14 Sept 2017

Wall Street pushes for austerity and privatization in Puerto Rico

Rafael Azul

Hurricane Irma, the most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic, passed northwest of Puerto Rico on September 7, killing three people and causing significant damage to roads and the electrical power grid. The storm knocked out power for 1 million out of the island’s 3.4 million people, left 350,000 Puerto Ricans without potable water and put half the telecommunications towers in the country out of commission.
Though the US territory was spared the full force of the storm, which swung 54 miles to the north, high winds, rain and storm surges damaged homes and the electrical and water infrastructure, particularly in and around San Juan, Puerto Rico’s capital city and home to more than 400,000 people.
Victims report the loss of furniture, clothing, and many other items, as the strong winds tore of the roofs of homes in San Juan crowded working class communities along the northern coast, including the historic shantytown La Perla.
William Villafañe, Governor Pedro Rosselló’s chief of staff, announced that the percentage of Puerto Ricans with no electric power has fallen from 74 percent of the population to nineteen percent (over 300,000 people). Villafañe claimed that most of the population would have its power back by next week. He made it clear, however, that major infrastructural work will need to be done, saying, “It is evident that the most damaged in terms of infrastructure, in addition to our roads, is the electrical infrastructure.”
In a separate interview, New Progressive Party (NPP, pro-statehood) Senator Miguel Romero said in San Juan alone 42 two percent of the population were still without power. The restoration of power is being done in a haphazard manner; bypassing entire neighborhoods and leaving others with intermittent service.
Discussing the present situation, Anthony, a University of Puerto Rico student, told the World Socialist Web Site, “Some coastal areas outside of the capital have been hit with lots of flooding and homes and buildings have been destroyed. On the islands of Vieques and Culebra (off the eastern coast of Puerto Rico), people lost practically everything. The damage on these islands, which are close to the British and US Virgin islands, was devastating like Barbuda.
“I live outside of San Juan and we have no power. They say it could be a month before power is restored in some rural areas in the central part of the island. Of course, the priority is restoring the power for the elite class and the politicians in the capital city. Workers are the last ones.
“I think they have deliberately allowed the electrical grid to deteriorate for years, in order to open it up to privatization,” Anthony said.
According to the San Juan Star, the Electrical Industry and Irrigation Workers Union (UTIER) has accused the government of deliberately delaying the restoration of power in in San Juan and other crowded cities, to promote the privatization of the public electric utility, the Puerto Rican Electric Power Agency (PERPA or Agencia de Energia Eléctrica in Spanish, AEE).
The public utility has been starved of resources and implemented one cost-cutting measure after another to meet debt obligations of $9 billion. This led the grid particularly vulnerable to damage from high winds. According to UTIER President Ángel Figueroa Jaramillo, “There were 6,800 linemen in the year 2000. Now we have 3,500, and the number of miles of power lines has more than doubled in that time. They cut personnel, reduced material and cut back on maintenance. All this adds up to not meeting your obligations.”
The sale of the Puerto Rican Electric Power Authority to private investors has been on the agenda for years. This has accelerated under the rule of an unelected control board, known as the Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico, which was appointed by the Obama administration to impose dictatorial control over the island’s spending and funnel billions to Wall Street.
Officially Puerto Rico owes some $72 billion to various vulture funds and another $50 billion for so-called unfunded pension liabilities to public employees. In May, the island formally declared bankruptcy under the terms of the PROMISE Act legislation passed by Congress last year.
In June several members of the Financial Oversight Board wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Privatize Puerto Rico’s Power,” after the board rejected PREPA’s request to restructure its debt service and lower the price of electricity. The board members argued that only the privatization of the utility would generate enough investment from the banks to modernize the grid and deliver “cost-effective” energy.
What was needed in return, they said, was the “depolitization” of management (the installation of the direct representatives of the banks to run the utility,” pension “reform” and the renegotiations of labor agreements (i.e., brutal attacks on the pensions of retired workers and the wages and working conditions of current PREPA workers) in the name of increasing “efficiency.”
Forcing the bondholders to take a financial “haircut” of fifteen percent, the board members argued, would be an insuperable obstacle to selling off the company at a fire-sale price.
By rejecting the utility’s debt restructuring plan, the Financial Oversight Board forced the electric utility to declare bankruptcy in July after it defaulted on a $9 billion debt and was cut off from credit markets. Wall Street will now dictate the terms of whatever “restructuring” takes place.
The declaration of bankruptcy not only put a halt to any effort to modernize and strengthen PREPA’s infrastructure, it also greatly undermined maintenance operations, such as trimming trees near power lines and other essential tasks.
The electrical crisis in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma is therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy. The storm was a godsend for the financial parasites seeking to loot public assets, including the public electrical utility, and escalate the attacks on the jobs, wages and pensions of all public sector workers.
“I don’t want to point fingers,” declared Governor Roselló, “but the truth is it’s been periods of over a decade with very little or no investment in the maintenance of our infrastructure, and that makes us more susceptible.” Rather than arresting those who deliberately sabotaged the electrical grid, causing immense pain and suffering for the island’s residents, Roselló called for the speedy privatization of PREPA under the terms of the legislation that created the Financial Oversight Board.
“This is a moment of crisis that we need to benefit and transform into an opportunity of change, production and investment,” declared Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner Jennifer González, who ostensibly represents the island in the US Congress.
As in Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Detroit bankruptcy in 2013-2014, Wall Street is using the destruction of Hurricane Irma—which was exacerbated by the criminal activities of its political hirelings—to restructure Puerto Rico at the expense of the working class. This will surely be the model for the reconstruction of Houston, the Virgin Islands, Florida and all those areas hit by Hurricane Harvey and Irma.

Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi and the fraud of human rights imperialism

Peter Symonds

The plight of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fleeing the Burmese military’s rampage in the western state of Rakhine is a devastating exposure of the fraud of human rights imperialism practiced by the US and its allies and their chief political asset in Burma (Myanmar)—Aung San Suu Kyi.
The brutality and scale of the military operations has been the occasion of a great deal of hypocritical handwringing in the UN and by those who have aggressively promoted Suu Kyi as a “democracy icon.” Despite the media and humanitarian agencies being barred from the operational area, there is substantial and mounting evidence that the Burmese army has been systematically torching villages and numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers gunning down civilians.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres yesterday described what was taking place in Rakhine state as “ethnic cleansing,” saying: “When one-third of the Rohingya population had to flee the country, could you find a better word to describe it?” The UN Security Council issued a statement that “expressed concern about reports of excessive violence” and appealed for steps to “de-escalate the situation,” protect civilians and resolve the refugee problem.
British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson last week joined the chorus of international appeals to Suu Kyi to use her influence to rein in the military. “Aung San Suu Kyi is rightly regarded as one of the most inspiring figures of our age but the treatment of the Rohingya is alas besmirching the reputation of Burma,” he declared.
If the military’s ethnic cleansing had taken place a decade ago when the Burmese junta had Suu Kyi under house arrest, the reaction would have been quite different. There would have been ringing condemnations from Western imperialism of the “rogue regime,” denunciations of its long history of human rights abuses and moves for even tougher diplomatic and economic sanctions against Burma.
Why is Washington soft-peddling now on the latest military outrages in Burma? As is the case around the world, the US has never had the slightest interest in promoting basic democratic rights in Burma. Rather its attitude toward the Burmese military dictatorship was always determined by economic and strategic interests—in particular, Washington’s hostility to the junta’s close ties with China.
As the Obama administration began to ramp up its “pivot to Asia” against China throughout the Asia Pacific, the Burmese junta, facing a mounting economic and social crisis at home, signalled a shift away from Beijing in 2011 and its willingness to find a political role for Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD).
It was as if a switch had been flicked. Virtually overnight, Burma was designated in the US and international media not as a rogue state, but as “a developing democracy.” A string of top American officials trooped in, culminating in a visit by President Barack Obama in 2012. Sanctions were progressively dropped and Suu Kyi became a roving ambassador for the junta, touting for investment and aid.
The victory of the NLD in the carefully-managed elections in 2016 and installation of Suu Kyi as de facto head of government was universally hailed by the establishment media, middle-class liberals and various pseudo-left organisations as the flowering of democracy. In reality, the military remains in charge: it appointed officers to a quarter of the parliamentary seats and installed serving generals to the key cabinet posts of defence, home affairs and border affairs.
Suu Kyi and the NLD went along with this charade because their basic concern was never with democratic rights as such. Rather the NLD represents those sections of the Burmese bourgeoisie whose economic interests were stifled under the military junta. Aligned with Western imperialism, they sought to open up the country to investment.
Moreover, the NLD, Suu Kyi included, is just as mired as the military in the reactionary ideology of Burmese Buddhist supremacism, which has repeatedly been exploited to sow religious and ethnic divisions among working people. As hopes for an economic boom in Burma have faded, the military, with the NLD’s backing, has escalated violence against Muslim Rohingyas, who long have been used as a scapegoat for the country’s problems.
Suu Kyi and the NLD have taken no steps to address the lack of fundamental rights for the Rohingya minority, who are branded as “illegal immigrants” from Bangladesh. Despite having lived, in many cases, for generations in Burma, they are not citizens and thus have no rights or access to social services.
Suu Kyi has openly defended the military’s ethnic cleansing campaign, justified in the name of the “war on terrorism” and the need to suppress Rohingya militias that have sprung up in response to the army’s outrages. After criticism from the Turkish president last week, Suu Kyi lashed out against “fake news photographs” and “a huge iceberg of misinformation” that creates problems “with the aim of promoting the interest of the terrorists.”
The events in Burma are a graphic example of the cynical use of “human rights” to promote the interests of imperialism. But it is far from the only one. Time and again, the demonisation of leaders and regimes over “human rights” has been exploited as the pretext for illegal wars of aggression and regime-change operations. The US and its allies, supported by various liberals and pseudo-left groups, have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and Syria, leading to millions of deaths in a bid to shore up American hegemony in the strategic, energy-rich Middle East.
The situation in Burma underscores the basic conclusion drawn by Leon Trotsky more than a century ago in his Theory of Permanent Revolution, and confirmed by the Russian Revolution in 1917: the organic inability of any section of the bourgeoisie, in countries of a belated capitalist development dominated by imperialism, such as Burma, to establish basic democratic rights. That task falls to the working class, in the fight to take power at the head of a revolutionary movement as an integral component of the struggle for socialism internationally.

