Swiss Government Excellence Scholarships for Foreign Students and Artists 2017/2018

Brief description: The Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship is offered for PhD, Postdoctoral and Research for Foreign Students from Africa and other Countries to Study Abroad in Switzerland.

Application Deadline: Varies by countries, typically 30 November. Announced this year as September – December 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Field of Study: All academic fields

About Scholarship: The Swiss government, through the Federal Commission for Scholarships for Foreign Students (FCS), awards various postgraduate scholarships to foreign scholars and researchers:

• The research scholarship is available to post-graduate researchers in any discipline (who hold a master’s degree as a minimum) who are planning to come to Switzerland to pursue research or further studies at doctoral or post-doctoral level.
  Research scholarships are awarded for research or study at all Swiss cantonal universities, universities of applied sciences and the two federal institutes of technology. Only candidates nominated by an academic mentor at one of these higher education institutions will be considered.
• Art scholarships are open to art students wishing to pursue an initial master’s degree in Switzerland. Art scholarships are awarded for study at any Swiss conservatory or university of the arts. Only those who have already been awarded a place to study may apply. This scholarship is available to students from a limited number of countries only.

These scholarships provide graduates from all fields with the opportunity to pursue masters, doctoral or postdoctoral research in Switzerland at one of the public funded university or recognised institution.

Scholarship Offered Since: not specified

Scholarship Type: Masters (for the arts scholarship), PhD, Postdoctoral and Research Scholarships

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: The FCS assesses scholarship applications according to three criteria:

a) Candidate profile
b) Quality of the research project or artistic work
c) Synergies and potential for future research cooperation

The FCS will select scholarship holders for the 2017–18 academic year by the end of May 2017.

Applications are subject to preliminary selection by the relevant national authorities and/or the Swiss diplomatic representation. The short-listed applications are then assessed by the Federal Commission for Scholarships for Foreign Students (FCS) which subsequently takes the final decision.

The FCS is composed of professors from all Swiss public universities. Scholarship awards are decided on the basis of academic and scientific excellence.

Candidates for the University Scholarships must;

• hold a university degree (Bachelors/Masters) on commencement of the scholarship.
• be able to demonstrate their academic abilities and what they aim to achieve.
• contact the institution and/or the professor supervising their period of research. Universities may request supplementary information and/or set certain additional conditions to determine whether or not you qualify for admission.
• be under the age of 35 (born on or after 1 January 1976).
• be suitably proficient in the language of instruction (French, German, Italian or English) in order to draw full benefit from their studies in Switzerland.

Please refer to the country-specific fact sheets for general and specific eligibility criteria.

Number of Scholarships: not specified

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship covers a monthly payment , exemption of tuition fees, health insurance, air fare, special lodging allowance, etc. See the fact sheets for exact scholarship benefits.

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study

Eligible Countries: International students from more than 180 countries.  See the official website for complete list of eligible countries.

To be taken at: Any of the ten (10) Swiss Public Universities, the two (2) Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology, the public teaching and research institutes and the Universities of applied sciences

How to Apply: Visit the scholarship webpage and select your country for country-specific application instruction.

Sponsors: Swiss Government, through the Federal Commission for Scholarships for Foreign Students (FCS).

Getty Scholar Grants for International Senior Researchers 2017

Brief description: The Getty Scholar programs aim to fill a need for opportunities for senior-level professionals, fellows, scholars and writers to pursue research on topics that bring new knowledge and fresh perspectives to their field.

Application Deadline: 3rd October, 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All nationalities

To be taken at (country):  USA

Eligible Fields of Study: arts, humanities, or social sciences.

About the Award: Getty Scholar Grants are for established scholars, or writers who have attained distinction in their fields. Recipients are in residence at the Getty Research Institute or Getty Villa, where they pursue their own projects free from academic obligations, make use of Getty collections, join their colleagues in a weekly meeting devoted to an annual research theme, and participate in the intellectual life of the Getty.

While in residence, Scholars participate in the intellectual life of the Getty, making use of research collections at the Getty Center and Villa, and in the greater Los Angeles area. They also become active participants in the cultural life of the city.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: Applications are welcome from researchers of all nationalities who are working in the arts, humanities, or social sciences.

Current Getty staff and members of their immediate family are not eligible for Scholar Grants. Recent recipients who have received a Getty Scholar award within the past three years may be removed from consideration.

Selection Criteria: Getty Scholar Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. Applications are evaluated based on the following: (1) the overall quality of the application; (2) how the proposed project bears upon the annual research theme; (3) the applicant’s past achievements; and (4) how the project would benefit from the resources at the Getty, including its library and collections.

Value of Scholarship: A stipend of up to $65,000 per year will be awarded based on length of stay, need, and salary. The grant also includes an office at the Getty Research Institute or the Getty Villa, research assistance, an apartment in the Getty scholar housing complex, airfare to and from Los Angeles, and makes healthcare options available.

Duration of Scholarship: Getty Scholars may be in residence for one of six periods ranging from three to nine months: September to December; January to March; April to June; September to March; January to June; or September to June.

