Growing crisis surrounds US-backed offensive in Syria

Bill Van Auken

A US-backed offensive to seize control of Raqqa, the Syrian stronghold of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), has become enmeshed in bitter conflicts between Washington’s main allies on the ground.

The opening of the drive south toward the city was first announced last Sunday by President Barack Obama’s counter-ISIS envoy, Brett McGurk, who proclaimed that the “initial phase” of the operation to liberate Raqqa, dubbed “Euphrates Wrath”, had begun.

What has followed, however, has been a series of recriminations between Turkey, Washington’s main NATO ally in the region, and the Syrian Kurdish forces of the Popular Protection Units (YPG) militia, which constitutes the principal proxy force in the drive against Raqqa. The YPG has been armed and funded by the Pentagon and accompanied into battle by US special forces units.

The government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan initiated its own intervention into Syria, “Euphrates Shield,” beginning last August. Ostensibly launched in support of US-led operations against ISIS, the main thrust of the Turkish offensive has been directed at consolidating its own buffer zone along the Syrian-Turkish border and preventing Kurdish forces from joining together the territory they control in the same area.

With the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), dominated by the Kurdish YPG, pushing further south toward Raqqa and seizing control of villages on the way, the Erdogan government has grown increasingly agitated, fearing that a successful offensive will strengthen the Kurdish enclave on Turkey’s border.

Ankara considers the YPG a branch of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) in Turkey, regarding both as “terrorist” groups.

Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dispatched to Turkey on Monday for talks with his counterpart, General Hulusi Akar, on the offensive against Raqqa.

In his discussions with the Turkish general staff, General Dunford attempted to assuage Ankara’s hostility to the role being played by the Kurdish militia and made promises that the YPG-led SDF would not take Raqqa. According to the Pentagon’s web site, Dunford told Ankara that the Kurdish militia was moving south “to isolate the enemy that’s in the vicinity of Raqqa and in Raqqa,” in an operation that would take months.

“We always knew the SDF wasn’t the solution for holding and governing Raqqa. What we are working on right now is to find the right mix of forces for the operation,” the top US commander said. He claimed that the Pentagon would rely upon “the moderate Syrian opposition, the vetted Syrian forces and the Free Syrian Army forces.” “Moderate,” “vetted” and “Free Syrian Army” forces all refer to the same fiction of a viable secular, US-backed opposition capable of mounting a major military operation. Such forces simply do not exist. US officials have acknowledged that the main forces that have benefited from the vast amounts of money and weapons poured into Syria by Washington and its regional allies have been the Al Qaeda-linked militias such as ISIS and the Al Nusra Front.

In addition to the issue of the Kurdish advance on Raqqa, Turkish officials pressed Dunford on the continued YPG occupation of Manbij, a city in northern Syria west of the Euphrates River. Washington had previously told the Turkish government that the YPG, which seized Manbij from ISIS last June, would withdraw from the town, which Ankara sees as linking up Syrian Kurdish “cantons” in the east and west of northern Syria.

Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu charged on Tuesday that some 200 YPG fighters are still in Manbij, warning that unless Washington saw to their withdrawal, Turkey would take “necessary actions.”

Speaking before a parliamentary committee, Çavuşoğlu also touched upon Dunford’s promises regarding Raqqa. “The YPG will only serve in seizing, as operations in the city will be conducted by special forces along with local forces. This is the agreement we have reached with the US, but we are still walking on thin ice as to whether they keep their promise or not, as we have experienced with Manbij.”

The Associated Press quoted a Pentagon official as saying that Dunford had not guaranteed that the Syrian Kurdish fighters would not go into Raqqa, only that the US would “work with” Turkey on organizing the final offensive against the city.

For its part, the YPG and SDF leadership have insisted that they will continue their offensive into Raqqa itself and have categorically rejected any Turkish role in the offensive.

Further complicating the situation, the minority of Syrian Arab fighters affiliated with the SDF have pulled out of the offensive, claiming that they have been double-crossed by the Kurdish militia and its American advisors.

According to a statement quoted by the web site Middle East Eye, the Syrian Arab brigade charged that the US was attempting to “sideline” its participation, while relying exclusively on Kurdish forces. It claimed this violated an agreement that the YPG “would only provide logistical support for the operation” and that the Syrian Arab fighters “would be in charge of the administrative and security management of the city afterwards.”

The charges appeared to echo concerns expressed by Ankara that a Kurdish invasion of Raqqa could lead to a form of ethnic cleansing of what has long been an overwhelmingly Arab city.

There is also the possibility that an attempt to seize the city with the Kurdish militia could provoke a response from the government of President Bashar al-Assad, backed by Russia, again raising the threat of a wider war.

Meanwhile, the Erdogan government appears to be hopeful that it can achieve a more favorable agreement with an incoming Donald Trump administration regarding Syria and the Kurds. While Erdogan had earlier condemned candidate Trump’s call for a ban on all Muslims entering the US, he delivered one of the earliest and most effusive messages of congratulation to the new president-elect.

An indication that the desire for rapprochement may be mutual came in the form an article published this week by The Hill, by Trump’s senior national security advisor, retired General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Flynn criticized the Obama administration for “keeping Erdogan’s government at arm’s length—an unwise policy that threatens our long-standing alliance.”

Flynn went on to strongly suggest that the US should agree to Ankara’s demand for the extradition of exiled Islamic leader Fethullah Gulen, who resides under US government protection in Pennsylvania. The Erdogan government has blamed Gulen for the abortive July 15 military coup against his government and has carried out a massive purge of his suspected followers.

