US air strike kills 20 civilians in Syria

Jordan Shilton

A US B-52 bomber carried out an air strike in Idlib province in northern Syria last week, which claimed the lives of 20 civilians, according to Russia’s Ministry of Defense.

Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Jerasimov said at a news conference that the attack, launched against Sarmada in Idlib, took place without Russia being notified. He compared it to the strike against Syrian army units in September, which killed over 60 Syrian soldiers near Deir Ezzour, enabled Islamic State fighters to launch an offensive and torpedoed a US-Russian brokered ceasefire deal.

The Russian report contradicted initial US claims that its bombing raids on Idlib last week killed a senior al-Nusra Front commander and around 20 al-Nusra combatants. The US has not responded to Russia’s allegations of civilian deaths during the airstrike.

It is widely recognized that the US has vastly undercounted the civilian death toll resulting from the thousands of air strikes it has carried out in Syria since the fall of 2014. In October, Amnesty International estimated that the US-led coalition had killed at least 300 Syrian civilians and warned that more would follow in neighboring Iraq as the Mosul offensive got under way. Since then, tens of thousands of civilians have been forced from their homes in and around the Iraqi city of 1.5 million people as a result of the US-backed attack and an unknown number have lost their lives.

Amnesty’s death toll is comparatively low in relation to estimates provided by other rights groups, with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights suggesting that between 600 and 1,000 civilians have died from US-led coalition air strikes.

In one incident near Manbij in northern Syria last July, the US military belatedly acknowledged that it had killed two dozen civilians several months later. But estimates from Syrian human rights groups put the number of dead from anywhere between 75 to over 200.

This record demonstrates once again the utter hypocrisy of the US political establishment and its media lackeys, who raised a hue and cry about atrocities carried out by Russian and Syrian forces during their assault on the rebel-held areas of eastern Aleppo during the latter half of 2016. While Syrian and Russian air strikes undoubtedly killed substantial numbers of civilians and were brutally conducted, they pale in comparison alongside the crimes of US imperialism, which fomented the Syrian civil war with the aim of bringing about regime change in Damascus and bears chief responsibility for its more than 400,000 casualties.

The incessant propaganda focusing on Russian war crimes was used to stampede public opinion behind a campaign for a military escalation against Russia that carries the danger of triggering a wider war between the major powers.

The debacle suffered by the US-backed rebels, which were dominated by the al-Qaida-affiliated al-Nusra Front, has only intensified the demands from the corporate-controlled media and significant factions of the political and military establishment for a more aggressive policy towards Russia. The New York Times reported Monday with concern on renewed Turkish-Russian cooperation in Syria, which it feared threatened to sideline the United States in determining the outcome of the civil war.

On Sunday, US special forces were deployed in a rare ground operation in eastern Syria, ostensibly with the aim of capturing a mid-level ISIS operative. The troops, based in Iraq, spent around 90 minutes on the ground and killed up to 25 in a firefight, according to independent estimates disputed by the US military.

The Pentagon refused to provide more details on the operation, but the comments of spokesman Captain Jeff Davis were significant. Referring to the ground operation and providing an indication of the support within the military for a substantial escalation of the Syrian war, he told the press, “We have done them before and we will do them again.”

The real target of the US’ military intervention in Syria is the Assad regime in Damascus, which Washington has been seeking to remove for almost six years. With its strategy of backing Islamist militias now in tatters, and with Russia aligning with Turkey to establish a peace deal that could see the US excluded from talks due to commence later this month, the option of a more direct military intervention is being considered.

A more frequent presence of US special forces on the ground would add yet another combustible element to the already explosive situation in Syria. US and Russian warplanes have repeatedly been involved in near misses in the crowded skies over the conflict zone, any one of which could have supplied the spark for a major escalation between the two nuclear-armed powers. While all of the major imperialist powers, including Germany, France and Britain, are part of the US-led coalition against ISIS, they are all pursuing their own predatory interests in Syria and the broader region.

One area where US special forces could be deployed in the immediate future is in the northwest near the town of al-Bab, where Turkish troops are trying to seize the strategically-important location from ISIS. Control of al-Bab would give Turkey significant influence over the subsequent push to take the ISIS capital of Raqqa.

Speaking anonymously to the Washington Post, US defense officials confirmed that work was underway to lift restrictions on US special forces personnel supporting the Turkish operation. Currently, US support troops only operate ten miles inside the Syrian border. Turkish officials said they are pushing for the US to break off ties with the Kurdish YPG, which Ankara views as a terrorist group. Washington continues to supply the YPG with arms via Iraq and is deliberating on providing the militias with more direct support.

