Report exposes UK role in Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen

Barry Mason

Thousands of UK personnel are intimately involved in maintaining the military war machine of Saudi Arabia, enabling it to carry out its one-sided slaughter in Yemen.

A recent report, “UK Personnel Supporting the Saudi Armed Forces–Risk, Knowledge and Accountability”, by researchers Mike Lewis and Katherine Templar, is part of a Brits Abroad study funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust.

The Saudi Arabian-led war against the Middle East’s poorest country is now in its fourth year. The Saudi regime launched the war in March 2015 to reinstall President Abd-Rabbuh Mansur Hadi who had been driven from power by Houthi rebels. Hadi is currently in exile in Riyadh, apparently under house arrest.

The US, UK and other western countries have supported the Saudi intervention. Like Saudi Arabia, they regard the war against the Houthis as a proxy conflict with Iran.

According to the UN, more than 10,000 people have been killed in Yemen since the Saudis launched their invasion in March 2015, and more than 85,000 people have been displaced since January this year.

Among the crimes carried out was the killing by Saudi planes of over 30 people at a wedding in April this year, with twice as many suffering horrific wounds. In October 2016, around 150 were killed and more than 500 injured when Saudi planes bombed a funeral in Sana’a, the Yemeni capital.

The UK has a decades long program for supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia. According to the report, 50 percent of all UK weapons and military equipment exports between 2013 to 2017 went to Saudi Arabia. In the period between 2007 and 2011 it was just over a quarter. Most materiel went to the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF), with the UK supplying nearly half its 324 Combat aircraft, along with spare parts and ammunition.

According to a Sky News report in March, 50 open licences to supply weapons to Saudi Arabia were issued for the period July 2016 to September 2017—up by a third on the previous 15 months and coinciding with Theresa May’s premiership. Open licences allow an uncapped number of weapons to be sent over a period of five years. Only then can the value of the licence be revealed, but the government is under no obligation to publish the figures.

The grand total of UK arms licences since the invasion in Yemen in March 2015 is more than $6.2 billion for aircraft, helicopters, drones, bombs and missiles, according to government figures.

Lewis and Templar’s report explains: “Under a sequence of formal agreements between the UK and Saudi governments since 1973, the UK Ministry of Defence and its contractors supply not only military ‘hardware’, but also human ‘software.’ Around 7,000 individuals—private employees, British civil servants and seconded Royal Air Force personnel—are present in Saudi Arabia to advise, train, service and manage British-supplied combat aircraft and other military equipment.”

The UK government claims these personnel are not involved directly in targeting, loading weaponry or in the planning of operational sorties. But confidential agreements signed between the UK government and the RSAF, which are not to be released to the public till 2027, outline the number of personnel and functions they undertake.

The UK-Saudi Al Yamamah agreement, a record arms deal signed in 1986 which included the supply and support of Tornado fighter-bombers, is still ongoing. The agreement is secret, but the report’s authors were able to see a batch of Downing Street papers that were filed in the National Archive at Kew revealing some details.

Under the agreement the “United Kingdom civilian and military personnel will remain available in Saudi Arabia for preparation, including arming and support, of the [Tornado fighter-bomber] aircraft during an armed conflict…”

Lewis and Templar interviewed technicians, managers and officials of all ranks over two years and their report notes the critical role of UK personnel in the Saudi war-machine:

“A mix of company employees and seconded RAF personnel have continued to be responsible for maintaining the weapons systems of all Saudi Tornado IDS fighter-bombers, a backbone of the Yemen air war… work as aircraft armourers and weapons supervisors for the UK-supplied Typhoon fighters deployed at the main operating bases for Saudi Yemen operations, and provided deeper-level maintenance for Yemen-deployed combat aircraft.”

UK personnel in Saudi Arabia have been placed at physical or legal risk, including from scud missiles and unexploded ordnance. Some of those who have tried to whistle-blow over possible war crimes have been harassed and have not been afforded protection under UK law.

The report unearthed evidence that some of the UK personnel are involved in the handling of cluster bombs.

Lewis and Templar also found that the UK government has used private companies to “work on behalf of the British state but with Saudi masters; without the legal protections accorded to UK civil servants or military personnel; and without any guidance or protocols for reporting risks of IHL (International Humanitarian Law) violations to the UK government, or to their employers… Whitehall’s limited oversight of their activities is a deliberately constructed choice.”

The British government singled out arms exports as a key priority post-Brexit, with former defence secretary Michael Fallon promising that the UK would “spread its wings across the world.”

Britain’s arms trade with Saudi Arabia is enormously unpopular at home, with only 6 percent of the British public supporting it according to a recent poll. A legal bid to challenge the UK’s arms exports was financed by a crowd fund appeal.

Earlier this month, the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) won its Court of Appeal bid to overturn last year’s High Court judgement that the export of arms from the UK to Saudi Arabia was lawful, despite widespread concern the trade was in breach of international humanitarian law. CAAT also won the right to challenge the closed verdict, where judges had heard evidence from the government in secret.

The court case revealed that the government went ahead with the sales despite its export policy chief telling then business secretary, Sajid Javid, “My gut tells me we should suspend [weapons exports to the country].”

The UK has long-standing interests in the Yemen. British troops first occupied the port of Aden in present day Yemen in 1839 and it soon became important as a coaling station for British warships. From 1937 the port of Aden and the surrounding protectorate became a British colony. In 1934 Britain aided Saudi Arabia when it annexed Asir, then part of Yemen. Britain enforced a treaty to give Saudi Arabia a 20-year lease on the territory which remains a part of Saudi Arabia to this day.

In 1962, following the death of King Ahmad of Yemen, Arab nationalist army officers took power and proclaimed a republic. Royalists backed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and Britain began an insurgency to restore the monarchy.

A dirty war ensued, with Britain initially supplying Jordan with fighter jets to carry out airstrikes in Yemen and embedding military advisers with its key allies. From March 1963, Britain supplied weaponry directly to the Royalist forces. At the same time, MI6 along with SAS founder David Stirling set up a British force to work with the insurgents. To mask British involvement, SAS and paratrooper forces were given temporary leave and were paid over £10,000 a year (equivalent to £197,000 today) by a Saudi prince.

In 1964 under the Labour government of Harold Wilson, covert bombing of Yemeni targets by the RAF began. Airworks Services was set up as a British company to train Saudi pilots.

Britain was eventually driven out of Aden in November 1967.