How to Apply: Candidates are required to complete and submit the online Getty Scholar grant application form (which includes uploading a Project Proposal; Curriculum Vitae; and optional Writing Sample by the deadline) available on the Webpage.

For the best user experience, we strongly recommend use of the Google Chrome browser. You may also use Firefox or Safari. The Internet Explorer 11 (IE) browser is not fully compatible with our portal.

Please prepare the attachments according to the instructions below. Once the form link is available it will be posted here and you may proceed to register, fill out a short form, upload your materials, and submit the application.

• Project Proposal: Each application must include a description of the applicant’s proposed plan for study and research (not to exceed five pages, typed and double-spaced). The description should indicate (1) how the project bears upon the scholar year theme and (2) how the project would be advanced by the resources at the Getty, including its library and collections.
• Curriculum Vitae
• Optional Writing Sample

Letters of reference are not required for this application.

Visit Grants Webpage for details

Award Provider: Getty

Important Notes: Candidates are notified of the Getty Research Institute’s decision approximately six months following the deadline.

Africa Regional International Staff/Student Exchange (ARISE) 2016. Funded to Choice Universities

Brief description: The ARISE Programme invites Applications from African nationals registered for Masters or Doctoral studies in the fields of Agriculture, Medical Sciences, Engineering and Energy.

The Africa Regional International Staff/Student Exchange (ARISE): Food Security and Sustainable Human Wellbeing

Application Deadline: 25th August 2016

Offered annually? No

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (Universities): Addis Ababa University, University of Rwanda, University of Cape Town, University of Ghana, Makerere University and University of Nairobi.

Eligible Fields of Study: Agriculture, Medical Sciences, Engineering and Energy.

About the Award: The Africa Regional International Staff/Student Exchange: Food Security and Sustainable Human Wellbeing (ARISE) is a programme designed to provide resources and opportunities for student and staff mobility throughout four regions of Africa.

ARISE offers support for Masters and Doctoral studies as well as shorter research and administrative visits between consortium partners in the following thematic fields: Agriculture, Engineering, Energy and Health Sciences.

Type: Masters or Doctoral studies

Eligibility: To qualify, students must:

• be registered for a full degree Masters or Doctoral programme at a home African university to spend time (minimum 10 months) at one of the ARISE partner institution.
• return to their home institution after the exchange period to complete their degree.

Selection Criteria: Application Requirements for Masters and Doctoral exchanges:

• Candidate must be a registered student at home university.
• Must secure an academic host at the host university.
• Applications are considered on merit and must meet academic requirements

Number of Awardees: Not stated

Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship covers

• Roundtrip flight ticket and visa costs (using a preferred travel agent and calculated against direct linear distance)
• Direct participation costs such as tuition fees, registration fees and service fees where applicable
• Comprehensive Travel Insurance (Health, Accident and Travel)
• A monthly subsistence allowance for the mobility period. Monthly Subsistence: €600 Masters, €900 Doctorates, €1000 staff members

Duration of Scholarship: 

• Masters: 24 months
• PhD: 36 mnths
• Staff: 6 months

How to Apply:  Interested candidates should apply here

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Africa Regional International Staff/Student Exchange (ARISE)

NNPC/Shell SNEPCo Undergraduate Scholarship for Nigerian Students 2016/2017

Brief description: The Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company (SNEPCo) in collaboration with NNPC announces its National Merit University Scholarship for Undergraduate Nigerian Students for the 2016/2017 academic session.

Examination/Assessment Date: 20th August, 2016

Application Deadline: 10th August, 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

Eligible Fields of Study: Petroleum Engineering, Materials/Corrosion Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mining Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Instrumentation Engineering, Civil Engineering, Medicine, Pharmacy Physics/Applied Physics, Agricultural Science, Geophysics, Geosciences/Geology, Mathematics/Applied Mathematics and Medical Laboratory Technology.

About the Award: The NNPC/SNEPCo scholarship is provided to promote academic excellence and improve the skills of young Nigerians. It provides yearly grant to the successful applicants from their second year to the completion of their degree programme. The scholarship is managed by SNEPCo on behalf of itself, its co-venture partners and the NNPC

Type: Undergraduate degree

Eligibility: 

• Candidates must be citizens of Nigeria.
• Candidates must not be a beneficiary of any other scholarship (National or International).
• Candidates must currently be in their second year of full-time study in a Nigerian University accredited by the National Universities Commission (NUC)\
• Candidates must have a minimum CGPA of 3.0 in a 5-grade system

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Scholarship: Full scholarship

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of undergraduate course

How to Apply:  The mode of application is online. Candidates are advised to visit this LINK TO APPLY

• Candidates should have a valid email account for easy communication.
• Applications are accompanied with the following:
  • A recent passport-sized photograph of the applicant in JPEG format, and not more than 200kilobytes;
  • University or JAMB (UTME or D/E) Admission Letter; Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examinations (UTME) Scores;
  • ‘O’ Level Result(s); and ‘A’ Level /OND /NCE Result(s) are applicable.
  • Letter of Identification from State of origin indicating applicant’s local government of origin.
  • Candidates are to upload their 100 level results.