US warplanes are also increasing their presence in the area, bringing a greater risk of a direct clash with Russia, which has been bombing ISIS locations around al-Bab in support of Turkey for several weeks.

“Flying anywhere in Syria is complicated. Flying up in that area where everyone seems to be flying would require some work,” a defense official told the Post. “I wouldn’t say we aren’t worried about it.”

This highly explosive situation is being further exacerbated by the push of substantial sections of the US political establishment for more punitive measures against Russia. US senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties tabled legislation Tuesday calling for stepped up sanctions on Moscow. The bill was sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain and Democrats Ben Cardin and Robert Menendez. According to Reuters, the legislation would impose visa bans and asset freezes on individuals who engage “in significant activities undermining the cybersecurity of public or private infrastructure and democratic institutions.”

There are unconfirmed reports that Russia has responded to the anti-Russian campaign in the US and the push for a more aggressive stance on Syria by increasing its own military deployments to the country.

The Kremlin publicly announced the withdrawal of its only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, from the Eastern Mediterranean last week. But according to the satellite imaging firm ISI, Iskander ballistic missile systems have been detected at Russia’s Latakia airbase in Syria. These systems would make it possible for Russia to fire nuclear-capable weapons throughout Syria and beyond.

Documents alleging Trump-Moscow ties leaked to media, intensifying conflict in US state

Joseph Kishore

US media outlets on Tuesday reported the existence of a previously undisclosed document from a former British intelligence official alleging secret contacts with officials in Moscow by Donald Trump and his campaign team. The document includes salacious details on Trump’s personal activities.

The document, initially prepared last year at the request of Republican and Democratic opponents of Trump, was reportedly obtained in December by Republican Senator John McCain, one of the most vociferous advocates of aggression against Russia. McCain then passed the document on to US intelligence agencies. A summary of the document was included in the report given last week by top US intelligence officials on alleged Russian interference in the US election to President-elect Trump and President Barack Obama.

The release of the document is the latest and most explosive episode in an escalating political struggle within the state apparatus that is without precedent. The conflict is centered on foreign policy issues, with sections of the state, led by the CIA, concerned that Trump will shift away from an aggressive stance toward Russia in favor of a more immediate focus on China.

The release of the document appears to be a last-ditch effort by sections of the intelligence apparatus to prevent the inauguration of Trump, which is only 10 days away. There will likely be congressional hearings into the allegations that could begin even before Trump takes office, assuming that he is inaugurated.

The document was leaked on the eve of Trump’s first scheduled press conference since July, slated for Wednesday.

Trump responded to the reports with a Tweet Tuesday night: “FAKE NEWS—A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”

CNN first reported on the document Tuesday evening, citing “multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings” to Obama and Trump—that is, intelligence officials. One hour later, Buzzfeed published the full 35-page document prepared by the British intelligence official, from which a two-page summary was produced for the Obama and Trump briefings.

According to the Guardian, it and other media outlets had access to the revelations several weeks ago but declined to publish “because there was no way to independently verify them.”

The full document alleges an “extensive conspiracy between Trump’s campaign team and the Kremlin,” organized by Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. It asserts that Trump was aware of Russian involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails, and that in return for the leaks agreed to sideline Russian involvement in Ukraine as a major campaign issue.

The document also claims that Russian officials had obtained evidence of Trump’s “perverted sexual acts” while he was staying at a hotel in Moscow in 2013, and that the officials used the information to blackmail the current president-elect.

According to the media reports, the document was assembled by the former British intelligence official hired by a Washington research firm working for opponents of Trump during the 2016 election campaign. The official gave the information to the FBI sometime during the campaign, but FBI Director James Comey decided not to make it public. McCain reportedly found out about the document last month and again presented it to Comey and likely to other intelligence agencies.

The release of the document follows the publication last Friday of an unclassified version of the report by US intelligence agencies on allegations of Russian hacking of Democratic Party emails. The report contains no actual evidence of the charges, but it has been used by the media and those sections of the political establishment favoring aggression against Russia to demand harsher measures.

McCain has repeatedly called the hacking an “act of war,” while his close ally in the Senate, Republican Lindsey Graham, demanded over the weekend that Trump “make Russia pay a price for trying to interfere” in the election.