13 Sept 2017

Securing Water for Food Global Photo Contest 2017

Application Deadline: 27th September 2017
Eligible Countries: All
About the Award: The Securing Water for Food (SWFF) Global Water-Agriculture Photo Contest aims to:
  • Harness the power of images to tell a story that raises awareness and inspires action to Securing Water for Food’s about enterprises and organizations with innovations that will enable the production of more food with less water and/or make more water available for food production, processing, and distribution.
  • Celebrate men and women who work in agriculture and document how they are impacting water/food security through new technologies and business models.
For SWFF Global Water-Agriculture Photo Contest, photographers must submit images that focus on one or more of these themes: agriculture, water, water-agriculture-related technology, and men and women working in agriculture.
Fields of Contest: As noted, for SWFF Global Water-Agriculture Photo Contest, images you submit must focus on one or more of these themes:
  • Agriculture
  • Water
  • Water-agriculture-related technology
  • Men and women working in agriculture
Type: Contest
Eligibility: The Securing Water for Food Global Water ­Agriculture Photo Contest (“Photo Contest”) is open to all professional and amateur photographers throughout the world.
The Contest seeks outstanding photos that have an unusual viewpoint and force you to pay attention to things ordinary people may take for granted, or worse, not even notice. The Contest also wants images that make people’s jaw drop. Winning photos must have the following attributes:
  • Be of high quality
  • Tells a story and represents an interesting and engaging subject matter
  • Has strong compositional order and structure
  • Grabs the eye from a distance
  • Evokes an emotion
  • Captures an iconic moment
  • Showcases a unique perspective
Selection Criteria: Photos will be judged on originality, technical excellence, composition, overall impact, artistic merit and subject matter relevance to our contest.
Value of Award:
Grand Prize Group of 15 Photos – $500
First Place Single Photo – $500
Second Place Single Photo – $250
Third Place Single Photo – $150
Duration of Program: 
Contest Promotion: August 29, 2017 – September 27, 2017
Judging: September 27, 2017 – October 3, 2017
Winners Announced: October 5, 2017
How to Apply: Enter Now
Award Providers: The Kaizen Company

