Violent clashes follow announcement of businessman Jovenel Moïse as election winner in Haiti

John Marion

Protests and clashes with police broke out in Haiti Tuesday amid charges of electoral fraud in the country’s November 20 presidential election. Losing candidates have vowed to challenge the victory of banana exporter Jovenel Moïse, the candidate of former president Michel Martelly’s PHTK (Parti Haïtien Tèt Kale).

The largest demonstration erupted in Port-au-Prince’s sprawling shantytown of La Saline, a stronghold of Fanmi Lavalas, the party of former president Bertrand Aristide, which has described the official vote results as an “electoral coup.” Police used tear gas in an attempt to disperse protesters.

Meanwhile, the US Embassy issued a report Tuesday that it had “received reports of gunfire and burning tires at a protest in downtown Port-au-Prince,” advising American citizens to stay out of the area.

Preliminary results of the November 20 election have awarded the presidency to Moïse. If challenges to the vote count do not result in a change, the country’s Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) will publish the confirmed results on December 29 and Moïse will take office on February 7. Because he won more than 50 percent of the vote, there will be no runoff election.

Nonetheless, only slightly more than 20 percent of eligible voters participated. The election was originally scheduled for October 9, but postponed because of Hurricane Matthew. A month and a half after the storm tens of thousands of people in the south of Haiti still have no homes, and some polling places were being used as shelters as election preparations took place. An accurate count of how many thousands of people lost their voter identification cards in the storm is not possible, but according to the Miami Herald only 6,000 people had reapplied for cards before November 20.

The Sud, Grand’Anse, and Nippes departments, hit hardest by the storm, also lost most of their fruit trees and other crops, leading to what Le Nouvelliste has called “a food catastrophe.” According to United Nations figures, nearly 600,000 people in these areas are in urgent need of food assistance.

Haitian workers and peasants have good reason to be wary of elections organized by the country’s ruling elites. The vote to replace Martelly was originally scheduled for October 25, 2015 but was so blatantly fraudulent that the runoff scheduled for January 2016 was postponed and then cancelled. Jocelerme Privert, the president of Haiti’s Senate, was named provisional president when Martelly stepped down.

Political parties in Haiti are allowed to send observers, or mandataires, to voting centers; the mandataires receive credentials allowing them to vote where they are stationed, rather than at their normal polling place. More than 900,000 of these passes were issued for the October 25 election, and were so uncontrolled that they were openly being sold for as low as $3 each on election day. Nonetheless, European Union and Organization of American States observers called the vote “a breath of hope for Haitian democracy.”

Legislative elections held on August 9, 2015 were also so corrupted that, according to a National Lawyers Guild report, “fraud, violence and voter intimidation were widespread, affecting 67.8 percent of voting centers.” The NLG report noted that the police at polling centers did not stop “acts of violence and other disruptions, raising questions about whether officers had received an order from above directing them to stand down.”

Moïse, a businessman and former Secretary General of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Haiti, was given first place in the results of the October 2015 election, but did not receive enough votes to avoid a runoff. Jude Célestin of the Alternative League for Progress and Haitian Emancipation (LAPEH) came in second but boycotted the scheduled runoff, leaving Moïse as the only candidate holding campaign events. Célestin won second place again in the voting just concluded, but with slightly less than 20 percent of the vote.

The number of mandataire credentials issued for November 20 was significantly less (125,800) than in 2015, and controls were supposedly put in place requiring that each badge correspond to the voter ID number of the person wearing it. Nonetheless, a US lawyer from the National Human Rights Network told the Miami Herald that incidents of fraud had been observed.

With or without fraud, Moïse benefited from the votes of those who are not struggling just to survive. There were reports of dancing and celebrations in Petionville, a wealthy suburb of Port-au-Prince. One of Martelly’s last acts in office was an attempt to establish an off-shore banking haven on the island of Gonâve; it does not require a stretch of the imagination to predict that his protégé will work to benefit international finance.

The elections were held under extraordinary restrictions, ostensibly to prevent violence, but also suppressing basic rights. On November 18, the Haitian National Police (PNH) announced the prohibition throughout the country, from the evening of November 19 through midnight on the 21st, of selling or drinking alcohol; driving a car or motorbike within 100 meters of a polling place; and carrying guns, knives, and blunt weapons. The forced closing of all nightclubs was included in the decree which, however, made no mention of prohibiting bribery.

The PNH mobilized 9,400 police across Haiti, and approximately 3,600 of the UN’s hated MINUSTAH force were also used to police the elections. Five hundred MINUSTAH vehicles were made available for the crackdown. In an intimidating statement released November 16, the US embassy in Port-au-Prince said “the United States is taking note of parties involved in electoral violence.”

The CEP, obviously afraid of public opposition to the election results, made its announcement under heavy guard in Petionville. It also waited until late Monday night, even though the results were supposed to be announced Sunday.

