12 Aug 2016

The United Nations – The Nippon Foundation of Japan Fellowship Programme 2016/2017

Application Deadline for the 2017 Session is 9 September 2016. 
Offered annually? Yes
On 22 April 2004, the United Nations and The Nippon Foundation of Japan concluded a trust fund project agreement to provide capacity-building and human resource development to developing States Parties and non-Parties to UNCLOS through a Fellowship Programme.
The Programme is jointly executed by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) of the Office of Legal Affairs and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). DOALOS serves as the focal point in charge of all substantive elements of the Project. DESA, in its capacity as implementing agency for the Project, is responsible for providing certain administrative services to the Project on behalf of DOALOS.
Scholarship Offered Since: 2004
Fellowship Objective
The objective of the fellowship is to provide opportunities for advanced education and research in the field of ocean affairs and the law of the sea, and related disciplines including marine science in support of management frameworks, to Government officials and other mid-level professionals from developing States, so that they may obtain the necessary knowledge to assist their countries to formulate comprehensive ocean policy and to implement the legal regime set out in UNCLOS and related instruments.
Who is qualified to apply?
Candidates wishing to be considered for a Fellowship award must ensure that they meet all the following criteria:
–          You must be between the ages of 25 and 40;
–          You must have successfully completed a first university degree, and demonstrate a capacity to undertake independent advanced academic research and study;
–          You must be a mid-level administrator from a national government organ of a developing coastal State, or another government related agency in such a State, which deals directly with ocean affairs issues, and your professional position must allow you to directly assist your nation in the formulation and/or implementation of policy in this area. This includes marine sciences and the science-policy linkage. Your “Nomination and Recommendation Form” should be completed by a Government official who can attest to the nature of your work with respect to the Government’s ocean affairs and law of the sea related activities, and indicate how an Award would directly contribute to these activities; and
–          Your proposed research and study programme must contribute directly to your nation’s formulation and/or implementation of ocean affairs and law of the sea policies and programmes.
By what Criteria is Selection Made?
Satisfaction of the above criteria must be clearly demonstrated by the candidate through the application forms and confirmed by a nominating authority.
Programme Structure
The 9-month Fellowship Programme is composed of two consecutive phases which provide Fellows with advanced and customized research and training opportunities in their chose fields:
–          Phase One: 6-month Advanced Academic Research and Study – undertaken at one of the prestigious participating Host Institutions and under the guidance of subject matter expert(s) who have recognized in-depth expertise in the Fellows’ chosen field of study.
–          Phase Two: 3-month Research and Training – normally undertaken at DOALOS at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.
Eligible Countries: Open for International Students
How to apply
If you need more Information about this scholarship, kindly visit the Scholarship Webpage
Sponsors: The United Nations and The Nippon Foundation

Mo Ibrahim Foundation Leadership Fellowship Program 2017/2018

Application Period: Application process opens TODAY 12th August | Deadline for submissions – 14th October, 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Scholarship Name: Mo Ibrahim Foundation Leadership Fellowship Program
Brief description: The Mo Ibrahim Foundation offers Leadership fellowship program for Outstanding Africans to be hosted at African Development Bank (AfDB), The International Trade Centre (ITC) and The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)
About Scholarship
The Mo Ibrahim Foundation, is financing the Ibrahim Leadership Fellowship position. Established in 2006, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation aims to support good governance and great leadership in Africa.  The Foundation works to:
  • Stimulate debate on good governance;
  • Provide criteria by which citizens and governments can measure progress;
  • Recognise achievement in African leadership and provide a practical way in which leaders can build positive legacies on the continent when they have left office;
  • Support aspiring leaders for the African continent.
The Ibrahim Leadership Fellowship Programme is a selective Fellowship that prepares the next generation of outstanding African leaders by providing them with unique work opportunities at the most senior level of prominent African institutions or multilateral organizations, whose mandate is to improve the economic and social prospects of Africa.
Through this annual fellowship programme, the Foundation seeks to deepen and broaden our growing network which continues to contribute its skills and learning to a better Africa. The Fellowships offer the opportunity to work in the executive offices of either the African Development Bank (Abidjan), the UN Economic Commission for Africa (Addis Ababa) or the International Trade Centre (Geneva).Scholarship Offered Since: 2006
Eligibility: 
  • National of an African country
  • 7-10 years of relevant work experience
  • master’s degree
  • under the age of 40, or 45 for women with children
  • any additional criteria as set by the host.
Scholarship Type: Fellowship
Duration: For a period of 12 month
Eligible African Countries
Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, São Tomé & Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe
How to Apply
Sponsors: Mo Ibrahim Foundation

Fully-Funded Commonwealth Scholarships (Masters & PhD) in UK for Developing Countries 2017 Now Open

