François Hollande rallies to the cause of Brazil’s Lula

Miguel Andrade

On May 15, the Spanish news agency EFE reported that the former president of the French Senate, Jean-Pierre Bel, has organized a “European Leaders Call in Support of Lula” manifesto asking for Lula to be allowed to run in the October general elections.

Among the signatories of this document is former French President François Hollande, a proven enemy of the international working class and the oppressed nations, organizer of the French return to the “scramble for Africa” and the destruction of democratic rights in France with the permanent incorporation of emergency powers in the French constitution.

Also signing the appeal was former Prime Minister Jose Louis Zapatero, who carried out savage attacks on the Spanish working class in the wake of the 2008 world financial crisis.

The support for Lula by such figures is another exposure of the Workers Party (PT) narrative that former President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment on trumped up charges of budget manipulation and now Lula’s arrest are part of an imperialist attack on representatives of the Brazilian working class.

The news of the manifesto has been widely circulated by PT’s supporters in academia and among state-funded “independent” blogs and media, all of whom have also rejoiced over the sympathetic coverage of the Workers Party’s downfall by such mouthpieces of bourgeois reaction as the New York Timesand the Guardian. The hope among these layers is that imperialist pressure will convince the Brazilian bourgeoisie to place the PT once again in power.

The opinion pages and editorials of these major Western newspapers have expressed sympathy for Lula’s fate, portraying him as a fallen hero and even the target of a frame-up, leaving ample room to justify his evermore unlikely return to G20 and Davos meetings as Brazil’s head-of-state.

One could cite Le Monde’s May 17 front page, featuring an article written from prison by Lula himself, or Radio France Internationale’s and Le Monde’s May 13 criticisms of the Brazilian press for not highlighting a photo of Lula surrounded by supporters moments before handing himself in to be arrested, which ran on every major paper of the “democratic imperialist” alliance.

More revealing was the New York Times’ April 12 editorial calling Lula a “dynamic and charismatic leader”, whose fall was “painful and disheartening,” while abstaining completely from any comment on Lula’s actual corruption charges. Calling for “a leader who can ensure that gains against corruption are not setbacks for democracy,” the newspaper of record of the US political establishment essentially counseled the right-wing coalition that succeeded Workers Party rule and the bloodthirsty prosecutors obsessed with Lula’s role as “the corruptor of Brazilian society” to recognize his political usefulness.

The most remarkable of such editorials however could be found in London’s Financial Times as early as January 25, when Lula’s appeal was struck down by the regional court that finally ordered his arrest. “Lula’s conviction will not make Brazil great again,” was the headline of the FT editorial, which warned that “the many opponents of Lula are mistaken in their joy. Brazil, one of the most unequal countries in the world, needs a strong, center-left party like the PT.”

Given that drone murders, destructions of entire Middle Eastern societies, emergency powers and prosecution of whistleblowers—the recent disgusting operations against Julian Assange come immediately to mind—are all applauded endlessly by these papers, one is obliged to ask: what is behind such a praise and grief for the supposedly “anti-imperialist”, “nationalist” and “socialist” Brazilian Workers Party and its leader?

To ask the question is to answer it: Lula and the Workers party have never been anything of the sort, and the New York Times & Co. are treating Lula as the precious political asset that he has been for world imperialism over the course of 40 years.

The evidence presented so far against Lula, resulting in one conviction out of the seven cases still pending against him, is exceedingly thin. While the charges that have put him in jail may be trumped up, this is not because he’s innocent. Rather it is because the entire Carwash (Lava-Jato) corruption probe has served as an instrument for the Brazilian bourgeoisie to push the country’s entire political system to the right.

The prosecutors are not indicting Lula for overseeing over the course of two presidential terms a political and economic system steeped in corruption, and, with the aid of the union bureaucracy, moving against workers’ strikes and attacking social rights. Rather, they have confined themselves to a moralistic exposure of petty political horse-trading.

The complete contempt for democratic rights and the move towards dictatorship exposed by the prosecutorial methods of the Carwash investigation express the desperation of a national bourgeoisie that finds itself in an historical blind alley.

A grim economic perspective—a three-year-long, 10 percent contraction of GDP and the collapse of Brazilian capitalism’s orientation to the formerly booming commodity markets and Chinese investments—has undermined the core of the PT’s strategy of using the state to favor “national champion” industrial and commodity monopolies—from the state-run oil giant Petrobras to privatized mining conglomerates as well as private soybean, cattle, chemical and building industry empires. This turn in economic fortune, the result of the global crisis of capitalism, has demoralized the PT and its allies in the trade unions, which have functioned to suppress the class struggle in one of the most unequal societies on the planet.

It is not only the PT; no political wing of the Brazilian bourgeoisie enjoys any legitimacy. No less than half of the sitting congressmen congressmen face corruption investigations, and—according to a Folha de São Paulo report from April 22—15 presidential hopefuls face no less than 160 investigations between them. Meanwhile, the electoral year has brought Congress to a complete paralysis, with “essential” projects such as the arch-reactionary pension “reform” indefinitely delayed out of fear that congressmen who vote in favor will be thrown out by the voters.

Far from restoring stability and profits, the ouster of the Workers Party and the jailing of Lula have been viewed by imperialism as a reckless move. Diplomatic snubs during the 2017 Latin American tours of US Vice President Mike Pence and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—an idol of Brazil’s evangelical Christian right caucus which comprises a third of Congress—stand in sharp contrast to Lula’s endless state visits abroad and George W. Bush’s comprehensive 2007 visit to Brazil.

Against this backdrop, PT mouthpieces such as CartaCapital and Brasil247and pundits like Luís Nassif, the major union federations—along with a host of their pseudo-left acolytes, which had participated in building the PT beginning in 1980 and later were expelled or split from it on tactical grounds, such as the Morenoite and Lambertite coalition in the form of the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) and the Workers’ Cause Party (PCO)—have since April come together in a “Free Lula” campaign.

