Disability services privatised and targeted for more cuts in Australia’s public schools

Susan Allan

The public education system in Australia is beset by myriad funding cuts, all of which compromise the ability of teachers and schools to provide the best possible education to their students. One of the most egregiously under-funded areas is the provision of services to students with disabilities.

Across the country’s six states there is a patchwork of different funding models for such students. Everywhere, however, the trend is the same—governments are moving to cut funding for disability services, providing more profit-making opportunities to various corporate interests, and placing mounting pressure on under-trained and under-resourced teachers to individually address an array of complex physical, psychological, intellectual and other disabilities.

The situation is most advanced in the state of Victoria. Victoria’s Program for Students with Disabilities (PSD), first established in 1995, provides schools with targeted funding for students who qualify under one of seven categories: physical disability, visual impairment, hearing impairment, severe behaviour disorder, intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, and severe language disorder.

All students who qualify for the PSD are allocated annual funding of between $6,000 and $51,000 each, depending on the assessed severity of their disability. The largest proportion of eligible students (approximately 40 percent) receives $15,000 a year, while another 25 percent receive $24,000. The majority of this money is usually allocated to Education Support staff, who support the student in the classroom and schoolyard for a part of the school week, though can also be spent on equipment and teacher training.

The government’s own figures make clear the inadequacy of the PSD. Just 4 percent of the public school population qualify, while another 11 percent are estimated to have a disability, yet receive no targeted funding.

School administrators and teachers are nevertheless legally obligated, under disability and equal opportunity legislation, to provide “reasonable adjustments” to allow all those with disabilities to fully participate in school life. According to one government document, “reasonable adjustments” may include, but not be limited to, “infrastructure adjustments, the use of ES [Education Support] staff, or adjustments in teaching approaches or styles to adapt to the strengths and needs of particular students.”

The vagueness of these formulations is undoubtedly deliberate. It has worked to divert parent frustration and anger away from the government, and led to a situation where, in some public schools, parents of disabled children who do not qualify for PSD funding have bitterly clashed with overworked teachers and school administrators over rival assessments of what constitutes a “reasonable adjustment” within the classroom and the school.

Such angry reactions on the part of parents are not confined to those whose children fail to qualify. Many parents of children who do qualify, complain that their funding is inadequate and blame schools and teachers for failing to provide enough services and support.

Parent complaints to regional and higher educational authorities, beyond the local school, including threats of legal action, are becoming more prevalent, and these place immense pressure on under-resourced schools, principals and teachers to meet ever-increasing demands.

Disabled students who qualify, including those in wheelchairs with disabilities, are not always given full-time education support staff for every hour of the school day or week. This means that for several hours in a school day, when classes in art or physical education, for example, are being held, students with disabilities have no additional support. Teachers are expected to carry the burden: to teach their classes, provide continuous one-on-one support to their disabled students, as well as deal with their other students who may have learning, social, emotional or behavioural issues. It is not uncommon for teachers to have several students in their classrooms who have just missed out on disability funding by one percentage point.

The government’s denial of urgently needed funding to 11 percent of public school students is a product of its extraordinarily stringent eligibility criteria.

For example, for students on the autism spectrum to qualify for PSD funding, they require three separate assessments—from a paediatrician, a psychologist, and a speech pathologist—confirming not merely that they have autism, but also that they demonstrate “significant deficits in adaptive behaviour” and “significant deficits in language skills.” This latter criterion is exceptionally difficult to satisfy, because a “significant deficit” effectively means that the child cannot understand simple instructions or verbalise basic needs and demands. Students with autism can therefore display comorbid health issues, severe learning difficulties, violent and other challenging classroom behaviours, and yet be immediately denied funding on the basis that they are able to engage in extremely limited verbal communication.

A report issued by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission in 2012, “Held Back: The experiences of students with disabilities in Victorian schools,” noted the “perverse incentive” for parents to make their child’s disability seem as bad as possible. One parent told the Commission: “We took our son off all his medication prior to his last assessment to ensure he presented as badly as possible as that was the only way we could easily gain access to a special school for secondary school.”

For two of the designated disability criteria—severe language disorder and intellectual disability—the government contracts out the task of assessing children to a multi-billion-dollar corporation.

In 2007, the former Victorian Labor government of John Brumby imposed the “Outsourced Assessment Service” that remains in operation today. Currently, 63 percent of all students who qualify for the PSD, do so on the basis of the intellectual disability criterion. This means that a large proportion of funding applications for students with disabilities go, not to the state Education Department, but to a private business, Assessments Australia (AA).

AA is owned by MAX Solutions, which is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of the US-based MAXIMUS. MAXIMUS reported $US2.4 billion in revenue for the fiscal year 2016. The company operates outsourced and privatised health, welfare, education, and administrative services in countries including the US, Canada, Britain, Australia and Saudi Arabia.

In Australia, MAXIMUS profits from the notorious “work for the dole” scheme, which forces unemployed workers to take on onerous and menial jobs merely to keep receiving unemployment entitlements. A 2015 article in the Saturday Paper reported: “The US company now dominates the ‘welfare business’ in Australia, having picked up 27 employment services contracts across the country, including 14 of the 51 regional Work for the Dole co-ordinator contracts.”

Within the Victorian education system, a teacher can now spend many hours filling out lengthy pre-screen reports on a student’s physical, academic, communicative, social and other abilities as part of an application for intellectual disability funding, only to have MAXIMUS deny the funding after sending one its employees to the school to spend 45 minutes testing the student.

The state Labor government is preparing further regressive measures. In April 2016, it issued a report reviewing the PSD, much of which was focussed on creating additional obligations for classroom teachers, such as further “reasonable adjustments” for those students diagnosed with autism or dyslexia. The review also proposed investigating a new funding model for the PSD, utilising new and “more efficient” disability assessment procedures, which are being introduced with the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Precisely what this will entail remains to be seen, but the report notably promoted New Zealand’s Ongoing Resources Scheme as an alternative funding proposal. The NZ scheme allocates disability funding to just 1 percent of all NZ students, one-quarter the percentage of students being funded in Victoria.

It is clear that new and major funding cuts are in the pipeline. They will exacerbate an already dysfunctional public school system, undermining even further the democratic right of all young people, including those who are disabled, to a high-quality, fully-resourced public education.