“It is time we take a fresh look at the importance of Turkey and place our priorities in proper perspective,” Flynn writes. “It is unconscionable to militate against Turkey, our NATO ally, as Washington is hoodwinked by this masked source of terror and instability nestled comfortably in our own backyard in Pennsylvania... We should not provide him safe haven. In this crisis, it is imperative that we remember who our real friends are.”

Philippine President Duterte continues US military basing deal, hails Trump election

Joseph Santolan

On November 7, the administration of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte officially announced that Manila would continue the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) military basing deal with Washington, as well as most joint military exercises, but would discontinue naval and amphibious assault drills. The decision represents a reversal of previous statements made by Duterte that he would end the basing deal as part of his “separation” from the United States.

The announcement was followed on Wednesday by Duterte’s enthusiastic hailing of the election of the Republican Donald Trump as the next US president. Leading members of Duterte’s cabinet declared that Trump marked a sharp departure from the “pivot” policies of the Obama administration, and they foresaw a restoration and strengthening of ties with Washington after the rocky first four months of the Duterte government.

Duterte, who assumed the presidency at the end of June, represents the interests of sections of the capitalist class in the Philippines who are alarmed at the threat to trade and economic ties with Beijing posed by the war drive launched by the Obama administration in the Pacific to military encircle and isolate China. Each new provocation staged by Washington in the South China Sea in alliance with the previous administration of Benigno Aquino, who served as a leading US proxy in the region, saw diminished investment from China and curtailed access to Chinese markets.

To Washington’s dismay, both The Hague ruling against China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, and the Philippine Supreme Court’s final decision declaring the EDCA deal constitutional, were handed down in July, after Duterte took office. The US was thus not given the opportunity to immediately implement either of these decisions under the Aquino administration in the aggressive manner it intended.

In a volatile, at times almost unhinged fashion, Duterte sought to rebuild Manila’s ties with Beijing by publicly declaring his opposition to the interests of Washington. In late October, he announced that the Philippines was “separating from the United States” and he was ending joint military exercises and the EDCA agreement for the basing of US forces in the Philippines. During his travels to Beijing he deliberately sidestepped The Hague ruling, reaching an agreement with Beijing for the Coast Guard to permit Filipino fishermen to return to the disputed Scarborough shoal without resolving or even mentioning the territorial dispute.

Washington is prepared to tolerate a great deal of Duterte’s rhetoric—he can call the American president a “son of a bitch” without upsetting US geostrategic interests—but the EDCA basing deal is a red line whose transgression the US ruling elite will not tolerate. While Duterte declared in off-the-cuff remarks during his speeches that he was ending the US military presence in the country, at no point were formal measures presented to act on these statements.

On November 7, Duterte convened his cabinet. His top military advisors, led by Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, presented their recommendations for continued US-Philippine military ties. The top military leaders in the Philippines have received extensive training in Washington and their core political allegiance is to the Pentagon. Lorenzana called for the continuation of the EDCA basing deal, which will allow for the unlimited basing of US forces throughout the country, and of the annual Balikatan military exercises, the largest joint military exercises between the two countries.

Lorenzana proposed to expand Balikatan to include extensive anti-narcotics training, thus directly incorporating US forces in Duterte’s murderous anti-drug crusade. At the same time, Lorenzana proposed to end CARAT, the joint naval exercises in the South China Sea, and Phiblex, the Marine Amphibious Assault drills, also in the South China Sea. The cancelled drills were those which openly targeted China.

Duterte accepted all Lorenzana’s proposals. Lorenzana will formally present these decisions to his counterpart, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, at the US panel of Mutual Defense Board-Security Engagement Board, which will be held later this month.

The decisions reached by the Duterte government over the basing and joint exercises with Washington clearly confirm the analysis of the World Socialist Web Site over the character of Duterte’s oppositional posture to Washington. He is proposing to curtail the measures most likely to inflame tensions with China, while continuing and developing the most crucial components of military ties with Washington. Duterte is engaged in a balancing act between ties with Washington and economic relations with Beijing that has become so untenable that it produces an alteration in policy on an almost weekly basis.

In a move to improve ties with Duterte, Washington has replaced its ambassador to Manila, Philip Goldberg, whom Duterte despised and had publicly cursed on a number of occasions, with Sung Kim, a US diplomat born in Korea, who previously served as US special representative for North Korea policy.

Duterte sees in the election of Trump an opportunity for the restoration and strengthening of ties with Washington. The isolationist and economic nationalist measures are being interpreted in Manila as the curtailing of the pivot while its economic wing, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Trump openly opposes, has been proclaimed “dead.”

Speaking in Kuala Lumpur, where he was meeting with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, Duterte congratulated Trump, and stated: “I no longer want to fight [with the United States] because Trump is already here. I’m just four months [in office] and there has been a lot of controversy around my person, including my quarrel with America. I don’t want enemies. Trump already won. Why don’t we just shut up?”

Duterte’s spokesperson, Martin Andanar, was more direct, claiming that Trump’s election meant diminished military tensions between Manila and Beijing. He stated: “The world cannot afford a Third World War or we are all finished.” Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay said: “The election of Trump signals an opportunity for change that can result in a stronger Philippine-US relationship.”

Never one for subtlety, Duterte immediately appointed Jose E.B. Antonio to serve as his special envoy to Washington. Antonio is Trump’s key business partner in the Philippines. The head of Century Properties Group, he was responsible for the construction of Trump Tower in the business district of Makati.

