OWSD Postgraduate Training Fellowships for Women Scientists from Sub-Saharan Africa and LDC 2016/2017

Scholarship Name: OWSD Postgraduate Training Fellowships for Women Scientists

Brief description: Postgraduate Training Fellowships for Women is offered for women Scientists from Sub-Saharan Africa and Least Developed Countries (LDC) at Centres of Excellence in the South for research in Natural sciences related fields

Accepted Subject Areas?

Fields related to Natural Sciences

About Scholarship

With funds generously provided by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), Organisation For Women In Science For The Developing World OWSD has instituted a fellowship programme for female students from Sub-Saharan Africa and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), who wish to pursue postgraduate training leading to a Ph.D., at centres of excellence in the South (developing countries), outside their own country.

The postgraduate training Fellowship is offered to women scientists from Sub-saharan African and Least Developing Countries to pursue postgraduate research leading to doctoral degree in a field of the natural sciences.

The general purpose of the scheme is to contribute to the emergence of a new generation of women leaders in science and technology, and to promote their effective participation in the scientific and technological development of their countries.

Scholarship Offered Since: Not Specified

Scholarship Type: Postgraduate research fellowship for women

By what Criteria is Selection Made?

• Please read the following information carefully before applying.

• The fellowships are highly competitive, and the selection will be based on scientific competence and merit.
• The applications will be reviewed by a panel of eminent scientists, appointed by the Executive Board of OWSD.
• Only women scientists from Sub-Saharan Africa and/or one of the Least Developed Countries can apply.

• Host institutions must be located in a developing country.
• Applications that are incomplete or illegible cannot be considered. Please make sure all the requested enclosures are submitted together with your application.

Who is qualified to apply?

The fellowships are open to qualified young women science graduates (generally below 40 years of age) from countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and/or LDCs.

The minimum qualification of applicants is an M.Sc. degree (or equivalent), or an outstanding B.Sc. honours degree, in the natural sciences.

The institute must be in a developing country other than the applicant’s home country.

Number of Scholarship: Several

What are the benefits?

Scholarship will cover travel expenses, a modest monthly living allowance, the amount of which will be determined in consultation with the host institution.

How long will sponsorship last? Each fellowship will be offered for three years

Eligible Countries

Sub-Saharan Africa and Least Developed Countries

To be taken at (country): Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 31 May 2016

Offered annually? Yes

How to Apply

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and Organisation For Women In Science For The Developing World OWSD

Important Notes: An applicant who wishes to register as a PhD student at her home institute can choose a sandwich option, whereby part of the research programme is undertaken at a host institute in another developing country.

The applicant must be willing to return to her own country after completion of the fellowship.

Campbell Fellowship for Women Scholar-Practitioners from Developing Nation 2016/2017

Scholarship Name: Campbell Fellowship for Women Scholar-Practitioners from Developing Nations

Brief description: Campbell Foundation Fellowship for Women Scholar-Practitioners from Developing Nations whose work addresses women’s economic and social empowerment in that nation

Eligible Fields

Applicants should be pursuing research in one of the social sciences: anthropology, economics, education, geography, history, law, linguistics, political science, psychology, social work, or sociology, or in an interdisciplinary field that incorporates two or more of these disciplines.

About Scholarship

The Vera R. Campbell Foundation funded Fellowship is offered for female postdoctoral social scientist from a developing country whose work addresses women’s economic and social empowerment in that nation. The goal of the program is twofold: to advance the scholarly careers of women social scientists from the developing world, and to support research that identifies causes of gender inequity in the developing world and that proposes practical solutions for promoting women’s economic and social empowerment.

Scholarship Offered Since: Not Specified

Scholarship Type: Postdoctoral Fellowship for women

Eligibility and Selection Criteria

Applicants must be nationals of developing countries that are currently eligible to borrow from the World Bank.

To facilitate full engagement in the SAR intellectual community, applicants must demonstrate their fluency in English, such as through their record of professional interaction in written and spoken English.

Value of Scholarship

In addition to a $4,500/month stipend and housing and office space on the SAR campus, the Campbell Fellow receives travel, shipping, and library resource funds; health insurance; and the support of a mentoring committee of established scholar-practitioners.

Duration of Scholarship: Six months

Eligible Countries

Applicants must be nationals of developing countries that are currently eligible to borrow from the World Bank.

To be taken at (country): USA

Application Deadline: first Monday in November each year.

Offered annually? Yes

How to Apply

Applications to the Resident Scholar Program are due on November 1st of each year.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage

Sponsors

This fellowship is made possible through the generous support of the Vera R. Campbell Foundation.

Important Notes:

Projects that identify causes of and/or solutions to gender inequity in the developing world, and thus contribute to women’s social and economic empowerment, will be favored. Sample topics include education and socialization of girls; globalization and the economic status of women; policies and practices toward family, reproduction, and women’s health; impacts of international and civil conflict on women; women’s roles in resolving such conflicts or sustaining civil society; media representations of women and the formation of ideologies of gender; the practice and process of gender-based development; and women in science and technology. SAR will select fellows on the strength of their clearly stated intention to serve their communities and countries of origin.