Today, driven by intractable crisis and the further erosion of its global standing, Britain is seeking to re-establish its influence in Yemen and across the Middle East as part of a new carve-up by the imperialist powers.

Inconclusive outcome of US-China trade talks

Nick Beams

Two days of talks in Washington between high-level US and Chinese delegations at the end of last week did not bring any substantial movement on the trade issues that have divided the two countries. The differences remain so wide that the Wall Street Journal reported the discussions ended up “with both sides arguing all night on Friday over what to say in a joint statement.”

The brief communiqué that finally emerged said there had been “constructive consultations” regarding trade and spoke of a “consensus on taking effective measures to substantially reduce the United States trade deficit in goods with China,” without specifying by how much.

“To meet the growing consumption needs of the Chinese people and the need for high-quality economic development, China will significantly increase purchases of United States goods and services. This will help support growth and employment in the United States,” it continued.

The phrasing was in line with the Chinese delegation’s insistence that it not be seen to be capitulating to US demands. In the course of the talks, Larry Kudlow, Trump’s economic adviser, indicated to journalists that China had agreed to US demands that the trade deficit be reduced by $200 billion. This was seen by the Chinese as a blatant attempt to push them into such a commitment and was denied by Chinese news outlets.

In a television interview, Kudlow yesterday downplayed the significance of the $200 billion figure, saying, “Maybe I got ahead of the curve,” and that it had been used as a “rough ballpark estimate.”

The statement said both sides had agreed on “meaningful increases” in US agricultural and energy exports and that the US would send a team to China to work out the details. No other measures were specified and, as some commentators pointed out, any increase in energy and agricultural exports would not amount to anywhere near $200 billion.

On the crucial question of US claims that China has been appropriating US technology though “forced” technology transfers and outright theft, the statement said both sides “attach paramount importance to intellectual property protections,” and that China would “advance relevant amendments to its laws and regulations in this area, including the Patent Law.”

The vagueness of the statement left the way open for both sides to offer their own interpretations on what had been agreed.

According to the Chinese state-run Xinhua news agency, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He said the two sides had pledged not to wage trade war against each other, and a comment published yesterday described the negotiations as a “good example of win-win.”

The US has threatened to impose tariffs on up to $150 billion worth of Chinese goods at the end of this month under section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. This follows an investigation into Chinese trade practices in the area of technology. China has threatened a series of measures in retaliation.

With a delegation set to go to China for further discussions, it now appears likely that the US measures will at least be delayed.

Speaking to “Fox News Sunday,” US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said progress had been made. “We’re putting the trade war on hold,” he said. “So right now, we have agreed to put the tariffs on hold while we try to execute the framework.”

However, there was somewhat different emphasis from Kudlow. Asked on the CBS program “Face the Nation” whether tariffs were off the table, he said: “I don’t think we’re at that stage yet. Tariffs are part of any negotiation, and tariffs have to be part of any enforcement.”

Another interpretation was offered by US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. He issued a statement that the US could resort to tariffs unless there was “real structural change” on the part of China, and that “nothing less than the future of tens of millions of American jobs is at stake.”

Together with White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, Lighthizer represents the view that the main issue is not the trade surplus with the US as such, but that China, through its “Made in China 2025” program, is seeking to develop its capacities in high-tech areas, including communications and robotics, that pose a direct threat to American economic and, ultimately, military supremacy.

This issue was at the centre of the storm of opposition from both Democrats and Republicans over Trump’s move last week, as part of a wider trade deal with China, to ease restrictions that had been imposed on the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE. The Commerce Department imposed a ban in April on sales of vital components by US companies to ZTE over its agreement on sales to North Korea and Iran in defiance of US bans, leading to the company announcing that it was ceasing operations.

Despite China pushing for an easing of restrictions on ZTE, including an intervention by Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Bejing’s insistence that this was a top priority, the ZTE question was not raised in the joint statement.

Leading Democratic Senator Charles Schumer criticised the statement for the lack of specific measures to protect US intellectual property and noted that it did not mention ZTE. “If the administration capitulates on ZTE and allows it to continue to exist, that will signal to President Xi that we are weak negotiators,” he said.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio dismissed the reported commitment of China to help increase US exports. “Why do US officials always fall for China’s trickery?” he tweeted. “If we don’t wake up and start treating this as a national security issue, China is going to win again.”

The “national security” issue also relates to the question of the trade deficit with China, which claims that it could boost US exports if it were allowed to purchase more high-tech products. But according to a report in the New York Times, support by Mnuchin for a relaxation of export controls on such goods has “faced stiff opposition from Defense Department officials, who fear such sales could compromise American national security.”

The underlying position of the US was exemplified by an outburst by Trump during a press conference held last week with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg as the talks with the Chinese trade delegation were getting underway. Trump made clear that if North Korea did not agree to US demands it would be “decimated” as had Libya and Iraq.

Asked about the discussions with China, Trump launched into a tirade against the trade practices of virtually the rest of the world. “China has been the biggest,” he said. “But trade has been a total one-way street.” Bucket loads of money had been taken out of the United States “whether it’s the European Union… whether it’s Japan or South Korea, or I can name almost every single country in the world.”

Trump said he tended to doubt whether any deal with China would be successful “because China has become very spoiled.” He continued: “The European Union has become very spoiled. Other countries have become very spoiled because they always got 100 percent of what they wanted from the United States. But we can’t allow that to happen anymore.”

The outburst should not be dismissed as simply the product of the fevered brain of Donald Trump. In the final analysis, it is an expression of the drive by the US to counter its long-term economic decline by threatening the rest of the world with “decimation” if it does not agree to its demands, both military and economic.

Wealth-X report shows billionaires gained $1.8 trillion in 2017

Eric London

American television viewers and newspaper readers were inundated this weekend with banner headlines and around-the-clock coverage of the royal wedding of Prince Harry of the British House of Windsor and his American partner, Meghan Markle.

The major networks deployed an army of reporters to present the wedding as an historic event. CNN called it “an electrifying affair that will live long in the memory.” ABC called the wedding “a love locomotive,” while the phrase “A Modern Fairytale” appeared as an on-screen banner. The coverage provided no hint that the United States was born out of a violent struggle against the British crown—a revolution that produced a Constitution banning titles of nobility.

How is the fawning praise for aristocracy by the American media establishment to be explained?

