Surgeon general’s report: One in seven Americans face substance addiction

Kate Randall

One in seven Americans will become addicted to drugs or alcohol in their lifetimes, but only 10 percent of those affected will ever receive any help in treating their addictions. These are some of the grim statistics provided in a new report released Thursday by the US surgeon general and the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health” reports that over 27 million people in the United States reported current use of illicit drugs or misuse of prescription drugs in 2015, and over 66 million people reported binge drinking in the past month.

The victims of this health and societal crisis are the tens of thousands of lives lost and ruined each year due to substance misuse. Substance addiction cuts across all segments of society, but has hit rural communities, the deindustrialized Rust Belt and impoverished areas of Appalachia particularly hard.

Alcohol misuse contributes to 88,000 deaths in the US every year; 1 in 10 deaths among working adults is due to alcohol misuse. In 2014, there were 47,055 drug overdose deaths, including 28,647 people who died from a drug overdose involving some type of opioid, more than in any previous year on record.

The report uses the term “misuse” as opposed to “abuse” in an effort to remove some of the stigma of addiction to encourage and facilitate treatment.

While the US spends more than any other country on health care, it ranks 27th in life expectancy, at a time when life expectancy continues to increase in other developed countries. The report notes that this disparity in life expectancy “is largely due to substance misuse and associated physical and mental health problems.”

The report points to recent research showing an unprecedented increase in mortality among middle-aged white Americans between 1999 and 2014 that was largely driven by alcohol and drug misuse and suicides, although this trend was not witnessed in other racial and ethnic populations.

The surgeon general estimates that substance misuse disorders cost “more than $400 billion annually in crime, health and lost productivity.” The human costs are devastating, including deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes, intimate partner and sexual violence, suicide attempts and fatalities, overdoses, and numerous health problems.

In 2014, 9,967 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents in the US while driving under the influence of alcohol, accounting for nearly one third of all traffic-related fatalities. While there are approximately 1.3 million arrests for driving under the influence each year, this number represents only about 1 percent of the actual alcohol-impaired driving incidents reported in national surveys.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports more than 2,200 alcohol overdose (alcohol poisoning) deaths in the US each year, an average of six a day. More than three quarters of alcohol overdose deaths occur among adults between the ages of 35 and 64, and 76 percent who die are men.

In 2014, 47,055 drug overdose deaths occurred in the US, with 61 percent of these the result of opioid use, including prescription opioids and heroin. The number of people dying from opioid overdoses increased nearly fourfold between 1999 and 2014.

The report notes that the over-prescription of opioid pain relievers beginning in the 1990s has led to a rapid escalation of their use and misuse among a wide demographic of men and women across the US. The use of opioids is so widespread that more people use prescription opioids (38 percent) than all tobacco products combined (31 percent).

Nearly 30,000 people died due to a heroin or prescription opioid overdose in 2014, and an estimated 20,000 died as a result of an unintentional overdose of alcohol, cocaine, or non-opioid prescription drugs.

The illegal manufacturing and distribution of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, which are often combined with heroin or distributed as heroin, are contributing to the rapid increase in opioid overdose deaths.

Alcohol and drug misuse have numerous longer-term effects on physical and mental health. Heavy drinking can lead to hypertension, liver disease and certain cancers; regular marijuana use is associated with chronic bronchitis; and use of stimulants such as cocaine can lead to heart disease.

Alcohol and substance misuse during pregnancy can result in long lasting health effects for the baby. Alcohol misuse can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs), resulting in physical, mental and behavioral problems in children. It is estimated that FASDs affect as many as 2 to 5 percent of the population. The opioid crisis has resulted in a fivefold increase in the number of babies dependent on opioids at birth.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) found that among the more than 265 million Americans aged 12 and over in 2015, almost 8 percent of this population met diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder for alcohol or illicit drugs. Another 1 percent met the criteria for both an alcohol and illicit drug use disorder.

Although 20.8 million people met the diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder in 2015, only 2.2 million of them received any type of treatment. The surgeon general’s report is short on answers as to why this is the case.

The report includes a chapter on “The Neurobiology of Substance Use, Misuse, and Addiction,” which describes the three main circuits in the brain involved in addiction, and explains how substance use can “hijack” the normal functioning of these circuits.

“Understanding this transformation in the brain is critical to understanding why addiction is a health condition, not a moral failing or character flaw,” the authors note. They also point to medications that have proven useful in treating both drug and alcohol addiction, but which have been often overlooked and under-prescribed.

The surgeon general’s report recommends health professionals act on this research in their treatment of those suffering from addiction. However, the fact that 90 percent of those in need of treatment never receive it—and addiction and overdose deaths continue to skyrocket—points to deeper economic and social factors. This includes the lack of funding for alcohol and drug misuse treatment at federal, state and local level, leading to those in need often ending up in the prison system instead of in treatment.

