14 Dec 2020

Canada’s far north Nunavut Territory faces major COVID-19 outbreak

Alexandra Greene


Until early November, Canada’s sparsely populated Nunavut territory was among the few inhabited places on the planet that had not seen a single case of COVID-19. Located in Canada’s remote far north, the territory was able to remain COVID-free for eight months after the virus took hold in North America, by implementing strict travel controls and social distancing in grocery stores and other places.

However, as a second wave of the pandemic developed in Canada’s south this fall as a result of the reckless back-to-work and back-to-school policies pursued by the federal and provincial governments, the virus inevitably found its way into the territory. After the first COVID-19 case was reported last month, the virus quickly spread, forcing small and isolated Nunavut communities to cope with major outbreaks in the midst of harsh winter conditions.

Sanikiluaq, Nunavut in December (Wikipedia)

Only residents and essential workers were permitted to enter the territory as of March 24. Those coming from elsewhere who were approved to enter the territory had to undergo a mandatory 14-day period of self-isolation beforehand in either Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Yellowknife.

Health officials and community leaders in the territory knew that if the pandemic were to begin spreading in the isolated region, the consequences would be dire. The population of Nunavut, standing at just over 39,000—85 percent of whom are Inuit—has been burdened with simultaneous crises for many years. A chronic housing shortage, a food insecurity crisis and a decades-long struggle with tuberculosis are the main hardships already faced by those living there.

In 2018, the federal government committed to ending TB among Inuit by 2030. But after just two years of effort, progress was officially stalled in January 2020 due to a lack of funding. Rates of tuberculosis among the Inuit are 300 times higher than those observed in non-Indigenous, Canadian-born citizens.

Advocates for tackling the TB crisis in Nunavut acknowledge that the problem is inextricably bound up with a housing crisis, food insecurity and high levels of unemployment.

Varied stressors of poor living conditions oftentimes allow for the disease to become active in a carrier, and this fact combined with the affected population living in overcrowded housing and suffering from malnourishment mean the likelihood of transmission is very high.

Tuberculosis is a disease caused by bacteria that most commonly affect the lungs, causing chest pain, coughing and a host of other symptoms. A 2011 Globe and Mail article labelled Nunavut as “one of the world’s worst places for respiratory health”.

Based on these factors and many others, COVID-19 reaching the territory was a grim prospect, with the potential to cause mass suffering and death.

On November 6, Nunavut’s chief public health officer announced the first official case within the territory. The infected individual was in the small Hudson Bay community of Sanikiluaq, where only about 850 people live. All residents of the community were instructed to remain at home and limit contact with others as contact tracing and exposure tracking measures were put into place. Two days later, a second infection in Nunavut was announced out of the same town.

Just 12 days after the first case was announced, Nunavut had a total of 70 confirmed COVID-19 infections. As of November 28, the territory was into the triple-digits of case numbers, with 131 active cases.

On December 2, lockdown restrictions imposed two weeks earlier were lifted for all areas except the hamlet of Arviat. Although the number of active cases has eased somewhat, there were still 49 active cases in Nunavut as of yesterday. The community of Arviat is especially affected, reporting nine new cases yesterday.

Over 640 people who have potentially been exposed to the virus are being “followed” by the Government of Nunavut. The official Nunavut Department of Health website page recording COVID-19 information states that “persons followed includes individuals with specific symptoms and exposures as well as others who are self-monitoring or self-isolated,” but this statement is followed by a disclaimer noting that not all of these individuals have symptoms or require testing.

Arviat, a community of approximately 2,550 people, is now seeing families confined to their homes as winter arrives. The problems of overcrowded and inadequate housing are thus compounded.

Families are speaking out about the difficult living conditions that they are struggling to cope with. Cecilia Akammak, an Arviat resident, spoke to CBC News about how her household of 11 people has gone without hot water throughout the duration of the outbreak. The family’s boiler is broken, and at a time when hygiene and sanitation to limit the spread of the virus is of the utmost importance, Cecilia has had to boil water to disinfect surfaces and to provide her family with water to simply wash their hands.

Cecilia lives with her husband, children and grandchildren in a three-bedroom public housing unit. The Nunavut Housing Corporation says only emergency repairs are possible, as maintenance staff with the local housing authority are self-isolating. Consequently, Cecilia’s boiler cannot be fixed at this time.

Another Arviat resident, Jennifer Aulatut, told CBC News that the water in her household is yellow and makes her children sick. As a result, Jennifer buys fresh water at the store, yet due to financial constraints that is not always possible. Usually, when a situation like this occurs or the 60-year-old dilapidated home her family resides in needs repairs, she will stay with other family members in a different house. However, currently that is not possible due to lockdown measures.

These terrible conditions are faced by many other households in Nunavut, where 54 percent of Inuit peoples live in “hidden homelessness.” This means that they have no home of their own but are not visibly living on the street. Approximately one half of the 39,000 people living in the territory do so in overcrowded housing. As of 2016, 36.5 percent of the population were in “core housing need,” more than double the rate in any other province or territory.

The desperate housing crisis and rampant poverty confronting wide sections of Nunavut’s population are exacerbated by the longstanding problem of exorbitant food prices. Major retail chains offload the cost of shipping food to the far north by charging exorbitant prices that make it impossible for most people to eat a healthy diet. A kilogram of asparagus costs over C$32 in Iqaluit in January, while an apple averages around C$1.50. According to Food Banks Canada, it costs a staggering C$1,846 per month to feed a family of four in the community of Taloyoak, compared to C$868 in the national capital, Ottawa.

