8 Dec 2016

Supreme Court Brexit hearing begins amid growing divisions in UK ruling circles

Robert Stevens

On Monday, the UK’s Supreme Court began a four-day hearing on whether the Conservative government of Prime Minister Theresa May is able to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty—to begin the process of leaving the European Union (EU)—without the consent of Parliament.
The case stems from the major constitutional and political crisis sparked by the narrow June 23 referendum vote by the population to exit the EU. It is the most significant to be heard in a British court in modern times.
The government intends to trigger Brexit by the end of March 2017, by invoking the powers of Royal Prerogative—once held by British monarchs and now reserved to the government on the advice of the prime minister and the cabinet.
The government appealed to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, to challenge last month’s High Court decision ruling that Parliament alone has the right to trigger Britain’s EU exit. The High Court case was brought by a group of claimants led by Gina Miller, a London-based investment fund manager. They argued successfully that rights conferred by Parliament when it passed the 1972 European Communities Act—paving the way for the UK to join the then European Economic Community—were threatened by Brexit. The High Court accepted their contention that a process leading to the withdrawal of these rights could therefore only be determined by Parliament.
The significance of the Supreme Court hearing was laid out prior to the case by the president of the court, Lord Neuberger. He said the assembling of 11 Supreme Court judges to hear the case was the largest panel constituted since the Law Lords were created in 1876. Cases are normally heard before just five judges, or occasionally seven. The Court’s deliberations are being live streamed on the Supreme Court web site, by the BBC and other news channels, with an estimated 300,000 expected viewers.
Representatives from the UK devolved Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland administrations are also in court as interested parties.
What is being fought out in the courts are the fundamental strategic interests of warring factions of the British ruling class—between those who favour remaining in the EU, and the minority faction, which includes the May government but not all of the ruling Conservative Parliamentary party, who favour leaving.
In the aftermath of the High Court ruling, Nigel Farage, a leading Leave campaign figure and then leader of the right-wing xenophobic UK Independence Party (UKIP), threatened to lead a march of 100,000 people through central London to the Supreme Court. Supporters of the Remain camp were preparing to hold a counter-protest. The Farage-led march was cancelled after the organisers, Leave.EU, said they feared it would be hijacked by fascist groups, including the English Defence League and British National Party.
The Leave-supporting media responded to the High Court verdict by describing the judges as “enemies of the people” and accusing them of “treachery.”
On Saturday, the Daily Mail continued its campaign by editorialising, “With only a simple majority needed for a ruling, we therefore find it disturbing that no fewer than five Supreme Court judges have publicly expressed views which appear to be sympathetic to the EU, while six have close links with people who have publicly attacked the Leave campaign.”
The Telegraph led Monday’s front page with the headline, “Don’t defy the people, judges told.” This was in reference to the Attorney General for England and Wales and Tory MP, Jeremy Wright QC, who outlined the government’s case at the beginning of Monday’s session. Wright would say that the government’s opponents were inviting the court “to stray into areas of political judgment rather than legal adjudication,” the Telegraph reported. “The Court should resist that invitation, particularly where the underlying issue is one of considerable political sensitivity.”
Tensions escalated further as the case got underway, with May’s spokeswoman saying threats by Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs to amend any Brexit bill that comes before Parliament if the government loses the case were an attempt to “frustrate the will of the British people.”
The Supreme Court began its deliberations in an extraordinarily febrile atmosphere. Neuberger was forced to warn the media they should not report the names and addresses of Miller and other claimants and their families, as there had been “threats of serious violence and unpleasant abuse” made to them online and in emails.
In his submission, Wright stated that the “foreign affairs prerogative” was not an “ancient relic,” but was essential for the “government to maintain control over strategy, policy and operational matters in conducting our bilateral or multilateral international relationships.”
If May’s government loses the case, it plans to present a mini-bill to Parliament, confirming its intention to proceed with Brexit. Presented as a “compromise”, the government—with a majority of just 13—is desperately seeking to bring its Brexit agenda back under its control. It calculates that Parliament will accept the bill and therefore hand back to the government full control of negotiations with the EU over Brexit that will last a minimum of two years. However, this outcome is unacceptable to the Remain camp, whose leading figures are seeking the reversal of the Brexit vote.
In Parliament, they are supported across party lines, by up to three-quarters of MPs. While a majority of MPs have said they will not block Article 50 being triggered, many are committed to amending any Article 50 bill in order to ensure that their pivotal aim—access for British capital to the EU’s Single Market—is achieved in the EU negotiations. Last Saturday, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn stated, “When the Article 50 debate comes up, we will put forward an amendment to it, about market access and protections. We want those to be part of the negotiations.”
The bitter divisions in ruling circles cannot be resolved through the courts. The Brexit referendum was called in 2013 by May’s predecessor, David Cameron, as a manoeuvre to stem the growing influence of the Tories’ euro-sceptic wing and to prevent a further haemorrhaging of support to UKIP. As a Leave result was never seriously contemplated, no planning was undertaken by the Cameron government for this eventuality. The Remain campaign, led by Cameron, was only ever intent on implementing the referendum if they got the result they wanted.
The working class must take an independent political stance against both equally reactionary factions of the ruling elite. The pro-Brexit forces are advancing a “Britain into the world” strategy, based on the tearing up of all regulations that hamper the unfettered ability of Britain’s corporations to reap profits. This is premised on escalating the exploitation of the working class in order to “compete internationally.” The pro-EU wing are solely concerned with access to the EU’s single market for UK banks and corporations, and the ability to compete globally as part of the world’s largest trade bloc. Both wings are equally supportive of cuts in immigration and restrictions on the freedom of movement.
This unprecedented crisis in British ruling circles gathers pace amid the ongoing fracturing of the EU. The Remain camp eulogises the EU under conditions where its austerity agenda and the accompanying destruction of living standards is being rejected by millions across the continent. Just hours before the Supreme Court hearing began, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi was forced to resign after the population rejected, in a referendum, constitutional amendments modifying electoral laws to vastly strengthen the prime minister’s powers. The EU supported Renzi’s proposals and their decisive rejection reflects deep opposition to the ruling Democratic Party government and the austerity policies enacted since the 2008 global financial crash.

