18 May 2018

TWAS Fellowships for Research and Advanced Training for Young Scientists in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 1st October 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

Field of Study: Natural sciences

About the Award: The purpose of these fellowships is to enhance the research capacity of promising scientists, especially those at the beginning of their research career, helping them to foster links for further collaboration.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • The fellowships are for research and advanced training. They are offered to young scientists holding at least an MSc or equivalent degree.
  • Eligible applicants for the fellowships are young scientists working in any area of natural sciences who are citizens of a developing country and are employed by a research institution in a developing country.
  • There is no age limit. However, preference is given to young scientists at the beginning of their research career and those working in Least Developed Countries.
  • Institutes of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), China, are not eligible host institutions under this programme. Applicants interested in conducting a fellowship in China are required to check whether their chosen host is a CAS institute. For a complete list of CAS institutes, see: english.cas.cn/institutes/. Applicants wishing to attend a CAS institute should either apply to the CAS-TWAS President’s Postgraduate Fellowship Programme or consider the CAS Fellowships for Postdoctoral and Visiting Scholars from Developing Countries.
Selection Criteria: Fellowships are awarded by the TWAS Fellowships Committee on the basis of scientific merit.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: 
  • TWAS covers international low-cost airfare plus a contribution towards subsistence amounting to a maximum of USD 300 per month. No other costs will be provided by TWAS.
  • The host institution is expected to provide accommodation and food as well as research facilities.
Duration of Program: 3-12 months

How to Apply: Applicants must complete the online application form by clicking HERE. While filling in the online application, applicants also need to upload the following documentation:
  • scanned copy of your passport, even if expired (page with your name and surname);
  • CV, maximum five pages including a list of 6 publications;
  • Supporting Statement from Head of Home Institution;
  • two reference letters of senior scientists familiar with your work. Please note that the Head of your Home Institution cannot be one of your referees;
  • MSc certificate and relevant university transcripts;
  • Official invitation letter from the  Head of the Host Insitute;
Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: The World Academy of Science (TWAS)

African Reinsurance Corporation (Africa Re) Young Insurance Professionals Programme for Young Africans 2018

Application Deadline: 6th June 2018.

Eligible Countries: Africa Re member countries

About the Award: The Young Insurance Professionals Programme (YIPP) is one of several ways Africa Re fulfils one of its missions to foster the development of the insurance and reinsurance industry in Africa.  The YIPP is a starting point for an exciting career in the industry. It is a unique opportunity for young people with passion for insurance and reinsurance and the potential to become future leaders.
The programme is expected to positively impact participants to:
  • Understand the Reinsurance industry and their future missions with regard to strong leadership, governance and accountability;
  • Develop a constructive approach to competition in the African reinsurance markets by reducing some poor practices and approaches;
  • Improve professionalism
Type: Internship

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Young Insurance Professionals Programme (YIPP);
  • Citizen of a member state of Africa Re;
  • Maximum 32 years of age;
  • Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent;
  • Relevant work experience in an insurance or reinsurance company, insurance broking firm or other related field;
  •  Access to the internet;
  • Excellent written and oral communication skills in English and/or French.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • Africa Re will sponsor the top ten young professionals, who successfully complete the YIPP programme, to one of the major insurance/reinsurance events in Africa (AIO, FANAF);
  • A certificate of completion issued by Africa Re and the London School of Insurance;
  • Accelerated career development in the industry.
Duration of Programme: 1 year

How to Apply: Register Now
  • Fill in the application form (Link above).
  • Applications received after the deadline will not be considered.
  • Applicants should upload their curriculum vitae, reference forms and a cover letter. An interview may be part of the assessment process if deemed necessary.
Successful applicants will be contacted by email before 30 June 2018 and must be available to commence the programme in July 2018. Any candidate who does not participate in any of the modules will be excluded from the programme.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: African Reinsurance Corporation

ESMT Germany Full & Executive MBA Scholarships for Students from Least Developed Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadlines: 
  • Full MBA: 1st October 2018
  • Executive MBA: 31st July 2018
To be Taken (Country): Berlin, Germany

Type: Executive MBA and Full-time MBA

Selection Criteria: Scholarships will be allocated on the basis of intellectual excellence, evidence of personal and professional achievement and financial need.

Eligibility:
  • Candidates with permanent residence in any developing country
  • Candidates are expected to prove their strong intention to promote business development and pursue professional options in a least developed country within a reasonable timeframe after completion of the program.
  • The scholarships are restricted to self-funded candidates and will be accounted for against the applicant’s program fees.
  • Applicants must meet ESMT’s general admission requirements.
Number of scholarships available:
  • Full MBA: 4
  • Executive MBA: 3
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Full MBA:
    • Four full tuition scholarships including stipend to cover living expenses for Kofi Annan Fellows
    • Several partial tuition scholarships: up to € 15,000
  • Executive MBA: Three full tuition scholarships: € 57,500 each, and a small stipend to cover travel to and from Berlin for each module
Requirements:
Candidates are required to submit a scholarship essay along with their complete application to the ESMT Full-time MBA program. Candidates will be expected to actively promote the school in the respective regions throughout and after their studies, e.g. by participating in the ESMT mentoring program.