It is rooted in the staggering growth of social inequality, which continues to enrich a modern-day financial aristocracy that exercises oligarchic rule all over the world. The historically unprecedented concentration of wealth at the very pinnacle of society inevitably breeds envy of the British nobility, with its titles and caste privileges, within the ruling elite of the American “republic” and its well-paid apologists.

2017 wealth tiers within billionaires, Credit: Wealth-X

The material and social basis of this longing for monarchy finds new documentation in the publication last week of the Wealth-X “Billionaire Census.” It shows that a tiny group of billionaires is continuing to increase the immense scale of the fortunes it has amassed at the expense of billions of workers and poor people worldwide.

The Wealth-X report shows that the world’s billionaire population has grown by 15 percent, to 2,754 people, since 2016, and that the wealth of these billionaires “surged by 24 percent to a record level of $9.2 trillion,” equivalent to 12 percent of the gross domestic product of the entire planet.

Billionaires the world over increased their wealth, but nowhere did they make as much money as in the United States and Asia. The wealth of the 727 billionaires in North America increased by 22.8 percent to a total of $3.3 trillion, a rate outpaced only by the 49.4 percent wealth increase among Asia’s 784 billionaires, who recorded a combined fortune of $2.4 trillion in 2018.

The super-rich are for the most part speculators. They derive their income not by contributing to the process of production, but by gambling, stealing and cheating. Among all billionaires, the portion of total wealth derived from shares of stock increased from 32.9 percent in 2016 to 41.5 percent in 2017.

At the very top of the wealth pyramid, the richest 10 billionaires own a combined $663 billion. Each has a net worth that is on average 20 times higher than the “average billionaire.” A plurality of billionaires (413) derive their wealth from finance, banking or investment, surpassing industrial conglomerates (380), real estate (173), manufacturing (167) and technology (143).

The increase in billionaire wealth is the result of policies enacted by the governments of the world. In no other country do the super-rich so nakedly control the political system as in the United States, where President Donald Trump epitomizes the criminal character of Wall Street.

The report notes a “dramatic improvement in extreme wealth creation” in the United States due to “buoyant equity markets and robust corporate earnings.” American billionaires benefited from “the implementation of a major US tax reform package late in the year,” i.e., the Trump administration’s sweeping tax cut for the rich, passed without any serious opposition from the Democratic Party.

Global wealth estimates through 2021, Credit: Wealth-X report

The United States is home to the most billionaires of any country in the world and accounts for 34 percent of billionaire wealth worldwide. New York maintained its position as the top billionaire city, home to 103 billionaires.

In 2017, Wealth-X published a report on the world’s “ultra high net worth” population, which includes individuals whose net worth is over $30 million. According to this report, the world’s “ultra wealthy”—some 250,000 people worldwide—owned a combined $25 trillion, including $9.6 trillion in liquid cash alone.

The ultra wealthy expect to increase their wealth by another $8.5 trillion in the next five years to over $35 trillion, equaling the total net worth of the bottom 90 percent of the world’s population, according to 2017 figures from Credit Suisse Bank.

Even these astronomical figures mask the real power of the billionaires and the super-rich, whose wealth translates into control over the world’s governments, media corporations, trade unions, political parties, universities, courts, militaries and spy agencies.

After having made billions of dollars on the technology boom, the ruling classes of the major powers are now working with technology corporations such as Google and Facebook to censor left-wing viewpoints out of fear that cell phones and the Internet are helping billions of the poor and working class acquire access to news and information that is not vetted by the corporate media.

Karl Marx wrote in Volume 1 of Capital: “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital.” This aptly characterizes the global situation today.

2017 Credit Suisse data on total net wealth by section of adult population

All over the world, in developed, undeveloped and semi-developed countries alike, the working class is completely excluded from the government decision-making process. As the governments enact policies to increase the wealth of the billionaires, the needs of billions of people for clean water, adequate medical attention and affordable health care, education, food, housing, public transportation, infrastructure and culture go unmet.

For just one fifth of the total wealth of the 10 richest people in the world, the following social needs could be immediately addressed:

* The provision of housing for all 634,000 homeless people in the US: $20 billion

* The provision of food to 862 million malnourished people worldwide: $30 billion

* Reduction by half of the total number of people without access to clean water: $11 billion

* Education for every child who doesn’t receive one: $26 billion

* Free maternal and prenatal care for every mother in the developing world: $13 billion

* Treatment and vaccination to prevent 4 million malaria deaths: $6 billion

* Replacement of the toxic water infrastructure of Flint, Michigan with a safe and clean system: $1.5 billion

* Immediate $20,000 bonuses to all 3.1 million teachers in the US: $62 billion

Total cost: $169.5 billion.

The glorification of monarchy underscores the fact that no society can sustain democratic forms of rule under conditions where such levels of wealth concentration and inequality prevail. Nor can any social problems be addressed when the wealth produced by the working class and the world’s natural resources are squandered to satisfy the insatiable greed of the super-rich.

There is no real democracy today outside of the mobilization of the international working class to put an end to capitalism and establish socialism.

What Motivates India and Vietnam to Cooperate?

Arushi Vig


India and Vietnam recently signed a three-part deal that includes nuclear cooperation, agriculture and trade, and economic association. The memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed in 2018 to strengthen cooperation in the atomic energy field for peaceful purposes, extending till research on nuclear reactors, in the field of nuclear science and engineering, and nuclear fuel and material. The agreement was decided on in 2016 during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit when both countries resolved to working jointly for an open and prosperous Indo-Pacific with a rules-based regional security architecture. India and Vietnam also expressed interest in strengthening cooperation in the field of cyber security, oil and gas exploration, maritime security, military domain, and across many other sectors. 

Background 
Vietnam and India have always served as important fulcrum for each other. Both countries share a long history of association: India supported Vietnam’s independence from France, supported Vietnam’s opposition to US involvement in the Vietnam War, and eventually, the unification of Vietnam. Eventually, both countries established good bilateral ties in trade and economic cooperation, education, agriculture, oil and gas, and manufacturing. Vietnam also serves as India’s country coordinator in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), a focus of India’s Act East Policy. India helps Vietnam through credit support. For example, India recently extended a US$ 500 million credit line to Vietnam to purchase military equipment, in addition to the US$ 100 million extended in 2014 to purchase four offshore patrol vessels that are currently being built in Indian yards. In terms of defence, since India possesses the world’s fourth largest army, just one rank short of China, partnering with India is to Vietnam's benefit. Vietnam is important for India for trade and the trilateral highway project- a part of India’s Look East Policy - between India, Myanmar and Thailand which is in talks to be extended till Vietnam. 