Recognizing the role of poverty, unemployment and other life stresses as contributing factors to addiction, the surgeon general’s report recommends initiatives to provide affordable housing, job training and recovery support to “address the risk and protective factors that are most actionable at the local level.”

Arguing that “the health care system alone cannot address all of the major determinants of health related to substance misuse,” the authors recommend rallying “community-based organizations, religious institutions, law enforcement, local businesses, researchers and other public, private, and voluntary entities” to tackle the crisis.

Under conditions where austerity and budget cuts can only be expected to deepen under the future Trump administration, such band-aid prescriptions offer little hope to the tens of millions suffering from addiction, many of whom face a future of increased health problems, overdose and death.

Fed set to lift key interest rate

Nick Beams

Financial markets have priced in as a virtual certainty that the US Federal Reserve will raise its base interest rate when it next meets on December 13–14. Fed chair Janet Yellen lifted expectations of a rate rise when she told a congressional hearing this week that such a move could “become appropriate relatively soon.”

Yellen told Congress’s Joint Economic Committee that if the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee were to delay for too long “it could end up having to tighten policy relatively abruptly.”

The Fed last increased rates by 0.25 percentage points in December 2015. At that time it was projected that there could have been as many as four rate increases over the course of this year. But at each of its meetings the Fed has decided to keep its base rate on hold.

However the turnaround in bond markets in the last ten days, following the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, has seen the probability of a rate rise, as reflected in futures markets, escalate rapidly.

The yield on 10-year US treasury bonds reached 2.33 percent yesterday, its highest level for the year. The bond sell-off (the price of bonds and their yield bear an inverse relationship to each other) is on the expectation that inflation in the US will start to rise and that any infrastructure program under Trump will increase government debt—both of which tend to lower bond prices.

The stock markets have been hitting record or near-record highs on the back of expectations that tax cuts, including a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 to 15 percent, and a winding back of business regulations, will boost the bottom line.

While it is not anticipated that a Fed rate rise will have a major effect in the US, the international consequences may be significant, with the effects of a rate rise transmitted through a movement of money out of emerging markets to seek higher returns in the US and a rise in the value of the dollar.

The dollar index, which measures the value of the US currency against basket of other currencies, reached a 13-year high at one point yesterday after recording 10 straight days of gains. And it could climb further in the expectation of an increase in official rates next month.

The increase by the Fed last December had a significant effect on emerging markets, which then resulted in major stock markets having one of their worst openings to a year on record. What kind of impact a rate rise will have is not completely clear, but the past weeks have seen major falls in the currencies of emerging market economies and in their stock markets.

According to a report in Bloomberg, emerging market bond markets are poised for their biggest losses since the so-called “taper tantrum” of 2013 when there was a rush for the exits after Fed chairman Ben Bernanke had indicated the central bank would ease back on its purchases of bonds.

Bond prices are falling across the board—it is estimated that the global paper losses so far total around $1.5 trillion—but there are significant divergences. While there is a ready market for the bonds of the major economies, the situation is different for emerging markets.

Every increase in the value of the dollar increases the real debt burden of dollar denominated loans and impacts on the balance sheet of the companies that issued them. If investors withdraw cash, then companies and financial institutions will have difficulties in paying back debt.

In other words, emerging markets, which had previously enjoyed dollar liquidity as investors searched for yield in an environment of near-zero and even negative interest rates, could face a dollar shortage as interest rates and bond yields start to rise.

It is also far from clear what will be the impact on the two most important central banks after the US Fed—the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). The governing council of the ECB will next month set out the future of the asset purchasing program which is due to end in its current form in March 2017. ECB president Mario Draghi has indicated that there would be some form of extension, but that was before the rapid rise in bond yields that followed the Trump victory.

Similarly the Bank of Japan faces new conditions. In September, the central bank committed itself to lock in the interest rate on 10-year government bonds at zero as a central plank of its monetary policy. This week the yield went above zero for the first time since the policy was announced. If it now implements its “yield curve control” policy, a situation may well develop where Japanese government bond yields are under international pressure to rise while the BoJ is working to suppress them.

While US markets are enjoying a Trump boost, there are concerns among fiscal and monetary conservatives about the state of the international financial system and the consequences of a sharp rise in the value of the dollar.

In a statement headlined “Trouble Ahead for the Global Economy,” directed to the incoming administration, the right-wing free-market American Enterprise Institute warned that while the balance sheet expansion of the world’s central banks may have helped the recovery from the Great Recession of 2008–2009 it did so by setting the stage for the next global downturn.

“Sadly, that downturn could very well be on a similar scale to the one that followed the September 2008 Lehman bankruptcy,” it said.

It warned that debt had risen to record levels, financial market bubbles had been created, and the position of troubled banks, especially in Europe, had been worsened by the low interest rate regime.

The statement noted the recent International Monetary Fund study which disclosed that global debt has risen to an all-time high of 225 percent of global GDP over the past eight years, with two-thirds of the growth involving private debt.