For full details about these scholarships and how to apply, visit ESMT Scholarship Webpage

NRGI Anglophone Africa Regional Extractive Industries Knowledge Hub Course (Funded) 2018 – Ghana

Application Deadline: 25th May 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): International Students’ Guest Centre in Accra, Ghana.

About the Award: The two-week residential course on oil, gas and mining governance will take place from 27 August-7 September at the International Students’ Guest Centre in Accra, Ghana.
The course seeks to deepen knowledge and equip participants with the necessary skills to undertake independent analysis of fiscal and revenue management policies, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative reports, contracts and key legislation in their respective countries.

Type: Workshop

Eligibility: 
  • The course is targeted at mid-career and senior-level professionals from civil society, government, the media and the private sector.
  • Women are particularly encouraged to apply.
Number of Awards: Limited

Value of Award: 
  • The total cost of the two-week course (including accommodation, food, tuition and field trip expenses) is USD 2,500. Course organizers have a limited number of full scholarships available for selected participants based on need and a quality of application.
  • Self-sponsorship is strongly encouraged. Applicants are also encouraged to seek possible sponsorship from interested grant-making institutions. Sponsoring institutions will need to cover visas, travel costs and incidentals for their respective sponsors.
Duration of Programme: 27 August-7 September 2018

How to Apply: Individuals interested in participating to this year’s summer school should complete the application form and all supporting documents no later than 25 May here.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Natural Resource Government Institute, in collaboration with German International Development Cooperation (GiZ)

MasterCard Foundation School of African Microfinance Training Programme (Funded to attend Training at Mombasa, Kenya) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th June 2018

Eligible Countries: Participants come from more than 20 different countries,but mainly East and Southern Africa, English speaking West Africa and the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) region. This makes for unrivaled interaction both in and out of class.

To Be Taken At (Country): Sarova Whitesands Beach Hotel – Mombasa, Kenya

About the Award: The School of African Microfinance annual two-week training, with up to 14 courses to choose from, is singularly focused on delivering the knowledge, skills and capabilities that ensure institutions have market-focused strategies; execute flawlessly – delivering appropriate products and services; and have the culture, structure and talent to perform.
Our world-class training is delivered by some of the most knowledgeable and experienced industry professionals, consultants and executives. Their unmatched international training experience ensures that training at SAM is effective. As the leading microfinance training program in Africa, since 2005, we have managed to deliver a phenomenal learning experience over two-weeks that results in Better Decisions, Better Practices, and Better Mindsets.
Careful selection of participants and limited attendance promotes an active exchange of ideas with the faculty and provides participants with a unique opportunity to meet and work with colleagues from a wide variety of frontier finance institutions and countries.

Type: Training

Eligibility: SAM brings together more than 100 middle level and senior microfinance managers, consultants, central bankers, micro-bankers from MFIs, banks, cooperatives & credit unions, donors & program staff with a desire to perform at a higher level.

Individuals from Africa who wish to apply to be considered for a scholarship, should demonstrate a passion to make greater impact. In addition, candidates should meet the following eligibility criteria:
  • Be in management and/or leadership levels in microfinance institutions or banks with more than seven years industry experience.
  • Microfinance Consultants who have in the past provided implementation support financial institutions and are keen to increase their overall technical skills base.
  • Individuals from the financial institutions that apply different models in their service delivery e.g. savings and credit cooperatives.
  • Past scholars are not eligible to apply.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • The School of African Microfinance annual two-week training is designed to expand the collective capabilities of institutions by building individual knowledge and skills to achieve strategic goals; to achieve High Performance that creates sustainable value.
  • Successful applicants will be fully-funded to the Training programme in Kenya
Duration of Program: 3rd – 14th September 2018

How to Apply: All interested and eligible individuals should send their Curriculum Vitae and duly completed SAM Application Form to scholarships@samtraining.org with a copy to evelyne@samtraining.org before 30th June 2018 for consideration.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: MasterCard Foundation

