OSISA Scholarship for Southern African Women Media Leaders at Rhodes University, South Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 18th November 2016.

Eligible Countries for Scholarship: Students (women) from the following Southern African Countries
Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe

About the Award: Southern African Women Media Leaders who wish to study media management and leadership at the Rhodes University’s Sol Plaatje Institute (SPI), South Africa for Media Leadership are invited to apply for postgraduate scholarships 2017 offered by the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA).

Successful scholarship applicants will register for the SPI’s one- year, fulltime Postgraduate Diploma in Media Management (PDMM), the only university-level media management course in Africa.

The postgraduate scholarships, sponsored by the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA), are for women media leaders in OSISA’s 10 Southern African countries which include Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The Sol Plaatje Institute for Media Leadership is a pioneering media management institute of Rhodes University’s School of Journalism and Media Studies. It educates and trains high-level media managers and leaders for and from across Africa through delivering unique, innovative and Africa-contextualised courses and training programmes. All of the Institute’s courses and training programmes are fully accredited and certificated.

Eligibility

• Only female students from OSISA’s 10 countries of Southern Africa are eligible to apply for these scholarships.
• Applicants should ideally come from media companies.
• Successful applicants will be required on completion of the PDMM to return to their employers in their home countries to work there for a period of at least a year in partial fulfilment of having been granted the scholarship.
• Applicants should ideally have completed an undergraduate degree from a recognised university.
• Experienced media practitioners with diplomas in journalism or mass communication studies will also be considered.

Value of Scholarship:

• The full cost of tuition
• Accommodation and meals in one of Rhodes University’s residences
• Course materials
• A monthly subsistence allowance
• Medical aid cover
• Mid-year media management internship costs.

 Employers of the successful scholarship applicants or the scholarship winners themselves have to cover their travel costs to and from Rhodes University, including during the University’s holidays, to encourage greater ownership and appreciation of the scholarship programme by the beneficiaries and their media organizations.

How to Apply: 

 Students wishing to apply for these scholarships need to:

• Complete the Rhodes University’s standard Honours Application form (available at www.ru.ac.za/applying/  under the section ‘Postgraduate Studies’  which must be submitted directly to the Registrar’s Division at Rhodes University and a copy emailed to Wendy Dyibishe (w.dyibishe@ru.ac.za)  at the Sol Plaatje Institute.

• Submit a detailed Curriculum Vitae, including contact details, to Wendy Dyibishe.

• Submit certified academic transcripts of ALL tertiary qualifications. These are sent to both Wendy Dyibishe at the SPI and to the Registrar’s Division at Rhodes University; and

• Submit to the SPI — through Wendy Dyibishe at W.dyibishe@ru.ac.za — a 1,000-word letter of motivation which explains why the student is interested in doing the PGDip in Media Management, how the course will assist the student’s career and why the student believes she qualifies for the OSISA scholarship.

 Only short-listed candidates will be contacted after the applications close at 12 mid-day (Southern African Time) on 18 November 2016.

For more details about this scholarship View scholarship details

Jiangsu Provincial Government Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018 – China

Application Deadline: 15th April 2017

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): China

About the Award: This scholarship will be provided to the excellent overseas students or scholars to undertake full time study in universities and colleges of Jiangsu. It will also include those non-degree program students and exchange students in accordance with educational exchange agreements and MOUs between the Jiangsu Provincial Government and the governments of other states, institutions, universities and international organizations. China Pharmaceutical University is authorized as one of the host universities to accept international students under the scholarship.

Type: Masters, Bachelors

Eligibility: The applicant must meet the following criteria:

1. Applicants must be a citizen of a country other than the People’s Republic of China, and be in good health;

2. Education background and age limit:

– Applicants for bachelor’s degree program must be high school graduates and under the age of 25;

– Applicants for master’s degree studies must have bachelor’s degree and be under the age of 35;

– Applicants for doctoral degree studies must have master’s degree and be under the age of 40;

3. Language requirements

– HSK 5 and above for Chinese-taught programs;

– IELTS 6.5 or above or IBT 90 or above for English-taught programs;

4. Applicants should have competitive academic records and strong scientific research abilities;

5. Applicants cannot be recipients of other scholarships offered by Chinese government, local governments or other organizations simultaneously.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 

• Full scholarship
  • A fee waiver of tuition, registration, laboratory experiments, internship, and basic textbooks;
  • Accommodation: Free on-campus dormitory accommodation (double room),
  • Monthly stipend: CNY1, 500 per month
  • Students registering before the 15th of the month (the 15th included) will receive full stipend of that month. Those who register after the 15th of the month will receive half stipend of that month.
  • If registered student stays out of China for more than 15 days (school holidays excluded), his stipend will be stopped during his leaving.
  • Graduating students will receive stipend until half month after the graduation date
  • Medical insurance: Comprehensive Medical Insurance and Protection Scheme for International Students while in China.

• Partial Scholarship
  • CNY 30000 for one year and the awardees will receive the scholarship half by half in two semesters.

How to Apply: 

1. Applicants need to submit the application online at http://admission.cpu.edu.cn/apply and send the required applications to the Section of International Students of China Pharmaceutical University for review and get pre-acceptance letter.