It pointed to two causes of concern. European governments with high levels of debt, including Greece, Italy and Portugal, are vulnerable to any tightening of monetary conditions. And what it called “excessive borrowing” by emerging market corporations in dollar denominated loans made them “particularly vulnerable to any further dollar appreciation.”

But with the Fed set to lift interest rates next month, such a rise may be already in train.

Rising indicators of social distress in Australia

John Harris

Amid a slowdown of the economy and growing social inequality, indicators of distress and hardship are mounting, belying the claims of media pundits that Australian workers and young people are fortunate to live in the “lucky country.”

A report released by the Community Council for Australia (CCA) late last month showed that suicide rates and incarceration levels have risen starkly, hitting the most oppressed sections of the working class hardest.

The report, titled The Australia We Want, underscores the punitive character of the prison system, with imprisonment and lengthy sentences serving as the official reaction to a host of social problems.

Over the past decade, Australia’s prison population has increased by a staggering 42 percent, from 25,400 in 2005 to 36,134 last year.

The report noted that from 2014 to 2015, the number of prisoners increased by 7 percent. The rise takes the national average to 196 prisoners per 100,000 people, up from 186 prisoners per 100,000 in 2014. This is higher than every country in Western Europe, along with Canada, and is more than double the rate in a number of Scandinavian countries.

The Northern Territory has the highest incarceration rate, with 885.1 prisoners per 100,000, or four times the national average. The figure exceeds the rate across the United States—a world leader in mass imprisonment—of 700 prisoners per 100,000. The second highest levels of incarceration are in Western Australia, with 278.2 people imprisoned per 100,000. The number of prisoners has grown in other states, including South Australia, which now has 204.4 people behind bars per 100,000.

According to the report, the number of prisoners who have not been sentenced, but are in custody is almost 10,000, up by 21 percent from 2014. Many prisoners wait months for a sentence to be delivered.

Less than 25 percent of inmates have committed a violent crime—the majority are found guilty of property offences, often a result of poverty. Only 20 percent of imprisoned adults have completed high school education. One third of adult prisoners have a disability or long-term chronic health condition. Among Aboriginal people, the most oppressed section of the working class, the incarceration rate is 2,253 per 100,000.

The rise in incarceration is a direct result of the policies imposed by successive governments. In the late 1990s, state governments in the Northern Territory and Western Australia introduced mandatory sentencing laws for petty property offences, leading to young people being locked-up for stealing bottles of water, packets of biscuits, stationery and alcohol.

The policy was the sharpest expression of a broader turn to “law and order” measures by Labor and Liberal governments at the state and federal level, which has continued unabated. Last year, the Western Australian Liberal government and Labor opposition came together to push through an expansion of mandatory sentencing, including for children aged 16 to 18 involved in burglaries. In 2014, the New South Wales Liberal government and Labor opposition introduced mandatory sentences for assaults associated with alcohol.

The report also draws attention to a high incidence of suicide, which is a leading cause of death, outnumbering fatalities in car accidents. Suicide rates have risen by 20 percent in Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory.

In 2014, approximately 7.8 people committed suicide every day. In 2016, the figure stood at over 8 suicides per day. Incidences are highest in the most poverty-stricken areas, with workers, young people and the unemployed confronting a myriad of social and health issues.

The Northern Territory, which has served as a testing ground for punitive policies targeting welfare and expanding juvenile detention, has the highest rate of suicides—20.8 per 100,000 in 2014, up from 14.3 in 2013. The report notes that the current suicide rate for indigenous youth is four times higher than that of non-indigenous youth.

The official response to the social disaster was underscored by the recent announcement by Lifeline, which provides emergency assistance to people suffering depression and experiencing suicidal crises, that it is ending operations in the Territory. The charity organisation cited a persistent lack of government funding over the past 10 years.

Underlying the growth of social distress is the dramatic increase in social inequality over the past three decades. The report notes that the average income of the wealthiest 20 percent of households is five times that of the poorest 20 percent.

Australia’s GINI coefficient, which measures social inequality, has also grown. The higher the coefficient, the greater the wealth inequality. In 2012, Australia’s coefficient stood at 32.6, higher than more than half of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD.) In 2014, it increased to 33.73.

The report notes the rising cost of living, which is compounding the social crisis. It points, in particular to housing costs, and notes that those in the lowest quintile spend the highest proportion of their income on rent and mortgage payments.

House prices across the country have soared. Median house prices in Sydney hit a record $1.06 million last month and in Melbourne, the figure stands at over $773,000. These figures have risen by 65 percent and 45 percent respectively, over the past four years. The increases have seen rates of home ownership among young people drop by 50 percent over the past three decades, and have led to widespread financial stress and growing homelessness.