Economic nationalism and the breakdown of the post-war order

Nick Beams

In contrast to 2016, the new year has opened with relative stability in global financial markets. A year ago, markets experienced considerable turbulence in the context of the US Federal Reserve’s decision to lift interest rates by 0.25 percentage points, a sharp downturn in the price of oil, and a plunge in bank shares.

Thus far in 2017, it has been all quiet on the financial front, with US markets continuing to hover around the record highs they reached in December in the surge triggered by Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.

Behind the appearance of relative calm, however, major shifts have taken place that will have far-reaching consequences, not just for financial markets, but for the world economy more broadly.

One of the most significant features of 2016 was the rise of economic nationalism and the growth of right-wing nationalist and populist movements. The turn to economic nationalism is reflected in many areas of the world, but has found its sharpest expression in the “America First” policies espoused by incoming President Trump and the appointment to his cabinet of figures who openly advance this agenda, with China designated as one of the central targets.

The shift in orientation by the US ruling class has profound historical significance. One of the lessons drawn by the American ruling elites following the disasters produced by the decade of the 1930s, when the division of the world economy into currency and trading blocs led to World War II, was the need to base the post-war order on free trade, with protectionism eschewed at all cost.

What was called the “liberal” trade agenda was itself based on, and underwritten by, the unchallenged global economic dominance of American capitalism, which emerged relatively unscathed from the carnage of the Second World War, in contrast to the devastation of Europe and much of Asia. The war amplified the already dominant position of US industry and finance. American capitalism sponsored the establishment of a set of institutions and programmes—the dollar-based Bretton Woods monetary system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Marshall Plan—to stabilise and pry open the world market to its exports and investments and facilitate the profit-making of US corporations.

Today, after decades of protracted decline, US economic hegemony is a thing of the past and American capitalism finds itself threatened by the rise, in particular, of China. This is fundamentally what underlies the breakdown of the post-war economic order and the turn of the American ruling class to unbridled economic nationalism.

This has given rise to considerable concern about where the global economic system, and with it the entire system of political relations on which the stability of world capitalism has rested, is now headed.

Fears about the new US orientation were voiced in a column by Financial Times economics correspondent Martin Wolf published on January 6. It was headlined “The long and painful journey to world disorder.”

“It is not true that humanity cannot learn from history,” Wolf began. “It can and, in the case of the lessons of the dark period between 1914 and 1945, the west did. But it seems to have forgotten those lessons. We are living, once again, in an era of strident nationalism and xenophobia. The hopes of a brave new world of progress, harmony and democracy, raised by the market opening of the 1980s and the collapse of Soviet communism between 1989 and 1991, have turned to ashes.”

What lies ahead, he asked, for the US under a president who repudiates permanent alliances and embraces protectionism, and a battered European Union facing “illiberal democracy” in the east, Brexit, and the possibility that Marine Le Pen could be elected to the presidency in France?

Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman also devoted his first piece of the year to the same processes. Before Trump promised to “Make America Great Again,” he wrote, China, Russia and Turkey had already turned to what he called “nostalgic nationalism.” In Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was leading an energetic campaign for “national revival,” while in India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was combining a push to “modernise India” with an appeal to “Hindu pride.”

There was also a strong appeal to nationalism in the Brexit referendum, with the Leave campaign’s stress on a “Global Britain,” an attempt to appeal to “memories of the time when the UK was a dominant world power, not just a member of the club of 28 European nations.”

Rachman noted that it was somewhat difficult for any party in Germany to openly campaign on the slogan “Make Germany Great Again.” But while the slogan might be absent, at least to this point, similar forces are at work there—above all in key foreign policy, military and academic circles, where the assertion is heard repeatedly that Germany cannot simply function as a power within Europe, but must exercise its influence on a global scale.

The turn to economic nationalism is not rooted in the personality or psychology of Trump, Le Pen or any of the other political leaders. Nor is it simply a device by various politicians to exploit seething popular dissatisfaction with the existing economic and political order and use it for their own political advantage.

Such calculations are present, of course. But underneath the political manoeuvres and propaganda, profound objective forces are at work. These forces can be identified by reviewing the course of the world economy since the eruption of the US-based global financial crisis of 2008. This, as the World Socialist Web Site stressed at the time, was not a conjunctural downturn, but a breakdown in the functioning of the world capitalist economy.

At their first meeting in 2009, the leaders of the G-20 group of nations, representing 85 percent of the world economy, in confronting the most severe financial crisis since 1929, recognised the inherent dangers of a return to the conditions of the 1930s. From the outset, and at all subsequent meetings, they pledged to avoid protectionist and trade war measures. But the contradictions of the capitalist economy have proven to be more powerful than the pledges of capitalist politicians.