There remains ambiguity regarding the nuclear deal. Firstly, there are very few details in the public domain regarding the specific aspects of cooperation. As per the conditions of the deal, until India acquires membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), research on nuclear reactors will not start. If there are indeed many stumbling blocks to India-Vietnam nuclear cooperation, the question remains, why are they being struck at all? 

First, both India and Vietnam share the common objective of strengthening their positions in the Indo-Pacific when it comes to China's increasingly growing power and presence in the region. Both India and Vietnam also object to China claims the South China Sea (SCS) as its own territory. China's opposition to India’s Oil and Natural Gas cooperation (ONGC) exploration in the Vietnamese-claimed wells in the SCS are well-documented. Beijing has refused to accept the international tribunal verdict on the dispute, and continues to be in favour of a bilateral framework with the involved countries. Although Vietnam maintains strong trade ties with China, the decades-long territorial dispute has made Vietnam also push for stronger bilateral ties with India as a counter-balance. Vietnam supports India’s assertion that there should be freedom of navigation and overflight in the region of the SCS. The growing cooperation between India and Vietnam could thus be viewed as a contribution to their bulwark against Chinese domination.

Second, as India’s country coordinator for ASEAN, Vietnam serves as an important cogwheel for India’s reinvigorated Act East Policy. The Act East Policy seeks to boosts India's relations with ASEAN countries and Japan. With its crucial strategic location and the image of a "strong" willed state, a partnership with Vietnam will be beneficial for India. 

Third, Vietnam could fill act as India's linchpin in the region; a similar, though not identical, role to the one played by Pakistan for China in South Asia. Vietnam practices smart diplomacy - after all, it has not hesitated to befriend the US even after the brutality of the Vietnam War as a way to keep Beijing in check. Although Vietnam will not forego its ties with China, it will look to strengthening relations with strong states in the region - such as India - to act as a counter balance to Beijing's prominence and bullying. 

Modi’s Nepal Visit: More Drama than Substance

Pramod Jaiswal


Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid a two-day visit to Nepal on 11-12 May. No Indian prime minister had visited Nepal in an official capacity in almost two decades, until Prime Minister Modi, who has been to the country thrice in four years. This article considers the outcomes of the latest visit.

Decoding the Visit
In a break with tradition, Modi began his visit in Janakpur, the birth place of Sita. Janakpur is the temporary capital of province 2, where the Madhesi alliance of Rastriya Janta Party Nepal and Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum Nepal has formed the government. Modi’s desire to start his visit here, in the heartland of Madhes, raised suspicion in Kathmandu. Kathmandu feared that he might provoke the Madhesis by supporting their demands of constitutional amendment. Modi was in fact keen to visit Janakpur and Muktinath during his second visit to the country, but Kathmandu resisted on similar grounds, citing lack of safety for the visiting prime minister. 

Analysts believe that there are several reasons behind Modi’s interest in beginning his visit in Janakpur. There is a sense of betrayal and disappointment with India among the Madhesis who believe that the country has given up on the Madhesi agenda and is not applying enough pressure on Kathmandu on the issue of costitutional amendment. India had withdrawn its support to the issue when welcoming Prime Minister KP Oli to India, ahead of his visit to China during his first tenure. Modi, this time around, likely wanted to suggest to Madhesis that India continues to stand with them. Modi's visit could also help internationalise the Madhes issue by drawing more attention to it through the presence of Indian and international media. 

Apart from Janaki Mandir in Janakpur, Modi visited Muktinath temple in Mustang and Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu. Interestingly, the visit to Pashupatinath, who is seen as one of the forms of Lord Shiva, was on the day of the Karnataka polls. Karnataka has a significant population of Shiva devotees, and the priests at Pashupatinath all have Kannada roots. Hence, his visit to Pashupatinath could also have been aimed at Hindu voters in Karnataka.

Both prime ministers flagged off the inaugural direct bus service between Janakpur and Ayodhya to launch the Nepal-India Ramayana Circuit connecting Janakpur, the birthplace of Sita, with Ayodhya. India is developing 15 cities in India under the Ramayana Circuit: Ayodhya, Nandigram, Shringverpur and Chitrakoot in Uttar Pradesh; Chitrakoot in Madhya Pradesh; Sitamarhi, Buxar and Darbhanga in Bihar; Mahendragiri in Odisha; Jagdalpur in Chhattisgarh; Nashik and Nagpur in Maharashtra; Bhadrachalam in Telangana; Hampi in Karnataka; and Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu.

Though the Nepalese Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa had stated that Modi’s visit to Nepal would be primarily religious and cultural in nature to boost religious tourism, both prime ministers also jointly laid the foundation stone for the 900 MW Arun-III hydro-electric project in Nepal. It is the largest hydropower project to be developed in Nepal and is expected to be completed within five years at the cost of about INR 60 billion. According to Nepal's Investment Board, Nepal will receive INR 217 billion over 25 years from the project. The project developer will also provide 21.9 per cent of the energy free of cost, which is worth INR 97 billion, plus another INR 67 billion in royalties.

Outcomes
While the Madhesis were disappointed with India’s perceived betrayal, people from the hills still have not forgotten the bitter experience of the ‘economic blockade’ that had Indian support. However, Modi had a grand welcome in Madhes despite this disappointment. Although thousands participated in his civic reception in Janakpur, the same warmth was not witnessed in Kathmandu. Memories of the blockade haunted Modi’s visit in Kathmandu. Hashtags such as #BlockadeWasCrimeMrModi and #ModiNotWelcomed-InNepal were trending, with many demanded a public apology from Modi. Local police arrested CP Gajurel, senior leader of the Communist Party, along with several others of the Nepal Communist Party-Revolutionary for protesting against Modi’s visit to Nepal. Though the government of Nepal left no stone unturned to welcome Modi, the people were clearly not as welcoming. The few Nepali or Maithili words at the beginning of his speeches could not charm either Janakpur or Kathmandu, unlike during his first visit. In fact, Oli, who is seen as a nationalist, had to bear the brunt of criticism for inviting Modi to Nepal. Interestingly, the Nepali Congress, once accused of being "Indian agents" and "surrendering its sovereignty to the Indians" by the Communists, were also critical of Oli's decision. 