The social divide revealed in the CCA document contrasts sharply with the political complacency of its authors, including Tim Costello, CEO of World Vision Australia, and other charity organisations. The report—written in the form of a note of advice to the very governments responsible for the mounting social crisis—is a warning to the ruling elite that growing inequality will fuel social opposition and anger. To that end, the report issues a series of pathetic calls for greater “inclusivity,” a “united” community and a more “optimistic,” “kind” and “compassionate” society.

In reality, the corporate elite, and the major parties, including Labor, the Liberals and the Greens, are all committed to imposing the burden of the deepest crisis of the capitalist system since the 1930s, onto the backs of the working class and young people. In September, for instance, Labor and the federal Liberal-National government agreed to impose $6.3 billion in cuts to social spending, particularly targeting education, healthcare and welfare.

After Trump victory: Mexican peso plummets amid ruling class unease

Clodomiro Puentes

In the two trading sessions immediately following the election of Donald Trump last Tuesday, the Mexican peso’s value plummeted over 12.6 percent, its most precipitous decline since the 1994 financial crisis. By the close of last Thursday’s session, the peso had falle to 20.53 pesos to the dollar, from 18.6 on the eve of the election. It continued its plunge to 21.45 pesos on Friday.

The abrupt devaluation of the peso reflected the upending of the Mexican ruling elite’s expectations of a Clinton victory, and laid bare their anxieties over what a government headed by Trump may presage. Particular concern has been provoked by the president-elect’s protectionist rhetoric, including his professed intent to impose a 35 percent tariff on all Mexican-manufactured auto exports to the US, along with his denunciations of NAFTA as “the worst trade deal ever.” On the latter point, he has made vague threats ranging from abandoning it outright to renegotiating terms.

Bilateral trade between the US and Mexico is estimated at US$583 billion annually, with 80 percent of Mexican exports going to the US. A renegotiation of NAFTA could create conditions of crisis and uncertainty rivaling the effects of Brexit in Europe.

Nevertheless, the Mexican currency gained in value modestly to 20.3 pesos to the dollar this week as the initial panic of Mexico’s financial aristocracy gave way to some expressions of cautious optimism. Trump’s past remarks about infrastructure investment and slashing of corporate tax rates down to 15 percent from 35 percent in the US are seen as potentially benefiting sections of Mexico’s ruling elite as well in the long term.

The far-right billionaire’s anti-immigrant vitriol is also of some concern to the Mexican ruling class. This is motivated not by concern for the well-being of the millions of undocumented immigrant workers he intends to deport as by the possibility of greatly diminished revenues from the remittances (currently valued at US$24.8 billion per year) sent to Mexico.

There remains considerable public anger over the political fiasco that was Trump’s visit to Mexico in September. The display of servility by President Enrique Peña Nieto toward Trump, the most hated figure in Mexico, served to further undermine the legitimacy of his administration. Peña Nieto’s approval rating has fallen to 26 percent.

Trump’s threat of mass deportations is largely a continuation of the already existing situation. Mexican Secretary of the Interior Osorio Chong recently announced the expansion of the Programa Somos Mexicanos, a program that was implemented in 2014 with the express purpose of reintegrating deportees into the workforce. This was a complementary response to the Obama administration’s own deportation policy, which sent back nearly 200,000 Mexican nationals in 2015 alone.

Similarly, Trump’s proposed “wall” has elicited only the most guarded reaction from the Mexican political establishment, which can do little else since it is caught between the growing disapproval of the mass of the Mexican population on the one hand, and the demands of its subordination to US imperialism on the other.

Peña Nieto gave a brief press conference the day after the US elections in which he related little of substance, except to reaffirm the prostration of that country’s ruling elite to Washington. With regard to the charged question of Trump’s deportation scheme, he could only offer: “As President of Mexico, I will dedicate myself to the best of my ability, genuinely, with body and soul, to watch over the well-being and the interests of Mexicans wherever they may be.” The proposed border wall was noticeably absent from his address.

He added: “President-elect Donald Trump expressed his willingness to work with everyone and every country, looking for agreement and not hostility, alliances and not conflicts, and Mexico shares that vision.”

Peña Nieto will find areas of “agreement and not hostility” by adapting his administration to Trump’s proposed police state measures to round up millions of undocumented immigrants. Given his well-established record as enforcer of Washington’s repressive immigration policies, carrying out tens of thousands of deportations of Central American immigrants as part of the so-called Merida Initiative, there is no reason to suspect that the Mexican elite will not continue to do Washington’s bidding.

Contrary to Trump’s racist claims about drug dealers, rapists and criminals storming the US-Mexico border, the fact is that there has been a net outflow of Mexican immigrants back to their home country in recent years, in response to both the Obama administration’s draconian immigration policies and the limited economic opportunities available since the 2008 financial meltdown. Trump’s denunciations are designed to pollute the political climate in the US and scapegoat immigrant workers for conditions created by the decay of American capitalism.