Shock resignation by New Zealand Prime Minister

Tom Peters & John Braddock

Yesterday New Zealand Prime Minister John Key announced his resignation from politics after eight years in the role and a decade as leader of the National Party. He will formally step down on December 12 after the party caucus elects a new leader.
The sudden announcement appeared to come as a shock to media commentators and the political establishment, including government ministers, who were only informed of Key’s decision a few hours before his media conference. Police Minister Judith Collins told Radio LIVE that she and her cabinet colleagues were “absolutely gobsmacked.”
There was no obvious trigger for the resignation. Key was widely expected to lead the party in the 2017 election. He only offered the trite and unconvincing explanation that he wanted to spend more time with his family and was exhausted with politics.
Key supported his deputy Bill English to take over as prime minister, identifying him as best placed to maintain the government’s continuity. As finance minister, English has been the chief architect of the government’s anti-working class agenda, leading the part-privatisation of several power companies.
Collins and Health Minister Jonathan Coleman are so far the only other candidates to declare their intention to contest the leadership. Collins has pushed draconian “law and order” policies and has links with far-right bloggers. Coleman has overseen the government’s drastic underfunding of the health sector.
Under Key’s leadership, National has won the last three elections and was favoured to secure another term in office. The media have described Key as the country’s most popular leader ever. His government has been touted as a model of stability compared with neighbouring Australia, where in the past six years three prime ministers have been removed in inner-party coups.
In reality, there is seething popular hostility towards the government, with a social explosion building below the surface of daily events. National has imposed severe austerity measures, strengthened the powers of the intelligence agencies to spy on the population and supported US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Key, a multi-millionaire former trader at Wall Street bank Merrill Lynch, personifies the financial aristocracy that has profited from the global economic crisis at the expense of the working class.
The National Party has remained in power primarily due to the historic collapse in support for the opposition Labour Party, which is discredited among workers because of its support for National’s pro-business agenda and its own pro-market policies while in government. The 2011 and 2014 elections were both marked by record abstention of more than a million people—in a country with just 4.5 million people. Despite National’s sweeping attacks on living standards and public services, Labour is languishing at under 30 percent support in the polls.
The exact reasons behind Key’s resignation have yet to emerge. It takes place, however, in the context of the US election victory of Donald Trump, whose extreme right-wing nationalist and protectionist agenda has sent shockwaves through ruling circles throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Key took it upon himself to warn business leaders last month not to “get despondent” over fears of a new wave of protectionism.
Key was one of the most vocal advocates for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, which Trump vehemently opposes and, in one of his first policy pronouncements, promised to scrap. In February the New Zealand government hosted the formal signing of the agreement.
Trump will dramatically escalate the US confrontation with China. His threats to impose a 45 percent tariff on imports from China and to label Beijing a currency manipulator, if carried out, would unleash a full-blown trade war, heightening the danger of war between the two nuclear-armed powers.
While Key supports the American military build-up in Asia and has strengthened New Zealand’s alliance with the US, his government has worked assiduously to avoid alienating China, which is New Zealand’s second largest trading partner. Two-way trade with China has nearly tripled over the past decade, rising from $NZ8.2 billion in 2007 to $23 billion in 2016. Annual exports to China have quadrupled and imports doubled since 2007.
Trump’s protectionist policies could have devastating consequences for trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region. At an APEC summit in Peru on November 20, Key warned: “We really like the US being in the region. We think they are great partners, great friends and we think they add something to all the countries there. But in the end if the US is not there, that void has to be filled. And it will be filled by China.”
On November 21, in one of his final acts as prime minister, Key announced the launching of negotiations to upgrade New Zealand’s Free Trade Agreement with China. A few days later Key told a business audience in New Zealand: “Is the world going to stop trading because Donald Trump is fundamentally opposed, or do things in spite of the US?”
Key was not forced from office by any significant “opposition” from the other parliamentary parties. Labour leader Andrew Little responded to Key’s resignation by hailing his “service” in the wake of the global financial crisis and the series of New Zealand earthquakes in 2010, 2011 and 2016. He told Radio NZ Key “has been a very popular prime minister … He’s seen through some pretty difficult periods [and] … given comfort and assurance to people.”
Former Labour Party Prime Minister Helen Clark (1999-2008), now a leading figure at the UN, wrote: “He has advocated tirelessly for NZ internationally these past eight years.”
Labour’s main ally the Green Party similarly extended its “best wishes” to Key. Co-leader James Shaw stated: “Mr Key should be applauded for his commitment to public service and to New Zealand.”
For working people, the legacy of the Key government has been eight years of austerity. Key has overseen thousands of job cuts and a decline in median incomes, almost destroyed the coal mining industry, increased the goods and services tax, cut taxes for the rich and slashed spending on healthcare and welfare services. An estimated one in four children is living in poverty and 41,000 people are homeless due to the soaring cost of housing. Large parts of the country have been de-industrialised and economically shattered. Suicides have reached record levels two years in a row.
The calling of an early election is now possible. However, Key’s departure will in no way lessen the attacks on the working class and the drive towards nationalism, militarism and anti-democratic forms of rule in New Zealand. Labour and the Greens are both parties of big business and agree with National’s agenda to make workers pay for the economic crisis.
The opposition parties have attacked National from the right, joining the anti-immigrant New Zealand First Party in demanding cuts to immigration. The election of Trump has given a definite boost to NZ First, whose leader Winston Peters is demanding similar protectionist policies. Peters has also launched repeated racist attacks on Muslims and Chinese immigrants, scapegoating them for the country’s social crisis.
Whoever wins the next election, Labour or National, may well need NZ First’s support to form a government. Key, however, has repeatedly criticised Labour and the Greens for aligning themselves with NZ First and helping it to promote xenophobia and anti-immigrant policies.

