WFP Innovation Accelerator 2020

Application Deadline: 14th September 2020

About the Award: Unless swift action is taken, some 265 million people in low and middle-income countries will be in acute food insecurity by the end of 2020, due to conflict, climate shocks, poverty and #COVID19.
The COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating food insecurity, interrupting supply chains, and moving more people into hunger than previously predicted. WFP seeks cutting-edge solutions to transform emergency response and to achieve SDG2: Zero Hunger by 2030 for communities impacted by COVID19 and beyond. Innovations are needed more than ever before to achieve this goal.
In the WFP Innovation Challenge 2020, we are looking for innovations that seek to disrupt hunger, and address any of the following problem statements.

1. COVID-19 emergency response. WFP is mobilizing to meet the needs of up to 138 million people in 2020, with more than half of WFP’s operations scaling up direct assistance in urban areas. Cities are bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 crisis, accounting for 90 percent of COVID-19 cases and leaving millions without jobs unable to meet food other essential needs. It is challenging to identify, locate, target and reach those in most in need, particularly in urban areas and informal settlements. At the same time, better access to phones and internet in cities in comparison to urban areas, brings opportunities of using new technologies to address those challenges.
2. Local food security and market access for smallholder farmers. Domestic food supply is a challenge in many countries in which WFP operates, due to many factors – including severe  water scarcity, limited farmable land availability, a growing urban population and weak supply chain infrastructure. High volumes of imports and movement restrictions can create volatility and cause high price shocks, as seen during COVID-19. 
3. Sustaining and creating livelihoods. Two billion people – more than 61 per cent of the world’s employed population – make their living in the informal economy, most of whom reside in developing countries. COVID-19 movement restrictions have damaged the economic activity of millions of vulnerable people, and informal economy workers have very little access to reliable, adequate income generation opportunities. 
4. Affordable, nutritious diets and awareness. Healthy diets are on average five times more expensive than nutrient-poor diets, are unaffordable for more than 3 billion people around the world, and are often exacerbated by a lack of awareness of nutritious food and healthy consumption habits in low-resource environments. 
5. Appropriate energy solutions along the food value chain.  Access to energy is a consistent obstacle to food processing, cooking and preservation, which in turn has negative impacts on food availability, intake and nutritional value. Irrigation, tilling, milling and pressing are few examples of processes that are considerably enhanced by energy leading to increased quantity and quality of food. In addition, food is lost at every step of the value chain due to lack of cooking or preservation options, such as energy-efficient cooking options, refrigeration, smoking, drying, canning and sealing.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: If you are a start-up…

• Your start-up must be incorporated at the time of application. It can be for profit or not-for-profit.
• Your innovation must at least be at the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) stage. Proof-of-concept and initial traction is preferred.
• Your solution should be financially viable.
• Your proposal must show how working with WFP will serve your long-term strategy.

If you are a WFP employee…

• Your team must have evidence of Country Office support and management buy-in.
• You are encouraged to apply, regardless of your contract type or function.
• We accept project applications from WFP employees who are collaborating with NGOs, government or private sectors.

Selection Criteria: Applications submitted to the WFP Innovation Accelerator are assessed according to a standard set of criteria, and are reviewed by both WFP and external experts. Please note that we prioritize projects that are designed alongside our core users—vulnerable communities—and that show initial traction and market validation to ensure impact and maximize cost effectiveness. We are looking for innovations that meet the following expectations:

• Impact for the people we serve and potential to reach Zero Hunger
• Feasibility, including time to deliver impact, technology maturity, and user traction
• Level of innovation
• Financial sustainability with a clear business case that does not rely on WFP funding
• Team strength, experience, and commitment

Eligible Countries: Any

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

Funding	Access to WFP Operations	Hands-On Support	Networking
Apply to receive up to $100,000 in equity-free funding, with further funding dependent upon progress and measurable achievement of key targets.	Successful teams will work with WFP units on the ground to further develop and refine their solutions.	You’ll have the chance to work with technical and industry mentors who will provide guidance and accelerate your progress.	Teams will be able to tap into and leverage our strong network of public, private, and government partners to accelerate implementation.

Duration of Program:

• Innovation Bootcamp: 30 November–4 December 2020
• Pitch: 10 December 2020

How to Apply:

• Start-Ups: Do you have an innovation that can end hunger? We want to support you. APPLY
• WFP Employees: Are you an innovator at WFP? Let’s work together to design bold solutions. APPLY

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Next-Gen Mask Challenge

Application Deadline: 15th September 2020

About the Award: The XPRIZE Next-Gen Mask Challenge will aid in the fight against COVID-19 by enhancing an effective solution: face masks. The next generation of masks will redefine the norm of mask-wearing behavior and help sustain crucial preventive health measures.
Masks are effective in slowing and preventing the spread of COVID-19, but not all of us have adopted this preventive measure. Some masks are ill-fitting, uncomfortable, not breathable, and the most effective masks are often unavailable or expensive.

Design: For the Next-Gen Mask Challenge, participants will have to design a facial covering that, among other things, achieves filtration efficacy on par with a surgical mask; addresses at least five of the top 10 reasons people do not wear a mask (as defined by XPRIZE); and has an “X-factor” of style that will promote positive mask-wearing behavior. In a survey, XPRIZE found that the top reasons people don’t wear masks include: fogging of glasses, get too hot, are uncomfortable, cause breathing difficulties, make conversations challenging, can’t exercise while wearing, cause pain or don’t fit properly, block facial expressions, can’t eat or drink, aren’t eco-friendly, are ugly or boring, and are difficult to acquire.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The Next-Gen Mask Challenge teams will be composed of the next generation of innovators ages 15-24.