The policies enacted in response to the financial meltdown and the ensuing Great Recession were based on so-called quantitative easing, under which the world’s major central banks—the US Fed, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan—pumped trillions of dollars into the financial system. These measures were accompanied in China by a massive stimulus package, based on government spending and the rapid expansion of credit.

The policies of the major central banks averted a total financial meltdown, while the Chinese stimulus provided a significant boost for commodity-exporting countries, from Latin America and Africa to Australia. For a brief period, this created the illusion that the so-called BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—could provide a new base of stability for world capitalism. That prospect proved to be short-lived.

The unprecedented injection of money into the financial system did little or nothing to promote real economic growth in the major economies, on which the BRICS countries are ultimately dependent, but simply enriched a global financial oligarchy, while the broad mass of the working class were forced to pay for the financial largesse through cuts in real wages, social programmes and living standards, amid a rise in social inequality to record levels.

In the years following the financial crisis, the central bankers and capitalist politicians insisted that the financial measures they had enacted would eventually bring about an economic recovery. But this fiction has now been well and truly exposed. Investment, the key driver of the economy, remains persistently below pre-crisis trends. Productivity is falling. Deflation has become widespread. And, most significantly, world trade growth has slowed markedly. Last September, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) noted that in 2016, the growth in world trade would fall below the rate of growth in global gross domestic product, only the second such occurrence since 1982.

The overall situation is graphically depicted by the fact that the world economy as a whole is one sixth smaller than it would have been had pre-crisis growth trends been maintained.

In response to this situation, the past year has seen, as the WTO noted, the increased use of protectionist measures, especially by the major economies, notwithstanding all the pledges to the contrary. It is within this broad economic context that Trump and his “America First” agenda, and the turn to such economic nationalist policies by other major powers, must be placed.

In the final analysis, they are the response by the ruling elites to their inability to devise any measures to promote sustainable economic growth. Consequently, the world market is increasingly becoming a battleground—a development that will become ever more apparent in the coming year.

There are striking historical parallels here. In the aftermath of the economic breakdown that led to World War I, there were numerous efforts in the decade of the 1920s to devise measures to revive the belle époque that had preceded the war. All of them failed, and the major powers responded to the contraction of the world market with a war of each against all, leading ultimately to World War II.

There are many differences between the situation today and that of 90 years ago. But the basic trends remain the same. In fact, the basic contradiction between the development of an interdependent global economy and its division into rival and conflicting nation-states has intensified.

This is reflected in the lamentations of bourgeois economic commentators such as Martin Wolf over the breakdown of globalisation. Just over a century ago, the international capitalist elites implemented their response to the breakdown of the nation-state system, unleashing on mankind the horrors of world war. Three years later, the international working class, through the conscious leadership provided by the Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin and Trotsky, gave its response to the crisis—the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, the first shot in the world socialist revolution.

There are, indeed, lessons of history that must be drawn. If mankind is to avert another catastrophe, the deepening social hostility to the present economic and political order must be transformed into a conscious struggle by the working class for the programme of international socialism, not as some kind of distant hope, but as the only viable and practical programme of the day.

USAID African Young Water and Sanitation Professionals (AfYWSP) Scholarships 2017

Application Deadline: 28th February, 2017.

Eligible Countries: African countries

Field of Research: The topics selected for this scholarship program for the 2016-2017 academic year are as follow:

1.    Non-revenue water
2.    Water quality
3.    Water services provision in low income urban areas
4.    Faecal sludge management
5.    Urban & peri-urban sanitation
6.    Use of ICTs in water and sanitation service provision

About the Award: This program, funded by USAID West Africa through the AfriCap Program (WASH – African Water Association – AfWA – Capacity Building Program –AfriCap), will provide young graduate students at the graduate level (Master II) with research scholarships. Each grant, amounting to $ 1,000, will reward each selected project in accordance with the budget.

Type: Research, Fellowship

Eligibility: Candidates for the award of a scholarship shall formulate their research topics in relation to one of the themes proposed in this call for applications. They may also apply with one of the research topics proposed by one of AfWA members. The topics will be available on AfWA’s website. To apply, applicants must meet the following criteria:

•    Be a citizen of a West African country;
•    Have duly registered in their academic institutions;
•    Speak and write fluently in the language used by the academic institution;
•    Have obtained an average greater than or equal to 12/20 or B in Master I;
•    Present an application file including the last diploma, the transcripts of Master 1, the curriculum vitae, three letters of recommendation (one should be from the academic supervisor), the research proposal as specified in section 1.3 above, a letter of motivation and a plan of action for the studies.

