Behind hacking allegations: Explosive conflict over US policy toward Russia

Patrick Martin

Over the past three days, a conflict within the US ruling elite over foreign policy, centering on Russia, has exploded into public recriminations. It has taken the form of increasingly frenzied claims in the corporate-controlled media that “Russian hacking” targeted the US presidential election for the purpose of bringing about the election of Republican Donald Trump.

The campaign was sparked by back-to-back articles in the Washington Post Friday night and the New York Times Saturday, claiming that a secret new CIA assessment had determined that the Russian government had tried to help Trump win the presidency. This is the alleged motivation behind the hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which were then supplied to WikiLeaks for public release.

The Times presented as proof of alleged Russian favoring of Trump the claim that hackers had also penetrated the Republican National Committee but had not released Republican emails because the goal was to discredit Clinton and not Trump. This report was flatly denied by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who has been named chief of staff for the incoming Trump White House.

Trump himself made an appearance on Fox News Sunday and denounced the reports of Russian intervention as sour grapes by the Democrats to explain away their election defeat. “I think it’s ridiculous,” he said. “I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it… I think the Democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country.”

The intensity of the divisions with the US ruling elite was demonstrated in the Trump transition team’s initial response to the reported CIA assessment, which noted sarcastically, “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”

As Glenn Greenwald noted in The Intercept: “There is still no such evidence for any of these claims. What we have instead are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof. As a result, none of the purported evidence—still—can be publicly seen, reviewed, or discussed. Anonymous claims leaked to newspapers about what the CIA believes do not constitute proof, and certainly do not constitute reliable evidence that substitutes for actual evidence that can be reviewed.”

The immediate purpose of the Russian hacking claims, launched by Clinton and the Democratic Party on the eve of the Democratic convention in July, was to distract attention from the content of the leaked emails, which documented a conspiracy between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to undermine the primary campaign of Bernie Sanders.

It is now clear, however, that underlying the public conflict over the hacking allegations is a ferocious struggle over foreign policy. Trump speaks for a faction within the ruling class that wants to focus US policy on a more aggressive military, economic and diplomatic offensive against China. The Democrats and leading media outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post speak for a faction of the intelligence establishment and the military that is opposed to any shift away from the aggressive and confrontational posture toward Russia.

This was underscored by an editorial posted Sunday night by the Timesheadlined “Russia’s Hand in America’s Election.” The Times repeats, again without providing any evidence, the claims of Russian hacking in support of Trump’s election campaign. It praises Clinton for having pledged that, if elected, she would “redouble efforts to punish and isolate Moscow for war crimes in Syria’s civil war and aggression toward Ukraine and other neighbors.” One might conclude that had Clinton won, her first act would have been to provoke a war with Russia, with the enthusiastic support of the Times.

Using extraordinary language, the editorial continues: “In Mr. Trump, the Russians had reason to see a malleable political novice, one who had surrounded himself with Kremlin lackeys.” It concludes by suggesting that, as a result of Russian intervention, “The election was indeed rigged.”

Neither the Times nor the Democrats are denouncing Trump over the cabinet of billionaire reactionaries and generals he is assembling or their plans to dismantle Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and public education and eliminate all restrictions on corporate pollution of the environment and all regulations on the banks and big business.

They are entirely focused on preventing any shift under Trump away from the offensive against Russia. The hysterical and neo-McCarthyite character of their campaign was summed up in a commentary published on the Daily Beast web site by Clinton supporter Michael Tomasky, headlined “World War III: Democrats and America vs. Trump and Russia.” Tomasky characterized the Washington Post report on Trump and Russia and the New York Timesfollow-up as “Hiroshima” and “Nagasaki” for Trump, while suggesting that congressional Republicans who backed Trump, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, were guilty of treason.

This campaign, reviving the methods of anticommunist witch-hunting, is aimed not only at Trump, but at anyone who raises questions about US foreign policy, implicitly branding them as Russian agents.

In his appearance Sunday on Fox, Trump indicated the foreign policy orientation he stands for when he placed a question mark over Washington’s decades-long “One China” policy, acknowledging that Taiwan is not a sovereign nation, but rather part of China. “I fully understand the One-China policy,” Trump said. “But I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One-China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things,” including trade, currency devaluation, the South China Sea, and North Korea.

There is no shred of pacifism or “appeasement” in Trump’s apparent shift away from confrontation with Russia. His extreme nationalist brand of militarism is simply focused on a different set of targets—or more precisely, the same targets as Obama, but in a different order. Trump is prioritizing China over Russia as a target of US economic, diplomatic and military pressure.

These rapid-fire events, in which intelligence agencies feed the media and the media seeks to stampede public opinion, only underscore the manipulative character of the election process as a whole. The real issues being fought out within the ruling elite—over what tactics and methods to employ against its global rivals—were concealed from the population while a barrage of slanders and scandals was unleashed to provide political cover for a further shift to the right.

