30 Sept 2016

Finland Government Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th February, 2017.
CIMO will inform both successful and unsuccessful candidates of the results by June annually.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: The Finland Government scholarships are based mainly on cultural agreements or similar arrangements between Finland and the following countries:
  • Australia
  • China
  • Cuba
  • Egypt
  • Israel
  • Japan
  • Mexico
  • Mongolia
  • Namibia
  • Peru
  • Republic of Korea
  • Turkey
  • Ukraine
  • USA
To be taken at (country): Finland
About the Award: The Finland Government Scholarship Pool programme is open to young researchers from all academic fields. The scholarship cannot be applied for Master’s level studies or post-Doctoral studies/research. The Finnish Government Scholarship Pool programme application form is not an application for a study/research placement. It is merely an application for funding.
Type: Doctoral Scholarship
Eligibility: In order to be an eligible applicant for the Finland Government scholarships, candidate must first successfully apply for a study/research placement at a Finnish university/public research institute – in other words, you must be at least provisionally accepted either as a visiting Doctoral-level student/researcher, or as a full-time Doctoral degree student. Please see section Doctoral Admissions for information on how to apply for a Doctoral-level study or research placement in Finland.
To be eligible, the applicant must:
  • have established contact with the Finnish receiving institution before applying (see section ‘Doctoral Admissions’)
  • have a letter of invitation from the academic supervisor in Finland; the invitation should also explain the commitment of the host institution to the project
  • have earned a Master’s-level degree before applying
  • intend to pursue post-Master’s level studies as a visiting student, participate in a research project or teach at a university or public research institute in Finland; priority will be given to doctoral studies
  • not have spent already more than one year at a Finnish higher education institution immediately before the intended scholarship period in Finland
  • be able to give proof of sufficient skills in speaking and writing the language needed in study/research*
  • be a national of one of the eligible countries listed above
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
Duration of Scholarship:
How to Apply: Applications for the Finnish Government Scholarship Pool funding should be made to the appropriate authority in the applicant’s country. The scholarship authorities in each country are invited to present applications for up to 10 candidates for the Finnish Government Scholarship Pool. For information on the appropriate authority in your country, please see the listing of countries and authorities to contact.
You can download the 2017-2018 application form using the below link.
Please save the application form on your own computer before completing it. The form should be typed throughout. To move between different fields, use the “Tab” key. Relevant boxes can be ticked by using the “Space” key or the left-hand mouse button. After completing the form, please print and sign it.
If needed, the application form can also be obtained from the national scholarship authorities or directly from CIMO.
Documents required for an application:
  • a completed and signed application form
  • curriculum vitae
  • copies of latest diplomas*
  • two letters of recommendation
  • study/research plan (2-5 pages, including a statement of motivation, goals, work plan, work method, expected results)
  • invitation/expression of interest and motivation for cooperation from the hosting academic supervisor in Finland
  • language certificate (Finnish, Swedish or English) or other indication of sufficient language skills – please see above, in the section ‘Eligibility criteria’
*) copies of original diplomas accompanied with translations into English, Finnish or Swedish – if the original certificates are not in these languages. Preferably official translations. Please do not send in any originals as CIMO will not return any application documents.
Award Provider: Government of Finland

Andela Student Ambassador Programme (ASAP) for African Undergraduates

Application Deadline: 26th October, 2016
About the Award: A programme aimed at engaging resourceful Student Ambassadors to lead Andela campaigns and events in their universities and communities to create awareness about Andela and contribute to the development of technology leaders in Africa.
With the fastest growing population and the highest youth population in the world, we believe Africa is one of the greatest untapped markets for talent development.
At Andela, we find the brightest young people in Africa, train them to be world-class developers, and connect them with employers around the world looking for top technical talent. Passion, excellence, entrepreneurial spirit, and rejecting the status quo are just a few of the things that Andela team members have in common.
We have a vision to train 100,000 world-class developers in the next 10 years – and we want you to help make it happen.
Being an Andela Student Ambassador requires an understanding of the Andela Fellowship, its model of operation and ethos. It takes someone who can lead, inspire others and get things done. The Andela Student Ambassador aspires to accomplish beyond what is expected and is passionate and enthusiastic about software development. As an Andela Student Ambassador, you will work with the Andela team to tailor program initiatives to campus-specific opportunities.
As an Andela Student Ambassador, you will also have the opportunity to:
  • Help promote and grow our community
  • Plan and host events on campus on behalf of Andela
  • Act as a campus contact for Andela teams
  • Help Andela better understand the culture at your university
Type: Internship
Eligibility:
  • Enrolled in full-time undergraduate study
  • Strong network with student organizations
  • Must be at least a 300 level student
  • Strong written and verbal communication and interpersonal skills
Value of Programme: 
  • Preparation for leadership roles
  • Potential for an internship with Andela, based on performance
  • Observe Andela Bootcamp sessions
  • Participate in Andela events
  • Access to branded Andela merchandise
  • Significant marketing experience
  • Jumpstart your professional career
Duration of Programme: 1 year. However, Andela reserves the sole discretion to end the program earlier.
How to Apply: Please submit 2 recommendation letters (1 from faculty member and the second from prior internship experience or another faculty member) to admissions@andela.com.
Award Provider: Andela