The attempts by this “united left” to present the concerns for Lula expressed by the media in the major imperialist centers as a vindication of their thesis that the PT suffered a feudal reaction and a “coup” in 2016, and that Lula is a class war prisoner, are politically criminal. They only serve to strengthen far-right figures claiming to oppose the PT’s schemes.

So-called “public intellectuals” who have spent years criticising Lula’s “neoliberal” policies are now making the case that the PT “underestimated” its “enemies” in the ruling class, and that its policies were too radical. A clear, but by no means exhaustive example may be found in the writings of PT economist and University of São Paulo professor Leda Paulani, who wrote in 2003 a now-famous essay called “Brazil Delivery.”

After dealing with some economic statistics, she warned: “needless to say that such an economic situation will lead to an inevitable political crisis. It is true, however, that in such a case the Northern Big Brother may come to help. Brazil’s current president [Lula], as some imagine, is being promoted, with symptomatic American support, to the position of a ‘world leader’”, and is “being presented as a sort of showcase of the marvelous new world order.”

In November 2014, interviewed by RevistaFórum, Paulani seized on a brief attempt by the government to lower interest rates to say that “Rousseff has changed Lula’s policies, challenging the banking lobby”, and that “she would stay on this path”. Just one month later, Rousseff would appoint Joaquim Levy, one of the “Chicago Boys”, to head the Finance Ministry and begin a new round of interest rate hikes. A year later, on November 12, 2015, she declared to cartamaior.com.br: “Rousseff’s mistake” was to lower interest rates to appease the market, presenting “an interventionist image that businessmen don’t like” in order to later, on July 27, 2017, declare to CartaCapital that “we have as our first task in Brazil guaranteeing that democracy is not destroyed”, apologising for the PT program of administration of Brazilian capitalism as a paradise for banks and speculators.

But the risks to democracy, as far as this milieu is concerned, come not from capitalism or the PT’s own policies, but from the prejudices of the workers. The article “Losers and Winners: a balance sheet of the coup”, by Luis Felipe Miguel on the Boitempo publishing house blog, affirms that the impeachment was only possible because “Christian fundamentalism is ever more necessary to compose the right-wing’s social base. The homophobic and anti-feminist discourse is no eccentricity of the Brazilian right. It is an essential component to give popular appeal to their positions. It is not casual that its political presence has grown from the moment that the compensatory policies of Lula eroded the right’s electoral domains.” In other words, supposed economic progress made workers more vulnerable to prejudice.

This typical irrationalist and misanthropic rant, a product of four decades of postmodernist thought at universities, fuels slanders against workers and the conclusion that, in the end, the PT’s pro-capitalist policies and Lula’s leadership were the best to which they could aspire.

The historical record before 2003, however, shows even more clearly that Lula and the anti-Trotskyists gathered today in groups like PSOL and PCO, who helped to build the PT, designed it from its inception as a means of diverting the fight for socialism, subordinating workers to the trade unions and corralling them behind the “national bourgeoisie”.

One leading apologist of the PT, Armando Boito, put it in clear class terms, in an essay for the FGV think-tank: “In order for the Lula and Rousseff governments to overcome the stagnation that dominated the 1990s,” it turned out to be important to have “an intervention from the popular movement in our political history. It was a party created by the trade unions, the PT, that reshaped the proposal for state intervention for the development of Brazilian capitalism.”

Venezuela’s Maduro re-elected with record low turnout

Alexander Fangmann

On Sunday, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) declared Nicolás Maduro had won a second term as president, taking nearly 68 percent of votes cast, with 5.8 million, versus the 1.8 million for opposition candidate Henri Falcón, the former governor of Lara State and a former supporter of ex-president Hugo Chavez.

Despite Maduro’s large margin of victory, the election saw mass disaffection from the political system on the part of Venezuelan workers, reflected in the record low turnout. According to CNE President Tibisay Lucena, 8.6 million Venezuelans cast a vote out of 20.5 million, a turnout of just 46 percent, the lowest since elections resumed in 1958 following the end of the dictatorship.

Indeed, turnout has dropped substantially since even the last presidential election in 2013, when it stood at 80 percent. Maduro himself received 1.5 million fewer votes than in 2013, when he barely eked out a victory against Henrique Capríles. While a boycott of the election by a majority of the right-wing Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) coalition no doubt contributed to the fall in turnout, the more significant change is the fall in support among former United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) voters.

It is no surprise that support for Maduro and the ruling chavísta PSUV has tumbled. The IMF expects inflation this year to reach 13,000 percent, an astronomical figure so high it is barely comprehensible. Despite an increase to the minimum wage, which now stands at 1 million bolívars per month, this figure is worth less than $2 according to the black market exchange rate. One kilogram of meat already costs more than 2 million bolívars, while a pair of shoes can easily exceed 10 million bolivars and the medical system is in shambles.

A major driver of the Venezuelan crisis has been the fall in both oil prices and oil production. Because oil accounts for over 95 percent of Venezuela’s export earnings, the fall in oil prices that began in 2014 led to a fall in imports. This resulted in widespread shortages of food, medicine, consumer goods and machinery and parts.

Oil production at state oil company PDVSA has hit a 33-year low, falling 28 percent over the past year to 1.4 million barrels per day (bpd). By comparison, Venezuela was producing 2.3 million bpd in January 2016 and 3 million bpd in 2009. Refineries are reportedly operating at only one-third of their capacity, while the number of operating oil rigs has been cut in half.

Adding to the crisis is an April ruling by an arbitration panel at the International Chamber of Commerce. The panel ruled that PDVSA owed oil giant ConocoPhillips $2 billion for assets that were nationalized by the Venezuelan government in 2007. In May, following the ruling, ConocoPhillips went to courts in the Dutch Caribbean islands of Curaçao, Bonaire and St. Eustatius with the aim of freezing PDVSA assets and eventually either taking them over or using the leverage to force PDVSA to pay the $2 billion.