There are concerns, however, within the Philippine market that Trump’s economic nationalism will spell crisis for the country’s vital Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) sector, which includes a massive network of call centers. Seventy percent of BPO revenue in the Philippines comes from the United States, and the BPO sector in 2015 generated $22 billion in revenue and 1.2 million jobs.

Rattled by Trump victory, Canada offers to renegotiate NAFTA

Roger Jordan 

Canada’s Liberal government responded rapidly to the election of the fascistic billionaire Donald Trump as US president, proclaiming only hours after the votes had been tabulated that it is eager to cooperate with Trump and his incoming, far-right administration.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau quickly sent Trump his congratulations and in a subsequent phone call invited him to visit Canada at his earliest convenience. Speaking of his Wednesday evening conversation with Trump, Trudeau stated yesterday, “It was a brief call, but it was a strong beginning to what is going to be a constructive relationship.”

In what the press is describing as a “goodwill gesture,” Canada’s ambassador to the US, David MacNaughton, announced Wednesday that the Trudeau government is prepared to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) if Trump so requests. Throughout his campaign to win the Republican nomination and then the presidency, Trump denounced NAFTA, vowing to scuttle it, if major changes were not made to it in favour of corporate America.

Said MacNaughton, “If they want to have a discussion about improving NAFTA then we are ready to come to the table to try to put before the new administration anything that will benefit both Canada and the United States and obviously Mexico also.”

The rapid moves to curry favour with Trump could not conceal the fact that the outcome of Tuesday’s election has been greeted with shock and trepidation by virtually the entire Canadian elite. Canada relies on the United States for around three quarters of its exports and has been Washington’s closest military-strategic partner on the global stage for the past seven decades. There are deep fears that Trump will pursue a more protectionist economic policy by abandoning NAFTA and the prospective Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), while shifting away from the traditional military alliances, such as NATO, through which the Canadian bourgeoisie has asserted its own predatory interests.

The Trudeau government made no secret of its support for a Clinton presidency. Liberal officials were reportedly in regular contact with Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and other leading Democrats so as to offer advice on the campaign and discuss the agenda of a Clinton-led administration. But Trump’s victory forced an abrupt shift, with Trudeau and his government quickly pivoting to offer their support to what will be the most right-wing administration in US history. According to the Globe and Mail, Trudeau issued instructions Wednesday for Liberal MPs not to publicly criticize the president-elect so as to underscore his government’s commitment to developing a close partnership with Trump and his administration.

MacNaughton revealed that talks involving Canadian diplomats and leading Trump campaign figures, including Senator Jeff Sessions, were held last month to examine areas for cooperation. Referring to NAFTA, he even raised the prospect of returning to the 1989 Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA’s predecessor, if Trump chooses to abandon the trilateral pact.

Increased US tariffs and a “thickening” of the border due to increased security measures—another Trump campaign promise—would roil the Canadian economy and badly disrupt the cross-border production chains upon which the auto and other manufacturing industries depend. A recent study by the Canadian government trade promotion agency, Export Development Canada, said almost 1 million jobs would be lost if NAFTA were to be abrogated.

Seeking to make the best out of a bad situation, and in response to the rise of economic nationalism around the globe, Canada’s government has apparently decided to act preemptively on NAFTA. Its aim is to accommodate Trump, while also voicing corporate Canada’s own demands for changes to the 22-year-old tri-lateral trade pact. MacNaughton signaled that in any renegotiation of NAFTA, Canada would be seeking “free trade” in softwood lumber, a perpetual irritant in Canada-US relations.

The Liberal government is also concerned about Trump’s stance on climate change. Over the past year, Trudeau and Obama concluded agreements on “clean energy” with the goal of exploiting public concern over climate change to boost corporate profits through the development and use of renewable and clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels. Trump opposes such initiatives and this has raised doubts about the viability of Trudeau’s plans to implement a carbon tax.

Trump’s foreign and defence policies will have a major impact on Canada, whose military is closely integrated with the US armed forces. Trump’s “America First” policy and his sharp criticism of NATO allies for purportedly not pulling their weight in defence spending has caused consternation, because the Liberals recognize that there is no public support for the type of increases Washington is demanding. To meet NATO’s target of military spending equal to 2 percent of GDP, Canada would have to double its defence budget to more than $40 billion per year.

MacNaughton responded to questions on whether Trump would be pressuring Canada to hike military spending by emphasizing the Liberal government’s willingness to mount aggressive military operations. “Some people, when they want to talk about defence, send their accountants out and we tend to send our soldiers out. I think,” continued MacNaughton, “we have stepped up to the plate in terms of defence and NATO.”

Indeed, under the one year-old Trudeau government, Canadian imperialism has continued to expand its already significant role in Washington’s principal military-strategic offensives. The Trudeau government has expanded Canada’s role in the Mideast war, by tripling the number of Special Forces deployed to Iraq; pledged 450 troops to lead an anti-Russian NATO brigade in Latvia as part of NATO’s encirclement of Russia; and increased Canada’s involvement in the Asia-Pacific region as part of the US-led drive to isolate and confront China.

The demand that Canada provide even more support for the US in its drive to assert global hegemony unites the US political and military-security establishments. President Obama, in his speech to Parliament earlier this year, urged the Liberal government to move rapidly towards enacting NATO’s 2 percent defence-spending target.

To lay the political groundwork for military spending hikes, greater Canadian involvement in wars of aggression, and Canada’s participation in the US anti-ballistic missile shield program, the Liberals are currently conducting a defence policy review.