Eligible Countries: Any

Number of Awards: 3

Value of Award:

• The selected three teams will split a one-million-dollar prize purse.
• The selected three teams will be connected to rapid manufacturing opportunities in the U.S. to accelerate the production of their reimagined facial masks.

How to Apply:

• Fill the Application Form 
• Create a 1-2 minute video summarizing the design and description of the mask 
• Recommendation letter/Reference Letter: One letter of support from a high school principal, tenured university professor or administrator, or CEO of relevant organization submitted on official letterhead

Visit Award Webpage for Details

WAAW Foundation Undergraduate STEM Scholarships 2020/2021

Application Deadline: 2nd November, 2020.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Young women from all Africa countries

To be taken at: Applicants home country

About the Award: The Working to Advance African Women (WAAW) foundation aim to increase the pipeline of African women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) related disciplines, and work to ensure that this talent is engaged in African innovation. Scholarships are renewable annually, following proof of the student’s continued academic performance.

Eligible Fields of Study: The following courses in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) apply:
Agriculture, Aircraft engineering, Architecture, Bio Medical, Biochemistry, Biology, Botany, Chemistry, Civil engineering and urbanism, Computer Science, Construction technology and management, Economics, Electronics Engineering, Engineering Agriculture, Environmental Health, Environmental Science, Food Science Technology, Genetics, Geography, Geology, Home Science Nutrition and Dietetics, Industrial Chemistry, IT, Math related fields, Natural Science, Pharmacy, Physics, Science related fields, Statistics, Technology, Zoology

Type: Undergraduate

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: WAAW foundation’s annual scholarship initiative is aimed at supporting need based African female STEM-focused college education. Please read the eligibility criteria before you apply. All non qualifying applications will be automatically deleted! Criteria for eligibility includes:

• Female students of African origin, living and studying in Africa.
• Currently enrolled in undergraduate B.S.degree program.
• Studying STEM related courses in a University or college in Africa.
• Demonstrable financial need, and
• Excellent Academic Record.
• Below the age of 32 years.
• Graduation date is after December of award year

Please note that WAAW does not fund graduate (masters, MBA or Phd) programs, second or subsequent degrees, students older than 32 years, non-STEM focused courses or Diploma degrees. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to these requirements.

Number of Scholarship: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholarship recipients will receive an award of $500 for the academic year, or the equivalent in their country’s local currency. Scholarship recipients may reapply for renewal the following year, with proof of continued excellent academic performance.

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarship is a onetime fund but is renewable annually, following proof of the student’s continued academic performance.

How to Apply: Your application will include the following:

• The application form filled out completely.
• Personal and Contact Information.
• Educational background and Family Information.
• Statement of need should describe why scholarship funds are needed and what the funds will be used for if received.
• Essays are strong criteria in determining candidates who are shortlisted. Responses to essay where to buy modafinil online reddit questions that address career goals and how you expect the WAAW scholarship will assist in your education. Please have your essay responses ready before you begin the application.
  1. In 500 words or less, please write an essay on your future career goals and how you expect the WAAW foundation scholarship will assist in fulfilling those goals.
  2. In 300 words or less, please describe what you believe about female education in Africa and its impact on research, development or advancement in African economies.
  3. In 500 words or less, what is your proudest achievement to date
  
  4. Describe in ten or less sentences why you need a scholarship. Tell us about your need or personal/family/financial situation and how the funds from the WAAW scholarship will assist your education and/or career plans.
• Two academic/professional references. Note recommendation letters and transcripts ARE NOT REQUIRED at the time of application. ONLY after a candidate has been shortlisted. However, you must provide the names of 2 references in your application.

Application link: Click Here to Begin your application or follow this link: http://bit.ly/WAAW_Scholarship

ONLY Shortlisted candidates will be required to send the following additional items in order to complete this process.

• 2 references; one MUST be written by a professor from your institution of study and the other from an academic supervisor/advisor or mentor to be emailed by your referee to us.
• A copy of a current signed and sealed transcript from your University to be emailed to transcripts@waawfoundation.org
• A copy of the student’s School identity card must be scanned and emailed to us.

Please do not email inquiries until you have reviewed all the requirements above,  including the list of accepted and unaccepted course in the FAQ link above.

Please visit our FAQ page for answers to your questions

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Facebook’s Business Model Thrives on the Virality of Hate

Prabir Purkayastha

A recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, “Facebook’s Hate-Speech Rules Collide With Indian Politics,” has blown the lid off Facebook’s unholy alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the right-wing ruling party in India.

In the August 14 article, WSJ reporters Newley Purnell and Jeff Horwitz detail how Ankhi Das, Facebook’s high-flying public policy director for India and South and Central Asia, blocked action against the ruling BJP party leaders. Facebook had tagged these leaders internally as promoting “hate speech” and “dangerous” and with the potential to cause, as Purnell and Horwitz write, “real-world violence.” The reason Das reportedly gave for letting these violations of Facebook’s policy go unpunished was that such action would harm Facebook’s business in India.