Erdogan and Turkey’s Elections

Conn Hallinan

When Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for a presidential and parliamentary election June 24—jumping the gun by more than a year—the outcome seemed foreordained: the country is under a state of emergency, Erdogan has imprisoned more than 50,000 of his opponents, dismissed 140,000 from their jobs, jailed a presidential candidate, and launched an attack on Syria’s Kurds, that is popular with most Turks.
But Erdogan’s seemingly overwhelming strength is not as solid as it appears, and the moves the President is making to insure a victory next month may come back to haunt him in the long run.
There is a great deal at stake in the June vote. Based on the outcome of a referendum last year, Turkey will move from a parliamentary system to one based on a powerful executive presidency. But the referendum vote was very close, and there is widespread suspicion that Erdogan’s narrow victory was fraudulent.
This time around Turkey’s President is taking no chances. The electoral law has been taken out of the hands of the independent electoral commission and turned over to civil servants, whose employment is dependent on the government.  The state of emergency will make campaigning by anything but Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its ally, the National Action Party (MHP), problematical.
But Erdogan called for early elections not because he is strong, but because he is nervous about the AKP’s strong suit, the economy. While growth is solid, unemployment is 11 percent (21 percent for youth), debts are piling up and inflation—12 percent in 2017—is eating away at standards of living.
The AKP’s 16-year run in power is based on raising income for most Turks, but wages fell 2 percent over the past year, and the lira plunged 7.5 percent in the last quarter, driving up the price of imported goods. Standard & Poor’s recently downgraded Turkish bonds to junk status.
Up until now, the government has managed to keep people happy by handing out low interest loans, pumping up the economy with subsidies and giving bonuses to pensioners. But the debt keeps rising, and investment—particularly the foreign variety— is lagging.  The Turkish economy appears headed for a fall, and Erdogan wants to secure the presidency before that happens.
To avoid a runoff, Erdogan needs to win 50 percent of the vote, and most polls show him falling short, partly due to voter exhaustion with the endless state of emergency. But this also reflects fallout from the President’s war on the Kurds, domestic and foreign.
The AKP came to power in 2002 with a plan to end the long-running war with Turkey’s Kurdish minority. The government dampened its suppression of Kurdish language and culture, and called a truce in the military campaign against the Kurdish Workers Party.
But the leftist Kurdish-based People’s Democratic Party (HDP) broke through the 10 percent threshold in 2015 to put deputies in the Parliament, denying the AKP a majority. Erdogan promptly declared war on the Kurds. Kurdish deputies were imprisoned, Kurdish mayors were dismissed, Kurdish language signs were removed, and the Turkish Army demolished the centers of several majority Kurdish cities.
Erdogan also forced a new election—widely seen as fraudulent—and re-claimed the AKP’s majority.
Ankara also turned a blind eye to tens of thousands of Islamic State and Al-Qaeda fighters who crossed the Turkish border to attack the government of Bashar al-Assad and Syria’s Kurdish population. The move backfired badly. The Kurds—backed by American air power—defeated the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, and the Russians turned the tide in Assad’s favor.
Turkey’s invasion of Syria—operations Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield— is aimed at the Syrian Kurds and is supported by most Turks. But, no surprise, it has alienated the Kurds, who make up between 18 and 20 percent of  Turkey’s population.
The AKP has traditionally garnered a substantial number of Kurdish voters, in particular rural, conservative ones.  But pollster Kadir Atalay says many Kurdish AKP supporters felt “deceived and abandoned” when Erdogan went after their communities following the 2015 election. Kurds have also been alienated by Erdogan’s alliance with the extreme rightwing nationalist MHP, which is violently anti-Kurdish.
According to Atalay, alienating the Kurds has cost the AKP about 4 percent of the voters. Considering that the AKP won 49.5 percent of the vote in the last national election, that figure is not insignificant.
The progressive HDP is trying hard to win over those Kurds. “The Kurds—even those who are not HDP supporters, will respond to the Afrin operation [invasion of Syria], the removal of Kurdish language signs, and the imprisonment of [Kurdish] lawmaker,” HDP’s parliamentary whip Meral Danis Bestas told Al Monitor.
The HDP, whose imprisoned leader, Selahatt Demirtas, is running for president, calls for a “united stance” that poses “left-wing democracy” against “fascism.” The danger is that if the HDP fails to get at least 10 percent of the vote, its current seats will taken over by the AKP.
Erdogan has also alienated Turkey’s neighbors. He is in a tense standoff with Greece over some tiny islands in the Aegean Sea. He is at loggerheads with a number of European countries that have banned him from electioneering their Turkish populations for the June 24 vote. And he is railing against NATO for insulting Turkey. He does have a point—a recent NATO exercise designated Turkey “the enemy.
However, Erdogan’s attacks on NATO and Europe are mostly posturing. He knows Turkish nationalists love to bash the European Union and NATO, and Erdogan needs those votes to go to him, not the newly formed Good Party—a split from the rightwing MHP—or the Islamist Felicity Party.
No one expects the opposition to pull off an upset, although the centrist and secular Republican People’s Party (CHP) has recently formed an alliance with the Good Party, Felicity, and the Democratic Party to insure that all pass the 10 percent threshold for putting deputies in parliament.
That electoral alliance excludes the leftist HDP, although it is doubtful the Kurdish-based party would find common ground with parties that supported the jailing of its lawmakers. Of the Party’s 59 deputies, nine are in jail and 11 have been stripped of their seats.
There is an outside chance that Erdogan could win the presidency but lose his majority in Parliament. If the opposition does win, it has pledged to dump the new presidential system and return power to parliament.
The election will be held essentially under martial law, and Erdogan has loaded all the dice, marked every card, and rigged every roulette wheel.
There is virtually no independent media left in the country, and there are rumors that the AKP and the MHP have recruited and armed “supporters” to intimidate the opposition. A disturbing number of guns have gone missing since the failed 2016 coup.
However, as Max Hoffman of the Center for American Progress notes, the election might not be a “slam dunk.” A run-off would weaken Erdogan just when he is preparing to take on a number of major problems other than the economy:
+ Turkey’s war with the Kurds has now spread into    Syria and Iraq.
+ In Syria, Assad is likely to survive and Turkey will find it difficult—and expensive—to permanently occupy eastern Syria. Erdogan will also to have to deal with the thousands of Islamic State and al-Qaeda fighters now in southern Turkey.
+ Growing tensions with Egypt over the Red Sea, and Ankara’s new alliance with Sudan, which is at odds with Cairo over Nile River water rights.
+ The strong possibility of a U.S confrontation with Iran, a nominal ally and important trading partner for Turkey.
+ The possibility—remote but not impossible—that Turkey will get into a dustup with Greece.
+ And last, the rising price of oil—now over $70 a barrel—and the stress that will put on the already indebted Turkish economy.
The Turkish president may get his win next month, but when trouble comes, he won’t be able to foist it off on anyone. He will own it.