His xenophobic appeals will inevitably run aground upon the intractable realities of American capitalism’s dependence on a vulnerable and super-exploited layer of undocumented immigrant workers. Divisions exist within the ruling class on how to deal with the “problem” of immigrant workers, particularly on the part of the large agribusiness conglomerates that have long pushed for immigration “reform,” the better to manage and exploit their workers.

Dave Heineman, who sits on Trump’s agricultural advisory committee, speaking to agriculture newsletter Agri-Pulse on the future of trade deals such as TPP and NAFTA, confirmed these differences: “Talk to governors of large industrial states and they will tell you that while [agriculture] was favored in trade relations in these trade deals, the manufacturing sector and other sectors of the economy weren’t.”

Whatever the final form taken by Trump’s approach to repressing immigrant workers, the underlying political logic is to drive a wedge between workers who are objectively linked across national boundaries in the production process, and whose common interests are inimical to those of their respective ruling classes.

Both US and Mexican workers and farmers were negatively impacted by NAFTA, which was developed by both Republican and Democratic administrations before being finally implemented in 1994.

Poor peasants found their livelihoods shattered by an influx of cheap US agricultural imports propped up by federal subsidies. This coincided with Mexico’s own slashing of agricultural subsidies alongside other neoliberal counterreforms, including a wave of privatizations of key assets such as telecommunications and railways and the dismantling of the constitutional protections of the ejido (communal agriculture) system.

As a consequence of NAFTA, Mexico, formerly self-sufficient in corn, now receives half its supply from the US. Mexican agriculture is estimated to have lost nearly a million and a half jobs—it was this ruination of the small Mexican farmer that proved to be a major source for immigration northwards in this period.

The growth of the Mexican industrial working class was manifested in the mushrooming of low-wage maquiladora plants along the border states to facilitate production across national boundaries, a process known as “near-sourcing.” Mexico is now the third largest producer of automobiles behind the US and Brazil in the Americas, and auto manufacturers are eager to exploit a labor force whose wages average $5 an hour, barely a third of what is being paid to the low-wage new-hires in US auto plants.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, head of the center-left Movement for National Regeneration (Morena), has distinguished himself little from Peña Nieto with his blasé comments advising the Mexican population not to “panic” about Trump’s designs.

“In the case of the United States, it’s best to wait and we’ll respond depending on what they decide,” he said. “I hope that there are no unpleasant surprises—to the contrary, it would be something they would have to rectify because nothing will be resolved with walls and coercive measures. I trust that we’ll be able to convince them that the best thing with regards to the United States is cooperation for development.”

Lopez Obrador is expected to turn any deterioration in US-Mexico relations under a Trump administration to his own electoral advantage in 2018. To Trump’s far-right strain of economic nationalism, Lopez will respond in kind, with the support of the Mexican pseudo-left.

Tendencies such as the Movement of Socialist Workers (MTS), the Mexican section of the Morenoite FT-CI, attempt to formally distance themselves from the politics of Morena, but what they advance politically is not substantially different. Their insipid statement leading up to the US elections, “Neither ‘Killary’ nor Trump! Organize the discontent against Yankee meddling!” bears all the trademarks of a narrow nationalist outlook that repeatedly descends into vulgar anti-Americanism.

They offer no analysis as to what accounted for Trump’s emergence as the Republican frontrunner. The American working class appears in the piece not once. Instead, there are only telegraphed clichés about the United States as an undifferentiated imperialist monolith.

Significantly, its main criticism against the ruling PRI is that it has “long ago abandoned its nationalist rhetoric.” As the WSWS has pointed out, the basic aspiration of sections of the upper middle class is toward a return to the kind of nationalist course that existed in the days of the “Mexican miracle,” as if the objective conditions that allowed for the limited gains of import-substitution industrialization in the postwar period could be willed back into existence. Should the MTS strike out on its own in 2018, it would only counterpose to Morena’s protectionism a similar political trap for the Mexican working class, albeit with pseudo-socialist window dressing.

Protectionist measures are an economic blind alley that can only serve to intensify trade disputes and geopolitical tensions. The bogus invocation of “national sovereignty” in Mexico, or the promise to “make America great again,” can be accomplished only on the basis of attacking the living conditions of the working class, as already evidenced by Obama’s aforementioned “rescue” of the auto industry in 2009. Put bluntly, the only way to bring jobs back on a capitalist basis is to intensify the attack on all the hard-fought gains of the working classes throughout North America.

In a worried editorial Thursday headlined “Preparing for the worst,” the Mexico City daily La Jornada said that the implementation of Trump’s campaign promises could create a population of 10 million people “in a situation of complete deprivation.” It called upon the government to prepare a massive program of public jobs for building housing, schools, clinics and other infrastructure. Acknowledging that such an initiative would come at “an astronomical cost,” the paper warned that without it, “Mexico would face an unmanageable, destabilizing and tragic human catastrophe.”