United Nations International Law Fellowship for African Scholars 2018

Application Deadline: 20th October 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries (see list below) 
To be taken at (country): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fields of Study: The Regional Courses may include seminars on the following topics: Introduction to international law, Treaty law, State responsibility, International peace and security, Peaceful settlement of international disputes, Diplomatic and consular law, International organizations, United Nations institutions and law making, The Work of the International Law Commission, African Union law and institutions, Organization of American States law and institutions, International human rights law, Movements of persons, International humanitarian law, International criminal law, International environmental law, International watercourses, Law of the sea, International trade law, International investment law, Legal research, Legal drafting
About the Award: The 2017 United Nations Regional Course in International Law for Africa will be organized by the Codification Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs in cooperation with Ethiopia, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and the African Union. The Regional Course will be conducted in English.
The Regional Courses provide high-quality training by leading scholars and practitioners on a broad range of core subjects of international law, as well as specific subjects of particular interest to the countries in a given region. In addition, the interactive nature of the training allows the participants to share experiences and exchange ideas, which promotes greater understanding and cooperation on legal matters in the region.
The Regional Courses are intended to enable qualified professionals, in particular government officials and teachers of international law from developing countries and countries with emerging economies, to deepen their knowledge of international law and of the legal work of the United Nations and its associated bodies.
Type: Short course, Fellowship
Eligibility: To qualify for the Regional Course, candidates
  • must have a legal background with professional experience in the field of international law.
  • are required to submit a medical certificate of good health and to certify that they are able to attend the entire course period.
  • Fluency in spoken and written English is also required.
Selection Criteria: When selecting participants for the Regional Courses:
  • due consideration is given to the candidates’ qualifications, to the scope of their professional duties, to the relevance of the training to their professional duties and to gender balance.
  • Applications from female candidates are strongly encouraged.
  • Due consideration is also given to those candidates who are already present in Addis Ababa.
Number of Awardees: The course will accommodate up to 30 participants.
Value of Programme: The fellowships cover the fellowship recipient’s travel in economy class, accommodation, meals, medical insurance, participation in the Regional Course and the training materials. In accordance with the policies and procedures governing the administration of United Nations fellowships, participants will also receive a stipend to cover other living expenses.
Qualified candidates may also apply for self-funded positions. Self-funded participants bear all costs associated with their participation (travel, accommodation and living expenses). Training materials and lunches during the weekdays are provided to all participants.
Duration of Programme: The Regional Course will be held at the facilities of the ECA in Addis Ababa, from 5th February to 2nd March 2018
Eligible countries: The Regional Course is open to candidates from the following countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
How to Apply: Download and fill the Application Form at the right hand corner
Award Provider: United Nations

1,000 YALI Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders 2018

Application Deadline: Thursday, 11th October, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries
To be taken at (country): U.S
About the Award: The Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders is the flagship program of the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI). President Obama launched YALI in 2010 to support young African leaders as they spur growth and prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and enhance peace and security across Africa.
The Mandela Washington Fellowships for Young African Leaders empowers young people through academic coursework, leadership training, and networking. In 2017, the Fellowship will provide up to 1,000 outstanding young leaders from Sub-Saharan Africa with the opportunity to hone their skills at a U.S. college or university with support for professional development after they return home.
The Fellows, who are between the ages of 25 and 35, have established records of accomplishment in promoting innovation and positive change in their organizations, institutions, communities, and countries. In 2016, Fellows represented all 49 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. They also represent diversity across the continent as 66 Fellows identified as having a disability, thirty percent came from rural areas or towns of fewer than 100,000 people, and fifty percent of Fellows were women.
mwf_main_pic
Offered Since: 2014
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Candidates must:
  • be between the ages of 25 and 35 although exceptional applicants younger than 25 will be considered;
  • Are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the United States;
  • Are eligible to receive a United States J-1 visa;
  • Are not employees or immediate family members of employees of the U.S. government (including the U.S. Embassy, USAID, and other U.S. government entities);
  • Are proficient in reading, writing, and speaking English;
  • Are citizens of one of the following countries: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
  • Are residents of one of the above countries; and
  • Are not alumni of the Mandela Washington Fellowships.
  • Please note: Fellows are not allowed to have dependents (including spouses and children) accompany them during the Fellowship.
Number of Awardees: Up to 1000
Selection Process and Criteria: The Mandela Washington Fellowship selection process is a merit-based open competition. After the deadline, all eligible applications will be reviewed by a selection panel. Following this review, chosen semifinalists will be interviewed by the U.S. embassies or consulates in their home countries. If advanced to the semi-finalist round, applicants must provide a copy of their international passport (if available) or other government-issued photo identification at the time of the interview. Selection panels will use the following criteria to evaluate applications (not in order of importance):
  • A proven record of leadership and accomplishment in public service, business and entrepreneurship, or civic engagement;
  • A demonstrated commitment to public or community service, volunteerism, or mentorship;
  • The ability to work cooperatively in diverse groups and respect the opinions of others;
  • Strong social and communication skills;
  • An energetic, positive attitude;
  • A demonstrated knowledge, interest, and professional experience in the sector/track selected; and
  • A commitment to return to Africa and apply leadership skills and training to benefit the applicant’s country and/or community after they return home
Value of Fellowship: There is no fee to apply to the Mandela Washington Fellowship. If you are selected for the Fellowship, the U.S. government will cover all participant costs. Financial provisions provided by the U.S. Government will include:
  • J-1 visa support;
  • Round-trip travel from Fellow’s home city to the U.S. and domestic U.S. travel as required by the program;
  • A six-week academic and leadership institute;
  • Concluding Summit in Washington, DC;
  • Accident and sickness benefit plan;
  • Housing and meals during the program; and
  • An optional six-week Professional Development Experience (for up to 100 Fellows).
  • Please note: the Fellowship will not cover salary while Fellows are away from work or funds for personal purchases such as gifts.
Mandela Washington Fellows will also have access to ongoing professional development opportunities, mentoring, networking and training, and support for their ideas, businesses, and organizations.
How to Apply: The deadline for applications for the Mandela Washington Fellowship is 4:00 PM GMT on Wednesday, October 26, 2016. Applications must be completed online at https://yaliapp.irex.org.
It is important to visit the official website (link below) for detailed information on how to apply for this Fellowship.
Award Provider: American Government, Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI)
Important Notes: The Mandela Washington Fellowships are not designed to help Fellows identify funding for projects or organizations.