Way Forward
The Indian and the Nepalese prime ministers termed the visit "historic." However, it is yet to be seen if the visit will have any real impact on bilateral relations. As per media reports, Modi has advised the Madhesis to unite and consolidate power and has assured them of Indian support. However, he refrained from publicly making any comment on the constitution or on the issues of Madhes. 

In his efforts to improve relations with Nepal, Modi has has had two telephonic conversations with Oli, and has also sent his Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj to Kathmandu to assure them of India's support and eagerness to work with Oli's government. At a time of India's loosening grip on Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives, Modi has to do much more to show that his ‘neighbhourhood policy’ is on the right track. 

Bangladesh students demonstrate over job quota system

Wimal Perera

Thousands of Bangladesh university students began a nationwide boycott of classes on Monday over the failure of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government to reform the country’s decades-old quota system for the recruitment of civil servants.

Some 3,000 students from Dhaka University and other colleges in the capital marched through the city, blocking traffic for six hours. Thousands of students at universities and colleges across the country held demonstrations in solidarity. About 1,000 students from Chittagong University staged a sit-down protest on rail tracks, preventing trains from leaving the port city throughout the morning.

The demonstrations ended that night after Nurul Huq Nur, a joint convener of the Bangladesh Council for Protecting Rights of General Students, told protestors that Prime Minister Hasina had given another assurance that the job quota system would be reformed. No details have been released about how Hasina, who has made similar promises before, will address the issue.

University and college students and unemployed graduates began protesting over the quota system in mid-February, with rallies and demonstrations intensifying between April 8 and 11. Their main demand is for the 56 percent quota for state jobs reserved for different social layers to be reduced to 10 percent.

Only 44 percent of the jobs are currently allocated on merit. The remaining positions are apportioned according to strict quotas—30 percent for the children and grandchildren of “freedom fighters,” 10 percent for women, 10 percent for underdeveloped districts, 5 percent for ethnic minorities and 1 percent for physically challenged people. The quota system was first introduced in 1972 and has been amended on several occasions.

The students are also demanding the filling of vacant positions according to merit if eligible candidates are not found within the quota categories; the abolition of the special examination for quotas; and age-limit uniformity in the recruitment process.

In April the government mobilised hundreds of police to brutally suppress the student demonstrations, using tear gas, batons and water cannons. Police officers were joined by members of the Bangladesh Chhatra League, the notoriously violent student wing of Hasina’s ruling Awami League.

The massive April protests forced Hasina to promise to reform the current quota system, but once the protests ended the government began hunting down student activists on bogus charges. Dhaka University authorities have filed cases with the police alleging violence and vandalism by students.

Students have received death threats and three student leaders— Nurul Huq Nur, Muhammad Rashed Khan and Faruk Hasan—were kidnapped by a group of individuals claiming to be detectives. According to press reports, the three students, who were later released, were dragged into a white microbus.

Monday’s demonstrations erupted after Cabinet Secretary Mohammad Shafiul Alam admitted that the government had made no progress on changing job quotas. Hasina declared: “Implementation of anything takes some time.”

Hasina’s reform promises reflect nervousness concerns within the ruling party over growing anti-government sentiment.

Students face severe unemployment, lack of facilities at the universities and other onerous social conditions. As a result of the government’s privatisation of education, there are now 86 private universities as against 42 public universities.

According to an April 22 column in the Daily Star by Professor Ahmed Abdullah Azad, “almost a third (about 2.5 million) of college and university leavers” are unemployed. He noted that Bangladesh’s youth workforce constitutes about 70 percent of the country’s 160 million people, with about 45 million unemployed youth.

Suicide is increasing among unemployed university students. On April 13, the Daily Star reported that a Dhaka University graduate took his own life due to “depression stemming from not getting a government job even after trying several times.” The newspaper admitted that most students are living “under emotionally, psychologically and financially stressful situations.”

The job quota for the children and grandchildren of “freedom fighters”—i.e., those involved from the war to separate from Pakistan in 1971—was initiated in 1972 by the first prime minister, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, then leader of Awami League.

The quota reservation is divisive, retrogressive and used to divert mass opposition from challenging the existing social order and the capitalist system, the source of unemployment and mass poverty. Bangladesh student organisations are not fighting for the abolition of the quota system but for its reform, in other words the “equitable” distribution of unemployment.

Government job quota systems were also established in India, on the pretext of providing employment for various caste groupings and tribes. In Sri Lanka, Tamils were discriminated against via a “standardised” university entrance system.

The Bangladeshi bourgeoisie, like its counterparts in Pakistan and India, has proven incapable of resolving any of the basic social or democratic issues facing the population. Since Bangladesh’s formation as a nation-state in 1972, its ruling elite has lurched from one crisis to another, responding to mass social unrest with long periods of military rule.

Today, faced with growing opposition by workers and students, the Hasina government is extending its autocratic powers, attacking basic democratic rights and implementing “free market” reforms. It is moving to privatise a range of state utilities, including education, and cut social spending.

The measures are part the government’s attempt to obtain a $750 million loan from the World Bank for the 2018–19 financial year.

Social inequality is widening in Bangladesh, with the share of income by the poorest 5 percent at just 0.23 percent, down from 0.78 percent in 2010. By contrast, the richest 5 percent of the country have 27.89 percent of the total income, up from 24.61 percent in 2010.

EU summit: Anger over Trump hides European tensions

Peter Schwarz 

The central theme of the European Union summit, which took place in Sofia, Bulgaria on Saturday, was to further integrate six western Balkan countries into the EU. But in the end, it was the conflict with the US that dominated the meeting of heads of state and government.

The imposition of punitive tariffs on steel and aluminium, and the withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement by President Donald Trump, are regarded by the European powers as a major blow to their own interests. Consequently, they let their anger run wild.

“With friends like these, who needs enemies,” said EU Council President Donald Tusk. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire had asked before the summit: “Do we want to be the vassals of the United States, who obediently doff the hat?”

For the European powers, the termination of the Iran agreement, which they played a significant role negotiating, is not only a political affront but an economic blow. The tightened US sanctions due to come into force August 6 will hit American companies hard, but Europeans firms even more.

While US trade with Iran was negligible at $170 million last year, European companies conducted $25 billion worth of Iranian business over the same period, and have orders worth billions on their books. They face severe penalties in the US if they do not abide by Washington’s sanctions.