Singapore International Graduate Award (SINGA) Fully-funded Scholarships for International Students 2017

Application Deadline: for August 2017 intake is 1st January 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International Students
To be taken at (country): National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore
Eligible Field of Study: PhD in Science, Engineering and Research
About Scholarship: The Singapore International Graduate Award (SINGA) is a collaboration between the Agency for Science, Technology & Research (A*STAR), the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) to offer PhD training to be carried out in English at your chosen lab at A*STAR Research Institutes, NUS or NTU. Students will be supervised by distinguished and world-renowned researchers in these labs. Upon successful completion, students will be conferred a PhD degree by either NUS or NTU.
Type: Full time PhD Research Scholarship
Eligibility and Selection Criteria
  • The scholarship is open to all international students
  • Excellent academic results to be in the top 20% of your cohort
  • Graduate with a passion for research and excellent academic results
  • Good skills in written and spoken English
  • Good reports from two academic referees
Number of Scholarships: up to 240
Value of Scholarship
  • Attractive monthly stipend over 4 years of PhD studies, which can support you comfortably. The stipend amount is SGD 24,000 annually, to be increased to SGD 30,000 after passing Qualifying Examination.
  • Full support for tuition fees for 4 years of PhD studies.
  • One-time SGD 1,000 Settling-in Allowance
  • One-time Airfare Grant of SGD 1,500
Duration of Scholarship: For the duration of the programme
How to Apply: Hard copies of the following supporting documents must be submitted to the SINGA Office:
Compulsory:
  • A copy of your Identity Card or Passport
  • Certified true copies of university transcript(s), one in English translation and the other in the original language
  • Certified true copies of degree scroll(s) or a letter or certification from the university on your candidature if your degree scroll has not yet been conferred.
  • Two Academic Referees’ Recommendation
  • Two recent passport-sized photographs
Not compulsory but good to include (if any):
  • A certified true copy of TOEFL / IELTS results
  • A certified true copy of SAT I & II / GRE / GATE results
  • Certified true copies of awards / prizes and certificates
  • List of publications
  • List of patents filed
If you need more Information about this scholarship, kindly visit the Scholarship Webpage
Sponsors: Agency for Science, Technology & Research (A*STAR), the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU)
Important Notes: Only short-listed candidates will be notified within 10 weeks from the application closing date.

Ashinaga Fully-funded Undergraduate Scholarships for Orphans from Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 28 February 2017 | 
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Field of Study: courses offered at the choice higher institution
To be taken at (country): Higher institutions outside of Africa, in countries such as Japan, US, UK etc
Eligible Countries: Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Sudan, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Mauritius, Somalia, Nigeria, The Gambia.
About Scholarship: Ashinaga presents the “Ashinaga Africa Initiative” aiming to provide higher education to 49 brilliant students from 49 Sub-Saharan countries, some of which are among the poorest in the world, and encourage them to become leading professionals in their own countries.
We search and screen for potential candidates: orphaned or bereaved students with academic potential but who cannot afford to apply to university. We provide them with a concentrated study camp for six months at Ashinaga’s facility, Kokorojuku, in Uganda and Senegal, where they are given dedicated support and assistance with their study of various subjects and languages, as they prepare to apply to highly ranked universities around the world. We also provide them with a full scholarship and living expenses for four years during their studies abroad.
We expect to see these young, educated people go back to their own countries and establish democratic and fulfilled societies, bringing people a higher national income and high-quality education. This movement will eventually contribute to the overall wellbeing of Sub-Saharan countries by helping to break the cycle of poverty, even though the effects will not be immediate, as they are when food or equipment is donated.