2. Submit the online application at Study in Jiangsu website www.studyinjiangsu.org

3. Submit the required documents to the Office of Jasmine Jiangsu Government Scholarship Management Team.

Mailing Address: Room 1212, No. 15, West Beijing Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China,
Postcode: 210024
Tel: +86 25 83335332
Fax: +86 25 83335521

Application Materials: The applicants must fill in and provide the following materials truly and correctly (in duplicate).

1. Application Form (print and sign the form after submitting application online)

2. Photocopy of the passport;

3. The notarized photocopy highest diploma and transcripts. If applicants are university students or already employed, they should also provide Certificate of Enrollment or Employment accordingly. Documents in languages other than Chinese or English must be attached with translations in Chinese or English;

4. Chinese Language test report (HSK) for Chinese-taught programs and English language test report e.g. IELTS or TOEFL for English-taught programs;

5. A study or research proposal (written in Chinese or English and no less than 800 words);

6. Two letters of recommendation from full professors or associate professors in Chinese or English (applicable to master’s and PhD candidates and professors’ signature, contact phone number and email address must be put on the letter);

7. Published academic papers or other academic achievements (if applicable).

8. Photocopy of Foreigner Physical Examination Form.

The medical examinations must cover all the items listed in the Foreigner Physical Examination Form. Incomplete records or those without the signature of the attending physician, the official stamp of the hospital or a sealed photograph of the applicants are invalid. The medical examination results will be valid for 6 months. All applicants are kindly requested to take this factor into consideration as they plan to take the medical examination.

Application materials will NOT be returned regardless of the result of application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Jiangsu Provincial Government

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellowships for Developing Countries – Germany

Application Timeline: 1st March 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Citizenship of a non-European threshold or developing country (see list of countries) which is also the fellow’s habitual abode and place of work;

To be taken at (country): Germany

Accepted Subject Areas: Climate Protection

About Scholarship: The International Climate Protection Fellowships enable prospective leaders to conduct a research-related project of their own choice during a one-year stay in Germany. Submit an application if you are a prospective leader from a non-European threshold or developing country working in the field of climate protection and resource conservation in academia, business or administration in your country.

Type: Fellowship for developing countries

Selection Criteria

• First academic degree (Bachelor’s or equivalent), completed less than 12 years prior to the start of the fellowship
• Extensive professional experience in a leadership role (at least 48 months at the time of application) in the field of climate protection and resource conservation or a further academic or professional qualification;
• Initial practical experience (at least 12 months at the time of application) through involvement in projects related to climate protection and resource conservation (possibly already during studies);
• Leadership potential demonstrated by initial experience in leadership positions and/or appropriate references (see no. 8);
• A detailed statement by a host in Germany, including a confirmation of support; details of the proposed project must be discussed with the prospective host prior to application;
• Very good knowledge of English and/or German, documented by appropriate language certificates;
• Two to three expert references by individuals qualified to comment on the candidate’s professional, personal and, if applicable, academic eligibility and his / her leadership potential.

Benefits

• Fellowship amount according to qualifications between €2,150 and €2,650 per month
• Two-month intensive language course in Germany
• Lump sum for travel expenses
• Allowances for visits by family members lasting at least three months
• Allowance of €800 per month for the host in Germany for projects in the natural and engineering sciences, and €500 per month for projects in the humanities and social sciences

Number of Awards: 20

Duration: One year

How to Apply

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

Important Notes: Potential applicants who have spent more than six months in Germany or more than 12 months in a country that is not on the list of countries at the time of or shortly before application should contact the Humboldt Foundation (info@avh.de) before submitting an application as they may be ineligible on formal grounds.

Microsoft Interns 4Afrika Paid Internship Programme for Young African Graduates 2017

Application Deadline: The application deadline will be posted soon. Apply anyway.

Eligible Countries: All African countries

To be taken at (country): Internships are available across the African continent

Eligible Fields: There are internships available across the African continent in three distinct areas: sales, marketing and technical and we ask you to apply for one of these paths depending on where your skills and passions are. e. If you are successful in your application, you will be matched to great roles with Microsoft partners

About the Award: The Interns4Afrika program offers talented young people a unique experience with a dynamic and agile technology organization on the African continent. You will work for 6 months with a Microsoft partner on real projects, collaborating and learning from your colleagues. Whether you’re aspiring for a future in sales, marketing or technology, this is your chance to kick-start your future

To give you the best chance of success 4 weeks of your internship will be dedicated to developing world class business and technical skills. We’ll support you to rapidly develop your capabilities through the (virtual) classroom and the great work you will do.The competition for a place on Interns 4Afrika is tough but if you are entrepreneurial with a passion for technology, are keen to continue learning and have a flexible can-do attitude we want to hear from you. Join us today, and help shape the Africa of tomorrow.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: Apply if:

• You are able to commit to completing full time internship for 6 months
• You are currently in education or have graduated from an Undergraduate or Postgraduate course within the last 12 months
• You have a BA/BSc in a business related or IT degree
• You are based on the African continent and You have right to work in the country in which you are currently located

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Internship: All interns will be paid a salary and will be located at and employed by the partner organization for the six-month internship period.

Duration of Internship: 6 months

How to Apply: You can download the Interns4Afrika application form here. Please complete the form electronically and email it to the Interns4Afrika team at y4Afrika@microsoft.com . Please also include an up-todate copy of your CV as an attachment to the email.

