In the wake of the recent reactionary deal struck by the German grand coalition—Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Christian Social Union (CSU), Social Democratic Party (SPD)—the government is expanding its terror against refugees. In the early hours of July 4, 69 refugees were deported to Afghanistan. The Lufthansa flight from Munich to Kabul was the largest ever mass deportation of refugees to Afghanistan.
All of the parliamentary parties, including the opposition Greens and the Left Party, share responsibility for this criminal action. Fifty-one refugees were deported from Bavaria, while the remaining 18 came from Berlin, Hesse, Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg, Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In most of these states, the Greens are involved in government. In Berlin and Thuringia, the Left Party is part of the administration and has once again demonstrated that it is capable of deporting migrants as brutally as the other Bundestag parties.
In Afghanistan, citizens are confronted on a daily basis with violence, torture and death. The situation in the country, occupied for 17 years by NATO and torn apart by the war, is deteriorating rapidly. This is confirmed by a number of official reports issued by the German Foreign Office.
The German government has been forced to admit this. A government statement from February 2018 to the Bundestag stated: “In Afghanistan, there is fierce fighting and bombings on a daily basis with numerous civilian deaths.” Such “excessive violence” prevails not only in areas dominated by Taliban and ISIS militias, but also in those regions ruled by the puppet government in Kabul. This was confirmed by a United Nations report on torture that states that no area in Afghanistan can be classified as safe.
Previously deportations were limited to those regarded as “potentially dangerous” or those “refusing to integrate,” but now even this official restriction has been repealed. In reply to a question at the beginning of June, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) stated: “In our view, the restrictions have been dropped.” The only concrete reason given for the latest deportations is the claim that “following the major attack of last year the German embassy in Kabul is once again able to better conduct its work.”
Wednesday’s mass deportation involved no less than 134 police officers, while the preparations for the deportations involved major police operations in the respective federal states.
The authorities acted with great brutality. Many of those affected were awoken in the early morning hours of Wednesday, taken into custody and placed directly on a plane in Munich, without being able to pack belongings or say a goodbye. In Bavaria, 21 people had been detained some days earlier. In a press release, Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) proudly announced that the remaining 30 victims in Bavaria were “apprehended by the Bavarian police so early to prevent them evading deportation.”
The Bavarian Refugee Council has criticised the state administration and its interior minister for their use of “a sledgehammer against refugees.” The organisation lists a number of cases in which students and apprentices, full-time employees and even sick people were deported. It writes that the state government is even deporting “well-integrated people and young adults from youth welfare institutions.”
According to the BRC report, one of the deportees was a juvenile apprehended on his way to an apprentice school, while another trainee was arrested at a therapeutic education facility and then deported. Another victim has been living in Germany for seven years and had had a permanent employment contract for the past five years. Yet another was handed over to the police while receiving treatment at the Gauting Psychiatric Clinic in Starnberg.
Also noteworthy is the case of Esam from Munich. The 27-year-old speaks German and had commenced an internship at a Munich bakery at the end of 2017. His employer, who was very satisfied with Esam’s work, wanted to hire him as an apprentice, but the immigration office delayed approval of his training contract for nearly half a year. Esam was among the group that has been deported.
A reporter who was able to speak to several of the deported men in Kabul on Wednesday documented the tragic stories of a number of other victims. Among those deported was Ahmed Hussain, 28, originally from Wardak, an unstable province in Afghanistan. He had worked as a guard and pizza chef in Germany for six years, during which time he paid taxes. Mohammad Nasar from Nangarhar, aged just 21, was another of those roused by police in the early morning hours and then immediately deported.
The only “offence” of all these people is that they failed to obtain asylum from the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). Instead, they have been subject to absurd and cynical accusations. In the case of the young man with the chance of a permanent job in a Munich bakery, the Central Immigration Office of Upper Bavaria outrageously justified his deportation by declaring that his efforts to integrate into German society were a sign he was not prepared to leave the country voluntarily!
Brutal mass deportations are a key element of the offensive undertaken by Germany’s grand coalition against refugees, which is supported by all of the parties in the Bundestag. This offensive is ultimately directed against the entire working class. The “Migration Master Plan” drawn up by Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) provides for the establishment of camps in Germany and throughout Europe that resemble the Nazis’ own concentration camps. At the same time, mass deportations to the war zones of the Near and Middle East are to be massively expanded.
Anyone who wants to know what the CDU, CSU and SPD have agreed in their refugee deal should take a look at Bavaria. Many of the points included in Seehofer’s master plan have already been put into action.
On June 5, the Bavarian state government decided on a new asylum plan, which is due to come into force on August 1. It provides for accelerated deportations and asylum procedures. It is all about “more tempo,” declared Bavarian Minister President Markus Söder (CSU): “We want faster procedures.” To this end, a new state office for asylum and repatriations is being established to start work in Bavaria on August 1, with a workforce of 1,000.
Seven of the so-called Anchor Centres agreed by the CDU, CSU and SPD in their coalition agreement are also to be set up and running in Bavaria for the start of August. The term “anchor” stands for “arrival, decision and return.” In addition to the existing initial reception facilities at Manching and Bamberg, internment and deportation camps are to be established in Regensburg, Deggendorf and three other sites. The plan also stipulates that those incarcerated in the centres should be denied any sort of monetary allowance.
The detention centres, which are in effect prisons, and most other refugee facilities are aimed at systematically sealing off and isolating migrants from the rest of the world. Barbed wire is common and sites are chosen in remote areas, cut off from public access and guarded by security companies.
The refugees living in the camps are not allowed to work or send their children to school. They are cut off from independent legal aid and access to volunteer aides is made almost impossible. The percentage of those qualifying for asylum status is very low and many migrants spend months or even years in such centres. According to the Bavarian state government, 10 percent of the residents of the facilities in Manching and Ingolstadt had been there for more than 18 months.