There is a theory that the African population will expand to more than three billion by the end of this century. We believe if we can create a bright future for Africa, a continent with so much potential, humanity’s global prospects will be bright as well.
Ashinaga is a Japan-based nonprofit organization, which provides educational and emotional support to orphaned students. The organization has supported over 95,000 orphans in the last 45 years, and many of its graduates are actively contributing to society in a variety of fields across the world.
Offered Since: 2014
Type: undergraduate degree
Eligibility: The application is open to those who:
The application is open to those who:
  1. Have lost one or both parents.
  2. Have completed 12 years of education (primary and secondary school) within the last two years, or those who will complete 12 years of education by December 31, 2016.
  3. Have citizenship and completed/are completing high school in one of the following countries: Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Sudan, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Mauritius, Somalia, Nigeria, The Gambia.
  4. Were born after 1 st October 1994.
  5. Do not have the financial means to attend university.
  6. Are proficient in English.
  7. Have an outstanding academic performance at high school.
  8. Are able to participate in the two Ashinaga preparatory programs, over the course of one year, before attending university.
  9. Are willing to return home, or to Sub-Saharan Africa, and contribute to society in Sub-Saharan Africa after graduating from university.
  10. Have no dependents who could interfere with academic progress.
  11. Are in good health condition and capable of studying abroad.
Number of Scholarships: not specified
Value of Scholarship: The 100-Year Vision Scholarship provides a full scholarship that covers the cost of tuition, accommodation (during the terms and vacation), insurance, flight, and provides monthly stipend which covers food and necessary academic costs.
Duration of Scholarship: for the period of undergraduate studies
How to Apply: 
  1. This application form.
  2. One passport photo.
  3. Copy of term reports / high school transcripts (the last 2 years).
  4. Academic transcripts or diplomas from university/post-secondary institution, if applicable.
  5. Copy of General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE).
  6. Completion of essay 1 and essay 2.
    • Essay 1:  Please describe how you grew up and experienced losing your parent(s). What challenges have you faced after the loss and what and how did you do in order to overcome them? Please write in detail especially the action you took to continue further education. (Maximum 500 words)
    • Essay 2:  Please write a “personal statement” in English describing why and what you want to study at university abroad. Also, please mention whether you have any future plans of how you want to use the knowledge and experience that you gain after graduating from university. (Maximum 500 words)
  7. Copy of death certificate of deceased parent(s) or alternative official document.
  8. Copy of birth certificate.
  9. Recommendation letter from a principal or a class teacher.
  10. Copy of national ID card or passport.
  11. Awards or activity certificates, if any.
You can apply online (preferred option), send by post or download the application and email it to; admissions.en@ashinaga.org
1. Email:
Download the form from the PDF icon below, fill it out and send it back attached to an email to admissions.en@ashinaga.org 
with the required documents attached.
3. Post:
Download the form from the PDF icon below , fill it out and send it by post to;
Ashinaga Africa Initiative Recruitment Team
P. O. Box 16864 – Kampala, Uganda
Sponsors: The 100-Year Vision is sponsored and implemented by Ashinaga.
Important Notes:Please also note that ONLY Successful candidates will be contacted via email in late March 2017 to be invited to attend an interview in their home country, which will take place in April 2017.
This application and selection process is free for students, and anyone asking for payment at any stage of this process is doing so against the will of Ashinaga, and should not be paid.

Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana

Jesse Ventura


While I was on my book tour for Jesse Ventura’s Marijuana Manifesto, I was shocked to discover how many Americans didn’t know our Founding Fathers grew cannabis. From talk radio and TV hosts to fans at my book signings, many were unaware that the 13 colonies were of great value to the British Crown because by law, colonists had to grow hemp and give it to England free of charge as part of their taxes. This obviously saved the British Navy an incredible amount of money, as everything from uniforms to rope to paper to ships’ sails were made from hemp.
Most people I spoke to also didn’t know that the DEA would consider George Washington and Thomas Jefferson criminals today because they grew marijuana and hemp. I was often asked: Why isn’t this information taught to us in school when we learn about American history? For the same reason when you Google marijuana, one of the first things that comes up is “gateway drug.” For generations, our Federal government has been re-writing America’s history as it pertains to cannabis. Today, the DEA is also playing a dangerous role when it comes to medical marijuana studies.
Just this month, we learned that 50 years ago, Big Sugar paid Harvard scientists to refute evidence from a major study that showed sugar plays a significant role in increasing the risk of heart disease. After receiving their payout, Harvard scientists decided to point the blame at fat instead, and for the past 50 years, we’ve been relying on that very study to determine what is a healthy, nutritional diet. We take fat out of everything, but have you noticed how much sugar is in our food, starting of course with baby products? Of course, too much fat isn’t good for you either, but the point is: little did we know, these scientists weren’t above being bribed. A scientific study is supposed to be objective. Scientists go into a study looking for answers. In this situation, scientists were told what the outcome of the study had to be, and they did their job.
The interesting part about this story is that at the time, other researchers were conducting similar studies and found the results that Harvard did not disclose: that sugar played a significant role in heart conditions. The Harvard researchers actually dismissed any conflicting studies, stating things like eating less sugar venturamanifestoand more vegetables isn’t a feasible dietary change. Or that other studies didn’t go far enough to determine that fat was the true culprit of things like coronary heart disease. Even though it took 50 years for the truth to finally come out and many of the original Harvard scientists are now deceased, sadly this manipulative practice is still going on. Corporations like Coca-Cola have offered to pay researchers to determine that drinking sugary drinks does not lead to a greater risk of obesity or Type 2 diabetes. But how does this relate to marijuana? Easy.
There are two conflicting “scientific” ideologies when it comes to marijuana:
1) marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic, just as dangerous as heroin, with no medical benefits whatsoever, and it is a gateway drug.
2) marijuana is a medicinal plant with great value for many diseases and incurable conditions.
Over the years, studies have proven both points. How can that be possible? Take a look at who is funding and approving the studies. Take a look at who is conducting the studies. Take a look at where the studies are being conducted.
If the results of the study fit into the first “scientific” ideology, then that’s a pretty good indication that the study was conducted in the United States. Since marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic, any researcher looking to study it must go to the DEA and ask permission to do so. The DEA then decides if the study is worth pursuing. Only in America can a law enforcement agency have the right to decide what scientists can and cannot research. Why on earth would the DEA approve a study looking to determine any positive attributes of marijuana, when the DEA’s job is to eradicate the plant and imprison anyone who uses it?
If you come across a study that lists any positive results—such as how THC can cause brain tumors to shrink and disappear entirely—then that’s a good indication the study was conducted in another country, such as Spain, Germany, or Israel. There’s also a good chance that the study has been published in several noteworthy medical journals, but we the American people probably won’t hear about it. The mainstream media in the United States sure wouldn’t cover the findings, and if any politician is asked about the medical benefits of marijuana, the response remains “we need more research.”
Why would that be? Think about all the industries who would be threatened by marijuana if it became legal, especially for medical purposes. Think about all the money those companies give to politicians. Think about how much money those corporations spend on advertising. Any media company would be shooting itself in the foot if breaking news went against what those corporate sponsors want. Don’t believe me? Re-read what I just wrote about Big Sugar. The same principle applies.
While I was on my book tour, a conservative talk show host tried to “get me” with a study that showed marijuana has a negative impact on the brain’s ability to remember. He didn’t know where this study was conducted, or who led the charge on the research. He also didn’t know about the studies that show marijuana helps people with Alzheimer’s. I admittedly don’t know every single scientific marijuana study that has been done in the US and abroad, but when I wrote my marijuana manifesto, I read enough of them to notice a pattern: America likes to rewrite history, ignore facts, and claim that a law enforcement agency has no conflict of interest when it decides what drugs to classify as illegal, and what studies scientists can conduct.
The problem with this pattern is that it is dangerous. Marijuana could alleviate and possibly cure conditions that affect thousands, if not millions of people. How can the DEA act this way when no one knows what the future holds? One day, you or someone you love might have exhausted all pharmaceutical options and find that you actually need what this plant can provide. What will you do then?
As far as I know, there is one DEA- and FDA-approved study underway on US soil that could prove unprecedented positive results. Dr. Sue Sisley’s study is examining if whole-plant cannabis can help with severe cases of PTSD if veterans are allowed to smoke it as a treatment option. She had to wait nearly seven years to get the study approved, and she claims the only way she even received federal approval was due to support from veterans’ groups that pressured the government.
With 20 or more veterans committing suicide every day (that means more service men and women die after returning home from combat than on the battlefield), this study was long overdue. I hope it is the first step in reversing our prejudice against this incredible plant, but did you realize what it took for the study to happen in the first place? We the People had to rise up and demand it.
This year marks the 45th anniversary of Nixon’s War on Drugs. If we really want to make America great, then it’s time to end the war against the American people. It’s time to realize the Founding Fathers knew the value of democracy as well as cannabis. In poll after poll, more than half of the American people want to see marijuana legalized. If that’s true, then we have to rise up together and demand it.