Don’t forget to sell yourself on your application form and CV as the competition for this internship is tough!

Visit Internship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Microsoft

Vatican Mediation in Venezuela Changes Political Equation for Washington

Mark Weisbrot

The Vatican’s participation in the mediation effort in Venezuela poses an unusual challenge to US policy in Venezuela and the region. On Sunday, October 30, three of the four major opposition parties and other prominent opposition leaders met with the government, with mediators from the Vatican and UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations). Some progress was made. The government released four people who the opposition considers political prisoners, and the opposition called off a political trial against President Maduro and a planned demonstration that most observers believed ran a high risk of violence.

Thomas Shannon, the number three official in the US State Department, also went to Venezuela this week, met with President Maduro and opposition leaders, and supported the dialogue. I wish I could say that this represents an actual change in US policy in the region, but all evidence still points to the contrary.

The US government is not looking at Venezuela in terms of dialogue or compromise. The Obama administration has economic sanctions against Venezuela, which President Obama renewed last March. In renewing these sanctions, the executive order again declared that Venezuela presented “an unusual and extraordinary threat to US security.” The world knows what happens to countries that the US deems to be “an unusual and extraordinary” security threat. Look what happened to Iraq. Look what happened to Nicaragua in the 1980s. It doesn’t matter how many people are directly affected by the specific sanctions against Venezuela. The threat is what matters, and it is ugly and belligerent enough to keep many investors from investing in Venezuela and to raise the country’s cost of borrowing. (Not to mention that the whole premise of Venezuela as a “security threat” is absurd.) And the US government has also directly pressured financial institutions not to do business with Venezuela.

For all of these reasons, it is clear that Washington’s goal in Venezuela is currently the same as it has been for almost all of the past 15 years. Shannon’s support for dialogue is almost certain to turn out the same as previous diplomatic thaws in the past: a brief and insincere interlude. President Obama initiated the longest period (about five months) of calm US-Venezuela relations ― since the US-backed military coup of 2002 ―between March and July last year. It soon became clear that this was only because the Cubans ― with support from the rest of the region ― made it a condition of progress in their own negotiations for opening relations with the US. This was something that Obama wanted for his legacy. But as Venezuela’s National Assembly elections approached, the Obama administration went back to its regime change strategy, supporting an international campaign to delegitimize Venezuela’s elections. (This turned out to be unnecessary, since the opposition won in a landslide.)

The Venezuelan opposition pursued a “strategy of military takeover” for the first four years of the Chávez government, including the 2002 military coup. But since 2004, they have been divided on whether to pursue change through legal means. Whenever they had people in the streets supporting a violent or extralegal overthrow ― as in 2002–03, 2013, or 2014 ― the US government has taken their side. Washington has also led various campaigns to delegitimize the Venezuelan government, a vital part of any extralegal “regime change” strategy.

But for the moment, Pope Francis has altered everyone’s calculations. It is not good optics for the hard-line Venezuelan opposition to condemn the pope. And the Obama administration cannot exert the kind of pressure on the Vatican that it does on, e.g., European governments to support its sanctions against Russia, or various unpopular military adventures. Also, the international media cannot marginalize or ignore the pope in the way they do the rest of the hemisphere’s governments, e.g., when these governments resist Washington’s support for regime change in Venezuela, Honduras, and other countries.

The pope is likely to look at the Venezuelan crisis in a pragmatic way, rather than through the lens of Washington’s imperial and ideological imperatives. There is a divided government in Venezuela, with the chavistas controlling the presidency and to a large extent the judiciary. The fractious opposition controls the National Assembly. Until the next presidential election, there is no way to resolve the political conflict except through dialogue and negotiation.

Pope Francis can be a pragmatic diplomat, but he has certain principles and is not easily intimidated. He is likely to understand that Venezuela’s divided government is a result of a divided country. From 2003, when the Chávez government got control of the national oil industry, until 2014, the large majority of the population experienced enormous gains in their living standards. That is why, in December of last year, in the elections for National Assembly, the ruling PSUV still got more than 40 percent of the vote ― despite inflation running at 180 percent and widespread shortages of basic consumer goods.

A big part of the gains of the Chávez era have been lost in the past nearly three years, and especially over the past year. But the governing party still has a political base that remembers worse poverty and exclusion, if not worse shortages, in the pre-Chávez era. They do not see the political opposition, which is a right-wing political movement that has always represented the upper classes, offering solutions that will make their lives better.

The Vatican will therefore likely seek negotiation and compromise on both sides of the political divide. This poses a unique challenge to Washington and some of its closest allies in Venezuela.

Trump vs. the National Security Establishment: Will There be a Revolution in US Foreign Policy?

James Luchte

Since the beginning of his presidential campaign, Trump had been savaged by the National Security establishment, castigated as unfit to lead, dangerous, incompetent, and ignorant.  These criticisms were woven together in an August 8 letter signed by fifty former National Security officers, denouncing a possible Trump presidency.   His national security team was also severely ridiculed by establishment media from the New Republic’s “Trump’s Court Jesters”, as “a rogues’ gallery of outcasts and opportunists, has-beens and never-weres, conspiracy-mongers and crackpots,” to the “Who?” of ‘Top experts confounded by advisors to Donald Trump” from the New York Times.  Trump responded to the letter stating that these are the same people who brought us two decades of war – and his advisor Sam Clovis sardonically remarked that the National Security team is composed of people who “work for a living.”