India rebuffs Pakistan’s “peace” overtures

Keith Jones

India has demonstrably rebuffed Pakistan’s attempts to initiate a dialogue aimed at defusing the almost three-month-long war crisis between South Asia’s rival nuclear-armed states.
This crisis has already resulted in weeks of artillery and gunfire barrages across the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistan-held Kashmir and scores of military and civilian casualties. But Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) appear determined to continue their push to rewrite the rules of New Delhi’s relations with Islamabad, even though this entails an ever-escalating danger of triggering all-out war.
Islamabad had repeatedly signaled that it wanted New Delhi to use the visit of its de facto foreign minister to Amritsar, India for last weekend’s “Heart of Asia” (HoA) international conference on Afghanistan as the opportunity to resume high-level talks.
But India went out of its way to snub Sartaj Aziz, while using the HoA meeting to intensify its campaign to diplomatically isolate Pakistan.
Aziz was granted only a brief audience Saturday evening with Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who was standing in for India’s ailing foreign minister, Sushma Swaraj.
The Pakistan Foreign Office circulated a photo of Aziz and Doval in conversation and Radio Pakistan claimed that the two had spoken for more than 30 minutes, but this was angrily denied by India. Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Vikas Swarup “categorically” denied there had been any “pull aside or bilateral meeting” between Aziz and Doval. Earlier an unnamed Indian official accused Pakistan of “leveraging a joint, 100-foot stroll.”
Speaking to the Pakistani press, Aziz later admitted, “my so-called interaction…was not really substantial.” Doval and Jaitley “sort of welcomed my presence,” continued Aziz. “That’s all we should take notice of right now.”
Adding insult to injury, India did not allow Aziz to hold a press conference or even leave his hotel. Islamabad called this a violation of diplomatic protocol, while India cited, not very convincingly, security concerns.
At the HoA conference, India mounted a coordinated attack on Pakistan in tandem with Afghanistan, whose government has taken an increasingly antagonistic attitude toward its southeastern neighbor.
In his opening address, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi insisted that terrorism constitutes “the gravest threat to Afghanistan’s peace, stability and prosperity” and went on to denounce those in the region “who support, shelter, train and finance” terrorists—a remark that was universally interpreted as aimed at Pakistan.
Rattled by this summer’s resurgence of mass anti-Indian government protests in Indian-held Kashmir and angered by Pakistan’s attempts to use the protests to bolster its reactionary, communally based claim to Kashmir, the BJP government has been mounting a diplomatic offensive to label Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism since August.
Afghani President Ashraf Ghani was even more explicit than Modi in attacking Pakistan. He accused Pakistan of waging an “undeclared war” against Afghanistan, charging that the military campaign Islamabad has mounted since 2014 against the Taliban and allied groups in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas has been “selective,” thereby allowing the “displacement of the Pakistani extremist networks and their allies onto Afghanistan.”
Ghani further charged that Pakistan’s “undeclared war” has intensified “during 2016” and especially following the October 5, European Union-Afghan government-sponsored Brussels Conference on Afghanistan.
While denouncing Pakistan, Ghani heaped praise on its archrival India, saying New Delhi’s “impressive” support for Afghanistan was “aimed at improving people’s lives” and was “transparent and without strings attached.”
Modi and Ghani had coordinated their attack on Islamabad during the bilateral talks that they held Sunday morning, just hours before the ministerial session of the HoA conference. During those talks, India agreed to “operationalize” US $1 billion in bilateral “cooperation” aid, including for the establishment of an air cargo corridor. For decades, Pakistan has used its geographic position between the two countries to frustrate Indo-Afghan trade ties. Ghani also reportedly pressed India, which has provided training for Afghan security forces and recently gifted it four attack helicopters, for increased military hardware.
In his comments to the HoA conference, Aziz rejected Ghani’s accusations as “baseless.” He said that “to blame only one country for the recent upsurge in violence in Afghanistan”—which has seen the Taliban secure control over more of the country than any time since the 2001 US invasion—“is simplistic.”
Aziz claimed that his participation in the conference, despite the military “escalation on the Line of Control,” is “testimony to Pakistan’s unflinching commitment” to peace in Afghanistan and the region.
The statement issued by the Amritsar conference labeled a series of groups as terrorist threats to the region. Over Pakistan’s objections, India was able to place on the list two Pakistan-based groups that had, and New Delhi claims continue to have, ties to sections of Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus: the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad. In return, New Delhi had to concede Pakistan’s demand that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan or TTP also be included.
Islamabad has charged both New Delhi and Kabul with providing covert support to the TTP. As the New York Times admitted several years ago, there is definite evidence that Afghan intelligence has assisted the TTP in order to pressure Islamabad, and that this stratagem was initially supported by “rogue” elements in the US military-intelligence apparatus.
Islamabad became deeply involved in Afghanistan as a result of its frontline role in the CIA-orchestrated mujahedeen insurgency against the Soviet-backed government in Kabul. Post-1991, it sought to use the war-ravaged Afghan state to give it “strategic depth” against India, ultimately backing the Taliban in their rise to power.
Two decades on, and under conditions where India’s strategic position has been enormously strengthened by its having supplanted Pakistan as Washington’s chief South Asia ally, Islamabad is increasingly apprehensive about the growing Kabul-New Delhi axis. The joint attack Modi and Ghani mounted on Pakistan at last weekend’s conference will only have increased these fears.
So as to secure Pakistan’s logistical support for the US occupation of Afghanistan, Washington, while encouraging New Delhi’s role in Afghanistan also put definite limits on it.
But as part of a broader recalibration of its strategy in South Asia, Washington now appears prepared to give India greater latitude in Afghanistan and with Pakistan more generally.
A critical factor in the Modi government’s hardline stance against Pakistan is the encouragement it has received from Washington. The Obama administration first gave tacit and then explicit support to the illegal and highly provocative Special Forces’ commando raids India mounted inside Pakistan on Sept. 28-29 in supposed retaliation for an attack by Islamist, pro-Kashmir separatists on an Indian military base in Kashmir.
India’s “surgical strikes” were the first military action New Delhi has admitted to carrying out inside Pakistan in more than four decades. Previous governments, including that led by the BJP from 1998-2004, refrained from publicizing attacks inside Pakistan so as avoid sparking an escalating series of retaliatory actions that could rapidly end in war.
The Modi government, by contrast, is boasting that it has thrown off the “shackles of restraint” and that it is ready to keep attacking Pakistan unless and until Islamabad demonstratively bends to its demand that Pakistan cease all logistical support to the anti-Indian insurgency in Kashmir.
The US is well aware that events in South Asia could easily spin out of control, resulting in the first-ever war between nuclear-armed states. All the more so, since Modi is shamelessly using claims of India’s newly proven military prowess to whip up a foul bellicose atmosphere, calculating that this will both facilitate his government’s ramming through of unpopular pro-big business reforms and bring big electoral dividends in the coming elections in India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh.
But Washington is also anxious to demonstrate to India that there are “rewards” for the Modi government having integrated India ever more completely into the US military-strategic offensive against China, including by throwing open its military bases and ports to US warplanes and battleships.
Thus, as the war clouds grow ever thicker over South Asia, Washington is recklessly combining muted calls for New Delhi and Islamabad to show restraint with celebratory statements about the strength of Indo-US military ties. On Sunday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter boasted, “The US-India defense relationship is the closest it’s ever been. Through our strategic handshake—with America reaching west in the rebalance [i.e. Washington’s anti-China Pivot], and India reaching east in what Prime Minister Narendra Modi calls his Act East policy—our two nations are exercising together by air, land and sea like never before.”