KAIST Undergraduate Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019 – South Korea

Application Deadlines: Deadline for the application for a scholarship is the same as deadline for processing admission:
KAIST has three application cycles: EARLYREGULAR, and LATE.
Early
  • Application Opens: 1st September 2017
  • Application Closes: 25th October 2017
Regular
  • Application Opens: 1st November 2017
  • Application Closes: 5th January 2018
Late
  • Application Opens: 26th February 2018
  • Application Closes: 29th June 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International countries (except South Korea)
To be taken at (country): South Korea
Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the University
About the Award: The Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) offers the KAIST International Student Scholarship for both undergraduate international students. KAIST Undergraduate Scholarships are very competitive and once a student is selected by KAIST, his/her tuition fee is waived off and he/she will get scholarship based on KAIST policies.
KAIST welcomes applications from all over the world. Eligible international undergraduate applicants wishing to study at KAIST are invited to apply for the KAISTInternational Student Scholarship as they apply for their course. You can choose to apply either for SPRING semester or Fall semester.
Type: Undergraduate taught
Eligibility:
  • Applicants of International Student Admission
  • Students must maintain GPA over 2.7 out of 4.3 at KAIST
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Full tuition fee: tuition exemption for 8 semesters
  • Living expenses: 200,000 ~ 350,000 KRW per month
  • National Health insurance
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of course
How to Apply: 
  • There is no separate process for applying scholarship. Just check “KAIST scholarship” on the Statement of Financial Resources section on online application for admission.
  • Interested candidates should refer to the guidelines here to prepare for required documents in detail.
Award Provider: The Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)

Ashden International Awards for Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries 2018

Application Timeline: 7th November, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing countries
To be taken at (country): London
About the Award: World’s leading green energy awards, seeks to reward innovative enterprises and programmes that deliver, or play a key part in enabling the delivery of sustainable energy systems and through this bring social, economic and
environmental benefits. In 2018, we will make six International Awards. The winners will receive prize funds of up to £20,000 each.
What is Ashden looking for this year?
  • Finance and business innovation for delivering sustainable energy: Organisations or enterprises accelerating access to sustainable energy through innovation
  • Sustainable cities and buildings: Organisations working in the built environment to rapidly decarbonise towns and cities
  • Sustainable transport and mobility: Innovative enterprises or programmes that are improving access to sustainable mobility services for those who currently have poor access
  • Powering business: Enterprises or programmes which provide and/or use clean energy or energy efficiency in the provision of goods and services through business activities
  • Energy access frontiers: Organisations improving energy access in areas where the market for sustainable energy products and services is underdeveloped and energy access penetration is low
  • Sustainable energy and health: Organisations enabling the use of sustainable forms of energy to make a direct improvement to people’s health or to support the provision of health services
Type: Entrepreneurship, Contest
Who can apply for an Ashden International Award?
  • Businesses, NGOs, social enterprises and government organisations are all eligible.
  • The work must be delivered in at least one of the UN’s developing regions of Africa, Caribbean, Central America, South America, Asia (excluding Japan) and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand) and can be in rural or urban areas. High-income countries in these regions, as defined by the World Bank, are not eligible to apply
What happens if you win an Award As an Ashden Award winner? You will:
  • Be invited to London at Ashden’s expense to take part in the Awards Ceremony on 14 June as well as other events during this week. Winning an Ashden Award is contingent on taking part in Awards Week activities.
  • Participate in media interviews that we may be able to arrange.
  • Agree with Ashden what you will spend the prize fund on and any business support you may receive.
  • Provide and update monitoring data about the progress of your work after one year, two years and three years
Number of Awardees: 6
Value of Contest: 
  • The winners will receive prize funds of £20,000 each
  • As well as this cash fund, winning an Ashden Award brings many other benefits, such as:
    • Local, national and international publicity, through the work of our specialist media team.
    • Support to grow or replicate your work: this can include professional mentoring, training and introductions to investment and other finance providers.
    • Opportunities to present your work to large and influential audiences at the Ashden Awards Ceremony, International Conference and other Ashden events.
    • Membership of the Ashden Alumni network of Ashden Award-winners, which facilitates opportunities to create productive partnerships and learning.
    • The acclaim of winning a prestigious Ashden Award. Our application and assessment process is known for being rigorous.
How to Apply: Apply here
Award Provider: Ashden