Putting aside these castigations, Trump’s most egregious national security faux pas is his contestation of the Russophobic paradigm that has dominated US foreign policy since the end of WWII and the establishment of the National Security Act of 1947.  Trump’s contestation further amplifies his purported hubris to even raise the question of NATO – and his contemplation of the end of the seven decade US occupation of Europe (“We cannot afford it”).  Such perspectives fly in the face of the entire history of the National Security establishment, which, since the founding of the National Security Council (NSC), has sought to contain its former allies (Russia, and then, China) and maintain US hegemony on the European continent.

Trump could respond, of course, that Obama’s conflict with Russia is a distraction from the war on terrorism, especially in its current incarnation as ISIS.  Trump envisions Russia and the US working in tandem to defeat terrorism – and sharing the spoils of war in real estate, oil and infrastructure contracts.  Trump would of course have his war against radical Islam, but it will be fought alongside Russia.  If the presence of Carter Page and Michael Flyn on his National Security team tells us anything, it is that Trump does not see Russia as a threat, but as a potential partner in geopolitical and international business affairs.  Trump has substantial business interests in Russia and the Middle East and approaches the decade’s long conflict from a business security paradigm.  Indeed, Trump went so far as to suggest the US let Putin defeat ISIS on his own. “What do we care?”

It is clear from the intensity of its reaction to Trump’s faux pas that the National Security establishment will not tolerate deviation from the official script.  Since its beginning in the crucible of anti-Communism, the NSC – and through its surrogate organisations, such as the CIA and FBI – has waged a continuous war, internationally and domestically, on perceived threats to US global hegemony.  Russia has always been perceived as the greatest threat to a Pax Americana.  The NSC projected a strategy of full spectrum dominance from the outset, acting through political interference, regime change, assassination, cultural propaganda, psychological warfare, and domestic political repression.  This plethora of acts has come to be known collectively as the Cold War and it is Russia (and its potential supporters) which continue to be the primary target of global US national security strategy.

From this perspective, it was no accident that George H. W. Bush, a former CIA director, invaded the Middle East as the Soviet Union (a permanent, veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council) teetered on collapse.  Alongside Turkey, a longstanding NATO ally, the Middle East stood as the holy grail of global military and economic dominance – and the containment or destruction of Russia.  Before the dust settled in Iraq, Clinton undertook the eastward expansion of NATO which now stands with baited breath at Russia’s border.

Russia objected to the second Gulf War – and to Libya – but stood on the side lines of the Middle East until its 2015 intervention in Syria.  The root of Russia’s intervention lay in the dangers of regime change in Syria, especially following the US orchestrated coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014.  What is at stake for Russia is the security of its European gas and oil markets which it sees threatened by the US and its allies.

On the one hand, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel seek regime change in Syria in order to build a gas pipelines to Europe.  On the other hand, the US disrupts Russian supply chains – via the Ukrainian crisis and the European sanctions regime – to destabilize Russia and Russian-European relations.  Crimea is significant, in this light, as it is a primary distribution hub for Europe, a status threatened by the coup d’etat.  The reunification of Crimea with Russia took place directly against the background of the Syrian conflict as a response to the overall US strategies of containment and market displacement.  Further pressure has been placed on Russia through oil price deflation from shale gas and oil smuggling by ISIS.

US strategy in Syria has tragically metastasized into a policy of “nation destroying”, of proxy, mercenary warfare, destabilization, partition and ethnic cleansing (the “refugee crisis”).  Syria has made a horrific sacrifice for the US national security obsession with Russia.

For Trump to ask, “What do we care?” clearly exposes why the national security establishment has condemned his candidacy in such vitriolic terms.  In its view, to allow Putin to win in Syria would be not only to accept Assad, but also to give Russia a permanent presence in the region. To exclude and push Russia back has always been the US objective and Trump’s Russophilia is a direct challenge to the National Security establishment and its plan to throw Putin out of Europe.

Trump has however won the election and he is on a direct collision course with the National Security establishment.  Of course, Trump is an unlikely revolutionary.  He has never said he would defy the National Security Act of 1947 (no president has), which means that he will accept its shadowy apparatus and its bureaucratic methodologies. Indeed, he supports increased NSA surveillance, expanded military spending, CIA activism, FBI phone hacking, etcetera. He is simply suggesting a different target for business-as-usual, by reminding us of our last propaganda cycle, the “War on Terror”.

Yet, Trump has thus far failed to articulate the “big picture” of a Russian rapprochement in the context of the necessity of a US glasnost – of a deconstruction of the National Security state.  During a campaign characterised by serial violations of longstanding taboos (Sanders’ opposition to the CIA, his support of the Sandinistas and Cuba) and Wikileaks’ disclosure of sensitive and damaging government and campaign documents, Trump squandered his opportunity to lay out a credible vision for either radical reform or revolution.  Indeed, he has been happy to simultaneously endorse the NSA surveillance state and Wikileaks – and without irony.

