith-based organizations
• Existing organizations which have grown past their start-up phase

Number of Fellowships: Several

Value of Fellowship:

• A dedicated Echoing Green portfolio manager to assist in the development of an Individualized Fellow Plan, access to technical expertise and pro bono partnerships to help grow their organization, and support from Echoing Green chaplains
• Leadership development, peer mentorship, and targeted networking opportunities
• A community of like-minded social entrepreneurs, public service leaders, and industry leaders including the Echoing Green network of over 700 Fellows working in sixty countries all over the world.
• A stipend of $80,000 for individuals (or $90,000 for two-person partnerships) paid in four equal installments over two years
• A health insurance stipend and yearly professional development stipend

Duration of Fellowship: two years plus ongoing support

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit fellowship webpage for details

Echidna Global Scholars Program 2020 for Researchers in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Washington, DC)

Application Deadline: 1st October 2019

To Be Taken At (Country): Brookings Institution, Washington D.C., USA

About the Award: The Echidna Global Scholars Program is a visiting fellowship hosted by the Center for Universal Education (CUE) at the Brookings Institution. The program aims to build the research and analytical skills of NGO leaders and academics who have substantial experience and ties to developing countries. Echidna Global Scholars spend four to six months at Brookings pursuing research on global education issues, with a specific focus on improving learning opportunities and outcomes for girls in the developing world. Upon completion of their fellowship, CUE supports the scholars in implementing an action plan that applies their new skills and expertise in the developing country where they have demonstrated substantial ties.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Education /Experience Requirements: The program selects professionals with substantial experience in and ties to developing countries, a demonstrated intent to return to a developing country, and a passion and demonstrated commitment to girls’ education. Applicants should have a background in education, development, economics, or a related area, with at least 15 years of professional experience in either research/academia; non-government and civil society; government; or business.  Master’s degree required; Ph.D. or research background strongly preferred.
• Knowledge/Skills Requirements: Strong analytical and writing skills. Successful applicants will have an intimate understanding of education development issues and/or issues related to development and gender.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Applicants selected for the fellowship will receive a living stipend of USD $5,000 a month (subject to U.S. tax withholding), paid housing for the four-and-a-half-month term, and round-trip travel expenses.

Duration of Programme: The research project must take place within a 7-8-month timeframe of pre-residency and residency work. Data collection must be completed by the scholar at home prior to the start of the residency at Brookings in Washington, D.C. Analysis and writing must be completed during the residency. The residency will begin on or around June 2020 and end in mid-October 2020.

How to Apply: Brookings requires that all applicants submit a cover letter and resume. Please attach your cover letter and resume as one document when you apply. Successful completion of a background investigation is required for employment at Brookings.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Brookings Institution

• Please note that this position is a part- time resident fellowship at Brookings (it is not an employee position).
• Brookings is an equal-opportunity employer that is committed to promoting a diverse and inclusive workplace. We welcome applications from all qualified individuals regardless of race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, physical or mental disability, marital status, veteran status, or other factors protected by law.

IREX Community Solutions Programme for Community Activists (Fully-funded to the US) 2020

Application Deadline: 30th October 2019, at 11:59 p.m. EDT.

Eligible Countries: See below

To be taken at (country): The United States

About the Award: The Community Solutions Program (CSP) is a year-long professional development program for people who are working to improve their communities by addressing issues related to the environment, tolerance and conflict resolution, transparency and accountability, and women and gender.
For 2020–2021, up to 80 community activists will be selected to participate in the program, which includes:

• Four-month Fellowship in the United States: Community Solutions fellows are matched to host organizations throughout the U.S. where they complete a four-month, hands-on professional experience.
• Community Leadership Institute: Community Solutions fellows participate in the Community Leadership Institute, a leadership training program designed to strengthen their leadership and management skills. The Institute includes face-to-face trainings, online courses, professional coaching, and networking.
• Community-based initiatives: While in the U.S. and with the help of their U.S. host organization, Community Solutions fellows design and plan a community development initiative or project to carry out after they return home. Once the fellows depart the U.S., they put these projects into action in their home communities.

Type: Training, Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Community Solutions Program, applicants must meet the requirements listed below. Applications that do not meet these eligibility requirements will be disqualified and will not be reviewed by the selection committee.