In case of equality, preference will be given to the female candidate.

Selection: A first screening will be carried out by the academic institution. This will enable it to select and transmit the five best applications to AfWA. AfWA’s Selection Committee for the award of scholarships to Young Professionals, on the basis of the applications submitted by the various institutions, will establish the final list of beneficiaries.

Value of Scholarship: As part of this scholarship, the maximum amount allocated per beneficiary is 1,000 US Dollars. Sixty per cent (60%) of this amount will be paid to the recipient when the detailed plan of the research project is finalized, approved by the Research Director and received by AfWA’s Research and Capacity Building Program before the deadline. The remaining forty percent (40%) will be paid once the recipient submits the final electronic copy.

How to Apply: Applicants must submit their application electronically simultaneously to the contact person of AfWA in their institution and to the coordination of the program (vyao@afwa-hq.org and gdjagoun@afwa-hq.org).

Download the application form HERE

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: AfWA (African Water Association)

Important Notes: The selected list will be posted on AfWA’s website and each beneficiary will receive an official notification from AfWA.

Federal Government Scholarship for Nigerian Undergraduate, Masters and PhD (Bilateral Educational Agreement) 2017/2018 -Overseas

Application Deadline: The 2017/2018 BEA interviews are between Monday 13th February – Thursday 16th February 2017 across the six geopolitical zones. Candidates are advised to apply online before these dates.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Russia, China, Morocco, Turkey, Algeria, Romania, Serbia, Japan, Ukraine, Cuba, Greece, Czech Republic, Syria, Macedonia, Mexico, Egypt, Tunisia etc.

Accepted Subject Areas?

• Undergraduate level – Engineering, Geology, Agriculture, Sciences, Mathematics, Languages, Environmental Sciences, Sports, Law, Social Sciences, Biotechnology, Architecture, Medicine (very limited), etc; and
• Postgraduate level (Masters Degree and Ph.D) in all fields.

About the Federal Scholarship: The Honourable Minister of Education, is hereby inviting interested and qualified Nigerians to participate in the 2017/2018 Nomination Interview for Bilateral Education Agreement (BEA) Scholarship Awards for:

• Undergraduate (UG) studies tenable in Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Serbia, Hungary, Egypt, Turkey, Cuba, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, Macedonia; and
• Postgraduate (PG) studies tenable in Russia (for those whose first degrees were obtained from Russia), China, Hungary, Serbia, Turkey, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, e.t.c.

Type: The Awards are for Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) studies.

Eligibility Criteria

• Undergraduate Scholarship:

• All applicants for undergraduate degree courses must possess a minimum qualification of Five (5) Distinctions (As & Bs) in the Senior Secoundary School Certificate, WAEC (May/June) only in the subjects relevant to their fields of study including English Language and Mathematics.
• Certificates should not be more than Two (2) years old (2014 & 2015).
• Age limit is from 18 to 20 years.

• Postgraduate Scholarship:

• All applicants must hold a First Degree with at least 2nd Class Upper Division.
• The applicants who are previous recipients of Foreign Awards must have completed at least two (2) years post qualification or employment practice in Nigeria.
• All applicants must have completed N.Y.S.C.
• Age limit is 35 years for Masters and 40 years for Ph.D.

• Since the BEA countries are non-English speaking, applicants should be prepared to undertake a mandatory one year foreign languare of the country of choice which will be the standard medium of instruction; and

• All applicants for Hungarian Scholarship must visit the website: www.stipendumhungaricum.hu.

Number of Scholarships: Several

What are the benefits? The participating countries are responsible for the tuition and accommodation, while Nigeria government takes care of supplement, warm clothing, health insurance, research grant where applicable and take off.

How long will sponsorship last? The duration of the scholarship offer ranges from 4- 9 years depending on the level of study and the country.