Dr. Marysse Narcisse, the Fanmi Lavalas presidential candidate, won slightly less than 9 percent of the vote, despite campaign support from former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. A lawyer for Fanmi Lavalas has sent a letter to the CEP questioning the vote tally, which was rebuffed by CEP president Léopold Berlanger even before the official count was announced. Opposition parties will be allowed a short window to challenge the results, from December 3 to the 5.

War tensions between India and Pakistan intensify

Wasantha Rupasinghe & Keith Jones 

Relations between India and Pakistan remain extremely taut, with South Asia’s rival nuclear powers the closest to all-out war since a 10-month period in 2001-2002 when India mobilized nearly a million troops on Pakistan’s eastern border.

The truce along the Line of Control (LoC) between Indian- and Pakistan-held Kashmir that was put in place in the aftermath of the 2001-2002 war crisis has manifestly broken down. Virtually every day for the past two months, Indian and Pakistani troops have unleashed intense barrages of artillery and gun fire across the LoC. And while continuing to disclaim wanting war, military and government leaders of both countries routinely make bloodcurdling threats.

To cite just one bellicose exchange from last week: On November 25, Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told the country’s parliament that Pakistan’s military “will kill three Indian soldiers for every Pakistani soldier they neutralize,” adding India would face “dire consequences … if it went to war against Pakistan.” The next day Asif’s Indian counterpart, Manohar Parrikar, told a rally in Goa: “We don’t itch for a fight, but if someone looks at the country with evil eye, we will gouge his eyes out and put them back in his hand. We have that much power.”

Parrikar, who has repeatedly boasted that New Delhi has the military might and daring to force Islamabad to bend to its will, recently called for India to renounce its “no-first strike” nuclear pledge so as to increase its strategic leverage and spook its enemies.

On Tuesday, tensions heightened still further after Islamist, anti-Indian, Kashmiri secessionists attacked an Army post, killing seven Indian Army personnel, including two officers. The Nagrota Army post is near Jammu, the winter capital of Jammu and Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state and the site of a quarter-century old, Pakistani-supported insurgency.

According to the Hindu, Tuesday’s deaths raised to 27 the number of Indian security personnel killed in Kashmir, either by Pakistani cross-border firing or in encounters with insurgents, since Indian Special Forces carried out “surgical strikes” inside Pakistan in late September, ostensibly in retaliation for an earlier insurgent attack on the Indian military base at Uri.

India claims to have killed a like number of Pakistani troops and at least 40 civilians on both sides of divided Kashmir have perished in cross-border firing.

Unnamed Indian military sources have told the media that evidence points to Pakistani involvement in Tuesday’s attack. But thus far, India’s Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has not accused Islamabad of responsibility for the Nagrota attack, in marked contrast from its reaction to the September 18 Uri incident.

This could all change rapidly, however.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP government are heavily invested, both strategically and politically, in securing a demonstrable advantage from the current confrontation with Pakistan.

Big business has vigorously applauded the BJP’s much-trumpeted claims to have freed India from the shackles of the “strategic restraint” policy that previous governments reputedly pursued in regards to Pakistan.

Moreover, the BJP has shamelessly exploited the war crisis with Pakistan to deride its opponents as weak, even disloyal, and served notice that it intends to make its aggressive stand against Pakistan a key issue in the coming elections in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state.

Rattled by the world economic crisis, the Indian bourgeoisie brought Modi and his BJP to power two-and-a-half years ago to accelerate the pace of pro-investor socioeconomic “reform” and to more aggressively pursue its great power ambitions on the world stage.

In line with this, Modi has transformed India into a veritable “frontline state” in Washington’s military-strategic offensive against China, calculating that the strategic favours the US is lavishing on India in return will enable it to change the “rules of the game” with Pakistan and impose itself as South Asia’s regional hegemon.

In August, Modi unveiled a new hardline strategy against Pakistan, announcing New Delhi would mount a diplomatic campaign to have it labelled a “state sponsor of terrorism” and signaling India’s support for the nationalist separatist insurgency in Balochistan—that is for Pakistan’s dismemberment.

Then in late September the BJP government repudiated India’s longstanding policy of not publicly revealing its military operations inside Pakistan, which was adopted out of fear that to do so could ignite a dynamic of strikes and counter-strikes that could quickly escalate to all-out war.

In the ensuing two months, New Delhi has insisted that it will resume regular high-level contacts with Islamabad only if it agrees that “cross-border terrorism” is the core problem in Indo-Pakistani relations and acts to prevent the Kashmir insurgency receiving any logistical support from Pakistani territory.

In pursuing this hardline stance, Modi and his BJP have been buoyed by Washington’s endorsement of India’s illegal and highly provocative Sept. 28-29 attack inside Pakistan. While the Obama administration has counseled caution, it is anxious to show New Delhi that it recognizes there will be quid pro quos for India’s integration into Washington’s anti-China “Pivot to Asia” and in that vein is prepared to cede India more latitude in dealing with Pakistan.

India is also mindful that US president-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly lauded India as among Washington’s most valued strategic partners while attacking Pakistan for not acting like a US ally. It eagerly anticipates gaining even greater leverage over Islamabad when Trump takes office.