Facebook also has recently invested $5.7 billion in leading Indian telecom company Reliance Jio for 9.99 percent of its shares—one of the largest investments ever by any tech company for a minority stake. The largest number of Facebook and WhatsApp users in the world are from India, with Facebook having more than 300 million and WhatsApp in excess of 400 million users. Facebook bought WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014 and has business offerings on this platform, whose rules of engagement are completely opaque. Even more than Facebook, WhatsApp has been the major social media platform for the BJP and its troll army to spread disinformation, as it was for President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.

On August 21, Horwitz and Purnell wrote that Facebook has subsequently come under attack internally for its failure to address violations of its hate speech policy in India: “Facebook employees are pressing the company’s leadership to review its handling of hate speech in India, saying [in a letter addressed to ‘FB Leadership’ that] the company has tolerated toxic content by prominent political figures.”

This is not the first time Facebook’s sheltering of hate speech and divisive right-wing figures has been exposed. In a 2017 article for Bloomberg, Lauren Etter, Vernon Silver, and Sarah Frier wrote that Facebook “actively works with political parties and leaders including those who use the platform to stifle opposition—sometimes with the aid of ‘troll armies’ that spread misinformation and extremist ideologies.” They also wrote that “a little-known Facebook global government and politics team… led from Washington by Katie Harbath, a former Republican digital strategist who worked on former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign,” has helped specific political parties “from India and Brazil to Germany and the U.K.—the unit’s employees have become de facto campaign workers.” In 2018, a five-article series for Newsclick by Cyril Sam and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta ahead of India’s 2019 general elections investigated the close ties between Facebook executives and the BJP, particularly Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s team, and found that the ties went far beyond Facebook’s relationships with other political parties in India.

The August 14 WSJ article identified three prominent BJP figures whose Facebook posts included hate speech: T. Raja Singh, a state legislator from Telangana, had threatened to kill Muslims who ate cows and to shoot Rohingyas, Muslim refugees fleeing Myanmar; Anantkumar Hegde, a member of Parliament from Karnataka, posted cartoons and essays on Muslims spreading “Corona Jihad.” (The WSJ reported that after it asked Facebook about some of Singh’s and Hegde’s posts, “Facebook deleted some of… them” and “said Mr. Singh no longer is permitted to have an official, verified account, designated with a blue check mark badge.” Similarly, “Facebook took no action until the Journal sought comment from the company about… [Hegde’s] ‘Corona Jihad’ posts.”) Kapil Mishra, a former Delhi legislator, played an active role in inciting violent riots earlier this year in New Delhi, for which he has been widely condemned by opposition parties, independent groups, the press, and even (though not by name) Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. These three were among BJP figures flagged internally by Facebook’s team implementing its policy on “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations” as worthy of a permanent ban, as was done in other countries including the United State.

The WSJ coverage may make us believe that the problem in Facebook is an individual’s fault, that of Ankhi Das, its policy head for India. The real issue goes far deeper. The power of digital monopolies—Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft—is not merely determined by their wealth. The social media platforms—Google and Facebook—have taken over the media space, not only in terms of advertising revenue, the lifeblood of the media under capitalism, but also in terms of influence. The greater the engagement that you can generate, the greater the likelihood of gaining a significant viewership and following. Purnell and Horwitz reported that “within two months of the video of the speech” by Kapil Mishra—in which he incited physical violence in clearing protesters—“being posted, the engagement for Mr. Mishra’s Facebook page grew from a couple hundred thousand interactions a month to more than 2.5 million.”

Earlier, it was widely accepted that the press—what Thomas Carlyle had called the Fourth Estate in a democracy—has a social role and therefore needs to be regulated for public good. The Press Council of India, however weak it might be in actual practice, has a code that the press is expected to follow. In the U.S., cross-holdings between different kinds of media are regulated.

There are two issues we need to recognize. The first is that the media is not just any other business but is important for democracy. And the second is that monopoly by itself is also a danger to democracy. U.S. Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis is widely quoted to have said, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

More than 75 years after Brandeis lived, his words on monopoly were cited in the congressional hearing in July with the CEOs of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. The combined market value of the four companies is nearly $5 trillion. If we compare this to the GDPs of entire countries, they come out above Germany, and behind only the U.S., China and Japan. It is this market power that gives them the ability to bend, or in the case of weaker economies, twist out of shape, their legal and regulatory structures.

Unfortunately, the interests of tech companies with this much capital are less and less often aligning with the interests of society. This is becoming clearest with the case of Facebook, as 98.5 percent of its income is from advertisements. Advertisements depend on the number of views, and the virality of posts and engagement are the main drivers of Facebook’s revenue model. Facebook has discovered, as MIT researchers did, that hate and fake news posts drive virality, and therefore it has no incentive to curb such posts. While it has professed lip service for community standards and healthy discourse, the driving force of its business empire comes from its need to have more eyeballs, and therefore it feeds off hate and fake news. An internal study had found that 64 percent of members who had joined extremist groups did so thanks to Facebook’s recommendation tools.

This pathology of social media is not limited to Facebook. Google’s search engine has shown similar problems, as has its image recognition algorithms. But undoubtedly, Facebook has been the leader in spreading hate politics and fake news in the world.

What Trump, Bolsonaro and Modi have in common, apart from their right-wing politics, is their reliance on Facebook and WhatsApp in their campaigns. Though we have seen the phenomena of troll TV—Fox News in the U.S. and Republic TV in India—penetrating the traditional media space, WhatsApp and Facebook have been the primary playground of trolls, aided by Facebook’s algorithms. While it may seem that the right understands digital platforms better than others, and that is why it has had so much success with them, there is increasing evidence that the support that Facebook provides to various right-wing figures and hate speech is not an accident but a part of its strategy.