The Muse Rebel Attacks: Dangers of Myanmar's Two-Faced Peace Process

Angshuman Choudhury



On 21 November 2016, a group of four Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) launched a joint offensive against security outposts and bridges near the border town of Muse in northern Myanmar's Shan State. The daring assault prompted a strong reaction from the Tatmadaw (Myanmar Defence Services), which launched a violent counter-assault by land and air. As of 30 November, at least 16 people had lost their lives in the fighting, 51 injured, 2600 internally displaced, and over 3000 pushed across the border into China.
 
This commentary looks at the recent episode of rebel violence and its effect in the context of the ongoing internal peace process in Myanmar.
 
The EAOs which constitute this newly-emergent ‘Northern Alliance’ are: Kachin Independence Army (KIA), Ta'ang (Palaung) National Liberational Army (TNLA), Mon National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) and Arakan Army (AA).
 
The attack comes only a year after the previous quasi-civilian government signed the Nationwide Ceasefire Accord (NCA) with eight EAOs in October 2015, and barely three months since the new civilian government led by the National League for Democracy (NLD) hosted the 21st Century Panglong Peace Conference in August 2016. Notably, while none of the Northern Alliance members have yet signed the NCA, the KIA, which called the attack "inevitable" in a statement released afterwards, attended the Panglong conference in August.
 
A Failed Strategy  
 
The Muse Township assault is not an abrupt incident, but follows more than twelve months of low-to-medium level violence between the Tatmadaw and recalcitrant EAOs in Shan and Kachin States of northern Myanmar. From the time the NCA was signed in October 2015, the Tatmadaw has launched several dozen offensives and troop incursions against the non-signatories KIA, TNLA and MNDAA. The period from February to March and then from September to October 2016 saw heavy fighting, involving heavy artillery attacks and even airstrikes against KIA and TNLA. Both EAOs, in addition to MNDAA, have accused the Tatmadaw of perpetrating violence against civilians in their respective areas and reconfiguring stable frontlines by brute force.
 
Quite evidently, the military's objective has been to degrade and demoralise the rebels, reduce their capacity to strike back, and ultimately to compel them to disarm and sign the NCA, with little bargaining power. However, the tactic of violent coercion seems to have done more harm than good.
 
Instead, the Tatmadaw's offensives have led to a new tactical grouping - the Northern Alliance - and triggered a violent response. In a statement released after the assault, a TNLA spokesperson categorically stated that the Muse operation was launched “because the Tatmadaw has continuously carried out offensives in remote ethnic areas.” Furthermore, TNLA, MNDAA and AA have decisively reversed their hitherto supportive deportment, rejecting an offer to disarm and join the Panglong process earlier this year. Even the KIA - who remained open  to consultations through most of 2015 and 2016 - is on a belligerent footing now.
 
In sum, the military’s aggressive approach has had three distinct outcomes: pushed the non-signatory EAOs to a far more hardline position than before, compelled the rebels to switch from a defensive to an offensive footing, and moved the entire frontline from the remote countryside to urban areas.