Not My Wonder Woman: The Zionist Agenda in US Mainstream Feminism

Zarefah Baroud

Most women will agree that female representation in the media is incredibly important for a plethora of reasons, not only in media but as well as politics, and other platforms lacking opportunity for female participants. Providing women of all ages a strong and positive role model could break a toxic habit and pattern of accepting and expecting degrading societal roles and standards that have been appointed to us. A struggle that many women face, especially women of color, members of minority faiths, or members of the LGBTQ community, is the women presented in the media for the sake of progressiveness have never stood with or supported either groups of people. For me, and many other women, “female representation” seems useless for these reasons.
When it comes to the new film Wonder Woman, many questions arose for me personally: Would I ever take my hypothetical Palestinian daughter to see a film lead by a woman who works and supports the genocide and ethnic cleansing of her people? Would my hypothetical daughter forget all the immense damage Gadot has done in Palestine, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Syria, etc, due to the fact that she is female? The omnipresent term “White Feminism” comes to mind in cases such as these. The powerful, white, upper class, has not faced the oppression and devastation that Gal Gadot and her comrades in the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) have caused, in fact, they have and continue to profit from it, whether that be in political backing from the Zionist lobby, brutal arms deals, etc.
It is quite easy to feel hopeless in situations as this. What power does a university student in Seattle have? One factor many forget that carries power and impact is our financial and monetary support of companies, corporations, films, etc. Along with the list that the BDS(Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) movement has provided, I made the choice to avoid this film completely. Gal Gadot does not support women. DC’s decision to cast Gadot was not motivated by feminism, but by their support of the prevailing Zionist and White Supremacist agenda in the media and the United States as a whole. If they wanted to make a feminist political statement, they wouldn’t let the member of an anti-Arab (and anti-African for that matter) army, that practices the ethnic cleansing and genocide of indigenous peoples; play the role of an Amazonian woman – an Indigenous woman.
It comes down to what women truly need out of the feminist movement, not only in the United States, but globally. In the eyes of many Americans, women of color don’t enter their minds in relation to the feminism conversation; resulting in them feeling no sense of betrayal when they hear that Gal Gadot is the perfect “white” woman lead to the new Wonder Woman film.
If Americans are truly committed to seeing their country evolve into a place that values equity for women and other oppressed peoples, it is vital that the growing exclusivity applied to this standard is banished. This can be applied to many mainstream and growing movements in the United States today. If you marched with the Pride parade in 2017, for example, the intersectionality within your solidarity is not an option. You must march for justice against brutal police who have slain and abused a record number of Black Trans women. You must march against the Pink Washing Israel has propagated while abusing LGBTQ Palestinians. You must march against all forms of LGBTQ abuses. It is not a game of picking and choosing, but one of mobilizing collectively for the same value of justice, regardless of the various labels and the backlash affiliated with each of the causes.
I personally have come to the conclusion that this film was nothing but just another trick played on America’s juvenile approach to the empowerment of women. They put a woman on TV and the historic oppression of women is over, regardless that that woman herself fights for the propagation of oppression of other women all over the Middle East, Africa, and even the United States.
We saw similar events take place during Barak Obama’s presidency. They put the first Black man in the White House, and White America deemed themselves post-racial, despite the fact that the Obama administration continued the heavy militarization of the police in the United States, with the help of the IDF’s armed forces training, which directly targets and oppresses the Black community in this country. While his administration was busy bombing Somalia, Libya, and countless other African and Arab countries, he was still revered as a savior for America’s suffering Black community.
Likewise, Hillary Clinton dreamed of blazing the trail as the first female president, while betraying women everywhere as she schemed to overthrow the sovereign governments of Honduras and Libya. She too has failed to lift up women throughout the world.
For many people, the sentiment of Wonder Woman was far more than “just a film”. It was far from being a sign of evolution in the American feminist movement. Casting a woman who is a veteran from one of the most heavily militarized countries on the planet is not a sign of progress. But it does give Americans an illusion of progress. White American feminists can rest a little easier with the flawed assurance that they have done their job. We, whether we are Palestinians, people of color, LGBTQ, or religious minorities, we don’t stand to gain anything from their illusion.