In the language of new tech, hate speech is not a bug in the systems of social media but a basic feature. The problem of hate speech cannot be solved by politely petitioning the Zuckerbergs of digital monopoly platforms to behave more responsibly. It needs, at the very least, breaking up their monopolies and regulating them as public utilities.

Pakistan’s Choice for an Islamicate Counter-Hegemony

Junaid S. Ahmad

The rapidly shifting geopolitical realities, every new emerging international security situation, and (especially) current circumstances in South Asia behoove Pakistan to treat the Kashmir issue as its top priority – and thankfully Islamabad is doing that. The recent statement by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, concerning the establishment of an alternative Muslim bloc to deal with the Kashmir issue – in the face of Saudi opposition to raising it within the OIC – is certainly historic.

Not for the past half century has Islamabad issued any statement even remotely close to as ‘confrontational’ as this one. There are of course a variety of factors at play, which have led to the culmination of the audacity of the current Pakistani government to be so publicly explicit and candid with the House of Saud.

Prime Minister Imran Khan’s incredibly vocal and relentless pursuit of justice for Kashmiris in the face of Indian annexation and ongoing settler-colonial brutality in the region (driven by BJP’s Nazi ideology)  – and the House of Saud’s immediate blessing of India’s inhumane action is one such factor. The humiliation that the Prime Minister personally felt when MBS vomited all potential threats to Imran and to Pakistan to prevent him from attending the KL Summit proved to be a good lesson of what kind of a ‘friend’ MBS is to him (and to Pakistan).

Simultaneously, there are larger geopolitical tectonic shifts taking place, albeit gradually, that are increasingly enabling Islamabad to commit to affirming its sovereignty, autonomy, and to a process of deepening decolonization.

Certain changes in the international political economic arena have provided Pakistan with a position where interests and future plans of the world’s two most formidable superpowers, both U.S. and China, are completely dependent on Islamabad.  The US, in its typical transactional and opportunistic way, is completely dependent on Islamabad to have some type of withdrawal from Afghanistan. The U.S. National Security establishment is becoming very nervous about Pakistan’s indifference to Washington because of the former’s strengthening relations with China. China, on the other hand, is effectively encircled by American naval ships and bases dead set on some form of confrontation with Beijing at some point – making Pakistan’s Gwadar port literally a lifeline for China to continue its incredible need for energy as well as its preponderant role in global trade and supply lines.

In addition, it is becoming clear that there is something remarkably different about the current political dispensation in Pakistan itself. Both the civilian leadership of Imran Khan and the dominant sections of the military high command are in agreement about much of the foreign policy and national security objectives of Pakistan at this critical historical juncture. Something that many ‘Westoxicated’ liberals in Pakistan aren’t happy with.

Islamabad no longer seems to be handicapped by either the old Cold War framework or the ‘War on Terror’ era that kept Pakistan subordinated and entrapped within the needs of Washington.

The Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal has a predilection to highlight issues of self and sovereignty in post-colonial states such as Pakistan. Now is the right time to reimagine an Islamicate reconstruction embodied in the Pakistani polity.

And crucially, it is at this time when the weaknesses, not the strengths, of global and regional Zionism are on full display. Both Muslims throughout the world as well as the millions upon millions in the Global South and Global North who have been in solidarity with the Palestinians, the Kashmiris, and with oppressed peoples everywhere, see the blatant contradictions by countries like the House of Saud, the UAE, and Egypt. These nations not only refrain from calling out these crimes against humanities that Israel and India are perpetrating but, on the contrary, opt to bestow awards on them (to Modi) and/or legitimize the atrocities (by recognizing Israel in its post-1967 form).

These contradictions can no longer be concealed. Leaders like Imran and Erdogan realize that this is the moment where meaningful Islamicate integration between Muslim nations and societies, seriously committed to social justice, could finally lead to the demise of what many analysts call the curse of Saudi Wahhabi hegemony.

As it is well-understood, this is no easy or small geopolitical maneuvering taking place. It may very well take some time. But the signs are there. The effective enslavement of Islamabad to Riyadh due to economic matters may one day see its pleasant end when Pakistan’s leadership starts taking more trips to Doha than to Riyadh.

It’s a choice that Islamabad needs to make. Having disentangled itself from various humiliating forms of subordination to outside powers, it seems pretty clear that this dynamic of subordination has one remaining irritant left for Pakistanis: that of the House of Saud.

Fortunately, the Pakistani leadership has the choice to be more independent and affirm its own dignity in deepening its integration and cooperation with other Islamicate countries such as Turkey, Iran, Qatar, and Malaysia, as well as with other nations from the Global South. That seems to be the only way forward to deepening decolonization for a real, meaningful independence.

Zooming out we can see a trend of shifting alliances in the world, especially in the Eastern hemisphere. China is leading a bloc joined by Russia and Iran. Turkey and Malaysia are mobilizing too, and it will not be a surprise if they try to jump in as well. Pakistan in such a situation finds itself in a very favorable position both geopolitically and economically. If addressed well, this is arguably the most critical juncture in the country’s history for Islamabad to take advantage of.