Application Procedure: Interested candidates are advised to adhere strictly to these instructions before and while applying:

• Each document submitted online must not exceed 200KB and the image format must be in JPEG.
• Beware of fraudulent websites when applying for the NNPC/SNEPCo scholarship online. Such websites may ask you to make some payments in the course of the application. These are completely faux sites which should be avoided. NNPC/SNEPCo scholarship application is FREE.
• SNEPCo will not accept email applications.
• It is important to visit the official website for detailed information and to access the online application portal.
• SNEPCo is committed to providing scholarship opportunities that are not associated with application fees.
• SNEPCo DOES NOT ASSIGN ‘Representatives’/’ Agents’ to assist applicants’ process applications.
• Any candidate found to have presented false documents will be disqualified or withdrawn at any level of the scholarship.
• Only short listed candidates will be invited for a computer based tests in selected centers nationwide.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company (SNEPCo)

Important Notes: For more information or clarification on the NNPC/SNEPCo National University Scholarship, please send an email to SNEPCO Social Performance SNEPCO-UIO/G/NRS (SNEPCO-Social-Performance@shell.com)

The Propaganda War With Putin

Renee Parsons

If it had not already been apparent, the net effect of the DNC email hack has been to kick open the door to a deep American antagonism towards Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In what has become an old fashioned American pile-on, President Barack Obama, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and what seems the entire political establishment as well as the MSM, have united to undermine Putin as if to prime the American public for war with Russia.

War is, after all, more successful when the people have been thoroughly programmed. For instance, for a war-weary American public ‘we are bombing civilians out of a humanitarian necessity’ may work well. If necessary, a little hysteria wouldn’t hurt but most of all, a necessary requirement is to efficiently tutor the public consciousness to despise the adversary. In this case, Clinton has identified Putin as the adversary and that he is one evil reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.

Among media outlets, Politico, once considered a ‘liberal’ magazine ran “Inside’s Putin’s Information War” whose author has found a lucrative book deal on the subject and yes, this is the same Politico that requested DNC permission to publish re the Sanders/Clinton primary. The Times of London joined the effort to demonize Putin with several anti Russian articles over the weekend including “Putin’s Information War” which ran on July 30^th followed by “Inside Putin’s Info War on America’ in the Wall Street Journal on July 31^st.   Keep your eyes peeled as the “Putin Info War” concept is sure to catch on.

As part of the effort to synchronize public antipathy to an appropriately belligerent level, the Associated Press recently published an article for wide distribution entitled “Clinton v. Putin: Russian television shows what Kremlin thinks of her.” Perhaps the AP presumed to rouse the American public in defense of Hillary Clinton.

The first paragraph began with the admission that Clinton’s entire acceptance speech had been broadcast live on nationwide television in Russia.   If anyone yearns for the day when a Putin speech will be broadcast across American television, forgetaboutit. A good guess is that the intellectually-lazy American public including many liberals who have forgotten how to think, would not make the effort to inform themselves of world events.

Thereafter, the AP article followed with a series of assertions that dazzled the reader with its irony such as:

“Viewers were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be trusted” and “the Democratic convention was portrayed as proof that American democracy is a sham.” The story added that Channel One introduced Clinton “as a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political situation.”

If the AP reporter wrote with the intention that the American public would rise up en masse and demand satisfaction; how unfair of those Russkies to write like that about our Gal Hill – that reporter was dead wrong.

What the reporter did not mention was that a significant number of Americans, including some of those who plan to hold their collective noses while voting for Clinton in sheer terror of Trump, agree with those quotes. What the reporter did not mention was that the Sanders and Trump campaigns have been largely based on those sentiments giving Clinton an unexpected run for the money which explains why she has had to pull out all the stops to beat Trump, a candidate who, by any standard, should have been a piece of cake.

Giving a wink and a nod to the MSM, Clinton formalized her accusations on Sunday Fox News that ‘Russian intelligence” was responsible for the DNC hacking and linked her opponent Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin.

Using the DNC hack issue as an opportunity to further hammer on Putin, Clinton asserted during the Fox interview that ‘we KNOW that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC and we KNOW that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we KNOW that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin.”

A good follow up by an engaged journalist might have been what does Clinton know, how does she know it and when did she know it? If the proof exists, why the reluctance to provide specifics to the American public – but that might require initiative, transparency and some candor? While challenging Trump on his commitment to the Constitution (who clearly could use an Intro 101 class), wasn’t Clinton trained, as an attorney, to understand that evidence comes before the accusation?

This is not the first time that Clinton has personally attacked Putin. In March, 2014 before a University of California audience, she said he was “thin-skinned,” was trying to “re-sovietize Europe while threatening instability and the peace of Europe.” In citing ‘Russian aggression,” she is smart enough to know the difference between protecting ethnic Russians who have centuries of deep cultural roots in Ukraine and Crimea as compared to Hitler’s invasions of eastern Europe.