Government policies have actively contributed to the worsening food crisis. In 2011, the federal government implemented the Nutrition North Canada (NNC) program, which provides subsidies to retailers, supposedly to reduce prices for customers. However, this hardly ever occurs, both because the government does not enforce price controls and because the retailer receiving the subsidies is often the only store one can shop at in the entire community. According to a 2019 study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, food insecurity in Nunavut’s 10 largest communities increased 13.5 percent following the introduction of the NNC, which replaced a scheme known as Food Mail, which subsidized food shipments via Canada Post.

Labor helps expand Australian spy agency’s secret interrogation powers

Mike Head


Last Thursday, just as parliament shut down for the year, the opposition Labor Party joined hands with the Liberal-National Coalition government to pass a bill to significantly expand the police-state powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

In just a matter of hours, the ASIO Amendment Bill was pushed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate with virtually no debate, accompanied by lavish praise for ASIO, the main domestic political surveillance agency.

The legislation allows ASIO to secretly interrogate teenagers as young as 14, rather than 16. It also extends ASIO’s coercive questioning powers beyond alleged terrorism-related activity to suspected “foreign interference,” “espionage” and “politically motivated violence.”

People can be detained by ASIO for up to 24 hours and forced to answer questions if the spy agency suspects that they have information about plans for such activity. If they refuse to answer a question, or provide an answer considered misleading, they can be jailed for up to five years. Moreover, they can be imprisoned for five years if they alert or inform anyone that they have been interrogated.

Despite its far-reaching implications for free speech and other core democratic rights, the bill’s passage went almost completely unreported by the corporate media. The political and media elite are seeking to keep the public in the dark about the growing power of the intelligence apparatus.

When this unprecedented power—effectively detention and interrogation without trial—was first introduced in 2003, it was presented by the Coalition government and Labor as an exceptional but necessary tool to extract information from anyone who might know of a potential terrorist plot.

Once more—as the WSWS warned from the outset—previously unheard-of powers that were originally imposed under the cover of protecting the public in the post-2001 “war on terrorism” have been expanded to cover fields far beyond terrorism. In particular, the legislation covers political activity that governments and ASIO deem “extremist” or coordinated with a “foreign” or international organisation.

This dovetails with the bipartisan commitment to back the escalating US confrontation against China, and the associated denunciations of the Beijing regime and its unsubstantiated supposed “foreign interference” in Australia.

The expansion of ASIO’s powers also points to preparations to try to suppress political discontent amid the increased poverty and social inequality resulting from the official response to the global COVID-19 pandemic and worst economic crash since the 1930s Great Depression.

Even 14-year-olds can now be interrogated for up to 24 hours at a time, without being charged with any criminal offence, in order to demand that they provide ASIO with “information.” A security-vetted lawyer can be present, as long as he or she does not “unduly disrupt” the questioning.

Under the amendment bill introduced by Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, ASIO’s power to detain and question people for up to seven days, which has never been used officially, will be removed, but the questioning power will become more far-reaching.

The new law allows the attorney-general to issue ASIO questioning warrants, rather than a judge, and to do so orally in an “emergency.” It also permits police to search individuals they are interrogating and to seize items, such as phones, that could be used to alert other people to the questioning.

ASIO also will be able to place “tracking devices” on cars or in people’s bags with only internal ASIO approval, rather than a warrant.

As the WSWS explained when the bill was first unveiled in May, the expansion of ASIO’s interrogation powers “is another warning of plans to crack down on any views regarded as a threat to the capitalist political and economic order.”

The “foreign interference” laws do not only target China and its alleged local sympathisers. They can be used to outlaw political opposition, anti-war dissent and social unrest by alleging that it is connected to “foreign” campaigns.

These activities could extend to anyone opposing Australian involvement in a US-led military conflict with China, as part of a global fight against the danger of war.

According to a legal advice commissioned by the reformist lobby group GetUp, published in October, the bill could allow ASIO to coercively question journalists and members of civil society organisations, including those involved in international environmental and human rights advocacy.

The Labor Party’s role in helping push the legislation through was consistent with its record. It has either agreed to, or itself legislated, every one of the 140 “national security” laws since 2001. In fact, Labor had already given in-principle backing to the bill in May, before it went to parliament’s intelligence and security committee for fine-tuning with a number of minor amendments.

ALP deputy leader and shadow home minister Kristina Keneally (Photo: Wikimedia)

Speaking in the Senate last Thursday, Labor’s shadow home affairs minister Kristina Keneally specifically re-emphasised her party’s support for extending ASIO’s questioning power to cover “politically motivated violence, including terrorism, foreign interference and espionage.”

Keneally underscored the unity with the Coalition by quoting former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who said: “There is no set-and-forget when it comes to national security.” She echoed the government’s anti-China scare campaign, saying: “We acknowledge that foreign interference and espionage are at heights not previously seen in Australia, including at the height of the Cold War.”

Keneally concluded by paying tribute to ASIO, hailing it for “keeping Australians safe,” while using its powers “judiciously and sparingly.” Officially, the questioning powers have been used 16 times since 2004, but as Dutton had inferred in May, the powers have been used more often informally to pressure people into providing information or collaborating with ASIO.

Far from keeping ordinary people safe, ASIO has a decades-long record of spying on, harassing and conducting dirty tricks operations against socialists, militant workers and others, even church groups and Labor politicians, regarded as opponents of the political establishment.