Pakistan, meanwhile, has been shaken by its strategic isolation. After the Uri attack, India was able to enlist most of the region’s other states in a boycott of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) meeting that was to be held in Pakistan last month. Islamabad’s calls for international condemnation of India’s illegal “surgical strikes” were met by a thunderous silence.

In an attempt to defuse the war crisis, Islamabad has announced that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s top foreign policy advisor, Sartaj Aziz, will travel to India for the Dec. 3-4 Heart of Asia (HoA) conference on Afghanistan and that he will be available for “comprehensive and unconditional dialogue” with Indian officials on its sidelines.

India, however, has not shown any enthusiasm for Aziz’s participation in the HoA meeting in Amritsar, just 20 kilometers (12.5 miles) from the Pakistani border, let alone Islamabad’s offer of talks. Yesterday the Times of India cited unnamed Indian officials as saying Pakistan’s offer of dialogue “was meaningless in the light of continuing terror strikes from across the border.”

The protracted violent cross-border standoff and the Modi government’s bellicose rhetoric, including Defence Minister Parrikar’s calls for India to abandon its no-first strike nuclear pledge are, however, giving pause to some sections of the corporate media.

On November 24, the Chennai-based Hindu published an editorial titled “Restore the ceasefire” in which it said both India and Pakistan must be “alert … to the danger of the retaliatory cycle spinning out of control” and “must guard against adventurism.” It went on to call on New Delhi to take immediate steps to reopen dialogue with Pakistan. “Given India’s regional status and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s unchallenged hold over political power,” declared the Hindu, “it is incumbent on him to initiate steps to restore the ceasefire that worked well for over a decade.”

The Economic Times in a November 25 editorial titled “Do not slide into a war no one wants” explicitly raised the prospect of the “high risk strategy” of “limited confrontation” aimed at whipping up “jingoistic fervor” for political gain ending in war between the “two nuclear powers in South Asia.”

“Even,” continued the Economic Times, “if that does not entail use of nuclear weapons—an eventuality no longer to be ruled out as absurd, given the line of thinking favoured by the political leadership both in India and in Pakistan—a war would be very costly in terms of both life and treasure.”

While in striking contrast with the bellicose mood being whipped up by much of the India, the two editorials grossly understated the extent to which South Asia is now enveloped in war clouds. Coincident with the Indo-Pakistan war crisis there has been a major escalation of Indo-China tensions.

Beijing is disconcerted by the extent of India’s strategic realignment with Washington, as exemplified by New Delhi’s ratification in late August of an agreement allowing US warplanes and battleships to make routine use of Indian military bases and ports. India is incensed that Beijing, while urging Islamabad to show restraint, has stood by its longstanding ally in the current crisis, and, in response to the burgeoning Indo-US alliance, has strengthened its partnership with Pakistan.

These developments underscore that the intractable Indo-Pakistani conflict has now become enmeshed with the growing confrontation between US imperialism and China adding to each a massive new explosive charge and raising the prospect that a war between India and Pakistan could rapidly involve the world’s great powers.

South Korean president offers to resign

Ben McGrath

South Korean President Park Geun-hye delivered a short, five-minute speech on Tuesday, three days after one of the largest mass rallies in South Korean history demanded her removal from office. The president suggested she was willing to resign in the future but the official opposition parties rejected the offer as an attempt to delay an impending impeachment vote.

“I will leave all decisions, including the shortening of my presidential term, up to the National Assembly,” Park said. It was her third such national address since becoming embroiled in a political scandal in late September. “Once the ruling and opposition parties draw up a measure to stably turn over the reins of government, I will step down from the office in line with that timetable and legal procedures.”

Park refused to answer questions from the press after her speech, which included another public apology for the scandal that will do little to dispel the public’s anger.

It has become increasingly unlikely that Park will finish her term in office, which is officially due to end in February 2018. All three opposition parties—the Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK, or Democrats), the People’s Party and the Justice Party—are proceeding with the president’s impeachment, backed by members of the anti-Park faction of her ruling conservative Saenuri Party. Even the pro-Park faction has begun to call for her to resign “honorably.”

Led by the MPK, the opposition is planning to vote on impeachment tomorrow. “When unconditional resignation is the only way to normalize state affairs, the president did not mention it and instead shifted the responsibility onto the National Assembly. It is a mere strategy to disturb the ongoing move toward impeachment,” MPK chairwoman Chu Mi-ae said. This sentiment was echoed by Park Ji-won and Sim Sang-jeong, leaders of the People’s Party and Justice Party respectively.

Until her speech, the opposition had been confident it had enough votes to secure Park’s impeachment, as they control 172 seats in the National Assembly, which includes seven independents. To impeach Park, they need only 28 Saenuri Party members to back the motion to secure the two-thirds majority necessary in the 300-seat body. If the impeachment resolution passed, the Constitutional Court would then examine the case, where six out of nine justices would have to approve Park’s removal from office.