Nevertheless, substantial sections of the ruling elite have welcomed Obama’s and now Trump’s criticisms, seeing them as a means of pressing the government to massively hike military spending and rapidly proceed with the “modernization” of Canada’s armed forces, that is, rearmament. In response to a question about Trump’s demand US allies shoulder more of NATO’s costs, David Perry, an analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, told the Globe and Mail, “We’ve benefited since the Second World War from a whole number of co-operative arrangements with the United States on defence where the U.S. carries a disproportionate share financially.”

More troubling from the standpoint of the Canadian ruling class has been Trump’s ambivalence towards NATO, which is seen as critical for asserting Canadian imperialism’s interests in Europe and countering Russia, including in the Arctic. The Globe and Mail, which fully endorsed the Democrats’ right-wing, anti-Russian hysteria during the election campaign, has repeatedly accused Trump of having ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Trudeau government’s readiness to collaborate closely with the incoming Trump administration is a devastating exposure of its “progressive” posturing. In something of a contrast to the more confrontational tone being struck by some European politicians in the wake of Trump’s victory, Canada’s Liberals are going out of their way to pander to Trump.

Having made the deepening of the Canada-US alliance a key plank of their government, the Liberals are determined not to let the arch-reactionary, demagogue Trump get in the way. In this they are faithfully implementing the agenda of the Canadian bourgeoisie as a whole, which calculates that Canadian imperialism can only advance its rapacious global interests through a close partnership with US imperialism, the most aggressive and destabilizing force on the planet.

Although the vast majority of the Canadian bourgeoisie favoured Clinton, a small but important minority have welcomed Trump’s victory, because of his advocacy of massive tax cuts for big business and the rich, privatization, and deregulation. Thus the Financial Post ’s Kevin Libin penned a column titled “Cheer up, Canada, President Donald Trump just might be good for you.”

Trump’s victory has been welcomed by a large section of the opposition Conservative Party, which is currently in the midst of a leadership race to find a replacement for ex-Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Kellie Leitch, a right-winger who made her name in the previous government for her anti-immigrant positions, including calls for a snitch-line to denounce “barbaric practices,” is promoting herself as the Canadian Trump. Leitch is advocating all new immigrants be screened for their commitment to “Canadian values.”

Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, who has sought to strike a more moderate tone, also embraced the Republican victory, noting that it paves the way for the revival of the Keystone XL oil pipeline project. Ambrose urged Trudeau, who also supports the project, to make its realization a priority now that it has the support of the incoming president, in addition to the Republican-dominated Congress.

Theresa May in India: Out of Touch with Reality

Harry Roberts

Ostensibly, British Prime Minister Theresa May’s India visit is about showcasing Britain’s economic potential in a post-Brexit world. That she would make India her first destination outside on the EU since assuming office is unsurprising, given that India is the world’s fastest growing major economy and it is hoped that Britain plc can tap into its success. Furthermore, her speech at the India-UK Tech Summit was used specifically to advertise Britain’s ‘innovative’ skills and technological know-how to the burgeoning Indian market. However, her government’s pledge to limit immigration effectively means that there is only a limited possibility that British economic interests stand to gain from such a visit.  Essentially, the UK is providing too few incentives for India on the immigration and visa issue to drastically change its economic relationship with the UK.

 

This trip is primarily about the UK government seeking areas in which India and the UK can open access to each other’s companies.  While the UK cannot begin any Free Trade talks before it triggers Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, it is keen to get informal trade talks underway with major non-EU states including India. In her speech at the Summit, May declared that she wants to “unleash” Britain’s “world-leading services sector to operate in the Indian market – benefitting India and the UK alike... This does not need to wait for us to leave the EU.”

 

However, there is at least one problem with this. According to Sir Thomas Harris - who ran the UK India Business Council for many years - during the Free Trade Agreements (FTA) negotiations between the EU and India, New Delhi consistently resisted lifting restrictions on professional services including accounting, insurance, banking and legal services. These are the very sectors that Britain is keen on exporting to India and May did not explain why she thinks Britain will have more luck with India than the EU did a few years ago.

 

However, apart from Britain’s reduced negotiating power post-Brexit, it is May’s uncompromising stance on immigration to the UK that is the biggest sticking point in building stronger trade relations with India. The UK Home Office’s poorly timed announcement only a few days before the visit that companies wishing to move employees to the UK would face a higher salary threshold is effectively aimed at limiting Indian migration to the UK and making it harder for Indian graduates to find work on leaving UK-based universities.

 

The unbending approach to Indian immigration is all the more disappointing coming on the back of Brexit and a reduced economic outlook for Britain. One would think that the UK government would come to India with more incentives for the Indians. However, the best May could do was hint at smoothening the UK visa application process for Indian citizens if Modi would help send home Indian nationals who were staying illegally in the UK. Modi can do no more towards this than the British government can to induce Britons who have overstayed their Australian visas to return to the UK.

 

The inherent contradiction in the UK's current approach is that if Britain wants more trade and greater access to the Indian market, it will have to accept more Indian workers, which would make a mockery of the May government’s policy of limiting immigration - the very raison d’être for her appointment as leader by the Conservative Party. Manoj Ladwa, a former advisor to Modi, summed up the ethos of the UK approach to India as “we want your business but we don't want your people.” India can go anywhere for investment and will be tempted to overlook the UK as a partner if such a stance on Indian immigration remains. As it stands, Germany, a country which is a leader in innovative technology, exports around three times the amount to India than the UK, and has a much more accommodating stance towards Indian immigration than the UK currently has.