Study on pay for young adults highlights plunge in US living standards

Niles Niemuth

A study released last week by a team of economists from Stanford, Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley found that the odds of American children growing up to earn more than their parents declined precipitously from 1970 to the present. Whereas in 1970, 92 percent of 30-year-olds earned more than their parents did at a similar age, that number fell to 51 percent by 2014.

The figures for males were even worse. As of 2014, only 41 percent of 30-year-old men earned more than their fathers at a similar age. The researchers also found that the decline in the ability of children to earn more than their parents was greatest in the Midwest, where decades of deindustrialization have had their most devastating social impact.

The economists concluded that even rapid economic growth would do little to reverse the downward trend because of the immense and ongoing growth of social inequality.

The authors of the study described their findings as a harsh verdict on the strength of what they called “the American dream.” In fact, their own findings add to a mass of social indices demonstrating that the much-vaunted but largely mythical “American dream” has turned into a nightmare. To the extent that this term, promoted to encourage illusions in American capitalism, ever corresponded to social reality, it was largely in connection with the belief that each young generation would enjoy a better standard of living than the one that preceded it.

Just last week, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that overall life expectancy in the US declined for the first time in more than two decades in 2015. The fall reflected rising death rates for a variety of diseases, an increase in unintentional injuries, accelerating suicide rates and an increase in infant mortality.

Earlier this year, a group of Harvard researchers reported that there was a 15-year life expectancy gap between men in the richest one percent of the population and those in the bottom one percent. Another reflection of the social crisis is the CDC’s finding that deaths from heroin overdoses surpassed gun homicides in 2015, while total annual deaths from all opioid overdoses quadrupled between 1999 and 2015.

The study on pay noted that the sharpest drop in the percentage of young adults earning more than their parents occurred from 1970 to about 1992—from 92 percent to 58 percent. The percentage stabilized for about a decade and began to fall again beginning in 2002.

There is a direct correlation between this downward trajectory in living standards and the decay of American capitalism. The 1970s was the decade when the unraveling of the post-World War II economic boom and the erosion of the dominance of American industry found open expression in the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system in 1971 and the growing share of global markets, including the US market, captured by rivals such as Germany and Japan.

At the end of the decade, the American ruling class initiated a major shift in its class policy, terminating the postwar period of relative class compromise and launching a class-war offensive aimed at breaking the militant resistance of the working class and reversing its previous social gains. A wave of plant closures and mass layoffs that began under the Democratic Carter administration was intensified under Reagan, who used the growth of unemployment along with union busting and wage cutting, made possible by the betrayals and collusion of the unions, to drive down working-class living standards.

This ruling-class offensive has continued ever since, under Democratic no less than Republican administrations. The pace of decline in working-class living standards slowed somewhat in the 1990s, with Clinton presiding over a transient upward trend in economic growth based on the removal of virtually all restraints on financial speculation and parasitism. The resulting dot.com bubble imploded in 2000, fueling a new wave of mass layoffs and wage cutting under both the Bush and Obama administrations. This offensive was stepped up in response to the Wall Street crash of 2008.

It is this social catastrophe, rooted in the decline of American capitalism, that underlies the political crisis of both big-business parties in the 2016 election and the victory of Trump—the personification of the economic, political and moral decay of the American ruling class.

The election was dominated by the growth of popular anger and disgust with both parties and the political and economic status quo. The broad popular support, particularly among young people and workers, for the Democratic primary campaign of Bernie Sanders, who presented himself as a “socialist” opponent of the “billionaire class” and social inequality, reflected the initial stages of a movement of the working class to the left. Sanders worked to channel this opposition behind the Democratic Party, culminating in his endorsement of and campaign for Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign, the most right-wing in modern Democratic Party history, focused on scandalmongering against Trump and warmongering against Russia. She was broadly backed by Wall Street and the CIA and ran as the continuator of Obama’s supposed economic “recovery.” She utilized racial and gender politics to portray “white working class” support for Trump as motivated by racism and sexism and distract attention from the ongoing growth of social inequality and impoverishment of broad layers of working people.

In an election where the two candidates vied for the distinction of being the most despised presidential contenders in US history, and the biggest bloc of voters were those who saw no reason to vote, Trump was given a free path by the Democrats and Sanders to exploit the economic grievances of workers and middle-class people whose living standards had been devastated by the policies of both parties.

Both the Obama administration and the Clinton election campaign were the outcome of nearly five decades, beginning at the end of the 1960s, during which the Democratic Party has repudiated any connection to policies of social reform and moved ever more sharply to the right.

It will not take long for workers, including those who voted for Trump, to realize that they have been taken for a ride and face in his administration the most ferocious enemy of the working class. His cabinet of billionaire reactionaries and warmongering generals already makes clear that his will be the most right-wing, anti-working class government in US history.