An impartial observer can only assume Clinton has knowingly skewed the chronology of events in the Ukraine which began with the US-initiated overthrow of a democratically elected President on February 22, 2014; followed by an overwhelming vote on March 16^th by Crimean citizens to reunite with Russia which was then followed by the legal annexation of the Crimean peninsula to Russia on March 18^th.   What is so difficult to understand?

Thanks to Clinton’s repetitive disinformation campaign, accusations of ‘Russian aggression’ are now widespread; repeated without regard to the evidence throughout the mainstream media and by Members of Congress, many of whom choose to remain uninformed.

Back to the Fox interview, she could not resist adding, with mock indignation, that “I think laying out the facts raises serious issues about Russian interference in our elections, in our democracy.” And as if the rest of us were asleep at the wheel and could not distinguish fact from fiction, she further added that “For Trump to both encourage that and to praise Putin despite what appears to be a deliberate effort to try to affect the election I think raises national security issues.”

Does she not see that ‘interference in our elections, in our democracy’ is exactly what the DNC did to the Bernie Sanders campaign?

And has no bright eyed, eager beaver staff person yet pointed out to Clinton that if Russia and Putin had been intent on disrupting the American presidential election, why wouldn’t they have gone after Clinton’s ‘classified’ State Department emails on her personal server that were subject to an FBI investigation and with the potential of criminal charges? Then again, an educated assumption might be that Russian intelligence does have those emails in their possession. Now there’s a real national security issue.

In her eagerness to further aggravate US – Russian relations, apparently Clinton is not only unfamiliar with the State Department’s Foreign Service Protocol for the Modern Diplomat guidelines for rules and process of diplomatic protocol (or perhaps it does not apply to her), but appears she did not receive the memo from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper.

Responding to the DNC-Russian furor in a more blasé and introspective manner than might be expected, Clapper stepped in as a calm voice of reason stating that he was ‘somewhat taken aback by the hyperventilation on this” and that the US was in “reactionary mode” regarding cyber-attacks. Clapper further indicated he was ‘not ready’ to identify Russia as the hacker “I don’t think we are quite ready yet to make a call on attribution.”

Interestingly, Clapper commented that “cyber warfare is not ‘terribly different than what went on during the Cold War” suggesting that it is ‘just a different modality.” He further suggested that the American people ‘need to accept’ and ‘become more resilient’ since cyber threats are a major long term challenge. Americans should ‘not be quite so excitable when we have yet another instance.”  Hmm…wonder to whom he was referring.

In other words, we spy on them, they spy on us – all’s fair in love and war and that there is a certain level of honor among (cyber) thieves.

$400 Million: The Partial Price of Peace?

Thomas L. Knapp

When the US government sends $400 million in cash, stacked on pallets, to Iran on the same day the Iranian government releases four imprisoned Americans, it looks an awful lot like ransom.

On the other hand, when the US government decides to keep $400 million sent to it by the Iranian government pursuant to an arms deal  for 35 years without ever shipping the arms, it looks an awful lot like stealing.

And when the US government reaches a settlement to finally pay back that money with interest, it looks an awful lot like  justice.

Yes, the simultaneity of payment and release looks pretty damning on both ends.

On the other hand, it seems very understandable from both ends.

The Iranians have had good reason to distrust the US government for more than 60 years, ever since the US overthrew their elected government and saddled them with a US-approved dictator, then stole their money when they overthrew that dictator. As often as the US has screwed them, why would they trust the US to repay them absent some kind of leverage?

President Obama, on the other hand, wanted to secure the return of those prisoners, and he seems to genuinely want to improve US relations with Iran after more than three decades of cold (and sometimes not so cold) war.  Coughing up cash that the US owed to Iran anyway probably looked like a good way to make progress on both of those fronts.

Yeah, I guess it looks kind of bad. But you know, I don’t have any heartburn over it. And I find it hard to give much credence to Republican temper tantrums over the whole thing.

I don’t recall Republicans complaining about the Iranians timing their release of hostages from the US embassy in Tehran to coincide with the inauguration of a Republican president (some people even believe that that Republican’s running mate negotiated a secret deal with the Iranians to stretch the matter and create that coincidence).

I do recall Republicans defending that same president when he was discovered to have traded arms to — not to merely have returned money to, but to have intentionally armed — Iran in return for assistance in achieving the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Iran’s Hezbollah allies.

It seems to me that all is well here, election year partisan bluster notwithstanding. Peace gets messy now and again, but it beats the alternative.

The Critical Link Between Poverty and Health

Cesar Chelala

Concern for the health of the poor is one of the critical issues in development. Poverty cannot be defined solely in terms of low or no income. Lack of access to health services, safe water, adequate nutrition, and education are also essential components of poverty. Poverty and health are closely linked. Poverty is one of the most influential factors in ill health, and ill health can lead to poverty.

Poverty drains family savings. In addition, poor people are more exposed to several risks (poor sanitation, unhealthy food, violence, drug abuse and natural disasters) and less prepared to cope with them.