Several federal and state inquiries conducted in the 1970s proved that ASIO and the state police special branches with which it collaborated, kept extensive files on the activities and personal lives of thousands of members and supporters of left-wing organisations, trade unions and anti-war groups.

Today, ASIO and its partner agencies, such as the Australian Signals Directorate, continue that function as members of the global US-led Five Eyes mass surveillance network, which is increasingly focussed on Washington’s confrontation with China.

Labor is no less committed than the Coalition to the alignment behind the US escalation of the economic and military drive to prevent China from challenging Washington’s post-World War II global dominance.

As Keneally’s remarks underscore, Labor is also equally devoted to suppressing domestic discontent amid the worsening danger of involvement in catastrophic US-led wars.

Pandemic exacerbates internet access crisis in Midwestern US

Cole Michaels


The US is experiencing a crisis of internet access in rural and urban communities. The continued lack of high-speed internet for millions of people well into the 21st century is called the “digital divide.” This divide was starkly exposed this year as school districts nationwide were forced to implement online instruction programs some or all of the time, and a significant portion of routine health evaluations were also moved online as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic.

Nationwide, around 95 percent of urban areas have broadband access, but less than 60 percent of rural areas do. The Pew Research Center published that nationwide, one in four residents in rural areas does not have access to high-speed internet.

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) estimates that $80 billion would be required to close the broadband gap across the country. The agency defines broadband as internet service with a minimum download speed of 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) and a minimum upload speed of 3Mbps. These guidelines are themselves inadequate in the modern age, where multiple people in a household are working, streaming video, or gaming at the same time.

As a result of the pandemic, states are seeing drastic cuts in their budgets that threaten existing weak and piecemeal broadband expansion plans. BroadbandNow publishes statistics on broadband coverage in every state. There are large disparities across the US. Illinois, which ranked 6th in access, has 89 percent coverage, while Nebraska, ranked 48th, only has 75 percent.

Even in states with wider coverage, deeply unequal access persists. One-third to one-half of children in working class and poor neighborhoods of Chicago, including Austin, Humboldt Park and Englewood, lacked broadband access as of April 2020. When schools went online, this lack of basic infrastructure undermined their education. Affluent Chicago neighborhoods have coverage of 90 percent or better, according to a study published by the Metropolitan Planning Council. In Detroit, Michigan 45 percent of households lack broadband access.

School districts providing hotspots to rural students and teachers is no guarantee of adequate access, as internet speeds will stay slow if the town has poor cell tower coverage. In school districts across the country, school buses equipped with Wi-Fi park in neighborhoods to allow students to complete their coursework. Very poor connectivity was one of the many pressures on rural school districts in the ongoing bipartisan drive to reopen schools full-time and put workers back on the job as COVID-19 infection rates soar.

Large internet providers use the profits they make from broadband service in urban areas to increase the dividends of stockholders, instead of using them to improve infrastructure and expand to connect rural customers. While fiber internet is being installed in some rural parts of the country, much of rural America still deals with slower internet speeds than large cities.

Nationwide, the U.S. Census Bureau found 36.4 percent of black households, 30.3 of Hispanic households and 21.2 percent of white households have no broadband or computers in 2017.

The Midwest, a 12-state region of 65 million people, has some of the lowest rates of high-speed connectivity in the nation. In 2018, Congress allocated $550 million through the ReConnect Program to bring broadband to rural communities, through a combination of grants and loans. As this funding is meant to cover all 50 states, each individual state gets only a small portion of funding. In the Midwest, each state can connect at most a few thousand people and businesses. The profit-seeking of these private providers may price some households out of the broadband newly available in their area.

In Indiana, northwestern Jasper County (population 33,500) is only now having broadband installed in its Kankakee School Corporation. The State of Indiana, Watch Communications, SBA Communications, Wabash College, and the Purdue Research Foundation’s Innovation Partners Institute (IPI) indicate plans to have broadband installed in the district by January 2021. 84,000 Indiana students lack internet access at home.

The IPI director of the project, Mohammad Shakouri, Ph.D., explained the importance of small communities having access to broadband internet. “We are experiencing a digital transformation in our communities, and the wise adoption of technology is critically important to ensure not only success but equity.” He made the point, “increasingly ‘connectivity’ is viewed just as important to one’s quality of life as food, shelter, education and safety.”

Kankakee Valley School Corporation Superintendent Don Street said, “This project will help us overcome the lack of connectivity in our area that suddenly became a huge hurdle for many of our students when we moved to e-learning in the spring.”

In Nebraska, $3.1 million of the ReConnect funds will be used in Brown, Rock and Keya Paha counties to connect 261 people, 70 farms and seven businesses. $8.9 million in Remote Access Rural Broadband Grant funding will allow Great Plains Communications (GPC) to connect 4,788 households in various small towns in a project begun this September.

The Missouri city of Hannibal (Marion and Ralls counties, population 17,300) has had a 4.5-mile fiber internet extension installed by communications infrastructure provider Bluebird Network, bringing the total number of fiber miles to 13.5. Hannibal now has 554 buildings with fiber service.

The Pittsburg School District of Hickory County, Missouri will install a private network for district families that cannot afford their own internet, and it can only be used for educational purposes. The school district began this initiative as it found that 20 percent of its students lacked adequate internet. Nearly 11 percent of Missouri children have no broadband access.

Stan Finger wrote a story on how rural Kansas residents’ efforts to maintain their work and complete schoolwork are hindered by lack of internet access. State Rep. Mark Schreiber said that around 95,000 Kansas households have nonexistent or inadequate internet. As with urban businesses, farmers need high-speed internet to keep track of the changes that happen throughout the growing season and to operate equipment.