Trump’s policies of social counterrevolution and war will do nothing to resolve the underlying crisis of American and world capitalism. They will only exacerbate the social crisis. The working class will face immense shocks in the coming months. It will move into struggle against a government that is preparing an unprecedented level of state repression in defense of the corporate-financial elite.

The interests and needs of the working class can find no expression within the existing political system. The defense of democratic and social rights must assume the conscious form of a socialist political movement of the working class against the capitalist system.

Annihilation of the Marginalised: The New Normal in Myanmar

Bibhu Prasad Routray



They have been called by different names - Rohingya, Bengali, Kalar - depending on whether one is referring to their ethnicity, the language they speak, or to the colour of their skin. These pejorative descriptions have provided their Buddhist antagonists among Myanmar's civilian, political as well as military circles to be part of project of annihilation; to cleanse the country off these 1 million unwanted people. Many Rohingyas have fled the country. And a large majority who still remain are simply awaiting a process of slow death under various pretexts. Their eventual extermination, however, will be the only probable end game as the world continues to provide only lip service to the systematic and officially sponsored violation of human rights in new age Myanmar.

Myanmar is a strange country. At one level, its yearning for democracy and reforms has remained one of the often quoted narratives in history, capable of evoking academic debates and unending coffee table talk. The continuing struggle to send the powerful military to the barracks and allow the civilian politicians to steer the country on the path to development has been no less than exemplary. At another level, however, hatred for the country's minority ethnic groups including the Rohingya has curiously united the military and those who oppose them. The campaign to retain prominence of the majority Bamars vis-à-vis the other ethnicities thereby becomes a highly unequal one, pitting the Buddhist 70 per cent of the population with state support versus the non-Buddhist 30 per cent.

While the Rohingya are certainly not the only group to have faced systematic persecution by the Bamar-dominated power centre, the complicity of the state in annihilation projects initiated by Buddhist religious bodies and local administration in the Western Rakhine state certainly makes their case unique. Out of the 1 million unrecognised Rohingya, about 1,20,000 live in internment camps - being victims of the communal riots since 2012. Thousands have fled Myanmar to countries like Malaysia and Bangladesh and hundreds are dead, victims of both direct and indirect assaults. Those Rohingya, estimated to be about 800,000 in number, who are still away from the camps and have not become refugees in strange, foreign lands, have witnessed their economic, political as well as religious rights disappear. This breakup of victims is unverifiable, as Myanmar has systematically prohibited any direct monitoring of the Rohingya plight by international aid organisations, reminding them of their obligation to be "impartial." And yet these numbers somewhat portray the misery and tribulation that continue to sweep the Rohingya off their marginalised and wretched existence.

With this understanding, the 9 October 2016 episode becomes only a pretext for continuing the pogrom. On that day, according to official accounts, hundreds of armed Rohingya carried out simultaneous attacks on security posts along the Myanmar-Bangladesh border region, killing nine police personnel and three other army personnel. Several others were injured. The arrests of two attackers and their subsequent interrogation revealed the involvement of an unknown Islamist militant group, the Aqa Mul Mujahideen (AMM), understood be an offshoot of the defunct Rohingya Solidarity Organisation (RSO). The Myanmar military has described the AMM to be led by Haviz Tohar, a Rohingya in exile, trained by the Taliban in Pakistan. In somewhat conflicting descriptions, videos have emerged where a group led by another person - Abu Ammar Junooni - flaunts several armed cadres. The group has stopped short of declaring a jihad on Myanmar and has merely asked for the rights of the Rohingya to be recognised.

Notwithstanding the exaggerated official claim that AMM has 400 armed cadres operating in the Maungdaw region, a statement that even the state counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi has distanced herself from, what has followed in Rakhine state is an annihilation campaign. Operations by the military has resulted in the killing of 33 attackers involved in the 9 October episode, according to official accounts. Rohingya sources, however, document at least 133 deaths, a large number of sexual violence cases in which women and children have been targeted by soldiers, and countless instances of torture. Attacks by helicopter gunships and ground operations have wiped out villages and livestock, burning down at least 1,250 homes and other structures, forcing almost 30,000 Rohingya to seek refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh, where they are largely unwelcome, unsupported, and are likely to be pushed back. 

Whether the wretched luck of the Rohingya will ever change is no longer a relevant question. As the friendless, stateless, and right-less Rohingya look down a long and dark alley to an obvious process of gradual obliteration, the Myanmar military has announced its plans to train and arm Buddhist civilians to protect their villages. The erstwhile human rights defendant and now a confirmed politician, Aung San Suu Kyi has pointed at the "unfair" treatment of Myanmar by human rights groups. Feeble protests do take place. A Singaporean has submitted a memorandum to the Myanmarese embassy. Malaysia has cancelled two football matches with Myanmar. Little else has changed as a committee appointed by Suu Kyi headed by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan tours Myanmar to take stock of the situation. The Committee does not have even a single Rohingya as its member. The new normal in Myanmar is not worth anybody's time.