Rome Mayor Virginia Raggi of the Five Star Movement engulfed in corruption scandal

Marianne Arens

Rarely has a party been so thoroughly exposed as Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement (M5S) in Rome. The election of its member Virginia Raggi as mayor of the Italian capital in summer 2016 was regarded as their greatest success to date. Now Raggi, who had promised a “radical new beginning in the name of honesty and transparency”, is engulfed in a corruption scandal.

On December 16, Raffaele Marra, head of personnel of the Rome City Council, was arrested for corruption. A few days prior, Paola Muraro, responsible for waste disposal as part of the environment brief, resigned because she was being investigated by the state attorney for abuse of office. Earlier, in September, Raggi had to completely reshuffle her cabinet when five leading members of the city government resigned in protest.

Several building contractors have been placed under house arrest, accused of bribing members of the city administration in relation to a school renovation programme. They are suspected of pocketing up to 20 percent of the budget for the renovation as bribes.

Also on December 16, police seized documents belonging to the mayor to examine her hiring practices.

Grillo, the founder and leader of the Five Star Movement, has kept an iron grip on Raggi. On his blog, he wrote on December 17: “Mistakes have been made. Virginia has recognised that she had trusted the wrong people. From today, the line of approach has been changed ... We will fight tooth and nail to change Rome.”

On January 2, Grillo proposed an amendment of the M5S code of ethics, to be voted on via the internet, which would stipulate that a minister from M5S does not automatically have to resign if the judiciary is investigating him or her. This alone is decided by the “guarantor of the movement”, namely Grillo himself. In the Italian press, the change has been nicknamed “decreto salva-Raggi” (Raggi Rescue Decree).

The fight against corruption has long been a central issue in the propaganda of M5S. Grillo has exploited accusations of corruption in order to channel the widespread anger with the ruling elites behind his own movement, which claims to be neither left-wing nor right-wing. In reality, however, the M5S advocates a right-wing, nationalist and pro-capitalist programme. The Five Star Movement has risen to become the second largest party in the country, just behind the ruling Democrats (PD), and won the runoff ballot for Rome mayor with 67 percent of the vote.

Raggi has only needed six months to expose the real character of Grillo’s movement. It represents the interests of petty-bourgeois layers who want to climb the social ladder and enrich themselves, and is linked very closely with the old, corrupt elites. Its tirades against government waste are directed primarily against workers in the public sector, and its demands for stricter immigration controls are aimed at the most vulnerable sections of the working class.

M5S has increasingly gathered right-wing and far-right elements around itself. This is also shown by the recent exposures of the Rome city administration. Raggi enjoys the best relationships with well-known and very right-wing circles in Rome. The 38-year-old lawyer had worked at the law firm of Pieremilio Sammarco, whose brother, the star lawyer Alessandro Sammarco, has defended both ex-premier Silvio Berlusconi, as well as his advisers Marcello Dell’Utri and Cesare Previti.

It is reported that Raggi completed an internship 13 years ago at Cesare Previti’s firm. Previti had helped Berlusconi obtain his villa in Arcore and was co-founder and later parliamentary leader of his Forza Italia party. He was defence minister in Berlusconi’s first cabinet in 1994. The long-time adviser and Berlusconi lawyer, a member of the scandal-ridden P2 Lodge, was later convicted for bribing judges (but was only imprisoned for one day).

The Sammarco law firm enjoyed good relations with a predecessor of Raggi, the extreme right-wing mayor Gianni Alemanno (2008-2013). In his era, the so-called “Mafia Capitale” flourished unhindered. The accusations against Marra and Paola Murora go back to the Alemanno era.

Marra, who is also known as “Rasputin from the Capital” because of his influence over Raggi, last worked as the senior employer of 23,000 municipal workers. Under Alemanno, he was chief of the housing policy department, and in this capacity, was embroiled in several cases of real estate corruption.

Arrested at the same time as Marra, Rome real estate mogul Sergio Scarpellini was said to have helped Marra acquire a private property in 2013 for half a million euros below the market price. In return, Marra is said to have granted him lucrative contracts.

Marra is also said to have concluded contracts worth millions with another contractor, the engineer Fabrizio Amore, who is also being investigated in connection with the “Mafia Capitale.”

City councilor Murora, who was supposed to clean out the nepotism in the department responsible for refuse (AMA), was also part of the insider network. For 12 years, also under Alemanno, she worked as a highly-paid consultant for the AMA, and in this capacity was able to pocket over a million euros in fees. Murara is under investigation for environmental crimes related to the garbage disposal service.

Since 2012, the extent of the “Mafia Capitale” has been uncovered by investigative journalist Lirio Abbate, the newspaper L ’ Espresso and the Attorney General Giuseppe Pignatone. Accordingly, known Mafiosi such as Massimo Carminati and Salvatore Buzzi controlled whole sections of the city administration. Carminati came from the neo-fascist terrorist organization Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari (Revolutionary Armed Cells) and his business entertained the best relations with both political camps.

Under Alemanno, Carminati and Buzzi led a so-called “cooperative” holding, with up to a thousand employees and a turnover of tens of millions of euros, which they used to put former prisoners or immigrants to work. They also managed to take over the management of reception centres for refugees. Here, they pocketed the €30 to €45 a day paid for each refugee by the Italian state—a business worth millions that proved more profitable than drug dealing. Carminati and Buzzi are now in custody.

After Marra’s arrest, and after intensive discussions with Grillo, Raggi severed ties with two other close associates in December: Deputy Mayor Daniele Frongia and the Secretariat Director Salvatore Romeo. As the Espresso has revealed, Raggi has long been known by Marra, Frongia and Romeo. The quartet had forced the top candidate of the Five Star Movement in Rome, Marcello De Vito, out of the race for city government in early 2016 through intrigue.

Raggi’s election victory in June 2016 was mainly due to the fact that she was “a new, fresh face”, while the two large political camps were completely discredited. “Mafia Capitale” had blossomed under the Alemanno regime, but it also subsequently brought the centre-left camp no improvements.

When Ignazio Marino took over the leadership of the capital in 2013, with the support of the Democrats (PD) and various pseudo left organizations, the city faced bankruptcy and Marino pushed the crisis onto the working class with an austerity decree. He quickly lost all support and resigned voluntarily at the end of 2015, although the corruption allegations raised against Marino proved to be unfounded.