Baiting the Bear: Russia and NATO

Conn Hallinan

“Aggressive,” “revanchist,” “swaggering”: These are just some of the adjectives the mainstream press and leading U.S. and European political figures are routinely inserting before the words “Russia,” or “Vladimir Putin.” It is a vocabulary most Americans have not seen or heard since the height of the Cold War.

The question is, why?

Is Russia really a military threat to the United States and its neighbors? Is it seriously trying to “revenge” itself for the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union? Is it actively trying to rebuild the old Soviet empire? The answers to these questions are critical, because, for the first time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, several nuclear-armed powers are on the edge of a military conflict with fewer safeguards than existed 50 years ago.

Consider the following events:

* NATO member Turkey shoots down a Russian warplane.

* Russian fighter-bombers come within 30 feet of a U.S. guided missile destroyer, and a Russian fighter does a barrel roll over a U.S. surveillance plane. Several U.S. Senators call for a military response to such encounters in the future.

* NATO and the U.S. begin deploying three combat brigades—about 14,000 troops and their equipment—in several countries that border Russia, and Washington has more than quadrupled its military spending in the region.

* U.S. State Department officials accuse Russia of “dismantling” arms control agreements, while Moscow charges that Washington is pursuing several destabilizing weapons programs.

* Both NATO and the Russians have carried out large war games on one another’s borders and plan more in the future, in spite of the fact that the highly respected European Leadership Network (ELN) warns that the maneuvers are creating “mistrust.”

In the scary aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis, the major nuclear powers established some ground rules to avoid the possibility of nuclear war, including the so-called “hot line” between Washington and Moscow. But, as the threat of a nuclear holocaust faded, many of those safeguards have been allowed to lapse, creating what the ELN calls a “dangerous situation.”

According to a recent report by the ELN, since March of last year there have been over 60 incidents that had “the potential to trigger a major crisis between a nuclear armed state and a nuclear armed alliance.” The report warns that, “There is today no agreement between NATO and Russia on how to manage close military encounters.”

Such agreements do exist, but they are bilateral and don’t include most alliance members. Out of 28 NATO members, 11 have memorandums on how to avoid military escalation at sea, but only the U.S., Canada and Greece have what is called “Preventing Dangerous Military Activities” (DMA) agreements that cover land and air as well. In any case, there are no such agreements with the NATO alliance as a whole.

The lack of such agreements was starkly demonstrated in the encounter between Russian aircraft and the U.S. The incident took place less than 70 miles off Baltiysk, home of Russia’s Baltic Sea Fleet, and led to an alarming exchange in the Senate Armed Services Committee among Republican John McCain, Democrat Joe Donnelly, and U.S. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, soon to assume command of U.S. forces in Europe.

McCain: ”This may sound a little tough, but should we make an announcement to the Russians that if they place the men and women on board Navy ships in danger, that we will take appropriate action?”

Scaparrotti: “That should be known, yes.”

Donnelly: “Is there a point…where we tell them in advance enough, the next time it doesn’t end well for you?”

Scaparrotti: “We should engage them and make clear what is acceptable. Once we make that known we have to enforce it.”

For the Americans, the Russian flyby was “aggressive.” For the Russians, U.S. military forces getting within spitting range of their Baltic Fleet is the very definition of “aggressive.” What if someone on the destroyer panicked and shot down the plane? Would the Russians have responded with an anti-ship missile? Would the U.S. have retaliated and invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, bringing the other 27 members into the fray? Faced by the combined power of NATO, would the Russians—feeling their survival at stake—consider using a short-range nuclear weapon? Would the U.S. then attempt to take out Moscow’s nuclear missiles with its new hypersonic glide vehicle? Would that, in turn, kick in the chilling logic of thermonuclear war: use your nukes or lose them?

Far-fetched? Unfortunately, not at all. The world came within minutes of a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis and, as researcher Eric Schlosser demonstrated in his book “Command and Control,” the U.S. came distressingly close at least twice more by accident.

One of the problems about nuclear war is that it is almost impossible to envision. The destructive powers of today’s weapons have nothing in common with the tiny bombs that incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so experience is not much of a guide. Suffice it to say that just a small portion of world’s nukes would end civilization as we know it, and a general exchange could possibly extinguish human life.

With such an outcome at least in the realm of possibility, it becomes essential to step back and try to see the world through another’s eyes.

Is Russia really a danger to the U.S. and its neighbors? NATO points to Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia and its 2014 intervention in eastern Ukraine as examples of “Russian aggression.”

But from Moscow, the view is very different.

In 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and German Chancellor Helmet Kohl pledged to then Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward, nor recruit former members of the East bloc military alliance, the Warsaw Pact. By 1995 NATO had enlisted Pact members Romania, Hungry, Poland, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and signed on Montenegro this year. Georgia is currently being considered, and there is a push to bring Ukraine aboard. From Moscow’s perspective NATO is not only moving east, but encircling Russia.

“I don’t think many people understand the visceral way Russia views NATO and the European Union as an existential threat,” says U.S.Admiral Mark Ferguson, commander of U.S. naval forces in Europe.