 

May’s visit will perhaps lead to a few business deals and joint declarations on security cooperation but is unlikely to yield a long-term and (for the UK) much needed boost in the UK-India trade relationship. The timing suggests that her visit is not much more than a much-needed PR stunt for her government and lacks any real substance. Furthermore, her visit was in fact preponed from December 2016 at the request of the UK government. Amid fears of a post-Brexit economic crash, May’s visit is aimed at restoring confidence in British markets by showcasing the viability of Britain’s long-term economic prospects.

 

According to the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt, a top but unnamed Indian diplomat put it that May’s visit is "an afterthought...This is about politics in the UK, not about what we want.” The inherent contradiction that Britain now faces in trying to limit immigration while simultaneously seeking a greater share of non-EU world trade will handicap Britain’s post-Brexit ambitions to forge a “new global role” for itself. More importantly, May’s visit to India could set a precedent for Britain’s future trade-relationships with other major economic powers and even emerging ones in a post-Brexit world by highlighting Britain’s weak-hand at the negotiating table. 

 

After her India visit, the May government might finally realise that doing business in a globalised world while restricting free movement of people will be more difficult carry out than they had anticipated, highlighting just how out of touch her party really is with reality.

Ethiopia: Hawassa University Fully-funded Masters Scholarships for African Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 19th November, 2016

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Ethiopia

Eligible Fields of Study: Computational Mathematics, Mathematical and Statistical Modeling, Applied Statistics, Chemistry, Material Science, Eco-toxicology and Environmental Health, Micro-Biology, Veterinary Epidemiology, Veterinary Microbiology, Animal Production, Animal Breeding, Animal Nutrition, Soil Science, Crop Protection, Bio Technology, Agronomy, Plant Breeding, Climate Smart Agriculture, Horticulture, Wildlife Management, Production Forestry, Biodiversity, Agro-Forestry and Soil Management, Water Shade Management, Natural Resource Economics and Policies, Climate Change and Development, Communication and Cultural Studies, Linguistic and Multilingualism, Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)

Type: Masters Research

Eligibility: The scholarships are open to all qualified young African Nationals who meet the following Admission Requirements

• Be a holder of a Bachelor’s Degree from a recognized university, with at least a second class upper division or its equivalent, in a relevant field.
• Maximum age of 32 years
• Fluency in the English language, as it is the teaching language

Number of Awardees: 10

Value of Scholarship: For successful candidates, the scholarship award covers the following:

• Tuition fees
• A round-trip economy rate air ticket from candidate’s home country
• Boarding at campus of Hawassa University in provided facilities
• Monthly stipend of 300 US$ to support living expenses
• Total amount of 1,200 US$ to support Masters Research. (In case this fund is not sufficient, the student should find other supplementing sources)

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of programme

How to Apply: Interested candidates should complete the Application Form which is available on the Africa Union web-site: http://www.au.int/en/scholarship Applications must include the completed Application Form together with the following documents:

i. Summarized CV including education, work experience and publications if any;

ii. Certified copies of relevant certificates, and transcripts;

iii. Personal details page of national passport;

iv. Recent clear passport size photograph;

v. Recommendations from two academic referees with contact addresses; and

vi. An essay of not more than 500 words that explains the motivation for applying the chosen field of study, its importance to Africa’s development, and how the qualification will enable the candidate to serve the African continent.

Interested candidates should scan and produce electronic copies of all application documents (converted to PDF format) and send to the following e-mail addresses: To: OlgaA@africa-union.org;               LeonI@africa-union.org

Cc: info@hu.edu.et ;            atuesu@gmail.com

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Hawassa University

Important Notes: Applications received after this deadline will NOT be considered.

Canadian Government Laboratories Program Visiting Fellowships for Promising, Emerging Scientists

Application Deadline: Rolling

Decisions are announced approximately three months after receipt of complete applications.

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Canada

About the Award: Approved candidates to be offered a fellowship will be selected by the individual government departments. Successful applicants will be notified by NSERC or by the interested government department. Approximately three months after receipt of a complete application, departments may request additional information (e.g., interviews) before offering a fellowship.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 

• You must have received a doctoral degree in the natural sciences or engineering from a recognized university within the past five years. Your application will be accepted if you are currently enrolled in a doctoral program at a recognized university; however, you must expect to complete all requirements for your degree (including the thesis defence) within six months of submitting your application.
• If you have withdrawn from the workforce and active research for maternity leave, or to raise a child for at least one year, after you received your doctorate, NSERC will extend the eligibility period to six years.
• You can apply only twice for a Visiting Fellowship in Canadian Government Laboratories.

You will not be allowed to take up your award until confirmation of completion of degree requirements is received. You may hold only one Visiting Fellowship.

There are no restrictions on the nationality of applicants, but awards are subject to a citizenship quota: two-thirds of awards must be made to Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Successful candidates who are not Canadians or permanent residents of Canada must satisfy Canadian immigration requirements.

Selection Criteria: Selection committees, appointed by the individual government departments, will be responsible for the pre-selection of applicants, recommending only the most meritorious applicants.