As no section of the Mexican bourgeoisie is prepared to carry out any such program, the prospect is for a rapid intensification of the class struggle and a new period of revolutionary crisis.

Donald Trump and South Asia

Michael Krepon

What can the subcontinent expect from President Donald Trump? Bewilderment, for starters. If the new occupant in the Oval Office is unfamiliar with Russia, China, the workings of NATO, nuclear deterrence, and the impact of trade compacts, do not expect him to be well versed on the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and Kashmir.

True, most incoming presidents are strangers to the subcontinent, but Trump is a special case. He did not take his homework seriously during a lengthy presidential campaign, and one of the many questions surrounding his ascension is whether he will apply himself to the monumental job ahead. The same questions applied to President Ronald Reagan, who fared well when surrounded by savvy advisors, and stumbled badly when given awful advice. 

Trump will also be greatly dependent on the people around him for expertise and wise counsel. His inner circle of advisers consists of family members and a small cohort who stuck with him through thick and thin: Rudy Guiliani, Newt Gingrich, General Mike Flynn, and Jeff Sessions. Their abilities to handle the affairs of state are equally questionable. Guiliani is mentioned as a possible Secretary of State, along with John Bolton. Both have empathy deficits, confusing diplomacy with boorish behaviour. Their ties to Democrats on Capitol Hill are frayed, to say the least, and would encounter bruising conformation battles. Perhaps better-qualified candidates will come to the fore.

Below the top tier, where all of the diplomacy toward South Asia takes place – except for crisis management – the applicants are a mystery. If the top tier appointments have little standing, recruiting quality help will be extremely challenging. Many high-ranking officials in previous Republican administrations have sworn off working for Trump. The Heritage Foundation will be heavily involved in job placement, with Old School Republican internationalists continuing their retreat from the corridors of power. Obstructionists and deconstructionists will now have a go at making policy.

US presidential diplomacy is likely to return to the cue card era of the Reagan administration. Do not expect major initiatives toward the region in the Trump administration. The trend lines toward India and Pakistan established during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations are too deeply grooved to change, but there could be differences in degree rather than course corrections. New Delhi could find it has a less persuasive advocate in the White House for its pursuit of NSG membership, and an unsympathetic ear to Prime Minister Modi’s 'Make in India' campaign. Pakistan faces a bigger problem: a less tolerant executive branch for hosting  Jaish and Lashkar cadres that carry out attacks against India.

Pakistan’s talking points have long since lost traction in Washington. If there is not evident change in Rawalpindi’s stance toward anti-India groups, the Trump administration and Capitol Hill could react very strongly when the next attack happens. One key variable is how much overt effort Rawalpindi makes to stop cross-border violence. A second is the scale of the attack.

Washington no longer pretends to have the carrots to influence Rawalpindi’s choices, but it still has more sticks. The 'nuclear' option is declaring Pakistan to be a state supporter of terrorism – a decision many in India would applaud, until they deal with the consequences.

US-Pakistan relations are a sad tale of mutually unrequited hopes. US-India relations are a positive work in progress that could also be defined by mutually unrequited hopes. One test of the relationship during the Trump administration could come with increased friction – perhaps of a serious nature – between Washington and China. In which event, boosters of the US embrace of India would expect something more than studied neutrality.

Grenada: School of Medicine Full Tuition Scholarships for Commonwealth Countries at SGU 2017/2018

Application Deadlines: 

• 1st November 2016 for January class.
• 1st of June 2017 for August class
  

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth nations

To be taken at (country): St. George’s University, Grenada

Eligible Field of Study: Medicine and related fields:

•  Doctor of Medicine
•  Doctor of Veterinary Medicine
•  Master of Public Health
•  Master of Business Administration
•  School of Arts and Sciences

Type: Bachelor’s/Masters/PhD

Eligibility: A prospective scholarship candidate must be a resident citizen of a Commonwealth country, have been accepted to St. George’s University, and submit an essay detailing how this award will ultimately benefit the development of his/her country.

Selection: A Commonwealth Jubilee Scholarship Committee established by the University awards the scholarships.

Number of Awardees: 60. Ten scholarships are available for Doctor of Medicine students in the School of Medicine.

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship funds tuition only.  Students must have a financial plan in place to fund living and travel expenses through their own personal resources or alternative funding sources.

How to Apply: A prospective scholarship candidate must be a resident citizen of a Commonwealth country, have been accepted to St. George’s University, and submit an essay detailing how this award will ultimately benefit the development of his/her country.

Commonwealth Jubilee Scholarship Application

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: St. George’s University.

Denmark: FIG Foundation PhD Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 1st February 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Denmark

Eligible Field of Study: Surveying and other related fields

Type: PhD

Eligibility: Applicants shall:

1. be studying for a PhD degree and registered solely in a surveying/geomatics academic programme that teaches surveying in a country listed by the World Bank as a low-income, lower-middle or upper-middle income economy,
2. must have had a paper accepted by a peer reviewed international journal based on their doctoral research project; applicants should be the lead author, and the paper should be co-authored with their supervisor,
3. should not have submitted their final thesis at the application deadline.