Kansas Commerce Secretary David Toland remarked on how the pandemic exposed how badly needed broadband is in the state. “When you’re suddenly thrust into a situation where people are having to work remotely, and go to school remotely, and visit their medical provider remotely, you find out really quickly where those deficiencies are and how work and life can and can’t get done.” Minnesota Compass released a report stating that almost half of all households in Greater Minnesota, and 40 percent in the Twin Cities, with annual incomes of $20,000 or less, do not subscribe to internet service.

In Wisconsin, a quarter of rural residents lack broadband at 25Mbps or better. Ninety-two percent of urban and 75 percent of rural residents have broadband in the state. For Michigan, the US Census Bureau reports that 82,894 households in the Detroit Public Schools District and 14,221 households in the Flint School District have no internet access. In Washtenaw County, where University of Michigan Ann Arbor is located, 57 percent of K-12 students have no high-speed internet in their homes.

In rural northern Michigan, Lake County high school junior Michael Cavender explained how his home internet gets bogged down. “Since I have five brothers, the internet slows down a lot, like long wait times just sitting there. So, yeah, that’s kind of difficult. It’s really hard to turn in assignments and do work like that, and sometimes when I’m in meetings, I can barely hear the person because of how much of a lag there is.”

As of 2020 in South Dakota, 91.6 percent of residents had broadband access. However, the Regional Educational Laboratory Central at the Institute of Education Sciences reported that 11.1 percent of people aged 5-19 in South Dakota (17,280 people) did not have access in 2019.

The Midwest states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota have large tracts of Tribal land. Only 65 percent of Tribal lands had access to broadband as of July 2020, according to the DIGITAL Reservations Act.

In Iowa, $1.8 million of the ReConnect program funds will go to adding broadband, including for 1,338 people, 70 farms and 21 businesses in rural counties.

In Ohio, in areas with 20 or fewer households per square mile, 80-90 percent of households have no broadband access. One million people, or 340,000 households, in Ohio have no internet at all. Even in a major city like Columbus, 30 percent of households are unable to access broadband, mainly due to cost. About 402,000 children in the state lack internet-capable devices. ReConnect funds of $14.9 million will enable 2,722 homes and businesses to be served by 318 miles of fiber in southern Illinois by West Kentucky and Tennessee Telecommunications. The city of Quincy (Adams County, population 65,700) will receive $1.6 million to connect 440 people, 34 farms and 18 businesses. Work on the Quincy project is to begin next year. Over one million Illinois residents are still unable to access consistent high-speed internet.

The naked profiteering anticipated with the end of “net neutrality” is being accelerated by the pandemic, which has put families at home more than ever, relying on high-speed internet for work, school and recreation. Last month, Comcast announced that it plans to place data caps on users in 14 states and the District of Columbia, including Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia, Washington D.C., and parts of North Carolina and Ohio, according to The Verge. Once users use more than 1.2TB (terabytes) of data in a month, they will be charged $10 per 50GB, up to a maximum overage fee of $100. This cap is already in effect in other states.

Companies like AT&T are also imposing usage caps. A recent OpenVault study indicates that from the third quarter of 2019 to the third quarter of 2020, the number of internet subscribers using at least 1TB of data has more than doubled. Claims by the telecommunications companies that they must increase rates because high-data users “stress the system” are lies, and the companies have boasted in 2020 of how well their networks have handled increased demand throughout the pandemic.

Ensuring all have access to high-speed internet is a vital part of creating a socialist culture. The money to ensure that all Americans have reliable, high-speed internet exists many times over, but it is controlled by a tiny section of the megarich. It will be up to the American working class to return that stolen wealth to the people to address the many problems of infrastructure the country has, internet access included.

US Treasury and Commerce department email systems reportedly hacked

Kevin Reed


Major US news outlets reported on Sunday that hackers had broken into the US Treasury and Commerce department computer systems and were monitoring internal email activity for months without detection. Unidentified experts and government officials “familiar with the matter” were quick to conclude that the hackers were “believed to be” working for Russian intelligence.

Among the first to report the hack was Reuters, which wrote that their sources “feared the hacks uncovered so far may be the tip of the iceberg,” and that “the hack is so serious it led to a National Security Council meeting at the White House on Saturday.”

United States Department of the Treasury (Matt Robinson/Flickr)

Reuters reported that US government officials have not said much publicly about the hack other than the acknowledgment by the Commerce Department that “there was a breach at one of its agencies and that they asked the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the FBI to investigate.”

John Ullyot, Deputy Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Strategic Communications at the National Security Council, told Reuters the agency was “taking all necessary steps to identify and remedy any possible issues related to this situation.”

The report went on to say that the hack appears to have taken place when software updates from government IT service provider SolarWinds had been tampered with in what is known as a “supply chain attack.” The technology platform—which serves US government customers “across the executive branch, the military, and the intelligence services”—was attacked with malicious code embedded “in the body of legitimate software updates.”

The Austin, Texas-based SolarWinds issued a statement late on Sunday acknowledging it had “experienced a highly sophisticated, manual supply chain attack” on its Orion platform software. On Monday, the firm stated that fewer than 18,000 of its 300,000 customers had software compromised by the hack.

The SolarWinds hack did not involve stealing usernames and passwords, a common technique used to gain widespread access to secure systems. Instead, once the hackers were in the SolarWinds network management software through the updates breach, they were able to insert counterfeit “tokens,” essentially electronic indicators that provide an assurance to Microsoft, Google or other providers about the identity of the computer system to which its email systems are communicating.