The selection committee will rate the applications according to the following criteria:

• academic excellence
  • scholarships and awards held;
  • duration of previous studies;
• research ability or potential
  • quality of contributions to research and development;
  • relevant work experience and academic training;
  • critical ability, capacity for critical thought and analysis;
  • ability to apply skills and knowledge;
  • judgment, originality, and curiosity;
  • initiative and autonomy;
  • enthusiasm for research;
  • determination and ability to complete projects within an appropriate period of time;
• communication skills
  • ability or potential to communicate scientific concepts clearly and logically in written and oral formats (e.g., quality of presentation of application, participation in the preparation of publications, special awards for oral presentations or papers);
• interpersonal and leadership abilities
  • professional and relevant extracurricular interactions and collaborations (e.g., mentoring, teaching, supervisory experience, project management, chairing committees, organizing conferences/meetings, and elected positions held);
• justification for location of tenure and potential benefits to the government department (e.g., specific skills or experience that relate directly to ongoing research in participating government departments).

Number of Awardees: The number of awards varies according to the budgets of participating departments and agencies.

Value of Award: $50,503 per year

Duration of Research: one year, renewable for up to two more years

How to Apply: 

• Form 200 – Application for an Industrial Postgraduate Scholarship, an Industrial R&D Fellowship or a Visiting Fellowship in Canadian Government Laboratories
• Terms and Conditions of Applying Form (form-fillable)

To create or access an application, select On-line System Login. To view forms and instructions, select PDF Forms and Instructions.

To complete the Terms and Conditions of Applying Form, select the link above.

Visit Research Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Visiting Fellowships in Canadian Government Laboratories Program is administered by NSERC on behalf of Canadian government laboratories and research institutions.

Fogarty Emerging Global Leader Award for Health Researchers in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC) 2017

Application Deadlines: 

• Letter of Intent due dates: 30 days before the application due date (14th November, 2016)
• Application due dates: December 14, 2016, December 14, 2017, December 13, 2018

Eligible Countries: Low and Middle Income Countries

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: The Fogarty Emerging Global Leader Award aims to provide research support and protected time to a research scientist from a LMIC who holds an academic junior faculty position or research scientist appointment at an LMIC academic or research institution. Low-income, lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries are included.

The Fogarty Emerging Global Leader Award program is a new program and there are not yet any awards. You may review awards through International Research Scientist Development Award, Fogarty’s related career development program for U.S. scientists.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 

• Only low- or middle-income country (LMIC) institutions are eligible.
  • Income categories are defined by The World Bank Country and Lending Groups.
  • Country eligibility for Fogarty International Training Grants applies (See in link below)
• Candidates must be LMIC citizens.
• Candidates must hold an academic junior faculty position or research scientist appointment at the LMIC applicant institution and must have been in this position for at least one year at the time the application is submitted.
• Candidates are required to have both U.S. and LMIC primary mentors.
• Research should take place primarily in the LMIC.
• Individuals who have already received independent research funding are not eligible.
• Applicants should demonstrate that they are committed to an independent research career and justify the need for three to five years of mentored research experience in order to become an independent research scientist.

Number of Awardees:  Not specified

How to Apply: View full eligibility details in the program announcement and refer to FAQs before applying

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Fogarty

(IUSF) Scholarship+Internship for Young Sports Reporters 2017. Fully-funded to Taiwan

Application Deadline: 15th December 2016.

Successful candidates will be announced towards the end of February 2017.

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Taipei, Taiwan

About the Award:  For the 29th Summer Universiade in Taipei City, Chinese Taipei (19 to 30 August, 2017), the International University Sports Federation (FISU)once again will invite 12 aspiring young journalists from the five continents to the Games in Taipei alongside the athletes where they will receive specialized media training.

The International University Sports Federation launched this journalism education programme to provide young (sport) journalists with a unique training experience during FISU’s major multi-sport event, the Summer Universiade. All previous editions of the FISU Young Reporters’ Programme were a genuine success …

The Young Reporters’ Programme aims to include 21 to 25-year-old students or recent graduates in journalism/communications from the five continents of Africa (2), America (4), Asia (2), Oceania (2) and Europe (2) right into the middle of the Games for 14 days, with full access to the competition venues and MPC. They will be joined by their peers from Chinese Taipei.

FISU will nominate 12 (6 male & 6 female) Young Reporters on the basis of performance and promise. They could be last-year university students engaged in journalism/communications studies or young graduates ready to embark on a full-time media or communications career.

Type: Training

Eligibility and Details: 

• Training will be offered in print, photography, and online and new media reporting of live events throughout the Universiade.
• The Young Reporters will be required to participate in all training sessions and will be given daily multiple reporting assignments – photographers will be required the produce written content just as written media journalists will be required to make snapshots or produce video/audio content.
• The programme will be in English.
• Participants, between the ages of 21 and 25 years, will be university students engaged in journalism or communications studies, or young graduates ready to embark on a fulltime media career.
• Each successful candidate must sign an agreement setting out the conditions of course participation and the use of editorial material produced as part of the coursework.
• Essential technology, needed for the course (printers, internet, wifi, etc.), will be provided, but participants will be required to bring their own personal equipment (laptop computers, tablets, voice recorders, smart phones, digital photo and video cameras, etc.) as they seem fit to fulfil their assignments.

Selection Criteria: 

• Candidates will be between the ages of 21 and 25 undertaking full or part time studies towards a career in communications, journalism or other areas of news media.
• Recent university graduates working as interns or in similar training roles in established news organizations may also be considered. They will be outstandingly proficient in writing and presenting news reports in English.
• Candidates will be judged on their academic records, the recommendations of teaching staff or managers and should, above all, show real potential to succeed at their chosen media career.
• Evidence of excellence in coursework or in the media workplace must be established and provided with the nomination. Strong references will be required from their university or an employer (internship). Evidence of published work will be an advantage.
• Candidates must be able to travel on the required dates and be available to partake, full time, in the complete programme over the duration of the Universiade.
• Candidates must be willing to sign an agreement form setting out the conditions of their participation in the FISU Young Reporters’ Programme, which will include copyright free usage of their course content.
• Candidates must have a valid passport for international travel. Upon selection they will receive the necessary documents from the Taipei OC for their visa if needed.
• The final decision on the suitability of nominated candidates remains with FISU.
• Fluency in French, Spanish and/or Russian (in addition to English) will be considered an asset.
• Experience in high performance sport (as a competitor, official, coach, team manager etc.) will also be considered an asset.

