Fox International Fellowships for Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral Students 2017/2018 – Yale University

Application Deadline: Application deadlines are in January/February each year: specific dates will be announced by each Fox partner university.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Institutions: Yale University, United States  | University of São Paulo, Brazil  |  Fudan University, China | University of Cambridge, England  |  Institut d’Études de Politiques de Paris, France  |  Freie University of Berlin, Germany  |  University of Ghana, Ghana |  Jawaharlal Nehru University, India  | Tel Aviv University, Israel  |  The University of Tokyo, Japan  |  El Colegio de México, México  |  Moscow State University, Russia  | University of Cape Town, South Africa  |  Boğaziçi University, Turkey | University of British Columbia, Canada  | The Australian National University &  The University of Melbourne, Australia  |   The University of Copenhagen & The Copenhagen Business School, Denmark | National University of Singapore

To be taken at (country): Yale University, USA

Fields of Study: Fox International Fellowships seek applicants whose work has the potential to offer practical solutions to the problems which stand in the way of the world`s peace and prosperity. The fellowship focuses on such critical fields as: international relations and global affairs, law, environmental policy, public health, social sciences, economics, political science, business and finance, management, and contemporary history.

About the Award: The Fox International Fellowship is a graduate student exchange program between Yale and 19 world-renowned partner universities. Fox International Fellows are selected for their potential to become leaders in fields that are policy significant, historically informed, and socially meaningful. Such work is increasingly conditioned by the interdisciplinary and transnational character of knowledge and practice in the twenty-first century. Fellows’ research projects and academic interests reflect the areas toward which many of the world’s major decision-makers have gravitated, as well as those that have the potential to open new channels of debate.

The Fox Fellowship, through scholarship and civic engagement, aims to enhance “mutual understanding” between the United States and the home countries of our partner universities in order to provoke and contribute to productive dialogue around complex challenges and to offer current and enduring solutions. Initiated at the end of the Cold War, the focus on peace and conflict in general and U.S./Soviet interaction has expanded to include a host of twenty-first century challenges in every world region such as prosperity and development, poverty alleviation, environmental degradation, resource stewardship, and human rights.

Type: Fellowship, Doctoral, Masters.

The Fox Fellowship is NOT open to postdoctoral applicants. International student proposing projects in their home country are NOT eligible.

Eligibility: Graduate level students pursuing Doctoral or Masters level degrees and graduating master’s level students are eligible. Graduating bachelors’ level students of unusual merit and distinction may be considered but advanced, graduate level students are preferred. The Fox Fellowship is NOT open to postdoctoral applicants and international student proposing projects in their home country are NOT eligible.

Personal characteristics: The candidate must demonstrate commitment to serious research and also capacity for leadership and civic engagement in the larger community. The candidate clearly understands and has demonstrated commitment to being a “citizen ambassador.”

Strength of academic achievement: The candidate must demonstrate both excellence in relevant coursework as well as strong evidence of research ability in the field of endeavor they are proposing as their Fox Fellowship project.

Field of focus: A strong and specific research project with a focus in international relations and global affairs, environmental policy, public health, business and finance, social sciences, economics, political science, law, and contemporary history, with preference for topics of contemporary, applied and/or institutional relevance to enhancing the world’s peace and prosperity. The candidate’s overall program of studies or degree may come from different disciplines and departments as long as their project focuses on one or more of these fields.

Language skills: The candidate’s language skills must be sufficient both to succeed in their research project and to engage in the intellectual and social community of the host university and their colleagues in the Fox International Fellowship at Yale. Candidates for Fox Fellowships at Yale University have to provide recent TOEFL or IELTS scores demonstrating proficiency in English conversation, reading and writing. This requirement is waived only for applicants from partner institutions where English is the primary language of instruction.

Selection Criteria: The Yale Fox Fellowship selection committee makes the final decision based on the following criteria:

●    Quality of research proposal
●    Strength of academic achievement
●    Character and demonstrated leadership potential
●    Demonstrated personal commitment to being a “citizen ambassador”

Number of Awardees: Annually at least one student from each Fox exchange partner takes up residency at Yale, and at least one Yale student goes to each partner.

Value of Fellowship: All Fellows at Yale receive the same award, which is commensurate to the level of funding received by doctoral students in the graduate school.  Awards include round-trip travel, accommodations in rental housing provided by the Fox Fellowship and a generous living stipend to cover expenses not already provided for by existing funds that you may have at your disposal. The Fellowship will also cover health insurance. All fellows are also able to apply for grants from a research travel fund up to U.S.D $2000.

Duration of Fellowship: 10 months

How to Apply: All applicants are encouraged to read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section before applying. For students at Fox Fellowship exchange partner institutions, click here.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Yale University

Online Course: Learn to Create 3D Graphics for Web Developers

Enrolment: 2 January 2017 / Self paced

Timeline: 5 weeks @ 6 hours per week

Skill Level: Intermediate

Course of Study: 3D Graphics | Course Platform: FutureLearn

Created by: Pompeu Fabra University Barcelona

Cost: Free

About the Course

With the advent of WebGL, it is now possible to develop high-quality, interactive 3D graphics applications, which run natively in web browsers. However, to do this, you need to be proficient in both web development and 3D programming.