Paradigm Shift or Business As Usual: Trump’s China Policy

Chintamani Mahapatra

Candidate Trump’s positions on China during the long election campaign and President-elect Trump’s tweets and phone calls have generated the impression of a coming paradigm shift in Washington’s approach to China under the Trump administration.

Whether trade, investment or security issues, Trump has yet to say something substantially positive about China since the campaign days. He promised to raise the tariffs on imports from China to an extent that could threaten a trade war, inducing many US analysts to warn about the negative impact of a trade war with China.

When President-elect Trump had a telephonic conversation with the President of Taiwan, China issued a modest reprimand, but others saw in it a paradigm shift in US policy. The reason is simple. No US President-elect or President has had a telephonic conversation with a Taiwanese President since the 1979 US agreement with China to view Taiwan as part of China in acceptance of the "one China” policy.

China retains the right to annex Taiwan by force, while accepting the US view that Taiwan’s final annexation with the mainland should be peaceful. The US, on the other hand, seeks to ensure peace by underwriting Taiwan’s defense preparedness through the supply of 'defensive' weapons. China usually fumes when Washington supplies sophisticated weaponry to Taiwan or a Taiwanese leader visits the US under some pretext or the other.

What explains Beijing’s modest response to Trump’s phone conversation with the Taiwanese President? First of all, the general perception in China during the US presidential election was that Trump would be a pragmatic leader and businessmen who would safeguard the deep Sino-US economic cooperation and not allow issues such as human rights to muddy the relationship. Chinese analysts also felt that the Trump administration would not uphold its traditional alliances in the Asia-Pacific, thus reducing strategic pressure on China. Secondly, when the Trump team contended that the President-elect merely responded to a congratulatory call from Taipei rather than took the initiative himself, the blame suddenly shifted to the Taiwanese President. China promptly admonished and warned Taiwan’s pro-democracy political forces.

Many others, however, quickly pointed out that the telephone conversation was premeditated and part of a political strategy to send signals, and was in no way a coincidence. China’s suspicion deepened when Trump tweeted that China did not consult the US before devaluing its currency and caused losses to US businesses. He also complained against China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea and its construction of military facilities.

The Chinese perception has to an extent changed again, and Trump is suspected of believing that US-China relations are zero-sum and that the greater loss has been to the US in recent decades. He will thus act tough on the rising superpower to make “America great again.” Trump’s rhetoric to make “America great again” is interpreted as his conviction that US' global influence had declined while China’s had increased, and thus there is a need for course correction.

China would have carefully monitored Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s New York visit and meeting with the President-elect. Earlier, Beijing appeared more relaxed with Trump’s remarks that Japan and South Korea should fend for themselves or pay more for their protection by the US military. Washington’s differences with the allies would bring strategic benefits to Beijing. But Trump has apparently assured Tokyo, Seoul and many other allies of substantive continuity in US policy towards allies.

While the details of Trump’s Asia-Pacific policy are not known yet, both the strategic competitors and allies of the US appear to be in a state of anxiety about the Trump administration. China expects the 'business-as-usual' approach, since it has very high stakes in its trade and investment ties with the US and its economy is passing through a difficult transition. Japan, South Korea, Australia and other strategic allies do not desire any turbulence in their alliance relationship with the US.

It is likely that Trump will try to promote economic ties with China without conceding to China’s spreading foothold in strategic areas. Simultaneously, he will try to extract more defence burden-sharing from US' strategic allies. This way, he will try to strengthen US' military and economic presence in the region. The 'pivot to Asia', 'Asian rebalancing', Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) may become things of the past. Trump’s engagement with the region will thus neither be a paradigm shift nor will it be business as usual.  

Northumbria University International Academic Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country):UK

About the Award: Usually applicants for the University Post Graduate Research scholarship are expected to have at least an upper second class Honours degree (UK) or equivalent from an overseas university, or a lower second class and a Masters degree in a relevant discipline.

International students, joining full-time courses, who have achieved very good grades in their highest previous academic qualifications, may be eligible for a scholarship of either £2000 or £1500, depending on the grades you achieved.

The scholarships are offered as a reduction in the tuition fees, for the first year of study and apply to all full-time Bachelors, Masters and Research degree programmes.

Type: Research

Eligibility: You will qualify for a scholarship if:

• You have an ‘overseas’ fee status
• You are a self-funding student
• You are studying on a full-time course

You would not qualify for a scholarship if:

• You are sponsored for your tuition fees.  If you secure sponsorship for your tuition fees after an offer of scholarship has been made, then the scholarship will no longer apply
• You are progressing to study at Northumbria from a partner university with whom we have agreed reduced fees for progressing students
• You have been awarded another scholarship or discount, except for an alumni discount and/or early payment discount/team northumbria scholarship

Selection Criteria: Each student will be considered for a scholarship based on a range of factors including overall grades and individual subject grades, the level of the qualification, and the type of institution at which they studied. Qualifications from all countries will be considered.