However, since Park’s speech, Saenuri Party members, including from the anti-Park faction, have called for negotiations over her possible resignation. While 40 conservative lawmakers were likely to support impeachment, divisions have emerged in the anti-Park faction’s ranks, according to one of its leaders, Hwang Yeong-cheol.

“Just because [the ruling and opposition parties] don’t reach an agreement doesn’t mean that we’ll delay or reject the impeachment schedule itself. We need to do our best [to reach an agreement] before December 9,” Hwang stated, in an indication that they are trying to push back the vote to next week.

Saenuri Party floor leader Jeong Jin-seok, who belongs to the pro-Park faction, stated: “The talks over the impeachment have proceeded so far on the assumption that Park would not step down. But now that the situation has changed, I will discuss the process with the opposition parties from square one.”

If the impeachment vote passed, Park would remain president but her duties would be suspended and handed over to Prime Minister Hwang Gyo-an until the Constitutional Court reached a decision. If she were removed from office, a presidential election would be held within 60 days.

Park has also attempted to stall proceedings by expressing support for a special investigation council, which is expected to begin its work next week. On Wednesday, she selected Park Yeong-su, a lawyer recommended by the opposition, to lead the council. The president claimed through a spokesman she would “fully cooperate with the team’s investigation, including face-to-face questioning.”

However, Park has reneged previously on promises to cooperate with the current prosecution team investigating the scandal surrounding her and long-time friend Choi Soon-sil. Choi has been indicted on charges related to soliciting bribe money from corporations and being involved in deciding policy matters despite holding no formal government position.

Mass demonstrations are also set to continue. Another protest in Seoul is scheduled for this Saturday, following last week’s rallies, where 1.5 million people gathered in the capital alone. The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) held a so-called general strike on Wednesday to allow workers to let off steam, with 60,000 workers rallying around the country, including 22,000 in Seoul.

All the opposition parties are exploiting the public hostility to Park to position their candidates ahead for the next presidential election. They reflect the interests of sections of big business, which are increasingly dissatisfied with Park’s inability to force through attacks on working conditions. These so-called labor reforms would lead to the increased casualization of the workforce and the slashing of wages.

The Wall Street Journal noted in October that neither the MPK nor the People’s Party is “fundamentally opposed to reforms, and both are likely to propose their own variations on labor reform as the December 2017 presidential election draws near.” The Justice Party, which poses as a left-wing alternative, as well as the unions in the KCTU and Federation of Korean Trade Unions, regularly line up with the Democrats.

The widespread anger of ordinary working people toward Park is an expression, in the first instance, of the outrage felt over her administration’s alleged corrupt practices and its contempt for basic legal and democratic norms. At the same time, it reflects broader concerns about the decline of living conditions as a result of the sustained attack on jobs, working conditions and the country’s limited social services by both Saenuri and Democrat-led administrations.

The opposition’s drive to remove Park is an attempt to funnel that frustration and anger into support for their presidential election campaigns. None of the economic and social issues will be resolved however as the Democrats, no less than the conservatives, are responsible for the social crisis that workers and youth face today.

Dire situation in UK social care for the elderly

Dennis Moore

Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, charities supporting older people, have published reports describing the way older people are cared for as “shameful” and “scandalous.”

Figures suggest that the number of older people not getting necessary help from the authorities now stands at 1.2 million, rising by 48 percent since 2010. Age UK found that since 2010, there are 383,000 people aged 65 or over living with some level of unmet need.

Care in the UK is funded by individuals themselves or local councils, but there are increasing numbers of people reliant on family and friends to support them.

The 1.2 million seniors with insufficient assistance includes 696,500 who receive no help from paid carers, friends or family. A further 487,400 receive some help but not enough, due to help only being available at particular times of the day or their carers only being able to manage some tasks and not others.

Those older people who reported having unmet needs included 291,400 people who have difficulty with three or more essential tasks, including getting out of bed, going to the toilet, dressing and washing. Of this figure, 52,700 people receive no help at all. Overall, local authorities agreed to help just under half of the 6.6 million people who approached them for help.

Where care in the home was provided, there were serious problems identified as to the way patients with dementia were treated. Families of those cared for reported examples of poor care, including loved ones being left in dirty clothes for days at a time, not being given medication and residents going missing from homes due to lack of security.

Staff said they had not been given enough training to enable them to deal with people with complex needs.

The Care Quality Commission, the official inspection body that investigates standards of care, warned a month ago that the sector was at “tipping point.”

The lack of care is having a direct effect on public hospitals, which are experiencing more and more elderly people arriving at local accident and emergency departments needing help.

The day-to-day impact on people’s lives, including those who are carers, is mounting. The BBC identified 11 councils who had rejected more than 75 percent of applications for help. One example is that of Lorna Wheatley, from North Yorkshire, who has been trying to secure a nursing home place for her 82-year-old mother Celia. Speaking to the BBC, Wheatley said, “My mum can barely walk or look after herself, and the council says she only qualifies to live in sheltered housing. I’m terrified that without constant support, she could die.”