Raggi brought Marra, Frongia and Romeo into the municipal administration as a conspiratorial clique, where they occupied highly-paid positions. The so-called “magic circle” (alluding to Raggi’s name “raggio magico”, magical radius) first came to public notice when the cabinet chief, Judge Carla Raineri, resigned in early September in protest against Marra, who apparently pulled all the strings. On the same day, the councillor responsible for financial affairs and three other senior officials left the city administration.

A January 3 survey by the Winnpoll agency showed the Five Star Movement had lost two percentage points in the polls as a result of the revelations. If parliamentary elections were held now, Beppe Grillo’s party would still receive 26.4 percent. However, the winners would be a new coalition of the right-wing, with 34.4 percent (14.1 percent for Lega Nord, 13.2 Forza Italia, 4.4 Fratelli d’Italia), while Matteo Renzi’s Democratic Party would win 27.5 percent and the pseudo-left less than 5 percent (Sinistra Italiana 4.4 and Rifondazione Comunista 0.5).

Germany in 2016: Mass deportations and brutality toward refugees

Stefan Steele

The ruthlessness and brutality of Germany’s authorities against refugees now knows almost no bounds. In 2016 alone, some 25,000 desperate people were deported. Again and again, families are torn apart, children repatriated despite serious illness to war-torn homelands and refugees snatched from their beds without warning in the middle of the night.

The number of so-called “voluntary returners” is even higher, reaching some 55,000 in 2016. The “voluntary” nature of the return lies in the fact that following rejection of their asylum claims, refugees are given an ultimatum: either leave the country within a specified time period and receive some minimal support for their departure, or be forcibly deported and often bear the cost of it themselves. Those in this category are then banned from re-entry to Germany.

Not infrequently, part of a family is deported, so the remaining members follow them. This too is recorded as a “voluntary” return.

The Left Party celebrates this particularly insidious form of brutality as a “humane” alternative to deportation. Thuringia, the only German state under Left Party rule, with 1,726 so-called voluntary returns between January and November 2016, ranks second among the states behind Saxony.

In addition to these ruthless deportation practices, Der Spiegel recently published a survey revealing that refugees are treated badly as soon as they arrive in Germany. In nearly 1,500 cases over the past two years, property was confiscated from refugees. The sums involved totalled “at least 863,000 euros [$US 903,000]”, according to the news weekly.

The leader in this practice is the Christian Democratic Union (CDU)-Social Democratic Party (SPD) coalition ruling Saxony, which has seized a total of 328,432 euros in 411 cases. This act of mass theft occurred despite the fact that Saxony only accepted five percent of asylum seekers under the Königstein formula, which forms the basis for the distribution of refugees in Germany.

This operation is based on Paragraph 7a of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act. According to this law, “a surety can be demanded from those entitled to benefits”. An exception is made for “an allowance of 200 euros”. Bavaria and Baden Wurttemberg each permit a higher allowance.

Patrick Irmer, spokesman for the Saxony Refugee Council, told Der Spiegel he knew of at least four cases in which those affected were only allowed to keep a minimal 50 euros, although the relevant regulations on the allowance were already in force.

Under the current legislation, the confiscation of money from refugees can take place forcibly and without warning. In Bavaria, North Rhine Westphalia and Schleswig Holstein this means that asylum seekers are routinely searched if they are suspected of having any items of value on their person.

While most German states only confiscate cash, Rhineland Palatinate and Middle Franconia impound automobiles too. This imposes a massive curtailment of freedom of movement on refugees and increases the pressure on them to “voluntarily” return. The vehicles are only returned upon their leaving the country.

Hamburg, by its own account, is the only state where no such actions are carried out. According to Der Spiegel, Brandenburg, Bremen, Saxony Anhalt and Lower Saxony dispense with the seizure of assets, but in return they provide accommodation and meals on account or pay out lower benefits.

These confiscations bear startling similarities to the Nazi regime’s actions against the Jewish population in the 1930s. Before the construction of the large extermination camps, Jews were forced to sell their property well below its value, or it was simply taken from them. They were excluded from social life, through being denied access to public buildings and events, and their children were not allowed to attend state schools.

Eighty years later, the same politicians who solemnly declare in speeches that the memory of the “rupture of civilization of the Shoah” must be maintained, now rail against asylum seekers.

The list of vile measures taken by the authorities and reactionary media campaigns is growing: it includes the hysteria over alleged mass sexual attacks by asylum seekers in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015-16, for which no serious evidence has yet been produced; the restriction on access to public pools in Bonn; the inhumane accommodation in gyms, former hangars and container villages; the demands for a burqa ban; and the seizure of the already minimal assets of asylum seekers. These actions can only be understood as a fundamental attack on the rights of the entire working class.

This deeply anti-democratic and authoritarian trend has culminated recently in the first mass deportations to Afghanistan. On its website, the German foreign ministry “warns against travel to Afghanistan”. Whoever still travels there, it explains, must be aware of the risk from terrorist or criminal acts of violence. Naturally, the ministry does not mention that for 15 years Germany has been a belligerent power directly responsible for this “violence”. Now German authorities are forcing people fleeing the war and terror to return to Afghanistan, thus again endangering their lives.

New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany: Racist agitation and state repression

Dietmar Henning

The huge police deployment in Cologne on New Year’s Eve has served as the pretext for virulent racism and calls for the strengthening of the state apparatus.

Politicians and media are attempting to outdo each other with racist outbursts. They employ the cliche of “criminal North Africans,” shortened to “Nafris,” who possess “basic aggressiveness” and are all “multiple offenders.”

The vastly exaggerated events of New Year’s Eve in Cologne a year ago served as the pretext for a campaign targeting refugees and foreigners. This time around, it was exploited to justify a vast build-up of police forces in several major cities.

In Cologne alone, 1,500 state police, 300 federal police and 600 state law enforcement officials were mobilized. In the course of the night, Cologne Police President Jürgen Mathies demanded additional forces, resulting in a further 200 police officers being deployed.

The hundreds of police deliberately targeted foreigners or those they took to be foreigners. Thousands of visitors who came to Cologne for New Year’s Eve were for all intents and purposes singled out. The police wrote on Twitter, “Hundreds of Nafris are currently being checked at the main train station. Information to follow.”