PDVSA’s assets on the islands include storage, transshipment and terminals, as well as the Isla refinery on Curaçao, the latter of which reportedly has run down its inventory. All together, these Caribbean facilities are responsible for 24 percent of Venezuela’s total oil exports and provide access to deepwater ports for Venezuelan tankers. Without them, oil will begin to build up in Venezuela with nowhere to go. Additionally, the facilities are used in the import of diluent, which is crucial in the refining of Venezuela’s super-heavy crude.

Aside from this, a grace period on $7 billion in Chinese loans has expired, which will require Venezuela to either default on its debts to that country, or divert more of its dwindling output to paying it off. This deadline passes as Venezuela has burned through almost all of its foreign reserves.

US imperialism smells blood in the water, and on Monday afternoon the Trump administration moved to ratchet up the pressure on the Maduro government by issuing an executive order barring any transactions involving debts owed to Venezuela, limiting its ability to raise cash. This follows restrictions put in place by Trump last year which banned US citizens and banks from purchasing Venezuelan government or PDVSA bonds.

US allies in the region and around the world reached new levels of hypocrisy by refusing to accept the legitimacy of the election results, echoing Falcón, who said, “We don’t recognize this electoral process as valid,” and that “for us, there was no election. There must be a new election in Venezuela.”

Both Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the former head of the CIA, an organization with decades of involvement in bloody coups and dictatorships throughout the region including the attempted 2002 coup of Chavez, stated that the election was a “sham.”

Despite the grave threats represented by the increasingly bellicose posture of the United States, exemplified in former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement in February that the Monroe Doctrine “is as relevant today as it was the day it was written,” Maduro appealed to US imperialism as a guarantor of stability in his ability to manage working class discontent.

In his victory speech from the presidential palace, Maduro said, “If the empire or the right-wing governments of the region want, someday, to talk in peace and respect I'm always open to dialogue.” He added, “To the empire, I say: understand that Venezuela is the warranty of social and political stability in our country and the region. It's a sin to try and destabilize Venezuela.”

Sunday Times Rich List: Wealth of Britain’s richest grew 10 percent

Simon Whelan

There are now 145 billionaires resident in the UK, 11 more than last year, according to the 30th annual Sunday Times Rich List.

To illustrate the extent of this wealth, one journalist pointed out that to count to a million takes approximately 12 days, while to count to a billion takes 31 years!

The top 1,000 individuals own £724 billion out of the UK’s total wealth of £12,778 billion. The incomes of the super-rich have increased an incredible 10 percent on average since last year.

The figures presented by the Sunday Times are considered by financial experts to be only a partial measure of the wealth held by the international super-rich who reside in Britain, where they enjoy lax taxation and regulation and access to international tax havens.

This was the 30th year of the list’s publication. The newspaper pointed out, “You need wealth of £115m to break into this year’s Sunday Times Rich List, nearly four times the £30m necessary to appear in our first edition back in 1989.”

Giving a portrait of the gargantuan levels of wealth that exist today among this tiny stratum, the Sunday Times continued, “And that first list had just 200 entries. To make the top 200 today, you would need £700m—a 23-fold increase on the 200th place 29 years ago.”

In the 10 years since the global financial crash, after the banks and financial elite were bailed out by Gordon Brown’s Labour government, the British super-rich have tripled their wealth.

The parasitic nature of this social layer is expressed in the dominance of financial speculation in wealth accumulation. The Sunday Times noted: “The influence of the City in the composition of the modern Rich List is hard to overstate. The first Rich List had five bankers and a grand total of 19 entries who had struck it big from financial deals and trading. Today, there are 169 entries in the finance sector—46 from hedge funds alone. Hedge funds did not explode into the Rich List until the 1990s, with the potential to make huge profits afforded by volatile global stock markets.”

In sharp contrast, workers’ living standards have been squeezed by crushing austerity measures imposed by successive Labour, Conservative/Liberal Democrat and now Conservative governments. Workers on average still earn £24 less per week than they did before 2007-2008. Over the course of a year, that amounts to more than £1,000 in lost wages. According to research by the Trades Union Congress, by 2025, the average worker will have lost over £18,000.

The class polarisation revealed is striking. London has become a magnet for the world’s oligarchs. In the very year that 72 people were killed in the Grenfell Tower inferno due to cost-cutting in its refurbishment, the same city was host to some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. These people have yet again increased their wealth.

According to the Sunday Times, individuals from “India, Ukraine, Holland, Sweden, Russia, Canada, Italy, Saudi Arabia and Norway account for 13 of the 20 richest” on the list. “Tycoons running organisations straddling the world choose to base themselves and their business here in a way scarcely imaginable 30 years ago,” the newspaper noted approvingly.

Still, the Sunday Times peddled the narrative that the super-rich are all “self-made” and “old money” is on the run. The compiler of the list, Robert Watts, wrote: “Britain is changing. Gone are the days when old money and a small band of industries dominated the Sunday Times Rich List. Aristocrats and inherited wealth have been elbowed out of the list and replaced by an army of self-made entrepreneurs. Today’s super rich include people who have set up businesses selling chocolate, sushi, pet food and eggs. We’re seeing more people from humble backgrounds, who struggled at school or who didn’t even start their businesses until well into middle age.”

The truth behind these overnight fortunes is that they are being made largely in discounted retail. The shop names alone tell you what’s in workers’ pockets—Poundstretcher, Home Bargains and B&M Discount stores.

Home Bargains founder Tom Morris and family rank 39th, with wealth of over £3 billion, followed by the Arora brothers (B&M Discount), listed as 65th and collectively worth £1.92 billion. Poundstretcher is owned by the two Tayub brothers and family, with more than 400 stores nationally, who come in 453rd on the list with £250 million.

The BBC reported breathlessly, “A businessman who once lived in a council house near Manchester is the richest person in the UK. … Jim Ratcliffe, who founded chemical firm Ineos, topped the list with an estimated worth of £21.05bn—after coming 18th last year.”

The idea of the super-rich being “self-made” is a myth. Such gargantuan fortunes are not accumulated without an abundant cheap workforce to exploit, an urban infrastructure and taxation system that rewards greed, and a political climate that celebrates social inequality.