Trump’s has thus far failed to articulate a coherent vision of a cooperative, multi-polar world – in other words, to invite ordinary citizens to demand a radical change in the concept of national security and of the place of the US in the world.  If he does not challenge the NSC, Trump’s insurgency will expose itself as a distraction to the urgent task of finding a pathway out of the labyrinth of empire.  In its naivety, Trump’s “revolution” would then serve to further merely consolidate the unquestioned impunity of the National Security state.

If Trump is serious, he will set forth a coherent critique of US national security and the constitutional disaster that is the National Security Act.  If Trump is serious, he will defy the National Security Act.

The Iraqi Christians Who Are Struggling to Survive After Isis

Patrick Cockburn

In the half-burned church of St Mary al-Tahira in Qaraqosh, several dozen Syriac Catholics are holding a mass in Aramaic amid the wreckage left by Isis. The upper part of the stone columns and the nave are scorched black by fire and the only artificial light comes from three or four candles flickering on an improvised altar. Isis fighters used the courtyard outside as a firing range and metal targets set at one end of it are riddled with bullets.

In his sermon, the Syriac Catholic Bishop of Baghdad Yusuf Abba calls for the congregation to show cooperation and goodwill to all. But the people of Qaraqosh, an overwhelmingly Christian town 20 miles south east of Mosul, wonder just how much goodwill and cooperation they can expect in return. .

The Christians are still traumatised by the disasters of the last two-and-a-half years. When Isis took Qaraqosh on 8 August 2014 it had a population of 44,000, almost all Syriac Catholics, who fled for their lives to Irbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government. Some 40 per cent of these have since migrated further to countries like Australia and France or, within the Middle East, to Istanbul and Lebanon.

But the 28,000 people from Qaraqosh who stayed inside Iraq have understandable doubts about going home, even if Isis is fully defeated and loses Mosul. “There is no security while Isis is still in Mosul,” says Yohanna Towara, a farmer, teacher and community leader in the town, but even when Isis is gone the Christians will be vulnerable. He says that “the priority is for us to control our local affairs and to know who will rule the area in which we live.” He adds that the need for permanent security outweighs the need to repair the destruction wrought primarily by Isis but also by US-led air strikes.

This destruction is bad enough, though it is not total. Isis fighters set fire to many ordinary houses in addition to the churches in the days before they left, but – possibly because there was no furniture left to burn since it all had been looted – most of these houses look as if they could be made habitable after extensive repairs. It will take time because not only has the furniture gone, but cookers and fridges so, even if light fittings or taps are still in place, there is no water or electricity.

Isis did not fight for Qaraqosh and there are no booby traps or improvised explosive devices. But they must at one time have thought of doing so because they dug networks of tunnels in the nearby Christian village of Karemlash as if they intended to wage an underground guerrilla war against the Iraqi army. In the event, there are few signs of Isis resistance, except the rather pathetic remains of burned out tyres which they set fire to in order to create a smoke haze to impede the visibility of the aircraft of the US-led coalition. There were not many air strikes, but where they did take place the results devastated whole buildings reducing them to heaps of rubble.

Visiting Qaraqosh from Irbil 40 miles away, it is easy to understand why people displaced from Qaraqosh and in the rest of the Nineveh Plain feel insecure and dubious about returning to their old homes, even where they are still standing. They know that if they do they will be at the mercy of Arab and Kurdish authorities eager to fill the vacuum left by the fall of Isis and wishing to stake new claims to territory and power.

Arriving at a Kurdish Peshmerga checkpoint on the main road from the Kurdish region to Mosul at 9am, we make our way through crowds of people originally from Qaraqosh waiting to pass through. “See how they are treating people,” says a critical Christian observer. “People have been waiting here since 5 or 6am, but the Peshmerga say they need a senior officer to give permission for them to pass.”

After another two Peshmerga checkpoints, we reach an Iraqi army checkpoint with whom the Christians have better relations. The Nineveh Plain east of Mosul was home to a mosaic of minorities and its abandoned villages show various levels of destruction, depending on their sectarian and ethnic complexion. For instance, some had once contained Sunni and Shia Shabak (a heterodox sect speaking a dialect of Kurdish), but Isis had destroyed the houses of the Shia but left the Sunni.

Closer to Qaraqosh the checkpoints are manned by soldiers of the Iraqi Army and local Christian members of the Nineveh Protection Units (NPU) with their multi-coloured red, white and blue flags. Relations between the NPU and the army appear good, but the soldiers are Shia and at one checkpoint they had laid out a table and were serving sweet tea and biscuits as part of the Shia Arbaeen commemoration. The diversity of officially-sanctioned armed groups appears never-ending: at some checkpoints there were also visible the dark uniforms of federal police, whom locals say are recruited from the Shabak and Turkmen communities.

Fear of Isis had united diverse groupings and communities, but that unity is showing signs of fraying. The Peshmerga are excluded from fighting inside Mosul city, but are building a rampart and ditch to denote their front line. The Kurds may be pleased to see Isis defeated in Mosul, but if it is defeated by a reconstituted and effective Iraqi army – very different from the large but ill-commanded and corrupt army that fled from Isis in 2014 – then the balance of power in northern Iraq will change against the Kurds.