The police divided up new arrivals at the train station on the basis of racial criteria. Women were rapidly let through.

According to the Rheinische Post, “those who did not correspond to a ‘North African’ profile were able to use a separate exit to the street. All others were directed through an exit that included personal checkpoints.” A large number of young men were kettled by the police in front of the train station. A police spokesman told journalists that the issue was merely “teething problems.”

On New Year’s Eve, everyone with dark skin, hair or eyes—irrespective of their behavior or nationality—was a target. In total, the police collected personal data from 1,700 people. Around 900 young men—overwhelmingly North Africans—were issued with a ban from the city centre and immediately sent back to the train station, where the federal police directed them onto trains. Others had to wait for up to three hours to get out of the police kettle. Of those stopped and searched, 92 were taken into custody.

The police authorities and politicians defended their racist actions, known as “racial profiling” and the federal government explicitly thanked the police.

Although police president Mathies expressed disappointment at the use of the term “Nafris” for North Africans in the police tweet, because this was merely an “internal working concept” for the police, he vehemently defended carrying out personal checks according to this criterion.

From the experience the police gained from New Year’s Eve 2015, and a series of raids, according to Mathies, “a definite impression has emerged as to which people need to be checked”—i.e. “Nafris.” Wolfgang Wurm from the federal police added, “We spoke to people relevant to investigations and questioned their intent.” He left no doubt about the fact that this practice would be continued.

The media has also based its reporting on the “experience gained” from New Year’s Eve 2015. Even though only 33 people were convicted after an extensive investigation, and just three for sexual crimes, the lies about mass sexual assaults were presented as if they were facts.

When a few dared to mildly criticise the use of the term “Nafri” and racial profiling, a wave of outrage was unleashed. Green Party chairwoman Simone Peter was sharply attacked when on New Year’s Day she described as “utterly unacceptable” the use of “derogatory terms for groups like ‘Nafris’ by organs of the state.”

The co-chair of the Greens, Cem Özdemir, told Spiegel Online that the police had acted “appropriately” and thereby guaranteed security. “Many people with a high potential for aggressiveness” had travelled to Cologne, asserted the Green chair.

The Green Party’s parliamentary group chair, Katrin Göring-Eckardt, told the Dortmund-based Ruhr Nachrichten, “It was correct to act quickly and preventively, to ensure the security of all people in Cologne.” The interior policy spokesperson for the Greens, Irene Mihalic, herself a former police officer, rejected the “general criticism of checkpoints” in an interview with Die Welt .

The Green Party mayor of Tübingen, Boris Palmer, who campaigns for more deportations to Syria, wrote on Facebook on Monday, “Specific answers to specific problems is not racism, but necessary.”

Simone Peter, having been brought to heel, described her criticism as too rapid and ill-considered. “It was right to act quickly and preventively here,” she said in a second statement.

While the Greens defended the strengthening of repressive arm of the state, racism flourished in the media. The studio director at WDR radio in Cologne, Lothar Lenz, commented, “They were there again—the hordes of men prepared for violence—but this time there was luckily enough police waiting.” Lenz argued it was a mistake to defame the operation as racist.“Just because officers identified potential perpetrators at the train station by their appearance and checked them? Yes, but how else should they have done it?”

The Bild newspaper provided a platform for Christian Social Union secretary Andreas Scheuer, who stated, “We cannot allow idealistic multi-cultural dreaming to become a security risk for the population.”

And in his blog on the web site of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, ‘Don Alphonso’ railed under the title “Very populist questions for the Nafris, politicians and police after Cologne.” The pseudonym belongs to Rainer Meyer, who describes his pen name as an “artistic figure,” so as not to be bound by journalistic protocol and political correctness.

In a question directed “to the Nafris,” he asked, “Why do you and your friends exhibit ‘basic aggressiveness’?” To the politicians he wrote, “The Nafris were checked on one evening.” What would happen on the other 364 evenings in the year? “Is it not necessary? Are they simply risky groups on New Year’s Eve?” He had the impression that “we now have a kind of temporary internal state of siege.”

The right-wing racist tirades from politicians and the media are a response to the rapidly intensifying capitalist crisis. Social inequality is growing rapidly and ever larger amounts of money are being spent on the military and wars which the majority of the population opposes. In anticipation of major class conflicts, a massive apparatus of state repression is being constructed.

Just two days after New Year, Interior Minister de Maizière declared in a guest contribution for the FAZ that in light of the current challenges from “terrorism, large influxes of asylum seekers and cyberattacks,” it was necessary to give the intelligence agencies more powers.

De Maizière intends to place the domestic intelligence agencies, with their 16 state organisations, fully under the control of the federal state. The federal criminal office (BKA) is to receive the power to enforce custody prior to deportation over other agencies. The powers of the federal police are also to be significantly strengthened in the areas of “random police checks and cyber attacks.”

De Maizière called for a “national pooling of forces” to carry out deportations. Rejected asylum seekers are to be taken into custody more easily. He intends to conduct deportations more rapidly: “I propose that the federal state obtains additional authority over the ending of the period of residence.” In this way, rejected asylum seekers could be “immediately dealt with.” To this end, he proposed the establishment of prisons which he termed “federal departure centres,” remarking, “Departure centres are already legal and could preferably be established close to German airports.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faces possible indictment for corruption

Jean Shaoul 

Israel’s Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit has given the go ahead for police to carry out two separate investigations into allegations of corruption against Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. The investigations follow months of delay, during which some 50 witnesses have been questioned.

At least one of the cases has the potential to lead to a formal indictment.

This is only the latest in a series of scandals surrounding Israel’s political establishment that reflect the putrefaction of Israeli democracy. Netanyahu’s immediate predecessor, Ehud Olmert, received a jail term for bribery offences when he was mayor of Jerusalem prior to becoming prime minister. Netanyahu and his family have for years faced numerous allegations of corruption and even preliminary investigations.

This is the first time, however, that allegations have led to a full-scale criminal investigation of Netanyahu’s financial relationships. Police questioned him at his official residence for three hours on Monday in relation to the first case. Apparently the smaller of the two, this case involves substantial gifts and benefits from several wealthy businesspeople. These include Ronald Lauder, whose family founded the US cosmetics giant Estee Lauder and who has himself been questioned by the police.