Most NATO members have no interest in starting a fight with Russia, but others sound like they think it wouldn’t be a bad idea. On April 15,Witold Waszczykowski, the foreign minister of Poland’s rightwing government, told reporters that Russia is “more dangerous than the Islamic State,” because Moscow is an “existential threat to Europe.” The minister made his comments at a NATO conference discussing the deployment of a U.S. armored brigade on Poland’s eastern border.

Is Russia reneging on arms control agreements? The charge springs from the fact that Moscow has refused to consider cutting more of its nuclear weapons, is boycotting nuclear talks, deploying intermediate range nuclear missiles, and backing off a conventional weapons agreement. But again, Moscow sees all that very differently.

From Moscow’s point of view, the U.S. is continuing to spread its network of anti-missile systems in Europe and Asia, which the Russians see as a threat to their nuclear force (as does China). And as far as “reneging” goes, it was the U.S. that dumped the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, not Russia,

The U.S. is also pouring billions of dollars into “modernizing” its nuclear weapons. It also proposes using ICBMs to carry conventional warheads (if you see one coming, how do you know it’s not a nuke?), and is planning to deploy high velocity glide vehicles that will allow the U.S. to strike targets worldwide with devastating accuracy. And since NATO is beefing up its forces and marching east, why should the Russians tie themselves to a conventional weapons treaty?

What about Russia’s seizure of the Crimea? According to the U.S. State Department, redrawing European boundaries is not acceptable in the 21^st century—unless you are Kosovo breaking away from Serbia under an umbrella of NATO air power, in which case it’s fine. Residents of both regions voted overwhelmingly to secede.

Georgia? The Georgians stupidly started it.

But if Russia is not a threat, then why the campaign of vilification, the damaging economic sanctions, and the provocative military actions?

First, it is the silly season—American elections—and bear baiting is an easy way to look “tough.” It is also a tried and true tactic of the U.S. armaments industry to keep their production lines humming and their bottom lines rising. The Islamic State is scary but you don’t need big-ticket weapons systems to fight it. The $1.5 trillion F-35s are for the Russkies, not terrorists.

There are also those who still dream of regime change in Russia. Certainly that was in the minds of the neo-cons when they used The National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House to engineer—at the cost of $5 billion—the coup that toppled Ukraine into NATO’s camp. The New American Century gang and their think tanks—who brought you Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria—would to leverage Russia out of Central Asia.

The most frightening aspect of current East-West tension is that there is virtually no discussion of the subject, and when there is it consists largely of distorted history and gratuitous insults. Vladimir Putin might not be a nice guy, but the evidence he is trying to re-establish some Russian empire, and is a threat to his neighbors or the U.S., is thin to non-existent. His 2014 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club is more common sense than bombast.

Expansionist? Russia has two bases in the Middle East and a handful in Central Asia. The U.S. has 662 bases around the world and Special Forces (SOF) deployed in between 70 and 90 countries at any moment. Last year SOFs were active in 147 countries. The U.S. is actively engaged in five wars and is considering a sixth in Libya. Russian military spending will fall next year, and the U.S. will out-spend Moscow by a factor of 10. Who in this comparison looks threatening?

There are a number of areas where cooperation with Russia could pay dividends. Without Moscow there would be no nuclear agreement with Iran, and the Russians can play a valuable role in resolving the Syrian civil war. That, in turn, would have a dramatic effect on the numbers of migrants trying to crowd into Europe.

Instead, an April 20 meeting between NATO ministers and Russia ended in “profound disagreements” according to alliance head Jens Stoltenberg. Russian ambassador to NATO, Alexander Garushko said that the continued deployment of armed forces on its borders makes it impossible to have a “meaningful dialogue.”

We are baiting the bear, not a sport that ever ends well.

TTIP—American Economic Imperialism

Paul Craig Roberts

Greenpeace has done that part of the world whose representatives are so corrupt or so stupid as to sign on to the Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic “partnerships” a great service. Greenpeace secured and leaked the secret TTIP documents that Washington and global corporations are pushing on Europe. The official documents prove that my description of these “partnerships” when they first appeared in the news is totally correct.

These so-called “free trade agreements” are not trade agreements. The purpose of the “partnerships,” which were drafted by global corporations, is to make corporations immune to the laws of soverign countries in which they do business. Any country’s sovereign law whether social, environmental, food safety, labor protections—any law or regulation—that impacts a corporation’s profits is labeled a “restraint on trade.” The “partnerships” permit corporations to file a suit that overturns the law or regulation and also awards the corporation damages paid by the taxpayers of the country that tried to protect its environment or the safety of its food and workers.

The law suit is not heard in the courts of the country or in any court. It is heard in a corporate tribunal in which corporations serve as judge, jury, and prosecutor.

In other words, the “partnerships” give global corporations the power to overturn democratic outcomes. Allegedly, Europe consists of democracies. Democracies pass laws protecting the environment and the safety of food and labor, but these laws democratically enacted reduce profits. Anything less than a sweatshop, with starvation wages, no environmental protection, no safety legislation for food or worker, can be overturned at will by global corporations under the terms of the “partnerships.”

Only a traitor, a well paid one, could sign such a pact.

In my opinion, corporate taxation can also be overturned as it obviously reduces profits.

The Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific “partnerships” have been conducted in secrecy. The reason is obvious. Had people known how they were being sold out, there would have been a firestorm of protest. The corporate shills and their propagandists in the financial media could deny my revelations, because I had no official documents to release.

The “partnership” agreements are treaties. Under the US Constitution, treaties are the prerogative of Congress, not the prerogative of an executive brance appointed Trade Representative who represents not the people but the corporations seeking the advantage. To avoid the US Constitution, the agreements are defined as non-treaties. You see how the groundwork for corruption is established.

The way it works is that the appointed US Trade Representative “negotiates” with appointed trade representatives of other countries. Any resistance to the deal is overcome with bribes and intimidation. All of the negotiation is conducted in secrecy. When the trade representatives sign on to the deal, it is presented to the legislatures of the countries. The legislators are told that they must approve the pact and not endanger all the hard work that has gone on for so long and that is in everybody’s interest as attested to by all of the bribed and coerced trade representatives.

These “trade pacts” originate in the US, because American global corporations and the American mega-banks are the largest players in the world economy, and the agreements that the corporations walk through the process give the American companies economic hegemony over the countries that sign the agreements. The Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific “partnerships” are tools of US financial imperialism.

Today (May 3, 2016) I debated on Press TV Sean O’Grady, the financial editor of the UK newspaper the Independent. It is extraordinary that O’Grady took a line totally opposite to that of his newspaper. I suggested to him that perhaps he should read his own newspaper.

Today an article in the Independent reported that the leaked “documents show that US corporations will be granted unprecedented powers over any new public health or safety regulations to be introduced in future. If any European government does dare to bring in laws to raise social or environmental standards, TTIP will grant US investors the right to sue for loss of profits in their own corporate court system that is unavailable to domestic firms, governments or anyone else. For all those who said that we were scaremongering and that the EU would never allow this to happen, we were right and you were wrong.”

As I understand it, the situation is worse than the article describes. TTIP applies to laws already on the books, such as France’s laws against GMO seeds and food products.

The Independent article continues:

“Today’s shock leak of the text of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) marks the beginning of the end for the hated EU-US trade deal, and a key moment in the Brexit debate. The unelected negotiators have kept the talks going until now by means of a fanatical level of secrecy, with threats of criminal prosecution for anyone divulging the treaty’s contents.

“Now, for the first time, the people of Europe can see for themselves what the European Commission has been doing under cover of darkness – and it is not pretty. The leaked TTIP documents, published by Greenpeace this morning, run to 248 pages and cover 13 of the 17 chapters where the final agreement has begun to take shape. The texts include highly controversial subjects such as EU food safety standards, already known to be at risk from TTIP, as well as details of specific threats such as the US plan to end Europe’s ban on genetically modified foods.

“The leaked texts also reveal how the European Commission is preparing to open up the European economy to unfair competition from giant US corporations, despite acknowledging the disastrous consequences this will bring to European producers, who have to meet far higher standards than pertain in the USA.

“According to official statistics, at least one million jobs will be lost as a direct result of TTIP – and twice that many if the full deal is allowed to go through. Yet we can now see that EU negotiators are preparing to trade away whole sectors of our economies in TTIP, with no care for the human consequences.

“The European Commission slapped a 30-year ban on public access to the TTIP negotiating texts at the beginning of the talks in 2013, in the full knowledge that they would not be able to survive the outcry if people were given sight of the deal. In response, campaigners called for a ‘Dracula strategy’ against the agreement: expose the vampire to sunlight and it will die. Today the door has been flung open and the first rays of sunlight shone on TTIP. The EU negotiators will never be able to crawl back into the shadows again.

“For those of us in the thick of the EU referendum debate, the contempt shown by the TTIP negotiators to the people of Europe is the most potent reminder of the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU institutions.”

You can read the Independent article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ttip-leaks-shocking-what-are-they-eu-us-deal-a7010121.html

The revelations are disconcerting for the British and European peoples. For example, the Independent reports that TTIP could cause the privitazation of the National Health Service and the UK Parliament would be powerless to stop it.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ttip-could-cause-an-nhs-sell-off-and-parliament-would-be-powerless-to-stop-it-says-leading-union-a7006471.html
See also: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

In our debate Sean O’Grady performed as a shill, a propagandist for the corporate interests behind TTIP. He said that it was a free trade agreement that benefitted everyone just as NAFTA and other such agreements have proved to be the case. Tell that to all the displaced American workers.

He said that it was unfortunate that the secrecy had possibly hurt the agreement’s prospects and that it would have been better if the pact’s provisions had been known as they were negotiated. That way, he said, the agreement would not be threatened by the shock effect of the leaked documents.

O’Grady also claimed that no one has thus far agreed to the pact despite the fact that the representatives have agreed to the pact. Perhaps what he means is that legislatures have not
given their approval.

The headline on the Independent article thinks the leak will prevent approval: “After the leaks showing what it stands for, this could really be the end for TTIP.” If so, O’Grady regards it as a great loss. For the global corporations, of course, not for the peoples it would exploit.