Ratcliffe became infamous in 2013 when he threatened to close Ineos’s Grangemouth petrochemical plant in Falkirk unless the workers accepted a package of job cuts and concessions. In 2010, he and his team left Britain for Switzerland’s much lower corporate tax rate. Ratcliffe returned in 2016, encouraged by a business climate characterised by large tax cuts for the already super-rich.

The spending allotted for the National Health Service for 2017-2018, used by more than 60 million people, is £124.7 billion. Just the wealth of the top 10 on the super-rich list would cover this, with £15 billion to spare. To put an end to the social hardship faced by millions, that which the Rich List celebrates—an elite that wallows in palatial homes, yachts, Lear jets, private islands and armies of domestic labour—must be removed to make way for decent jobs and homes, public transport, leisure facilities, schools, colleges, libraries, hospitals and parks for all.

Trump and the Iran Nuclear Deal: Geopolitics and Financial Unipolarity

KP Fabian

On 8 May 2018, US President Donald Trump, true to his style and ‘America First’ philosophy, walked out of the Iran nuclear deal, technically known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). A fortnight has elapsed and it would be pertinent to examine the geopolitical implications of Trump’s decision.

The US' Position
By now it is reasonably clear why Trump withdrew from the deal. He has failed to provide any rational argument against the deal for the obvious reason that there is none. The JCPOA is a 159-page document that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—the foreign leader closest to him spiritually—have argued that unless sanctions are re-imposed, Iran will continue with its ‘destabilising’ policy in the region, and develop missiles endangering Israel’s security—and that therefore it is imperative to keep Iran permanently in a pariah status.

The project to keep Iran as a pariah state fits in with the Israeli right wing’s decades old project for Greater Israel that involves the weakening of Israel’s neighbors, sowing discord among them, and eventually establishing Pax Israelica in the region. In pursuing his goal, Trump gave short shrift to the EU which had urged him to stay with the deal, and decisively demonstrated his disregard for international law. Obviously, the rest of the world must think hard on ways to deal with Trump. This question needs to be addressed in a context wider than the Iran deal. 

Spotlight on the EU
Iran has made it clear that it would abide by the deal if the EU provides "practical guarantees" for the economic benefits of the deal. Iran wants trade and investment from Europe. The secondary sanctions that Trump has unleashed are meant to punish any non-US entity doing business with Iran by preventing it from doing business with US entities. In short, non-US companies have to now choose between the US and Iran.

The key question is how the EU will respond to US sanctions? In public, the EU has not minced words. The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, said, “It seems that screaming, shouting, insulting, and bullying, systematically destroying and dismantling everything there is already in place, is the mood of our times.” This begs the question: is the EU willing and able to stand up to Trump?

The EU-Iran trade stood at 20.9 billion Euros in 2017—a substantial jump from 13.7 billion Euros in 2016. The EU has initiated action for the 1996 "blocking statute" [Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996] to protect EU companies from US sanctions. In 1996, such action was taken in the context of trade with Cuba, but it was not tested as the US backed down. There is no good reason to believe that Trump would back down. He has already announced his intention to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum from the EU. It is rather unlikely that the EU will want to begin a trade war with an unpredictable Trump who can be easily provoked into disproportionate retaliation.

Major EU companies such as Norway’s shipping giant AP Moller-Maersk, Italy’s steel giant Danieli, and France’s oil major Total have announced their decision to quit Iran. In short, these big companies do not believe that the EU can protect them from Trump’s wrath. 

What are Iran’s options? 
Obviously, the options will depend on power equations in Iran. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s opponents, the hardliners, never wanted the deal as they distrusted the US. Trump seems to be seeking a ‘regime change’ in Iran. If he expects a new regime suitably intimidated and therefore ‘friendly’ to Washington, Trump is sadly mistaken. If Rouhani falls, the hardliners will step in.

However, what can a hardline government do? Can it start enriching uranium in violation of the deal? In that case, the EU will be compelled to join the US in imposing sanctions. Therefore, Iran finds itself in a weak position. A government that finds itself in a weak position will stamp out dissent. Repression will follow if people start protesting over price rises or abridgment of liberties.

There is the risk of Israel starting fireworks to provoke Iran into open hostilities; but Iran, even under a hardline government, is likely to act with utmost restraint. If Israel succeeds in provoking Iran, there can be a regional conflagration with disastrous implications for the regional states and states whose citizens reside there, apart from oil prices shooting up. India, in particular, is vulnerable.

Financial Unipolarity and the World Order
There exists a unipolarity in the world of international finance. Will the EU, China, and Russia work together to dismantle the US' unipolar hold? No sign of any such project has been seen yet. Russia and China by themselves can provide limited relief to Iran. Russia can buy and sell Iran’s crude. Russia and China might be glad to draw Iran closer into an alliance with them.

Implications for India and Ways Ahead
If India goes slow on the Chabahar port project or reduces the import of crude from Iran at the US' behest, it will hurt India, and New Delhi's plans to project itself as an emerging regional power will be ruined. The US' sanctions regime needs to be viewed in a wider context. The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), passed in 2017, can be applied to prevent India from entering ‘significant’ defense deals with Russia. It is inevitable that Putin and Modi would have discussed CAATSA at the recently concluded summit in Sochi. Obviously, it would have been undiplomatic to make any specific mention about it in public. One may reasonably conclude that India will not stop buying arms from Russia because of CAATSA.

India’s diplomacy needs to navigate in the perilous geopolitical waters with Chanakyan strategies. Above all, diplomacy is the art of dancing with more than one partner at a time. The unipolarity in the financial world needs to be dismantled. India should not appear to be taking the lead in dismantling it, but it should be dismantled sooner or later, the sooner the better.