This free online course will provide web developers, who have existing knowledge of JavaScript, with the theoretical and practical knowledge to start programming 3D graphics applications for the web.

Learn to use WebGLStudio and Three.JS to create WebGL applications

The course is split into five weeks. In the first two weeks, Javi Agenjo will teach you the basics of 3D graphics from a non-programmer’s point of view, explaining concepts such as transformations and materials using a state-of-the-art web tool, WebGLStudio. There will be no programming in these two weeks.

Weeks 3, 4 and 5, however, are 100% programming-based. After showing you how to set up your computer for local development of WebGL applications, Alun Evans will lead you through the process of creating a series of simple scenes using the most common and popular library for creating WebGL applications, Three.JS.

In the final week, you will be able to load in meshes and textures from external sources, place lights and objects within a scene, and move the camera interactively.

Eligibility requirement

This course is designed for existing web developers who have little or no previous experience in creating 3D graphics applications. You should be capable of manipulating the DOM using JavaScript or JQuery, and familiar with the concepts of AJAX. You should also have at least intermediate-level programming skills and be comfortable manipulating arrays and objects.

Certificate offered? Yes

How to Enrol

Visit Course Webpage to Enrol.

University of Manchester Law Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 10th March 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International, home/EU countries

To be taken at (country): UK

Field of Study: The scholarships are open to all new students both overseas and home/EU students in all research areas within the School.

Type: PhD/MPhil

Eligibility: Competition is intense, but we welcome applications from well-qualified graduates.

• You must hold an offer for one of our PhD/MPhil programmes
• You should have accepted your offer by 10 March 2017
• You must hold a First Class Honours/ High 2.1 or equivalent in your undergraduate degree/ and a distinction/ high merit or equivalent in your postgraduate degree
• You must be a self-funding student, e.g. you are not sponsored

Successful candidates who have a suitable postgraduate qualification will register onto the PhD Law/Criminology programme and the Scholarship will continue for three years, on condition that they continue to reach the milestones required for progression to the following year.

Successful candidates who do not possess a suitable postgraduate qualification but wish to undertake postgraduate research in law/criminology/bioethics will register in the first instance for the MPhil and are expected to upgrade to PhD for two further years.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:  These awards cover tuition fees at EU/Home student rate and provide a maintenance stipend equivalent to that of the RCUK studentships £14,296 for 2017/18.

How to Apply: The application form is available for download via the link below:

• School of Law Scholarship application form

E-mail your completed funding application form to:

• law.scholarship@manchester.ac.uk

In order to ensure that you hold an offer for a place on the programme by the funding deadline, you must submit your PhD application by 10 February 2017. If you are not in receipt of an offer you will not be included in the competition.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Manchester

Innovation in the Food Industry & How it’s Affecting Our Society – Take Online Course by University of Leeds

Enrolment: Self paced

Timeline: 2 weeks @ 2 hours per week

Skill Level: Beginner

Course of Study: Food Innovation| Course Platform: FutureLearn

Created by: University of Leeds

Cost: Free

About the Course

This course considers the ways in which the food industry has evolved over the past 70 years and has created the industry of convenience we have today. Introduced though a case study from Marks and Spencer, you will see how new innovations have changed the way we shop. You will also consider the issue of food waste; in a world where thousands suffer from malnutrition and starvation you’ll consider the attitudes in your own society to this global problem.

Eligibility requirement

No previous knowledge or experience of business or innovation is required, just an interest in innovations and the food industry.

Certificate offered? Yes

How to Enrol

Visit Course Webpage to Enrol.

Civil Society Academy in Morocco Free Workshop for Activists and Journalists in the MENA Region 2017

Application Deadline: 1st January, 2017

Eligible Countries: MENA Region

To be taken at (country): Morocco or Tunisia

About the Award: Academic program for capacity building and leadership skills to thirty young men and women between 20 and 30 years of age, and give them the opportunity to learn about the experience of civil society in Morocco or Tunisia and exchange of experiences with the leaders and civil society activists through the internship program has been designed.

Academy of Civil Society will host the Academy 30 activist of the civil society, 15 per academy, from the Arab world for a week of theoretical training followed by two weeks of practical training in organizations with expertise in different areas of the work of civil society in Morocco or Tunisia. Participants will take part in a week of training workshops and workshop , followed by an internship two weeks duration in civil society organizations in Morocco or Tunisia.

Type: Training

Eligibility: While participants are accepted in the first phase of the selection of participants will be asked to submit a project idea that want to implement it in their own communities after participating in the academy.

Number of Awardees: 30

Value of Scholarship: The following will be provided to participants during the academic:

travel round-trip ticket.
accommodation, meals and transfers through the academy

Duration of Scholarship: 3 weeks

How to Apply: Apply via the Scholarship Webpage link below

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Civil society Academy

University of Helsinki Fully-funded Masters Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st July, 2017

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Finland

Field of Study: Citizens of non-EU/EEA countries, who do not have a permanent residence status in the EU/EEA area, are liable for these fees.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: All candidates must meet the following requirements:

• You are eligible for the Master’s programme at the University of Helsinki
• The country of your nationality is outside the EU/EEA and you meet the requirements for obtaining an entry visa and residence permit for Finland. More information at the Studyinfo.
• You have obtained excellent results in your previous studies and can prove this in your application.