An Alzheimer’s Society investigation exposed serious shortfalls and a lack of training for home care staff working with people with dementia, leading to intolerable levels of stress for sufferers, family, carers and staff. The investigation utilised a survey of homecare workers and included a Freedom of Information (FOI) request sent to all local authorities in England. The survey included first-hand testimonies of 1,220 people directly affected by dementia.

The Alzheimer’s Society documented numerous failings in the system, including people not being provided with food or water, being left to sleep in wet or soiled bed sheets, not giving people baths or showers for weeks and people being left with infections that have led to emergency admissions to hospital.

Care workers are facing enormous pressures, with the adult social care budget cut by 40 percent since 2010.

The budget for training and the development of staff is usually the first to be cut. The FOI request showed that 71 percent of the local authorities that responded do not include money for training within their homecare contracts. Another 38 percent do not fund dementia training sessions for homecare providers.

The number of homecare workers who have had dementia training stands at 38 percent of the workforce, with 71 percent not receiving dementia training that is accredited. Fully 43 percent of homecare workers have asked for further dementia training, yet 54 percent of applications for training are turned down.

Linda Jackson, from Orpington in Kent, struggled to get good homecare for her father, Ken, who had Alzheimer’s disease. She said, “’Dad was challenging at times and I was told that some carers refused to come back and care for him. They simply didn’t know how to cope with his behaviour. He was distressed and worried, yet no one seemed equipped to look after him and give him the basic things he needed—food, medication, and comfort.”

She added, “Dad’s last year was a living hell and he was eventually sectioned under the Mental Health Act before dying six weeks later.”

Such accounts provide a shocking insight into the lives that many older people and their families endure each day, left struggling to manage tasks that are the most basic human functions and intrinsically connected to a person’s sense of dignity.

Those having to work with older people suffering with conditions such as dementia face enormous challenges in attempting to carry out their work. They are generally poorly paid and have to work 60 to 80 hours a week to make a living. A recent employment tribunal case, involving 17 care workers employed by the private contractor Sevacare in the north London borough of Haringey revealed that some of the staff were being paid £3.27 an hour. This is less than half the minimum wage. It is the largest-ever legal claim brought in the care sector. Sevacare, which last year raked in profits over more than £1 million, has contracts across England employing 5,500 care staff, providing care and support to 9,600 people a week.

According to the Unison trade union, some of those on £3.27 an hour were women, employed as live-in carers. They stayed for seven days a week at a time in the home of an elderly women with severe dementia. These carers were on duty 24 hours a day, sleeping on a bed next to the person they were looking after, attending to the woman’s needs throughout the night.

One carer likened the experience to being “in prison”, saying they were not allowed to leave the house all week. Workers were also not being paid for the time they spent travelling between home visits. One of the careers, Florence Wambulu, said she worked seven days a week in order to make sure she could pay her bills and look after her family. “They have to treat us like human beings, not just someone who is there to make money for them,” Wambulu said, adding, “We were working like slaves.”

Last year, whistle-blower Gillian Demet resigned from her job as a care worker at Sevacar because she was only allowed to spend 15 minutes at a time on visits with frail pensioners.

The care of older people in privately-run care homes, and their own homes, has been increasingly outsourced to the private sector under Conservative and Labour governments. Labour-run councils throughout the UK routinely offer contracts to private companies to provide care. The intolerable conditions outlined by the charities are inhumane. For those being cared for, and the workers tasked with looking after them. They are both exploited by a system that sees them, first and last, as a source of profit.

OPEC announces deal to cut oil production

Nick Beams

The OPEC oil cartel has reached an agreement to cut production in response to the halving of oil prices since 2014, the most significant downturn in the market in a generation.

The deal, finalised at the OPEC annual meeting in Vienna yesterday, came after two months of negotiations following an in-principle agreement reached in September to reduce output. The negotiations, which appeared several times to be on the brink of breaking up, were over the details of where the cuts in production would fall.

The talks were conducted under a degree of tension, amid warnings that if a deal were not reached then oil prices, which stabilised at $45 to $50 per barrel following the September agreement, would plummet, possibly to as low as $20 per barrel.

The main conflict in the negotiations was between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis demanded that Iran take a cut while the Iranians insisted they were still recovering from the sanctions imposed by the US, which had reduced production. Iran called on the Saudis to cut output as they had increased it after prices began to fall in 2014.

Under the agreement, OPEC, which supplies about one-third of the world’s oil, will cut production by 1.2 million barrels per day (a reduction of around 4.5 percent) to about 32.5 million barrels for six months from the start of January. There is an option to extend the agreement until the end of 2017.

Saudi Arabia will bear the major portion of the cuts, reducing its production by half a million barrels per day, with Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates agreeing to a reduction of 300,000 barrels a day. Iran promised to freeze its output at 3.8 million barrels a day, close to its present level of production, while Iraq agreed to a reduction of 210,000 barrels per day. Libya and Nigeria were granted exemptions because of the political turmoil in both countries.

Russia, a major oil producer that is not an OPEC member, agreed to a tapered reduction of output by 300,000 barrels per day in the first half of 2017. However, it said its cutback was subject to OPEC adhering to the overall limit as well as to Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak described as “maximum participation” by non-OPEC countries in the restrictions.