Number of Awardees: 12

Value of Scholarship: The International University Sports Federation (FISU) will meet the cost of economy return air tickets to Taipei City from the participant’s home city’s nearest airport. Accommodation and meals as well as transportation between venues will be provided by the Taipei OC.

Duration of Scholarship:  14 days

How to Apply: Individuals interested in applying are asked to submit in English:

– Current and detailed CV with date of birth and photo accompanied by covering letter;

– Current address, E-mail address and Skype address;

– Two letters of reference from academic or professional contacts;

– An A4 page text (300 to 500 words) that could serve as an intro page for a book entitled: ‘Major Sporting Events: Pitfalls for Young Reporters?’

Applications reaching FISU after the deadline or incomplete applications will NOT be taken into consideration.

All applications should be sent to media@fisu.net in pdf format. An intake interview might be conducted via Skype for the final selection round to assess the English proficiency of the candidates.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: International University Sports Federation (IUSF)

Important Notes:  Applications will be reviewed by the FISU Media and Communication Committee, chaired by Verena Burk, FISU EC Member

The Infamy of the Palestinian Elites: An Imminent Split within Fatah?

Ramzy Baroud

The Fatah movement is involved in a massive tug-of-war that will ultimately define its future. Though the conflict is between current Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, and once Gaza strongman, Mohammed Dahlan, is in no way motivated by ending the Israeli Occupation, their war will likely determine the future political landscape of Palestine.

The issue cannot be taken lightly, nor can it be dismissed as an internal Fatah conflict. The latter is one of the two largest Palestinian factions, the largest within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and has single-handedly pushed Palestinians into the abyss of the ‘peace process’ and the great Oslo Accords gamble, which has come at great cost and no benefits.

Moreover, Fatah embodies Palestine’s ruling elites. True, Abbas’ mandate expired in 2009 and Dahlan has been accumulating massive wealth since he fled the West Bank in 2011 (following his public feud with Abbas) but, sadly, both men wield substantial authority and influence. Abbas runs the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah with an iron fist and with the full consent and support of Israel and the United States, while Dahlan is being actively groomed by various Middle Eastern governments, and possibly Israeli and US powers, as the likely successor of the aging Ramallah leader.

They are both indifferent to the harsh reality experienced by their people on the ground.

A limited uprising, known by some as the ‘Knife Intifada’ and others as ‘al-Quds Intifada’, is teetering on the brink, with no serious efforts by the Palestinian leadership to, at least, try to harness Palestinian energies towards a sustainable, long-term popular uprising. On the contrary, Abbas has done his utmost to ignore the Palestinian people’s cry for help and for an astute, courageous leadership.

Instead, Abbas continues to perceive his ‘security coordination’ with Israel as ‘holy’, while continuing to crackdown on Palestinian resistance and on his own Fatah opponents and their supporters.

He is yet to designate a successor, despite the fact that he is 81-years-old and suffers from heart ailments.

This has signaled an opportunity to Dahlan, who has been accused of involvement in various shady Arab affairs. Dahlan has been aching for a comeback from his villa in Abu Dhabi. In a recent New York Times article, Peter Baker, who interviewed Dahlan, described part of his wealth:

“His spacious home here in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, features plush sofas, vaulted ceilings and chandeliers. The infinity pool in the back seems to spill into the glistening waterway beyond.”

Dahlan’s amassing of wealth goes back to his years in Gaza, when he was the head of the notorious Preventive Security Service, itself formed and trained with the help of the US, the CIA in particular, according to various media reports. Its torture techniques were criticized repeatedly by international human rights groups.

Dahlan remains unrepentant: neither apologetic about his unexplained wealth, nor for the Gaza crackdowns which ended when Hamas deposed him and his movement in 2007, resulting in a short-lived civil war.

‘Two things that I am not denying,” he told the NYT. “That I’m rich. I will not deny it. Ever. And that I am strong, I will not deny it. But I work hard to increase my level of life.”

Explaining what many perceive as a brutal reign in Gaza, he dismissed it, saying that he “wasn’t head of the Red Cross,” at the time.

A Human Rights Watch report expounded on the extent of the crackdown that commenced soon after the PA took charge of the Occupied Territories in 1994. For example, “during the first eight months of 1996, at least 2,000 Palestinians were arrested” by the PA police. The rate is almost as high as arrests carried out by the Israeli army. “The arrests were arbitrary,” according to HRW and no courts or due process was ever part of the procedure, which, almost always, involved torture.

Sadly, the legacies of Abbas and Dahlan are largely predicated on such behavior, and their current conflict is mostly concerned with personal power struggles that involve just them and their followers.

Abbas, who is slowly losing the traditional Arab allies who once supported him against Hamas, and is relegated by Israel – which is trying to arrange the post-Abbas Palestinian leadership – is trying to explore new alliances. He has recently visited Turkey and Qatar. In Qatar, he met with top Hamas leaders, Khaled Meshaal and Ismael Haniyeh.