Unilever Young Entrepreneurs Awards for Sustainable Solutions 2018

Application Deadline: 29th June 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): London, UK

About the Award: The Unilever Young Entrepreneurs Awards are all about supporting and celebrating inspirational young people from all over the world with existing initiatives, products or services that are tackling some of the planet’s biggest sustainability challenges.
This year, the Awards will recognise initiatives in four key areas:

1. Farm to Table: In this category, we are looking for inspiring entrepreneurs who are working on sustainable initiatives relating to food and drink production right through to consumption.
2. Opportunities for Women: We are seeking initiatives that help to tackle the discrimination and disadvantages millions of women face around the world. You might be working to help provide access to skills and training for women, and creating opportunities for women to actively, safely
3. Waste: Are there entrepreneurs out there with ingenious initiatives that help to tackle waste – to reduce, reuse or recycle waste throughout the pre-production, production and consumption lifecycle? Initiatives should demonstrate a clear business
4. Water: Are you working on an initiative that tackles water scarcity, or one that addresses water pollution or sanitation and hygiene issues? We are looking for solutions that conserve or reduce the amount

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Anyone from around the world, aged between 18 and 35 (as of 30 June 2017), who is working on an initiative in one of our four categories; Farm to Table, Opportunities for Women, Waste and Water. Your initiative must have already progressed beyond the idea stage and started making an impact.

Selection Process: The Unilever Young Entrepreneurs Awards will recognise up to eight winners in 2017. Two finalists in each of the four categories will be selected from a video interview process and invited to an Accelerator Programme in Cambridge, where they will work with experts from the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, Unilever and other guest experts.
A winner will be selected out of each of the four categories. Those category winners will go forward to pitch to a guest judging panel who will then decide on the overall winner of the 2017 competition.

Number of Awards: 8

Value of Program:  The overall winner will receive the ‘HRH The Prince of Wales Young Sustainability Entrepreneur Prize.’
All will attend a special prize event hosted in London.

• The winner of the ‘HRH The Prince of Wales Young Sustainability Entrepreneur Prize’ will receive a €50,000 cash award and one-to-one mentoring support tailored to their specific needs for a duration of 12 months.
• The category winners will receive a €10,000 cash award and one-to-one mentoring support tailored to their specific needs for a duration of 12 months.
• The category finalists will receive a €7,000 cash award and one-to-one mentoring support tailored to their specific needs for a duration of 12 months.

How to Apply: To submit your entry, you’ll need to create a profile and complete the application form. You’ll need to tell us all about your initiative’s story so far, and your vision for its future. The more you can share, the better.

Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: Unilever

Chatham House African Public Health Leaders Fellowship for African Leaders (Fully-funded) 2018

Application Deadline: 20th June 2018

Eligible Countries: African Countries

About the Award: Following the successful Public Health Leaders Fellowship pilot of three West African fellows in 2016/17, the Centre on Global Health Security is pleased to team up with the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute, Geneva for a new cohort of African Public Health Leadership fellows.
The fellowship will develop the skills in leadership, policy analysis and formulation of successful applicants, who will benefit from the networking and mentoring opportunities in London, Geneva and their respective countries. Fellows will each develop and produce a project as part of the fellowship programme.
The fellowship provides fellows with an opportunity to:

• Hone their leadership skills.
• Improve their ability to assess public health in their own country.
• Strengthen their capacity to develop, implement and evaluate public health initiatives.
• Build networks across relevant sectors.

A hallmark of the fellowship is its mix of intensive orientation, interaction with African leaders in public health and high-level remote mentoring. The mentoring is provided by leading experts at the Chatham House Centre on Global Health Security in London and at the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. The major requirement is that fellows complete a relevant independent project, under virtual mentoring, while maintaining their jobs in their home countries.

 Fields of Study: Fellows will be expected to undertake a project in one of the following areas:

• Communicable diseases, including emerging infections and antimicrobial resistance.
• International Health Regulations.
• Universal Health Coverage.
• The role of private industry in public health.
• One Health.
• Planetary health.
• Climate change and health.
• Sustainable Development Goals.
• Non-communicable diseases and their risk factors, including obesity and smoking.

Type: Fellowship (Professional)

Eligibility: 

• The fellowship is available to Africans, working in Africa, who have a background in mid-level or senior public health management and who want to strengthen their public health leadership skills and knowledge in order to effect real and lasting change.
• Candidates must be in a fully paid position in public health, in either a private or public institution in Africa, that permits a month’s absence for the foundation course training and time for the development of the project during the year of the fellowship.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Financial support is available for the implementation of field work

Duration of Programme: Applications are invited for the 10-month fellowship, which begins in October 2018.

How to Apply: Apply Now

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Centre on Global Health Security is pleased to team up with the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute, Geneva

David E I Pyott Master of Surgery in Clinical Ophthalmology Scholarship for Students from Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 27th July 2018.

Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa, South Asia, Caribbean Islands, Pacific Islands, Central and South America.

To Be Taken At (Country): Scotland, UK

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

• The scholarships will be awarded to students who are accepted for admission on to the online distance learning Master of Surgery (ChM) in Clinical Ophthalmology at the University of Edinburgh.
• Applicants should already have been offered a place at the University of Edinburgh and should have firmly accepted that offer or be intending to do so.
• Applicants should be advanced trainee ophthalmologists or independently practising ophthalmologists.
• Applicants must be both nationals of and resident in the following countries

Selection Criteria: 

• The scholarship will be awarded broadly on the basis of academic merit.
• Candidates must have, or expect to obtain, a UK first class or 2:1 Honours degree at undergraduate level or the international equivalent.

Number of Awards: 6

Value of Award: Each scholarship will cover the tuition fee for the entire part-time programme of study as well as provide access to a broadband facility and a laptop.

Duration of Programme: 2 year

How to Apply: Visit Link below

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The scholarship is funded by the generous support of the David E I Pyott Foundation.

Human Life Advancement Foundation (HLAF) Science & Technology Scholarships for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 15th June 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

Field of Study: Any field of study that supports innovation and technology.

About the Award: The Human Life Advancement Foundation (HLAF) is the newly established foundation active in the fields of the education, technology transfer and sustainable development in developing world. Our mission is to develop networks of organizations and individuals able and willing to contribute to the needs of society, as well as in the development of internationally competent individuals. HLAF aspires to become a reference point for creation of knowledge, innovations and technology transfer related issues in developing countries. We support the importance of education in building a knowledge society.
This foundation strives to be an innovative institution responsive to needs of society for innovations, knowledge and technology by supporting fruitful interaction between firms, academia and public sector. We are delighted to announce that we are offering scholarships to those pursuing PhD studies and Posdoctoral research.