Selection Criteria: Applications will be judged on the quality of the application and need. In the event that two excellent applications are judged to be of equal quality, applications from low-income and lower-middle income countries will be preferred.

Value of Scholarship: The FIG Foundation will be providing scholarships of up to 4,000 euros to PhD students. Successful applicants will qualify for a further grant of up to 3,000 euros to attend and present a peer reviewed paper at a FIG conference.

How to Apply: Applicants should submit the following set of documents in English in the order set out below as a single file in PDF format on A4 paper:

1. A cover sheet showing the candidate’s personal details and those of his/her institution.
2.  A 200 word abstract. This should be written in terms understandable to the lay person; similar to a press release and which the FIG Foundation could actually use as a press release in the event of a successful application.
3. A one page research proposal as per the template below on A4 size paper. Note that the one page limit will be strictly enforced; material that extends beyond one page will be deleted.
4. A copy of the paper that has been re-submitted to the journal after corrections have been completed.
5. A letter from the editor of the journal indicating that the paper has been accepted and that the necessary corrections have been completed satisfactorily.
6. The journal paper’s referees’ reports.
7. A list of peer reviewed journal publications over the last 6 years using the International Journal of GIS reference list format. See Notes for Authors on the IJGIS website.
8. A list of research funding obtained over the past 5 years, indicating which grants are peer reviewed or not.
9. A description of research compliance, the research account and activity auditing structures and processes in their institution. For example, if a scientist spends money inappropriately, are there structures in place to refund the granting agency?
10. A copy of the ethics approval notice for the research from the institution if that is relevant to the grant application. If ethics clearance is not required, then this should be stated in the application.
11. A budget indicating how the funds will be spent and a one page justification of the budget. Note that as a general rule, equipment will not be funded. Travel to FIG Conferences to present results and tuition fees may be included in the budget. Per diems for field work will not be funded, but reasonable actual costs of field work are refundable.

Applications are to be sent to fig.foundation@fig.net with “FIG Foundation PhD Scholarship Application” shown in Subject Line.

or by post:

The FIG Foundation
c/o FIG
Kalvebod Brygge 31-33
DK-1780 Copenhagen V
DENMARK
Tel. + 45 3886 1081
Fax + 45 3886 0252

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: FIG Foundation

Important Notes: Applicants are not to contact Foundation directors individually. Decisions are final. No correspondence will be entered into during or after the competition.

Apply: Yale Young African Scholars (YYAS) Programme 2017 for African Secondary School Students

Application Deadline: 16th March, 2017, at 11:59pm EST.

All applicants will receive an email with final admission decisions approximately 6 weeks after the application deadline.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Summer 2017 sessions will be held in three locations:

Rwanda
Ghana
Mauritius

Eligible Field of Study: Any

About the Award:The 2017 application for the Yale Young African Scholars Program (YYAS) is now available! YYAS is a high-intensity program that brings together African secondary school students for a cost-free seven-day residential program designed to introduce students to the demanding U.S. university and financial aid application process and requirements. In 2016, YYAS hosted programs in Ghana, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe and welcomed 300 African high school students into its growing alumni network.

Administered by the Yale Young Global Scholars Program and building off that model of interdisciplinary academic curriculum, YYAS participants will attend lectures led by prominent Yale faculty, seminars developed by Yale student instructors, and experiential exercises designed to augment their leadership skills. Participants will engage in robust intellectual exchanges that are crucial to understanding Africa’s most pressing challenges and opportunities. In addition to the introduction to university application processes, Yale student-led courses and leadership training, YYAS also offers students standardized test preparation sessions at no cost to the students.

Type: Secondary school scholarship

Eligibility: Prospective applicants must be citizens of an African country and currently attend school on the African continent. Applicants will have two years left before completing high school and be between the ages of 14-18.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded

Duration of Scholarship: seven days

Rwanda: 27 July – 2 August
Ghana: 7 – 13 August
Mauritius: 18 – 24 August

How to Apply: Access the 2017 online application

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Higherlife Foundation, Yale University

Morocco: The Global Addictest Fellowship (GAF) Program 2017 for Young Graduates.

Application Deadline: Rolling

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Morocco

About the Award: The Global Addictest Fellowship (GAF) Program serves to enhance the learning experiences of the students at Addictest Center in Rabat, Morocco.

Being a GAF is an opportunity for recent graduates to gain teaching experience and make an impact. You will get to coach and accompany motivated high-school students. You will see them make it to college, all while in the beautiful Morocco. There are two options: a one year full time position or two years full time position. This is an opportunity to culturally immerse yourself in Morocco. Other perks include learning/reinforcing french or arabic.