At this point, it is not clear from which oil-producing countries outside OPEC—including Azerbaijan, Mexico, Oman and Brazil—cuts will come.

The biggest single winner out of the agreement appears to be the US energy companies, particularly those involved in shale oil production.

When oil prices plummeted from their levels of $100 per barrel in 2014, at times reaching as low as $30 per barrel, the Saudi regime stepped up production. Its aim was to drive down prices, expecting this to force high-cost US shale oil producers out of the market.

The tactic appears to have failed. Crude oil production in the US (both from shale and more conventional methods) is down by 6 percent this year and a further decline is expected in 2017. But this decline has not been enough to boost prices to anywhere the level of $60 per barrel that the Saudi regime appears to be seeking. Despite the reductions, US output is still above the levels reached in 2014.

On Wall Street, the S&P 500 oil and gas exploration production index, which mainly comprises US shale companies, was up by 10.8 percent in response to the OPEC announcement. Energy stocks as a whole rose by 5.6 percent, following a rise of around 8 percent in oil prices.

Whether this is maintained is yet to be seen. Michel Cohen, an analyst at Barclays Bank, told the Financial Times the outcome was consistent with what OPEC production levels had been expected to be in 2017 in any case. The OPEC agreement, he said, was “highly unlikely to affect the oil market balance.”

Others pointed to the fact that the deal is contingent on an agreement with non-OPEC producers to reduce production and cast doubts on whether the cartel can shift prices as it did in the past.

The main factor in the Saudi promotion of the agreement is the impact of falling oil prices on its financial position and fears this could lead to political instability.

Summing up the overall position of oil-producing countries last April, the International Monetary Fund said the adjustment in government spending and taxation needed to absorb the oil price shock was “unprecedented.” It said export revenues of oil exporting countries in 2015 fell by $390 billion, equivalent to 17.5 percent of their total gross domestic product.

The reduction in revenue has had major effects in Saudi Arabia, with billion-dollar government projects put on hold or cancelled and payments to major construction firms, medical establishments and foreign consultants delayed. According to a Reuters report, the amount still owing to construction firms alone is $21 billion. Companies were faced with delays of up to six months on work they had completed, as the government sought to retain cash.

Earlier this year, the ascendancy of deputy crown price Mohammed bin Salman to a leading position within the regime, second only to King Salman, and his plan for economic restructuring and diversification, was hailed as a major boost. His economic agenda was accompanied by a drive to push back Iranian influence as he launched a brutal air bombing campaign directed against Iranian-supported forces in the Yemen.

But the position of the Saudi economy has gone from bad to worse. The government’s austerity drive—including delays in payments and cuts to public sector workers’ benefits—has pushed the non-oil sector of the economy into a near-recession. It grew by only 0.7 percent in the second quarter of 2016 compared to 3.5 percent for the corresponding period in 2015.

The crown prince’s Vision 2030 program is now widely regarded as a joke and wealthy Saudis have been moving billions of dollars out of the country.

One fund manager told the Financial Times: “The honeymoon is indeed over. There has not been one bit of good news for the government—from the economy to the disaster in Yemen.”

Facing global economic stagnation—the driving force behind the oil price slump—and the boost that other energy sources may receive in the US from the incoming Trump administration, the OPEC agreement has an air of desperation.

Olympus Global Open Photo Contest 2016/2017. 1,000,000 Japanese Yen

Application Deadline: 10th January 2017

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Online

About the Award: Olympus contributes to society by making people’s lives healthier, safer, and more fulfilling all around the world. In line with these contributions, the Olympus Global Open Photo Contest 2016-17 will feature the following four categories:

• Power of Life
Enter a powerful photo that conveys how beautiful, vibrant, healthy, and full of energy life can be.

• Connections to Cherish
Enter a heart-warming photo that expresses the love and peace of mind that family and friends provide you with.

• Places that Inspire
Enter a breathtaking photo of spectacular, picturesque scenery.

• Perspectives Often Missed
Enter a fascinating photo taken from an imaginative viewpoint rarely seen before, that stimulates our creativity and invites us to venture out and discover.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 

Anyone who registers to enter can participate.
Go to Enter or My Page to register.

Those who entered past Olympus Global Open Photo Contests must register again.

Selection Criteria:

• Each image must be in JPEG format and be 15 megabytes or smaller.
• Each entrant may submit up to 5 photo entries for each category.

Number of Awardees: Prizes will be presented to one Grand Prize winner and 13 winners per theme.

Value of Contest: 

• Grand Prize: Olympus Flagship Camera + 1,000,000 Japanese Yen
• First Prize  (one per category): Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO
• Second Prize  (one per category): Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II + M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ
• Third Prize (one per category): Olympus PEN E-PL8 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ

How to Apply:

Only online entries will be eligible.
Enter from the Categories section.
*Anyone submitting an entry is asked to register a username.

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: Olympus Corporation.