On Thursday, the German parliament (Bundestag) adopted the budget for the current financial year and spending plans that will operate until 2021 with the votes of the grand coalition partners, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Today, the cabinet will agree on the proposed budget of Finance Minister Olaf Scholz (SPD).
The new budget marks a turning point in postwar German history.
Four years after the German government announced the end of military restraint at the Munich Security Conference, the consequences of that policy are now finding expression in budgetary figures. The most significant features of the new budget plan include a major increase in military spending, the strengthening of domestic police state repression and measures to terrorise refugees.
The defence budget will rise by 4 percent this year, from €38.95 billion ($US45.54 billion) to €42.9 billion ($US50.2 billion). Further major spending increases are planned for the coming years.
In her government statement on Wednesday, Chancellor Angela Merkel stated she was “very grateful that we have an increase in defence spending in our budget … But compared to what others do in relation to their gross domestic product, this is nowhere near enough, and we have therefore committed to spending at least 1.5 percent of GDP on this by 2024.”
The figure of 1.5 percent equals some €53 billion for the military each year. However, it is clear that the ruling elite is pursuing a much more comprehensive rearmament plan. “Protection and security ... cost money, and I want to state here clearly: we stand firmly by NATO’s 2 percent goal,” stated Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen. To reach the NATO target, which the government agreed to at a NATO summit in Wales two years ago, at least €35 billion more would have to be spent on the military annually if economic growth is taken into account.
Von der Leyen made clear that all the parliamentary parties—from the Left Party and Greens to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD)–agree on implementing the return of German militarism in the face of mounting opposition from the population. Early in her remarks, on behalf of the Defence Ministry and the “entire army,” she thanked members of all parties “for their constructive cooperation” in the committees.
The entire parliamentary debate underscored that the ruling elite is once again preparing for war to enforce the interests of German imperialism in Europe and around the world. “It’s about our future, Germany’s future, the future of Europe. It’s about Germany and Europe’s future as an actor in the world,” stated Merkel. It is not possible “to act as if defence is not an urgent issue in our current moment. We all hoped that the world would become more peaceful after the end of the Cold War. But wars are raging on our doorstep.”
Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) emphasised the government’s goal of welding Europe together under German leadership as a military bloc against the other major powers. “The answer—and this is interchangeable—to ‘America first’, ‘Russia first’, or ‘China first’ can only be ‘Europe united’, my dearest ladies and gentlemen,” Maas declared, to the applause of SPD, Christian Democratic Union, Christian Social Union, Green and Left Party deputies.
CSU politician Reinhard Brandl, a member of the budgetary and defence committees, and president of the Society for Defence and Security Policy, gave an indication of the extent of the rearmament plans being worked out behind the backs of the population. By 2023, Germany must be capable of “once again making [brigades] combat-ready and carrying out emergency responses.” Another “issue” was that of “air defence.”
What use would it be to Germany “if we are surrounded by friends, but a crazy dictator from somewhere around the world sends a missile to Berlin and we’re not able to defend ourselves against it?” asked Brandl. A new missile defence system was “under development, but costs several billion euros.”
As in the 1930s, the German military build-up is being accompanied by the strengthening of authoritarian forms of rule and encourages the most right-wing forces in the government and in opposition.
Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) boasted in his speech, “Today we are passing a unique plan for my ministry with an unprecedented scope: €14 billion and an additional 6,000 personnel. It is a budget that sets new standards. Roughly one-third of this, around €5.4 billion, is earmarked for internal security.” The federal security agencies alone will add an additional 4,000 staff. The grand coalition is strengthening “the Federal Criminal Office, the federal police, and we also support the federal authorities, without which a classic security system cannot function.”
Seehofer then celebrated the reactionary agreement between the CDU and CSU on refugee policy, which, among other things, includes a provision for virtual concentration camps in Germany.
He was “positive that we will reach an understanding, and a reliable agreement, with our coalition partners in the SPD.” The most important steps now are “a new regime at the German-Austrian border, the immediate rejection of people with travel bans, and the establishment of transit centres, from where asylum seekers can be deported to the countries responsible as soon as possible.”
With the major programme of rearmament, strengthening of domestic state repression and the growing terrorising of refugees, which is directed against the entire working class, the federal government is increasingly adopting the policies of the far-right AfD. “I am pleased that in the budget sitting, the grand coalition is at least moving in the same direction as our motion by increasing the purchasing budget for vehicles for frontline policing by 50 percent,” stated AfD deputy Marcus Bühl. Party leader Alexander Gauland described the “compromise between Mr. Seehofer and Mrs. Merkel” as “a step in the right direction.”
The Left Party and Greens do not merely have nothing to offer in opposition to the ruling elite’s rightward shift, but are in fact part of the process. In his speech, Green parliamentary group leader Anton Hofreiter focused primarily on complaining that the government crisis had undermined German interests: “It was really unprecedented in its irresponsibility. You pushed the government to the brink of the abyss and caused major uncertainty in Germany and Europe.”
Left Party parliamentary group leader Dietmar Bartsch spoke along similar lines and warned about mounting social and political opposition to the militarist and anti-social policies. “You and your governments bear responsibility for the fact that the German Federal Republic is deeply divided socially, culturally, and politically. You bear responsibility for the fact that people are increasingly losing trust in the state and its institutions.”
The Left Party’s answer is also to rearm the capitalist state and strengthen its repressive apparatus. Bartsch even managed to attack Seehofer and the CSU from the right in his speech: “You have been in government constantly since 2005. And now you don’t want to be associated with the policies you supported? In all of these years, you have held the post of Interior Minister most of the time. You have implemented all of the cuts to the police and public services, and even pushed them ahead. You bear joint responsibility.”
A report issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) July 4 finds what hundreds of millions of workers are experiencing in their daily lives: nearly a decade after the worst financial crash since the Great Depression of the 1930s, wages are stagnating and the benefits of economic “recovery” are going to the corporate elite.
The OECD countries—26 in Europe plus the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Israel and Turkey—accounted for more than 60 percent of world GDP in 2017. The grouping includes seven of the ten largest national economies, excluding only China, India and Brazil.