Netanyahu has already admitted to receiving $40,000 in 2001 from Arnaud Mimran, a French businessman currently serving an eight-year jail sentence for fraud. Netanyahu was out of office at the time. Mimran testified that he gave one million euros to Netanyahu during his 2009 election campaign. If true, this would violate Israeli law that bans the foreign funding of elections.

The second case is apparently more serious, although no details have been released to the press. Police will question Netanyahu about it on Friday. It follows Mendelblit’s announcement last July that he had ordered a preliminary investigation into a potentially corrupt relationship, with specific accusation emerging three months ago. He said that the allegations were new and did not relate to any previous rumours or investigations.

The daily Ha’aretz says that the case is being described as a “‘bombshell,’ an ‘earthquake’ and other such explosive adjectives” and relates to a well-known Israeli business figure who would benefit commercially from Netanyahu’s support. Unlike other allegations, this case seems to have accelerated quite rapidly.

Being the subject of a criminal investigation does not require Netanyahu to resign. However, an indictment, which could take months if it happens at all, would put him under enormous pressure to step down. That in turn could trigger early elections, which are not due until late 2019, if the ruling coalition cannot agree on a successor.

Mandelblit, a former cabinet secretary and military advocate general, is a close associate of Netanyahu who has sought to protect the prime minister and his wife Sara from other allegations, dismissing some and postponing the current probe for as long as possible. To the extent that he has approved the two current investigations, it may indicate that the evidence is too strong to simply ignore.

Netanyahu has responded in a predictably belligerent manner, listing on his Facebook page each accusation with “Nothing” and “I repeat and say there will not be anything because there is nothing.”

He told members of his Likud Party, “We hear the celebratory spirit and winds blowing through the television studios and in the corridors of the opposition.” He added, “Hold off the celebrations; don’t rush. I’ve told you before and will tell you again--this will come to nothing, because there is nothing.”

Corruption scandals are often the mechanism through which vicious political battles within ruling elites are fought out. In this case, the lack of information makes it difficult to ascertain what precisely is at issue. Nevertheless, it takes place in the immediate aftermath of the UN Security Council’s toothless resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, President Barack Obama’s support for the resolution and Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech affirming support for the “two state solution.”

Netanyahu, as soon as he heard that the Obama administration was proposing to abstain rather than veto the resolution, contacted President–elect Donald Trump to lobby for a veto. Emboldened by the prospect of an openly pro-settlement supporter in the White House, and fearful of being outflanked by his right-wing coalition partners, Netanyahu launched a vitriolic attack on the Obama administration, provoking uproar in Israel among those who fear that the unanimous vote of the Security Council has left Israel dangerously isolated.

Former Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who quit the coalition government last May over policy disagreements over Iran and the West Bank, speaks for this layer. He opposed the resolution but criticized Netanyahu, saying that Israel had to maintain a dialogue with its friends around the world despite disagreements, not punish or boycott them. He added, “More responsible leadership could have prevented the resolution.”

Ya’alon and others are concerned that Trump’s repudiation of the two state solution and support for Israel’s ultra-nationalist politicians and settler movement will pave the way for the outright annexation of much of the West Bank, ethnic cleansing and the destabilisation of the entire region. It would also further weaken the Arab states that play the Palestinian card for their own domestic purposes and with whom Israel is working covertly in Syria and against Iran.

This conflict over the two state solution was one of the factors underlying the prosecution of Olmert. He became become increasingly isolated after his attempts to impose a deal on the Palestinians on Israel’s terms, and to reach some accommodation with Syria in a bid to secure an end to Syria’s close relationship with Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. His attempts to overcome this impasse via murderous wars against Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and then against Gaza in 2008-09 were political disasters that sealed his fate.

Netanyahu has called on the media to apologise for its campaign against him. His office claimed that his opponents were mounting a witch-hunt, issuing a statement lambasting the media for “premature and politically motivated reports.”

It said, “Try replacing the Prime Minister at the ballot box—as is customary in a democracy.”

Netanyahu’s supporters are seeking to introduce a bill that would make it impossible to investigate a sitting prime minister for fraud, bribery and breach of trust, although it is difficult to see how this could be applied retrospectively even if passed.

Israel’s bourgeois “left” and “centrist” parties have responded decidedly timorously. Isaac Herzog, the leader of the Zionist Union, formerly the Labour Party, said merely that it was “a tough day for Israel when a prime minister is under investigation” and “We are not expressing satisfaction at another’s misfortune.”

Yair Lapid, the leader of Yesh Atid, which is ahead of the Likud Party in opinion polls, said, “The presumption of innocence applies to every Israeli, including the prime minister.” He called for a speedy investigation, saying, “A person who is being investigated is a person under pressure.”

Impeachment trial of South Korean president begins

Ben McGrath

The first public hearing in the impeachment trial of South Korean President Park Geun-hye took place Tuesday, but with the defendant a no-show, the proceedings lasted only nine minutes. Oral arguments are set to begin at another hearing Thursday, but Park is again likely to not attend. The Constitutional Court, which oversees impeachment proceedings, has narrowed down the charges against the president from 13 to five.

Park has been accused of allowing her friend and confidante Choi Soon-sil to take part in deciding policy matters despite holding no formal position in government, using Choi and presidential aides to pressure large companies like Samsung to offer bribes, infringing on the media’s free speech, abusing power, and neglecting her duties in relation to the sinking of the Sewol ferry in April 2014, which killed 304 people, mostly high school students.

The Constitutional Court is composed of nine judges led by Park Han-cheol, who stated on Tuesday, “We will do our best to conduct a strict and fair review of the impeachment case.” On Thursday, the Court is expected to hear testimony from key witnesses such as former presidential secretaries An Bong-geun and Lee Jae-man, although there is speculation that they may not attend the hearing. Next Tuesday, Choi and others are scheduled to testify.

While the court has 180 days to make a decision, it has signaled that it will accelerate proceedings citing the gravity of the situation. In fact, Han’s term as chief justice is scheduled to end on January 31 with some speculation that a ruling could be handed down before then. At least six of nine justices must approve Park’s removal. If Park is forced from office, a new presidential election must be held within 60 days.