More than 1.5 billion people in the world –most of them children- live in extreme poverty, and 80 percent of them live in developing countries. Poor people have little or no access to qualified health services and education, and do not participate in decisions critical to their day-to-day lives. UNICEF statistics show that 22,000 children die each day because of poverty.

People with low income are at greater risk of illness and disability. They are also less informed about the benefits of healthy lifestyles, and have less access to quality health care. It is estimated that one third of deaths worldwide –some 18 million people a year or 50,000 a day- are due to poverty-related causes.

Those who live in extreme poverty are five times more likely to die before age five, and two and a half time times more likely to die between 15 and 59 than those in higher income groups. The same dramatic differences can be found with respect to maternal mortality levels and the incidence of preventable diseases.

The impact of poverty on health is largely mediated by nutrition and is expressed throughout the life span. Those living in poverty and suffering from malnutrition have an increased propensity to a host of diseases, a lower learning capacity, and an increased exposure and vulnerability to environmental risks. It is estimated that 165 million children worldwide suffer from malnutrition.

However, nutrition and health are only moderately responsive to mere economic growth. Increased income alone cannot guarantee better nutrition and health because of the impact of other factors, notably education, environmental hygiene and access to health care services, which cannot necessarily be obtained with increased income in developing countries.

Education is one f the most powerful weapons to fight against poverty and its effects.
Experiences in several countries have shown the power of education to increase the nutritional levels and the health status of the poor. In that regard, girls’ education is one of the most effective investments countries can make toward development and better health. Those countries that have the greatest gender disparities in access to education, like Afghanistan, India, Ethiopia and Yemen are also among the poorest countries in the world.

In urban India, for example, it has been found that the mortality rate among the children of educated women is almost half than that of children of uneducated women. In the Philippines, primary education among mothers has reduced the risks of child mortality by half, and secondary education has reduced that risk by a factor of three.

Several strategies can be used to improve the access of mothers and children to educational opportunities as a way of improving their health status and overcome poverty. At the national level governments -particularly in developing countries- have to establish education as a priority, and provide necessary resources and support.

At the international level, lending institutions have to increase the number of debt-reduction plans for those countries willing to provide resources for basic education, particularly in rural areas and at the community level. Since an important goal is to reduce economic inequity to improve the health status of populations, education can provide substantial benefits to people of all ages.

UK Parliament Endorses Terracidal Nuclear Terrorism

Gideon Polya

The UK Parliament recently overwhelmingly supported renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system, with a psychopathic  new UK PM Theresa May declaring her preparedness to kill vast numbers of people with nuclear weapons. Total nuclear disarmament can and should happen. On the eve of the 71st anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, decent people around the world must declare a peaceful war on nuclear terrorist supporters and countries  by Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) that are most likely to be  effective when applied to small nuclear powers like the UK , France, North Korea and Apartheid Israel.

In July 2016 the UK Parliament had a 5 hour debate over the renewal of Trident, the UK’s submarine-borne nuclear weapons system that with other national nuclear arsenals threatens Humanity with annihilation.  The UK Parliament (647 members) shamefully and disgustingly voted in favour of Trident renewal by a majority of 355, with virtually all of the 330 Conservative Party MPs and about 140 Labour MPs – more  than half of Labour MPs – voting for prospective mass murder, including Labour Party leadership challengers Angela Eagle and Owen Smith. Some 41 Labour MPs squibbed this key existential moral issue by being absent or abstaining, the cowardly abstainers including shadow defence secretary, Clive Lewis, and the shadow foreign affairs secretary, Emily Thornberry.

Trident renewal was opposed by all 54 Scottish National Party MPs, the 8 Liberal Democrats and a mere 47  Labour MPs, most notably Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn who has been resolutely  opposed to nuclear terrorism and who told the House of Commons:  “What is the threat we are facing that one million people’s deaths would actually deter? … I make it clear today I would not take a decision that kills millions of innocent people. I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to deal with international relations.”

In stark contrast, after the Scottish National Party MP George Kerevan asked of PM Theresa May: “Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children?”, UK PM  Theresa May replied: “Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike some suggestions that we could have a deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seem to come from the Labour party frontbench.”

We are approaching that time of year when we commemorate the evil and war criminal American atomic bombing of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 (up to 150,000 Japanese civilians killed and over 20,000 military killed) and of Nagasaki on 9 August 1945 (up to 80,000 Japanese civilians killed), atrocities for which US presidents up to Barack Obama refuse to apologize. The fundamental  reasons for these successive mass murder atrocities seem to have been (a) an obscene proof of principle of nuclear annihilation in war, and (b) an  American desire to threaten the newly victorious  Soviet Union that had overwhelmingly borne most of the burden of defeating Nazi Germany, with up to 27 million Soviet citizens dying in WW2 as compared to 600,000 French, 450,000 British, and 420,000 Americans.