The War on Terror Has Targeted Muslims Almost Exclusively

Maha Hilal

Every year on September 11, the United States mourns the innocent lives that were lost in the terrorist attacks of 2001.
Each year I remember these victims, too. But I also mourn the often forgotten victims of the never-ending wars and draconian counter-terrorism policies of the post 9-11 world: the Muslim community.
In a speech to Congress shortly after the attacks, then-President Bush addressed a portion to Muslims. “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends,” he said. “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.” Yet despite Bush’s attempt to distinguish between the “good” and “bad” Muslims, the war on terror has targeted the Muslim community at large almost exclusively.
Abroad, several Muslim nations have been devastated by U.S. invasions and military operations. As of 2015, Physicians for Social Responsibility estimated that 1.3 million Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis had died in the course of the war on terror — a figure the group called “conservative,” noting that it doesn’t include figures from other war zones like Yemen and Somalia. Civilian casualties run high in all of these places, and alleged combatants have died by the hundreds in U.S. military custody.
Domestically, law enforcement has systematically singled out Muslims for special abuse.
Muslim congregations and student groups have suffered intrusive surveillance. And federal agencies have systematically entrapped alleged Muslim “terrorists,” with one 2014 Human Rights Watch report finding that informants had played an active role in hatching at least 30 percent of the plots they prosecuted suspects for.
Meanwhile, so-called communication management units — where federal prison inmates are barred from virtually all contact with the outside world and other inmates — were built and used to warehouse Muslim prisoners. At one point, over 60 percent of inmates housed in them were Muslim, despite Muslims making up just 6 percent of the prison system.
In the even more extreme Guantanamo Bay prison, that number rises to 100 percent.
But it doesn’t end there, because the laws and policies of the war on terror have created a culture of fear — one that teaches American society to fear Muslims, and one that teaches Muslims to fear the U.S. government. While it’s gotten worse under Trump, it’s not something that started under him. The Bush administration built the violent infrastructure of the war on terror, Obama expanded it, and Trump is simply building on it still.
Earlier this year, President Trump signed two executive orders, commonly referred to as the Muslim Ban and Muslim Ban 2.0, which halted the issuing of visas to people from seven (and later six) majority-Muslim countries.
While many were surprised by this overt act of racism and xenophobia, the war on terror has taught Muslims like me that this is nothing new. The orders came amid a surge of hate crimes against Muslims, which recently reached their highest levels since 9/11 itself. Furthermore, the number of hate crimes this year has far surpassed that of 2016 — by 91 percent, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations.
“While the bias that motivates a hate crime may be unusual in its ferocity,” a Human Rights Watch report explained way back in 2002, “it is rooted in a wider public climate of discrimination, fear, and intolerance against targeted communities, which may also be echoed in or enhanced by public policy.”
As a Muslim American who has lived in the United States for most of my life, September 11 taught me a few things. It taught me that collective responsibility is at the heart of the laws and policies that have unfolded in the war on terror — that we’ll be targets till we prove we’re “good” Muslims who are uncritical of foreign policy and who believe in the American dream.
It taught me that religious freedom is a value that the United States cherishes, until of course Muslims try to claim it. Then it becomes a security concern.
It taught me that this is actually what many groups have experienced in our country. Different groups are targeted at different times under different umbrellas for our “national security,” which is nothing more than legitimized and institutionalized racism and xenophobia.
This year will mark 16 years of the war on terror — 16 years of military and militaristic means to allegedly abate the terrorist threat, but which have in fact terrorized my own community.
This year, as part of the DC Justice for Muslims Coalition, I’m leading a campaign called #MySept11MuslimStory to provide a space for Muslims to share their stories on the consequences they’ve experienced post-9/11 — not just from the U.S. government, but from society at large. This is my way of empowering the Muslim community to resist the oppression we’ve experienced on the basis of collective responsibility.
The war on terror was supposed to be about making our country safer. But as a Muslim American, I don’t feel any safer. Instead, I suspect those feelings of safety were never meant to be extended to me, or my community. As we prepare for what’s ahead, empowering ourselves couldn’t be more important.