Brief description: Application is now open for the CSC Commonwealth Scholarships for Masters and PhD students from developing Commonwealth countries to study in UK, funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID).
Application Deadline: 15th November, 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Subject Areas: All subject areas are eligible, although the CSC’s selection criteria give priority to applications that demonstrate strong relevance to development.
commonwealth scholarshipLevels of study:Masters and PhD
About Scholarship: Each year, Commonwealth Scholarships for Master’s and PhD study in the UK are offered for citizens of developing Commonwealth countries. These scholarships are funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), with the aim of contributing to the UK’s international development aims and wider overseas interests, supporting excellence in UK higher education, and sustaining the principles of the Commonwealth.
Scholarship Offered Since: 1959
Scholarship Type: Masters (one-year courses only) and PhD Scholarship
Who is qualified to apply?
To apply for these scholarships, you must:
  • Be a Commonwealth citizen, refugee, or British protected person
  • Be permanently resident in a developing Commonwealth country
  • Be available to start your academic studies in the UK by the start of the UK academic year in September/October 2016
  • By October 2017, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) honours standard, or a second class degree and a relevant postgraduate qualification (usually a Master’s degree)
The CSC promotes equal opportunity, gender equity, and cultural exchange. Applications are encouraged from a diverse range of candidates.
Selection Criteria
Applications are considered according to the following selection criteria:
  • Academic merit of the candidate
  • Quality of the proposal
  • Potential impact of the work on the development of the candidate’s home country
Selection process
Each year, the CSC invites selected nominating bodies to submit a specific number of nominations. The deadline for nominating bodies to submit nominations to the CSC is 13 December 2016.
The CSC invites around three times more nominations than scholarships available – therefore, nominated candidates are not guaranteed to be awarded a scholarship. There are no quotas for scholarships for any individual country. Candidates nominated by national nominating agencies are in competition with those nominated by other nominating bodies, and the same standards will be applied to applications made through either channel.
Number of Scholarships: Approximately 300 scholarships are awarded each year. The CSC invites around three times more nominations than scholarships available – therefore, nominated candidates are not guaranteed to get a scholarship. There are no quotas for scholarships for any individual country. Candidates nominated by national nominating agencies are in competition with those nominated by universities/university bodies, and the same standards will be applied to applications made through either channel.
Duration of Scholarships: 12 months for Masters and up to 36 months for PhD
Eligible Countries: Developing commonwealth countries
Value of Scholarships: Each scholarship provides:
  • Approved airfare from your home country to the UK and return at the end of your award (the CSC will not reimburse the cost of fares for dependants, nor usually the cost of journeys made before your award is finally confirmed)
  • Approved tuition and examination fees
  • Stipend (living allowance) at the rate of £1,043 per month, or £1,279 per month for those at universities in the London metropolitan area (rates quoted at 2016-2017 levels)
  • Thesis grant towards the cost of preparing a thesis or dissertation, where applicable
  • Warm clothing allowance, where applicable
  • Study travel grant towards the costs of study-related travel within the UK or overseas
  • For PhD Scholars, fieldwork grant towards the cost of fieldwork undertaken overseas (usually the cost of one economy class return airfare to your fieldwork location), where approved
  • For PhD Scholars, paid mid-term visit (airfare) to your home country (unless you have claimed (or intend to claim) spouse and/or child allowances during your scholarship, or have received a return airfare to your home country for fieldwork)
  • If your scholarship is at least 18 months long, the following family allowances:
  • Spouse allowance of £224 per month if you and your spouse are living together at the same address in the UK (unless your spouse is also in receipt of a scholarship; other conditions also apply)
  • Child allowance of £224 per month for the first child, and £110 per month for the second and third child under the age of 16, if you are accompanied by your spouse and children and they are living with you at the same address in the UK
  • If you are widowed, divorced, or a single parent (irrespective of the length of your scholarship), child allowance of £448 per month for the first child, and £110 per month for the second and third child under the age of 16, if you are accompanied by your children and they are living with you at the same address in the UK The CSC’s family allowances are intended to be only a contribution towards the cost of maintaining your family in the UK. The true costs are likely to be considerably higher, and you must be able to supplement these allowances in order to support any family members who come to the UK with you.
To be taken at: UK Universities
How to Apply
You must apply to one of the following nominating bodies in the first instance – the CSC does not accept direct applications for these scholarships:
  • National nominating agencies – this is the main route of application. See link below
  • Selected universities/university bodies, which can nominate their own academic staff. See link below
  • Selected non-governmental organisations and charitable bodies
All applications must be made through your nominating body in your home country. Each nominating body is responsible for its own selection process. You must check with your nominating body for their specific advice and rules for applying, their own eligibility criteria, and their own closing date for applications. The CSC does not impose any age limit on applicants, but nominating bodies may do so in line with their own priorities.
You must make an application using the CSC’s Electronic Application System (EAS), in addition to any other application form that you are required to complete by your nominating body.
Your application must be submitted to and endorsed by one of the approved nominating bodies listed above. The CSC will not accept any applications that are not submitted via the EAS to a nominating body in your home country.
You are advised to complete and submit your application as soon as possible, as the EAS will be very busy in the days leading up to the application deadline.
You must provide the following supporting documentation to be received by the CSC by 6 January 2017 in order for your application to be eligible for consideration:
  • References from at least two individuals
  • Transcripts
  • For PhD candidates only, supporting statement from a proposed supervisor in the UK from at least one of the institutions named on your application form
Visit Scholarship webpage for details. Read carefully for guidance.
Sponsors: Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC) and UK Department for International Development (DFID).
Important Notes: You should apply to study at a UK university with which the CSC has a part funding agreement. Click here for a list of UK universities which have part funding agreements with the CSC