The Soviet Union, the UK and France went on to acquire a nuclear deterrent after WW2. China, which had lost 40 million people under Japanese Occupation in 1937-1945, subsequently acquired nuclear weapons. India provided 2 million men to the Allied armies in WW2  but suffered the man-made 1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust (Bengal Famine) in which 6-7 million Indians were deliberately starved to death by the British with Australian complicity;  post-independence  India and Pakistan also eventually acquired nuclear deterrents. With genocidal fanaticism  paradoxically assertedly justified by the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million Jews killed and part of the wider WW2 European Holocaust in which over 30 million Slavs, Jews and Gypsies were killed),  Apartheid Israel  also acquired nuclear weapons with American help.  North Korea, in which an estimated 28% of the population was killed by US bombing in the 1950-1953 Korean War, has also acquired nuclear weapons.

The upper  estimates of stored  nuclear weapons  are as follows: US (7,315), Russia (8,000), Apartheid Israel (400), France (300), UK (250), China (250), Pakistan (120), India (100), and North Korea (less than 10). India , Pakistan and North Korea have not ratified the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Nuclear exchanges have almost occurred accidentally several times in the last half century and in several instances have only  been averted by the sane actions of particular  courageous and humane individuals e.g. Commander Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (1962) and Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (1983). A nuclear exchange would wipe out most of Humanity (current population about 7.5 billion) , successively through the initial instantaneous destruction of cities, subsequent deaths from burns and  radiation sickness from radioactive fallout, and  finally  through a “Nuclear Winter” decimating agriculture, photosynthesis and photosynthate-based life in general. In contrast, as of March  2016,  127 countries have signed up to support the UN Humanitarian Pledge for the banning of nuclear weapons.

Sea-girt Britain was last successfully invaded about 1,000 years ago in 1066 (an invasion associated with the genocidal Norman subjugation of  the English Saxons),  and since then successfully saw off threats  by the Spanish Armada, Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany. The only conceivable European threat to the UK, and hence a target for UK nuclear terrorism,  is US- and NATO-threatened Russia, a distant country which has never sought to invade Britain (what for ?) but which has been repeatedly invaded by Britain. However there are many Developing  Countries that  are potential targets for British nuclear terrorism. Indeed over the last millennium Britain has invaded 193 countries including  nearly all but a few of the present-day UN-recognized or de facto countries of the world. Most of these British invasions in the Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe,  Australasia and the Pacific were variously  associated with genocidal atrocities.

In the 21st century, nuclear terrorist Britain has continued invading other countries as a US lackey. The UK is presently  involved in its Sixth Iraq War and Third Syrian War in a century; is involved in a continuing  Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide (post-invasion deaths from violence or imposed deprivation totalling 2.7 million and 5.5 million, respectively);  as part of the France-UK-US (FUKUS) Coalition helped devastate Libya, formerly the most prosperous country in Africa; and presently has armed forces in the war-torn African nations of Somalia and South Sudan. The genocidally racist and violent  British Establishment just cannot help itself.

It gets worse.  Each year 17 million people die avoidably from deprivation in the Developing World on Spaceship Earth with the first World, including the UK, in charge of the flight deck. Globally, 1.5 billion people have died avoidably from deprivation since 1950.  It is estimated that 1.8 billion Indians died avoidably from deprivation under brutal British domination in the period 1757-1947. 1950-2005 avoidable deaths in countries occupied by the British  in the post-WW2 era have totalled 727 million.

What can decent people do in the face of British nuclear terrorism and indeed nuclear terrorism by other nuclear weapons –possessing states? In relation to the horrifying threat of mass extinction of Humanity and most of the Biosphere from nuclear weapons one can be more specific about the targets of Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) that obviously should apply to all nuclear weapons-possessing countries and nuclear weapons supporters:

1.  “Small” nuclear powers like the UK, France, Apartheid Israel and North Korea are most likely to be pressured successfully by carrot or stick and should be particularly   subject to Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as were successfully applied to  Apartheid South Africa and are currently being applied against nuclear terrorist, racist Zionist (RZ)-run, genocidally racist, democracy-by-genocide Apartheid Israel.
2. Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) should also be applied against the numerous countries that (a) host US bases, (b) host US nuclear weapons, (c) host  nuclear-armed warships, (d) host nuclear terrorism-related communications facilities or (e) otherwise support US nuclear terrorism. Thus  when a US nuclear-armed warship is in an Australian port,  Australia is effectively hosting US nuclear weapons  and making Australia a nuclear target,  in addition to  hosting a US Marine base in Darwin, hosting nuclear-armed warships in general, diplomatically opposing a Nuclear Weapons Ban,  and hosting  joint US-Australian  nuclear terrorism-related communications facilities such as that at Pine Gap in Central Australia.
3. Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) should also be applied against all those nuclear terrorism-supporting countries that refuse to join the present 127 decent nations who support a Nuclear Weapons Ban.

Armed Struggle Is Not Terrorism

Abdul Majid Zargar

The more I read or listen to the debates & discourses on Indian media, both print & electronic, the more I am bemused at the ignorance or deliberate attempt to ignore the fundamental question of Kashmir dispute. That question is simply a political one created by an international promise of right of self determination to people of J&K upon partition of British India in two domains India & Pakistan. The two successor states have duly accepted to implement this promise in letter & sprit.