A Primer on the Venezuelan Elections

Alan MacLeod

To an outsider, Venezuela can be a hard country to get your head around. The supposedly dictatorial government is pleading with the United Nations to send an international observation team to oversee the country’s presidential elections on May 20th, while the major opposition parties are demanding they do not, boycotting the very vote they had been campaigning for last year. Meanwhile, after calling for elections, the Trump administration, funding, training and supporting the opposition, announced months beforehand that they will refuse to accept the results.
Hugo Chavez’s successor, Nicolas Maduro, is seeking a second six-year term. Chavez and his brand of 21st century socialism is still popular; a 2017 poll found 83 percent of Venezuelans felt he was the country’s best leader. Maduro, however, does not enjoy his predecessor’s unifying charisma, nor his level of support, polling between a 20 and 30 percent approval rating. His first term was one racked by serious economic malaise, with severe shortages of goods and enormous inflation, some of the key issues in this election. His primary challenger Henri Falcón, a former soldier and governor of Lara state, claims his overriding priority is to end food shortages and he will do this by opening the country up to multilateral organizations like the IMF and World Bank.
One of the reasons it so difficult to understand the country is virtually all information about it comes mediated through the mainstream press. The election is widely characterized as illegitimate in the international media, The Miami Herald calling it a “sham”, “fraudulent”, a “charade”, and a “joke” in one article alone. That Venezuela is a dictatorship presided over by an authoritarian president has been taken as a given for 20 years in the Western press. And yet the notion is certainly not an uncontroversial one inside the country. Less than one in five opposition party members described the country as completely undemocratic on a scale of 1-10 in the 2015 Latinobarometro survey, the latest freely available. In fact, Venezuelans were more likely to describe their country as a perfect democracy than a dictatorship when responding to the bitterly anti-chavista polling agency. This outlook is barely even hinted at, let alone argued for, in reporting.
One of the principal reasons the upcoming elections are described as illegitimate is the barring of two key opposition politicians, Leopoldo Lopez and Henrique Capriles, from running. The good-looking, Harvard-educated Lopez is a media darling, one Newsweek article described Lopez’s “twinkling chocolate-colored eyes and high cheekbones.” A recent New York Times Magazine piece presented him as a brave and righteous non-violent revolutionary, comparing him to Martin Luther King. Nowhere in the 9000 word article did it mention his role in the 2002 coup, where he arrested the Minister of the Interior during the white, upper-class insurrection that featured the likely pre-meditated shooting of dozens of civilians, the imprisonment and/or torture of hundreds of political figures, the closing down of media, public floggings and the establishment of a one-man dictatorship.
It also glosses over his role in the 2014 La Salida demonstrations, the reason he is currently under house arrest and unable to contest the election. The event was an attempt to force out the government through a wave of violence, including the bombing of schools, health centers, buses, universities and the beheading of civilian passers-by, which the government claimed caused US$15 billion worth of damage. And yet, as I describe in my newly-released book, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty years of Fake News and Misreporting, the media presented La Salida as a commendable peaceful protest against a dictatorship, The New York Times claiming “Faced with a government that systematically equates protest with treason, people have been protesting in defense of the very right to protest.” It often treated the idea that they were trying to oust the government illegally as risible, at best, despite the fact that Lopez was explicit that this was his intention. Fake news abounded on social media, as images from Spain, the Arab Spring and Greece purporting to show government suppression of the protestors were retweeted thousands of times, causing worldwide headlines.
The movement flared up again in 2017, with no less destruction. Protestors attacked social housing, government buildings, doctors, kindergartens and maternity clinics and gangs of armed white, upper-class youths looked for blacks to lynch. For example, Orlando Jose Figueroa was beaten, stabbed six times, doused in gasoline and burned to death. This fate befell two other Afro-Venezuelans. One protestor, Oscar Perez, stole a police helicopter and used it to bomb the Supreme Court and Interior Ministry. Perez was described as a “patriot” by The Guardian and his actions a “protest flight” by The Washington Post. One has to wonder if, for example, Black Lives Matter, started bombing the White House and killing police and national guardsmen whether they would be presented as patriots and peaceful protestors in the press. Despite this, and the fact that even the US State Department described him as “arrogant, vindictive and power hungry”, the Times Magazine called him “the most prominent political prisoner in Latin America, if not the world”. Considering his political positions the comparison to Martin Luther King may not be entirely appropriate.