Type: PhD, Posdoctoral research

Eligibility: 

• Nationality : Unrestricted
• Gender : Unrestricted
• Maximum age :
  • 30 years for posgraduate student at PhD level
  • 35 years for postdoctoral researchers
• Have received acceptance (offer) letter to pursue PhD/Postdoctoral at recognized universities before final decision on scholarship is taken.
• In excellent health condition and certified by a Certified Doctor/Medical Professional. The cost of medical examination is to be borne by the applicants
• All applicants should have a score of at least 550 in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or 6.0 points in the International English Language Testing Services (IELTS) or score a band 4 in Malaysian University English Test (MUET)or excellent result in other relevant English test that is accepted by the university and equivalent to the tests mentioned above.

Minimum Academic Achievement

• Strong academic record and excellent academic references. Obtained a minimum of Second Class Upper (Honours) or a CGPA of 3.5/4.0 at Bachelor Degree and must possess CGPA 3.8/4.0 or very good result at Masters Degree level in a similar field of intended PhD study, strong publication record.
•  For Postdoctoral candidate strong academic record at PhD study and the research topics to be carried out will have an added advantage.

Selection Criteria: Applications will be considered according to the following selection criteria :-

PhD

• Academic achievement at previous study;
• Publication record;
• The quality of the SOP and research proposal;
• Recommendation letters;
• Excellent communication, writing and reading skills in English Language.

Post doctorate

• Academic achievement at PhD study;
• Publication record;
• Research proposal and its perspective application;
• Recommendation letters;
• Organization in which he/she will have its postdoctoral research;
• Excellent communication, writing and reading skills in English Language.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: 

• PhD: 15,000
• Post doctorate: 35,000

Duration of Program:

• PhD: 4 years (8 semesters)
• Post doctorate: 1 year (2 semesters)

How to Apply: There are 3 ways to submit your application:

• Individual application through HLAF’s website.
• Application through institutions within HLAF networks.
• Project support by submitting proposal to HLAF.

It is important to go through the application procedure on the Program Webpage before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Human Life Advancement Foundation

Important Notes: It is your responsibility to provide correct and certified supporting documentation. We will not consider your application if you do not provide the correct documentation. Late applications will not be accepted. Only shortlisted candidates will be notified for interview. HLAF is not under any obligation whatsoever to call any candidate for interview.

Middle East War Clouds Gather

ROY MORRISON

Looming in 2018, is the start of a general war in the Middle East. Seventeen years of endless and metastasizing fighting in the greater Middle East against terror, against radicalism, for our client states and against their enemies, who have become our enemies, is now unremarkable business as usual.

Almost no one, even the most dedicated citizen, has a complete and accurate understanding of the scope of U.S.military action in the Middle East spilling out into Africa and into Asia. The attack of the Afghanistan based al-Qaeda in 2001 replaced the Cold War as focus and motivation for U.S. attention, treasure, and military action. The Cost of War Project has identified 76 nations involving 39% of global population involved in this war. Bin Laden is dead, AL-Queda supplanted by Isis as the U.S. is resolutely involved in the Long War, our own multigenerational conflict. Donald Trump in his second year of power has become a new, increasingly enthusiastic recruit.

What has characterized the Long War so far has not been combat between nation states, but so-called asymmetrical warfare, a score of men with box cutters crashing planes into sky scrappers and unleashing holy hell. But current developments in the MiddleEast suggests that the Long War may be entering a new phase, of war between major Middle East states and their big power sponsors. What has been a drip, drip, drip of casualties and fighting, punctuated by occasional horrific slaughters, may be about to increase by several orders of magnitude.

The bad stars have now aligned and are in a position to unleash the regional war that U.S.and its co-conspirators consider it’s better to start sooner than later, war’s that become a necessity to be embraced, a war that will serve as relatively quick solution to long-term problems. The bigger problem, however, is that such a war between the major regional players once unleashed will almost certainly spin out of control and be anything but short.

On the one side we have a budding and deepening alliance of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel with Al Sisi’s Egypt nodding ascent, and with qualified support of Syrian rebels and participation of most of the Gulf Emirates with the situation of Qatar being resolved in time, not just for resolving Kushner’s 666 Five Ave debacle, but for war.

On the other side, we have Iran, Syrian government, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthi with Iraqi’s Shite government and militias nodding ascent and Vladimir Putin standing by to play.

Caught in the Middle are those who will be forced to chose sides or try to find safe haven are the Kurds in Turkey Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, who are Sunnis already fighting the United States, but have no apparent ambitions beyond Afghanistan and tribal border territories in Pakistan.

Watching closely and planning are Pakistan’s government and powerful Military Intelligence (MI) and the Turkish government, a Nato member with antipathy to both the Kurds and Israel. India watches Pakistan and the Taliban with concern. And, of course, the Palestinians stand to be a big loser, offered the choice of being abandoned to the tender mercies of the Netanyahu regime, or to accept an imposed US., Saudi, Egyptian administrated “peace”. Meanwhile, the Europeans watch President Trump in horror as he tries to destroy the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as they are attempting to maintain an Iran nuclear deal without the United States. China can hardly believe its good luck watching important new markets and resources being dumped into its lap by American sanctions and imperiousness.

Let’s assume, first, that Putin and Trump manage to avoid too much direct U.S. – Russian fighting that can lead to, you know, global nuclear annihilation. Let’s suppose we can trust President Trump to mange that. We can? There was that little Syrian dust up of a few hundred Russian mercenaries attacking a U.S. Syrian base and being killed with zero U.S. casualties. But mostly the boys work and play well with each other given their deep ties and common interests.