Selection Criteria: The Master’s Programme will make the academic assessment of your degree application simultaneously with your scholarship application. At this stage the scholarship criteria is the same as the programme specific selection criteria.

After the Master’s Programme proposal the Scholarship Committee will make the final decisions. In addition to the academic criteria the committee will also consider the variety and diversity of the applicants and grant the scholarships to those coming from different backgrounds and fields of studies. The aim is to create a rich and diverse learning environment at the University of Helsinki.

If you are awarded a scholarship, you will receive an official acceptance letter with the information of scholarship status.

Value and Number of Scholarships: 

Tuition fee + The Living Costs Grant (13,000 / 15,000 / 18,000 + 10,000 EUR)
Number of scholarships available: ca 2

Tuition fee (13,000 / 15,000 / 18,000 EUR)
Number of scholarships available: ca 8

Half of the tuition fee (6,500 / 7,500 / 9,000 EUR)
Number of scholarships available: ca 10

The Living Costs Grant (10,000 EUR)
Number of scholarships available: ca 10

All the scholarships include:

The Student Union ((HYY) membership fee (paid by the University of Helsinki) will provide you substantial benefits of a lively student organization as well as free health care and reductions in public transportation, student lunch in the Student Restaurants and sport facilities at the UniSport.

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship will be granted for two years. All the scholarship students are required to study full time (earn at least 55 ECTS / year) to fulfill the requirements of the scholarship. After the first study year, your studies will be evaluated and, depending on your progress, the scholarship will be continued.

How to Apply: The scholarship application will be filled out in the same application system and simultaneously with your online application to the University of Helsinki English language Master’s programmes. The possible scholarship-related documents should be delivered with the other enclosed documents of your degree application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  University of Helsinki

The US Mustn’t Turn Its Back on China

Tom Clifford

Beijing.

Ah, finally, we get it now. The Trump doctrine. Separate China from Russia circa 1972, except this time build bridges with Moscow, call Beijing’s bluff on Taiwan, sit back and wait for China to implode. That beautiful American word, cockamamie, barely does justice to such visionary, strategic thinking. A few small points to consider…The relationship between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin is a great deal closer than that between Leonid Brezhnev and Mao Zedong.

There may come a time when Moscow wakes up to Chinese expansion in its own backyard of central Asia with the Belt and Road Initiative but that is some way in the distance. Right now, both countries are enjoying a convenient infatuation with each other.

Taiwan?  It is difficult to call a bluff when there is no bluff. There is nothing to suggest that China sees Taiwan as anything other than an integral part of its territory.  No art of the deal approach will change that fundamental viewpoint.

The China implode theory? Ah, yes, we have heard this before. The theory goes that with rampant corruption and ever increasing debt, the Chinese economy will slow down to such an extent that outbreaks of social unrest will occur which will spread like wildfire and hey presto, a new China.

First of all, China does have a debt problem, not to overseas creditors but to itself. It is trying to tackle it, has some way to go to get it under control, but it is not, at least not yet, a major issue heralding imminent collapse. From China’s point of view it is the UK and the EU that seem far more likely to collapse than the People’s Republic.

For the first time in 300 years, a generation of Chinese have passed on increasing wealth to another generation who in turn hope to do the same. For all the problems China faces, there is a tangible sense here that life will get better.  It may not be as fast as they want, nor as widespread, but change is in the air. Thirty years ago, they wanted bicycles, now they want cars (preferably German ones). I know Chinese people who as children never thought they would ever ride in a vehicle, not even a bus. Yes, the Chinese would like more democracy but they crave greater justice, healthcare and education and an end to corruption. The Communist Party has no divine right to rule, as atheists they could not believe in a divine right anyway, and they realize it. When Xi came to office he instructed the leading party members to read Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old regime and the Revolution, a book that examines French society before the events of 1789.

Nothing is sacred under heaven, the Chinese more than any other people realize that.

There are rust belts in China too. Hundreds of thousands of workers in steel mills and smoke-stack industries have been made redundant this year in Hebei province, next to Beijing, where the rusting hulks of factories dot the landscape. There is still a huge imbalance between the prosperous coastal areas and the inland ones.  More than 7 million graduates will emerge next year from Chinese colleges. Even with a growing economy, finding these graduates jobs is not easy. The country is building the equivalent of a university every week as it tries to create an educated workforce to boost the transformation of the economy from low-skilled production-based to high-skilled services.

Foreign firms still face huge obstacles in China which is not as welcoming to foreign investment as it once was and debt-heavy state-owned companies are still shielded from rivals. Still, foreign direct investment in 2016 up to October grew 4.2 percent ($96.8 billion) compared to 2015. Negotiations over an investment treaty between the US and China, which began in 2008, have yet to be finalized after more than 24 sittings but an agreement does seem possible.