Apply: Paid 5 Months Traineeship at the European Commission. Travel, €1,120 Monthly – 2017

Brief description: Apply for a paid traineeship of 5 months with the European Commission (or some executive bodies and agencies of the European Institutions like, for instance, the European External Action Service or Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation), starting on either 1st March or 1st October.
Application Deadline: 31st August 2016
Offered annually? Twice in a year (Bi-annually)
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Any allocated country in Europe within the EU
Eligible Field of Study: None. Interested candidate can only apply for one type of traineeship at a time – administrative or translation.
About the Award: A traineeship at the European Commission is much more than just a professional experience. Each batch of trainees organises a huge range of non-formal learning, social activities, from football to wine-tasting and much in between – in true bureaucratic fashion, each with its own organising committee. There are usually 40-50 of such activities to choose from.
The main social committee is the Trainees’ Committee, which organises parties and social events in Brussels and Luxembourg. Among the most popular events are the Job Fair, which is meant to help you work out your next steps in your professional life, and the prestigious Euroball.
Type: Traineeship
Eligibility: The traineeship programme is open to university graduates, from all over the world who have a:
  1. Degree of at least 3 years of study (minimum a Bachelor);
  2. Very good knowledge of English or French or German (C1/C2 level in accordance with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages);
  3. Very good knowledge of a second EU official language (required for nationals of EU countries).
Candidate must have completed at least 3-years of study with a degree to apply for a Blue Book traineeship. Only if you have a certificate or an official confirmation from your university that you have at least a 3-year degree will you be eligible to apply.
Candidate can apply once per session but as many times as you want until you are finally selected. If you do not pass the pre-selection, or you are in the Blue Book but not selected for a traineeship, you will have to submit again your application. It will undergo again the pre-selection with no guarantee that you will successfully pass it and be in the Blue Book again.
Selection Criteria: Candidates are anonymously evaluated in the assessment phase by two different evaluators, on the basis of following criteria:
  • Level of education (a full university degree of at least three years of studies is mandatory);
  • Language level in one of the three European Commission working/procedural languages (English, French, German) other than your mother tongue/s (mandatory);
  • Language level in the remaining European official languages and/or non EU-languages, if applicable;
  • Relevance of work experience, if applicable;
  • International profile – experience of living/working abroad (mobility);
  • Motivation and quality of reasoning;
  • IT Skills, organisational skills, publications and rare domains of study.
If they successfully pass the first phase of the pre-selection, candidates are “pre-identified” and admitted to the second phase of the pre-selection, i.e. verification of supporting documents/eligibility check.
For the level of education, candidates can send:
  • the certificate/s with the final grade/s clearly mentioned;
  • the Europass Diploma Supplement, if available;
  • university transcripts.
Up to three relevant work experiences can be mentioned in the application. Only work experience that is related to the profile that is selected and lasted, uninterruptedly, more than 6 weeks should be declared. Traineeships made during university courses are already assessed as part of the education and shall not be mentioned as work experiences.
Number of Awardees: Not stated
Value of Traineeship: 
  • You will receive a monthly grant of approximately €1,120 and reimbursement of travel expenses. Accident and health insurance can also be provided.
  • Every year, there are about 1,300 places available.
  • hands-on experience in an international and multicultural environment. This can be an important enrichment for your further career.
  • Visa costs and related medical fees may be reimbursed together with the travel expenditures.
Duration of Traineeship: March 2017-July 2017
How to Apply: Go here for more details
Award Provider: The European Commission