Barclays Africa, Techstars Accelerator Programme for FinTech Startups 2017

Application Deadline: 5th February, 2017

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Cape Town, South Africa. The chosen startups will also be able to leverage Barclays Techstars Accelerator programme offices in London, New York and Tel Aviv

About the Award: The Barclays Accelerator Powered by Techstars is a three month intensive startup accelerator focused on innovations in financial services. This partnership between Barclays and Techstars brings two global networks together into one accelerator programme that offers entrepreneurs unprecedented access not only to a world leading bank but also to Techstars’ mentor and investor relationships across 13 locations.

This collaboration between Barclays Africa and Techstars offers a game-changing opportunity to 10 qualifying fintech startups, which will take part in a 13-week programme beginning in May next year, based out of the Rise fintech innovation hub in Woodstock, Cape Town.

The Barclays Accelerator first came to Africa at the beginning of this year and was a significant success, with Barclays Africa signing initial collaboration agreements with 7 of the 10 startups that were part of the programme.

Yasaman Hadjibashi, leading the innovation agenda for the bank says: “Africa has tremendous untapped potential to not only pioneer its own creative solutions for its unique contexts but to also create solutions that the rest of the world can adopt for their own contexts.”

According to the Disrupt Africa African Startups Funding Report 2015, 29% of investment in African tech startups goes to those focused on fintech, suggesting a substantial opportunity for innovative ventures in the sector.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Selection Criteria: The Barclays Accelerator is looking for great founders with ideas that solve real problems or create meaningful innovations. For us, it’s about the team and because of this, we’re less likely to accept single founder companies. The best things you can do to strengthen your application are:

• Round out your team with business, technical, and other necessary skills.
• Make progress on your prototype or product and reference it in the application.
• Show us you’ve really thought about your business and have actually done something about it.

Your team must be capable of designing your solution and be ready to launch by the end of the 13-week programme. We are looking for impressive teams with an ability to execute.

Number of Awardees: 10

Value of Programme: Selected startups will be given the opportunity to enter or expand their presence in the African marketplace via Barclays Africa Group’s customer, product, and technology teams. Leveraging the global footprint of Rise, the selected startups will also have the chance to scale globally through Rise sites in London, New York, Mumbai, Tel Aviv and Vilnius. The Accelerator offers companies an advantage over others by providing a proven curriculum, and lifelong access to the Techstars global network of mentors, investors and venture capitalists.

Duration of Programme: 3 months. The Cape Town 2017 accelerator program will commence at RISE Cape Town on May 9th 2017. The program culminates on Demo Day on August 2nd, 2017.

How to Apply: Fintech companies can apply here: https://www.f6s.com/barclaysaccelerator-africa by February 5th, 2017 for this opportunity to take their venture to new heights. If you’d like to find out more, please visit: http://www.barclaysaccelerator.com/#/cape-town/ or contact emily.skinstad@techstars.com

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: Barclays Africa, Techstars

Curious about Business & Entrepreneurship? Take Online Course on Becoming an Entrepreneur by MIT

Enrolment: January 9, 2017 – Self-Paced (take course on demand)

Timeline: 1-3 hours per week for 6 weeks

Skill Level: Beginner

Course of Study:  Business & Management| Course Platform: edX.org

Created by: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Cost: Free

About the Course

Becoming an Entrepreneur is an innovation and business course designed for aspiring entrepreneurs who want to explore an entrepreneurial path and overcome some of the initial challenges in taking those first steps.

From developing new business ideas and doing market research to entrepreneurial strategy and pitching, this course follows MIT’s successful approach to entrepreneurship. There will be a combination of short videos, thought-provoking case studies, and activities that will challenge you to get you away from your computer screen and into the community to make a real impact.

Eligibility requirement

No previous business or entrepreneurship experience needed. Anyone with interest on entrepreneurship and ready to embark on the entrepreneurial journey is eligible to take this course.

Certificate offered? Yes, for a fee

How to Enrol

Visit Course Webpage to Enrol.

Archbishop Tutu Fellowship Programme 2017 for Young African Leaders

Application Deadline: 15th January 2017.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): South Africa). Other locations will be split between Oxford University and London (UK)

About the Award:  Offered on a part-time basis over six months, the Programme includes two 9-day Group Learning Modules with an impressive array of distinguished leaders and faculty. These are intensive interactive workshops; one at the historic Mont Fleur conference facility (South Africa), and the other split between Oxford University and London (UK).

The video below explains effectively how our program works.

The Programme has been designed specifically for African leaders in consultation with our African faculty and advisors and with Oxford, whose famous tutorial style has been adopted. It provides participants with an intensive learning and broadening experience on the principles and application of leadership, and an opportunity to explore the issues and specific characteristics of leadership in Africa, as well as the global challenges and dimensions of an African leader.

The programme places emphasis on learning and experiencing, not teaching, offering a variety of formal and innovative informal learning opportunities to enhance the leadership capabilities of the candidate. Emphasis is also placed on peer interaction and feedback, and the participants highly value being able to share pan-African perspectives and experiences. Overall it provides a unique environment for mid-career self reflection on one’s leadership journey in transforming Africa, and has been described as life changing by many participants.