A Globalization Wake-Up Call

Murray Dobbin

If recent mainstream economic reports are to be taken seriously some of the big brains managing global capitalism these days are starting to lose faith in their neo-liberal ideology. Some come close to sounding like virtual heretics. Like Jonathan Ostry, is the IMF’s deputy director of the research and lead author of an article (“Neoliberalism: Oversold?”)  in the IMF’s official publication. He stated, with a childlike innocence: “…some aspects of the neoliberal agenda probably need a rethink. The [2008] crisis said: ‘The way we’ve been thinking can’t be right’.” No point, I suppose, in dwelling on the past – that is, the millions of lives made miserable by decades of IMF structural adjustment programs.
The lack of mea culpas notwithstanding, the IMF bravely identifies two aspects of neo-liberal policy for scrutiny: the elimination of capital controls (allowing for capital flight to be used as a political weapon against poor countries) and fiscal austerity. While “cheering” aspects of the “neo-liberal agenda”  according to the Financial Times he also acknowledged some “’disquieting conclusions’ including that they resulted in increased inequality that undermined economic growth.”
That report came out in May but just last week the annual report of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has leapt ahead of any cautious “rethinking” and calls for a virtual reversal of the whole neo-liberal “edifice.” The report contains some of the most alarming warnings UNCTAD has ever issued. And that warning relates, in part, to the near-zero interest rates developed countries are using to try to restart their economies.
There are unintended consequence of low interest rates, says the report: “Alarm bells have been ringing over the explosion of corporate debt levels in emerging economies, which now exceed $25 trillion. Damaging deflationary spirals cannot be ruled out.” And later: “The benefits of a rushed integration into international financial markets post-2008 are fast evaporating. If policymakers fail to mitigate the negative impacts of unchecked global market forces …a significant share of developing-country debt incurred since 2008 could become unpayable and exert considerable pressure on the financial system.”
UNCTAD’s analysis also attacks Western governments’ obsession with austerity which has starved global demand but it more broadly blames “… the entire edifice of liberal market finance…”  As far as the UN is concerned this development is the “third leg” of the global financial crisis – the first two being the US housing bubble and the second the EU meltdown. Its solution sounds almost revolutionary according to the London Telegraph: “The world must jettison neo-liberal ideology, and launch a ‘global new deal’ with a blitz of investment on strategic sectors. …a return of the ‘developmental state’, commanding a potent industrial policy, and backed by severe controls on capital flows.”
The report also highlights the fact that global corporations – which designed the neo-liberal  Washington Consensus explicitly to reverse the old social contract and the ’development state’ – have failed utterly to deliver on the quid pro quo: their promise of growth and prosperity. The global corporate sector is characterized by management captured by ”activist funds” which focus almost exclusively on shareholder value, the maximum extraction of profit and mergers and acquisitions rather than the reinvestment of their profits “… into production capacity, jobs, or self-sustaining growth.”
This latter criticism describes the Canadian corporate sector in spades. Instead of investing its record profits – and its tax break windfall in the billions – it is sitting on over $600 billion idle cash. But the situation with Canadian corporations is actually much worse than in most OECD countries, particularly compared to their main competitors in the US. In previous columns I have quoted past studies done by Harvard Business School’s Michael E. Porter. He concluded: “The U.S. is just much more entrepreneurial (than Canada)… Research uncovered key weaknesses in the sophistication of (Canadian) company operations and strategy.” He went on to describe Canadian business as cautious and risk-averse, unwilling to spend money on research and development, and addicted to exporting almost exclusively to the US.
Just this past week Deloitte Canada published a report which took Porter’s academic studies a step further by interviewing 1200 Canadian CEOs regarding their willingness to takes risks and invest in the future of their companies. The results of the study – entitled The Future Belongs to the Bold – paint a pathetic picture. The poll concluded: “At a time when Canada needs its businesses to be bolder and more courageous than ever before, almost 90 per cent aren’t up to the task.” The companies fell into one of several categories: 15 per cent of CEOs were “fearful,” 43 per cent were “hesitant,” 30 per cent were “evolving,” and 11 per cent were “courageous.”
The result? “Investments aren’t made. New ideas aren’t explored. And Canadian companies slowly fall further and further behind.” Companies have actually reduced spending on training by 40 percent since the mid-1990s. As Porter earlier observed, where Canadian companies are successful it is mostly due to access to cheap labour and natural resources.
And this week the Conference Board of Canada published an op-ed in the Globe and Mail decrying the lack of investment in manufacturing innovation, observing: “…research and development spending in the sector is generally very low. Indeed, investment has been so weak for a number of years that many manufacturing segments have actually become less capital intensive. The result is an erosion in the global competitiveness of Canadian manufacturing.”
Once again we see the folly of placing our economic future in the hands of “fearful” and risk averse CEOs while giving them every possible advantage from suppressed wages, huge tax cuts, and privatization, to deregulation and endless idiotic “trade” deals. Corporate Canada signed a contract and broke it. It should be forced be back to the negotiating table. And this time it should focus on the domestic economy.
The Liberal preoccupation with trade deals looks increasingly ill-considered. In yet another warning about the state of global trade Roberto AzevĂŞdo, the World Trade Organization’s director-general declared : “The dramatic slowing of trade growth is serious and should serve as a wake-up call.”  The question for the Trudeau Liberals is what to do if they do wake up. Instead of more oil and gas infrastructure (in a world already awash in both) it should itself be “courageous” and use bold fiscal policy to launch a serious transition away from fossil fuels and at the same time actually take the Paris climate accord seriously. But that would require “rethinking” another neo-liberal policy: the reckless tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations which rob federal government coffers of $50 billion every year.