Hunger and Food Waste in a World of Plenty

Graham Peebles

Food, like shelter and health care, is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a fundamental right of all people, irrespective of circumstances or income. And yet one in nine of the global population does not have enough to eat – despite the fact that there is enough food to feed everyone.
The fact that around 800 million people are literally starving to death in a world of plenty is a level of human injustice which beggars belief. Women and children are the worst affected. Woman, who in many countries are not allowed to own land, make up 60% of the global total; if they were given equal access to resources the World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that “the number of hungry in the world could be reduced by up to 150 million people.”
The causes of hunger are not complicated. While the rich indulge to excess, and fill to overflowing, people are allowed to die of hunger-related illnesses simply because they don’t have enough money to buy food. This needless human destruction is not simply unjust, it is atrociously immoral and should fill us all with shame. As a wise man has said, “my brothers how can you watch these people die before your eyes and call yourselves men.”
The Poorest of the Poor
People starve and live with ‘food insecurity’ for one fundamental reason – poverty.
Poverty is not simply defined by a lack of income, but virtually all other types of poverty, including poor health care, poor education, poor nutrition, as well as the more psychological effects – poor self-esteem, personal shame and embarrassment – flow from this basic underlying, and decidedly crude form of poverty. And whilst poverty affects everyone no matter age, the impact on children is devastating, making them vulnerable to all manner of exploitation, threatening their safety, rights, health and education.
In developing countries, according to UNICEF, “more than 30% of children – about 600 million – live on less than US $1 a day [The World Bank poverty line is $1.90 A DAY].” Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five – 3.1 million children each year, 90% of whom are the victims of long-term malnourishment – rather than emergency famine. And for those who survive early childhood, hunger leaves a lifelong legacy of cognitive and physical impairment.
Although the vast majority (98%) of those living with acute food insecurity are found in ‘developing’ – i.e. poor, countries – perhaps surprisingly an additional 50 million people or so (14% of the population) are in America – supposedly the world’s richest nation, but significantly also the country with the highest levels of wealth and income inequality in the world.
Sub-Saharan Africa (where 25% of children are malnourished) accounts for 214 million people living with food insecurity, but the greatest concentration of starving human beings (525 million), according to figures from The Hunger Project, lives in Asia. Inevitably, given its population (1.3 billion), the largest proportion is in India (over 200 million), where the causes of hunger are pretty much the same as everywhere else in the world: High levels of poverty, inequality, rising food costs, inflation and poor governance. We could add to this list: lack of sharing, or distribution of foodstuffs to those in need, and crucially ending food waste. According to the United Nations Development Programme, “up to 40% of the food produced in India is wasted,” 21 million tonnes of wheat alone.
India ranks 80th out of 104 countries in the Global Hunger Index and is home to a third of the world’s poor and hungry. Approximately one in three Indian children are malnourished, and some 3,000 die every day from diet-related illnesses. This in what is regularly hailed as the world’s fastest growing economy, where according to Forbes, 111 billionaires and almost 200,000 millionaires live. The same absurdity – of extraordinary insular wealth, excess and greed alongside desperate poverty and crippling suffering – is repeated globally. Oxfam states that the annual “income of the world’s richest 100 people is enough to end global poverty four times over” – worldwide there are 1,826 billionaires, with a combined wealth in excess of $7 trillions.
Starving in a world of plenty
Worldwide hunger is not the result of population or lack of food; as Oxfam states “it’s about power, and its roots lie in inequalities in access to resources and opportunities,” as well as financial inequality and the economic injustice that feeds poverty. There is roughly the same number of overweight or obese people in the world as the number suffering from hunger. This highlights what many see as one of the underlying causes of hunger: grotesque levels of inequality, within nations and between countries.
Inequality results from a fundamentally corrupt economic system; in fact it is inherent in the system itself. A system on its deathbed that has labelled everything a commodity – including food, shelter, health care, education – to be profited from until exhausted – and everyone a consumer to be exploited into penury then discarded. It is a system that drives compassion and the natural human qualities of sharing and empathy into the shadows; it devalues community and champions individual success no matter the cost to other people or the environment. It says you can feed yourself and your family only if you have money to do so; if not we will sit in comfort and complacency and watch you and your children die.
The chasm between the rich and the rest is greater today than ever. The statistics are staggering. Currently the richest 85 people in the world are worth more than the poorest 3.5 billion; the lower half of the global population possesses just 1% of global wealth, while the richest 10% own 86% of all wealth: “the top 1% account for 46% of the total”! And unless the current trend of rising inequality is checked, Oxfam forecasts that, “the combined wealth of the richest 1 percent will overtake that of the other 99 percent of people next year.”
To redress the growing division between the grossly rich and the desperately poor the charity is calling for what they describe as a Global New Deal, in order to “reverse decades of increasing inequality”. It consists in a radical programme to deal with everything from closing tax havens, which “hold as much as $32 trillion or a third of all global wealth,” to dealing with weak employment laws and investing – not cutting public services.
It is time, Oxfam states, that “our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite.” This means designing a just model with sharing at its heart so that the resources of the world, including food and water, are shared equitably amongst the people of the world.
Creative Solutions to End Hunger and Food Waste
There are various basic measures that have been shown to cut hunger sharply: Encouraging and investing in smallholder farmers (instead of selling off their land to multi-national corporations), particularly women. WFP findings show that high rates of hunger are strongly linked to gender inequalities. “When women are supported, whether as farmers or as food providers, families eat,” and when mothers receive education on good feeding techniques and getting the right nutrients, child malnutrition is reduced; Providing school meals – this has a combined effect: it addresses hunger as well as keeping children in school, and so helps families break the cycle of poverty that leads to hunger.
Technology also has a part to play. The WFP reports that, “in Syria, the refugees from Iraq get a voucher on a cell phone to spend in a local store. The storekeepers love it. The farmers love it. It saves money.” A brilliant scheme that does away with money, as does ‘Food for Assets’, a project that offers food in payment for work to poor, hungry communities, including smallholder farmers. Add to this list raising the minimum wage of the lowest paid workers and importantly, ending food wastage.
Globally around a third of all food produced (1.3 billion tonnes) is wasted; in America the figure jumps to half. In addition to wasting food, all the resources needed to grow and distribute it are also squandered, the key ones being energy and, crucially, water: the UN informs us that, “250 km3 of water is wasted in growing these [wasted] crops, an amount that would meet all the world’s water needs.” Complacency amongst those of us in the West where there is an abundance of food is a major factor: with masses of food in the shops we don’t need to be careful with it, is the common attitude.
There are a number of common-sense recommendations for reducing food wastage, all are easy to implement: Invest in food storage technology, so that food keeps for longer; force supermarkets to stock and sell imperfect vegetables (meaning naturally, not corporately shaped) at lower prices; donate food to those in need and revise the over-zealous sell-by-dates. Redistributing – sharing unwanted food rather than wasting it – would help eliminate hunger. Duncan Green, Oxfam UK’s senior strategic adviser states in The Guardian that on some estimates, “stopping the waste of food after harvest due to poor storage or transport infrastructure, and then in our own kitchens, could free up half of all food grown.”
An Economy Based on Sharing
Over and above these positive steps, which would all contribute to reducing hunger, ending hunger totally is inextricably linked to abolishing the extreme levels of poverty that half the planet lives with.
This requires a creative re-appraisal of the economic system and a collective will to bring about real and lasting change. The current heartless market driven structure, makes no concession to need and is conditioned totally by money; as the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation states “even when enough [food] is produced…there is no guarantee that a market economy will generate a distribution of income that provides enough for all to purchase the food needed.”
The fact that food is burnt, or left for rats to feast on, because it’s cheaper to destroy the produce than distribute it to those in need reveals the inhumane nature of the economic rules that fuel such shameful neglect. Sharing, imaginatively utilised, is the fundamental and common-sense element that would end hunger and acute poverty, and quickly. The fact “that hunger exists at all shows the urgency of redistributing income and assets to achieve a fairer world,” says Duncan Green. “That redistribution has not already taken place is truly something to be ashamed of.”
It is time to design an economic system that allows for the required sharing of food, water, land and other natural resources, as well as knowledge, skills etc. A just, humane model as advocated by the Brandt Commission (report North-South: A Programme for Survival) that honors our collective commitment to Article 25 of the UNDHR and holds, as its primary aim, the meeting of humanity’s basic needs – food, shelter, health care and education. And is not driven by corporate profit, greed and the obscene accumulation of personal wealth, which is fuelling inequality and causing the premature deaths of hundreds of millions of the poorest, most vulnerable people in the world.