The report begins with an editorial bearing the striking headline: “Wageless growth: Is this time different?” It points to the fact that the current economic “recovery” differs from previous rebounds from capitalist slumps, because despite lower unemployment rates and a record number of job vacancies in the euro area, the United States and Australia, “wage growth is still missing in action.”
The bulk of the 300-page document is devoted to drilling down into the figures detailing the paradox of “tight” labor markets and stagnant wages in country after country, as well as selected industry groups, but the basic conclusion appears early on: wages are being held down because of the lingering effects of the 2008 crash and the proliferation of low-wage and part-time jobs, particularly for those workers who were laid off in the worst years of the economic crisis.
The initial editorial states, “involuntary part-time employment has risen significantly in a number of countries since the crisis, and this has been accompanied by a deterioration in the relative earnings of part-time workers.”
The report underscores the fact that the 2008 global financial crisis was used by the capitalist class and governments of every stripe around the world to accelerate the decades-long assault on the social position of the working class. In country after country, higher paid full-time positions with a modicum of job protection and health and pension benefits have increasingly been replaced with low-wage and precarious employment.
The executive summary declares that despite the return of average unemployment rates across the OECD countries to pre-2008 levels, “nominal wage growth remains significantly lower than it was before the crisis for comparable levels of unemployment.”
Nominal wage growth has slowed from 4.8 percent per year before the financial crash to only 2.1 percent, less than half. Because of slowing inflation, real wage growth has fallen somewhat less, from 2.2 percent per year to 1.2 percent. But even this slowdown is colossal: a full percentage point per year, over the decade since the crash, accumulates to trillions of dollars in lost wage increases.
The executive summary admits, “Real median wage growth in most OECD countries has not kept pace with labor productivity growth over the past two decades, partly reflecting declines in the share of value added going to labor—i.e., the labor share.”
As the report states later, “If real median wages had perfectly tracked productivity growth over 1995-2014, they would have been 13 percent higher at the end of the period.”
This amounts to an acknowledgement that one of the main claims of the apologists for capitalism—that rising productivity growth will translate into rising wages and living standards—is a lie. In fact, the capitalist class has not only captured all of the increased wealth generated by rising productivity; it has made use of its dominant role in the economy to actually claw back from workers gains in living standards made in an earlier period.
The decline in median wage growth is compounded of two factors: a declining share for labor income overall, and greater inequality in the distribution of wages across the labor force.
According to the OECD report, the aggregate labor share of economic output for 24 of the 36 OECD countries, those that were members throughout the past two decades, fell from 71.5 percent to 68 percent, a decline of 3.5 percentage points.
The labor share fell by the largest amount in the United States, a staggering eight percentage points, while it remained the same or increased slightly in France, Britain and Italy and several of the smaller OECD countries.
Besides the United States, Greece and Spain showed the worst results, falling two points or more below the pre-crisis employment rate, and showing the biggest increases in labor market insecurity, a measure of how far a worker’s wages would fall after being laid off and then rehired to another job.
Even these figures, devastating as they are, conceal some of the decline in the position of the working class, since OECD figures count all salaries as wage income, whether they are paid to minimum-wage workers or corporate CEOs. As the report’s editorial admits, “Real labor incomes of the top 1% of income earners have increased much faster than those of median full-time workers in recent years, reinforcing a longstanding trend.”
The editorial continues, openly worrying about the political consequences, albeit in cautiously understated terms: “This, in turn, is contributing to a growing dissatisfaction by many about the nature, if not the strength, of the recovery; while jobs are finally back only some fortunate few at the top are also enjoying improvements in earnings and job quality.”
The OECD report identifies the primary mechanism for holding down wage increases and lowering the labor share of national income as the spread of low-wage and part-time jobs. This is particularly prevalent among workers who experienced a significant period of joblessness in the period immediately after the 2008 financial crisis, or during the debt crisis that afflicted such European countries as Greece, Ireland, Spain and Italy.
The report notes, “There has a been a significant worsening of the earnings of part-time workers relative to that of full-time workers associated with the rise of involuntary part-time employment in a number of countries. Moreover, the comparatively low wages of workers who have recently experienced spells of unemployment, combined with still high unemployment rates in some countries, have pushed up the number of lower-paid workers, thereby lowering average wage growth.”
This is compounded by the erosion of social safety net programs such as unemployment compensation. The OECD report notes than only one-third of jobless workers were eligible for unemployment benefits overall. The figure for the United States would be far lower.
The economic result of mass unemployment and the spread of low-wage and part-time jobs is a substantial increase in poverty. According to the report, poverty has increased significantly throughout the OECD. Before the financial crash of 2008, 9.6 percent of the population earned below 50 percent of the median household disposable income. By 2016, this figure had risen to 10.6 percent.
Again, an apparently small numerical increase, compounded across the nearly two billion people living in the OECD countries, means tens of millions more people living in acute poverty. (For the United States, 50 percent of median household income would be $24,500, about the same as the official poverty line for a family of four).
In its overall perspective and policy recommendations, the OECD report does not stray beyond the bounds of conventional bourgeois economics. It does not acknowledge that the figures it presents amount to an admission that the capitalist system has failed. Instead, it proposes to muddle along through cautious bureaucratic maneuvering.
The report even suggests that trade unions can ameliorate the impact of the crisis: “Co-operation and co-ordination among social partners have a key role to play in addressing these challenges, but this requires addressing the long-term trend decline in union membership and eroding role of collective bargaining in a number of countries.”
Such language simply ignores the actual role of the trade unions and collective bargaining, which have served to reduce rather than increase labor’s share of national income throughout the period in question. In other words, the corporatist role of the unions (“social partnership” in OECD jargon), helped the capitalists slash wages during crises and hold down any rebound in pay during the supposed “recovery.”