The New York Times reported that the Trump administration acknowledged the hack on Sunday and said it was carried out “on behalf of a foreign government—almost certainly a Russian intelligence agency, according to federal and private experts.”

The Times wrote that the Commerce Department agency affected by the hack “appeared to be the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which helps determine policy for internet-related issues, including setting standards and blocking imports and exports of technology that is considered a national security risk.”

The Washington Post was categorical in its report that “Russian government hackers breached the Treasury and Commerce departments, along with other U.S. government agencies, as part of a global espionage campaign that stretches back months.” The Post claimed that Russian hackers “known by the nicknames APT29 or Cozy Bear, are part of that nation’s foreign intelligence service, the SVR,” according to “people familiar with the intrusions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.”

The Russian government, communicating through its embassy in Washington, DC, denied that the Moscow government was engaged in hacking and said it “does not conduct offensive operations in the cyber domain.” In a Facebook post, the embassy said, “attempts of the US media to blame Russia for hacker attacks on US governmental bodies” were unfounded.

The hack of Treasury and Commerce department email communications comes less than a week after the National Security Agency (NSA)—an intelligence organization specializing in international cyberespionage—issued a warning about “Russian state-sponsored actors” who were exploiting systems used widely by the US government.

Although no details about the nature of the exploits were provided at that time, several days later the cybersecurity company FireEye announced that state-sponsored hackers had breached its servers and stolen some of its tools used to find vulnerabilities in government systems. A subsequent FireEye investigation named the Russian intelligence agency SVR as well as the hackers Cozy Bear and APT29.

FireEye is used by US government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the branches of US intelligence, to test the security of their system with a battery of hacking techniques that the company maintains in a database. According to the New York Times report, the hackers who breached FireEye stole the firms “red team” tools and likely used these methods to hijack the SolarWinds Orion platform software updates.

While no evidence has been provided that the hacking was carried out by Russian intelligence, the fact that the top-level computer system used by the White House, the NSA, the Pentagon, the State Department and the Department of Justice—along with that of the top 10 telecommunications companies—has been broken into and was monitored for weeks without anyone knowing about it is a devastating revelation.

Jake Williams, a former NSA hacker and president of the cybersecurity firm Rendition Infosec, told the Associated Press, “I suspect that there’s a number of other (federal) agencies we’re going to hear from this week that have also been hit.”

US Government TechGirls Programme 2021

Application Deadline: 15th January 2021 09:00PM EST

Eligible African Countries: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Territories, and Tunisia;

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: Since 2012, TechGirls trained and mentored 186 teenage girls (ages 15-17) from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestinian Territories, Tunisia, and Yemen. The core of the program is a three-week experience in the United States. 

TechGirls participate in an interactive technology and computer camp (with US Girls), join a tech company for a day of job shadowing, and participate in community service initiatives. There is a TechGirls multiplier effect – inspiring others in their local community to pursue Stem.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Students eligible to apply are those who:

  • Are from one of the following eligible countries:
    • United States
    • Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Territories, and Tunisia;
    •  Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan
  • Are between the ages of 15 and 17 at the start of the exchange;
  • Have demonstrated advanced skills and a serious interest in technology, engineering, and/or math in their academic studies;
  • Intend to pursue higher education and/or careers in technology;
  • Have strong English language skills;
  • Exhibit maturity, flexibility, and open-mindedness;
  • Will attend at least one additional semester of secondary school upon their return to their home country; and
  • Are committed to completing a community-based project upon their return home.
  • Preference will be given to those who have limited or no prior experience in the United States. You are not eligible if you have travelled to the United States in the last three years as part of any other ECA exchange program.

Please note that family members of U.S. Embassy or Consulate staff or U.S. Department of State employees are not eligible to apply.

TechGirls encourages people with diverse backgrounds and skills to apply, including individuals with disabilities.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The TechGirls program covers the following costs:

  • Roundtrip international airfare from participant home country to the United States
  • Housing during program
  • Double occupancy hotel or dormitory accommodations
  • Meals during program
  • Breakfast, lunch, and dinner

How to Apply: Online Application

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Microsoft Imagine Cup Global Student Contest (USD$100,000 prize money) 2021

Application Deadline: 29th January 2021 before 02:59:59 GMT+0

Eligible Countries: Countries in Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA)

About the Award: Incredible, world-changing software innovations often come from students. Social networks, music services, photo apps, games, gadgets and robotics – the list goes on. We’re looking for the next big thing and we know students like you are going to make it. Imagine Cup, Microsoft’s premier international competition for young developers, is your chance to show off your biggest, boldest software solution. Code with purpose and show the world what you’ve got.

There are four categories in the 2021 Imagine Cup competition – Earth, Education, Health, and Lifestyle. Get started building your tech skills by completing a Microsoft Learn module in the category you’re most passionate about to advance in the competition.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: You’re encouraged to submit an original application/solution that you and your team of up to three (3) have built (either on your own time, through your coursework, as a participant in a student hackathon, etc.). For your submission to qualify for the 2021 Imagine Cup, your application must utilize Microsoft Azure. For more details, see the Contest Rules.

Selection: Organized by Microsoft subsidiaries in those countries, the National Finals select the best teams from each participating country as they pitch and demo their ideas to experts to vie for a coveted spot at the Imagine Cup World Finals.