New Era of Global Collective Psychosis

Gilbert Mercier

Anybody who has been unfortunate to be in a car or plane crash, but lucky enough to survive it and tell the story afterwards knows the inherent paradox: the event occurred in the blink of an eye, but seemed, in retrospect, to have unfolded in a dreadful slow-motion sequence. What can be called the crash time elasticity contradiction is an accurate metaphor for our era. It is the deep dichotomy of an intuitive knowledge that we, as a global collective, are on a deadly collision course while wearing the distorted slow-motion rosy glasses of projection, looking into some fictional eternal future. If time has, by essence, no end, our life span as a foolish megalomaniac species is about to reach an ugly curtain call. While the end times is a religious fiction, our looming apocalypse is entirely man-made and, as such, is a mere by product of ignorance and collective apathy.
For the very few of us still trying to impact the discourse, it has become incredibly challenging not to give in and surrender to the general entropy of crash time. With so many with their heads in the sand, ignoring an imminent systemic collapse, the effort to wake people up has become more than a Herculean task. The overall attention span is so minimal that ideas are almost never transformed into actions but are just ephemeral ripples on the deep water of forgetfulness. The constant media assault with its cacophony of killing mayhem, spectacles staged as reality, and propaganda passing for news has thoroughly brainwashed many people into a state of uncomfortable numbness. Meaningful ideas could, not so long ago, make waves and even change the tide of history. Now, the words of complex concepts have been gutted of all significance and served for idea consumption as trending hash tags. The media brainwasher/propagandists have powerful bullhorns and are always hard at work to keep their vast audience either uninformed, anxious, and feeling powerless or entertained. The news cycle has to spin so fast that critical thinking is never an option.
This deliberate aggression on our collective psyche, switching in rapid daily succession, is similar to the sleep deprivation torture technique known to induce psychosis in individuals. As an example, here is a frantic but accurately summarized version of a recent chain of events which was conveniently tucked in between two feel-good big media stories: Euro 2016 in the sports/entertainment division and the Democrats’ convention in the politics/entertainment category. A mass killing in Nice, conveniently justifying a three-month extension of the state of emergency in France; a failed military coup in Turkey, conveniently allowing PM Erdogan to assert a near absolute dictatorship in the country; an attack in Munich allegedly from Islamists, conveniently allowing Chancellor Merkel to reverse her previously generous Syrian migrants asylum policy; the killing of more than 200 Shiites in Kabul, Afghanistan, conveniently ignored by most Western media outlets.
It can reasonably be argued, and easily demonstrated, that a disease afflicting a person usually quickly affects a community. This goes of course for the middle-age plague pandemic called the Black Death which killed an estimated 50 percent of Europe’s population, and more than 120 million people worldwide. Beside its death toll, which reduced the world population by more than 25 percent during the 14th century, the plague pandemic induced deep collective psychological turmoil in connection with the interpretation that it was God’s punishment on mankind, and the start of the apocalypse. The plague revived the intolerance of religious fundamentalism. The Black Death was a foray into collective psychosis, where affected people were quarantined to die by the million from starvation.
A lot more recently, another form of collective psychosis struck humanity. That one was not a disease brought by rats, contaminated by infected fleas, to the shores of Europe, it was the ideology of the Nazis in Germany, and their fascist allies in Italy and imperial Japan. During the Weimar Republic, which spanned from 1919 to 1933, Germany was a culturally vibrant country at the vanguard in art, music, sciences, philosophy and literature. Nobody could have forecast that such an advanced civilization would become literally hypnotized by a mad man like Adolf Hitler. The global collective psychotic episode which engulfed the world between 1939 and 1945 and is called World War II, killed an estimated 72 million people worldwide. When one studies the history of mankind, it appears that mental disease combined with unusual charisma in a leader can be even more contagious than the plague in the middle-age. Contemporary Germans and Japanese suffer, in large part, from a convenient historical amnesia, but the evidence proves that their ancestors living during World War II were, by an overwhelming majority, fanatic supporters of Hitler and the emperor.
Hitler and the Nazis used the powers of seduction, decorum and elaborate brainwashing strategies to propagate their brand of madness, but in the summer of 1945, across the Atlantic, a seemingly quiet and normal leader did the unthinkable with two criminally insane decisions. On August 6, 1945, unassuming Harry Truman had no moral issue with ordering the killing of 140,000 civilians in Hiroshima, Japan with atomic bombs. Truman coldly did it again three days later and killed another 80,000 in Nagasaki. The quiet little man should be remembered as the lunatic who established terror as state policy. In August 1945, Japan was on its knees. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not about speeding up the end of World War II like American historic propaganda still claims, it was about asserting US hegemony and scaring the world into submission. It is not a coincidence that only the United States of America has used the atomic bomb in warfare; it has been the empire’s ultimate prerogative.
From August 1945 to the present, the biggest collective fear has been nuclear annihilation, but like lab rats are often exposed to unmotivated electric shocks, smaller doses of fear and paranoia are administered to the population almost on a daily basis. Mass killings in some part of the planet or another, have become extremely useful to condition people into submission. In November, it will be a year since France has been under the boots of a state of emergency. Who would have thought that the country of revolution would have tolerated this? But again, who would have thought that Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Yugoslavia could fall into the darkness of collective psychosis almost overnight? Who would have thought that a little man with the charisma of an accountant could have been mad enough to go on a rampage and kill 220,000 Japanese in August 1945? In a world gone mad, perhaps letting the criminally insane run the asylum is not such a good idea after all.