Lets assume, second, that the U.S, Saudi, Israeli plan is to attempt to foster regime change in Iran, not through direct invasion of many American divisions, but by a combination of economic, political,and military pressure. The unspoken intent of U.S., Saudi, Israeli war plans must involve the control of Iranian influence as regional power. This will be best accomplished by a new friendly regime, but, if not, by a combination of crippling economic sanctions and targeted military action by Israelis and Saudi clients designed to succeed in imposing limitations on Iranian nuclear and missile weapons and regional conduct opposing U.S., Saudi, Israeli designs. Israeli air attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities are certainly planned and ready to go. The implicit threat behind Trump’s withdrawal from Iranian nuclear deal is that Iranian resumption of nuclear development can serve as justification to attack.The playbook is clear, the U.S.will continue to escalate economic sanctions and threats to bring Iran to heal, and if it resists, begin the strategic bombing that Iran is likely to respond to in asymmetrical fashion in the Middle East and around the world with the help of its friends that will justify further military escalation by both sides, and so it goes.

The U.S. has managed through its endless war without end to put itself between two repressive theocratic regimes of the Saudi Sunnis and the Iranian Shia, and are now choosing to embrace the Sunnis not merely as oil producing clients but as allies. Historical realism should suggest to Presidents that Sunni and Shia conflicts have a deserved millennia long reputation for never ending well. The best that can be said for a regional war strategy is that there are more Sunni than Shia, and therefor it’s more likely there will be more Sunni than Shia left standing. It’s the same kind of logic that apparently was used in the unremitting slaughter of a generation in the First World War,

In any case, as they beat the war drums, we can have confidence in the sober wisdom of Donald Trump, John Bolton, and Mike Pomepo, Islamaphobes all, to somehow lead us to a peaceful resolution.

Why War and Why Now?

It may be argued that the control of oil and natural gas and pipelines and sea routes can certainly explain the attempt to grab Iraq’s oil, that Donald Trump has embraced, and now to go after Iran’s enormous oil reserves. The disastrous consequences of the Iraq misadventure should have been sufficient to convince politicians that a war with Iran is likely to end with even far worse consequences than Iraq given Iran’s size, geography, and seasoned military forces. Perhaps there is an appeal for a global economic spasm resulting from closure of straights of Hormuz and cutting off a substantial portion of global oil supplemented by attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman(MBS), pal of Jared Kushner, has already recognized that oil is not only a depleting asset, but that oil is rapidly becoming a stranded asset, better left in the ground, that can no longer compete with zero fuel cost renewables. But its hard to believe that MBS sees this war as a way to kick start Saudi Solar PV and clean tech transition. It’s a power play, a logical follow up to his brutal war against the Iranian supported Houthis in Yemen conducted with American logistical support.

Let’s say that President Donald Trump was seduced by his Saudi sword dance and perhaps also sees major distraction from his impeachment from war which, for a while. was good for George W.: Mission Accomplished. They would never impeach a war president would they? And at the same time Trump will impose Jared’s version of Middle East Peace. President Donald J. Trump, to global acclaim, will be awarded the Nobel Prize…

Ride the Peace Train

Countervailing peace efforts can be exerted in two areas. First, Americans should work quickly to deepen ties with Iran and Iranian groups in the U.S. and in Iran, calling for dialogue, trade, exchanges and peace. Second, Americans need to raise our voices and concerns loudly and insist on a Congressional declaration of war before a war begins. Donald Trump’s base, we may remember, was repelled by Hillary Clinton, the warmonger and attracted to Trump, in part, because of his isolationist America First-ism. There may be possibilities for coalitions between anti-war Democrats and anti-war Republicans sufficient to stop the rush for Middle East War without Congressional approval.

Will the platoon of Democrats seeking to replace Donald Trump advance the interest of peace or march in line off to war? They are clearly united by common hatred for President Trump. Beyond that, it remains to be seen. The far right has in the past spared no antipathy for both immigrants and meaningless foreign wars that distract them from working for their domestic concerns. Politics in the common interest of peace can create improbable partners. On that, the prospects, if not exactly for peace, but stopping regional Middle East war depends. That’s democracy.

If there was ever a time to insist on adherence to constitutional norms and prerogatives on issues of war or peace, to vote before the bullets and bombs fly, that time is now.

Royal Wedding Madness

Binoy Kampmark

“Thinking that you actually know a public figure – in the intimate, best-friend kind of way – is not healthy.”

— Katie Stow, Harper’s Bazaar, Oct 17, 2017.

The citizenry of the US Republic might well insist on the sanctity of its laws, a prided exceptionalism and the genius that is the Constitution, but there is no provision as to how to combat a known, recurring sickness: royal watching and monarchical mania.  The House of Windsor continues to pull people out of beds and from their tasks with hypnotic appeal, most notably during a wedding occasion.

The nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle seem the stuff of a regressive nightmare, a progressive’s conversion to the forces of reaction and misplaced adoration.  As a social statement, it is conservative and defiantly anti-modern. Nevertheless, networks such as CNN insist that the Hollywood actress is the quintessential opposite: a feminist figure, a modern statement, a potential reformer. The network reported her own remarks of being “proud to be a woman and a feminist” and her determination to make a “bold feminist statement” in walking down the aisle unchaperoned.

The ceremony itself tried to buck the musty, staid manner typical of such occasions.  At times, it seemed that an evangelical stir combined with gospel theatrics would grip the gathering and send it into hysterics.

Bishop Michael Curry of Chicago did his best to take the occasion by the throat, doing a merry zigzag between the “redemptive power of love” (a la Martin Luther King), Jesus not getting “an honorary doctorate for dying” and various lusty references to Promethean fire: “There was no Bronze Age without fire, no Iron Age without fire, no Industrial Revolution without fire.”

While the heavy American presence at the Harry-Markle show might explain the level of interest back in the US, the fascination from across the Atlantic pond has been a lingering one.  Deposing tyrannical monarchy and creating a republic did not banish the associated romanticism of having hereditary rulers – and inbred ones at that.  “The American people are quite fond of the royal family,” explained former President Barack Obama to Prince Charles at a meeting in 2015.  “They like them much better than their own politicians.”