Fruits of Illegality: The NSA, Bulk Collection and Warrantless Surveillance

Binoy Kampmark

He has become part of the furniture when it comes to discussions about privacy rights and personal liberties, arguably an odd sort of thing for a man who also dealt in the shadows of intelligence secrets.  But Edward Snowden has been doing his bit to reveal and chip away at the foundations of the national security state that continues to thrive.  The advent of coronavirus and pandemic surveillance will merely serve to advance it, but in June 2013, Snowden’s exposures of National Security Agency practices were raw and unsettling to the wonks of the establishment.

The most troubling of the revelations was not that the NSA conducts surveillance, its natural bread and butter; it was how such grubbily enterprising efforts as the metadata collection program were allowed to flourish with feral abandon.  The forests of paranoia after the 9/11 attacks on US soil proved rich for such legislative instruments as the USA PATRIOT Act.  Section 215, in particular, authorised the bulk collection by agencies of telephony metadata, known in the trade as call detail records.  It had been barely read by members of Congress in a hurry; patriotism can encourage a special sort of dedicated illiteracy.

The NSA program, at least in that form, was ended with the reforms passed by the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015.  Critics were quick to note that section 215 was merely given a trim and a clean.  The original provision permitted the NSA to store call detail records (time, duration, the numbers communicating in a call, excluding the content of the call) and search them as required.  Since the changes, such records are held by telephone companies; the agency can only request them via an order of the Foreign Intelligence Service Court.

The provision, according to Human Rights Watch, “still permits the government to collect a staggering amount of data, in secret and without a warrant, on how people use their phones, chilling freedom of expression and association.”  Between 2015 and 2019, the program cost $10 million and could only boast one significant lead, a palpably poor return for even the most devout surveillance types.

The expiry of Section 215 powers in March 15, 2020 led to a merry legislative jig.  The Senate passed the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act in May.  The oversight measures proposed by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) made it through, expanding the role of independent advisers to the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Service Act of 1978.  But in so doing, the Senate failed to adopt the amendment proposed by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Steve Daines (R-MT), which would have prevented the government conducting warrantless surveillance on internet browsing and search histories.

Wyden was more than a touch irritated at his colleagues.  “The legislation,” he outlined in a statement, “hands the government power for warrantless collection of Americans’ web browsing and internet searches, as well as other private information, without having to demonstrate that those Americans have done anything wrong.”

The Senate also refused to prohibit the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and surveillance conducted under the Article II executive power against people in the United States or in proceedings against them, both ideas of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).

Privacy advocates were feeling a touch deflated.  It took a decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down on September 2 to add a spring to their steps, if only after the fact.  The decision in United States v Moalin was not bound to make them break out into a canter.  The facts of the case covered the previous incarnation of bulk surveillance exposed by Snowden.  The outcome was also a tad troubling.  The four appellants, Somali immigrants convicted in 2013 for transferring $10,900 in support of the terrorist group al-Shabaab, had their convictions upheld.

The judges “held that the government may have violated the Fourth Amendment [protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures] when it collected the telephony metadata of millions of Americans, including at least one of the defendants, pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”.  Unfortunately for the defendants, “the metadata collection, even if unconstitutional, did not taint the evidence introduced by the government at trial.”  The application for suppression of the evidence – what were described by the defendants as the “alleged ‘fruits’ of the unlawful metadata collection,” failed.  Additionally, the FISA wiretap evidence was not held to be “the fruit of the unlawful metadata collection.”

Scattered through the judgment are a few sprinklings of hope for privacy advocates.  Some of these are merely confirmations and recapitulations.  Others are clarifications for the intelligence community.  The government had, for instance, argued that “ordinary criminal investigations” should not be treated in the same context as those in a “foreign intelligence context”.  The Fourth Amendment protections should be applied differently.

Not so, claimed the panel.  The judges acknowledged that the Fourth Amendment required notice to be given to a defendant “when the prosecution intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose information obtained or derived from the surveillance of that defendant conducted pursuant to the government’s foreign intelligence authorities.”  As the Fourth Amendment did apply to foreign intelligence investigations, it followed that “US criminal defendants against whom the government uses evidence obtained or derived from foreign intelligence may have Fourth Amendment rights to protect.”  The problem for the defendants here was that failure to provide notice by the government did not prejudice them.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Patrick Toomey saw the ruling as vindicating “that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ records violated the Constitution.”  The mandatory notice requirement for authorities constituted an essential “protection” in a field of “novel spying tools”.  The Snowden legacy continues to be harvested, if unevenly.

Australian government launches anti-China inquiry in universities

Mike Head

In line with the Trump administration’s escalating anti-China offensive, the Liberal-National government this week announced a federal parliamentary inquiry into alleged “foreign interference” in Australian universities.

Immediately backed by the Labor Party opposition, the inquiry is another direct threat to free speech and also international academic collaboration, which is one of the life-bloods of global research and the development of human knowledge.

It signals a further intensification of the anti-China witch-hunt that has been underway for several years, spearheaded by the US-integrated intelligence apparatus and the corporate media.

The move came just days after Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government announced—also with Labor’s bipartisan support—an unprecedented Foreign Relations Bill, essentially designed to tear up or prohibit all agreements with Chinese entities by universities, as well as state, territory and municipal governments.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton last Sunday outlined the terms of reference for McCarthyite-style parliamentary hearings into “foreign interference in the university sector” in a letter to the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Liberal Party MP Andrew Hastie.