Number of Awards:  These are the awards to be received by participants:

  • First Place:
    • $85,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
    • Remote mentoring session with Satya Nadella
  • Second Place:
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Big Data Award
    • Required use of Azure Data + Analytics or IoT
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Artificial Intelligence Award
    • Required use of Azure Artificial Intelligence + Cognitive Services
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Mixed Reality Award
    • Required use of HoloLens, Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant

Value of Award: 

Round 1: Each Local Event may offer prizes at the discretion of the local Microsoft representatives representing that competition. The existence, nature, and conditions of such prizes are subject to the rules of each Local Event. Every team who advances to round 2 will receive a trip to an Imagine Cup Regional Final event. Trip includes round trip coach airfare from a major airport closest to each competitor’s home, standard hotel accommodations, ground
transportation, and select meals during the Regional Final. Mentors to the team are not eligible for this travel prize.
Round 2: At each Regional Final, there will be three winning teams selected. At least one member of the team must be present to win. (Mentors and associates will not be awarded any portion of the monetary prize winnings.)

First Place:
o $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
o Microsoft Azure Grant
o First place teams will advance to Round 3 and receive a trip to the Imagine Cup World Championship

Second Place:
o $5,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
o Microsoft Azure Grant

Third Place:
o $1,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
o Microsoft Azure Grant

Round 3: At the World Championship one winning team will be selected. At least one member
of the team must be present to win. (Mentors and associates will not be awarded any portion of
the monetary prize winnings.)

• World Champion:
o $100,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of
the Team
o Microsoft Azure Grant

How to Apply: Register now!

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Seedstars/Shell Foundation Energy, Mobility & Agriculture Innovation Program 2021

Application Deadline: 20th December 2020

About the Award: Seedstars and Shell Foundation have joined forces to look for sustainable, scalable and innovative startups addressing universal access to energy-related challenges, as well as sustainable agriculture, mobility and transportation.

With support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), they are launching the Energy, Mobility and Agriculture Innovation Program to find African tech entrepreneurs in the mobility, transportation, energy, and agriculture space in order to provide them with the resources, training, and potential funding to scale their startups and impact.

The objective of this program is to support, catalyse and train the highest potential tech-based early stage (seed)African-led  startups working towards:

  • universal access to energy (household energy to heat, light and cook; energy for business and large communities);
  • sustainable mobility and  transportation (clean and safe transportation in rural areas and last mile transportation);
  • or sustainable agriculture value chains ( innovations that improve access to knowledge, finance, markets or knowledge for smallholder farmers).

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: The following are the criteria for startups interested in applying for the program: 

  • Startup should be African-led and based or operating in at least one Sub-Saharan African country;
  • Tech solution must be focused on the mobility, transportation, energy, or agriculture value chains;
  • Startup must be at their early stage/seed round with a minimum viable product (MVP);
  • Startup must have initial traction and already able to generate revenue; 
  • startup must have raised only less than $1M to date; and 
  • Startup should have significant positive impact on lower income communities (in line with SDGs 2, 7 or 11)

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Selected startups will be able to take part in Seedstars’ three-month Investment Readiness Program, which will provide the entrepreneurs with 1-on-1 mentoring with industry experts, potential funding opportunities, and leverage  human and knowledge resources available within Shell Foundation.

How to Apply: Interested applicants can sign up here before Dec 20th: https://seedsta.rs/3meCEG1

  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Fish Wars and Brexit

Binoy Kampmark


Warring over fish in the twenty-first century might seem an unlikely proposition.  But the deployment of four Royal Navy ships to deter European fishing vessels from encroaching on British waters in the event of a no-deal Brexit has tongues wagging.  The prospects of a trade pact between the EU and UK by the end of this month are becoming cold and remote.  This much has been admitted by the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and his EU counterpart, Ursula von der Leyen.

A key contention between the parties is the issue of fishing.  Access to British waters by European nations is a long affair that prompted the late diplomat Sir Con O’Neill to remark that, “The question of fisheries was economic peanuts, but political dynamite.”  Eight European member states who fish in British waters are demanding that Britain, despite Brexit, maintain the status quo on fishing arrangements.

Non-UK boats have certainly been very happy to avail themselves of waters within the UK’s 200-nautical mile economic zone.  Between 2012 and 2014, it was estimated that 58% of fish and shellfish landed from the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone were caught by non-UK boats.  This comprised 650,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish worth £408 million each year.  UK fishing boats, in contrast, landed 90,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish, worth £103 million.

As the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier explained to the House of Lords in June, “the fisheries agreement we want with the United Kingdom would be an indissociable part of the economic agreement on trade and the level playing field – or, to make it even more clear, there will be no trade agreement with the UK if there is no balanced agreement on fisheries.”

The picture is a complex tangle.  According to Barnier, various matters must be taken into account: “historical fishing rights, sometimes dating back many centuries; the economic interests of coastal fishing communities in the EU and the UK and international rules from the UN on biodiversity.”

One of the strongest advocates of the status quo position is the French President, Emmanuel Macron.  In October, he put forth his claim that French fishing fleets would continue to fish in British waters irrespective of whether a trade agreement was reached.  As French fishing fleets take 75% of their catch from British waters, the unpopular French leader would like to stay that course.  Last Friday, Macron stated that, while he did not “want to have my cake and eat it” he did not “want the pieces cut equally because I am not giving my piece away”.

The Johnson government sees it differently.  The status quo must change.  Waters are to be reclaimed.  Bigger catches for the British are being demanded.  Barnier has previously suggested some modification of the “two extreme positions” might take place, taking into account the UK’s preference for “zonal attachment”.  Such a softening still looks some way off.