If the US succeeds in limiting Iran’s oil exports, this will also undermine its ability to pay. With a current output of 2.6 million barrels a day and an oil price of $75 a barrel, the country receives about $70 billion per year for its energy exports. This corresponds to two thirds of the state budget.

Germany, France and Britain are also worried that they will be outstripped in Iran by Russia and China, which are less prone to US sanctions. For example, the Russian state-owned company Sarubeschneft signed an order for €750 million in March to expand two Iranian oilfields. Moscow is considering investments of up to $50 billion.

As far as China is concerned, Iran has announced that it will continue the billion-dollar expansion of a gasfield in the Gulf with the Chinese group Petrochina alone if the French energy company Total withdraws from the project because of US sanctions. For China, Iran is of great strategic importance both as an energy supplier and as part of its “One Belt, One Road” project.

The EU summit therefore solemnly announced that it will stick to the Iran agreement and not bow to pressure from Washington. It concerns “the economic sovereignty” of Europe, said French President Emmanuel Macron. European Union Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker spoke of a “question of honour.” Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said, “We cannot and will not let that happen.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel, Macron and UK Prime Minister Theresa May, who have experienced a more tense relationship since the Brexit decision, demonstrated their solidarity and were photographed during a walk through the “Bridge of Lovers” in Sofia.

At the suggestion of Juncker, the summit decided to reinstate an old EU regulation. It prohibits EU companies from submitting to US sanctions and compensates them with damages resulting from US assets confiscated by the EU. This regulation was issued in 1996, when the US imposed sanctions on Cuba. It served as a means of pressure, but never came into practical use. The EU subsequently reached an agreement with the administration of US President Bill Clinton.

Even now, the regulation serves as a threatening gesture, but it is unlikely that President Trump will respond. Above all, larger companies such as car manufacturers, oil companies and the aircraft manufacturer Airbus will not run the risk of endangering their business with the US because of Iran.

Merkel admitted after the summit that the EU could not protect large corporations. “Compensating the entire economy in a comprehensive way due to US actions—we cannot and should not create illusions about this,” she said. However, providing relief for small and medium-sized enterprises would be examined.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the mouthpiece of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, commented even more openly. “The indignation of many Europeans about Trump is only surpassed by the powerlessness that makes some EU enthusiasts really angry,” it wrote. “Anyone who believed that the European community was weighty enough to conduct world politics as an equal to the United States was ... taught otherwise.”

The conflict with the US also exacerbates tensions within the EU. Some governments, including the Hungarian and possibly the Italian, are in favour of closer cooperation with Russia. There is also support for this in the public. According to a Forsa survey, 79 percent of Germans see world peace threatened by President Trump and only 13 percent by President Putin.

Other governments, in particular the Polish, and also the majority of the ruling class in Germany, Britain and France, regard Russia as an opponent and strictly reject any rapprochement.

The EU faces a similar dilemma regarding the western Balkans. Apart from Albania, the six western Balkan countries that now want to join the EU (Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Macedonia) emerged from the collapse of Yugoslavia. The European powers, together with the US, promoted this disintegration in the 1990s using diplomatic and military means to secure their hegemony over the Balkans.

However, the regimes they helped bring to power and have supported since are so fragmented, corrupt and linked with organized crime that their accession would only further destabilize the EU. On the other hand, if they remain outside the EU, Russia, Turkey and China could set up in the Balkans. “If there is no European perspective in the Balkans, Turkish and other influences will be stronger here. We do not want that,” said Kurz.

Finally, the EU summit reaffirmed its “full support for the European perspective,” i.e., for the EU membership of the six western Balkan countries in the distant future, without, however, defining any concrete steps.

As the 2003 conflict over the Iraq war worsened, the WSWS wrote about the “European dilemma”:

From the standpoint of France and Germany, the behavior of the United States is utterly reckless and raises the danger of a complete breakdown of whatever remains of the entire legal and institutional framework that regulated the affairs of world capitalism. For the Western Europeans to submit to the diktats of the United States would mean to accept their relegation, in the words of the conservative French daily Le Figaro, “into a simple protectorate of the United States.”

But to openly resist would raise the risk of a potentially catastrophic military confrontation with the United States. Either alternative, or even some middle road between the two, would profoundly destabilize relations among European countries. Moreover, the social consequences of conflict between the US and the “old” Europe would inevitably intensify internal class tensions.

Fifteen years later, this dilemma has become even more acute. The only answer, of which all wings of the ruling class—pro-American or anti-American—are aware, is to massively increase military spending to assert themselves in future conflicts and wars. They are moving increasingly openly towards a third world war. Only an international, socialist movement of the working class that combines the fight against war with the fight against capitalism can stop this madness.

Greek Syriza government steps up brutal repression of refugees and asylum seekers

John Vassilopoulos

There are currently more than 15,000 refugees stranded in the Greek islands of Rhodes, Kos, Samos, Chios and Lesbos on the border with Turkey, most of them in facilities designed for half that amount of people. In the refugee camp of Moria in Lesbos alone, there are 7,000 people, nearly three times the actual capacity of the camp.

The situation is a direct consequence of the rotten deal cut between the European Union and Turkey in March 2016, which stipulates that all refugees crossing into Greece from Turkey will be interned there until their case is processed and they are ultimately deported back to Turkey.

As part of this deal, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and the Syriza-led government—in alliance with its coalition partners, the xenophobic Independent Greeks—have become the EU’s jailor as they preside over what are essentially concentration camps.

Speaking before a Greek parliamentary committee last month, Dimitra Spatharidou, coordinator of the Greek office of Amnesty International, painted a devastating picture of life for migrants and refugees interned in Greece: “We have seen hundreds of people sleeping in makeshift tents. In Samos the area is full of rats. We saw dozens of men with anxiety disorders, depression and other psychological problems due to their geographic restriction. The living conditions are an open wound for human rights.”

Spatharidou also read out a letter from Amal, a lone female Syrian refugee interned at the Moria camp. In her letter Amal states: “If you want to see what fear and anxiety is don’t stay in Syria, come to Moria.”

An equally devastating picture was painted by Declan Barry, medical coordinator for Médecins Sans Frontières, who highlighted the health hazards faced by Moria inmates: “Moria camp is both unsafe and unsanitary, especially for children. Every day we treat many hygiene-related conditions such as vomiting, diarrhoea, skin infections and other infectious diseases, and we must then return these people to the same risky living conditions. It’s an unbearable vicious circle. The mix of unhygienic and dangerous living conditions which increase the rate of childhood illnesses, the obstacles to providing appropriate recovery conditions for sick children, and the inadequate access to healthcare services, represent a perfect storm for the health and well-being of children.”