The Other 9/11: Unremembered and Unatoned

STEVE BROWN

On Monday, we saw the usual yearly outpouring of articles and editorials from mainstream media commemorating the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, which killed 2,996 people and wounded 6,000 more.
Not that such memorials aren’t appropriate. They are simply insufficient. They fail to commemorate another 9/11 tragedy, one that took place 28 years earlier, in 1973 — not in America, but in Chile — and which caused the death – not of thousands, but of tens of thousands — while torturing and exiling 200,000 more.
I refer to the brutal coup d’état that overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, and replaced it with nearly two decades of murderous dictatorship under Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet.
Although this earlier 9/11 event occurred in a foreign land, there is a very good reason why Americans should remember it. And that reason is – our government caused it. The coup was strategized, funded, and abetted by President Richard Nixon, by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”) and by CIA directors from Richard Helms and James Schlesinger to William Colby and George Hebert Walker Bush.
Although Nixon, Kissinger, Helms, Schlesinger, Colby and Bush are arguably as guilty of mass murder for their part in the Chilean coup of 9/11/1973 as the 19 militants who reportedly flew airliners into the World trade Towers on 9/11/2001, the former did not suffer the same fate as the latter.
The 19 Al Qaeda (and/or Saudi) militants involved in the 9/11/2001 attacks all reportedly perished when their aircraft crashed. By contrast, Generalissimo Augosto Pinochet died peacefully in his sleep, at age 94, surrounded by his family, in a Santiago hospital. The death of Richard Nixon, at a respectable age 81, was celebrated by an impressive public memorial service, paid for by American taxpayers, and attended by world dignitaries, including all five living American presidents. As for our CIA chiefs: Richard Helms lived to a ripe old 89 years of age; John Schlesinger, to 85 years of age; and William Colby, to a less ripe but still respectable 76 years of age. And George Herbert Walker Bush is still going strong, God bless him, at age 95, along with Henry Kissinger, who at an impressive 94 years of age, is hale, hearty, happy, honored – and rich (although he is leery of traveling abroad lest he encounter a silly government or two that just won’t let bygones be bygones).
Here is a link to a moving article from the New Statesman, written in 1974, only a year after the Chilean coup, by Nobel Prize-winning author Gabriel García Márquez. . Although Marquez’s article is a devastating exposé of the U.S. Government’s shameful and illegal complicity in the coup, and its many acts of torture and murder, Marquez did not have access to the mountain of additional incriminating evidence that surfaced later, bit by bit, during the next three decades, which painted an even more shameful picture.
Perhaps the oddest piece of that later incriminating evidence was the CIA’s own public confession of its role in the Chilean coup, embodied in a Special Report, declassified and extracted from the agency with great effort by Congress, in 2000. However, even in this 27-years-too-late confession, the CIA seemed to place most if not all of the blame on Nixon and Kissinger (who certainly deserved their share). And even more bizarrely — in light of their very own disclosures to the contrary – the agency concluded its Report by refusing to admit to any abuses or cover-up by CIA agents.
It should be noted that, even now, 44 years later, the United States has still not made a public apology to the Chilean people for the decades of undeserved misery, torture and death it caused them. (Not surprising, since it hasn’t apologized to the Iranian people, either, for the decades of misery, torture and death it caused them when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953; or apologized to the Guatemalan people for overthrowing the democratically elected government of Jacobo Árbenz in 1954; or – well, I’ll stop there, since the full list of U.S.-fomented and/or -implemented coups d’état would probably exceed Counterpunch’s word-count limit on article size.)
So by all means — let us remember the thousands of innocents who died in the United States on 9/11/2001, and why they died. But let us also remember the thousands of innocents who died in Chile, after 9/11/1973 — and not only why they died, but whose country was responsible for those deaths.