Two Peace Processes
 
The Tatmadaw’s violent war of attrition against non-compliant EAOs stands in stark contradiction to the parallel peace process spearheaded by State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi, which seeks dialogue and peaceful rapprochement. Why does Myanmar’s ‘peace process’ have two separate fronts? The answer lies in the administrative structure of the new union government.
 
The military still occupies a solid 25 per cent of seats in both houses of the Parliament and is in charge of internal security and counterinsurgency. This explains the continuity in the longstanding approach of coercion and military subversion that the previous administration relied on. This militaristic approach is perpetuated by the passive conformism of the NLD, which continues to tow the Tatmadaw's line. Expressing remorse after the Muse attacks, Suu Kyi, said that "such attacks were instigated" and urged the non-signatory EAOs to sign the NCA. She made no mention of what really instigated the attacks.
 
Two diametrically opposite prognoses of the same problem has had counterproductive outcomes and the latest attacks are testimony of this.
 
Viable Options
 
The fresh attacks could threaten the credibility of the entire Panglong peace process and the NCA mechanism. This could, in turn, widen the trust deficit between belligerent ethnic groups and the union government.
 
However, not all hope is lost. The KIA stated that operation was a “controlled/limited offensive” that “was not intended to destroy national reconciliation”.  This leaves the government with still viable openings for peaceful reconciliation.
 
If the government wishes to bring the non-compliant EAOs to the table on its own terms, it would need to offer strong political incentives that relate to the actual grievances of the groups. A violent war of attrition isn’t one. The military will also have to operate in absolute concomitance to the core objective of the peace process, which is to resolve outstanding ethno-political disputes through political dialogue.
 
Expansion of the NCA, however, remains a long shot for the government given a bare minimum of sustained peace and confidence is a prerequisite for wholesale disarmament. In such a fragile situation, the last thing that Myanmar can afford is a contradictory and dualist policy of reconciliation.

5 Dec 2016

WMFE through Education Scholarship Program 2017 for Undergraduate Students in Developing Countries

Application Deadline: from 1st December 2016 to 1st April, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries; Developing Countries in Africa
Accepted Subject Areas? All fields are eligible although WMF intend to favor helping professions such as health care, social work, education, social justice, as well as, professions that help the economy and progress of the country such as computers, engineering, agriculture and business.
About Scholarship
wells mountain foundation scholarship
Wells Mountain Foundation offers undergraduate scholarship to students from developing countries to study in their home country or any other developing country. The foundation’s hope is that by providing the opportunity to further one’s education, the scholarship participants will not only be able to improve their own future, but also that of their own communities. The foundation believes in the power and importance of community service and, as a result, all scholarship participants are required to volunteer for a minimum of one month a year.
Applicants are only allowed to select a university in a developing country. Applications to study in UK, USA, Europe and Australia will not be accepted
Offered Since: 2005
Type: undergraduate
Who is qualified to apply? To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, applicant must be a student, male or female, from a country in the developing world, who:
  • successfully completed a secondary education, with good to excellent grades
  • will be studying in their country or another country in the developing world
  • plans to live and work in their own country after they graduate
  • has volunteered prior to applying for this scholarship and/or is willing to volunteer while receiving the WMF scholarship
  • may have some other funds available for their education, but will not be able to go to school without a scholarship
  • submits a complete, legible application in English (please proof-read). Incomplete applications will not be considered.
Number of Scholarship Positions: 10 to 30 per year
What are the benefits? Maximum scholarship is $3,000 USD.
–          tuition and fees
–          books and materials
–          room rent and meals
Duration: Scholarship will be offered for the duration of the degree programme subject to satisfactory academic performance.
How to Apply
Applicants are required to submit two letters of recommendation written by someone who knows you, but is not a family member, who can tell why you deserve to receive a WMF scholarship. What qualities do you possess that will make you an excellent student, a successful graduate and a responsible citizen who will give back to his or her country? These letters of recommendation may come from a teacher, a religious leader, volunteer supervisor, or an employer.
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details
To learn more about the Empowerment Through Education Scholarship opportunity, please review the ETE Program Information Flyer and read the ETE Application Frequently Asked Questions Guide for 2017.
Sponsors: Wells Mountain Foundation
Important Notes:
  • WMF does not require the applicant to pay an admission or processing fee or to buy a number to have the application reviewed.
  • You must maintain good grades, submit a semester report and your grades each semester to WMF to maintain your sponsorship.
  • A photo is required, which can also be scanned and emailed.
  • You can apply before you receive your official acceptance letter, but you will not be awarded a scholarship until you are accepted. When you receive your acceptance letter, send a copy to the foundation to attach it to your application. In the subject line of the email when you send this or any additions to your application, type “application addition”.
  • WMF scholarship application require an official transcript from secondary school and from any tertiary school classes you have already completed.
  • The scholarship awards are determined by the Board of Directors of the Wells Mountain Foundation and awarded once a year.
  • Applicants will be notified if they have been selected as a WMF Scholarship student by August 1st

Italy: Cattolica Africa Scholarship Program 2017/2018 for African Masters Students