Indian Writers or debaters, with few honorable exceptions, would simply like to skip  or  reduce this question to terrorism which  reared its head after Nineties around the same time when Kashmiris started their armed struggle. It provided a god send opportunity to these Indians to juxtapose the two and present the struggle to world as an act of Islamic terrorism.

In October 1947, Maharaja of Kashmir  signed an instrument of accession with India to thwart what India calls a ‘Tribal raid to annex Kashmir’ and Pakistan an indigenous initiative supported by tribal Muslims  to liberate Kashmir from the tyrant Mahraja’s rule  under which a  genocide of  Muslims was in progress in Jammu. Incidentally Mahraja had signed a Stand-still agreement with Pakistan few months earlier. Looked in this background the accession, (whose authenticity is also under challenge) gave India only a limited claim and not a perpetual  right to be in Kashmir.

When the matter went to UN at the instance of India, it resolved to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir to know the will of people as to which of the two domains they want to join. Both the two Countries accepted this decision but India, after first adopting dilly-dallying tactics, finally reneged on the promise on a flimsy ground of Pakistan having joined Anglo-American military alliances CEATO & CENTO

So since 1947, Kashmiris have been waging a peaceful resistance to Indian occupation and when these means failed, the people started an armed struggle. To crush this struggle, Indian army used its massive fire-power to such an extent  that all Indian military operations are in reality the collective punishment of whole districts, towns and cities. Targeted killing of  young men, rape of women & enforced disappearances  has been the hallmark of its policy & strategy to subdue a whole population. Crimes against humanity  have been so grave that human beings have even been burnt in live infernos prompting reputed TIME magazine to say PERHAPS THERE IS A SPECIAL CORNER IN HELL RESERVED FOR INDIAN SOLDIERS——(re: TIME magazine on Sopore Massacre of 6th Jannuary 1993). A small coterie of collaborators & agents has been  propelled to paint the occupation with a democratic brush mainly to mislead the international community.

India is taking advantage of a global anti-terrorism atmosphere by juxtaposing  Kashmir issue with terrorism aided and abetted by Pakistan.  As stated earlier an armed struggle was started by Kashmiris in 1990 but a peaceful transition was also made in 2008. So two peaceful struggles from 1947 to 1990 & from 2008 till now have not yielded any fruitful dividend for people of Kashmir and there are now strong indications that its youth  may again be driven to guns out of a sense of hopelessness & desperation. Burhan Wani’s rise & martyrdom  is an indication of that situation.

In this background it is extremely important to know whether an armed struggle to evict an occupier amounts to terrorism. The answer is provided in United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)  resolution No. 3314 passed in 1974.The said resolution while adopting the definition of word  ‘Aggression’,  forbids states and coalitions of states from “any military occupation, however temporary.” It also prohibits bombardments, blockades, or forced annexations of any lands. The Definition warns that no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, justifies aggression. The definition also treats acts of aggression as crimes against peace. Interestingly, however, the Definition provides an exception for the right to armed struggle. It states: “Nothing in this definition of aggression could in any way prejudice the right to self- determination, freedom and independence of peoples forcibly deprived of that right, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to STRUGGLE to that end and to seek and receive support.” Although the text mentions “struggle” and not “armed struggle,” the context in which it is used amply makes it clear that it includes    both forms of struggles. Even logic yields such an interpretation. Since the Definition lists unlawful uses of force, the exception must refer to the lawful use of force. Accordingly, the people under occupation and alien domination may resort to armed struggle in pursuit of freedom and independence. They may also seek and receive arms and other support from external sources.

The  above law of armed struggle as pronounced by UN was further reinforced and all doubts set at rest when UNGA passed yet another historic resolution No. A/RES/37/43 passed on 3rd  December 1982 which justifies use of armed struggle by people for liberation of their land from foreign occupation. The said resolution is reproduced below:

“This House reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including ARMED STRUGGLE”.

Some  developments regarding global terrorism particularly the 9/11 event may have muddled the right to armed struggle. Few members of  international  think tanks   opine the law of armed struggle has been overtaken by the necessity to fight global terrorism. This argument has no merit, whatsoever  on two grounds. First that despite these developments & opinions, international law has not yet repudiated the right to armed struggle and two   various international organizations and institutions reaffirm the right of self-determination against colonial and occupying  regimes every year with right of armed struggle intact.

Is Democracy Consistent With Islam?

Nauman Sadiq

Some people are under the impression that democracy and Islam are incompatible. But I don’t see any contradiction between democracy and Islam, as such. Though, I admit, that there is some friction between Islam and liberalism. When we say that there is a contradiction between Islam and democracy, we make a category mistake which is a serious logical fallacy.

There is a fundamental difference between democracy and liberalism. Democracy falls in the category of politics and governance while liberalism falls in the category of culture. We must be precise about the definitions of the terms that we employ in political science.