The immense transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top since the 2008 crash was only possible because of the suppression of working-class resistance by the trade unions. In the US, for example, the number of major work stoppages between 2008 and 2017 was the fewest for any decade since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began recording figures in 1947. The explosive growth of social inequality, however, is fueling the resurgence of the class struggle around the world.
It is, of course, entirely beyond the purview of the well-paid bureaucrats at the OECD to draw any radical conclusions from an economic situation that is both dire and growing worse. But workers can draw their own conclusions, not from the dry pages of an economic report, but from their own lives. There is no time to be lost in the mobilization of the working class, as an independent political force, to fight for a socialist and revolutionary alternative to the capitalist system.
KP Fabian The US first imposed various sanctions on Iran in 1979 when the US embassy was occupied, with the staff taken hostage, following the fall of US-supported Shah. Oil sanctions were imposed in 2012 ‘to stop Iran from making a nuclear bomb’ even though the CIA had determined that Iran had ceased its bomb-making project in 2003. Some of the sanctions were suspended by then US President Barack Obama following the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA/Iran nuclear deal) and Iran began selling oil.
On 8 May 2018, incumbent US President Donald Trump walked out of the JCPOA and revived these sanctions, asserting that over time Iran would seek a revised deal and has demanded that Tehran ‘stop’ its ‘destabilising’ policies in the region including ‘support to terrorism’ and its ongoing ballistic missile programme. Trump also wants a ‘regime change’ in Iran. His decision stunned the world (except Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE). Trump has not given any good reason for his decision because there is none. Even given his ‘transactional approach’ to geopolitics, it is difficult to rationally justify the decision.
Against this backdrop, it is important to evaluate the broader geopolitical picture and India's interests before deciding whether New Delhi should continue buying oil from Tehran.
Geopolitics of the Situation Last year, Iran shipped around 777 million barrels of crude oil and 180 million barrels of condensate, averaging 2.62 million barrels a day. If all the importing countries abide by the US' demand, Iran’s oil exports will stop by November 2018 or even earlier. However, that will not happen. China will continue to purchase oil from Iran. Meanwhile, the EU's position, despite earlier indications of it’s wanting to stand up to the US, is uncertain. There is an ongoing trade war between the EU and the US. The EU lacks strong political leadership with German Chancellor Angela Markel’s clout weakening and French President Emmanuel Macron not yet able to provide strong leadership. Under these circumstances, the EU might not stand up to Trump. However, if the ongoing trade war between US and EU escalates, EU might take a tougher stand.
In short, there is no concerted international move now to stand up to the US as one might have expected in a less irrational world. But, it is reasonably clear that China and Russia will get closer to Iran and derive geopolitical advantage.
Looking at the big picture, it is most unlikely that Iran will surrender and ask Trump for another nuclear deal. There can be a ‘regime change’ in Iran, but any new regime would likely take an even tougher position towards the US. While one cannot predict how Iran might react to India’s reducing drastically or stopping of oil imports, it would be useful to recognise that Iran has means to retaliate.
Continuing Oil Imports from Iran: Pros and Cons for India One needs to evaluate the pros and cons of buying oil from Iran while also bearing in mind the big picture and Indian national interest, both short and long terms.
If India does not 'fall in line', the US might punish India by disallowing Indian commercial entities dealing with Iran to enter the US market. If India is the only country that does not 'fall in line', New Delhi will find itself in a difficult position with the US focusing all its fury on one country. On the flipside, India will be making a grave error of judgment if it concerns itself only with the availability of oil. Iran, with its population of 82 million, is an ancient civilisation that has been linked to India in many ways over the millennia. Given the sad state of India-Pakistan relations, Iran alone can provide India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. India is deeply engaged in the development of the Chabahar Port and associated projects that give India such access. In 2017, India exported wheat to Afghanistan through Chabahar. That port development project is part of a much larger North-South Transport Corridor. If India stops oil imports, Iran might respond by stalling India’s participation in the Chabahar Port project. China has control over the neighbouring Gwadar Port in Pakistan—a matter of some geopolitical concern to India. Moreover, India’s claim to be a great power will be questioned if it meekly accepts the US' demand. After all, a great power is one that behaves as a great power.
Looking Ahead What will Trump do if India continues to import oil from Iran through companies created solely for that purpose and hence not need access to the US market? In the past, India had a reasonably successful Rupee-Riyal arrangement. Moreover, if India complies in the case of Iran, the US' pressure on New Delhi to stop buying the S-400 missile system from Russia will only increase as the US will invoke its Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions (CAATSA).
Assuming India's various ministries and agencies with the Ministry of External Affairs as coordinator have already conducted a holistic study of the pros and cons, the task at hand (in either scenario) for India should be: if the conclusion is to 'fall in line', India should see what it can get in return from the US. If the conclusion is to defy the US, then it will be necessary to come out with a statement to that effect by the joint secretary responsible for MEA's External Publicity & Public Diplomacy (XPD) Division.
The latest signalling from Washington is that India can expect ‘waivers’ provided it progressively reduces imports from Iran. In diplomacy, it is almost always important to make one’s position clear as early as possible. Trump is basically transactional and will think twice before punishing one of the biggest buyers of arms from the US. Diplomacy is the art of dancing with more than one partner at a time. Meek surrender or appearance thereof is not part of mature diplomacy.
Application Deadline: 14th August, 2018 Offered annually? Yes Eligible Countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo (Democratic Republic of the), Congo-Brazzaville (also known as Republic of the Congo), Côte d’Ivoire (commonly known as Ivory Coast), Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Western Sahara, Zambia, Zimbabwe. About the Award: The Pan African Awards reward the very best projects which are using enterprise and entrepreneurship to innovate in the field of education. The awards are generously supported by The Saville Foundation, a charitable foundation based in South Africa. Teach A Man To Fish manage the awards using their expertise in enterprise education and highlight inspirational models and projects through their large network of educational organisations and schools. Participants must follow these guidelines:
Is your education or training project based in Africa?
Does your organisation actively demonstrate the success of their entrepreneurial approach to education? See above for our meaning of ‘entrepreneurship in education’.