Dutton commissioned the committee to examine “the nature and extent to which foreign actors are interfering in Australian universities, including staff and student bodies, publicly funded research agencies and competitive research grant agencies.”

Alongside “foreign actors,” the inquiry’s targets include university managements and workers. Dutton said the inquiry will “examine whether the current oversight and reporting requirements in response to these issues are appropriate.”

Hastie, a US-connected former military commander, earlier wrote to Morrison publicly requesting such an inquiry. The deputy chair of the committee, Labor’s Anthony Byrne, supported Hastie’s call.

Byrne told the Murdoch media’s Australian: “It would appear that Australian universities have turned a blind eye to their own academics selling their knowledge to a foreign power through a program that the FBI have identified as a national and economic espionage threat.”

According to the Australian, which has played a key role in fomenting the anti-China hysteria, the inquiry, “will examine how other countries such as the US are dealing with the threat of foreign interference.” And it “is expected to hear testimony from senior figures” in the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and “security analysts.”

Last week, an “investigation” by the Australian set out to blacken the names of 30 Australian academics who had supposedly participated in a Chinese government “Thousand Talents” plan to share research activities with Chinese universities.

The real source of this “investigation” was indicated when the newspaper reported: “In the US, the FBI has launched more than 1,000 investigations into the actual or attempted theft of American technology by foreign powers.” Among the recent cases was said to be a scientist “with access to NASA’s secrets” who was a participant in “China’s Talent programs.”

The inquiry comes on top of a web of investigations, “guidelines” and legislation in which university managements are already working hand-in-glove with the spy agencies and federal police, monitoring academics.

The Australian said the Morrison government “has already launched an investigation into some cases exposed by” the newspaper, with “Education Minister Dan Tehan saying the matters were now operational.” It added: “ASIO has repeatedly briefed universities about the potential risk of programs like the Thousand Talents plan this year.”

While expressing concern, university employers pledged to cooperate with the inquiry. Vicki Thomson, the chief executive of the “Group of Eight” wealthiest public universities, said her universities looked forward to appearing before the inquiry to defend their research partnerships.

Since last August, the university managements have been members of the government’s University Foreign Interference Taskforce, which is working to “identify and analyse emerging threats” and ensure “research integrity” and “cyber security.”

The taskforce steering group is led by “National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator” Chris Teal, along with a senior ASIO officer, backed by representatives from the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Signals Directorate (the electronic surveillance agency), the Office of National Intelligence, the Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation (the satellite spy agency) and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, which monitors financial transactions.

The deputy chair is RMIT University Vice-Chancellor Martin Bean, and the members include his counterparts from La Trobe, Newcastle and Queensland universities, plus Thomson and Universities Australia CEO Catriona Jackson.

This taskforce produced 47-page “foreign interference” guidelines for universities last November. The guidelines require universities to pursue “due diligence activities” and ensure “engagement with relevant Commonwealth agencies on legislative compliance and foreign interference.”

Among the questions posed to universities by the guidelines are: “Does the activity or partnership proposed need to be registered under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme?” and “Do contracts provide for the primacy of Australian laws?”

These guidelines raise the spectre of prosecutions. “Some activities are covered by specific legislation, regulation and codes of conduct such as the DTCA [the Defence Trade Controls Act] and Autonomous Sanctions legislation and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 [FITS Act],” the guidelines state.

The DTCA, legislated by the last Greens-backed Labor government in 2012, specifically outlaws any publication or sharing of research findings that could affect the US military alliance. People face up to 10 years’ imprisonment for “publishing or otherwise disseminating” research that relates to items covered by the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty (DTCT) between Australia and the US.

The FITS Act is part of the “foreign interference” legislation introduced in 2018, also with Labor’s support, particularly to target any political activity regarded as pro-Chinese. Under the deliberately vague wording of the FITS Act, anyone who supposedly cooperates with a “foreign” group, including international organisations, must register with the government. For failing to register, a person can be charged with an offence under the parallel Espionage and Foreign Interference Act, punishable by up to 20 years’ jail, for “covertly” collaborating with an overseas organisation or individual.

Behind the sensationalised claims of “Chinese interference,” Australian universities are centrally involved in Washington and Canberra’s military and ideological preparations for war against China.

In 2007, the United States Studies Centre was established at the University of Sydney with US and Australian government funding. Its explicit purpose is to overcome the widespread post-Iraq War opposition to Australian involvement in US-led invasions and military preparations.

Many other universities host “think tanks” and “dialogues” which work closely with representatives of Australian and US military and intelligence forces. In 2016, for example, Lockheed Martin, the biggest US arms contractor, with close ties to the US government, established a new Australian government-sponsored research centre at the University of Melbourne to develop advanced military technologies.

By 2018, 32 universities were partners in the Defence Science Partnerships program, launched by the Department of Defence in 2014 to promote and fund university military research projects.

The latest inquiry marks another step to integrating the universities into the war drive and silencing opposition to Australia’s increasing involvement in the US confrontation with China.

As a result of the bipartisan Liberal-National and Labor commitment to Washington’s anti-China offensive, Australia’s people have been placed in the frontlines of the conflict with Beijing. But concerns remain in Washington about deep anti-war sentiment, and the dependence of sections of Australia’s wealthy elite on exports to China. That is why the witch-hunt is being ratcheted up.