Research justifying monarchist mania has been sought with vigour, and inevitably, psychologists have been pressed on the issue. Tara Emrani’s work, done from her perspective as a licensed clinical psychologist, gives a sound tick of approval to the British royal family in finding “a way to stay relevant and present in the media.”  The portrayal of “the family is very relevant to the people in that they have a family, they do normal stuff, they go to normal places, although their royal.”

Such are the delusions of perceived normality, but Emrani wishes to run on it.  “The Duchess [Kate Middleton] recently talked about mental health and hunger and Prince Harry does a lot of charity work and things that people can admire, are inspiring, and feel relevant.”

Home grown substitutes have been sought.  The US Republic has had a lengthy string of dynastic rulers.  The Kennedys and Camelot was a very American attempt to seek the appropriated gloss of an indigenous royal family, to anoint this genetic compound with aristocratic credentials.  It also had the elements of stage management and direction.  Royal weddings serve to generate fantasy and hope, that unenviable and sinister nonsense that little girls can eventually grow up to marry a prince.

The prince who meets the commoner, albeit one birthed in the Hollywood dream bubble, has been the logical extension of that other “commoner” myth sired from the legend of Princess Diana.  It was soon forgotten that Diana was herself an aristocrat rather than being the People’s Princess as designated by the New Labour of Tony Blair.  The response to her death had a certain pathological, even totalitarian quality to it, leading the late Christopher Hitchens to remark that Britain had become, for a time, a “one-party state”.

The tension between modern trends and conservative institutionalism was only artificially demonstrated at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle.  Black spiritualism tagged on to exaggerated feminist values mixed with traditional forms certainly gave an impression of difference, but these were daubs rather than extensive splashes.

The trick worked for some, not least the selection of Curry as wedding pastor, “an important move,” assessed Jonah Waterhouse, “as Meghan Markle is the first notable African American member of the British royal family.”  Markle, it has already been forgotten, is not there to inflict change upon the institution of monarchy, but be changed by it.

Between the monarchy and Hollywood lie certain similarities, and the modern British monarchy is very mindful of the power of image, the strength of a manufactured product.  Hilary Mantel’s controversial but entirely sensible summation of Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, as “becoming a jointed doll on which certain rags are hung” was apt if slightly cruel.  She had been “a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, entirely defined by what she wore.”

The most striking, and somewhat damnable feature of such confections as took place on Saturday is a certain genius on the part of Queen Elizabeth II and company.  They have managed to seduce those of republican tendency, to drive them potty with the seduction of celebrity.  While she will be the last monarch of her type, the institution does not risk going asunder before any bomb throwing revolutionary, actual or metaphorical.  Dolls, and suitable rags, will continue being sought, and royal weddings will persist in enthralling.

Australia apartment owners to join legal action over flammable cladding

Paul Bartizan

Australian law firm Adley Burstyner and Roscon Property Services last month announced a class action law suit against major construction companies. The case is on behalf of approximately 250,000 owners and residents from about 1,400 apartments clad with flammable polyethylene core aluminium composite panels in the state of Victoria.

The $4.2 billion case, the law firm says, is the first stage in a national campaign to compensate owners for replacing the dangerous cladding and installing sprinkler systems, plus declines in their property values. The law suit is expected to target LU Simon Builders, Hickory Building, Hamilton Marino and Probuild. Slater and Gordon, another legal firm, later said it is considering a similar action.

The announcement came six months after 29 people were killed in a flammable-cladding fuelled fire in South Korea, almost one year after the Grenfell Tower disaster in London killed an estimated 71 people, and more than three years since a cladding blaze at the multi-storey Lacrosse apartment tower in Melbourne, the Victorian state capital, in November 2014.

These fires are universally a direct result of government deregulation of building industry standards, cost cutting and privatisation of safety inspection, in line with demands from property developers and the construction industry.

While no one was killed in the Melbourne blaze, it spread across 13 floors on the outside of the building within 10 minutes. Apartment owners are currently fighting LU Simon in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal over who should pay the costs of replacing the cladding. The case is due to start in September. According to building specialists, the average cost of cladding replacement on a high-rise building is between $40,000 and $60,000 per apartment.

Irrespective of these legal actions, Australian governments, state and federal, are refusing to take any serious action to prevent future catastrophes facing those living and working in high-rise buildings clad with the proven deadly material.

Architects and building safety officials have reported the “rampant” use of flammable cladding, which is $35 per square metre less expensive than fire-resistant counterparts, throughout the Australian construction industry.

In the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell Tower blaze, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Labor Party opposition leader Bill Shorten cynically feigned concern. State governments initiated building audits and promised increased building safety in an industry that Liberal and Labor governments alike have systematically deregulated, opening the way for massive profits for developers and construction companies.

The federal government agreed to extend an existing Senate inquiry over the use of dangerous materials in the construction industry to include flammable cladding. Labor and independent Senators used this platform to demagogically denounce the serious decline in building industry safety standards. While the inquiry eventually called for a total ban on the import and use of the flammable cladding, the federal government rejected this recommendation out of hand.

Three months after the Senate inquiry, LU Simon legally challenged a previous Victorian Building Authority (VBA) order requiring the construction company to replace external cladding with non-flammable products on Lacrosse and five other non-compliant buildings.

The Victorian state Supreme Court found in favour of LU Simon, ruling that the VBA, a state government authority, could not issue a directive to fix illegal work after a certificate of final inspection or an occupancy permit had been issued. The granting of these certifications has been privatised over the past 15 years. The ruling meant that all six LU Simon buildings involved, some finished ten years ago, were exempted from the VBA directive.

Despite state and federal governments posturing about “getting tough” on illegal constructions, the court verdict highlights the fact that the current legislation, renders regulatory authorities, such as the VBA, powerless to act against any building company. All the financial and legal responsibility for repairing unsafe properties falls on building and apartment owners, the innocent victims of cost-cutting construction methods.

As a result, thousands of owners and residents throughout Australia are still living in potential death traps. And it is “business as usual,” with multi-million dollar profits for developers and construction corporations, and windfall tax receipts for governments.