Hamas is not being courted by Abbas to end the protracted and disconcerting Palestinian feud for many years, but rather to counterbalance earlier moves by Dahlan to pander to Hamas.

Dahlan is involved in various ‘charity projects’ including financing mass weddings in impoverished Gaza. But it is not Dahlan’s money that Hamas is seeking; rather the hope that he mediates with Egypt to ease movement on the Rafah-Egypt border.

With a growing clout and rising number of benefactors, Dahlan’s resurrection is assured, but imposing him on an embattled Fatah faction in the West Bank remains uncertain.

To preclude Dahlan’s attempt at regaining his status within Fatah, Abbas’s PA forces in the Occupied West Bank have been conducting arrests of Dahlan’s supporters. The latter’s armed men are retaliating and clashes have been reported in various parts of the West Bank.

Moreover, Abbas has called for the seventh Fatah conference to be held sometime later this month, where the Abbas faction within Fatah is likely to rearrange the various committees to ensure Dahlan’s supporters are weakened, if not permanently removed.

Considering Dahlan’s strong support base, and his ability to win followers using his access to wealth and regional allies, a move against his followers is likely to backfire, splitting the party, or worse, leading to an armed conflict. Despite Israel’s intentional silence, there are also reports that Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who was tied to Dahlan repeatedly in the past, is keen on ensuring the return of Dahlan at the helm of Fatah.

Tragically, the power struggle rarely involves ordinary Palestinian people, who remain alone facing the Israeli military machine, the growing illegal Jewish settlements, the suffocating siege, while persisting under an unprecedented leadership vacuum.

This is one of the enduring legacies of the Oslo Accords, which divides Palestinians into classes: a powerful class that is subsidized by ‘donor countries’ and is used to serve the interests of the US, Israel and regional powers, and the vast majority of people, barely surviving on handouts, and resisting under growing odds.

This strange contradiction has become the shameful reality of Palestine, and regardless of what the power struggle between Abbas and Dahlan brings, most Palestinians will find themselves facing the same dual enemy, military occupation, on the one hand, and their leadership’s own acquiescence and corruption, on the other.

Eradicating Black Economy or Encouraging Cashless Economy

Jayashubha

The announcement of withdrawal of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes is being described as a masterstroke, a surgical strike on the Black money holders and one tough decision in Indian economic history which will change the world. It is being said that this will put an end to Black money and hit the backbone of terror. The logic that is being used is – black money is held in cash usually in the form of Rs. 500 /1000 notes, are usually kept at home and not deposited in banks – this decision will make black money holders to deposit in banks – the increased bank balance will raise alarm bells – income tax authorities will track and catch hold of excess money. As some commentators have described, black money is not necessarily stored but is in circulation or may take a converted form – a property disproportionate to income, gold or other form of assets. It may also be invested in stock exchanges, businesses etc. Hence the assumption of stagnant black money does not remain valid.

The question that arises is a) whether there is a hidden agenda behind the decision leave apart its impact on reduction of black economy; b) is it being done for the sake of promotion of a cashless economy – where corporates dealing with credit cards, debit cards, ecommerce would get an opportunity to grow as consumers would be made to make shift to cashless transactions – is  a facilitative environment being created for them; c) is it being done for encouraging larger retail enterprises where cashless transactions dominate in place of smaller retailers where cash transactions dominate  –  it is to be noted that India allowed 100% FDI in retail ; d) will it lead to a change in financial behavior of middle class consumers – as they make shift from Rythu Bazaars to Reliance Fresh, Kirana stores to Big bazaars / Walmarts; e) will it affect the small traders, street vendors and large sections of poor who largely deal with cash based transactions and who will find it consumers being lesser attracted to them.

Going by the logic of surgical strike on Black Money is concerned, the following question arises: –

• Does Black Money essentially exist in the form of Rs. 500 / 1000 notes only?
• If existence of excess fake Rs. 500 / 1000 currency in the economy is the reason for the same, what is the guarantee new fake note with excess denomination (Rs. 2,000) will not emerge later?
• What if the black money has been converted into a foreign currency and invested in Banks outside? How can this decision help in bringing it back?
• What if the black money has been utilized to build assets in India or abroad or invested in businesses? How can this decision help in checking that?
• Does Black money exist only in paper form in the form of notes? Does it not exist in paperless form? Is not existence of surplus money in Banks disproportionate with cash flow a Black money? Does a shift from currency (500/1000) to a paperless form make it white?
• As per the claims of the Government, for every 10 lakh Rs. 500 notes, there are about 250 Rs. 500 notes which are fake? This is about 0.00025% of the total currency available? No doubt this too has to be definitely curbed. But will it not lead to inconvenience to large population who fall outside the Black economy
• The exchange process (Rs. 500/1000 to Rs. 100) in the coming days will mean that there has to be sufficient supply of Rs. 100 notes. Is the supply sufficient enough?
• If the black money has been accumulated due to corruption and financial misappropriation through usage of genuine currency, how can these decisions put an end to the same? Can the usage of genuine currency (with black transactions) will make it white?
• What about those who are in the list of Panama papers? Will they be targeted? Are they in the list because of fake 500 / 1000 notes?
• Will the Black money lying in Swiss Bank be brought back? This was promised during 2014 election campaign? Will the decision help in bringing it back?
• How will the tax evasions be controlled through this action? While on the one hand government incentivizes conversion of black money into white through voluntary disclosure scheme, on the other hand it talks of fighting black economy?

The current decision seems to be to make a shift to a cashless economy rather than a surgical strike on Black Money.