There may be much that has to be improved in the China-US relationship, but it is one worth nurturing.

It may be that we are on the verge of a different era, one more fraught and tense. But there is one beautiful American word to describe the US turning its back on China at this juncture.

Colombia: Peace in the Shadow of Genocide

Daniel Kovalik

After the first Colombian peace agreement was narrowly voted down in a nation-wide referendum in October, the Colombian Congress approved a revised peace agreement between the Colombian government and FARC rebels.  While the extreme right-wing in Colombia has tried to stir up fear about the peace process, arguing that it gives too much amnesty to the left-wing FARC combatants, and while Human Rights Watch has amplified these concerns, it is indeed the left which is being threatened and attacked in Colombia.  Specifically, the left is being attacked by the right-wing paramilitaries who see the peace between the government and the FARC as both a threat to their alleged raison d-etrê of allegedly fighting the guerillas,as well as an opportunity – to wit, the opportunity to wipe out the left as the FARC disarms.

Anyone who knows about Colombia is painfully aware of the historical precedent for such attacks upon the left during the cessation of hostilities between the government and the FARC.  As The Miami Herald explains:

For many in Colombian politics, the recent spate of killings seem depressingly familiar. In the 1980s and 1990s, anywhere from 1,000 to 3,500 members of the Unión Patriótica party were assassinated.

That political group drew followers from across the left, but its primary purpose was to give the FARC, which had signed a ceasefire at the time, a vehicle to participate in politics. In the succeeding years, however, UP members were indiscriminately murdered, including presidential candidate Jaime Pardo in 1987. The ceasefire collapsed, the FARC resumed fighting, and most of those murders were eventually pinned on right-wing paramilitary groups.

Others put the death toll of the assault against the UP (Patriotic Union in English) at well above that estimated by The Miami Herald.  Thus, as Telesur recently reported,

[Aida] Avella is the president of the Patriotic Union, a party that saw no less than 5,000 of its supporters, including sitting politicians and presidential candidates, killed by the state and its paramilitary allies in what was deemed a political genocide.

“I don’t think another genocide is starting, rather it is a continuation of the genocide against opposition sectors. That’s because the paramilitary structures have not been dismantled, they are completely intact,” Avella told Contagio Radio.

Avella makes a good point about the persistence of the paramilitary assault on Colombia’s “opposition sectors.”  Just this year alone, 72 social activists have been murdered in Colombia.    And, in the four years of its existence, the peace movement known as the Marcha Patriotica has lost 125 members to assassination by the paramilitaries.

Such violence has only accelerated in recent months as the peace process has approached final agreement.   Thus, in November alone, at least 12 leaders from the peace, indigenous and labor movements have been murdered. And, a day doesn’t go by that I don’t hear of more death threats and attempts against leaders of organizations I work closely with in Colombia.  Meanwhile, as the Washington Office on Latin America has reported, “the neo-paramilitary group Autodefensas Gaitanistas de Colombia (AGC) circulated a flyer warning of a major ‘cleansing’ in December of the very leaders who will be key to achieving peace in Colombia.”

Colombia does not receive near enough attention in the press as it deserves, especially given its dire human rights situation and its being the recipient of nearly $10 billion in military assistance from the U.S. since 2000.

In terms of human rights, Colombia is now the Western Hemisphere’s leader in disappeared persons with well over 92,000 persons disappeared – this according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) back in 2014.    This is over three times the figure for Argentina – the country which usually comes to mind for most people when thinking about the phenomenon of disappearances in Latin America.  And yet, when did you last hear of the disappearances in Colombia?  It is the almost complete news blackout on Colombia which allows the unprecedented political violence there to continue.  Indeed, as the head of the ICRC himself decried, “[t]he problem of missing people in Colombia is as widespread as it is silent.”

Those of us who want peace for Colombia cannot remain silent as the number of victims continue to mount even as our tax dollars continue to support a military which is still entangled with the paramilitary death squads committing the lion’s share of that country’s violence.

Trump Trumpets His Real Plans

Ralph Nader

Even for a failed gambling czar, Donald Trump has been surprisingly quick to show his hand as he sets the course of his forthcoming presidency. With a reactionary fervor, he is bursting backwards into the future. He has accomplished this feat through the first wave of nominations to his Cabinet and White House staff.

Only if there is a superlative to the word “nightmare” can the dictionary provide a description of his bizarre selection of men and women marinated either in corporatism or militarism, with strains of racism, class cruelty and ideological rigidity. Many of Mr. Trump’s nominees lack an appreciation of the awesome responsibilities of public office.

Let’s run through Trump’s “picks”:

First there are the selections that will make it easier to co-opt the Republicans in Congress. He has appointed Elaine Chao, the wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for Secretary of Transportation. Ms. Chao does not like regulation of big business, such as those for auto, aviation, railroad and pipeline safety. Next is Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Price wants to dump Obamacare, turn over control of Medicaid to the states – including Governors who dislike Medicaid – and even privatize (eg. corporatize) Medicare itself into the hands of the business sector already defrauding just that program by about $60 billion a year.