As in the US too, the nationalist agitation against Chinese and other “foreigners” is an attempt to divert the rising unrest being generated by the disastrous, corporate profit-driven response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the soaring levels of unemployment and social inequality.

COVID-19 cases spike in South Korea

Ben McGrath

Since August 14, the number of COVID-19 cases has increased sharply in South Korea with hundreds of new infections per day. Most of these have been located in the densely-populated Seoul metropolitan area, which is home to half of the country’s 51 million people.

As of September 2, there had been 5,679 new cases over almost three weeks. This has brought the total since mid-last month to 20,449, or nearly 30 percent of all cases during the course of the pandemic.

By Wednesday, the number of critically-ill patients had also grown from 12 on August 19 to 124. Hospital beds are lacking, however, despite the ongoing pandemic. In Seoul, there were 55 beds available by the middle of this week for COVID-19 patients in a serious or critical condition and only 16 in the neighbouring Gyeonggi Province. Gangwon Province and North and South Jeolla Provinces, as well as the cities of Gwangju and Daejeon, had no available beds.

In response to the surge in cases, the central government raised its three-tier social distancing scale from Level 1 to “2.5,” enforcing stricter measures in the capital region, but not implementing a full lockdown. Public schools and private academies have been shut for students, while restaurants, indoor gyms, churches, and other places where large numbers gather have been closed or had their hours reduced.

The government is attempting to justify not going to Level 3 social distancing, which would ban gatherings of ten people or more. President Moon Jae-in stated last week that in the event of a lockdown, “Daily lives will come to a halt, jobs will be lost, and we will have to indeed deal with a huge economic blow.”

In other words, Moon is stating that no aid will come to those who lose their jobs, while the actual concern is for the impact on the “economy,” i.e., big business and the banks. In the second quarter of this year, the economy contracted by 3.3 percent. The annual contraction is expected to be 1.3 percent, according to the Bank of Korea.

The government’s implementation of limited social distancing measures is meant to give the veneer of safety while most people are kept on the job and therefore placed in danger. Workers are being forced into factories where COVID-19 has a high chance of spreading. Call centers, shipyards and distribution centers have been at the center of numerous COVID-19 spikes throughout the year.

The Samsung Group, for example, issued a statement on August 24 indicating that no genuine safety precautions would be taken: “At Samsung Electronics, most of the employees in offices and production lines continue to come to work. It is impossible for production-line employees to work from home.”

Hyundai Motors stated that it would respond “flexibly” to new government guidelines, essentially an admission that it would pay lip service to social distancing while also keeping workers on the assembly lines and in danger in order to turn out surplus value. At least one worker from a Hyundai subcontractor earlier this year died after contracting COVID-19.

That measures are being implemented at all is in part due to the fact that safety is a major political issue in South Korea. In 2015, it was one of the hardest hit countries outside of the Middle East during the MERS epidemic. The indifferent response by the authorities at the time helped contribute to the massive protests that broke out a year later.

Workers and youth were beginning to draw the connection that it is capitalism itself that is at the heart of these crises. While the protests were kept within the bounds of bourgeois politics by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, which is aligned with Moon and the Democratic Party of Korea, Seoul does not want to risk a new outbreak of social anger.

The Democrats also feared that an outbreak would trigger unrest shortly before April’s general election. The government therefore implemented police-state measures to track patients and invaded the privacy of countless people. Now, with the ruling Democrats firmly in control of the National Assembly, and previously credited as preventing a wider outbreak, it has turned its attention firmly to protecting big business.

The current outbreak has been traced to the Sarang Jeil Church in northeastern Seoul, with 1,083 members testing positive for COVID-19 as of September 2. Many of its adherents participated in a right-wing rally in Seoul on August 15, the anniversary of Japan’s defeat in World War II, which has contributed to the spread.

Far-right churches like Sarang Jeil are bases of support for the conservative United Future Party, the current main opposition. While Christian superstition—such as the belief that the virus can be stopped by prayer—certainly played a role in the transmission of COVID-19 among its members, the government has attempted to place blame for the current outbreak squarely at the feet of the church and its political opponents.

On August 27, Moon stated, “Still, some churches are sticking to face-to-face worship services,” while adding that a “specific church is rejecting and obstructing the government’s coronavirus-related guidelines,” a reference to Sarang Jeil. He continued, “As a result, South Korea’s antivirus fight, which has been exemplary for the world’s antivirus fight, is facing a crisis at the moment, and the whole country is going through big difficulties.”

This is an attempt by Moon to hide the fact that it is the government’s own policies that created the conditions for the spread of the virus in the first place, despite numerous close calls throughout the summer.

Since Seoul seemed to have the spread of the virus under control in March, the government has been content with having anywhere from 20 to 60 new cases a day. There was no mass testing campaign to identify those who may have contracted COVID-19 and were spreading it to others in the event they were asymptomatic.

Only those who are suspected to have come into contact with a positive patient or those showing symptoms have been able to get tested, while the number of new tests has fallen dramatically. The new outbreak is ultimately a result of the government’s indifference towards the working class and its decision to put big business first.

Germany’s IG Metall union organizes job cuts at Thyssenkrupp-Stahl

Dietmar Gaisenkersting

Germany’s IG Metall union and its works council representatives are helping to force thousands of workers out of their jobs at the steelmaker Thyssenkrupp-Stahl. To this end, they are conducting numerous individual talks with steelworkers whose jobs the company wants to shed. Older steelworkers from Duisburg have told the World Socialist Web Site about the enormous pressure the works council representatives are putting on them.