With EU-UK talks teetering on collapse, Johnson’s own gunboat diplomacy is drawing different views.  Tobias Ellwood, Conservative chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, sees it as “irresponsible”.  Former European commissioner Lord Chris Patten identifies the all too bright colours of nationalism at play.  Johnson, he claimed, was on a “runaway train of English exceptionalism”.

A few government backbenchers disagree.  Chests are being thumped.  Daniel Kawczynski suggested last week that a no-deal scenario would mean that the prime minister give an “absolute guarantee … that British naval forces will be deployed from January 1st to prevent illegal French fishing in our waters.”  Retired Royal Navy admiral Sir Alan West considered it “absolutely appropriate that the Royal Navy should protect our waters if the position is that we are a sovereign state and our government has said we don’t want other nations there.”  British fishermen were “quite stormy people” that might see a “punch-up” and the necessary deployment of “some marines and things.”  Ominous signs.

The last time so much heat was expended over fishing rights between Britain and a European state was the protracted agony that came to be known as the Cod Wars.  Between the late 1940s and 1970s, Britain and Iceland waged a conflict over fisheries that threatened to bring two NATO powers into open conflict.

Instances of conflict began with Iceland’s gaining of control over its territorial waters after 1945.  But matters took a turn for the worse with the unilateral declaration by Iceland of an exclusion zone on September 1, 1958 to prevent British trawlers from operating within 12 nautical miles off the country’s coast.

The British, with its fishing industry heavily reliant on shipping in Icelandic waters, ignored the declaration; the Icelandic coastguard asserted its claims.  The issue was not entirely one of pantomime.  Three British frigates – the HMS Eastbourne, the HMS Russell and HMS Palliser – accompanied by the HMS Hound, a minesweeper, were deployed.  To avoid the “appearance of gunboat diplomacy,” as the Guardian correspondent at the time put it, the vessels had sailed from various British ports the previous week, their movements subject to a security blackout.

The Icelandic navy, with its eight small coastguard patrol vessels, promised an aggressive response, intending to fire into the bridge of any trawler coming within the twelve-mile limit, having refused to heed a shot across the bows.  British trawlers were harried and boarded.

In 1973, Iceland extended the zone to 50 miles, which again saw the deployment of British frigates as protection for the trawlers.  In 1976, the distance had been extended to 200 miles.  It took sessions, mediated through NATO, for the two countries to finally come to agreement.  The British were permitted to keep 24 trawlers within the 200 mile area, limiting their catch to 50,000 tons.  Britain’s fisheries were already in poor shape; these arrangements precipitated a dramatic loss of fishing jobs in such ports as Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood.

This time, the European fishing industry risks getting a mauling in the event of a no-deal.  French fishing grounds risk being depleted by the vessels of other European states.  Prices of fish in Europe will also rise.  Tom Premereur, director of the Vlaamse Visveilingen fishing auction market in Ostend, is concerned about Belgium’s share of the catch.  Up to 54% is netted in British waters. “We would lose a lot of fish, certainly the high value fish.”  The gruesome spectacle of territorial aggression, ruined fish stocks and environmental degradation seems, at least as things stand, imminent.

Will Biden’s America Stop Creating Terrorists?

Medea Benjamin & Nicolas J.S. Davies


Joe Biden will take command of the White House at a time when the American public is more concerned about battling coronavirus than fighting overseas wars. But America’s wars rage on regardless, and the militarized counterterrorism policy Biden has supported in the past—based on airstrikes, special operations and the use of proxy forces—is precisely what keeps these conflicts raging.

In Afghanistan, Biden opposed Obama’s 2009 troop surge, and after the surge failed, Obama reverted to the policy that Biden favored to begin with, which became the hallmark of their war policy in other countries as well. In insider circles, this was referred to as “counterterrorism,” as opposed to “counterinsurgency.”

In Afghanistan, that meant abandoning the large-scale deployment of U.S. forces, and relying instead on air strikes, drone strikes and special operations “kill or capture” raids, while recruiting and training Afghan forces to do nearly all the ground fighting and holding of territory.

In the 2011 Libya intervention, the NATO-Arab monarchist coalition embedded hundreds of Qatari special operations forces and Western mercenaries with the Libyan rebels to call in NATO airstrikes and train local militias, including Islamist groups with links to Al Qaeda. The forces they unleashed are still fighting over the spoils nine years later.

While Joe Biden now takes credit for opposing the disastrous intervention in Libya, at the time he was quick to hail its deceptive short-term success and Colonel Gaddafi’s gruesome assassination. “NATO got it right,” Biden said in a speech at Plymouth State College in October 2011 on the very day President Obama announced Gaddafi’s death. “In this case, America spent $2 billion and didn’t lose a single life. This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has in the past.”

While Biden has since washed his hands of the debacle in Libya, that operation was in fact emblematic of the doctrine of covert and proxy war backed by airstrikes that he supported, and which he has yet to disavow. Biden still says he supports “counterterrorism” operations, but he was elected president without ever publicly answering a direct question about his support for the massive use of airstrikes and drone strikes that are an integral part of that doctrine.

In the campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, U.S.-led forces dropped over 118,000 bombs and missiles, reducing major cities like Mosul and Raqqa to rubble and killing tens of thousands of civilians. When Biden said America “didn’t lose a single life” in Libya, he clearly meant “American life.” If “life” simply means life, the war in Libya obviously cost countless lives, and made a mockery of a UN Security Council resolution that approved the use of military force only to protect civilians.