The second high-profile politician barred from contesting the election is Henrique Capriles, as he was found guilty of embezzlement of public funds while governor of Miranda State. Capriles was the main opposition candidate in the 2013 presidential elections, which he narrowly lost. As detailed in Bad News from Venezuela, the Western media overwhelmingly presented the 2013 elections as unclean, too, a “David vs. Goliath” contest where Maduro had “slanted the playing field” with his enormous media empire leaving Capriles to “compete” the “cowed” private media and by “pressuring” millions of public sector employees to vote for him. As The Washington Post summed up, “Maduro will this grossly one-sided contest. If by some chance he does not, the regime is unlikely to accept the results.”
All of this was contested by the Venezuelan public, who rated their democracy as the second highest in Latin America on the Latinobarometro survey, by foreign election observation missions, and even by reports from Washington-based organizations the US government had paid to go there. The Nobel prize-winning Carter Center noted that Capriles “competed” on the “cowed” private media by receiving nearly three times as much coverage, the large majority of it positive and Maduro’s coverage negative, except on state media, which accounts for a tiny percentage of the market. It also noted that twice as many people reported feeling pressured to vote for Capriles than Maduro. The Carter Center’s founder Jimmy Carter described Venezuela’s elections as “the best in the world”. In reality, Capriles enjoyed enormous advantages; the Capriles family controls Cadena Capriles, one of the largest media empires in the country. Furthermore, he enjoyed the committed backing of the US state department. David and Goliath indeed.
The shadow of the United States looms large over the upcoming elections but its role in directly interfering is barely discussed in the media. On May 6th Washington increased its sanctions on the country, sanctions Western media claimed are “unlikely to create major economic hardship”. This is flatly rejected by the United Nations, the General Assembly’s Human Rights council condemning the US for its illegal actions that “disproportionately affect the poor and the most vulnerable classes”, called on all member states not to recognize nor apply them, and began discussing potential reparations. Little of this was reported in the press. The US, with the help of local business, is doing its best to create the economic conditions for regime change. The opposition is also actively making the country’s deep economic crisis worse. Its head of the National Assembly went on a tour of international banks demanding they do not lend to his country, while the Trump administration is threatening Venezuelan bondholders not to negotiate the debt. As economist Mark Weisbrot stated, “It is an attempt to topple the government by further destroying the economy and preventing its recovery…There is no other way to describe it.”
The US is also openly attempting to foment a coup, like it did in 2002. Senator Marco Rubio announced on Twitter,
Trump has gone further, threatening a military invasion. In December he claimed, “We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary.” Yet the media barely cover the idea of US meddling, generally only mentioning it as an accusation in the mouth of an official it has been demonizing for years. The New York Times notes that Maduro “is casting his campaign as a battle against imperialist powers bent on seizing Venezuela’s oil wealth”. This is generally treated as absurd. Yet Trump has already revealed his position is “we should take their oil” with regards to his enemies, while the appointment of the head of ExxonMobil to Secretary of State could barely be a clearer message. Furthermore, the media themselves are openly demanding a coup. The Washington Post published an article entitled “The odds of a military coup in Venezuela are going up. But sometimes coups can lead to democracy.” Foreign Policy warned against it, not on ethical grounds, but because it “could backfire and end up increasing Russian and Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere.” In 2002 it was considered shameful that the media supported the coup against Chavez. Now it appears the only reason not to attempt one is it might hurt US corporate profits. Of course, the US has funded the opposition to Chavez since at least 2001. That this might be affecting the election is not discussed.
The opposition is split on whether to pursue an electoral path, as Falcon suggests, or to boycott the elections entirely, as Lopez had advocated. This split is a major reason why Maduro, despite his record, is predicted by many to win on the 20th. The voters will go to the polls amid the backdrop of economic chaos, with severe problems in housing, food shortages and frequent blackouts. The problem for the people is that the country is in gridlock between a government unable to solve the economic issues and an opposition that is actively committed to making them worse, safe in the knowledge they are backed by the US.
If the opposition wins, we can expect something akin to economic shock therapy of the 80s and 90s.  If Maduro wins narrowly his position will be insecure, and calls for a coup or an invasion will grow. If he wins convincingly, the opposition may give up completely on the electoral front and concentrating on ousting him forcefully, while Washington and the media will refuse to accept the results as legitimate. However, his position will be much more secure and may offer some small chance of increased stability in the chaotic nation.