The situation is only set to worsen. According to figures released by the International Organisation for Migration last month, 7,300 migrants and refugees crossed the Eastern Mediterranean Sea from Turkey into Greece between January 1 and April 21 this year. This is a 53 percent increase compared with the same period last year. According to reports the majority of refugees are from Syria, Iraq and Iran.

As the islands are heaving under the influx, new arrivals have also started to take the old land route into Greece via the Evros River, which runs along the land border between Greece and Turkey. According to a report released last month by the UN Refugee Agency (UNRA), 2,900 people crossed the land border in April alone, which is half the number of the people who made the crossing in all of 2017.

The surge in refugees coincides with the bombing campaign by US, UK and French forces against Syrian government targets. This underscores the direct culpability that Western imperialist powers have in instigating the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War as they seek to topple Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, Russia’s only strategic ally in the Middle East, risking a direct confrontation with Russia.

The situation has also increased tensions with layers of the local population due to the increase in petty crime fuelled by the poverty and desperation of migrants and refugees as well as the negative impact the refugee crisis has had on the tourist industry—the main source of revenue on Greece’s islands. This is compounded by the hike in VAT rates on Greek islands, which has increased the cost of living for locals.

This accounts for the widespread protests Tsipras faced when he visited Lesbos on May 3, which included a general strike that virtually shut down the island. According to reports, around 2,500 protesters gathered at the island’s main port to protest and were attacked by riot police with tear gas.

The hostile reception for Tsipras underscores the deep hatred for the Syriza-led government among the working class. Exactly four years previously, in May 2014, Tsipras made a speech in the central square of Mytilene, Lesbos’ main city, where he declared, “Go back, Mrs. Merkel, go back Mr. Schäuble, go back ladies and gentlemen of Europe’s conservative nomenclature, go back gentlemen of the troika, Greece is not a guinea pig.”

A few months later, in January 2015, Tsipras was swept into power on an anti-austerity ticket, which he betrayed only a few months later when he signed a new bailout package with Greece’s creditors. This took place just weeks after an overwhelming rejection of austerity at a referendum called by the Syriza government in July 2015.

Now, far-right groups such as the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn are exploiting the crisis facilitated by Syriza’s actions.

Just two weeks before Tsipras’ visit, on April 22, a group of around 200 fascist thugs attacked a peaceful protest by refugees in Mytilene’s main square on Lesbos against their internment on the island. According to reports, the mob broke through a police cordon and threw stones, bottles and flares at the asylum seekers of mainly Afghan origin, which included women and children. Thirty-five people were injured.

Eyewitnesses say the attacks took place under the nose of riot police units that were stationed between the two groups. One pro-refugee activist speaking anonymously to Greek daily I Efimerida Ton Syntakton stated, “[Police] had orders not to move against the fascists to arrest them, but only to disperse them (this was heard on many instances on their CB radios).”

The facilitation by police of such attacks is a common occurrence in Greece. Golden Dawn enjoys widespread support amongst police, especially in the riot squads.

On April 20, just two days prior to the fascist attacks, the Tsipras government overturned an April 17 binding court ruling by Greece’s Council of State, the country’s highest administrative court, ordering it to end its abusive policy of detaining asylum seekers on Greece’s islands. The government will instead pass legislation providing a legal basis for its “containment” policy. This was condemned by 21 human rights and humanitarian organizations.

The overturning of the Court decision took place on the same day as the trial began of the “Moria 35,” who were arrested by police after peaceful protests on July 18, 2017 by hundreds of people who were held inside the camp. The trial is ongoing and if found guilty, the protesters face possible 10-year prison sentences and probable deportation.

The protesters were demanding that Greece and the EU comply with their own laws when they were violently attacked by riot police with tear gas, which according to the Lesbos Legal Centre “made it painful to breathe, even from outside the camp.” The camp was put on lockdown, with humanitarian personnel kicked out. The centre said that the “African section” of the camp was targeted an hour after the initial attacks, with “police forcibly dragging people out, shooting tear gas at close range, and brutally assaulting people, including a pregnant woman.” The 35 were arrested in the raid, with Amnesty International concluding that the arrests could have amounted to torture.

As for the EU, its response to the refugee crisis is more repression. At the beginning of May, the EU unveiled new plans to triple Frontex’s budget from the current level of €12.4 billion to €33 billion and to increase Frontex personnel from the current 1,000 to 10,000 by 2027. According to Handelsblatt, “The increased funds will enable more help, particularly for Greece and Italy, which bear the brunt of the inflow on their external borders.”

The Syriza-led government is entirely in line with this policy. In an interview with pro-Syriza daily I Efimerida Ton Syntakton, Minister for Immigration Policy Thodoris Vitsas boasted that in the previous government under the conservative New Democracy and social democratic PASOK “there were no organised camps or major reception centres.”

Google, drone murder and the military-intelligence-censorship complex

Andre Damon

The publication of this week’s open letter by leading academics protesting Google’s role in the military’s drone assassination program exposes the close partnership between the major technology giants and the US military/intelligence complex.

The letter, now signed by nearly 1,000 academics, declares that “Google has moved into military work without subjecting itself to public debate or deliberation, either domestically or internationally.” It adds, “While Google regularly decides the future of technology without democratic public engagement, its entry into military technologies casts the problems of private control of information infrastructure into high relief.”

In March, Google admitted to helping the Pentagon develop artificial intelligence software to identify objects in video recordings captured by drones, within the framework of a program called Project Maven. While Google claims that the technology is not being used to kill people, the letter’s authors note that the system can be easily modified to identify human beings for assassination.

The letter by the academics follows an open letter from Google workers protesting the company’s involvement in Project Maven, supported by over 3,100 employees. A recent report by Gizmodo cited the resignation of a dozen workers following the revelations.

In considering the operations of Google, a distinction must be made between the corporation and the technology workers who are employed by it, many of whom may have been attracted to the company by its original (recently removed) corporate motto, “Don’t Be Evil.”

The involvement of Google in the US military’s drone program points to the extraordinarily dangerous amalgamation of giant technology corporations and the major capitalist states. It is increasingly difficult to tell where the CIA and the Pentagon end, and the technology companies begin.