• You are between the ages of 25 and 38 as of January 1, 2020;
• You are a citizen of one of the eligible countries listed below;
• You are living and working in your home country;
  • Individuals with refugee status working on behalf of their home community may be given special consideration.
• You have at least two years of experience working on community development, either as a full-time or part-time employee or volunteer;
• You are not currently participating in an academic, training, or research program in the U.S.;
• You have a high level of proficiency in spoken and written English at the time of application;
  • Semifinalists will be required to take or submit recent scores for a TOEFL or IELTS English language test.
• You are available to travel to the U.S. for four months from August to December 2020;
• You are not a citizen or permanent resident of the U.S. and have not applied for U.S. permanent residency within the past three years;
• You are eligible to receive a U.S. J-1 visa;
  • Applicants who have participated in an exchange program sponsored by the U.S. Government must have fulfilled their two-year home residency requirement.
• You are committed to returning to your home country for a minimum of two years after completing the program; and
• You are not a current IREX employee or consultant, or their immediate family member.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Programme: The Community Solutions Programme covers the cost of most expenses associated with:

• J-1 visa support;
• Round-trip travel from participants’ home city to the US;
• Monthly allowance to cover housing, meals and other living expenses while in the US;
• Accident and sickness insurance.

Duration of Programme: 1 year

Eligible Countries:  

• Africa: Botswana, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
• East Asia and the Pacific: Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam.
• Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey, and Ukraine.
• Middle East and North Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and West Bank/Palestinian Territories.
• South and Central Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
• Western Hemisphere: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay.

How to Apply: Applications must be submitted online here by October 30, 2019, at 11:59 p.m. EDT. Applications that are mailed, faxed, or e-mailed to IREX will not be accepted.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: International Research and Exchanges Board Inc. (IREX)

Can America Break Its Gun Addiction?

Jesse Jackson

After mass shootings in Southaven, Mississippi; Dayton, Ohio; and Midland, El Paso and Odessa, Texas, public demand for sensible gun reform once more soared.

And once more, Republican politicians, led by President Donald Trump, were intimidated into inaction by the gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association.

Remarkably, it was America’s largest retailer — Walmart — that exhibited the courage politicians lacked.

It was in a Walmart store in El Paso where a gunman armed with an assault-style rifle, roused by the hate-filled rhetoric about a Latino “invasion” of our country, shot 48 people, killing 22.

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, a lifelong hunter, realized that they had to take action to protect workers and customers in their stores. Walmart announced that it would ban open carry of guns in its stores.

In addition, it would discontinue selling handgun ammunition and ammunition that can be used in large-capacity clips on assault-style weapons. This was no small step.

The NRA and other gun lobbies immediately called on members to boycott Walmart.

Walmart itself projected that it would lose about half of its ammunition sales with this decision and also called on the federal government to act to “strengthen background checks” and to consider “reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban.”

Walmart’s action moved other retailers to act, as Kroger, the nation’s largest grocery chain, CVS, Walgreens and Wegmans also announced bans on open carry. (Other chains like Target, Starbucks and Chipotle have had policies against open carry for years).

The laws on open carry and concealed carry of handguns vary from state to state, but open carry is legal in most states, often without any requirement for a permit.

Walmart’s example should now lead to a broader nonviolent movement to limit the carrying of guns, even as citizens push for legislative reforms at the state and national level.

In many states, like Texas, open carry is legal in churches. Churches across the country should follow Walmart’s lead and post signs banning the carrying of guns — open or concealed — on church property.

On university campuses, states’ laws vary dramatically, but most allow institutions to limit open or concealed carry. Students across the country should ensure that their university has acted to limit guns to the extent the laws allow.

At athletic events, again laws vary. Generally, it is illegal to carry guns into professional athletic events from the NFL to the MLB.

Most states also ban guns from high school or interscholastic sporting events. But as a college level, laws vary.

In many states, concealed carry is legal unless the university posts signs banning guns. Surely every campus should act to keep guns out of the stands at athletic events.

If more retailers follow Walmart, and if churches and universities and concert halls and movie theaters act to ban weapons from their premises, a movement for common sense gun regulation can continue to build.

When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called America the “most violent nation on earth,” he was widely condemned, but he was right. No other nation suffers the level of gun violence that we endure. No other nation fights in as many wars on as many continents as we do.

Other nations savaged by civil war or outside invasion may suffer greater casualties in a conflict, but we have made violence — and victims of violence — routine.

King argued that we have a choice in the end between nonviolence and nonexistence.

The only hope for sensible gun regulation is to challenge the corruption represented by the NRA by nonviolent demonstrations and action, enlisting the overwhelming majority of Americans in a movement for change.

Unhappy India

Arshad M. Khan

Not very long ago (Sept 2, 2019), India launched a rocket to the far side of the moon. It carried a lunar lander that fell silent following the landing attempt four days later. Had it survived, India would have become the fourth country in the world to accomplish the feat. Still, the partial success was a matter of pride. There have been other signal achievements including a doubling of GDP in the past decade. Then, why are Indians unhappy?

The World Happiness Report for 2018 ranks Pakistan and Portugal respectively at numbers 75 and 77 while India is far behind at 133 adjacent to Congo at 132 and Niger 134. Bangladesh at 115 is also happier than India. On the other hand, India’s per capita GDP ($2036 — IMF) is now higher than Pakistan ($1555). So again, the question: Why are Indians unhappy?