Type: Volunteer

Eligibility: 

• GAFs are highly-motivated recent college graduates, or gap year students, with an interest in education.
• Volunteers should be able to speak English and willing to learn French or Arabic

Number of Positions: Not specified

Value of Programme: 

• Full time paid position.
• Opportunity to make an impact on people’s life. Almost like an improved paid volunteer position
• Subsidized housing and food.
• Complementary classes in Arabic or French

Duration of Programme: There are two options: Either a 1 year program or two years. We are quite flexible. We welcome extensions from 1 year to 2 years, but do not guarantee it unless you join us for 2 years from the start. Scaling back from 2 years to 1 year is possible but will be on a case by case situation.

How to Apply: The application process is on a rolling basis. Please send your CV and cover letter to GAF@addictest.com.

Visit Programme Webpage for details 

Award Provider: Global Addictest Fellowship (GAF)

University of Nottingham Fully-funded Engineering Scholarship for International Students 2017

Application Deadline: 10th March 2017 (12 midday UK time)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): UK

Type: PhD Research

Eligibility: We are looking for applications from exceptional students who are seriously committed to pushing the boundaries of engineering, students who are excited about the prospect of working with some of the world’s leading researchers and who aspire to be the best in their profession. The high value of this award reflects the University’s aim to attract the best students from around the world and to support them during their study.

You can apply for this scholarship if you:

• are classed as an overseas student for fee purposes AND
• already hold an offer to start a full-time PhD research degree programme at our Nottingham campus with a start date that falls between 01 October 2017 and 01 February 2018 (inclusive) in the Faculty of Engineering AND
• have a first-class undergraduate degree or an MSc with distinction in a relevant subject; work experience, journal papers published and other esteem indicators (prizes, top-in-class etc.) will be considered

It is important that you state on your scholarship application the specific topic you are interested in researching and why. Applications listing broad fields of research eg ‘civil engineering’ or ‘mechanical engineering’ rarely get supported.

Number of Awardees: 12

Value of Scholarship: Full tuition fee scholarships plus a stipend of £1,015 per month

Duration of Scholarship: Three-year full-time PhD research degree programme

How to Apply: View guidance on completing your online application and apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Nottingham

University of Nottingham Research Scholarship for International Students 2017

Application Deadline: 10th March 2017 (12 midday UK time)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): UK

Eligible Field of Study: Applications from suitable candidates are welcome but would particularly be valued from strong candidates wishing to work within the research priority areas of each faculty. Please check with individual faculties via the links below regarding their areas of research (link below):

• Arts
• Medicine and Health Sciences
• Science
• Social Sciences

Engineering research students should apply for the Faculty of Engineering Research Excellence PhD Scholarship.

Type: PhD Research/ MPhil

Eligibility: Interested candidates can apply for this scholarship if they:

• are classed as an overseas student for fee purposes AND
• already hold an offer to start a full-time research degree programme, PhD or MPhil, at our Nottingham campus with a start date that falls between 01 October 2017 and 01 February 2018 (inclusive), in any subject area** excluding Engineering***

Number of Awardees: 38

Value of Scholarship: Full-tuition

Duration of Scholarship: these scholarships are for up to each of 3 years of a research programme, subject to satisfactory progress.

How to Apply: View guidance on completing your online application and apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Nottingham

Erasmus Mundus MaMaSELF Joint Masters Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th January 2017

To be taken at (Universities): 

• University of Rennes 1-UR1, France
• University of Torino-TO, Italy
• Technical University of Munich-TUM, Germany
• Ludwig Maximiillan University of Munich-LMU, Germany
• University of Montpellier-UM, France

About the Award: MaMaSELF is a 2 year ERASMUS MUNDUS Master Course in Materials Science Exploring Large Scale Facilities. It deals with material characterization using neutron and synchrotron radiation with strong synergies between universities, industrial partners and research centres. In an international environment, it offers excellent academic and industrial opportunities to Master Students.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Students must have

• A Bachelor (180 ECTS)  in Materials Science or related disciplines : Chemistry, Physics, Geo-science,…
• Proof of good English competencies, e.g.  TOEFL  CBT 230 and PBT  550 IBT 80 / IELTS 6.5 or equivalent, except for applicants native from English speaking countries and for students having been educated in English at secondary or/and university. Students who intend to have a mobility at TUM  must have following level for admission at TUM : TOEFL IBT 88, CBT 234/ PBT 605
• Students coming from main background : civil engineering, medicine, pharmacy, architecture, accounting, law will not be accepted unless they have a minimum background in Chemistry or Physics (at Bachelor level).

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The Erasmus Mundus scholarship covers tuition fees and allows to cover all expenses that non eu students normally face during their studies.

Duration of Scholarship: 2 years

How to Apply: 

• Bachelor degree (with certified English translation)
• Transcripts (with translation)
• English competencies certificate
• Reference letters
• Passport

Create your account and start your application

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: European Commission

Important Notes: When the results are published, please check your status on your file.