What It’s Like To Be A Muslim Australian

Ghali Hassan

A recent Essential Research poll had found 49 per cent of Australians support a ban on Muslim immigration, including 60 per cent of Liberal-National Coalition voters, 40 per cent of Labor voters and 34 per cent of Greens voters agreed with the proposition that Muslim Australians were not integrating (assimilating) into “Australian culture” and pose a threat to Australia. It is the result of a steady diet of fear, and xenophobia fed to Australians by openly racist politicians and the mass media.
Australian politicians and the media are demonising an already marginalised small Muslim Community (2.2% of the total Australian population) to score point and win votes. It is true that Muslims have a strong Muslim identity, because Islam is not just a religion, Islam is a way of life. However, when compared with other minorities, Muslim Australians are the most integrated Australians in every field of life. They have succumbed to a repressive society that imposed its beliefs and values on them. It is nothing more than force assimilation justify by exaggerated fears of a fabricated threat.
Despite the daily racism and extreme hostility they face, nearly 86 per cent of Muslim Australians felt that relations between Muslims and non-Muslims were friendly and were not strained as politicians and the media allege, according to a study by the University of Western Sydney. The study ultimately revealed the “ordinariness of the Muslims” and their aspiration in Australia, said Professor Kevin Dunn of Western Sydney University. (The Study).
Muslim Australians have the right to live their lives without being vilified and discriminated against.  As Uthman Badar writes in The Sydney Morning Herald: “Contrary to baseless claims otherwise, Muslims are not demanding that Australia become an Islamic state, or that sharia be enforced. They are not demanding to be outside the law or judged by another set of laws. They’re simply asking to be left alone to practice their faith; that their beliefs and values not be interfered with by the state; that if some Muslim does the wrong thing he be dealt like any other criminal, without the entire community being criminalised and Islam demonised; that they be able to participate in debates about the law, morality and government policy without being considered a fifth column”. How can a small minority of ordinary Australian Muslims pose a threat to “Australian culture”?
Let’s call a spade a spade. What is “Australian culture”? There is no unique white Australian culture. Australia is not known for its vibrant culture. Australia is a pretentious society addicted to punching far above its weight. There is an old Indigenous Culture with unique languages and cultural adaptations that most non-Indigenous Australians know nothing about. How many non-Indigenous Australians know where the Anindilyakwa people live? We all know how brutally Indigenous Australians are treated. They are despised by non-Indigenous Australians. Most non-Indigenous Australians choose the privilege of turning a blind eye. Outside Indigenous Culture, everything else is imported and repackaged – not AFL football. Australia is a colonial outpost, dominated by white Anglo-American culture. The so-called “Multiculturalism” – where each ethnic group put in its designated box – is racially-promoted ghettoization designed to enforce white privilege and white supremacy. To the contrary, Australia has a concocted image that is the exact opposite of its ugly reality. After the election of Pauline Hanson, Australia can claim to be the world’s most anti-Muslim and systemically racist societies where victims (mostly Muslims) of white racism have no protection. As victims of racism, Muslims are on their own. There is noone (nations or organisations) that has the courage to stand up for Muslims and defend them. Most of the so-called “Islamic nations” (with majority Muslims population) are U.S. clients ruled by despotic regimes. It is the reason Muslims are discriminated against and attacked in Australia with ease.
While many Australians are blaming Pauline Hanson and her gang for promoting racism, racism is deeply-entrenched in Australia. Australia was built on Racism and violence. It is elite racism – coated with the language of “tolerance” and multiculturalism – imposed by the white dominant class. The media, the education system, sport, the police, the justice system and Australian politics are systemically racist and plagued by rampant corruption. Most Australians breathe racism and cannot live without it. It is in their DNA makeup. From early childhood, Australians are conditioned by the corporate media (TV in particular), politicians and even their parents, to objectify others – non-white people and women. Unlike in other countries, racism in Australia is a well-managed subtle kind of racism. It is structural form of racism that, have a far larger impact on people’s lives: where religious, cultural or ethnic minorities are made to feel they do not belong in Australia.
Most people know that, “anti-Muslim sentiment did not begin with Pauline Hanson. A more sophisticated, highbrow anti-Muslim sentiment was used to justify the mandatory indefinite detention of Muslim [refugees]. It was used to justify the torture of Australian citizens in Guantanamo Bay. It was, and is used to justify wars in Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, [Libya and Syria]. It is used to justify our support for Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinians. It is used to justify our support for murderous tyrants in Muslim countries, who oppress their Muslim citizens. A lot of anti-Muslim argument has come from the elite’s need to defend their anti-Muslim policies. As Eric Hoffer observed, ‘when power is wedded to chronic fear… it becomes formidable”. (A. McQuire, M. Brull, & S. Sabawi, New Matilda, 22 July 2016).
Muslims are discriminated against because they are Muslims. It has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims are not integrating into Australian culture. Most Australians have never met a Muslim in their lives and most Australians know nothing about Islam. Indeed, according to a recent study by Deakin University: “people who don’t know any Muslims or interact with any Muslims in the community felt the most fear around terrorism. People who know Muslims and more about Islam as a religion are the ones who don’t feel threatened”, said the researcher, Dr Matteo Vergani.
All what Australians know about Muslims in Australia is from racist politicians and the media. For example, more often Australian TV channels devote time to “discuss” (denounce and demonise) Muslims and Islam without a Muslim voice to respond, denying Australians a rare opportunity to hear two sides. When the elitist Sydney Writers’ Festival invites an illiterate and ignorant Somali-born refugee (the anti-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and promotes her as an expert on Muslims and Islam, you know there is something wrong with Australian society. As Professor As’ad AbuKhalil of California State University observes, “Hirsi has no relevant expertise on Islam – she is ‘only because of her bigotry… treated as an expert on Islam’. Hirsi has identified Islam as ‘a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.’ This sounds a lot like the language of Tony Abbott on ISIS terrorists. Yet while right-thinking progressives in Australia have mocked Abbott’s rhetoric, Hirsi gets a warmer reception” (Michael Brull, New Matilda). Hirsi, validates what the anti-Muslim white bigots already believe: that Islam is bad and the West is inherently good.