Application Deadline: 
  • 1st Round: 1st December, 2016 – 1st February, 2017
  • 2nd Round: 2nd February 2017 – 15th March, 2017
  • 3rd Round: 16th March 2017 – 15th April, 2017
Eligible Countries: Africa countries
To be taken at (country): Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy
Subject Areas: This program consists of seven 2-year MSc programs (Laurea Magistrale), all taught in English. These programs are preparing for an academic and/or professional career. Graduates of MSc programs are also eligible to enter PhD programs at Italian universities.
  • MSc in Banking and Finance (Milan Campus) – Commencement in September 2017
  • MSc in Economics (Milan Campus) – Commencement in September 2017
  • MSc in Management (Milan Campus) – Commencement in September 2017
  • MSc in Global Business Management (Piacenza Campus) Commencement in September 2017
  • MSc in Agriculture and Food Economics (Cremona Campus) Commencement in September 2017
  • MSc in Healthcare Management – Laurea Magistrale in Management dei Servizi (Roma Campus) Commencement in September 2017
  • MSc in Methods and Topics in Arts Management – Laurea Magistrale in Economia e Gestione dei Beni Culturali e dello Spettacolo (Milan Campus) Commencement in September 2017
About Scholarship: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, as part of its mission to foster relationships with developing countries, has developed a special program for students from the African continent. This program will enable students to study for undergraduate and postgraduate degree programs taught in English at UCSC’s Milan, Piacenza and Cremona campuses.
Through the Cattolica Africa Program all accepted applicants will be offered tuition fee reductions (see the chart below). However, students will still be responsible for their own living expenses, hence the Cattolica Africa Program is NOT a program through which full scholarships can be obtained.
Type: Taught Masters degree
Eligibility: Students, either citizens or residents, of all African countries may apply for the Cattolica Africa Program, which is applicable only for the degree programs taught in English.
Admission requirements for all Master Degree programs include:
■ Completion of at least a Bachelor Degree from a recognized university (2nd class upper division / 2.1 degree or higher)
■ English Language Test score: IELTS 6.0 (Academic) or TOEFL IBT 80 if English is not your first language.or successful completion of a degree program taught in the English language.
An application fee of 75€ is due in order to submit the candidacy.
Number of Scholarships: Up to 47
Duration: Cattolica Africa Scholars Program will be offered for 2 years
How to Apply
  1. Select the degree program of your choice.
  2. Log in the online application and fill it in.
  3. Remember to select “degree-seeking” when asked for your “program type”. Upload the following documents:
    1. Copy of bio-data page of your passport or ID (in Latin alphabet);
    2. If you are a Non-EU citizen already living in Italy: copy of your “permesso di soggiorno” ;
    3. Transcript of academic records, including grading and credit system explanation;
    4. Bachelor-level Diploma, if you already graduated from university;
    5. Secondary School Diploma;
    6. English Language Certificate
    7. GMAT or GRE score (optional)
    NOTE: Candidates have to upload the originals of the transcript of academic records, bachelor-level Diploma (if available), and Secondary School Diploma, plus their official translation into Italian or English. If the documents are issued in English, French or Spanish, the translation is not required.
  4. Submit your application.
Visit scholarship webpage for details
Sponsors: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy
Important Notes: Due to the restrictive and lengthy nature of the student pre-registration process required by the Italian Consulates/Embassies, we strongly advise non-EU students residing abroad to apply by April 15.

Shanghai Government Scholarship for Bachelors, Masters and PhD International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th April, 2017
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): China
Eligible Field of Study:
  1. Bachelor’s degree programs
  2. Master’s degree programs (except MBA and MTCSOL*)
    • Note: MBA is short for Master of Business Administration;
    • MTCSOL refers to Master of Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages.
  3. Doctoral degree programs
Type: Bachelors, Masters and PhD
Eligibility: 
  1. Be a non-Chinese citizen in good health.
  2. Not be an enrolled degree student in Chinese universities at the time of application.
  3. Be a high school graduate under the age of 25 when applying for the undergraduate programs;
  4. Be a master’s degree holder under the age of 40 when applying for doctoral programs.
  5. Be a bachelor’s degree holder under the age of 35 when applying for master’s programs.
  6. Be excellent in academic and extra-curricular performance and yet not be rewarded any other scholarships offered by Chinese govern
Value of Scholarship: There are two types of scholarships
Full Scholarship
  1. a waiver of tuition fee
  2. free on-campus dormitory accommodation
  3. Stipend: Bachelor: RMB 1100/ month; Master: RMB 1700/ month; PhD: RMB 2100/ month
  4. Comprehensive Medical Insurance and Protection Scheme for International Students in China.
Partial Scholarship:
  1. a waiver of tuition fee
  2. Free on-campus dormitory accommodation
  3. Comprehensive Medical Insurance and Protection Scheme for International Students in China
Duration of Scholarship: 
  1. Bachelor’s Degree Program: 4 to 5 years
  2. Master’s degree programs: 2 to 3 years
  3. Doctoral degree programs: 3 to 4 years
How to Apply: 
Step 1: Complete the online application procedure at SGS Online Application System (http://www.study-shanghai.org)
Step 2: Complete the online application procedure at Shanghai University online application (www.apply.shu.edu.cn).
Step 3: Complete the online payment for the non-refundable application fee RMB 500
Award Provider: Shanghai government