The Greenpeace revelations should deep-six the pact, but I am uncertain. French president Hollande says, provisionally, that France will not sign the pact as it is. In other words, give us some fuzzy language to make it look like we got it fixed.

The EU’s chief negotiator, Ignacio Garcia Bercero, a likely recipient of a large bribe, rushed to the defense of TTIP by declaring Greenpeace to be “flatly wrong.” Bercero’s statement makes no sense. Greenpeace released the official documents. No one denies that the leaked documents are legitimate. So apparently Bercero’s position is that the official documents are wrong. He sounds like a guy working hard for his money.

Bercero, went on to say, according to the BBC, that “it is not correct to say the US is pushing for lowering of the level of protection in the EU.” This is an amazing lie ! Those who are trying to put a good face on the leak themselves admit that this is precisely what the US is trying to do. They claim that the Europeans haven’t yet given in.

It is disingeneous for Bercero or O’Grady or anyone to pretend that TTIP has not been from the very beginning about establishing global corporate hegemony over the governments of democratic countries. I pointed this out when the corporations first made their move. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific “partnerships” are about giving global capitalism immunity from the laws of sovereign countries.

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilla Malmstroem is, according to the BBC, “steering the TTIP talks.” Malmstroem, another likely recipient of a large bribe, says: “I am simply not in the business of lowering standards.” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36185746

Her statement is misleading. She is not in the business of lowering standards. She is in the business of making it possible for global capitalism to overthrow all standards, high and low.

From my encounter today with Sean O’Grady, a person whos integrity I no longer respect, I expect the corporate bought-and-paid-for Western financial press and governments to close ranks and discredit the leaked documents as some kind of Greenpeace “conspiracy theory.” Even in my presence, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Wall Street Journal editor, O’Grady had no compunction about misrepresenting to my face the agreement as a good one harmed only by secrecy. If it hadn’t been secret, said O’Grady, it would have been OK.

All of the blather about free trade and tariff reduction is mere cover for the only purpose of TTIP, which is to establish American economic imperialism over the peoples whose governments sold them out for money.

Gripped By Climate Disruption, World On Brink Of Global Water Crisis

Deirdre Fulton

Global water shortages, exacerbated by human-caused climate change, are likely to spur conflict and migration across the Middle East, central Asia, and Africa—all while negatively impacting regional economies, according to a new World Bank report published Tuesday.

Rising demand combined with increasingly "erratic and uncertain" supply could reduce water availability in cities by as much as two thirds by 2050, compared to 2015 levels, the report warns. Meanwhile, "food price spikes caused by droughts can inflame latent conflicts and drive migration," a World Bank press statement reads.

The report further cautions: "Unless action is taken soon, water will become scarce in regions where it is currently abundant—such as Central Africa and East Asia—and scarcity will greatly worsen in regions where water is already in short supply—such as the Middle East and the Sahel in Africa. These regions could see their growth rates decline by as much as 6% of GDP by 2050 due to water-related impacts on agriculture, health, and incomes."

However, the World Bank adds, "the negative impacts of climate change on water could be neutralized with better policy decisions, with some regions standing to improve their growth rates by up to 6% with better water resource management."

Please donate now - we're coming up short

Scientists have warned that global warming is setting the stage for more frequent, and more devastating, droughts. Indeed, extreme drought is currently causing hardship in several of the regions named in the World Bank report.

Just this week, Zimbabwe put its wild animals up for sale, "saying it needed buyers to step in and save the beasts from a devastating drought," Reuters reported. On Tuesday, Burkina Faso's government began rationing water in its drought-hit capital, which is home to some two million people. Much of India is currently suffering from a scorching heat wave and severe drought conditions that have decimated crops, killed livestock and humans, and left at least 330 million Indians without enough water for their daily needs.

The World Bank's warning comes on the heels of a study published this week in the journal Climatic Change, which suggests that the Middle East and North Africa could become "uninhabitable" by the end of this century due to climate change and increasing hot weather extremes.

Echoing the World Bank, the Max Planck Institute researchers behind that study wrote: "We anticipate that climate change and increasing hot weather extremes in the [Middle East and North Africal], a region subject to economic recession, political turbulence and upheaval, may exacerbate humanitarian hardship and contribute to migration."

Maoist-backed, fascistic candidate leads Philippine presidential race

Dante Pastrana

With the 2016 Philippine presidential election due to take place on May 9, the emergence of a far-right candidate as the frontrunner is a stark warning to the working class. Rodrigo Duterte, who has pledged to summarily execute hundreds of thousands of alleged criminals in his first six months in power, is leading in the latest opinion surveys.

A poll conducted by Pulse Asia from April 16 to 20 showed Duterte, the mayor of Davao City, the fourth largest city in the country, with 35 percent support. Erstwhile frontrunner, Senator Grace Poe, was in second, with 23 percent. Administration candidate and Liberal Party standard-bearer Manual Roxas II, was third with 17 percent, followed by United Nationalist Alliance candidate Vice President Jejomar Binay with 16 percent.

In a similar survey conducted by the Social Weather Station, Duterte had 33 percent support, with Poe also coming in second at 24 percent.