Democracy is simply a representative political system that ensures representation, accountability and the right of the electorate to vote governments in and to vote governments out. In this sense when we use the term democracy we mean a multi-party representative political system that confers legitimacy upon a government which comes to power through an election process which is a contest between more than one political parties in order to ensure that it is voluntary. Thus democracy is nothing more than a multi-party representative political system.

Some normative scientists, however, get carried away in their enthusiasm and ascribe meanings to technical terminology that are quite subjective and fallacious. Some will use the adjective liberal to describe the essence of democracy as liberal democracy while others will arbitrarily call it informed or enlightened democracy. In my opinion, the only correct adjective that can be used to describe the essence of democracy is representative democracy.

After settling on the theoretical aspect, let us now apply these concepts to the reality of the practical world, especially the phenomena of the nascent democratic movements of the Arab Spring. It’s a fact that the ground realities of the Arab and Islamic World fall well short of the ideal liberal democratic model of the developed Western World. However, there is a lot to be optimistic about. When the Arab Spring revolutions erupted in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, and before the Arab Spring turned into an abysmal winter in Libya and Syria, some of the utopian dreamers were not too hopeful about the outcome of those movements.

Unlike the socialist revolutions of ‘60s and ‘70s, when the visionaries of yore used to have a magic wand of bringing about a fundamental structural change that would have culminated into equitable distribution of wealth overnight, the neoliberal movements of present times are merely a step in the right direction that will usher the Arab and the Islamic World into an era of relative peace and progress.

The Arab Spring movements have not been led by Gamal Abdel Nassers, Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos, Jawahar Lal Nehrus and other such charismatic messiahs that the utopian thinkers are so fond of. But these revolutions have been the grassroots movements of a society in transition from an abject stagnant state towards a dynamic and representative future.

Let us be clear about one thing first and foremost: the Tunisian moderate Islamist political party, Ennahda, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would have followed the same old economic model of Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak. It’s a growth-based neoliberal model as opposed to an equality-based socialist model. It’s a fact that the developing Third World economies with large populations and meager resources cannot be compared to the democratic socialist countries of Scandinavia.

A question arises that what would have the Arab Spring movements accomplished if the resultant democratic governments would have followed the same old neoliberal and growth-centered economic policies? It should be kept in mind that democracy is not the best of systems because it is the most efficient system of governance. Top-down autocracies are much more efficient than democracies.

But democracy is a representative political system. It brings about a grassroots social change. Enfranchisement, representation, transparency, accountability, checks and balances, rule of law and the consequent institution-building, nation-building and consistent long term policies are the fruits of representative democracy.

Immanuel Kant sagaciously posited that moral autonomy produces moral responsibility and social maturity. This social axiom can also be applied to politics and governance. Political autonomy and self-governance engender political responsibility and social maturity. A top-down political system is dependent on the artificial external force that keeps it going. The moment that external force is removed, the society reverts back to its previous state and the system collapses. But a grassroots and bottom-up political system evolves naturally and intrinsically.

We must not expect from the Arab Spring movements to produce results immediately. Bear in mind that the evolution of Western culture and politics happened over a course of many centuries. Moreover, the Arab revolutions of ‘60s and ‘70s only mobilized the elite classes. Some working classes might have been involved, but the tone and tenor of those revolutions was elitist and that’s the reason why those revolutions failed to produce the desired outcome. The Arab Spring movements, by contrast, mobilized the urban middle class of the Arab societies in the age of electronic media and information technology.

In the nutshell, if the Arab Spring movements have not been about the radical redistribution of wealth, or about creating a liberal utopia in the Middle East overnight, what was the objective of those movements then? Let me try to explain the aims of the Arab Spring movements by way of an allegory. Democracy is like a school and people are like children. We only have two choices: one, to keep the people under paternalistic dictatorships; two, to admit them in the school of representative democracy and let them experience democracy as a lived reality rather than some stale and sterile theory. The first option will only produce half-witted cretins, but the second option will give birth to an educated human resource that doesn’t just consumes resources but also creates new resources.

Finally, I would like to clarify that the militant phenomena in Libya and Syria has been distinct and separate from the political and democratic phenomena of the Arab Spring movements as in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen. A question arises that when political movements for enfranchisement turn violent, do their objectives cease to be legitimate? No they don’t, but from a pacifist standpoint we ought to make a distinction between political movements, to which we should lend our moral support; and the militant phenomena which should be discouraged.

In civil law a distinction is generally drawn between the lawful and unlawful assembly. It is the inalienable right of the people to peacefully assemble to press their demands for political reform. But the moment such protests become militarized and violent, they cease to be lawful. Expecting from the heavily armed militants as in Libya and Syria, who have been described by the Western mainstream media as “moderate rebels,” to bring about political reform and positive social change is not only naïve but bordering on insanity.

In the latter case the only prudent course for the international community is to pressurize both sides: the militants and the regimes, to show restraint and avoid using force; the political right of peaceful demonstrations for political and social reforms is always a given. The demonstrators must have our political and moral support but beyond that any militarization and so-called “liberal interventionism” for ulterior motives in an opportunistic manner is only likely to further exacerbate the conflict.