Upon completing the Programme, Tutu Fellows return to play active roles in their respective communities, countries and spheres of influence. Great value is placed upon becoming a member of an established exclusive and supportive network of Africa’s future leaders – the Tutu Fellows. As part of this network of global leaders, all Fellows are expected to attend AFLI alumni events, as well as function as ambassadors for the Fellowship across all segments of society.

Type: Fellowship

Selection Criteria: In terms of selection criteria, AFLI emphasizes integrity, strong values and responsibility, courage and a demonstrated ability to lead and inspire. A candidate must demonstrate a commitment to Africa and to serving the greater community. We seek leaders not managers.

Selection Process: Competition is extremely tough for the 20 fellowship places available; each year we receive over 200 top quality nominations from all over Africa, which are put forward by our existing Fellows, Partners and network of influential leaders.

Only once candidates have been nominated, may they submit an application to AFLI.

Number of Awardees: 20

Value of Fellowship: 

• Entry into awards
• Thought-leadership and speaking opportunities
• Advocacy opportunities
• Networking opportunities and network memberships
• Access to projects, causes and campaigns
• Collaborating with like-minded peers on projects
• Job opportunities
• Pan-African exposure
• Attendance of multi-country meetings
• Leadership of, and participation in, multi-country organisations and projects
• International exposure
• Opportunities for ongoing debate and knowledge-exchange
• Profiling in the media
• Peer to Peer accountability
• Selected as board members or trustees to high profile companies/organisations

Duration of Fellowship: The next program is in April 2017 and will hold for a year.

How to Apply: Only once candidates have been nominated, may they submit an application to AFLI.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: African Leadership Institute (AFLI)

Online Course: Take IELTS Academic Test Preparation Offered By University of Queensland Australia

Enrolment: ongoing (take on-demand)

Timeline: 5-10 hours per week for 8 weeks

Skill Level: Beginner (introductory)

Course of Study: IELTS (International English language Testing system)| Course Platform:edX.org

Created by: The University of Queensland Australia

Cost: Free

About the Course

IELTS is the world’s most popular English language test for those wanting to study in higher education in an English-speaking country. This IELTS course will prepare you to take the IELTS Academic tests with confidence. You will have immediate access to over 80 hours of interactive practice materials covering each of the four skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing.

This innovative preparation course has been designed and written by experienced English teaching professionals from The University of Queensland, an IELTS testing centre and one of the world’s leading centres of learning. All of the course writers have extensive experience enabling students to reach their academic IELTS goal of entering a university where English is the primary language.

Eligibility requirement

None. This course is suitable for anyone preparing to take the Academic IELTS test.

Certificate offered? Yes, for a fee.

How to Enrol

Visit Course Webpage to Enrol.

Important Notes: As the course is self-paced, you can complete all of the course units in sequence, or only select the areas you want to focus on to prepare for the IELTS Academic tests. Then, when you are ready, you can test yourself with an IELTS-style practice exam for each skill. In completing this course, you will feel fully prepared to complete the IELTS Academic tests.

Columbia University ISHR Human Rights Advocates Program (HRAP) Fellowship for Developing Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 11:59 GMT, 31st January, 2017.

Eligible Countries: Low and Middle Income countries

To be taken at (country): Columbia University, USA

About the Award: The program leverages the resources of Columbia University and international organizations such as Human Rights Watch and WITNESS to provide proven grassroots leaders with skill-building and networking opportunities.

Through workshops, seminars, Columbia University classes and meetings with policy makers and potential funders, participants will share their experiences, reflect critically on their strategies, and plan future campaigns.

The Program is designed for lawyers, journalists, doctors, teachers, social workers, community organizers, and other human rights activists working with NGOs on issues including sexual and gender-based violence, minority rights, LGBT rights, labor rights, migration, health, social exclusion, environmental justice, disability rights, and corporate social accountability.

Type: Fellowship

Selection Criteria: Participants are selected on the basis of their previous work experience in human rights, commitment to the human rights field, and demonstrated ability to pursue graduate-level studies. Full-time students or government officials will not be considered. Applicants holding full or part-time jobs pursuing their advocacy efforts are preferred.

Advocates must work at the grassroots level. Applicants from high-income countries will not be considered except for those representing marginalized communities.

Advocates must provide proof of institutional endorsement in English from their organizations for their participation in the Program and must commit to returning to that organization upon completion of the Program.

Only one application per organization should be submitted. More than one application means all applications from that organization will be disqualified. It is up to the applicant to make sure no one else from the organization has applied.

Value of Program: ISHR makes every effort to provide full funding to cover participants’ program costs as well as travel and housing. A stipend is also provided for basic costs.

Duration of Program: The program typically starts in late August/early September and ends before the middle of December. Exact dates vary year to year and will be listed on the application.

How to Apply: It is required to go through the application requirements and FAQ of the Program before applying

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Institute for the Study of Human Rights (ISHR), Columbia University