The outcome of the war all over Iraq and Syria has ensured that minorities that were once spread throughout the two countries, now only feel secure if they can rule their own territory. But in Iraq the Christians do not have the numbers to defend themselves.

On The Eve Of The Vote: Trump Values, Islam And Militias

Binoy Kampmark

The chugging train of fear continues to drone away on the eve of what has been considered one of the most important elections in generations. Mind you, this was the sort of stuff spouted during the campaigns of 2008, when a disgusted electorate washed a mouth contaminated by George W. Bush’s years with Barack Obama’s honeyed promises.

Eight years after that wash, and other antidotes and options are being sought in the supermarket of populism.  It is precisely this sort of enthusiastic shopping that terrifies and torments, notably various groups who see a Trump presidency as the demon incarnate.

This take is particularly strong regarding the Muslim-American community.  With a persistent fear that Islamic fundamentalism will take root in US soil with weed-like tenacity, Trump’s messages strike an appealing note.  It is the rise of Trump that prompts such touchy headlines as that of Al Jazeera: “American Muslims brace for the worst after US election.”

Instances of planned attacks and foiled plots against Muslim communities abound.  The FBI revealed last month that it had frustrated the efforts of a Kansas militia to eliminate a Somali Muslim mosque and community centre by way of detonation in Garden City.

Researchers such as Ryan Lenz of the Southern Poverty Law Centre insist that disparate groups are coalescing in Trump’s America, and not in a good way for various, fearful minorities.  “In the aftermath of September 11, white nationalist groups teamed up with organised anti-Muslim groups, creating a dangerous and threatening alliance against members of the American Muslim community.”

Not all of this should be laid at the feet of Trump malignancy; in the United States, visions of utopia and promised land rhetoric have mingled with crude realities and hatreds long before The Donald held sway.  In typically crude businesslike fashion, he has marketised such fear.

The suspicions in some communities towards Islam’s endeavours are simply cognate realities that have found form in other countries, suggesting that the US, despite its melting pot credentials, is not immune.

Insecure, macho and pricelessly juvenile (the mix is standard), militia groups have also promised to protect a vision of the US that pre-dates Trump.  What matters here is the logic of repair that Trump has appropriated: the system is broken, and these are your patriotic handymen charging to the rescue.

Georgia Force III%, sounding more like a name given to an industrial solvent, is one such example.  In this case, it is a militia outfit led by Chris Hill.  Having given himself the rather longwinded title of Security Force Commander, Hill claimed that, “We have to be prepared to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic.”  A loss of “control” on various “fronts” had put American “liberties” and “freedoms” at risk. His solution?  Conducing armed manoeuvres in the woods.

The language of vote rigging has also found a home in discussions about the credibility of the electoral system itself.  While the arguments have merit in so far as they go to the core of how democracy is defined, the critique offered by many of Trump’s supporters is scatty.  In order to avoid rigging, a form of intimidation via excessive scrutiny, for instance, has been suggested.

In other instances, it has seen a surge of Republican volunteers wishing to serve as poll watchers.  Given the shoddiness in the management of some polling stations across this vast country, the concerns are not without merit. In a narrow election result, missing or miscounted ballots can prove a costly thing to the losing side.

What concerns such individuals as former US attorney general Alberto Gonzales, remembered for having a hand in the debates on torture during the Bush administration years, is the overly enthusiastic nature of the private response. “I would depend on the state and local officials to make sure of the integrity of the vote within particular precincts.”

It is exactly such statements, said without irony, that make the private efforts of overly zealous citizens so potent. Officialdom, with rules it supposedly follows yet breaks, is to be mistrusted. The Democratic Party, in various quarters, has insisted on its own reading of those rules, with the Ohio Democrats claiming in a lawsuit that their Republican counterparts in the state, along with the Trump campaign and Stop the Steal, have effectively suppressed minorities in urban areas from going to the polls. A sense of paranoia across the entire spectrum abounds.

What is clear is that such fears do have a habit of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.  The threats of armed militias to carry arms to polling stations ostensibly to prevent rigging revives images more akin to Mugabe’s Zimbabwe than the United States: to make sure a result is fair is merely code to make sure the result is fair to us.

This election campaign has shown that a lack of noble spirit and generosity can get you elected in efforts of sheer disgust.  The only uncertainly as the queues gather is to what extent disgust and fear translates into votes. Not even a smug Nate Silver would be able to predict that.

Why Do The Poor Vote For The Rich? Trump, Berlusconi, And The Empire Of Lies

Ugo Bardi

The results of the US elections were not so surprising for me: after all, I live in a country where politics has been dominated by a financial tycoon, Silvio Berlusconi, for more than 20 years. Berlusconi and Trump share many characteristics, but the most curious one is that they are rich and that the poor vote for them. Why is that? Are the poor stupid or what?

But the poor are not stupid. They are badly misinformed by the Western media, but they perceive that they are facing a true Empire of Lies and that they are being lied to, consistently, brazenly, and gleefully. There are plenty of studies (*) showing that people detect lies not on the basis of rational consideration, but on a much simpler test: consistency. They take into account what a person does, not so much what that person says.

In other words, if you want to help the poor and gain their trust, you have to be poor. That’s why Franciscan monks wear a brown tunic, pledge to own nothing, and are forbidden even to touch money. If you want to have the vote of the poor, you don’t have to arrive to such extremes, but you have to be consistent: what you are has to bee in agreement with what you say. And, if you are rich, you shouldn’t even try to disguise yourself as being poor. As I said, the poor are not stupid.