What is really astonishing about Australians (the elites) is that, Donald Trump, the Republican U.S. presidential candidate, has been criticised in Australia by the Australian political and media establishments, who are rubbing shoulders with Pauline Hanson and her gang. Trump hasn’t said anything that Australia is not doing or not supporting. He is demonised thoroughly simply because he said he will do what Australia is already doing. May be because he said that if elected he will talk to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The Australian Greens Party leader Richard Di Natale said recently: “I think [Trump] is dangerous for the U.S. and dangerous for the global community, and you just need to look at those clashes that we have seen recently between anti-Trump and pro-Trump supporters”. What a cynical propaganda? Take a look in your own backyard, Mr Di Natale. The Clintons war criminals have been (and will be if elected) disastrous for world’s peace and prosperity.
Like in the U.S. and in many parts of Europe, Australian Muslims are living in fear. People do not know when the Police and Special Forces will raid their homes, arrest and imprisoned their loved ones indefinitely.  The policy is reminiscent of Kristallnacht, the night of horror in 1938 when rampaging Nazis smashed Jewish homes and businesses in Germany and killed scores of Jews. Muslims are unfairly targeted and accused of terrorism, because terrorism is framed as a Muslim problem. Hence, too many anti-Muslims draconian laws are predicated on the false and racist assumption that Muslims are more likely to engage in terrorism. To the contrary, Muslims are the victims of well-orchestrated terrorism.
For more than five years, the Syria people have paid dearly for the crimes of terrorists. It is well-documented that terrorist networks like ISIS [Daesh], al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front and their affiliates are U.S.-Israel proxy terror networks. They are labelled by Western governments and Western media as “moderate rebels”, “militants” and “opposition forces”, but not terrorists. They have been trained, financed, armed, directed and protected by the U.S. and U.S. allies, including Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, Qatar, Jordan among others. In addition, the U.S. and its allies air forces acting as the terrorists’ air force and provided air cover for the terrorists. The recent deliberate air strikes (17 Sep. 2016) by the U.S. and its allies on the positions of the Syrian troops at Deir ez-Zor, south east Al-Raqqa – which more than 60 troops were killed and hundreds were injured –, is a case in point. It allowed ISIS terrorists to occupy the heights around the airport. The criminal air attacks designed to sabotage the ceasefire agreement and strengthen the terrorists (ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra Front) against the democratically-elected Syrian Government. Before this dirty war on Syria, Syria was an Oasis of civilisation and religious tolerance.
The so-called “Islamic Terrorism” is a Western-concocted pretext to manipulate the public (instil fear) and justify discrimination against Muslims. The ongoing demonisation of Muslims and Islam in Australia, the U.S. and Europe is part of the policy to divert attention away from Western nations roles in creating and supporting terrorism. As the violence increase in their homelands, Muslims who manged to flee and seek refuge abroad are demonised and used as scapegoat by politicians and the media.
Australia which is reached by only a trickle of Muslim refugees, has turned into a nightmare for them. Australia prides itself on its widely-condemned and inhumane anti-Muslim “White Australia’s” refugee policy. The New York Times has recently called Australia’s draconian refugee policy as “unconscionable”, and urged European policymakers not to look at Australia’s “ruthlessly effective effort to stop boats” as an option. No decent human being like to associate with a society that sells cruelty and treat dogs better than humans. The current Muslim refugee crisis is the predictable results of U.S.-led Western war of terror in the Middle East and Africa, to which Australia is a party.
In Australia refugees – mostly Muslims – are stopped at sea by the Australian Navy and Borders Control Forces (Operation Sovereign Borders) and shipped to grotesque Concentration Camps in poor Island nations like Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The voiceless refugees, including children, women and men have been sexually abused, tortured, exploited and some have been murdered. Journalists and media who visited the refugee Camp on Manus Island have been ordered (and threatened) to delete footages. It is the Government’s view that anything that contradict the Government narrative is unacceptable and should not be made available to Australians.
A recent article, entitled “Is Australia engaged in torturing asylum seekers? A cautionary tale for Europe,” co-authored by John-Saul Sanggaran, a medical officer, who worked at one of such camps which was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that the Australian government is creating unbearable conditions at these Concentration Camps to send a message to others would be refugees not to come to Australia. The criminal policy is supported by the majority of Australians. Can you imagine the outrage if Australian women and children are treated in the same way as refugees are treated?
Although most Australians know that the Government’s refugee policy is cruel and in flagrant violation of international law, a poll in January 2014 found that 60 per cent of Australians support the Government policy of harsh treatment of refugees and urge the Government to “increase the severity” of the policy. As Henry Giroux writes: “Shallow consumerisms coupled with an indifference to the needs and suffering of others has produce a politics of disengagement and a culture of moral irresponsibility” in the Australian society. Any society in which politicians and the media appeal to bigotry, promoting hatred and promising to terrorise refugees to win elections is a sick society.
The onus is on the other half of Australians to begin the dismantling of the Hansonism culture of ignorance and racism. Australia needs to evolve beyond the façade of multiculturalism into a cohesive nation for every Australians. The 49 per cent of Australians who support this racist and backwards policy against Muslims are doing Australia great harm. As McQuire and colleagues rightly argue: “We don’t have a Muslim problem in Australia. We have a racism problem, and it is an emergency. We urge readers to take this as a wake-up call, to build stronger ties across communities, and to challenge racism, whether it comes from the top or from the bottom”. Only together, the contagious virus of racism will be defeated.