Park currently retains the presidency in name only with power having been transferred to Prime Minister Hwang Gyo-an. She continues to maintain her innocence, going so far as to claim she was framed. Referring to the independent counsel investigating the president, she stated during a press conference on January 1, “[The counsel] completely set me up. I wasn’t thinking of giving favors to anybody at all.” It was her first public appearance since the National Assembly approved the impeachment motion on December 9.

The protracted political crisis in Seoul reflects widespread popular alienation from the entire political establishment that has been fuelled by the Park administration’s austerity measures. Millions of people have protested in the streets to demand Park’s removal. Large crowds have gathered in central Seoul for the past 10 Saturdays and small groups of anti-Park protesters gathered outside the Constitutional Court this Tuesday.

At the same time, Park’s impeachment reflects deep divisions in ruling circles over the dilemma posed by South Korea’s longstanding military ties to the US and its economic dependence on China, its largest trading partner. Park’s efforts to establish closer ties with Beijing were undermined by pressure from Washington to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in the country, nominally directed against North Korea.

All the major parties are now jockeying for position in the event that Park is removed from office and new presidential elections are called.

The Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK or Democrats), the leading opposition party, is seizing the opportunity to repair relations with China. There is fear in Seoul that the incoming Trump administration’s plans in the United States to pursue trade protectionism will harm the already fragile South Korean economy.

The state-run Korea Institute for International Economic Policy released a report Thursday raising the possibility that South Korea alongside China could be labeled currency manipulators. “If China is labeled as a manipulator, intensifying Washington-Beijing tensions, widespread protectionism will drag down global trade and spark dispute over foreign exchange and trade across the world,” it said. “Such global turmoil would spread to the South Korean economy.”

Seven MPK lawmakers visited China on Wednesday, meeting with Beijing’s foreign minister Wang Yi who called on South Korea to stop the planned deployment of the THAAD battery. China fears that the anti-ballistic missile system is aimed at undermining its own nuclear weapons capacity and is part of US preparations for war against China.

The THAAD battery is currently scheduled to be deployed this year at Seongju, North Gyeongsang Province. Lotte, one of South Korea’s family-owned conglomerates, provided a golf course for the system’s use. Beijing has in fact retaliated against South Korean businesses in China, including revoking subsidies for products made by Samsung and LG. Lotte’s businesses have faced in-depth tax audits and safety inspections.

The MPK has called on the current government to “toss the ball to its successor,” on THAAD but acting-president Hwang is pushing for a quick deployment of the system, citing the supposed threat from North Korea. If Park is removed as president, the MPK anticipates an electoral victory with former Democrat leader Moon Jae-in, who lost to President Park in the last election, currently one of the front-runners for the presidency.

A group of conservatives, who recently broke from the ruling Saenuri Party, also hope to distance themselves from Park, but have maintained a pro-US, anti-China line. Twenty-nine lawmakers from the anti-Park faction of the ruling party formed the tentatively named New Conservative Party for Reform, which is scheduled to be launched on January 24.

They denounced the MPK lawmakers’ trip to China as “kowtowing” to Beijing. Yu Seung-min, another presidential hopeful, stated, “If we take such a step [to negotiate the THAAD deployment], China will continue to infringe upon our sovereignty in other cases.”

The political crisis in Seoul will be intensified by Trump’s inauguration later this month. He has already indicated that he will place dealing with North Korea’s supposed missile threat high on his list of priorities as part of a broader agenda of confronting China that will raise tensions throughout the region.

Anti-Russia “fake news” campaign rolled out across Europe

Julie Hyland

In the aftermath of the November 8 US presidential election, sections of the Democratic Party, the intelligence services and the media have intensified unsubstantiated pre-election claims that the Russian government hacked into Democratic Party email servers to undermine the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

The immediate purpose was to distract from the content of the leaked emails, which exposed a conspiracy by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to undermine her challenger in the primaries, Bernie Sanders.

With Trump’s victory, it has become the focus for a ferocious struggle within the ruling elite over foreign policy centred on the issue of what order the US should first aggressively escalate its diplomatic, economic and military offensive—against Russia or China. More fundamentally, its aim is to brand anyone raising questions about foreign policy as the “dupe” of a foreign power and to justify further sweeping censorship, above all against social media.

The same applies to the manufacturing of the fake news scandal in Europe. The divisions within the US over foreign policy are mirrored within and between national ruling elites across the continent. What all agree on, however, is that, whatever side eventually wins out, the agenda of militarism and war requires police-state methods.

This is the content of the resolution passed by the European Parliament on November 23, on “EU strategic communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties.” The declared aim of the extensive resolution is to combat “third-party actors aiming to discredit” the European Union (EU) that “do not share the same [European] values.”

The resolution then defines as the main “actors” Russia and Daesh (or ISIL) and it is Russia that occupies most of the resolution.

It equates Russia with “transnational terrorist and criminal organisations…” that have “repeatedly engaged in a strategy of deliberate deception and disinformation, especially in the ‘new media’, social networks and the digital sphere…”

Accusing Russia of “information warfare”, the resolution asserts that it “is employing a wide range of tools and instruments” to “challenge democratic values, divide Europe, gather domestic support and create the perception of failed states in the EU’s eastern neighbourhood…”

The resolution specifically cites think tanks such as Russkiy Mir, the RT channel, Sputnik, alongside “internet trolls” and “cross-border social and religious groups…”

No evidence is presented to back up these claims. Nor is the content of the “disinformation” that it alleges ever specified. Rather “information warfare” is presented as any reportage, regardless of whether it is true or false, that undermines the interests of the European bourgeoisie.

While “not all criticism of the EU or its policies necessarily constitutes propaganda or disinformation”, the resolution states, “instances of manipulation or support linked to third countries and intended to fuel or exacerbate this criticism provide grounds to question the reliability of these messages…”

It is on the basis of such spurious equations that Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have been forced into hiding and exile, accused of treason and threatened with imprisonment and worse.