Australian government “review” prepares deeper public sector cuts

Terry Cook

On May 4, days before his Liberal-National Coalition government handed down a budget that entrenched substantial cuts to social spending, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced a review of the Australian Public Sector (APS) by a big business-dominated panel.
The review, to be headed by former Telstra CEO David Thodey, will issue findings in the first half of next year. Turnbull said it was “an excellent opportunity to ensure the APS is fit-for-purpose in years and decades ahead.” He referred specifically to the APS’s “culture and operating model.”
Dominated by corporate chiefs, the review will be a mechanism to justify further privatisations, outsourcing and cuts to public sector jobs and conditions to satisfy the demands of the financial elite for sweeping tax cuts, drastic reductions in welfare, health, education and public housing, and other austerity measures.
For over a decade, public sector numbers have substantially declined through direct sackings, redundancies and outsourcing under both Coalition and Labor governments. The last Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard took outsourcing to a new level by establishing the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), which contracts out all services in a new profit-driven “market” and shuts down programs previously supplied by federal and state agencies.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as of June 2017 the APS employed 239,800 people, down 1.4 percent from 243,200 over 12 months. In 2007, when the previous Labor government took office, there were roughly 250,000 federal public sector workers.
At the end of last year, the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank with close ties to the corporate elite, called on the government to slash another 27,016 jobs in order to reduce the “national debt.”
Since being elected in 2013, the Coalition government has continued Labor’s pro-market assault. It has slashed over 18,000 jobs, including from the Australian Tax Office, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Department of Human Services.
This has led to drastic increases in workloads and undermined essential social services, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. Over the past 12 months, for example, some 36 million phone calls to Medicare, the public health agency, Centrelink, the government welfare department and the Child Support Agency went unanswered.
The Coalition has also enforced a 2 percent cap on pay increases in new enterprise agreements (EAs) across the sector, with wage rises barely keeping pace with the official rate of inflation, and falling well behind the actual cost of living increases for working class households.
After dragging out negotiations for new EAs, the government refused to backdate pay increases, resulting in an effective four-year wage freeze. This was only possible because of the role of the public sector unions in suffocating the anger and resistance of their members.
Last year, after confining workers to limited stoppages and protests, the unions pushed through regressive EAs in most departments. The sell-out agreements also cut the conditions of tens of thousands of workers.
The composition of the review panel demonstrates the fraudulent character of claims that it is “independent.” It is stacked with highly-paid corporate representatives and will collaborate closely with a “secretariat” in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Thodey, as Telstra boss from 2009 to 2013, axed thousands of jobs in the privatised telecommunications company via a program of “continuous change.” Alongside him on the panel is Coca-Cola Amatil (CCA) chief executive Alison Watkins, ANZ group executive of digital banking and former Google Australia CEO Maile Carnegie, University of Sydney Chancellor Belinda Hutchinson and University of Melbourne Vice Chancellor Glyn Davis.
Since joining CCA in 2014, Watkins has overseen cost-cutting across the company’s operations, with widespread job destruction and plant closures. Last year, after conducting a “review,” Watkins announced the shuttering of the company’s Thebarton and Riverland factories in South Australia, destroying around 200 jobs.
Watkins is also on the board of the Business Council of Australia, which advocates “a smaller, more focused civil service.”
In 2015, Hutchinson supported a pro-business restructure at the University of Sydney, which scrapped entire courses and axed staff. She serves on the boards of AGL Energy and Qantas and was formerly on the boards of QBE Insurance Group, Telstra and Energy Australia. All these companies have carried out extensive job cuts and attacks on working conditions.
Davis oversaw a radical overhaul of the University of Melbourne’s academic structure to eliminate dozens of bachelor programs and destroy 500 administration jobs.
Former Environment Department secretary Gordon de Brouwer has been drafted onto the panel to give the impression that the review has public sector input. As head of the department, however, he oversaw substantial job cuts.
Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) National Secretary Nadine Flood backed the decision to conduct a review, but complained that “four of the six participants have backgrounds serving multinational corporations.” She called for a “clear-eyed and objective review, with bipartisan support and effective engagement with the public service rank and file.”
Flood’s real concern is that the public service unions have no members on the panel, sidelining their role as labour brokers and industrial policemen.
Under both Labor and Coalition governments, the public sector unions have enforced the onslaught on jobs, wages and working conditions. They have divided workers on a department-by-department basis and opposed any unified industrial and political struggle against government cuts.
The unions are currently pushing the Australian Council of Trades Unions’ “Change the Rules” campaign for the return of yet another pro-big business Labor government.
Labor Party shadow finance minister Jim Chalmers declared that the review must not be “a smokescreen to slash frontline services further.” His main complaint, however, was that the Labor opposition “was not consulted on the review.”
Chalmers condemned “efficiency dividends,” describing them as a “blunt instrument” to “achieve budget savings resulting in significant reductions in funding, requiring voluntary and, in some cases, forced redundancies.”
This is blatant hypocrisy and deception. Chalmers omitted to mention that efficiency dividends, which compel department heads to find ever-deeper savings each year, were introduced by the Hawke-Keating Labor government in 1987. In 2013, the Rudd Labor government increased the “efficiency dividend” from 1.25 percent to 2.25 percent, paving the way for further cuts by Coalition governments.