Trump selected Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Pompeo is a cold war warrior who believes in a militaristic, interventionist CIA, especially toward Iran, taking that agency even further away from its original mission of gathering intelligence.

Then come the Generals. Notwithstanding the Constitutional imperative that there should be civilian control over the military, Trump has placed two generals in charge of foreign and domestic military theatres. For Secretary of Defense, Trump chose recently retired Marine General James Mattis. This “Mad Dog” believes Barack Obama to be too weak, indecisive and without a strategic plan for the Middle East. He looks very much like he is a believer in the American Empire and the U.S. being the policeman for the world.

The next general is retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, chosen to run the Department of Homeland Security. He is seen as a modern believer in the Monroe Doctrine over the Hispanic world south of Florida and the Rio Grande. He shares dangerous views on Iran and Islam with Gen. Mattis.

Inside the White House, retired General Mike Flynn is slated to take the post as national security adviser. His public statements against Islam being an ideological, existential threat to the U.S., and his proliferation of inaccurate conspiracy theories have alienated his former colleagues in the military, including reportedly the incoming Secretary of Defense.

Then there are the Trump nominees selected to run the departments whose numerous missions under existing law they want to dismantle. The proposed Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, is a chain restaurateur adamantly against raising the federal minim wage of $7.25 an hour and his labor views are so extreme that a progressive group of restaurant owners organized to oppose his exploitative positions and argue for a fair minimum wage.  In another flagrant display of bureaucratic obstruction, Trump wants to appoint climate change denier Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, the same agency he, as Oklahoma Attorney General, fought tirelessly to undermine.

Another magnet for Trump’s nominations are those who made big donations to his campaign. For Linda McMahon’s $7 million to pro-Trump Super PACs, she gets to head the Small Business Administration. As a highly controversial professional wrestling CEO, she worked to monopolize the professional wrestling market and stifle competition.

For the Department of Education, school children and their teachers will face Betsy DeVos. From a billionaire family, she is a ferocious advocate of using taxpayer money in the form of vouchers for private schools. She makes no bones about her hatred of public schools and her desire to have commercial managers of school systems.

To lead the Justice Department, Trump has selected Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who is big on police surveillance, weak on civil rights enforcement, a hard-liner on immigration and very mixed on corporate crime.

Add these strong-willed ideologues, coupled with Trump’s easily bruised ego, Twitter-tantrums on trivial matters and his penchant to always be the decision-making strongman, and you’ve got the making of an explosive regime with daily eruptions.

Whatever the media makes of the inevitable intrigue, in-fighting and likely resistance by the civil service to adhere to their lawful missions, it is the people who will be paying the price. President Trump will use the media to sugarcoat, falsify, distract, intimidate, glorify and massify the millions of people who believed, once upon a recent time, that he would “Make America Great Again.”

As the profiteers of Wall Street and the war hawks blend with the corporate statists, the super-confident Trump is telling us what their products will be like and that he’ll be their salesman.

If you think all this sounds predictable, there are going to be more than a few “black swans” (to use Nassim Taleb’s best-selling book title) coming over the horizon. It is time to mobilize as citizens in the Paul Revere mode.

Social And Economic Causes Of Disease: Health And Political Consciousness

Nayvin Gordon

Many of us are aware that the leading cause of death in the US during the first half of the 20thCentury was due to infectious diseases.  On the other hand there is a general lack of understanding that these diseases were eliminated for the most part, by Public Health disease prevention strategies, such as clean water, sewage treatment and food safety.    We can correctly call these killers “social diseases”- defined by Merriam- Webster Dictionary as “diseases whose incidence is directly related to social and economic factors”.  Today, many of us are unaware that our modern epidemic killer diseases, which developed in the second half of the 20th century, are also social diseases:  cancer, heart disease, unintentional injuries, diabetes, and obesity.  The magnitude of this epidemic can be appreciated by a study of the top two causes of death from the age of four through sixty four.  In 2013 this age group suffered approximately a quarter of a million deaths!  That is only one year of an ongoing epidemic.  Such senseless death is preventable through social and economic change.  Our present epidemics cannot be prevented by visits to the local medical doctor or hospital.  Recent studies have identified more specific social determinants of disease and have pointed the way to the necessary social changes needed to create a healthy society and eliminate the epidemics of the 21st Century.