That was the problem of the Italian Communist Party that was supposed to represent the workers. Over the years, it came to be led by wealthy people who claimed to represent the workers, but who were not workers; they were at best well paid bureaucrats, at worst thieves. Eventually, the workers started voting for Berlusconi and the Communist party was swept away from history. It turned into the present “Democratic Party,” a mongrel that we could define as “Berlusconi 2.0”.

Berlusconi was brash, silly, nasty, politically incorrect, a womanizer, and more, but he mainly said what he thought, he was not lying and people perceived that he was not the front man for someone else. Now over 80 and mostly retired from politics, he could probably come back and win again.

It is very much the same thing for Donald Trump. You may hate what he says, but there is little doubt that he says what he thinks; he is not lying. It was exactly the opposite for Hillary Clinton, who was perceived as having much to hide, despite what she kept saying. And, in the end, it makes sense to prefer a honest son of a bitch to a smooth-sounding liar, no matter how pleasant is what she says.

So, things went the way they should have. One thing that should never surprise us about the future is that it always surprises us. Will we ever learn that?

(*) If you have the time to read the book “Big Gods” by Ara Norenzayan, do so. It is an eye opener in this matter

American Liberals Unleashed The Trump Monster

Jonathan Cook

The earth has been shifting under our feet for a while, but all liberals want to do is desperately cling to the status quo like a life-raft. Middle-class Britons are still hyperventiliating about Brexit, and now middle-class America is trembling at the prospect of Donald Trump in the White House.

And, of course, middle-class Americans are blaming everyone but themselves. Typifying this blinkered self-righteousness was a column yesterday, written before news of Trump’s success, from Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland, Britain’s unofficial stenographer to power and Washington fanboy. He blamed everyone but Hillary Clinton for her difficult path to what he then assumed was the White House.

Well, here is some news for Freedland and American liberals. The reason Trump is heading to the Oval Office is because the Democratic party rigged the primaries to ensure that a candidate who could have beaten Trump, Bernie Sanders, did not get on the ticket. You want to blame someone, blame Clinton and the rotten-to-the-core Democratic party leadership.

But no, liberals won’t be listening because they are too busy blaming Julian Assange and Wikileaks for exposing the truth about the Democratic leadership set out in the Clinton campaign emails – and Russia for supposedly stealing them.

Blame lies squarely too with Barack Obama, the great black hope who spent eight years proving how wedded he was to neoliberal orthodoxy at home and a neoconservative agenda abroad.

While liberals praised him to the heavens, he poured the last US treasure into propping up a failed banking system, bankrupting the country to fill the pockets of a tiny, already fabulously wealthy elite. The plutocrats then recycled vast sums to lobbyists and representatives in Congress to buy control there and make sure the voice of ordinary Americans counted for even less than it did before.

Obama also continued the futile “war on terror”, turning the world into one giant battlefield that made every day a payday for the arms industry. The US has been dropping bombs on jihadists and civilians alike, while supplying the very same jihadists with arms to kill yet more civilians.

And all the while, have liberals been campaigning against the military-industrial complex that stole their political system? No, of course not. They have been worrying about the mass migrations of refugees – those fleeing the very resource wars their leaders stoked.

Then there is the liberal media that served as a loyal chorus to Clinton, trying to persuade us that she would make a model president, and to ignore what was in plain sight: that Clinton is even more in the pocket of the bankers and arms dealers than Obama (if that were possible) and would wage more, not less war.

Do I sound a little like Trump as I rant against liberals? Yes, I do. And while you are busy dismissing me as a closet Trump supporter, you can continue your furious refusal to examine the reasons why a truly progressive position appears so similar to a far-right one like Trump’s.

Because real progressives are as frustrated and angry about the status quo as are the poor, vulnerable and disillusioned who turned to Trump. And they had no choice but to vote for Trump because there was no one aside from him in the presidential race articulating anything that approximated the truth.

Sanders was ousted by Clinton and her corrupt coterie. Jill Stein of the Greens was made invisible by a corrupt electoral system. It was either vote for Clinton and the putrid status quo, or vote for Trump and a possibility for change.

Yes, Trump is very bad. He is as much a product of the plutocracy that is now America as Clinton. He, like Clinton, will do nothing to fix the most important issue facing humankind: runaway climate change. He is a climate denier, she is a climate evader.

But unlike Clinton, Trump understood the rising popular anger at the “system”, and he was articulate enough to express it – all it took was a howl of pain.

Trump isn’t the antithesis of liberal America. You liberals created him. You unleashed this monster. It is you in the mirror. You stayed silent, you took no stand while your country was stolen from you. In fact, you did worse: you enthusiastically voted time after time for those who did the stealing.

Now the path is clear and the route fast. The precipice is ahead, and American liberals are firmly in the driving seat.

Papua New Guinea budget further undermines living standards

John Braddock

The Papua New Guinea government of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill handed down its 2017 budget on November 1, marked by falling revenues and deepening cutbacks across all sectors of the public sector. It is the last budget before national elections next year.