Nine years since Sri Lankan civil war ended in massacre of Tamils

K. Nesan & V. Gnana

Thousands of people around the world are gathering today to mark the anniversary of one of the most infamous massacres of the 21st century. After 26 years of a bloody civil war, the Sri Lankan army cornered over 40,000 Tamils, including the surviving leadership of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), on Sri Lanka’s north-eastern Indian Ocean coast at Mullivaikal. Without giving any warning, it launched a furious artillery barrage to murder everyone trapped there.
No one at Mullivaikal escaped the carnage. The military indiscriminately shelled homes, hospitals and civilians as well as bunkers where children, pregnant women and the elderly had tried to take refuge. Nearly a decade later, the Sri Lankan army is still sealing off the area, barring families of the victims from returning to grieve for their loved ones.
In a gruesome ceremony broadcast live on television to terrorize the population, the Sri Lankan government brought in two LTTE turncoats to identify LTTE leader Velupillai Prabakharan’s remains. After they confirmed before the television cameras that the body lying in the mud was indeed Prabakharan, the army burned the corpse.
Today, this massacre is remembered with horror by millions of workers in Sri Lanka—Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim alike—and around the world. It tragically confirmed the warnings of the Socialist Equality Party (Sri Lanka). In the former colonial countries, the capitalist ruling classes are historically incapable of creating a democratic regime or uniting the population across national and religious lines; these tasks fall to the working class, mobilized internationally in a revolutionary struggle for socialism.
The Sri Lankan regime in Colombo that carried out the Mullivaikal massacre is not alone in bearing political responsibility for it: governments around the world are implicated. India, China, Pakistan and the imperialist powers all gave Colombo military and diplomatic support as it launched its final assault on the LTTE. The United States, Britain, France and Canada ignored mass protests by Tamils calling on them to intercede with the Sri Lankan government to save the innocent people trapped in Mullivaikal.
With unsurpassed cynicism, then-US President Barack Obama spoke the day before the massacre to call on the LTTE to lay down their arms, protect civilians in Mullivaikal and “put them first.”
As for the LTTE, its defeat originated first and foremost in its nationalist and separatist perspective of building a Tamil capitalist enclave in north-eastern Sri Lanka. On May 21, 2009, the World Socialist Web Site wrote: “The LTTE fighters and their leadership have been massacred in cold blood by the Sri Lankan military. Sympathy for the plight of the Tamil people and for the cruel fate of fighters of the LTTE, however, must not prevent fundamental lessons from being drawn.
“From the outset of the civil war 26 years ago, the LTTE’s armed struggle was wedded to a strategy of winning the support of one or another of the major powers for setting up a statelet in the North and East of the country.
“In 1987, the LTTE’s support for the Indo-Lankan accord brought the Indian army into the North of Sri Lanka where it slaughtered thousands of Tamil civilians. The LTTE had agreed to subordinate itself to the Indian bourgeoisie in the vain hope that it would help it create an independent state.
“Over the following decades, the LTTE has appealed for imperialist backing, consistently making it clear that its aim in carving out a mini-state on the island was not the betterment of the social conditions of the masses of Tamils, but rather the creation of a capitalist economy that would provide cheap labour for international capital.”
The massacre of the LTTE has not, however, granted a new lease on life to the corrupt regime in Colombo. Its attempt to drown the Tamils in blood did not solve problems of poverty and ethnic strife that have bedevilled Sri Lankan capitalism ever since formal independence from Britain.
Since 2009, it neither ended its anti-Tamil communal policies nor improved life in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Thousands displaced during the war still live in temporary shelters and thousands more still await compensation for the destruction of their homes. Mothers are still protesting in front of Hindu temples to demand the return of children kidnapped by the army. Instead of releasing political prisoners after the war, Colombo has arrested and tortured dozens more Tamils.
None of the fundamental contradictions that led to the Sri Lankan civil war have been resolved. As IMF-dictated austerity attacks wages and social conditions and provokes growing anger, Colombo has declared a state of emergency, imposed curfews, and tacitly backed anti-Muslim riots.
At the same time, workers and toiling people in Tamil-majority areas of Sri Lanka are joining a growing wave of protests and strikes across Sri Lanka and the entire Indian subcontinent against austerity and privatizations, amid a global resurgence of the class struggle. These demands will bring the working class into a revolutionary confrontation with the Colombo regime.
In January 2015, a US-engineered regime-change operation ousted President Mahinda Rajapakse, installing Maithripala Sirisena as president, supposedly to bring democracy and “good governance” to Sri Lanka. In fact, Washington aimed to install a regime in Colombo aligned with the US “pivot to Asia” against China.
From the beginning, the government was formed via a fraudulent political manoeuvre, with war criminals in top posts. Sirisena, who oversaw the 2009 massacre as acting defence secretary, took into his cabinet General Sarath Fonseka—the Sri Lankan Army commander who directly planned and executed the massacre. Rajapakse is today the leading bourgeois opposition politician.
Since 2009, moreover, the Tamil nationalists have emerged as open tools of US imperialism. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), formed in 2001 as the LTTE’s political arm, abandoned its demand for a separate state and said it would work within the Sri Lankan unitary state, again relying on intervention by the “international community.” On this basis, it endorsed the US-backed regime change operation and gave up its demands for the prosecution of Sri Lankan war crimes, and the release of political prisoners.
This April, as he voted to support the government during a no-confidence vote in parliament, TNA chief R. Sampanthan bluntly laid out his perspective for profiting from austerity and the growing war tensions in the Indian Ocean region: “We are a small country, but we are both militarily and economically very strategically located in the Indian Ocean region. We can become the economic hub of the Indian Ocean area. We can have access to wide and large markets if our economy can improve, and our economy can improve only if there is genuine peace in this country …”
A class gulf separates Sri Lanka’s bourgeois factions from the opposition to imperialist war and social austerity that is rising among workers of all ethnicities, across the Indian subcontinent. The critical question is the turn to the international working class and the building of its revolutionary leadership.
The Socialist Equality Party and the International Youth and Students for Social Equality have placed the struggle against war and communalism at the centre of their work. On the anniversary of this horrific massacre, we appeal to workers and youth in Sri Lanka and throughout the Indian subcontinent for their support.