Duterte is a right-wing populist. Between stints as either a congressional representative or Davao City vice mayor, Duterte held the Davao City mayoralty for 22 years. Throughout, without compunction, he openly espoused summary execution of alleged petty criminals and gave free rein to death squads. According to Fr. Amado Picardal, a human rights advocate, the death squads accounted for 1,424 victims. Most were accused of petty crimes and were both poor and young. The youngest was a 12-year-old boy.

Duterte has postured as an “outsider” of the political establishment, a simple “probinsyano” (from the provinces) sparring against the elites in the capital. More truthfully, Duterte is the product of the establishment and a symptom of its political degeneration and shift to the right.

Duterte was a state prosecutor during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. He was installed into the Davao City government by President Corazon Aquino. The subsequent explosion of extrajudicial murders in the city was aided and abetted by the successive administrations of President Fidel Ramos and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Arroyo sought to appoint him as her department secretary of local government, effectively signalling that she would countenance the expansion of Duterte’s vicious law and order campaign nationwide. The signal was taken up and implemented by other cities in Mindanao and the Visayas region.

While Duterte and Davao City police were briefly investigated under President Benigno Aquino, it was all for show following damning reports from the United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur and the international Human Rights Watch.

The political responsibility for the rise of extreme right-wing figures such as Duterte rests with the various Maoist parties in the Philippines. They have assisted successive administrations in suppressing any independent mobilisation of the working class.

Moreover, Maoists and ex-Maoists have been directly involved in cultivating and promoting Duterte for years. Former Maoists staff his campaign machinery, with an ex-guerrilla currently serving as his chief of staff. The assassins of the Davao death squads include former Maoist New People Army (NPA) members and, to this day, continue to use the NPA’s signature method. A member of the Maoist front organization Makabayan is currently a city councillor allied to Duterte.

Significantly, the bloodbath in Davao City has drawn no condemnation from Maoist-aligned human rights organizations. In fact, Jose Ma. Sison, the exiled head of the Communist Party of the Philippines, expressed his willingness to join a coalition government with Duterte. He dismissed concerns over Duterte’s plan for a mass killing of alleged criminals as simply “mouthing off,” despite the bloody record in Davao City.

Duterte has pledged to dump a hundred thousand corpses of alleged criminals in Manila Bay—more than enough, he declared, to make the fishes fat. Meanwhile, to big business, the stock and financial markets, he promised “business as usual.”

Duterte’s threats are above all directed at the suppression of the working class and rural poor. He has promised to deal with any political opposition by closing down government institutions, including the courts and Congress. He has pledged the return of the death penalty and promised to pardon all police and state security personnel implicated in summary executions.

In February, Duterte promised to set up trade union-free economic zones and threatened the union organizers of the Maoist-aligned labor federation, Kilusang Mayo Una, if they conducted any activity in the proposed zones.

The emergence of Duterte is part of the rapid rightward march of the whole political establishment amid a deteriorating economy, sharpening social tensions and the integration of the Philippines into the US war drive against China.

More than a decade of annual economic growth averaging over 5 percent for more than decade from 2001 to 2015 has been forged on the back of the working class and the poor. The legal minimum monthly wage is well below the government’s own poverty line. More than 50 percent of the population remains poor, with social inequality measured as the worst in South East Asia.

Duterte’s bloody record has prompted some limited expressions of unease, but not condemnations, in the US media. The concern is certainly not that Duterte will trample on democratic rights and unleash a wave of extra-judicial killings, but rather that he will not be a reliable ally as the US ratchets up pressure on China over the South China Sea.

Duterte, along with all the other presidential candidates, has pledged to implement the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which allows the US military to use the Philippines as a forward operating base against China. The candidates have vied with each other in whipping up reactionary nationalist sentiments, vowing to defend Philippine territorial claims.

At the same time, there are concerns in ruling circles that the rising tensions will cut across business and economic ties with China, which is by far the country’s largest trading partner. Throughout the campaign, the presidential candidates have sought to balance, oscillating between bellicose statements against Beijing and a ludicrous insistence that involvement in the US war drive will not affect Philippine economic relations with China.

Duterte is probably the most erratic. One day he declares that he will cut a bilateral deal with China to settle the territorial disputes in the South China Sea in return for economic concessions. Days later, he postures as a Philippine martyr ready to die to defend the country’s maritime claims if China refuses to abide by the outcome of a Philippine case currently before a UN tribunal in The Hague.

The Philippine ruling elite is presiding over a capitalist society wracked by brutal exploitation and inequality even as the US war drive threatens to impose more onerous demands on the working class and the poor, turning their children into cannon fodder for the confrontation against China.

None of the establishment candidates will hesitate to use police-state measures to impose their dictates on the working class. Duterte is only the most brazen of the representatives of the bourgeoisie.

Canada preparing to join US ballistic missile defense

Roger Jordan

Canada’s Liberal government is considering joining the US-led ballistic missile defense (BMD) system, reversing a decision taken 11 years ago by Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government.

The reopening of the debate over Canadian participation in BMD was announced in the 30-page “consultation” document Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan issued last month to kick-off the Liberals’ much-touted defence policy review.