Just as sinisterly, the EU resolution decrees “information warfare” to be an undeclared act of war. Such methods form an “integral part of modern hybrid warfare, which is a combination of military and non-military measures of a covert and overt nature, deployed to destabilise the political, economic and social situation of a country under attack, without a formal declaration of war,” the resolution states, “targeting not only partners of the EU, but also the EU itself, its institutions and all Member States and citizens irrespective of their nationality and religion…”

The claim that Russia is engaged in a de facto war against the EU stands reality on its head. There is no doubt that Moscow engages in propaganda against aspects of EU policy, but its actions are only a pale reflection of the unending campaign conducted by the US and the EU over the last period.

Washington, in particular, serves as the largest manufacturer of fake news in the world, as evidenced by the criminal lying claims that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” to justify pre-emptive war in 2003. But not far behind it are the major European powers, who are supporting US disinformation regarding the Syrian civil war, which they helped to ignite, with the same aim.

The “fake news” scandal is part of active and far-advanced efforts, led by the US, to destabilise Russia and encircle it militarily. It was US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland who admitted, in 2014, that Washington had spent $5 billion to secure regime change in Ukraine, just after the so-called Euromaidan protests succeeded in forcing the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych out of office. Representatives from Germany, Poland and France performed the official benediction on his overthrow on behalf of the EU.

The resolution was passed just two weeks after the announcement of NATO’s largest troop deployment against Russia since the Cold War. Its “incumbent response force” is being tripled to 40,000 and hundreds of thousands of troops have been placed on higher alert levels. This month, an additional 4,000 NATO forces are being deployed along Russia’s border in breach of the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act.

Poland has been the most aggressive in demanding such deployments. It is no coincidence that the resolution to the European Parliament was prepared by Polish Deputy, Anna Fotyga, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and a member of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Security and Defense (SEDE), aligned with NATO.

By declaring Russia to be engaged in a de facto war against the EU, the resolution’s supporters are seeking to politically legitimise this massive escalation in NATO’s provocations against Moscow. Any criticism or campaign against European support for NATO’s warmongering is to be deemed the work of “Russian trolls” or terrorists.

The motion describes as “hostile propaganda” anything that has the effect of “provoking doubt, dividing Member States, engineering a strategic split between the European Union and its North American partners and paralysing the decision-making process, discrediting the EU institutions and transatlantic partnerships…”

The text indicates the social and political factors driving the resort to authoritarianism. It complains that the “financial crisis and the advance of new forms of digital media have posed serious challenges for quality journalism, leading to a decrease in critical thinking among audiences, thus making them more susceptible to disinformation and manipulation..”

In other words, the huge social gulf that exists between working people in Europe and the ruling elite as a result of the 2008 financial crisis and the EU’s unending policy of austerity means the overwhelming majority of people are hostile to the political establishment and its official media, which they correctly regard as nothing more than propaganda outlets for the interests of the super-rich. This insight, which the resolution slanders as a “decrease in critical thinking,” makes the population far less susceptible to the efforts to dragoon them behind militarism and war.

On this basis, the resolution calls for an intensification of EU and NATO efforts to combine forces, in particular to step up “counterintelligence efforts aimed at countering” so-called “fake news” operations. Daesh/ISIL is also introduced here from the standpoint of justifying a clampdown on social media and new measures against “hate speech”, which is never defined.

The resolution was passed by 304 to 179, with 208 abstentions. However, a minority opinion tabled against the resolution made no mention of the threat to democratic rights through the escalation of state censorship. Its objections centred on complaints that Russia should be regarded by the EU as an ally in the Middle East.

As the resolution was being debated, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the Bundestag that public opinion was being “manipulated” on the internet and that it would be necessary to “regulate it.” Simultaneously it was announced that Helsinki is to be the “hub” for a NATO/EU research centre into “hybrid warfare” directed against Russia and ISIL, while in the Czech Republic a new interior ministry department began operations January 1, known as the Centre Against Terrorism and Hybrid Threats. State Secretary for European affairs, Tomáš Prouza, said it was directed against “Russian propaganda” aimed at building “negative images of the European Union and NATO…”

Protests against gas price hikes spread across Mexico

Eric London

Tens of thousands of Mexicans have taken to the streets in opposition to President Enrique Pena Nieto’s January 1 decision to slash gasoline subsidies, an action that will increase consumer prices by 14 to 20 percent in the coming year. Demonstrations against el Gasolinazo have grown with each passing day, spreading to every part of the country.

The protests have provoked a political crisis within the Mexican ruling class. “With the Gasolinazos, social irritation is growing to the point of converting itself into a general discontent that could overflow and become uncontainable,” reads an editorial in Tuesday’s Excelsior.

The demonstrations involve largely spontaneous actions by workers and youth as well as sections of the middle class. As of Wednesday night, truckers, taxi drivers and other protesters were once again blocking many of the major highways between cities after police had cleared them the day before.

Police have made several dozen arrests. On Wednesday, they confronted demonstrators in Mexico City.

The state-owned energy conglomerate Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) announced yesterday that truckers and protesters had blocked eleven of its processing and distribution centers, creating what the company called a “critical situation” in Chihuahua, Durango, Morelos and Baja California. The company warned of possible airport closures if protests continued and reported incidents of pipeline sabotage.

Bus drivers in Guadalajara, Jalisco called the first Gasolinazo-related strike on Wednesday, shutting down most transit service in the city. Demonstrations in other cities were joined by delegations of teachers and doctors.

Protesters currently occupy dozens of gas stations across the country, while gas station companies have shut hundreds more. Demonstrations have been particularly large in Mexico City, the heavily populated State of Mexico, the oil-producing state of Veracruz and the manufacturing hub of Puebla. Protestors in Ciudad Juarez blocked one of the border crossings to the United States.

A series of demonstrations have been called for the coming weekend, largely by trade unions and peasant groups. These protests come at a pivotal moment for the Mexican economy.

On Tuesday, Ford Motor Company announced that it was canceling plans to build a $1.6 billion auto plant in Mexico and would instead invest in an existing factory outside of Detroit, Michigan. Ford CEO Mark Shields said the move was because of “a more positive US manufacturing business environment under President-elect Trump.” On the same day, Trump denounced General Motors for shifting car production to Mexico.

News of Ford’s decision dominated the headlines of the Mexican press and boosted fears that the Trump administration will impose tariffs on imports from Mexico and drastically reduce Mexico’s importance in US-based manufacturing supply chains. Eighty-one percent of Mexican manufacturing and service exports go to the US.