Interview Dates and Zones (Venues): 

North West: Location of interview is Kasu Main Campus

• Mon 13th Feb: Sokoto and Zamfara states
• Tues 14th Feb: Kano and Kebbi states
• Wed 15th Feb: Jigawa and Katsina states
• Thurs 16th Feb: Kaduna state

North East: Location of interview is FGGC Jalingo, Taraba State

• Mon 13th Feb: Borno and Yobe states
• Tues 14th Feb: Bauchi and Gombe states
• Wed 15th Feb:  Adamawa state
• Thurs 16th Feb: Taraba state

North Central: Crowther Memorial College, Lokoja Kogi state

• Mon 13th Feb: Benue state and FCT
• Tues 14th Feb: Niger and Plateau states
• Wed 15th Feb:   Nasarawa and Kwara state
• Thurs 16th Feb: Kogi state

South West: School of Science, Okebola, Ibadan, Oyo state

• Mon 13th Feb: Osun and Ondo states
• Tues 14th Feb: Lagos and Ogun states
• Wed 15th Feb:  Ekiti state
• Thurs 16th Feb: Oyo state

South South: Federal COE Tech Permanent Site along Asaba-Ibusa rd., Asaba, Delta state

• Mon 13th Feb: Cross River and  Rivers states
• Tues 14th Feb: Akwa Ibom and Bayelsa states
• Wed 15th Feb: Edo  state
• Thurs 16th Feb: Delta state

South East: Law Faculty, Ebonyi State University, Ebonyi state

• Mon 13th Feb: Anambra  state
• Tues 14th Feb: Imo state
• Wed 15th Feb: Abia and Enugu states
• Thurs 16th Feb: Ebonyi state

What to bring to Interview: All eligible applicants are to report for interview at the venues scheduled for their respective Zones of origin for proper identification. Two sets of the Printed Completed application forms are usually submitted at the various interview centres with the following attachments:

• Two sets of Photocopies of Educational Certificates and Testimonials of previous schools attended with the originals for sighting;
• One certificate is accepted i.e WAEC of May/June only; • Statement of results must be confirmed by WAEC and forwarded to the Director/Secretary, Federal Scholarship Board, Abuja;
• Two copies of Birth certificate
• State of Origin/LGA certificate duly signed, stamped and dated;
• Four (4) passport sized coloured photographs on white background;
• Academic transcripts and NYSC certificates will be required from applicants for Postgraduate Studies.

How to Apply: Candidates nominated and finally selected by the awarding BEA countries will be required to submit to Federal Scholarship Board the following:

• Photocopies of Authenticated academic certificates;
• Data page of current International passport, and
• Specified Medical Reports & Police clearance certificate.

Visit the scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: The Federal Government of Nigeria through the Federal Ministry Of Education, through the Federal Scholarship Board (FSB), Plot 245 Samuel Ademulegun Street Central Business District, Abuja

ACU Commonwealth Scholarships for Study in Low and Middle Income Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: All applications close 10th March 2017 at midnight GMT.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries

To be taken at (country): The following universities in Low and Middle Income countries:

1. Bangladesh
2. Botswana
3. Ghana
4. Kenya
5. Mauritius
6. Pakistan
7. Swaziland
8. Tanzania
9. Uganda
10. West-Indies

About the Award: Association of Commonwealth Universities is currently offering 17 scholarships, tenable at ACU member universities in 10 low and middle income Commonwealth countries. For more information about each scholarship and to apply, click on the Scholarship Webpage link below.

The scholarships give talented students – who can be from any Commonwealth country other than the host country – the opportunity to gain a Master’s degree while developing new skills and experiencing life in another country.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

• Applicant must be a citizen of a Commonwealth country other than the host country (See list of commonwealth countries in link below).
• Applicant must hold a Bachelors degree of at least upper second level.

Number of Awardees: 17

Value of Scholarship: The scholarships are fully-funded. They provide full tuition fees, a return economy flight, an arrival allowance, and a regular stipend (living allowance).

How to Apply: Interested candidates should click the Scholarship Webpage link below For more information about each university scholarship and to apply.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan (CSFP).

FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 28th February 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Residents (who must be nationals) of the following countries) are eligible to apply for the Scholarship Programme:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nigeria, North-Korea, Palestine, the Philippines, Serbia, Somalia, South-Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.

To be taken at (University): The following universities are participating:

• Szent István University, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences
• Szent István University, Faculty of Horticultural Science
• Szent István University, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

Fields of Study: 

1. Rural development and agribusiness
2. Horticulture
3. Agricultural water management

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Candidates will be selected on the basis of the following criteria:

•  Citizenship and residency of one of the eligible countries
•  Excellent school achievements
•  English language proficiency (for courses taught in English)
•  Motivation
•  Good health
•  Age (candidates under 30 are preferred)

Selection Procedure: The selection process as described below applies to scholarships beginning in September 2017.