With revenues forecast to fall by 2 percent, the government has slashed spending by 3.5 percent in a bid to rein in the budget deficit. The shortfall will be met by seeking more off-shore loans. Overall debt to GDP ratio will remain at 28.8 percent, the same as 2016, but a further revenue downturn could take it over the legislated limit of 30 percent.

Treasury Minister Patrick Pruaitch said total spending will be down to 12.9 billion kina ($US4.1 billion), compared to K14.2 billion in 2016. Another swathe of cuts to public services is foreshadowed with “strict conditions” imposed across the public sector. An allocation of K20 million has been made to fund forthcoming public service retrenchments.

Public health and education services remain under heavy attack after budget cutbacks of up to 40 percent over the past year. For 2017, the health sector has been allocated K1.2 billion, down from K1.5 billion, while education will receive K1.1 billion, down from K1.3 billion.

Capital investment has been slashed by 21 percent. Transport, in a country plagued by geographic isolation, is to be cut by 12.5 percent, to K897 million. While the police and defence budget faces a reduction, it remains the fifth-ranked recipient of funds at 8.7 percent of the total, with K1.1 billion.

The biggest expenditure item is government administration, including funding for “improvement” projects. The provinces and districts will get K3.6 billion and K2.7 billion respectively, or taken together 48.9 percent of the budget.

No special provision has been announced to deal with the destruction caused by last summer’s devastating El Nino weather patterns, or to prepare for further drought conditions. An estimated 2.7 million people were affected with water shortages, food insecurity and disease. PNG has the highest percentage of people in the world—60 percent—living without access to safe water.

O’Neill told parliament that while K400 million had been allocated to run the 2017 elections, there will be increase in the nomination fee from K1000 to K10,000 to help fund the “expensive” exercise. The move has been heavily criticised on social media as discriminating against those without the necessary finances to stand. It was expected that more than 4,000 candidates would contest the 111 seats.

Pruaitch said it was “no secret” that the government faced a “tight” budget. The “weakening” global situation and low commodity prices has seen government revenues decline and “flatten” in the past four years. “We have been forced by circumstances to tighten our budgetary situation further through supplementary budgets in 2015 and 2016,” he declared.

The government’s chief secretary, Isaac Lupari, was more forthright, declaring last month that the country would have to “brace for the worst next year” as fiscal conditions will be “very tough”.

PNG’s growth rate is forecast to drop further in 2017. Figures from the Bank of PNG and the National Statistics Office revealed that PNG is two years into a severe recession. The real growth rate over 2014 and 2015 was negative 1.3 percent. The combined budget deficits of 24 percent of GDP over the past three years were the largest for any three-year period in PNG’s 40-year history. Employment has dropped by 7 percent over two years. Business sales have declined by 16 percent from 2014 to 2015, which, along with sharply reduced lending to the private sector, has undermined investment.

According to Australian economist Paul Flanagan, there was a “frightening” fall of 20 percent in government revenues in the past year. The government has imposed austerity measures similar in scope to those in Greece, greatly exacerbating the social crisis facing the working class and rural poor. The 2016 supplementary budget imposed a swathe of cutbacks to government programs, causing many essential services to begin failing.

The assault has fuelled a series of struggles by students and sections of the working class, including doctors, nurses, pilots and dock workers. The ruling elite has relied on police repression and the trade unions to suppress this movement and shut down strikes.

The unions have channelled hostility over declining living standards into support for the parliamentary opposition, which has no fundamental differences with the austerity agenda. In August, O’Neill, faced down an opposition motion of no-confidence over his alleged corruption.

Pruaitch boasted that the government was looking towards significant export growth. Export revenues stagnated at around K20.8 billion in 2014 and 2015, even though last year was the first full year of Liquefied Natural Gas exports. Export revenues, he claimed, were forecast to improve for copper, palm oil, coffee, cocoa and forest products. Pruaitch said the current foreign exchange “imbalance” will improve as the massive OK Tedi gold and copper mine ramps up to full production. The government is also counting on the APEC summit, which it is due to host in 2018, to also bring in new expenditure.

The government’s projections have already been questioned. Former planning secretary Valentine Kambori declared that the forecast budget revenue from dividends from state-owned enterprises (SOEs) was “unrealistic.”

Speaking to Australian Broadcasting Corporation last week, Flanagan, a former PNG treasury official, said it would take, even on optimistic figures, at least another six years for PNG to get back to the high levels of economic activity recorded in the 2013–14 financial year when global commodity prices were at their peak. This would mean years of minimal growth even as the population continued to increase.

Foreshadowing deepening attacks on living standards, Pruaitch warned of an increase in prices for basic goods and services. Inflation is expected to be 6.6 percent, alongside an ongoing depreciation of the kina against major trading currencies. The government will increase taxes on tobacco, alcohol and gambling. Personal income tax is expected to increase by K186.6 million after failing to reach the 2016 budget estimate of K2.9 billion.

According to a report by the National Research Institute in September, costs are “high and increasing almost every day” across the country, particularly in the capital, Port Moresby. Director Charles Yala said that the impact was not shared equally by all. “Those who receive higher income can happily live with the rising prices. This is not the case for the middle to low income earners,” Yala declared.

In other words, the government’s budget will place new economic burdens on those who can least afford it—the working class and the urban and rural poor.