Is your education project innovative and inspiring?
Does your organisation have a large network of young people?
Can you show that your project has had a positive impact on young people and your community?
Type: Contest Eligibility: The main criteria for becoming successful are:
They’re entrepreneurial- they have innovative ways of tackling problems in education, they generate their own income, or they empower future generations of entrepreneurs.
They’re sustainable- they are financially, socially and environmentally sustainable in the future and that look beyond donations and subsidies as their primary source of income.
They create Impact- they achieve measurable results in terms of educational achievement and economic outcomes for participants and the wider community.
Number of Awardees: Three (3) Value of Award:
First prize of $15,000, 2nd and 3rd prizes of $5,000.
Alongside winners will also benefit from enhanced visibility and enhanced sponsorship and donor opportunities.
In addition, applicants that reach the shortlist stage will be invited to apply for the Future Partner Prize. For this prize, organisations are required to submit ideas on how they could partner with Teach A Man To Fish to take the School Enterprise Challenge programme to a wider audience. Winners will receive a cash prize and will work further with Teach A Man To Fish to become a future partner.
For exceptionally high performing organisations, it is possible to win both a top prize and the partner prize.
All winners will also win a fully funded spot for one delegate at the annual Education That Pays conference.
Duration of Award: Not stated How to Apply: Applications are now open. To get your application ready:
Read about the competition, eligibility criteria and application tips in the Application Guide (Link below).
Review the Terms and Conditions (Link below)
Download the Offline Formto see the questions on the application and prepare your answers
Application Deadline: 31st July 2018 Eligible Countries: Developing Countries To Be Taken At (Country): Kigali, Rwanda About the Award: In order to ensure the daily issues faced by rural poor people and their communities are acknowledged, it is important that their stories are heard and their voices are amplified. With funding from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the specialised UN agency, we will bring together journalists from around the world in Rome to attend IFAD’s event on innovative approaches to inclusive financing for rural transformation. The 2030 Global Agenda requires the development of innovative approaches incentivizing sustainable and inclusive investments. Such approaches are about aligning private and public investors around shared sustainable development objectives and mobilizing diverse sources of development finance (including climate finance and private finance), channeling it towards rural investors, including smallholder farmers and rural small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Being at the conference will allow journalists access to high profile delegates, leading experts in the issues, including IFAD and UN technical experts, as well as a number of small holder farmers who will be invited. IFAD works with those most affected by poverty, food security, gender inequality, environment and climate change. This should not be seen as a one-off workshop; indeed, we would expect all journalists who are selected to attend to pursue stories along these issues in their home countries after the workshop. Type: Workshop Eligibility:
An opportunity for journlaists from across Africa.
Applicants must be full-time journalists or regular contributors to a media organisation. Applicants must be able to demonstrate a commitment to a career in journalism in their country, and should have at least two years’ professional experience and have a good level in spoken and written English. Facilitators will also speak French.
We would also like to see professional evidence of your interest in the field of rural peoples’ issues and development.
Number of Awards: Not specified Value of Award: Bursaries would include air travel expenses (economy class), accommodation, local transfers and meals. Please note that you need to check visa requirements and ensure you have the necessary documentation required. The cost of your visa and any other related costs will be the responsibility of the participant. This arrangement is subject to variation. Duration of Program:03 September to 07 September How to Apply: Please provide the following: Statement explaining your motivation to attend; your CV or biography; and two examples of your work. APPLY Visit the Program Webpage for Details Award Providers: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
Application Deadline: 12th October 2018 Eligible Countries: International To Be Taken At (Country): Germany About the Award: Applicants are invited to base their projects on the collections of the Deutsches Museum and to cooperate closely with museum staff on site when formulating their research proposals. Projects involving innovative approaches to artefact-oriented research are especially welcome. During their stay, visiting scholars will have daily contact with the museum´s curators, archivists and librarians (approx. 50 staff members) as well as members of the Münchner Zentrum für Wissenschafts- und Technikgeschichte (Munich Center for the History of Science and Technology; approx. 50 staff members). Scholarship holders will have their own workplace with a desktop computer and telephone, and the opportunity to reside temporarily in subsidized apartments of the museum complex insofar as these are available. They will present their research projects to colleagues at the beginning of their stay and will be expected to participate regularly in the museum’s and the Munich Centre’s Monday colloquium series and workshops. Type: Research Eligibility:
Scholars at any level of seniority are eligible to apply, provided they have at least one university degree.
There are no restrictions regarding nationality.
All scholars are requested to make their own provisions for health insurance.
The ability to read German is a prerequisite for the application (passive language skills).
Number of Awards: Not specified Value of Award: Pre-doctoral stipends: € 7,500 (six months) / € 15,000 (full year). Post-doctoral stipends: € 15,000 (six months) / € 30,000 (full year). Duration of Program: 6 or 12 months How to Apply: Please send applications, including:
two confidential references (can be sent directly by the referees)
to the following address: Andrea Walther Coordinator of the Research Institute Deutsches Museum 80306 Munich Tel.: 00 49 (0) 89 2179-280 Fax: 00 49 (0) 89 2179-239 E-Mail: a.waltherdeutsches-museum.de Visit Programme Webpage for Details Award Providers: Deutsches Museum
M. Adil Khan Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh
Until 2008, Bangladesh elections did not attract much attention in India and at the same, within Bangladesh India never figured as an important factor in any of its election discussions, neither.This changed since 2008. Although seeds of the change were sown more immediately in the aftermath of the end of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) rule in 2006, its origin goes back to the evolving character of politics of Bangladesh,especially since 1975.
In 1975,numerous coups and counter coups contributed to Ziaur Rahman, the military commander and a liberation war hero assuming power who also formed within couple of years his own political party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, BNP. Zia re-oriented Bangladesh both ideologically that promoted the notion of a Bangladeshi national identity based on its majority faith, Islam. He also redefined Bangladesh’s geopolitical arrangements which until then was dictated by a‘25-year India/Bangladesh friendship treaty’ that gave India disproportionate control over Bangladesh’s foreign and defence policies. Zia scrapped the treaty. India was unhappy but not hostile.