During the 1854 Cholera epidemic in London, Dr John Snow discovered that the public drinking water was polluted and convinced the local council to disable the public well pump by removing the handle.  The epidemic promptly ended.  Dr Snow is considered the father of modern Public Health.   Epidemics of pneumonia, tuberculosis and diarrheal diseases were the leading killers in 1900. By 1940 the death rate had dropped by 75%.  This remarkable reduction in death rates occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and vaccines, was the result of major Public Health policy involving sewage disposal, water treatment, food safety, public education, chlorination and pest control.    Today the Center for Disease Control,(CDC 24/7 Saving lives, Protecting People), states “ chronic diseases and conditions , such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, obesity and diabetes… are among the most common , costly and preventable of all health problems.”  According to the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2011 (Action on Social Determinants of Health is Essential.), “Eighty percent of non communicable diseases could be prevented through primary prevention”. These diseases “arise from exposures’ throughout the life course, starting in utero.”   Poor quality diets filled with fats, chemicals, along with toxins in our air, water, food and job sites are known to be responsible for the majority of the present cancer epidemic.(see  The Politics of Cancer Revisited, Dr. S. Epstein 1998).  In 2003 the World Health Organization (WHO) published their “social determinants of health”.   A partial list includes:  Social inequality/ hierarchy, race, gender, lack of control over stress, unemployment, education, income inequality, working conditions, job security, and food.  These are John Snow’s modern water pumps of our society.    Multiple studies have supported the crucial role of inequality in causing diseases.  Greater inequality means higher mortality, “When you compare the highest versus lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, the risk of some diseases varies 10-fold” (Scientific American, 12/2005).  Social inequality is also correlated with life expectancy.  “High levels of inequality, most notable the United States, experience worse overall health than do countries that are more egalitarian.”   This knowledge is well documented by Harvard Public Health Professors in their 2001 book, “The Health of Nations: Why Inequality is Harmful to Your Health”.  The more egalitarian a society is, the better the health of the people and the longer they live.  Unequal society has clearly been documented to cause shorter and unhealthier lives.   The proof of shorter lives down the social ladder has been documented throughout Western societies.  Soaring death rates over the last decade for middle age white women is a deadly reflection of accelerating inequality in the US.

Despite John Snow’s success in ending the cholera epidemic in London in 1854, cholera later returned due to Public Officials refusal to clean up the cesspools and sewers. Similarly today, vested interests in the status quo refuse to make the necessary changes.     This becomes apparent when we examine funding for Public Health Measures, which have largely failed to control the modern epidemics, such as deaths from cancer and heart disease.  Only 3% of the   $2 Trillion spent on health in the USA in 2009 went to Public Health activities.    Public Health Policy has not been robust given the power of the super rich.  The more hierarchy and income inequality that exists in society, “the more incentive the wealthy will have to oppose public expenditures benefitting the health of the community.” (Scientific American, 12/2005).   This reality is vividly seen in the massive power of lobbying in Congress.  Dennis Raphael, states, in Beyond Policy Analysis (2014), if “a nation’s political economy is dominated by the business and corporate sector, they are generally opponents of developing public policy that equitably distributes the social determinants of health.”

Despite the power of the corporate sector, the Public Health Department of Finland, during the late 1960’s, was able to lead a large coalition of health workers, and educators along with strong community involvement to change a number of socio economic factors, including:  the food industry, dairy industry, agriculture, schools, along with cigarette and alcohol consumption.  These changes resulted in dramatic health improvement.  The mortality rate from heart disease for men was reduced by 73% along with major reductions in all causes of mortality in just 25 years.

Ending the present US epidemic,  that is claiming a quarter of a million lives every year, will require social and economic  transformation that moves  our society as close to egalitarianism as possible.  Social diseases require social solutions.  Our scientific knowledge is a guide to action.   Overwhelming evidence indicates that only a society that is profoundly egalitarian has the potential to eliminate our modern disease epidemics.   In the words of the famous Dr. Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902), “Medicine is a social science, and politics is nothing else but medicine on a large scale”.     What would Dr. John Snow do now?

“Philosophers have sought to understand the world.  The point, however, is to change it.”  Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach

UK-Poland summit reveals growing national antagonisms in Europe

Clara Weiss

On November 28, the UK government of Prime Minister Theresa May hosted a summit between Britain and Poland aimed at fostering a strategic political and military alliance between the two countries. Amid a profound crisis of the European Union (EU) and the breakdown of the postwar order, the summit was another indicator of the return of open antagonisms and the defense of national geopolitical and economic interests by the various European ruling elites.

A press release issued by the British government termed the summit “historic”, stressing that a similar line-up of high-ranking officials in a bilateral meeting had never occurred before. Participants in the summit included, among others, the prime ministers of the two countries, the foreign and defence secretaries, as well as the Polish ministers of the interior and labor.

The summit was organised by May’s government, which finds itself besieged both domestically and internationally thanks to the fall-out from the Brexit referendum, the threatened breakup of the EU and an anticipated dramatic shift in US foreign policy under Donald Trump. London is now desperately trying to strike alliances in Europe to protect the interests of British capitalism. Poland is not only an important economic partner, but, under the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) government, also shares key positions with Britain about the organization of the EU and foreign policy.

On the eve of the bilateral summit, Prime Minister May declared she was “determined that Brexit will not weaken our relationship with Poland, rather it will serve as a catalyst to strengthen it”. The summit, in her words, marked “the start of a new chapter in our relations ... We share a clear commitment to take our co-operation to the next level and to firmly establish the UK and Poland as resolute and strategic allies in Europe”.

May also announced that her government was working toward a first-ever bilateral defense treaty between Poland and Britain.