Outrage in the Inland Empire: the Slaughter of the Profanity Wolf Pack

George Wuerthner

The recent decision by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to kill members of the Profanity wolf pack because they have killed a few cattle grazing public lands in NE Washington is more than sad. It is an outrage. That any wolves are killed merely to benefit the profit margin of private businesses utilizing public resources is reprehensible. The real tragedy is that this slaughter of wild predators is repeated over and over throughout the West.
Keep in mind that alien domestic livestock have been imposed upon our wildlife. The real crime is that these wolves will be killed to benefit the bottom line of ranchers grazing livestock on public lands. Shouldn’t a prerequisite for ranchers getting subsidized forage on public lands be the minimum requirement that they must accept any losses to predators? If they don’t want such losses, they can take their cattle and sheep home.
Rather than killing wolves for doing what wolves do—preying on large ungulates—we should be eliminating the source of the problem whenever there is a conflict—that is removing livestock.
If you leave your cooler on the picnic table in Yellowstone, or food accessible to wildlife in many backcountry areas, you can be fined for potentially introducing wild animals to human food sources.
Yet we allow ranchers to place four-legged picnic baskets across our public lands—typically without any supervision. Worse, if these predators, whether bears, cougars, coyotes or wolves, have the audacity to snack on these movable food treats, we kill the predators instead of holding the ranches accountable.
Keep in mind that the mere presence of domestic livestock compromises the habitat quality for public wildlife, including wolves in many ways. For instance, when domestic animals are released on public lands, it socially displaces wild ungulates like elk. In other words, when ranchers place their private animals on the public land they are creating a natural conflict because wolves have fewer wild prey to hunt.
Wolves raising pups cannot merely move to other lands to find prey. So when elk and other prey are socially displaced, they often resort to the only other available food source—which can domestic livestock.
There is no free lunch (though admittedly public lands ranchers do pay almost nothing for the forage their cattle consume). When domestic animals consume grass and other plants on public lands there is that much less to support native grazers like elk and deer. Since the vast majority of forage on public is routinely allotted to domestic livestock, this reduces the overall carrying capacity of the land to support native ungulates.
Domestic livestock also can transmit diseases to wildlife that can reduce prey for predators as well. For instance, domestic sheep can transmit pneumonia and other diseases that can ravage wild herds, again reducing potential prey for predators like wolves.
In effect, domestic livestock are essentially appropriating and limiting the natural food of native prey that sustains wolves, bears, cougars and coyotes.
The idea that our public heritage and patrimony should continue to be sacrificed for the private profit of individuals is no longer acceptable. By not challenging this paradigm, we all perpetuate the continued slaughter of public wildlife at the behest of private businesses.