BNP Leaders in Delhi
India’s ire with BNP intensified after Zia’s death, more pronouncedly since 1990 when after staying few years in the political wilderness, the party returned to power through a first ever free and fair election in the country. During its first tenure, BNP focused more on development issues and less on foreign relations. However, it was during its second term, 2001-2006, that India became particularly unhappy with BNP as the party leaned more and more towards the Islamic block including Pakistan. India was also annoyed because during this term, it blamed BNP for alleged collaboration with Pakistan’s notorious ISI, its military intelligence in supporting cross—border insurgencies in North East India.
The discord between BNP and India was mutual – while, India regarded BNP as a security threat, BNP viewed India as an impediment to Bangladesh’s progress.
In end 2006, BNP’s second term ended amidst allegations of massive corruption, harbouring of cross—border terrorism against India and promotion of Islamic sectarian politics in Bangladesh. Furthermore, against the backdrop of growing mutual dislike between itself and India As the prospect of an election loomed, India for the first time became openly active in Bangladesh’s internal politics, with the aim to replace BNP with the party of their choice, the Awami League (AL), in the seat of government.
2008 Election and India: the beginning of engineering
An army backed Care-Taker Government (CTG) took over power in 2007 and under its supervision, an election was held in 2008 and as was predicted and given BNP’s poor record in governing BNP lost the election and AL won. Up to this was fine. Given BNP’s poor record in governance no one doubted that AL would win but what surprised most observers was the magnitude of the victory – AL won with two/third majority and this is where India’s engineering of Bangladesh’s election first began.Indeed it is surmised that one individual that played a key role in catalysing India’s engineering of Bangladesh election outcomes was none other than the then Foreign Minister, Pronob Mukherjee, Sheikh Hasina, the leader of AL addresses as ‘Dada’ (brother). India’s backing of AL did produce its desired result but as could be expected, not without a price.
Indeed, reporting on India’s role in AL’s victory and AL’s gratuitous reciprocation to India,the Economist, duly recorded how ‘bag full of Indian cash and advice’ produced dramatic results for the AL and that how ever since this victory, “….. relations with India have blossomed…..Bangladesh has cracked down on extremists with ties to Pakistan or India’s home-grown terrorist group, the Indian Mujahideen, as well as on vociferous Islamist (and anti-Indian) politicians in the country. India feels that bit safer.”AL’s 2008 victory also resulted in granting of numerous other favours without a quid pro quo,most notably the promised Teesta water never flowed to irrigate and navigate Bangladesh Rivers.AL’s gratitude and subservience to India also had a sad side to it. At this time when India’s Border Security Forces were indiscriminately killing border-crossing Bangladeshis – indeed illegally – AL government looked the other way and never complained.
Other changes of ominous nature that have changed Bangladesh’s political processes for ever soon followed, presumably with India’s nod.After ascending to power in 2008 AL took steps to ensure its permanency in the government. It took full advantage of its two/third majority in the Parliament- many believe an outcome of India’s election engineering – and scrapped the non-party election-time Care-Taker Government (CTG) system, a system that while in opposition AL itself once demanded and got installed and a system that conducted four elections – including the one that brought AL to power in 2008 – with such integrity and neutrality that it became a world model. However, killed by its midwife and by putting the government controlled Election Commission (EC) in charge of polls,the AL has virtually banished all possibilities of fair contest and instead ensured its permanency in government, an arrangement that obviously suited India.
2014 Election and India: blatant engineering
However despite these opportunistic changes and because of its poor record in human rights, corruption, rule and also due deteriorating law and order etc. AL’s popularity plummeted by the end of its tenure in 2013 and as another election neared, AL sensed trouble especially because its adversary, the BNP which it subjected to untold repression and suppression during the last 4 years of rule re-surged as a formidable force.
Encouraged by its renewed strength BNP started to prepare to participate in the upcoming 2014 election, but fearing another engineering from within and outside, it was reluctant to do sothrough the government controlled EC system. They demanded re-introduction of the non-party CTG system, as poll supervisor. However, given its dwindling popularity, this was too much of a risk forAL to take and thus it refused to revert to CTG system. BNP remained adamant and decided to boycott the election. This shook AL and also its patron India. India immediately got into the act to the rescue its client.
By ignoring all diplomatic norms India got itself engaged in Bangladesh’s election process quite openly and its top bureaucrats became regular visitors to Dhaka, lobbying and pressurizing brazenly various opposition parties including BNP to participate in the election under the EC system. Indians also started to lobby the international community in a partisan manner arguing that AL was West’s best bet in their fight against ‘Islamic terrorism’ and thus an AL ‘win’ in the ensuing election must not be compromised. However, as BNP’s – the only credible opposition party in Bangladesh – boycott of election became more and more evident, India’s biggest challenge was to find an ‘opposition’ to give the election result – which no one had any doubt what that would be – some legitimacy.
India’s scheming bureaucrats got into action with incredible zeal to manufacture an ‘opposition and found in the Jatiyo Party (JP), party of the much despised and deposed military ruler, Ershada willing partner. JP agreed to ‘participate’ in the ‘election’ in exchange of basket-full of favours in a post-election AL government.
Thus JP ‘participated’ andAL ‘won’ and JP got its promised gifts – itis now both an opposition in the Parliament and also a partner in the government, it holds several cabinet posts and the party chief, Ershad who once earned the unenviable title of Biswa Behaya(the most shameless person on earth)became a special envoy of the Prime Minister.