Value of Scholarship:

• $1,500 – UK Honours Degree (2.2) plus a Masters Degree (70%)
• $2,000 – 2.1 OR 2.1 plus a Masters Degree (70%)

Duration of Scholarship: One-time

How to Apply: There is no separate application process, your application for a scholarship is determined once we have received your application form and academic documents from you.  Details of any scholarship awarded to you will be indicated to you in your offer letter.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Northumbria University

Online Course: How to Communicate Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by Université catholique de Louvain

Enrolment: February 6, 2017 – Self-Paced

Timeline: 6 weeks @ 4-6 hours per week

Skill Level: Intermediary

Course of Study: Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)| Course Platform:Edx

Created by: The Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)

Cost: Free

About the Course

Driven by global crises in financial, economic, and governance systems, companies all over the world devote massive resources to their corporate social responsibility (CSR). In uncertain modern climates, CSR is a crucial driving force of a (r)evolution in business. This course addresses CSR in two ways:

• As a reflection of corporate self-awareness
• As a source of innovation and a means to deal with heightened competitiveness, demands for sustainable development, and shifts in international governance

By presenting insights from CSR experts, from both academia and practice, this course provides a way for managers, consumers, and citizens to acquire in-depth insights and critical perspectives on companies’ CSR activities and communications.

The multi-industry case study structure of this course enables participants to confront the challenges facing today’s managers as they seek to develop and communicate their own CSR initiatives. Dedicated discussion forums also are available for participants to present personalized CSR cases.

To help participants manage and communicate about CSR with various internal and external stakeholders, this course seeks to:

• Support current and future business leaders in their efforts to make responsible leadership, sustainable production, and consumption central to their corporate vision.
• Help citizens to function more effectively as informed watchdogs and responsible consumers.

Eligibility Criteria

If you are interested in the relationship between business and society, this course is for you! It is especially relevant for industry, public policy, and academic professionals working on CSR, as well as students following a traditional business curriculum who are interested in key value questions. The content is also accessible for consumers who are curious about how to make informed decisions while pursuing their own well-defined, long-term, responsible consumption goals.

Requirement

• No prior knowledge is required, though interest in the topic of corporate social responsibility will be helpful
• Students who are unfamiliar with business concepts and language might have more difficulty understanding certain notions

Certificate offered? Yes

How to Enrol

Visit Course Webpage to Enrol.

Online Course: Global Resource Politics: the Past, Present and Future of Oil, Gas and Shale

The goal of this free online course is to examine the numerous critical energy challenges we are facing, and the complex interaction between the economics and politics of global energy markets.

Enrolment: 9 January 2017

Timeline: 6 weeks @ 3 hours per week

Skill Level: Intermediate

Course of Study: Global Resource Politics: the Past, Present and Future of Oil, Gas and Shale | Course Platform: FutureLearn

Created by: Hanyang University, South Korea

Cost: Free

About the Course

Energy is often said to be the lifeblood of modern society. Multiple sea changes are currently afoot in the global economy, at the heart of which lies energy.

Over six weeks, explore: the causes and implications of low oil prices for global energy markets and geopolitics; the success of North American shale gas and the desire of other countries, particularly China, to replicate it in future; the state of US natural gas and oil production; and the impact of the shale revolution and low oil prices on OPEC and Russia.

Global Resource Politics will give you an introduction to the basic elements of energy production, consumption and transportation, and the functioning of the global energy markets, industry and investments.

Learning with Professor Younkyoo Kim, from the the Division of International Studies at Hanyang University in Seoul, Korea, you will acquire an understanding of energy security and energy policy in today’s highly politicised, volatile energy markets.

Eligibility requirement

Global Resource Politics is open to anyone with an interest in energy security and energy policy.

Certificate offered? Yes

How to Enrol

Visit Course Webpage to Enrol.

Government of Japan MEXT Scholarships for Nigerian Primary/Secondary School Teachers 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st January, 2017

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Japan

About the Award: The Embassy of Japan is pleased to inform you that the Government of Japan will provide scholarship for Nigerian Primary/Secondary school teachers who desire to take teacher training course and Japanese language training in Japan.

The scholarship is open to graduates of universities and teachers training colleges no more than thirty-four (34) years of age (must be born on or after April 2, 1982), who have worked as teachers at primary/secondary schools or teacher training college for at least five years in their home countries at the time of application.

The Embassy will like to use this opportunity to attract Nigerian Schools that wish to start Japanese Language class or course at their school. Beneficiaries shall upon their return, help to promote Japanese Language education in Nigeria.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 

(1) Nationality: Applicants must have the nationality of a country that has diplomatic relations with Japanese government. An applicant who has Japanese nationality at the time of application is not eligible.However, persons with dual nationality who hold Japanese nationality and whose place of residence at the time of application is outside of Japan are eligible to apply as long as they give up their Japanese nationality and choose the nationality of the foreign country by the date of their arrival in Japan. Applicant screening will be conducted at the Japanese Embassy or Consulate (hereinafter referred to “Japanese diplomatic mission”)in the country of applicant’s nationality.