The UK and Poland, along with Estonia and Greece, are the only European NATO member states to fulfill the organisation’s requirement that countries spend two percent of GDP on defense. In relation to Russia, both London and Warsaw have stood at the forefront of the European military build-up and provocations. As a symbolic act underlining its commitment to increased military cooperation, the UK government––in the wake of the summit––confirmed its commitment to sending 150 troops from the Light Dragoons to the border between Poland and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

The Polish ruling elite has been troubled by the Brexit referendum and the EU’s growing problems. May’s Polish counterpart, Prime Minister Beata Szydło, published a commentary in the Telegraph prior to the summit, headlined “Poland stands ready to help its old friend Britain reach the best possible Brexit deal”. The Polish prime minister observed: “Poland was saddened, probably more than any other country, with the result of the British referendum. For us, Brexit means that supporters of reforming the EU into a more economically pragmatic organisation will soon lose an important strategic partner”.

Szydło went on to reassure the British government that “Warsaw will certainly be one of the capitals which will participate in Brexit negotiations in a constructive and down-to-earth manner. In our understanding, the United Kingdom is leaving the EU, but it is not leaving Europe. Regardless of Brexit, our political fates as well as our security and economic interests are intertwined”.

At the summit, the Polish and British government representatives discussed a range of policy issues, including energy and the NATO build-up against Russia. Of particular significance were the discussions about the common labor market and guarantees for some two million Polish workers currently employed in the UK.

Since the Brexit referendum, the issue of Polish workers and the attacks on them by right-wingers encouraged by the fomenting of racism during the Brexit campaign has been exploited by both the Polish and British elites to further their bilateral discussions about economic cooperation. At the summit, the Polish side again stressed the need for a quick settlement of the question, apparently pushing for a solution even before Brexit negotiations had started.

The summit was an obvious political provocation directed toward Berlin and Brussels. Both the British and Polish governments disagree with Germany not only over the conditions for Brexit, but also about foreign policy. They oppose the creation of an EU army, which would inevitably be dominated by Germany and France, and would undermine NATO.

While the German press remained conspicuously silent on the summit, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, one of the most powerful figures in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition cabinet, reaffirmed the German government’s position on Brexit the very next day at the Foreign Policy Forum held at Berlin’s Körber Foundation. He insisted the main pillars of the EU had to be retained in the Brexit negotiations, arguing: “European unity is not a menu from which you can pick and choose what you want”.

Shortly before the Polish-British summit, May held talks with ultra-right Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban in London. The discussions prompted Hungarian newspaper Magyar Nemzet to wonder whether a “London-Warsaw-Budapest troika” was now being forged, as all three governments “prefer a European Union based on free trade with decisions taken by the member states”. The return of this kind of language is testimony to the extent of the crisis of European capitalism and the EU. National antagonisms are reemerging in Europe, and the ghosts of the 20th century’s catastrophic world wars are once again haunting the continent.

The possible revival of a Polish-British strategic alliance in particular is fraught with ominous historical resonance. The attempt to undermine the considerable influence of British and French imperialism in Central and Eastern Europe was an important motivating factor in the Nazi attempt to militarily subjugate the region in World War II. When the German military invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, both Paris and London, in accordance with their treaties with Warsaw, declared war on Nazi Germany, marking the beginning of World War II. The various reactions in the Polish press about an emerging partnership with London indicated considerable nervousness. Conservative newspapers generally favorable to PiS government policies voiced concerns that such an alliance could lead to Poland’s isolation in Europe. The right-wing Rzeszpospolita, for example, warned that, while a military alliance with the UK was essentially inevitable, too great an orientation toward Britain could endanger Polish national interests. Another commentator for the same newspaper urged: “I hope we don’t sell the European Union just so the British can live well after Brexit”.

The Dziennik Polski argued that the strategic lining up with Britain could not “even out the bad relations with France and the uncertain future of relations with Germany”. Given that Great Britain would be out of the EU within three years, the newspaper reasoned, the alliance would be short-lived and only make for a “tactic, rather than a strategy”. It warned that an alliance with London would isolate Poland in Europe, commenting that “nobody will agree to easy Brexit terms that might tomorrow run the risk of encouraging Austria, the Netherlands, and France to leave the EU”.

Poland’s most important liberal newspaper, the Gazeta Wyborcza, acknowledged the “strategic interest” of working closely with Britain in the framework of NATO after Brexit, but warned that Poland was “walking a tightrope” when lining up behind Britain’s aim of “upsetting European unity on Brexit and playing member states off against each other”.

Spain’s Podemos aims to derail social anger through “back to the streets” campaign

Alejandro López

Since the installation of a minority government of the right-wing Popular Party (PP) in October, the pseudo-left Podemos and United Left (IU) parties, along with Spain’s trade unions, have launched a “back to the streets” campaign. They are going “back” to the streets after having held no significant protests for years, amidst the draconian austerity policies of previous governments.

The sudden about-face comes in a definite political context. There is deep anger at the Socialist Party (PSOE) for backing the PP government, for whom most of the Spanish people did not vote. The PP plans to impose €8 billion in European Union (EU)-backed cuts in two years, freeze pensions for the fourth consecutive year and slash public sector pay, unemployment benefits and public spending. It will pay €30 billion in interest on Spain’s debt and announced tax increases of €4.65 billion last week.