This is how India, World’s largest democracy created history by engineering one of world’s worst.Commenting on the farcical nature of the 2014 Bangladesh General Election the Hindu, a leading newspaper in India observed at the time that “By every account, the January 5 election [of 2014], Bangladesh’s 10th so far, was a low point for democracy. The boycott of the 18-member Opposition alliance meant half the seats Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League won were uncontested, and about half of the remainder were against unknown candidates with estimates of the turnout just 22-30% of the voting population.”Furthermore, even though West would always prefer a government in Bangladesh, a Muslim majority country that takes a strong stand against ‘Islamic terrorism’ and AL promised to do so, they refused to endorse India’s blatant engineering of the election and US slammed it by saying that it was “disappointed “andUK, Australia and the EU actually called for “another poll at the earliest.”
“Another poll” never happened. AL continued to rule,without any legal and moral legitimacy and with impunity. It unleashed unimaginable brutal and dubious legal means – which is continuing till to date – to suppress and marginalise the opposition, allegedly, with India’s help. Indeed, according to Shafquat Rabee, a social media activist that in post 2014 periods India’s control over Bangladesh complete and all-encompassing that “Many in Bangladesh now believe…….that India is behind the day–to-day security protection of certain Bangladeshi leaders. India is carrying out stealth operations inside Bangladesh wearing Bangladeshi forces’ dresses. India has trained and sent special operations teams in Bangladesh.”
India rejects these claims as “outrageous and unfounded”butwith another general election in Bangladesh looming at the end of 2018, itsdomineering role in Bangladesh’s internal politics that has not only re-surfaced but it is re-appearingwith a worrying difference gives much credence to this theory.
Upcoming 2018 Election and India: from blatant engineering to colonial domination
With general election in Bangladesh lurching and with ruling AL’s popularity plummeting again and in the absence of its old ally, the Congress in the government in India, AL including Sheikh Hasina, the PM of Bangladesh herself are vigorously lobbying the BJP government for its patronage(read this as engineering) in the election. Indeed, reporting on a recent meeting between Hasina and Modi, the Indian PM in Kolkata in May this year, the Anandabazar revealed that the Bangladesh prime minister made a fervent appeal to her Indian counterpart for support, while reminding him of the favours her government had extended to his country especially in tackling militant insurgencies in India’s Northeast, suppressing Islamists and also of the support the party provided to India “…..in all its international endeavours since her party came to power in January 2009”. Quoting unspecified sources, the Ananda Bazar also reported that Sheikh Hasina further reminded Modi that if ALfailed to ‘win’ the upcoming election, “India would have another Pakistan on its eastern front” alluding to the BNP, its rival as a ‘pro-Pakistan’ party, arguing that if BNP comes to power it would risk India’s security, with Pakistan’s help all over again.
However, what is quite revealing in the current dynamics and something that had never happened in the political landscape of Bangladesh before,is that the opposition BNP, often regarded as ‘anti-Indian’ and a staunchly nationalist political party has also become a cahoot in the cabal. In June the BNP had sent a high-powered delegation to Delhi and met BJP heavies and while promising to assist India in its security concerns and stressing that if elected the party would never allow and/or support any cross-border insurgency activities on Bangladesh’s soil, argued that it is in India’s interest that they be seen as a “champion of democracy and human rights” in the coming election and not be partisan and support Sheikh Hasina who according to BNP is building a “one-party rule” in Bangladesh. BNP delegation appealed to the Modi government to support a free and fair election and play “a constructive role, and not back any one party in the elections.” Following the trail of AL and BNP, other political leaders including Ershad have also joined the cavalcade to Delhi.
As could be predicted,parleys with India by the two rival major Bangladeshi parties for its election-time patronage have degenerated into usual AL/BNP spat. The pro-AL local media have greeted BNP’s- a party that until recently projected itself as a staunch nationalist party and AL as India’s stooge -lobby with India with sarcasm.However BNP claims that that there an important difference between them and AL – AL wants Modi to arrange its win, BNP appealed to India to ensure a free and fair election.
Regardless, the ominous dimension of the pilgrimage of Bangladeshi politicians to India on the eve of another general election in Bangladesh drives one hard and unpalatable truth which is that it is not the people of Bangladesh but India that decides who they be governed by – this is nothing but a clear manifestation of colonial structuration of relations currently existing between the two countries.
On Delhi’s defence this can indeed be claimed that so far has remained non-committal and has indicated that they may not take any side as they prefer not to put ‘all eggs in the same basket’. But putting different ‘eggs’ in different baskets hardly changes the fundamental and this is because in a colonial arrangement that currently characterizes Delhi/Dhaka relationship ‘eggs’ may be different but the ‘basket’ would still be Delhi’s – they would be calling the shots, not Bangladeshis. Indeed, in this evolving self-inflicted self-colonizing political scenario,the people of Bangladesh has lost their freedom. Thanks to self-seeking politics, their leaders have turned them into a flock of sheep to be herded by India. This is both sad and also dangerous.
Capture of Bangladeshi institutions, engineering election outcomes and installation of puppet governments in Bangladesh by India to fill its hegemonic aspirations may help it in the interim but a whole nation disrespected and cornered over a long period of time is unlikely to be in its best interest. Pakistan tried that. For over 25 years Pakistan tried to subdue, exploit and plunder erstwhile East Pakistan is through puppets regimes but failed. A time came when‘East Pakistanis’, the Bengalis of Pakistan’s eastern wing – 90% of whom are Muslims –rose against their Muslim cousins, kicked them out and separated from them in bloodied conditions.
Indeed, prolonged suppression of popular wills has its risks, sowould ‘Dadagiri’, eventually!
In order to chart a more mutually respectful and thus a more enduring relationship between the two countries what is required is that both countries understand each other’s needs and fears in equal measure. Bangladesh has to realize that India is an important and a powerful neighbour and therefore, it is not in its best interest to do things that threaten its neighbour’s interests especially its security interests and at the same time, as Kofi Anan once said, “No nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over allothers” India also has to appreciate that colonial domination and puppet and unpopular governments in its neighbourhood may give it temporary but not enduring reprieve. If history is any guide, such an approach may do just the opposite. While India has to ensure that it does not have another Pakistan next door, it also has to make sure that its actions do not produce another Kashmir in its backyard.