Noting that Canada has not discussed its attitude towards the US missile defence program in over a decade, the “consultation” document presents the issue in a manner aimed at promoting Canada’s participation. It states, “Given the increase in the number of countries with access to ballistic missile technology and their potential to reach North America, this threat is expected to endure and grow more sophisticated in the coming decades.”

Its name notwithstanding, the US missile-defense system is anything but defensive. It is aimed at realizing US imperialism’s longstanding goal of developing the technological means to wage a “winnable” nuclear war—a strategic question that has been receiving growing attention in ruling circles in Washington in recent months.

Over the past decade, the US has spent some $100 billion on weapons to counter ballistic-missiles and it has partnered with NATO allies in Europe to station BMD equipment on that continent, as well as with Japan, South Korea and Australia in the Asia-Pacific.

Canada’s renewed readiness to sign up to this reckless initiative reflects its close integration with US imperialism–the most destabilizing force in world politics. Canada is a major ally in the Obama administration’s three major military-strategic offensives: in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe and the Baltic against Russia, and in the Asia-Pacific targeting China.

As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly stated, a key priority of his government is to deepen Canada-US cooperation. Toward that end, his government has announced a tripling of Canadian Special Forces’ troops in Iraq and is considering deploying Canada’s military in at least half-a-dozen other countries, including Libya, Mali, and Haiti.

As with the Chretien Liberal government’s decision not to participate in the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, the rejection of missile defense two years later had nothing to do with opposition to US military aggression. The Martin Liberal government combined its rejection of BMD with a budget that pledged to boost military spending by $13 billion over the next five years so as to demonstrate its commitment to an expanded and better-armed military.

If Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin felt unable to approve Canadian participation in the US BMD program, it was because of the deep unpopularity of the Bush administration and the weak position of his Liberal Party, which was dependent on opposition support in parliament. Just a year later, Martin’s minority Liberal government was defeated in the 2006 federal election and replaced by Stephen Harper and his Conservatives.

Nonetheless, the 2005 decision did create frictions. Bush waited over a week before returning a call placed by Martin to the White House to explain Ottawa’s refusal to join BMD, and the corporate media was overwhelmingly critical of the Liberals’ position. What support there was in the Canadian elite for Martin’s decision was bound up with right-wing Canadian nationalism, including the claim that the BMD program would violate the country’s sovereignty.

In an April 25 comment, the Toronto Star’s Tim Harper notes that senior Canadian military officials have been lobbying to reverse the BMD decision virtually ever since the Martin government’s 2005 announcement.

A key factor in the Liberals’ determination to push forward with BMD is its intention to intensify cooperation with the US under the guise of “continental defence.” The defence policy review document also contains proposals to expand or “modernize” NORAD, the Canada-US joint aerospace command set up in 1958.

Another significant consideration in the reopening of the missile defence debate is the increased focus in policymaking circles on the Arctic. The US and Canada have seized on Russian military operations on its domestic territory in the Arctic to present Moscow as an aggressive player in the region that must be confronted. A number of reports and comments, including a study by the Conference of Defence Associations and the defence policy review consultation paper itself, point to concerns over the supposed dearth of Canadian military equipment and personnel in the region.

Canada’s full integration into the missile defence system would give it additional leverage in its moves to extend its territorial claims in the area around the North Pole, where it is directly being challenged by counter-claims from Russia. Fellow NATO-member Denmark has also submitted its own claim to a large swathe of the Arctic Ocean, based on its control of Greenland, including waters and ocean-floor coveted by Canada.

While the Harper government was considering joining BMD prior to last year’s election, the ruling elite concluded that the increased militarization of Canadian foreign policy and its further integration into US war plans against Russia and China could best be prepared with a Liberal government seeking to sell this reactionary agenda to the public behind a wave of “progressive” rhetoric. Sections of the ruling elite are concerned that this will become much more difficult should Republican frontrunner Donald Trump enter the White House after the US election this November.

The Liberals were discussing plans to deepen ties with US imperialism long before coming to power. Last June, Trudeau delivered an important speech calling for “real change” in Canada-US relations. One of his central demands was greater continental policy coordination between Washington and Ottawa to better project their common interests on a range of issues. This topic has been raised again in the current debate. Proponents of Canada’s participation in BMD argue that the current situation in which Canadian Armed Forces’ personnel are active in NORAD, which is responsible for providing radar data to the BMD system, but have no say in how the missile defense system is positioned and used, is untenable and poses a grave danger to Canadian geopolitical interests.

Barely two weeks after the Liberals’ sweeping victory in the October 19 election, the Centre on International Policy Studies think-tank issued a report urging the new government to reverse the missile defense decision as part of its declared goal of “reengaging” Canada on the global stage. One of the report’s authors, Bob McRae, Canada’s former ambassador to NATO, provocatively proclaimed at a public forum held at the University of Ottawa as the study was released, “Splendid isolation is not an option for Canada.”

At the same time, Sajjan received briefing material from the military, as part of his transition into office, which underlines the top brass’s support for BMD. “The strategic importance of ballistic missile defense,” said one briefing paper, “has increased in recent years.”