Student selection will take place in two phases:
Phase 1: FAO will pre-screen candidates and submit applications to the Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary that will send them to the corresponding University as chosen by theapplicants. Students must submit only COMPLETED dossiers. Incomplete dossiers will not be considered. Files without names will not be processed.
Phase 2: Selected candidates may be asked to take a written or oral English examination as part of the admission procedure. The participating Universities will run a further selection process and inform each of the successful candidates. Student selection will be made by the Universities only, without any involvement on the part of FAO. Selected students will also be notified by the Ministry.

Number of Awardees: Courses will be offered provided the minimum number of students is reached.

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship covers student costs only; family members are not supported within the frame of this programme.

The scholarship will cover:

• application and tuition fees throughout the study period with basic books and notes;
• dormitory accommodation;
• subsistence costs;
• health care.

How to Apply: Interested applicants should prepare a dossier to be sent by e-mail consisting of:

• Application form duly completed
• A recent curriculum vitae
• A copy of high school/college diploma and transcript/report of study or copy of the diploma attachment
• A copy of certificate of proficiency in English
• Copies of relevant pages of passport showing expiration date and passport number
• A letter of recommendation
• Statement of motivation
• Health Certificate issued by Medical Doctor
• Certificate of Good Conduct issued by local police authority.

All submitted documents must be in English. Documents submitted in any other language will not be accepted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that documents are duly translated and certified by a competent office; and that each document is saved with a name that identifies what it is.

As the number of scholarships is limited, interested applicants are strongly encouraged to E-MAIL their applications as soon as possible.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Food and Agricultural Organisation and Hungary

Important Notes: 

Applicants who were not selected in previous years may re-apply to the 2017-2018 Programme. These applicants will have to submit the complete dossier once again (by e-mail only).
Please note that the duration of the scholarship cannot be extended or postponed.
A Scholarship Study Contract will be signed between the selected student and the Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary (MoAH), which is the donor of the program, at the time of first semester registration.
Applicants wishing to explore external funding opportunities to cover the travel costs may do so at their own initiative. However, in view of the length of the process, applicants wishing to apply for 2017 scholarships are strongly encouraged to E-MAIL their application while they endeavour to identify funds or pending confirmation that such funds will be granted.

No Right to Free Water, Except for Nestlé

Kevin Carson

Former Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck is famous for denying that access to drinking water is a human right. But based on the company’s actions, its management seems to believe that Nestlé Corporation has a human right to free water.

All over the world, including in some of the most destitute and water-poor countries on earth, Nestle has destroyed the drinking water that local populations depend on in order to feed its bottling operations. In Michigan, where the people of Flint still drink poisoned water, Nestle has pumped billions of gallons of groundwater since it opened its first bottling plant in 2002 — draining aquifers virtually free of charge. In drought-ridden California, where the government has imposed rationing for ordinary non-corporate citizens, it takes 80 million gallons of water a year from Sacramento, as well as tens of millions from the San Bernardino National Forest.

This human right to free water for corporate persons extends to the right to pollute the drinking water of actual humans, with impunity, as part of for-profit industrial processes like hydraulic fracking. Previously, shameless fracking apologists like Reason’s Ron Bailey celebrated the politically rewritten executive summary of an EPA report that falsely minimized the danger of water pollution (despite a considerably different concrete information in the main body of the report). And according to a new EPA report in December,

fracking has contributed to drinking water contamination… in all stages of the process: water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing; spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals; injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.

So while some may deny an individual human right to water (and never mind that aquifers and large bodies of fresh water are a natural resource commons belonging to people in the areas that rely on them), the right of corporations like Nestle to free water and other natural resources is a different matter altogether. This is in perfect keeping with what Adam Smith called the “vile maxim of the masters of mankind”: “All for us, and none for anybody else.”

Right-libertarians will sometimes condemn specific instances of such behavior as “crony capitalism.” But like all neoliberal analysis, it frames the issue as individual rather than structural. “Crony capitalism” is a problem of decisions by individual bad actors or corrupt firms or bodies (like the Export-Import Bank, every right-libertarian’s favorite example of “crony capitalism”) rather than the nature of the system.

But the problem is very much structural. Privileged access to resources isn’t just a matter of deviant individual firms working out special arrangements with the state. The overwhelming majority of current corporate property rights in fossil fuel deposits, minerals and lumber, as well as a major part of arable land, can be traced back directly to capitalist enclosure and robbery with the help of the state, or state engrossment and enclosure followed by privileged access by corporate interests.