(2)　Age：Applicants, in principle,must be born on or after April 2, 1982.

(3)　Academic and Career Background：Applicants must be graduates of universities or teacher training schools and have worked as teachersat primary/secondary educational institutions or teacher training schools (excluding universities)in their home countries for five years in total as of April 1, 2017.In-service university faculty members are not eligible.

(4)　Japanese Language Ability：Applicants must be keen to learn Japanese. Applicants must be interested in Japan and be keen to deepen their understanding of Japan after arriving in Japan.Applicants must also have the ability to do research and adapt to living in Japan.

(5)　Health：Applicants must be judged that they are medically adequate to pursue study in Japan by an examining physician on a prescribed certificate of health.

(6)　Arrival in Japan：　Applicants must be able to arrive in Japan by the designated period(usually October) between the day two weeks before the course starts and the first day of the course. (If the applicant arrives in Japan before this period for personal reasons, travel expenses to Japan will not be paid. Excluding cases of unavoidable circumstances, if the applicant cannot arrive in Japan by the end of the designated period the applicant must withdraw the offer.)

(7)　Visa acquisition：Applicants should,in principle,acquire “Student” visas before entering Japan and enter Japan with “Student” residence status. The visas should be issued at the Japanese diplomatic missions located in the country of applicants’ nationality. Those who change their visa status to one other than “Student” after arrival in Japan will lose their qualification to be Japanese Government Scholarship recipients from the date when their visa status changes.

(8)　Applicants must return to their home country and resume their work immediately after the end of the scholarship period.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:

• Allowance：143,000 yen per month. (In case that the recipient researches in a designated region, 2,000 or 3,000 yen per month will be added. The monetary amount each year may be subject to change due to budgetary reasons.)
• Transportation to Japan：The recipient will be provided an economy-class airplane ticket, according to his/her itinerary and route as designated by MEXT,from the international airport nearest to his/her home country residence,where in principle is in the country of nationality, to the Narita International Airport or any other international airport that the appointed university usually uses when they enter to Japan.
• Expenses such as inland transportation from his/her home address to the international airport, airport tax, airport usage fees, special taxes on travel, or inland transportation within Japan including a connecting flight will NOT be covered. (*Although the address in the home country stated in the application form is in principle regarded as the recipient’s “home country residence,” if it will be changed at the time of leaving from his/her home country the changed address will be regarded as “home country residence.”)
• Transportation from Japan：The recipient who returns to his/her home country within the fixed period after the expiration of his/her scholarship will be provided, upon application, with an economy-class airplane ticket for travel from the Narita International Airport or any other international airport that the appointed university usually uses to the international airport nearest to his/her home address, wherein principle is in the country of nationality.
  • (Note 1) Any aviation and accident insurance to and from Japan shall be borne by the recipient.
  • (Note 2) Should the recipient not return to his/her home country soon after the end of the scholarship period to resume his/her duties, the transportation fee for the return to the home country will not be provided.
• Tuition and Other Fees：Fees for the entrance examination, matriculation and tuition at universities will be paid by the Japanese Government.

Duration of Scholarship: The term is the period necessary to complete each university’s training course and should be between October 2017 (or the starting month of the course)and March 2019.Extension of the term is not permitted

How to Apply: Interested candidates can access application forms are HERE

For guidelines and application forms please click : http://www.ng.emb-japan.go.jp/mext% 20education.html , to get the form online, or come to the Embassy at the address below.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details or Go to Flyer

Award Provider: Government of Japan

Important Notes: 

(1)The recipient is advised to learn, before departing for Japan, the Japanese language and to acquire some information about Japanese weather, climate, customs, and university education in Japan, as well as about the difference between the Japanese legal system and that of his/her home country.

(2)As the first installment of the scholarship payment cannot be provided immediately upon the recipient’s arrival, the recipient should bring at least approximately US $2,000 or the equivalent thereof to cover immediate needs after arrival in Japan.

Download to View other Application conditions of the scholarship via the Webpage link above.

Carrington Youth Fellowship Initiative (CYFI) 2017 for Young Nigerian Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 31st December, 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Interviews follow at the US Consulate, Lagos, Nigeria

About the Award: The CYFI fellowship is built around year-long social innovation projects that are designed by fellows and supported by the U.S. Consulate and private partners. Following successful completion of their projects, fellows remain involved with CYFI and the U.S. Consulate through the CYFI Alumni Program.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Walter Carrington, was a champion of civil liberties, democracy and closer ties between the U.S. and Nigeria. CYFI invites applications from fellows who are committed to putting the ideals of Walter Carrington into practice. The CYFI Board of Directors will select fellows who demonstrate the exceptional passion, skill, experience, strategic thinking and vision necessary to implement their own innovative and impactful projects.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

• Passion
  You are committed to making a significant contribution to your community and country
• Skill & Experience
  You have a unique set of skills and experiences that you can use to make an impact
• Strategic Thinking
  You are excited about the opportunity to launch an innovative CYFI project.
  You know how to design a project that is based on sound research, uses resources creatively, builds or improves on existing systems, and leverages partnerships with complimentary organizations
• Vision
  You know the area of social change in which you would like to work, and you can articulate the positive change that you would like to make

Selection: Applicants selected for an interview will be notified by the CYFI Board. Interviews will be held at the U.S. Consulate General in Lagos.