Therefore, as fast growing economies both India and Bangladesh must look at opportunities that benefit them mutually and also equitably and promote activities that strengthen each other’s security and sovereignty.
The Bangladesh 2018 election offers a good opportunity for both India and Bangladesh to end an arrangement that is unhealthy and mutually predatory and make a new-beginning to work towards lasting peace, security and prosperity of their people.
A new East Timorese government was sworn into office on June 22, following an early election held in May that was triggered by the collapse of a minority Fretilin administration earlier this year. Fretilin is now the official opposition party, after receiving 34 percent of the total vote and 23 of the 65 seats in parliament.
A new tripartite coalition called the Alliance of Change for Progress (AMT), led by Xanana Gusmão and Taur Matan Ruak, is in power, after it won 49.6 percent of the vote and 34 parliamentary seats. Ruak, the former head of the Timorese military, has been installed as prime minister.
Gusmão, the former guerrilla leader during the Indonesian occupation of the former Portuguese colony (between 1975–1999) and former president and prime minister of the new state, is reportedly preparing to serve as the Minister of State and Advisor to the Prime Minister. This position will see him retain control over negotiations for the pending corporate exploitation of the Greater Sunrise and other offshore gas fields.
The new government confronts an escalating political and economic crisis, exacerbated by rising geo-political tensions that are being fuelled by the efforts of the US and its allies, including Australia, to counter China’s regional influence.
Timor’s political establishment, which continues to be dominated by the “1975 generation” of independence leaders, is increasingly distrusted by ordinary people. Those aged less than 25 years comprise nearly 70 percent of the population. All they have experienced is the bitter failure of the promise that an “independent” capitalist statelet established under the patronage of various imperialist powers would deliver prosperity and national liberation.
Scheduled parliamentary elections in July 2017 followed two years of a so-called national unity government in which Fretilin and Gusmão’s National Congress for Timorese Reconstruction (CNRT) shared power. Mass poverty and unemployment continued to plague Timor, and both parties saw their vote decline in the 2017 poll, with the CNRT registering an 8 percent plunge, to 29.5 percent.
Fretilin only just won in 2017, securing 29.7 percent of the vote, and went on to form a minority government with just 23 of the parliament’s 65 seats. However, the CNRT and other smaller opposition parties subsequently blocked all government legislation, including the national budget. A protracted impasse was only broken earlier this year by President Francisco Guterres who triggered another election—the first time an early vote has been held in the country.
Fretilin lost despite its share of the vote increasing from under 30 percent in 2017 to 34 percent this year. This small rise did not reflect growing support for the incumbent government. Whereas in 2017 twenty different parties were on the ballot, this year just eight options were presented to voters. Minor parties formed multiple electoral coalitions in an attempt to reach the 4 percent of the vote required for a seat in parliament under the proportional representation system.
Fretilin’s election campaign featured party leader Mari Alkatiri promising to create additional “special economic zones,” in a bid to attract additional international investment by offering corporations more zero-tax and cheap labour havens. The pledge underscored Fretilin’s evolution over recent decades—in line with bourgeois nationalist organisations around the world—from a party purporting to represent the anti-colonial and even anti-capitalist aspirations of the masses to one acting as the open and ruthless instrument of finance capital and transnational corporations.
Less than a fortnight after the new AMT government formally took power, it is already clear that Timor’s political crisis has been exacerbated by the latest elections.
Beyond a shared thirst for the spoils of power, there is little uniting the three component parties of the governing AMT coalition. Gusmão’s CNRT and Taur Matan Ruak’s People’s Liberation Party are the main forces, backed by the year-old Khunto party that was formed by several of Dili’s martial arts street gangs.
The AMT is mired in numerous corruption allegations. President Guterres last month refused to swear-in 11 proposed government ministers, on the basis that some already had corruption convictions while others are under active investigation by the public prosecutor’s office. The latter category reportedly included the government’s proposed defence and finance ministers. Xanana Gusmão boycotted the swearing in-ceremony, in protest against Guterres’s decision.
While Ruak is prime minister and Gusmão his senior “advisor,” it remains to be seen how the two figures, who have previously clashed over rival economic development initiatives, will work together. In 2006, while serving as president, Gusmão helped instigate a violent split within the Timorese military and collaborated with an Australian military intervention in order to oust his rival, Fretilin’s then Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri.
There are also reported tensions between the AMT government and the Timorese armed forces.
A New Zealand Defence Force commander, Kerry McKee, who is serving as a “strategic advisor” within the Timor-Leste Defence Force (F-FDTL) leadership, has raised the prospect of a military coup. In a provocative email distributed via an East Timor “riseup” listserv, McKee explained that there were personal tensions between F-FDTL head Lere Anan Timor and both Prime Minister Ruak and his proposed defence minister.
“How this will play out will be interesting to watch,” McKee wrote. “[I]s there potential for the foundation of a coup d’état should Govt not perform [?] A long shot but not beyond the realm of possibility noting [Lere Anan Timor’s] continued commentary on politics.”
Australian imperialism is undoubtedly continuing to intrigue behind the scenes. Last March, concerned by China’s growing influence as well its ability to exploit Australia’s hypocrisy over territorial disputes in the South China Sea, the Turnbull government conceded a maritime boundary covering the gas-rich Timor Sea. The Australian government and its allied transnational energy giants are nevertheless still refusing to countenance piping the Greater Sunrise gas reserves to Timor to be processed.
At the same time, an anti-democratic, secret trial is being prepared for a former Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) officer, who is only identified as Witness K, and his lawyer, former Australian Capital Territory Attorney-General Bernard Collaery. Witness K exposed the illegal bugging of an East Timor cabinet room in 2004, by spies posing as aid workers, during negotiations for the division of Timor Sea oil and gas revenues between Canberra and Dili.
The provocative prosecution of the whistleblower and his lawyer is undoubtedly intended, at least in part, to send a pointed message to the Timorese government, ahead of a planned visit to Dili by Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop later this year.
deutsches-museum.de