The PP government is so weak and discredited that it is seeking support from the unions and pseudo-left parties to impose its austerity policy. It fears unrest and explosive opposition among workers and youth, nearly half of whom are unemployed. This is compounded by its fear of growing social opposition to war and austerity internationally, after Donald Trump was elected as US president despite losing the popular vote.

The unions met with Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and business representatives in late November to plan the austerity measures. After the meeting, the Workers Commissions (CC.OO) and General Labor Union (UGT) claimed that Rajoy had imposed “too many limits to social dialogue.” They then announced joint protests, on December 15 and 18, while insisting that they would keep negotiating with Rajoy, because “negotiations and mobilization” are not incompatible.

Podemos is now offering political cover to the unions’ maneuvers to contain and dissipate workers’ opposition to austerity. This well-worn tactic has been deployed internationally, above all in Greece. There, Podemos’s ally Syriza worked with the unions to call one-day protests before coming to power in 2015 and implementing the harshest austerity package in Greek history. At one point, the Syriza government even supported a strike against its own austerity measures, confident that the unions posed no threat.

Podemos started similar actions soon after the PP took power. Podemos parliamentarians protested Rajoy’s investiture outside parliament. Podemos then intervened in protests held against electricity company Gas Natural, after an 81-year-old woman died when her apartment caught fire. She was using candles to light the flat because she could not pay her electricity bill.

Suddenly, Podemos also began making a few stage-managed interventions in workers’ struggles. Last week, Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias, alongside his number two Iñigo Errejón and IU leader Alberto Garzón, attended a rally for a 24-hour strike of telecom workers. Iglesias said strikers were “the social opposition to the PP” and criticized “unjust” and “inefficient” austerity measures of PP and PSOE governments.

Garzón joined in to declare his support for “workers who are fighting for their labor rights,” as part of IU’s new, “Don’t let them screw your life” campaign.

Days later, Iglesias visited a trade union protest of Coca-Cola workers outside PP headquarters. He declared, “We have to continue not drinking Coca-Cola, because Coca-Cola is attacking workers’ rights,” and repeated that Podemos embodies “social opposition to the PP and large multinationals.”

The actions of the unions have been supported not only by Podemos but also by the PSOE, whose abstention in parliament secured the installation of a PP government. PSOE interim leader Javier Fernández, replacing the ousted general secretary Pedro Sánchez, met with the union leaders and declared that “PSOE will give political and parliamentary support to the social agenda of the unions” and will support their mobilizations.

These forces are all now promoting the unions as they maneuver with the PP. The union federations have demobilized the working class, even as wages fell by 22 percent since the economic crisis of 2008. The number of strikes has fallen to record lows, from 810 strikes and 542,508 strikers in 2008, to 777 strikes and 217,047 strikers in 2014, and 422 strikes and 96,795 strikers this year. At the same time, the unions negotiated austerity measures with PSOE and PP governments, and worked with companies to impose job and pay cuts in the name of competitiveness.

Podemos’s promotion of the unions is a cynical propaganda campaign, aimed at trapping workers behind bankrupt organizations, launched by a party that has declared its contempt for social protest. In July, right after the June 26 general elections, Iglesias declared that social change should occur through state institutions, and the “stupid things we used to say when we were far-left, that things change on the streets and not in the institutions, are lies.”

Months later, in October, Iglesias again stressed that his populist rhetoric did not aim to effect a change in state policy. He said that “populism ends when politics culminate in the [public] administration, when administrative decisions have to be taken from the state, the town hall or the party.” He added, “If we rule we will look for compromises and consensus, and we would openly say that our populism has ended, that it was useful in the fight.”

Podemos’s attempt now to posture as a voice of workers’ opposition and social protest is a conscious political fraud.

Created by a group of Stalinist academics and operatives of the Anticapitalist Left (IA) party in 2014, Podemos has worked primarily through the numerous media outlets offered to them by the bourgeoisie to channel social discontent back behind the political establishment. Just two months ago, Podemos was promoting illusions that it could create a “Government of Change” with the PSOE. Instead, the PSOE supported the PP.

Podemos has put its politics into practice. Over the last year and a half, it backed “governments of change” running in major cities, including Madrid, Barcelona, Cadiz, Zaragoza, Valencia and Santiago de Compostela. These have reduced their debts by at least €2.3 billion and earned the applause of the banks. In the words of Cádiz mayor José María González (a Podemos member), “even the [Ministry of the] Treasury recognizes that the local town councils of change do their homework.”

In Barcelona, former anti-evictions activist and Barcelona’s current mayor, Ada Colau, targeted migrant workers working as street vendors for mass arrests and deportations. Earlier this year, she opposed a strike of 3,200 workers on Barcelona’s public metro system and supported a “minimum service” requirement to keep trains running and crush the strike.

As for the Stalinist-led IU, its pro-austerity positions are a matter of public record. In 2008, IU reacted to the economic crisis by deepening its collaboration with the PSOE, implementing billions of euros in cuts in the Andalusia, Catalonia, Asturias and Extremadura regions. At the same time, it used its positions in the union bureaucracy to prevent strikes from developing into political struggles against PSOE and PP governments.