India: Varanasi flyover bridge collapse kills 18

Wasantha Rupasinghe

At least 18 people were crushed to death and 11 more injured on Tuesday when a portion of an under-construction flyover bridge collapsed on the busiest road of Varanasi, in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s parliamentary constituency, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh (UP).
The tragedy is a further indication that government authorities and profit-seeking construction companies are endangering the safety of workers and the public as a whole.
During evening peak-hour traffic, two pillars of the flyover in Varanasi’s Cantt area collapsed, bringing down a huge slab that crushed at least 20 vehicles, including a mini-bus, six cars and numbers of two-wheelers. According to the state’s highest police officer, O.P. Singh, most of the people trapped were thought to be construction workers.
While the authorities claim that police and rescue teams reached the site 30 minutes after the crash, the Telegraph reported that earth movers and other heavy equipment were brought to the site at 7 p.m., roughly two hours after the tragedy. The newspaper noted that angry people denounced the government’s delay in rescue operations.
First Post video showed Kailash Ram from Bhajipur, who lost three family members in the disaster, saying the government should take the responsibility because it failed to ensure that no people were around the construction site.
The Hindustan Times quoted UP Engineers Association General Secretary Surjit Singh Niranjan, who blamed the district administration and the construction agency for not following safety norms. “Traffic should not be allowed to move under an under-construction bridge and a proper safety net should be put in place at the construction site,” he said.
Official buck-passing began immediately. State government sources told NDTV that initial investigations pointed to negligence.
Quoting state police sources, the Indian Express on Thursday reported that the police had sent at least five letters to the state-run Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation (UPSBC), which was in charge of the construction, since last November and registered an FIR (First Information Report) in February for traffic safety regulation breaches.
UPSBC Managing Director Rajan Mittal, however, told the Express that the corporation had asked district officials and the police for traffic management during construction. “There was pressure to meet the deadline but no compromise was made on quality and it would be clear during the inquiry,” Mittal said.
District Magistrate Yogeshwar Ram Mishra rejected this claim. He told the Express: “It is wrong to say that they had written to us.” He repeated the police story of sending five letters to the UPSBC. “But they did not [act accordingly] and that is why the FIR has been registered against them.”
Hindustan Times editorial on Thursday said the section of the flyover that collapsed had been constructed in February. “This suggests shoddy execution and possibly poor quality material, something that plagues many construction projects in India,” it said.
“Projects are undertaken in haste, often before elections, are executed with little planning and with scant regard to engineering norms. Most infrastructure projects suffer from huge delays that push costs up and encourage contractors to cut corners. This causes lethal structural failures as seen in the Varanasi case and other projects.”
On Wednesday, to defuse the public anger, UP Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad suspended four UPSBC officials, including Chief Project Manager KR Sudan. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, from the Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP), promised “more punitive action” after a government-appointed investigation panel submitted its report within 48 hours. He announced meagre compensation of 500,000 rupees ($US7,369) for the kin of those killed in the incident, and 200,000 rupees for those injured.
As is his usual practice in such catastrophes, BJP Prime Minister Narendra Modi rushed to his Twitter account to shed crocodile tears, saying he was “extremely saddened by the loss of lives.” He continued: “I pray that the injured recover soon. Spoke to officials and asked them to ensure all possible support to those affected.”
Modi has no any genuine concerns over the loss of lives. In the past, he has repeatedly posted similar “condolence” tweets, with some minor adjustments, but such disasters only continue.
In March 2016, a half-constructed flyover collapse in Kolkata, the capital of West Bengal, killed more than 25 people. Referring to that tragedy, a Times of India editorial on Thursday noted: “[A]n expert committee found that multiple factors such as faulty design, poor quality of raw material and lack of proper oversight contributed to the collapse. Afterwards it was recommended that the flyover be razed but two years on local shopkeepers and residents are still living with the structure that has become unstable. This story of malpractices, apathy and delay in addressing urgent safety concerns is likely being repeated too frequently for comfort.”
The UPSBC website claims that it has won a number of national and international awards for its “Quality, Economy and Time Management with continual improvement of products and processes” and its paid-up capital has grown to 150 million rupees. It has constructed bridges and flyovers in many Indian cities, as well as in Iraq, Yemen and Nepal.
However, according to a Hindustan Times article on Wednesday, the UPSBC had come under investigation twice before. It quoted an unnamed public works department engineer who said the 1086-metre Chillgahat Bridge, built at a cost of 6.5 billion rupees, cracked within 13 days of its inauguration in 2010. The engineer said the UP state government had ordered an inquiry but took no action against top engineers and officers.
Similarly, in 2016, a cavity developed on the Lohia Bridge in Lucknow. The UP state government constituted a four-member probe committee that indicted engineers for poor quality work, but the report was put “in cold storage,” a senior UPSBC engineer told the Times.
Given that record, the current government investigation will most likely make no difference. The capitalist system and its political representatives do not care about human lives, just profits. For this, dozens of workers and poor people die every day in workplaces all over the country.
The UPSBC website boasted: “No wonder, many clients have reposed confidence in UPSBC Ltd. by repeatedly awarding work to it in the face of global competition in India and abroad.” Driven by this “global competition,” the evidence already indicates that the corporation has resorted to cost-cutting operations, brushing aside basic safety norms, and costing the lives of workers and poor people.