As Rob Hewson, the editor of the arms trade journal Jane’s Air-Launched Weaponstold the AP as the U.S. unleashed its “Shock and Awe” bombardment on Iraq in 2003, “In a war that’s being fought for the benefit of the Iraqi people, you can’t afford to kill any of them. But you can’t drop bombs and not kill people. There’s a real dichotomy in all of this.” The same obviously applies to people in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Palestine and wherever American bombs have been falling for 20 years.

As Obama and Trump both tried to pivot from the failed “global war on terrorism” to what the Trump administration has branded “great power competition,” or a reversion to the Cold War, the war on terror has stubbornly refused to exit on cue. Al Qaeda and Islamic State have been driven from places the U.S. has bombed or invaded, but keep reappearing in new countries and regions. Islamic State now occupies a swath of northern Mozambique, and has also taken root in Afghanistan. Other Al Qaeda affiliates are active across Africa, from Somalia and Kenya in East Africa to eleven countries in West Africa.

After nearly 20 years of “war on terror,” there is now a large body of research into what drives people to join Islamist armed groups fighting local government forces or Western invaders. While American politicians still wring their hands over what twisted motives can possibly account for such incomprehensible behavior, it turns out that it’s really not that complicated. Most fighters are not motivated by Islamist ideology as much as by the desire to protect themselves, their families or their communities from militarized “counterterrorism” forces, as documented in this report by the Center for Civilians in Conflict.

Another study, titled The Journey to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment, found that the tipping point or “final straw” that drives over 70% of fighters to join armed groups is the killing or detention of a family member by “counterterrorism” or “security” forces. The study exposes the U.S. brand of militarized counterterrorism as a self-fulfilling policy that fuels an intractable cycle of violence by generating and replenishing an ever-expanding pool of “terrorists” as it destroys families, communities and countries.

For example, the U.S. formed the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership with 11 West African countries in 2005 and has so far sunk a billion dollars into it. In a recent report from Burkina Faso, Nick Turse cited U.S. government reports that confirm how 15 years of U.S.-led “counterterrorism” have only fueled an explosion of terrorism across West Africa.

The Pentagon’s Africa Center for Strategic Studies reports that the 1,000 violent incidents involving militant Islamist groups in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger in the past year amount to a seven-fold increase since 2017, while the confirmed minimum number of people killed has increased from 1,538 in 2017 to 4,404 in 2020.

Heni Nsaibia, a senior researcher at ACLED (Armed Conflict Location Event Data), told Turse that, “Focusing on Western concepts of counterterrorism and embracing a strictly military model has been a major mistake. Ignoring drivers of militancy, such as poverty and lack of social mobility, and failing to alleviate the conditions that foster insurgencies, like widespread human rights abuses by security forces, have caused irreparable harm.”

Indeed, even the New York Times has confirmed that “counterterrorism” forces in Burkina Faso are killing as many civilians as the “terrorists” they are supposed to be fighting. A 2019 U.S. State Department Country Report on Burkina Faso documented allegations of “hundreds of extrajudicial killings of civilians as part of its counterterrorism strategy,” mainly killing members of the Fulani ethnic group.

Souaibou Diallo, the president of a regional association of Muslim scholars, told Turse that these abuses are the main factor driving the Fulani to join militant groups. “Eighty percent of those who join terrorist groups told us that it isn’t because they support jihadism, it is because their father or mother or brother was killed by the armed forces,” said Diallo. “So many people have been killed—assassinated—but there has been no justice.”

Since the inception of the Global War on Terror, both sides have used the violence of their enemies to justify their own violence, fueling a seemingly endless spiral of chaos spreading from country to country and region to region across the world.

But the U.S. roots of all this violence and chaos run even deeper than this. Both Al Qaeda and Islamic State evolved from groups originally recruited, trained, armed and supported by the CIA to overthrow foreign governments: Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the Nusra Front and Islamic State in Syria since 2011.

If the Biden administration really wants to stop fueling chaos and terrorism in the world, it must radically transform the CIA, whose role in destabilizing countries, supporting terrorism, spreading chaos and creating false pretexts for war and hostility has been well documented since the 1970s by Colonel Fletcher Prouty, William Blum, Gareth Porter and others.

The United States will never have an objective, depoliticized national intelligence system, or therefore a reality-based, coherent foreign policy, until it exorcises this ghost in the machine. Biden has chosen Avril Haines, who crafted the secret quasi-legal basis for Obama’s drone program and protected CIA torturers, to be his Director of National Intelligence. Is Haines up to the job of transforming these agencies of violence and chaos into a legitimate, working intelligence system? That seems unlikely, and yet it is vital.

The new Biden administration needs to take a truly fresh look at the whole range of destructive policies the United States has pursued around the world for decades, and the insidious role the CIA has played in so many of them.

We hope Biden will finally renounce hare-brained, militarized policies that destroy societies and ruin people’s lives for the sake of unattainable geopolitical ambitions, and that he will instead invest in humanitarian and economic aid that really helps people to live more peaceful and prosperous lives.

We also hope that Biden will reverse Trump’s pivot back to the Cold War and prevent the diversion of more of our country’s resources to a futile and dangerous arms race with China and Russia.

We have real problems to deal with in this century – existential problems that can only be solved by genuine international cooperation. We can no longer afford to sacrifice our future on the altar of the Global War on Terror, a New Cold War, Pax Americana or other imperialist fantasies.