Ford’s move and growing fears of a trade war further weakened the peso, which hit a new low yesterday, closing at 21.40 to the dollar. The weakening peso and mounting inflationary pressures increase the serious economic risks associated with the gas subsidy reduction. Already, finance houses have responded to the cut by revising inflation estimates upwards to nearly 5 percent. Already in 2016, Mexico’s central bank raised interest rates several times, bringing them to their highest level since 2009.

This has created an unbearable situation for the deeply impoverished Mexican working class, with inflation outpacing wages while consumer prices skyrocket. A recent study by the Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) reported that the purchasing power of the average Mexican had shrunk by 11.1 percent since President Pena Nieto took office in 2012. The price index for the basic food basket required to feed a family of four has increased to 218.06 pesos ($10.19) per day, nearly three times the daily minimum wage.

Although Mexico is one of the world’s leading producers of oil, a worker earning the minimum wage must work twelve days to earn the price of a tank of gas. The increase in fuel prices will, moreover, result in a sharp rise in the prices of other basic staples. The firm Brokerage Finamex announced in December that the proposed gas hike would increase the consumer price index by 0.8 percent in just the first two weeks of 2017.

Over the last decade, the Mexican ruling class has carried out a ruthless drive to intensify the exploitation of its labor and natural resources, mainly by American banks and corporations. Protestors are demanding an end to the government’s moves to privatize Pemex, which was nationalized in 1938 after a massive strike by oil workers. In 2013, the government formally ended the state monopoly in oil.

Pena Nieto’s administration has violently repressed demonstrations and strikes against his pro-corporate education “reforms.” In 2014, local and federal police and troops abducted and murdered 43 student teachers in Ayotzinapa. Last year, police killed dozens of villagers and teachers in Noxichtlan during a months-long strike by Oaxacan teachers. Pena Nieto is the most unpopular president in modern Mexican history, with an approval rating of 25 percent.

The government has thus far refrained from ordering a violent crackdown on the movement against Gasolinazo out of fear that such a move would provoke an immediate social eruption. Morelos Governor Graco Ramirez, warning of a potential social explosion, proposed that the government respond to the protests with an emergency salary hike for low-paid workers.

On Wednesday, President Pena Nieto was forced to cut short his vacation in order to address the escalating crisis. In a nationally televised speech, he insisted that the subsidy reduction would not be repealed because it was necessary “to preserve the stability of our economy.”

In the same speech, Pena Nieto announced that ex-Finance Minister Luis Videgaray would return as foreign minister in a major cabinet shakeup aimed at boosting relations with the incoming Trump administration. Pena Nieto said the appointment signaled that there would be “dialogue and contact from the first day of the [Trump] administration, so we can establish the basis of a constructive working relationship.”

The president’s groveling comments will provoke further opposition in the Mexican working class. Tens of millions of Mexican workers have close family members living in the United States who may face deportation under Trump. Videgaray is broadly disliked for arranging the meeting between Trump and Pena Nieto in Mexico City during the US election campaign. He resigned as finance minister in early September, one week after that meeting.

It remains unclear whether the demonstrations will continue to grow or whether they will, as with previous social movements, be suffocated by the trade unions with the help of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and his Morena party.

The militant protests against the cut in gas subsidies are indicative of a revival of class struggle around the world, including in the United States. The brutal attacks on social programs and working class living standards being prepared by Trump and his cabal of billionaires, ex-generals and quasi-fascist politicians will provoke a rising tide of struggle by workers across the border from Mexico, creating the conditions for the forging of a united struggle of American and Mexican workers.

The only way for Mexican workers to oppose the social counterrevolution underway in their country is to unite with their class brothers and sisters around the world, first and foremost in the United States and Canada. Workers across North America labor in the same supply chains, often producing different parts of the same products that the corporations sell for immense profits.

Mexican workers need to recognize that their own bourgeoisie promotes Mexican nationalism while working with US imperialism to enrich itself at the expense of working people. So long as workers are forced to fight against one another for jobs and compete for wages, whether through the provisions of NAFTA or through trade wars, living standards across the region will continue to fall.

American workers must reject the racist and xenophobic lies of Donald Trump, the US trade unions and figures like Bernie Sanders who combine nationalist poison with “left” verbiage. Uniting the working class of the “New World”—from North through Central to South America—is a key strategic task of the world revolution. It requires the building of sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International across Latin America.

Education for Sustainable Energy Development [ESED] Scholarship for Developing Countries 2017/2018 (US$ 23,000/year)

Application Deadline: 10th March, 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible African/Other Countries: Developing countries and territories identified for OECD official development aid in the DAC List of ODA Recipients are eligible to apply.

To be taken at (country): All universities are eligible for the ESED scholarship. It is preferable that the candidate pursues her/his studies in a university outside his home country.

Accepted Subject Areas: Programs eligible for this scholarship must show a 75% focus on renewable energy and/or the power sector in general.

About Scholarship: The purpose of the Education for Sustainable Energy Development [ESED] scholarship is to support outstanding students from developing countries pursuing advanced studies in sustainable energy development and to encourage meaningful contributions to the collective body of knowledge about this subject. These scholarships are available to up to 10 outstanding students from developing countries and economies in transition, for a period of up to two years for Masters Degree, awarded annually.

Type: Masters

Offered Since:  2001

Selection Criteria: The Global Sustainable Electricity Partnership considers an outstanding student to be one who:

• graduates with excellent grades in the top 20% of her/his class
• is determined to advance her/his knowledge and understanding
• has a history of community involvement
• is committed to sustainable energy
• is committed to return and contribute to her/his home country

Who is qualified to apply? To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, students must

• plan to undertake studies at the Masters level in areas directly related to sustainable energy development
• be citizens of the developing countries and territories identified for OECD official development aid in the DAC List of ODA Recipients

Number of scholarships: Up to ten (10) Masters scholarships will be awarded annually.

Value of Scholarship: Scholarships of US$ 23,000 per year.

Duration: Scholarship will last for a period of up to two years for Masters Degree

How to Apply:Applications should be submitted using our Online ESED Scholarship Application Submission and uploading the requested documents. As the volume of incoming applications is extremely heavy around the deadline, we strongly urge you to submit your file as early as possible.

Visit Scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: Education for Sustainable Energy Development [ESED]