Selling Racism—A Lesson From Pretoria

Ron Jacobs


The movement against South African apartheid was perhaps the most universal and popular movement in the western world in the 1980s. Hundreds of thousands protested in a multitude of ways—from letter-writing campaigns to shantytown occupations of city squares and college campus greens. Institutions of all types, from churches to universities, from corporations and banks to city halls, were forced to remove their investments from companies doing business with the racist South African regime, ultimately forcing that regime to end its racist legal system. Even the right wing Reagan and Thatcher regimes were ultimately forced to end their support for Pretoria’s racist system and grudgingly go along with the popular will.
However, as Ron Nixon’s new book, titled Selling Apartheid, makes clear, the South African regime was not going to go down without a fight. In addition to police and military actions of varying brutality, the regime hired advertising men to sell their brand of repression to people and governments around the world. The campaign he describes involved a cynical manipulation of emotions about race, implied white supremacist chauvinism, and outright lies. Advertising campaigns presented South Africa as a tourist destination full of beauty and the perfect climate (which it had) with absolutely no mention of the racial discrimination built into its social and political systems. Glossy photo spreads were bought in newspaper and magazines and television programs were made and sold to television networks in the United States and Britain. These shows were then shown to the unsuspecting viewer as if they were made by agencies independent of the apartheid government and their only agenda was tourism.41r2z4etwl-_sx324_bo1204203200_
In a particularly cynical move, the South African government was able to buy off a few African-Americans over the years in what was ultimately a vain attempt to convince Black Americans that apartheid was okay. The first of these individuals was a former supporter of the Black resistance movement in South Africa, Max Yergan. In what can only be described as a complete sell out, Yergan went from working with early members of what would become the primary resistance organization against apartheid—the African National Congress(ANC)—to giving speeches in the United States and Africa aimed at convincing his audiences that apartheid helped Blacks. Once a committed left-winger, Yergan came under pressure during the McCarthy era in the United States, became an informer for the FBI, and turned against his friends in South Africa; friends that included freedom fighters Nelson Mandela and Joseph Tambo. Yergan was but the first of a few such individuals who would follow in his treacherous footsteps.
The bottom line for the white South African regime and the United States was money. Several US companies had millions invested in South African industry. These companies took advantage of the cheap labor (and maximized profits resulting from that labor) and minimal regulations offered by the Pretoria regime. In turn, they either supported or at the least, tacitly accepted the racism and brutality that defined the apartheid system. Consequently, it was these corporations and financial institutions that were targeted by the anti-apartheid movement’s divestment campaign. Churches, universities, and other institutions that had investments in such companies were ultimately convinced to drop those investments. Sometimes that convincing was purely of a moral plea, other times it required a concerted effort that combined direct action, monetary boycotts, and legislative pressure.
As an advocate of the current campaign against Israeli apartheid, it was more than interesting to compare the similarities in the campaign waged against the movement against South Africa’s apartheid and that currently waged against the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement of today. Residents of western nations are constantly barraged with imagery that attempts to portray the Tel Aviv government as a beacon of fairness and democracy in the Middle East. Furthermore, one is constantly told that the Palestinians who resist the occupation of their lands and the ever-present system of discrimination are nothing but terrorists. This latter phenomenon was also the case in South Africa. Indeed, the ANC was not removed from the US list of “terrorist” organizations until 2008, more than fifteen years after apartheid met its well-deserved end. Of course, there are specific differences between the two systems of separation referred to here, but the essential fact apartheid is true for the historic South African regime and the current Israeli one.
Ron Nixon’s text is an essential addition to the volume of work on South Africa’s apartheid regime. Rich in detail, it provides the reader with an extended look at the nature of propaganda in modern society. A one-time journalist for the New York Times, Nixon makes his argument with facts and writing that is both accessible and engaging. In doing so, he exposes the moral vacuousness of those who propagandized for the racists of South Africa not because they necessarily believed in apartheid, but because they made money from doing so.  Furthermore, in his telling Nixon doesn’t just rake the white South African regime over the coals, he also points his pen at the equally deserving US and British governments, especially those of Reagan and Thatcher. In terms of how the world seems to work, Selling Apartheid is a tawdry yet familiar tale.

Huge Antarctica Glacier in Serious Trouble

Robert Hunziker

The global warming crisis seems to get worse and worse, faster and faster. Now, Antarctica is in the spotlight with brand-new shocking research of a spine-chilling development.
The whole of Antarctica, if melted in its entirety, equates to a sea level rise of 200’, but that will not happen during current lifetimes. It’s too big and would require way too much heating for way too long. But, a meltdown of a significant part of Antarctica, like West Antarctica, has the potential, according to new research, to submerge Miami and New York during current lifetimes. This is the first time scientific observation has officially come to the conclusion that such a horrendous meltdown is probable so soon!
Already, Miami Beach is forced to raise streets by two feet because of persistent flooding beyond any past experience. Indeed, a rising sea is global warming’s payback for reckless, arrogant, pompously excessive anthropogenic (human-caused) fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
The frightful new findings involve Pine Island Glacier, the subject of a research paper by Seongsu Jeong, Ian M. Howat, Jeremy N. Basis, Accelerated Ice Shelf Rifting and Retreat at Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica, Geophysical Research Letters, 28 November 2016.
The tenor of Jeong’s paper should scare the pants off anybody who doubts the seriousness and powerfulness behind acceleration of global warming. As it happens, Pine Island Glacier was already the world’s largest mass of irreversible ice melt before this new research came to light, but timing has always been kinda fuzzy. Now, with this new analysis, timing is taking on a whole new ugly dimension.
Here’s the problem: According to Ian Howat, associate professor of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University: “This kind of rifting behavior provides another mechanism for rapid retreat of these glaciers, adding to the probability that we may see significant collapse of West Antarctica in our lifetimes” (Source, Pam Frost Gorder, West Antarctic Ice Shelf Breaking Up From the Inside Out, The Ohio State University, Nov. 28, 2016).
That’s a brand-spanking new global warming threat. It is big, real big! It is the first time researchers have witnessed “deep subsurface rift” opening within Antarctic ice: “This implies that something weakened the center of the ice shelf, with the most likely explanation being a crevasse melted out at the bedrock level by a warming ocean,” Ibid. The bottom of West Antarctica Ice Sheet lies below sea level so warm ocean water can intrude inland, undetected.
A warming ocean figures as the culprit as the ocean has been absorbing up to 90% of Earth’s heat, helping to protect on-land creatures, like humans, from real bad overheating. But, what goes around comes around, as evidenced in Antarctica; all of that worldly heat is coming home to roost underneath big, fat ice sheets.
“Researchers found that from two-thirds to 98 percent of the substantial ocean heat gain between 2006 and 2013 took place well south of the equator… Summer sea surface temperatures in some sections have risen… nearly five times the global average. Parts of the Indian Ocean, North Atlantic, and waters surrounding Antarctica are warming at nearly the same rate. More heat stored in the ocean now means more will inevitably return to the atmosphere… The ocean’s doing us a favor by grabbing about 90 percent of our heat, but it’s not going to do it forever” (Source: How Long Can Oceans Continue to Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat? Environment360, e360yale.edu, 30 Mar 2015).
Here’s what’s different from past research: Rifts usually form at the margins of the ice shelves, calving icebergs, but not deep inland like this new discovery. Furthermore, the rift in question is 20 miles inland. Pine Island Glacier (keeping one’s fingers crossed) serves as a backstop, holding back large portions of West Antarctica ice from flowing into the sea. Pine Island Glacier is like a hockey goalie for parts of the massive West Antarctica ice sheet, the last line of defense, preventing partial collapse of the big ice sheet, which would entail quite a large splash unimaginably, inconceivably large!
One year ago, Science Magazine carried the following article: “Just a Nudge Could Collapse West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Raise Sea Levels 3 Meters,” Science, Nov. 2, 2015. The opening paragraph of that article states: “It won’t take much to cause the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet to collapse—and once it starts, it won’t stop. In the last year, a slew of papers has highlighted the vulnerability of the ice sheet covering the western half of the continent, suggesting that its downfall is inevitable—and probably already underway. Now, a new model shows just how this juggernaut could unfold. A relatively small amount of melting over a few decades, the authors say, will inexorably lead to the destabilization of the entire ice sheet and the rise of global sea levels by as much as 3 meters.” That was back then, over a year ago, but now circumstances seem to be accelerating.
With this new discovery, timing of a collapsing West Antarctica Ice Sheet is downright spooky. Previously scientists thought decades-to-centuries. Now, maybe “within current lifetimes.”
Assuming it’s not already too late, never before in world history has strong U.S. leadership been so important to do whatever is necessary to stem an impending climate change/global-warming cataclysm. Our way of life is at stake.
Along those lines, climate science is eerily similar to tracking near-Earth asteroids, which over millennia occasionally crash into Earth, wiping out the poor defenseless dinosaurs, for example. If a near-Earth asteroid is projected to hit, maybe some kind of deployment can prevent the big crash from wiping out life on the planet. Thus, begging the very big question: What deployment stops collapsing ice sheets?