Hollywood Mythology: How White Men Save the World

John Wight

It seems Hollywood can’t help itself when it comes to asserting the white man’s role in saving the world. The latest example is the fantasy blockbuster The Great Wall, starring Matt Damon in the lead role despite the story being set in 15th century China.
Many mistakenly believe that Washington’s most potent weapon is its vast military machine, by which it polices a world it believes is their world to police, keeping those recalcitrant and pesky foreigners know their place, else find themselves showered in cruise missiles.
However, as vast as Washington’s military machine undoubtedly is, the true and most potent locus of Washington’s power is Hollywood, where the assertion of the superiority of American cultural values is reproduced day in and day out, preparatory to being unleashed on a world that really needs to show more gratitude for everything America has done to make it better. Movie after movie and TV show after TV show is churned out in which every other nation and its people are reduced to the role of spectator or bit part player in America’s on-going love affair with itself.
The controversy that has erupted over the decision to cast Matt Damon in the lead role of ‘The Great Wall’, directed by Zhang Yimou, is at least evidence that the world is tired of the exaltation of white America as the fount of everything good and pure and honest and heroic in history, and that its distorted narrative will no longer be allowed to pass uncontested. The $150 million mammoth joint US-Chinese production, scheduled for release at the end of this year, finds Matt Damon cast as the leader of a band of mercenaries in search of gunpowder who arrive at the site of the wall as it is under construction, where they learn it is being built not only to keep out marauding Mongolian hordes but also monsters. It probably doesn’t take a genius to work out how the story unfolds from there.
Leading Asian-American actress Constance Wu took to social media to lambast the movie, writing, “We have to stop perpetuating the racist myth that only a white man can save the world…Our heroes don’t look like Matt Damon. They look like Malala. Ghandi. Mandela. Your big sister when she stood up for you to those bullies that one time.”
Defending the decision to cast Damon in the lead role, director Zhang Yimou wrote, “Our film is not about the construction of the Great Wall …The arrival of (Damon’s) character in our story is an important plot point. There are five major heroes in our story and he is one of them – the other four are all Chinese. The collective struggle and sacrifice of these heroes are the emotional heart of our film. As the director of over 20 Chinese language films and the Beijing Olympics, I have not and will not cast a film in a way that was untrue to my artistic vision.”
It should be mentioned that the majority of the actors in the movie are Chinese. However the lead actor is not, thus substantiating the criticism that the role of the Chinese talent in the movie is akin to decoration.
Astonishing, when you think about it, that racial stereotyping and/or omission remains a feature of the movie industry in Hollywood in the 21st century. Earlier this year similar controversy engulfed the annual Oscars extravaganza over the lack of nominations for black or minority performers and artists.
Students of the history of Hollywood could point to countless examples of both its propensity for racial stereotyping and blatant distortion of history and historical events. Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle, set the tone for a long exercise in the promotion of American and white cultural values in the guise of entertainment. In their landmark work on US cultural hegemony and how is helps sustain America’s empire,  authors Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies point out that, “Africa enters the movies through the Tarzan genre.”
The reality is that American geopolitics and Hollywood have always walked hand in hand, with the movie industry Washington’s most potent weapon by which it seeks to assert cultural supremacy, the foundations upon which its economic and military power rest. The message promoted in this process is a simple but effective one: America is the world and the world is America. Consider for example the 2014 Oscar-winning movie American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood, in which Bradley Cooper plays the role of famed US Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle, a man who over the course of four tours of duty in Iraq was credited with more ‘kills’ than any sniper in US military history. As I wrote in a review of the movie, “if you had just arrived in the movie theater from another planet, you would be left in no doubt from the movie’s opening scene that Iraq had invaded and occupied America rather than the other way round.”
As Sardar and Davies observe, “The myth of the reluctant hero is used to camouflage the fact that the majority of Americans actually do believe that America has the right to be imperial. There is an inner fitness in America forged by its founding principles that makes it the right nation to be pre-eminent.”
American exceptionalism has much to answer for. It has not only fuelled countless wars in its name, it has perpetuated the lie that the world could not survive without America – which is to say ‘white America’ – as the one indispensable nation, standing forth as a beacon of democracy and freedom, heroically defending civilization from the monsters that lurk beyond – Indians, Africans, Arabs, Chinese, Iranians, Russians, Asians, Mexicans or Muslims; just like a buffet menu you can take your pic. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter anyway, as when viewed through the prism of American exceptionalism each have and continue to pose a threat to a people rendered blissfully ignorant by the propaganda that passes for entertainment in a nation cut off from the rest of the world by the walls of its own mythology.