Could it be the answer lies not in absolute but relative wealth? The Gini Index is a measure of wealth inequality where 100 represents the most inequality possible and zero perfect equality i.e. when everyone has the same wealth. On the subcontinent for 2018, Pakistan’s index at 30.7 beats many first world countries while India’s (35.7) is way behind. Pakistanis are also higher in generosity (0.216), whereas for India this variable is much lower at 0.172. Generally, charitable giving is found to improve self-image and well-being.

India is seeking another way as archeologists are busy trying to dig up evidence of events described in the Hindu religious texts — ancient civilization becoming a tool for expressing Hindu superiority and raising self-esteem. Yet India does not really have to; it can bask in the architectural glory and beauty of the Taj Mahal. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) might have kept count of who were Hindu artisans and laborers and who Muslim, not the Mughals. Perhaps the BJP can find vindication and gratification in the fact that Shah Jahan’s mother (Manmati Bai) was Hindu.

Mr. Modi might also glance westward at Egypt and its pyramids to observe that magnificent ancient civilizations do little to enhance stature in the present. A better focus for him could be on the 800 million of his own people trying to earn enough each day to get a meal; indeed, while his staff are proud to announce, he changes his clothes three times a day. Vainglorious and narcissistic may be, but it is difficult to forget Mr. Modi’s chalk stripe suiting with his name woven into the stripes. Extreme penury and inequality are unlikely to make a people happy.

Add to that the caste system and its unbelievable (for the modern world) treatment of untouchables — who are not a negligible minority when every sixth Indian is one. The chronicle of a family, Untouchables by Narendra Jadhav is an enlightening but painful read. Imagine not being able to drink from the village well because of birth and heritage. Most humans are proud of their heritage, but like the Nazis earlier, the BJP tries to restrict it to the three upper castes among Hindus.

Recurrent lower-caste humiliation and threat of violence draws rancor turning to disguised hostility, not the best ingredients for a happy homogenized society. To this can be supplemented the newly-formed notion of Hindu superiority — a bald-faced conceit when the country had been ruled by Muslims and the British for 800 years, not forgetting the Sikhs in the Punjab.

There could be another marker for happiness: a low suicide rate. Science magazine’s cover topic in vol 365 (23 Aug 2019) was devoted to the tragedy of suicide. The global average rate is 10.5 per 100,000 of population. On the subcontinent, Pakistan’s is less than a half at 4.5; India’s a whopping 15.6 (pp 736-7). Yet it is possible the rate is even higher as the notorious farmer suicide figures are manipulated by the states according to Wikipedia. The para on the number of farmers cites researchers’ claims that “… official data may be overestimating the number of total farmers in India, and undercounting the total number of farmer suicides every year.”

Worth a brief mention, Japan’s tradition of harikari leads to the very high rate of 15.7; India with a comparable figure has no such tradition.

One surprise is that six of the top seven countries with the lowest suicide rates are not necessarily rich … just Muslim, so Pakistan is not an anomaly. Perhaps it is the Islamic emphasis on equality, brotherhood and mandatory charitable giving that facilitates societal cohesion. Islamic countries also average a rate so low as to be about a third of that for wealthy Europe and North America.

If it appears contradictory because the Scandinavian countries in Europe are also at the top of the happiness report, there are other issues to consider like the dark of winter leading to depression. Among the top ten in the world, the suicide rate in Greenland is 51.1, Lithuania 28.0, Russia 25.1. It seems the major reason Scandinavian countries are happier is due to the broad social welfare net covering healthcare, unemployment, pensions, and so on. It frees the populace from the usual worries about old age security or of paying large hospital and drug bills as in the US. Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are, however, comparable on the social welfare scale.

Then there is the serious issue of insurgencies. While mostly confined to the northeast and east, the battles are more common than is commonly realized. Thus the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) project reports that in 2016 (the latest figures) there were 186 violent events (about every second day) of which 52 percent were battles. Bomb blasts targeting security forces accounted for 19 percent and another 9 percent sought to destroy infrastructure. Violence against civilians hurt by both sides constituted the remaining 20 percent. These conflicts are ongoing since the early sixties with thousands of lives lost, as a quick glance at Wikipedia confirms. Of course, violence in Kashmir is on a different scale altogether for the lives lost number in the tens of thousands.

India is a fractious country divided by caste, religion, ethnicity, language; wracked by political and administrative corruption; stymied by bureaucratic incompetence; and yet producing brilliant engineers and scientists capable of world-quality research and space exploration. It is cause for hope, although slim, unless the country pulls itself up by its bootstraps socially and economically.