Google itself has many ties to the state and the military. Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, serves as an advisor to the Pentagon and the chair of its Defense Innovation Advisory Board. Schmidt plays a leading role in the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx), a private/military joint partnership located just minutes from Google’s main headquarters.

Google is by no means an exception. Amazon is a leading supplier of cloud computing infrastructure to the Pentagon and intelligence agencies. Verizon, AT&T and other internet service providers have served as willing partners in the National Security Agency’s program of global and domestic surveillance, as exposed by leaks from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Google’s relations with the military put into sharper focus the significance of the changes it made to its search algorithms, beginning in April of last year. When Google first announced these measures, it claimed that its actions were aimed at “improving” its search system and “helping people find what they are looking for.” It told a New York Times reporter that its actions were free of “political… bias.”

In fact, the company’s involvement with the military and its manipulation of search results are two sides of the same process, both done for political purposes. In the one case, it is providing the state with artificial intelligence technology to aid its military and intelligence operations. In the other case, it has initiated a massive program of censorship, also using powerful artificial intelligence technology, to suppress domestic opposition.

As the WSWS has documented, the changes to Google’s algorithms have significantly impacted search traffic to left-wing, anti-war, and socialist publications.

The WSWS is itself a central target of these repressive measures. Its search traffic fell by 75 percent, and, when it first reported the decrease, the top 45 search terms that previously linked readers to the WSWS no longer did so. By the latest count, the top 61 terms that previously brought readers to the WSWS no longer do so.

In the year since Google announced its censorship measures, it, together with Facebook and Twitter, have hired thousands of additional content “moderators,” many with backgrounds as intelligence agents, prosecutors, and police officers, to censor political speech. By the end of this year, more than half of the people employed at Facebook and Google will be assigned to its “security” and “moderation” departments.

The claims by Google, Facebook and other social media companies that, in manipulating their algorithms, they are acting as private corporations, are untenable. Such rationales do not justify actions that suppress free speech and political views. Moreover, these companies are not acting by themselves, but in close coordination with the capitalist state, speaking on behalf of the ruling class as a whole.

The integration of corporations and the military-intelligence-state apparatus is not a new phenomenon. It is 57 years since President Eisenhower issued his famous speech warning of the “military-industrial complex.” However, amidst feverish preparations for war and domestic repression, this integration is taking on new and ever more ominous forms. Moreover, the military is rapidly moving to incorporate into its operations the most advanced artificial intelligence technologies, developed by companies like Google.

The fight against this military-intelligence-censorship complex can only be carried forward on the basis of a revolutionary, socialist program. The domination and control of the Internet and associated technologies by gigantic corporations, run by billionaires, has the direst consequences for democratic rights.

The ending of corporate control of the Internet must be connected to the mobilization of the international working class to abolish the stranglehold of the financial oligarchy over economic and political life, transform all giant corporations into publicly-owned utilities, and reorganize global economy on the basis of social need, not private profit.

Institute of Tropical Medicine (ITM) Journalist-in-Residence Programme for Journalists in Developing Countries 2018 – Belgium

Application Deadline: 22nd June 2018

Eligible Countries: Journalists in countries in  Africa, Asia and Latin-America are encouraged to apply

To be taken at (country): Antwerp, Belgium

About the Award: ITM’s Journalist-in-Residence 2018 gets the opportunity to deepen his/her understanding of topical issues in tropical medicine and global health during a two-week stay in Antwerp.
Through fundamental and applied research, advanced education and expert services, ITM advances medical science to solve tropical, poverty-related and global health threats. The Journalist-in-Residence programme offers a unique opportunity for reporters, producers, and editors to work on an exciting project in the realm of tropical medicine and global health (a documentary, or a series of articles, for instance).

Type: Training

Eligibility: Interested candidates must be talented print, broadcast, and online journalists from Africa, Asia and Latin-America

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: The selected journalist will interact with world experts in a wide range of topics in biomedical sciences, clinical sciences and public health. As ITM journalist-in-residence, s/he will have time to explore different areas or delve deeply into a single topic. There is also plenty of opportunity to participate in a variety of scientific meetings, seminars and other learning experiences, as well as enjoy quiet time for reading and independent study.

Duration of Program: 2 weeks

How to Apply:  Journalist-in-Residence 2018 application form

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: The initiative is part of ITM’s capacity building programme in developing countries financed by the Belgian Directorate-General for Development (DGD).

Westerwelle Young Founders Program for Young Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Germany) 2018

Application Deadline: 25th June 2018

Eligible Countries: All African and Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany/Applicant’s Home Country

About the Award: The Westerwelle Young Founders Programme is a fully funded year-long programme for 25 exceptional entrepreneurs from developing and emerging economies. As part of the programme, the Westerwelle Foundation hosts an annual conference in Berlin: the Young Founders Conference. Its focus is to connect young founders from developing and emerging economies with each other and with the German startup scene.
The participants of the Young Founders Conference will have the unique opportunity to meet and interact with successful entrepreneurs, investors and political decision makers. They will also join a network of like-minded outstanding young founders from developing and emerging economies.

Type: Entrepreneurship; Career Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants should:

• Have recently (in the last 5 years) started a for-profit company with a scalable business model
• Be based in a developing or emerging country or have a strong business focus on developing and emerging economies
• Possess a good working knowledge of English
• Foreign applicants must possess valid travel documents (including a visa, if necessary) to enter Germany, and valid travel medical insurance.

Selection: Applicants will first be shortlisted according to their written application. The shortlisted candidates will then be invited for a Skype interview. Results of written application and Skype interview will be discussed by a jury and the selected candidates will be invited to participate at the Young Founders Programme.

Value of Program: During the year-long programme, all fellows will get access to:

• The Young Founders Conference in Berlin, Germany; 16– 20 October 2018
• A mentoring programme: monthly mentoring calls with an experienced entrepreneur and with the group of Westerwelle Young Founders
• Invitations and scholarships for entrepreneurship conferences
• An international alumni network

Travel and accommodation for the Young Founders Conference will be covered by the Westerwelle Foundation. All fellows are expected to actively participate in the Young Founders Conference as well as in the scheduled mentoring calls.

Duration of Programme: 1 year.

• 16 – 20 October 2018: Young Founders Conference in Berlin, Germany
• October 2018 – September 2019: Personal mentoring, peer mentoring (remotely)

How to Apply: The application form is open until 25 June 2018 here

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: Westerwelle Foundation.