This is how the IG Metall (IGM) and the works council are pushing ahead with the break-up of the company, under an agreement they reached at the end of May with the owners on the Thyssenkrupp AG Supervisory Board. The corporation’s steel operations are to be merged with another steel group or sold off completely. To drive the company’s share price, the IGM’s works council representatives are working hard to cut 3,000 jobs, as agreed between the union and the company in March.

The joint plan provided for 1,000 employees to leave the company by the beginning of August with severance pay or via a so-called “transfer company.” So far, however, only just over 300 steelworkers have agreed to leave. Given 34,000 unemployed (13 percent) and 50,000 working part time in Duisburg alone, as well as the unforeseeable consequences of the coronavirus crisis, many fear they will never get another job.

On September 1, the so-called “Volunteer Programme” once again came into force. Under this measure, workers receive “transfer payments” for 19 months, amounting to a total of 85 percent of their last net wage. The Federal Employment Agency pays 60 or 67 percent (if children live in the household) of this amount, with the company covering the rest.

Anyone who accepts the transfer payments would subsequently receive only an extremely low severance payment of 20 percent of their monthly gross salary for each year of employment. Severance pay of 50 percent of the last gross monthly salary per year of employment, as recognized by every labour court, would only be paid to employees who left their jobs without joining the transfer company. It is also limited to those born in 1964 or later, i.e., employees under the age of 56.

Older employees, those over 60, are not covered by these regulations. Since it was mainly younger employees who left their jobs via various social plans during the continuous job cuts of recent years, there are still around 4,000 workers over 60 in Duisburg alone, almost one in three.

Since they are no longer covered by the partial retirement scheme, they are now gradually being called into the human resources department for personnel interviews. Company representatives and IG Metall works council members then exert pressure on those who are old, often ill, and no longer able to deliver the necessary performance. One works council member told a 63-year-old steelworker he was “no longer acceptable” to the company.

As these older workers are about to retire anyway, they are to be thrown out of the company with a symbolic severance payment of €6,000 to €9,000. The latter allegedly tops up their unemployment benefit to 85 percent of their last net salary until they retire.

Some workers told the WSWS how they had been called and invited to personnel discussions during their vacation. In other cases, works council members had even visited older workers at home and urged them to sign a termination agreement. Many signed, “to finally draw a line in the sand.”

It is all, “To get rid of superfluous workers at the cheapest cost and to the detriment of the workers,” one angrily told the WSWS. “If you’re not interested [in accepting], they put you under pressure.”

Another reported that if you do not accept three offers, you are threatened with dismissal for operational reasons. The IGM works council representatives argued, among other things, that older workers took away the jobs of their younger colleagues since the jobs would be cut—one way or another.

While workers face having the thumbscrews put on them as they are pressed to resign using all means, Duisburg works council representative Peter Trube will continue to pocket money from the company beyond his regular retirement age. Trube, who was released from his job at Hamborn Beeck to carry out full-time works council duties, should retire in November, then receiving just his regular retirement pension. But now, his employment contract has been extended until the next works council election in April 2022. His colleague, 67-year-old outgoing works council member Helmut Schuckardt, is being given a “consultant contract” as a pensioner until the end of the year.

Such IGM functionaries, who act within Germany’s legal framework of “co-determination,” openly enforce the attacks on workers to such an extent that they can easily and without any inhibitions switch over to management’s camp. Especially in the steel industry, this is now a common practice. For example, former IG Metall secretary and deputy chairman of the Thyssenkrupp supervisory board, Markus Grolms, has been personnel director at Thyssenkrupp-Stahl since April of this year. On the Executive Board, he is responsible for job cuts and works closely with his former colleagues in the IG Metall and the works council.

As early as May 2019, i.e., while still an IGM secretary, Grolms had declared that “the restructuring of Thyssenkrupp is unfortunately unavoidable.” This would be “a difficult, but unfortunately necessary path for the company and the employees.” The employees were “willing to endure pain for it,” said Grolms, who is now an income millionaire. Now steelworkers are experiencing first-hand what Grolms meant by this.

The IGM functionaries and their works council members carry out the company’s dismissal and downsizing plans not simply because they are corrupt—even if many of them are. The deeper reason is their unconditional defence of the capitalist profit system, from which they make a good living as well-paid functionaries. Like the management and shareholders, they believe that jobs, wages, and social achievements can only be maintained if the corporation generates high revenues and profits.

After the Second World War, when the German economy grew rapidly, they were able to provide workers with some crumbs from the companies on this basis. This came to an end with the increased globalization of production in the 1980s and the intensification of economic competition.

The unions reacted to this with economic nationalism and their transformation into direct agencies of the corporations. They defend the competitiveness of “their” companies by attacking the workforce. Company restructuring plans are worked out in the think tanks of the trade union-owned Hans Böckler Foundation, concretized in the executive boardrooms of the trade unions and enforced by the host of works council representatives inside the companies.

The defence of jobs, wages and other gains won by the working class can only be successful if it is organised in opposition to the logic and constraints of the market economy. It must be anti-capitalist, that is, socialist. It is not the profits of companies that are decisive for the organization of the economy, but the interests and needs of the workforce, their families and society.

Workers stand in open conflict with the trade unions. They must join together in new action committees that are politically and organizationally independent of the unions and fight for an anti-capitalist, socialist response to the current attacks.