Value of Program: 

• Implement concrete, youth-oriented solutions to issues that concern you
• Access U.S. Government resources and contacts
• Catch the attention of American and Nigerian leaders in the public and private sectors
• Work alongside talented and motivated peers with diverse backgrounds, but similar visions
• Participate in CYFI Alumni Program

How to Apply: Application opens 10th December. You can only fill the application form after this date.

• In addition to providing biographical information, applicants will be asked to complete a hypothetical scenario.  All fields are required.
• You may save the application and return to it at a later time.  Please note however that incomplete applications will not be considered.
• To start the application, proceed to fill the form (to be available soon).

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: An Initiative of the U.S. Consulate General, Lagos.

Kashmir: Human Rights Observed In Breach

 Abdul Majid Zargar

Physicians for Human rights (PHR) is a New-York based, nobel peace prize  winner, international organization which attempts to use Science & Medicine to prevent human rights violations around the world.  In its  report of December 2016, Kashmir has found a special mention with respect to latest intifada post killing of Burhan Wani in July 2016. The relevant extracts of the report are reproduced hereunder:

“In July 2016, the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir erupted in protests against the killing of prominent militant leader Burhan Wani by security forces. In the violent clashes that ensued between Indian authorities and protesters, at least 87 people were killed and thousands injured. The State used excessive and indiscriminate use of force against protesters by Indian state police and Central Reserve Police Forces with weapons misleadingly represented as “less than lethal.” These included tear gas grenades, pepper gas shells, live ammunition, and 12-gauge shotguns loaded with metal pellets, which account for the majority of injuries. While Indian authorities claimed that the use of these weapons was meant to reduce the potential for injuries or fatalities, PHR researchers found that their use had in fact caused serious injury and death.

PHR also found that authorities actively impeded protestors’ access to urgent medical care, both by harassing medical workers attempting to treat protesters and by preventing doctors from reaching the hospitals where they work. PHR documented several instances where police were present at hospitals and monitored protesters being admitted for treatment. They were reported to have asked for the names and medical information of patients admitted at the end of the day in order to later arrest them for unlawful assemblies.

The excessive use of force and the intimidation tactics employed by authorities against medical workers attempting to treat the injured violate India’s obligation to protect the rights to life, health, and freedom of expression and assembly. The police response to these protests shows complete indifference to the international standards and principles guiding the use of force, and a lack of accountability leaves security forces free rein to further abuse their power.”

Human rights structure was erected in 1940s & 1950s after two brutal world wars and the failure of international community to prevent Nazi Germany’s Holocaust against Jews which gave birth to International Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention. The United Nations was made custodian of these rights and tasked with the primary objective of   ensuring  international enforcement of these rights . It was also authorized to take appropriate action, including use of Force, against erring member States.

But the UN and its accredited agencies have miserably failed to restrain India from committing  grave human rights violations amounting to war crimes & crimes against humanity  in Kashmir. Name any crime which has not been committed by rogue   State & its security apparatus  in Kashmir. It has killed unarmed people by firing on  peaceful protestors. It has killed intellectuals  & human rights defenders of Kashmir through  covert operations(Dr. Guru, Jaleel Andrabi for instance). It has committed  individual & mass rape of women, rape of daughters in front of mothers & rape of newly  wed brides(Kunanposhpura, Budsgam incidents). It has burnt people alive in live infernos (Sopore incident of Jannuary1993). It has indulged in involuntary & enforced  disappearances & created a long trail  of  half-widows & half-orphans ,making Kashmir a unique place in the world to contribute new words to human right lexicons. It has buried thousands in  unmarked graves and has the audacity to deny  identification of such graves. It has destroyed & damaged properties on a large scale. It has blinded, fully or partially, hundreds of youth through use of deadly pellets It has denied medical aid to wailing injured(See Report of physicians for human rights) . Even human rights defender, Khurram Parvez was recently imprisoned under the draconian Public safety Act, a lawless law, to prevent him to report to the world, the Indian atrocities in Kashmir .  These grave crimes should have, in the normal course, seen India  in the international dock long ago  but  the inertia of the United Nations Human Rights Council  has not only enabled India to escape a serious trial but allowed it to continue with its nefarious pogrom. There are strong reasons to believe that present UN General secretary, Ban-ki-Moon has allowed his personal relations with India to act as a shield to her wrongdoings. Ban’s  daughter is married to an India and by his own admission he has a special affinity towards India.