Suing Saudi Arabia: Overturning Sovereign Immunity In US Courts

Binoy Kampmark

It was momentous on one fundamental level. Here was the President of the United States, Barack Obama, holding the torch for a wretched ally the politicians on the Hill and others have had reservations over for many years.  Saudi Arabia, ever the thorn and asset of US interests, facing the grief of families who lost members on September 11, 2001.  This, the same ally whose theocratic bent remains the most bruising of obstacles in any claims that the US is open to a global democratic experiment.
In the end, it came down to a very American formula, one born in the court room and ligation process. It also left a good deal of mud on the Presidential power of veto.  “I would venture to say,” ventured press secretary Josh Earnest, not without some hyperbole, “that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States has done, possibly since 1983.”
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act permits US courts to waive an assertion of foreign sovereign immunity, one of the treasured features of a State’s legal armoury, regarding acts of terrorism that occur on US soil.  While Saudi Arabia claims no direct role in the 9/11 attacks, it cannot say the same about its zealous nationals, with fifteen of the 19 plane hijackers boasting that nationality.
True to form, its diplomats were heating the issue and reminding US lawmakers about the consequences of JASTA becoming law.  In the cold, monetarily inclined words of Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, “everybody will begin to think twice before they invest in a place where their assets could be seized.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer, chief sponsor of the bill, explained with some solemnity that, “Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts.”
Nerves through Washington duly frayed.  Playing the 9/11 card is a rotten business, but it certainly worked to convince members on both side of the aisle that the President’s veto had to be overturned.  The façade was duly taken down; and the ugly, protective mask of the relationship with Riyadh ripped off.  Admitting to an avenue of legal action, or at any rate permitting it, against an ally was tantamount to a confession.
One such individual was CIA director John Brennan, whose befuddled security mind has to juggle the plotting machinations of Riyadh with the dictates of US security.  “It would be an absolute shame if this legislation, in any way, influenced the Saudi willingness to continue to be among our best counterterrorism partners.”
President Obama was more forthright. The passage of the bill effectively meant that the various imperial efforts of the US would be compromised.  Vast, gargantuan and spread over the earth, US engagements and actions would suddenly face the prospect of legal targeting.
His concern with such actions had to with “not wanting a situation in which we’re suddenly exposed to liabilities for all the work that we’re doing all around the world, and suddenly finding ourselves subject to private lawsuits in courts where we don’t even know exactly where they’re on the up and up, in some cases.”
Speculation was already being advanced by various legal authorities.  JASTA, argued Theodore Karasik, would also permit Saudi citizens an avenue to sue the US government and its employees in foreign courts. That would well accompany additional moves to amend domestic laws “to allow their citizens to sue the US government and its employees in foreign courts, most likely state security courts.”
Stephen I. Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law goes further in suggesting that the law will do little to bring home the litigious bounty for victims of 9/11 while enlarging the scope for US plaintiffs to launch suits against states for international terrorism, whether Washington deems them sponsors of terrorism or otherwise.
The punch against US power, however, would come in the form of taking Washington’s policies to task in very specific cases.  Would, for instance, the Syrian regime be justified in suing the United States for its role in sponsoring Syrian rebel fighters who go on to commit acts of terrorism?  Justice can be truly blind, though the legal authorities often fear it.
Much of this fuss may be unfounded.  States continue to pursue claims against each other in the International Court of Justice, though they tend to do so with velvet gloves and utterances of mock decency.  In some cases arbitral channels over matters of wrongful death can also be used.  But States have continued over the years to cite a veil of sovereign immunity in the courts that has, at stages, begun to tear. The Nuremberg war crimes trials made a decent start of it.
Over time, the deaths of nationals has generated a basis to seek compensation, though a state might well be reluctant to part with money in the bargain.  Granting an award is no guarantee of receiving it.  But rarely has there been such an overt challenge to assumptions of sovereign immunity, a domestic effort to effectively overturn an internationally accepted rule.
Following that other accepted notion of reciprocity at international law, other countries may well see their nationals rush to the courts to seek redress for the actions of the US imperium, allies or otherwise.  They should be mindful of the comments of Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate judiciary committee: “All they want is the opportunity to present their case in a court of law.”