The Trudeau government offered a further signal of its intent to join BMD with its appointment of Bill Graham to the panel of four experts that is overseeing the defence policy review. A former Liberal defence minister, Graham is a strong advocate of missile defense. He told a Senate committee in May 2014 that participation in BMD was essential to protecting Canada’s privileged military-security relationship with Washington. “It seems to me,” said Graham, “we’re outside of an extraordinarily complex and amazingly new form of a weapons system which will affect our security but which we are foreign to decisions around its development. I think that’s a dangerous place to be.”

The Liberals and Conservatives on the Senate committee joined together to unanimously recommend Canada join BMD.

A Liberal decision to join BMD would be welcomed by the opposition Conservatives. Asked about the issue last month, former defence minister and likely Conservative leadership candidate Jason Kenny declared. “This is, I think, an obligation for us.”

The New Democratic Party, which opposed joining in 2005 and described BMD as “weaponizing space,” has criticized the Liberals for reopening the debate. Defence critic Randall Garrison said he had “a bad feeling” about the proposal, and told the Ottawa Citizen he feared it would trigger an arms race. Such hand-wringing is worth little coming from a party that has supported one imperialist military intervention after another beginning with Canada’s involvement in the NATO-led bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999 and is on record as favouring increased military spending.

Puerto Rico declares moratorium on $367 million debt payment

Rafael Azul

On Monday May 2, what had been announced since last June finally took place; the government of Puerto Rico defaulted on part of a $422 million debt payment that was due on May 1. This is the largest default in Puerto Rican history. It is anticipated that this will be the first of many non-payments this year.

Governor Alejandro García Padilla had declared on May 1 in a televised address to the island nation: “As we confront having no liquidity to satisfy both the demands of our creditors and the services to our people, I am forced to choose. I have chosen that your basic needs are above everything else.”

Such words ring hollow, given that, since 2014, the governor has carried out policies that have eliminated jobs, closed schools and cut health care.

The García Padilla administration announced a “moratorium” on $367 million owed to Wall Street hedge funds by the Puerto Rican Development Bank. The government paid the balance of the $422 million, an interest payment of $22 million and $33 million owed locally.

The Puerto Rican legislature recently approved legislation providing a legal basis for the moratorium. The passage of this law, however, does not prevent credit agencies from declaring Puerto Rico in default and lowering bond ratings to junk status. Both Moody’s and Standard and Poors have ignored the Puerto Rican measure.

It has been reported that vulture funds and speculators are buying up Puerto Rican bonds at steep discounts from face value (anywhere from 10 to 70 cents on the dollar). The Puerto Rican state has some $72 billion in bond debt and will face another $2 billion in debt service this summer.

The moratorium takes place in the context of the inability of the US Congress to decide on a so-called rescue package for the island, known as PROMESA, which is centered on the imposition of a fiscal control board, a Wall Street dictatorship over the island with the power to impose austerity measures on Puerto Rican public employees, retirees, young workers and students.

The PROMESA bill, authored by Congressman Sean Duffy (Republican, Wisconsin), is stalled in Congress due to differences within the Republican Party majority. In its present form, it provides for a five-member financial control board, to be appointed by US President Barack Obama.

Puerto Rican authorities insist that they are not asking for a bailout or for bankruptcy protection, but for an extension of debt payments. “We neither desire a financial rescue, nor has it been offered [by the US Congress],” declared the governor on Sunday. “We only need the legal tools that will make it possible for us to confront this crisis and make for a more viable Puerto Rico.”

“We can’t wait longer. We need this restructuring mechanism now,” added Garcia Padilla.

While the US Congress has not yet reached agreement on PROMESA (in part because of fear that a rescue of Puerto Rico may encourage US states to ask for similar “bailouts”), a financial control board with veto authority over spending, like the one imposed most recently on Detroit, seems to be on the horizon. In its present form, elected Puerto Rican officials would have absolutely no power to decide anything having to do with government spending, taxes, pensions, or even the imposition of a sub-minimum wage for workers under 25, on the pretext of creating jobs.

Bondholders and hedge funds have pressured against PROMESA, insisting that Puerto Rico pay its debts on the basis of draconian austerity measures. At the same time, privately, debt specialists and bond insurers are admitting that some sort of rescue, involving the downgrading of debt and extension of payments, is inevitable.

As the economy sinks, Puerto Rico faces an exodus of emigration to the US mainland. Compounding the social crisis has been the closure of hundreds of schools, and the outbreak of the Zika virus. At last count there were some 683 confirmed cases of Zika infections in Puerto Rico, including 49 pregnant women. Four have died from the disease and another four have developed paralysis.

A year ago, as the debt crisis was progressing, the Puerto Rican government cut appropriations for public health by $250 million, resulting in the closure of hospitals and health care centers. Thousands of public employees needed for mosquito eradication efforts have been sacked. The government’s response has been to offer early parole to imprisoned drug offenders in return for helping fight the Zika epidemic.

Also last year, the US Congress imposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid for Puerto Rican households. Since 2014, thousands of doctors and health professionals have migrated to the United States, together with 144,000 others—an enormous “brain-drain” not seen since the mass emigrations of the 1950s.

About 50 percent of Puerto Ricans live in poverty, about three times the US rate. Median household income is less than $19,000—half of the household income in the poorest state in the US, Mississippi.