Organizations  affiliated with UN such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International(AI)  mandated  with  reporting  and organizing campaigns in response to the crimes of states have also failed in respect of India. They were accorded special status in the United Nations  to promote moral agendas such as human rights and international law .The purpose was that they  give testimony, submit reports, and make recommendations in order to improve human rights practice, while “naming and shaming” those governments with the worst records. Their record Vis-à-vis Kashmir is for every body to see. The Indian chapter of  AI has been fully Indianzed  and   has become an integral part of the Indian political theater of the absurd.

The Overall failure of the UN  in upholding human rights structure can be explained in  part  to the failure of these  so-called human-rights organizations. If the humanity has to survive in a civilized order, an entirely new structure  for enforcing  human rights is necessary because the institutions , processes & systems that were created long ago have miserably failed.

Decline Of Human Rights Protection Regime

 Pushkar Raj

The recent summoning of Chhattisgarh officials by the National Human Rights Commissions (NHRC) for abuse of power is significant due to the expectations from human rights protection institutions in the country to deliver on their mandate. However, concerned officials may never appear before the commission to explain their conduct indicating a steep decline in human rights protection regime in the country.

Like many other countries, the human rights regime was initiated in India in the aftermath of 1993 Geneva world conference on human rights. Consequently, the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA) was passed by the parliament for “better protection of human rights” paving way for setting up the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and a number of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRC) in the states.

Reality

Though the task of protection of human rights was to be carried out under the leadership of NHRC, but it has failed to do justice to its mandate. It is evident from a recent Supreme Court observation in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association versus Union of India case when the court censured the commission for inefficient functioning. The court criticized it for closing down some of the cases of encounter killings “without any application of mind’’ and on the basis of a magisterial inquiry which is essentially an administrative finding.  The observations of the court were not unfounded given that the commission has an investigation wing headed by a DGP rank officer. The court went on to describe the commission as a toothless tiger.

The court’s comments echo a general feeling amongst the human rights activists in the country that the NHRC has failed to fix accountability for serious human rights violations, inspire SHRCs and send messages to the government on important issues related to human rights.

For many years now, the NHRC has failed to take a concrete stance on death penalty despite documented studies (Lethal Lottery: The Death Penalty in India; Amnesty India-PUCL) that it is closely related to one’s access to justice and is usually awarded to the poorest, without leading to any deterrence to crime. While the outgoing chairman of the commission, Justice Balakrishnan supported the death penalty, the commission never clarified its position on it.

The commission failed to take remedial measures when the government cancelled several human rights organisation’s   licenses under Foreign Contribution (regulation) Act, without which they cannot solicit funds from abroad. It is alleged that the government’s move was vindictive and a violation of the UN declaration on HRDs that confers on CSOs the right to solicit, receive and utilize resources.

Reason

The commission has come to this pass because the government, irrespective of political party, seems to have lost interest in human rights’ protection and promotion, thereby, encouraging and maintaining only a façade rather than substance on this matter.  It is the responsibility of the government of the day to appoint credible people to these institutions if any improvement in the situation of human rights is to be realized. But the government’s actions have only been disappointing.

In 2010, the government appointed a chairman of NHRC who faced serious allegations of corruption. The matter dragged in the Supreme Court for years and was subsequently withdrawn by the government on the plea that the judge concerned had retired from the office.

It has chosen to appoint retired police officers to the commission. While the previous government appointed a former chief of anti-corruption bureau , CBI and  a former director of anti-terror agency, NIA as the member of the NHRC, the present government nominated a BJP leader to be its member. By this count under the category of ‘persons having knowledge of human rights’ the present commission has one former police officer who is a terrorism expert and other, if confirmed, would be an active politician.

The government has not cared to put NHRC annual reports before the parliament for discussion, so much so that commission has now even stopped preparing  them on a  regular basis. It has caused dilution of its accountability inbuilt under the legislation under which it was setup.

Repercussion

This cynical approach to these important institutions has reduced the human rights regime in the country to a farce and sent a damaging message across the country. Out of 24  SHRCs, 10 are without chairpersons, nine have vacancy of members and some, including Maharashtra- with consistently high police custodial deaths- have retired police officers as members on their bench.

As majority of the complaints made to these commissions relate to police, appointment of retired police officers to these institutions have dealt a serious blow to their credibility, eroding people’s faith in these institutions. For example, Soni Sori, a victim of police atrocity and sexual violence did not expect a fair hearing from the Chhattisgarh SHRC, and when she approached the NHRC it was quick to give a clean chit to the state government (The Hindu, 15 April 2013).

The erosion of authority of human rights institutions is a major blow to the preservation and promotion of human rights in the country. It is a matter of grave concern in light of expenses involved in approaching the judiciary reeling under millions of pending cases. Clearly, the government has a lot to explain and do if it cares for its constitutional and international obligations.