How the Obama Administration Encouraged the Rise of Islamic State

Nauman Sadiq

Although, I admit that Donald Trump’s recent remarks that Obama Administration willfully created the Islamic State were a bit facile, but it is an irrefutable fact that Obama Administration’s policy of nurturing the Syrian militants against the Assad regime from August 2011 to August 2014 created the ideal circumstances which led to the creation of not just Islamic State but myriads of other Syrian militant groups which are just as fanatical and bloodthirsty as Islamic State.
It should be remembered here that the Libyan and Syrian crises originally began in early 2011 in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings when the peaceful protests against the Qaddafi and Assad regimes turned militant. Moreover, it should also be kept in mind that the withdrawal of the United States’ troops from Iraq, which has a highly porous border with Syria, took place in December 2011.
Furthermore, the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, served as the United States’ Secretary of State from January 2009 to February 2013. Thus, for the initial year-and-a-half of the Syrian civil war, Hillary Clinton was serving as the Secretary of the State and the role that she played in toppling the regime in Libya and instigating the insurgency in Syria is not hidden from anybody’s eyes.
Additionally, it is also a known fact that the Clintons have cultivated close ties with the Zionist lobbies in Washington and the American support for the proxy war in Syria is specifically about ensuring Israel’s regional security as I shall explain in the ensuing paragraphs. However, it would be unfair to put the blame for the crisis in Syria squarely on the Democrats; the policy of nurturing militants against the regime has been pursued with bipartisan support. In fact, Senator John McCain, a Republican, played the same role in the Syrian civil war which Charlie Wilson played during the Soviet-Afghan war in the ‘80s. And Ambassador Robert Ford was the point man in the United States’ embassy in Damascus.
More to the point, the United States’ Defense Intelligence Agency’s report of 2012 that presaged the imminent rise of a Salafist principality in northeastern Syria was not overlooked it was deliberately suppressed; not just the report but that view in general that a civil war in Syria will give birth to the radical Islamists was forcefully stifled in the Washington’s policy making circles under pressure from the Zionist lobbies.
The Obama Administration was fully aware of the consequences of its actions in Syria but it kept pursuing the policy of funding, training, arming and internationally legitimizing the so-called “Syrian Opposition” to weaken the Syrian regime and to neutralize the threat that its Lebanon-based proxy, Hezbollah, posed to Israel’s regional security; a fact which the Israeli defense community realized for the first time during the 2006 Lebanon war during the course of which Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets into northern Israel. Those were only unguided rockets but it was a wakeup call for Israel’s defense community that what would happen if Iran passed the guided missile technology to Hezbollah whose area of operations lies very close to the northern borders of Israel?
Notwithstanding, how can the United States claim to fight a militant group which has been an obvious by-product of the United States’ policy in Syria? Let’s settle on one issue first: there were two parties to the Syrian civil war initially, the Syrian regime and the Syrian opposition; which party did the US support since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in early 2011 to June 2014 until Islamic State overran Mosul?
Obviously, the United States supported the Syrian opposition; and what was the composition of the so-called “Syrian Opposition?” A small fraction of it was comprised of defected Syrian soldiers, which goes by the name of Free Syria Army, but a vast majority has been Sunni jihadists and armed tribesmen who were generously funded, trained and armed by the alliance of Western powers, Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf States.
Islamic State is nothing more than one of the numerous Syrian jihadist outfits, others being: al Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, al-Tawhid brigade, Jaysh al Islam etc. The United States-led war against Islamic State is limited only to Islamic State while all other Sunni Arab jihadist groups are enjoying complete impunity, and the so-called “coalition against Islamic State” also includes the main patrons of Sunni Arab jihadists like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan.
Regardless, many biased political commentators of the mainstream media deliberately try to muddle the reality in order to link the emergence of Islamic State to the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the Bush Administration. Their motive behind this chicanery is to absolve the Obama Administration’s policy of supporting the Syrian opposition against the Assad regime since the beginning of the Syrian civil war until June 2014 when Islamic State overran Mosul and Obama Administration made a volte-face on its previous policy of indiscriminate support to the Syrian opposition and declared a war against a faction of Syrian opposition: that is, the Islamic State.
Moreover, such spin-doctors also try to find the roots of Islamic State in al-Qaeda in Iraq; however, the insurgency in Iraq died down after the “surge” of American troops in 2007. Al-Qaeda in Iraq became a defunct organization after the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi and the subsequent surge of troops in Iraq. The re-eruption of insurgency in Iraq has been the spillover effect of nurturing militants in Syria against the Assad regime when Islamic State overran Fallujah and parts of Ramadi in January 2014 and subsequently captured Mosul in June 2014.
The borders between Syria and Iraq are highly porous and it’s impossible to contain the flow of militants and arms between the two countries. The Obama Administration’s policy of providing money, arms and training to the Syrian militants in the training camps located at the border regions of Turkey and Jordan was bound to backfire sooner or later.
Notwithstanding, in order to simplify the Syrian quagmire for the sake of readers, I would divide it into three separate and distinct zones of influence. Firstly, the northern and northwestern zone along the Syria-Turkey border, in and around Aleppo and Idlib, which is under the influence of Turkey and Qatar. Both of these countries share the ideology of Muslim Brotherhood and they provide money, training and arms to the Sunni Arab jihadist organizations like al-Tawhid Brigade and Ahrar al-Sham in the training camps located at the border regions of Turkey.
Secondly, the southern zone of influence along the Syria-Jordan border, in Daraa and Quneitra and as far away as Homs and Damascus. It is controlled by the Saudi-Jordanian camp and they provide money, weapons and training to the Salafist militant groups such as al-Nusra Front and the Southern Front of the so-called “moderate” Free Syria Army in Daraa and Quneitra, and Jaysh al-Islam in the suburbs of Damascus. Their military strategy is directed by a Military Operations Center (MOC) and training camps  located in the border regions of Jordan. Here let me clarify that this distinction is quite overlapping and heuristic at best, because al-Nusra’s jihadists have taken part in battles as far away as Idlib and Aleppo.
And finally, the eastern zone of influence along the Syria-Iraq border, in al-Raqqa and Deir al-Zor, which has been controlled by a relatively maverick Iraq-based jihadist outfit, the Islamic State. Thus, leaving the Mediterranean coast and Syria’s border with Lebanon, the Baathist and Shi’a-dominated Syrian regime has been surrounded from all three sides by the hostile Sunni forces: Turkey and Muslim Brotherhood in the north, Jordan and the Salafists of the Gulf Arab States in the south and the Sunni Arab-majority regions of Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in the east.