Kashmir: Heaven In A Heartless World

Gowhar Naz


Speak your lips are free
Speak it is your tongue
[Faiz Ahmad Faiz]
Kashmir, a beautiful landscape, which has got admirers from all over the world is today crying for help. But its cries go unheard. Funeral after funeral. Troubled days and nights. Wounds burned and throbbed. Meaning to say, the valley is bleeding all the way. Instead of healing the wounds, people who claim it as ‘the integral part’ gave nothing but severe physical injuries and trauma to its habitants. Bullets, pellets and pava shells were used (and still) to kill, cripple and paralyse the innocents (mostly teenagers) raising voice against the State &  Central Government for their different freedoms. Thousands and thousands of the youth became the victim of security forces. More than 120 people lost their lives. More or less 200 lost full and partial eyesight. Some are recuperating from injuries and some are still battling for life.  Moreover, a huge number of young and old were detained and put behind bars in different state and outside jails. In nutshell, voices of the poor and desolate, political dissent, is being brutally suppressed. Although, there is a slight improvement in the situation & the barometer is falling. But the branches are spread -ramified and the roots absolutely still. There is a terrible feeling among the people. And the air is sensing a blizzard!
It is simple to decide to kill an innocent. If saved or not killed, he is going to die anyway shortly. Because, his remaining life will be full of miseries. By “innocent” I mean “not guilty” – not responsible for killing and not  knowing that he/she will be killed due to his/her good actions or continued existence. You are a gullible being, hoping from the cradle to the grave. But what you get in return is pain – the everlasting pain. You have no right to save your own life. The right not to be killed. You can’t breath free. You are a Kashmiri — And that’s life in Kashmir.
To be acceptable, life must be honorable. To be honorable, certain conditions (rights) must be fulfilled and upheld. No life is deemed honorable in the absence of food and shelter (property rights), personal autonomy (safeguarded by codified freedoms), personal safety, respect (human rights), and a modicum of influence upon one’s future (civil rights). In the absence of even one of these elements, people tend to gradually become convinced that their lives are not worth living. They become mutinous and try to restore the “honorable  equilibrium”. That is to say — They rebel against any massive breach of their freedoms.
Khaleel Gibran has wisely said;
“It takes two to discuss truth: one who utters it and one who understands it.”
The point is not whether talks should or should not be held. Talks are always welcome. The point is – “Fair and wide talks, and talks with  whom?” There is no alternative for India but to hold unconditional talks with Pakistan. Pakistan is part of the solution and not part of the problem. Bilateral issue — so bilateral talks. Here, I must say, our future generations will either laugh or cry at our stupidity. But to make them only smile. I have said and saying again, “If you realy want to put an end to these uprisings and resolve the Kashmir dispute permanently. Stop this bloodshed. Shun this jingoistic, complacent and biased approach. Go the extra mile — And hold fair and wide talks with the real stakeholders together with the Hurriyat leadership and Pakistan. Come up with a happy solution, meeting the aspirations of people of Jammu and kashmir and settle this issue once for all. And if that happens anytime in the future (the sooner, the better), I promise and guarantee you- a peaceful, developed India and Pakistan. Otherwise, if malarky and blame game continued to go on resolutely or stubbornly in spite of opposition, importunity, or warning, Kashmir will continue to suffer as a bone of contention for the years and years to come.”