Far from being an issue of individual “cronyist” behavior by particular corporate bad actors, capital’s collective access to artificially cheap, looted resources is a major structural feature of capitalism as an overall system. So are all the other forms of cost socialization, restraints on competition, and artificial property rights which most corporate profits depend on. If you eliminated all these structural features, root and branch, there would be nothing recognizable left.

Saudi Arabia’s Dream of Domination Goes Up in Flames

Patrick Cockburn

As recently as two years ago, Saudi Arabia’s half century-long effort to establish itself as the main power among Arab and Islamic states looked as if it was succeeding. A US State Department paper sent by former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in 2014 and published by Wikileaks spoke of the Saudis and Qataris as rivals competing “to dominate the Sunni world”.

A year later in December 2015, the German foreign intelligence service BND was so worried about the growing influence of Saudi Arabia that it took the extraordinary step of producing a memo, saying that “the previous cautious diplomatic stance of older leading members of the royal family is being replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention”.

An embarrassed German government forced the BND to recant, but over the last year its fears about the destabilising impact of more aggressive Saudi policies were more than fulfilled. What it did not foresee was the speed with which Saudi Arabia would see its high ambitions defeated or frustrated on almost every front. But in the last year Saudi Arabia has seen its allies in Syrian civil war lose their last big urban centre in east Aleppo. Here, at least, Saudi intervention was indirect but in Yemen direct engagement of the vastly expensive Saudi military machine has failed to produce a victory. Instead of Iranian influence being curtailed by a more energetic Saudi policy, the exact opposite has happened. In the last OPEC meeting, the Saudis agreed to cut crude production while Iran raised output, something Riyadh had said it would always reject.

In the US, the final guarantor of the continued rule of the House of Saud, President Obama allowed himself to be quoted as complaining about the convention in Washington of treating Saudi Arabia as a friend and ally. At a popular level, there is growing hostility to Saudi Arabia reflected in the near unanimous vote in Congress to allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government as bearing responsibility for the attack.

Under the mercurial guidance of Deputy Crown Prince and Defence Minister Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the most powerful figure in Saudi decision making, Saudi foreign policy became more militaristic and nationalistic after his 80 year old father Salman became king on 23 January 2015. Saudi military intervention in Yemen followed, as did increased Saudi assistance to a rebel alliance in Syria in which the most powerful fighting force was Jabhat al-Nusra, formerly the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda.

Nothing has gone well for the Saudis in Yemen and Syria. The Saudis apparently expected the Houthis to be defeated swiftly by pro-Saudi forces, but after fifteen months of bombing they and their ally, former President Saleh, still hold the capital Sanaa and northern Yemen. The prolonged bombardment of the Arab world’s poorest country by the richest has produced a humanitarian catastrophe in which at least 60 per cent of the 25 million Yemeni population do not get enough to eat or drink.

The enhanced Saudi involvement in Syria in 2015 on the side of the insurgents had similarly damaging and unexpected consequences. The Saudis had succeeded Qatar as the main Arab supporter of the Syrian insurgency in 2013 in the belief that their Syrian allies could defeat President Bashar al-Assad or lure the US into doing so for them. In the event, greater military pressure on Assad served only to make him seek more help from Russia and Iran and precipitated Russian military intervention in September 2015 which the US was not prepared to oppose.

Prince Mohammed bin Salman is being blamed inside and outside the Kingdom for impulsive misjudgments that have brought failure or stalemate. On the economic front, his Vision 2030 project whereby Saudi Arabia is to become less wholly dependent on oil revenues and more like a normal non-oil state attracted scepticism mixed with derision from the beginning. It is doubtful if there will be much change in the patronage system whereby a high proportion of oil revenues are spent on employing Saudis regardless of their qualifications or willingness to work.

Protests by Saudi Arabia’s ten million-strong foreign work force, a third of the 30 million population, because they have not been paid can be ignored or crushed by floggings and imprisonment. The security of the Saudi state is not threatened.

The danger for the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf states is rather that hubris and wishful thinking have tempted them to try to do things well beyond their strength. None of this is new and the Gulf oil states have been increasing their power in the Arab and Muslim worlds since the nationalist regimes in Egypt, Syria and Jordan were defeated by Israel in 1967. They found – and Saudi Arabia is now finding the same thing – that militaristic nationalism works well to foster support for rulers under pressure so long as they can promise victory, but delegitimises them when they suffered defeat.

Previously Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states had worked through allies and proxies but this restraint ended with the popular uprisings of 2011. Qatar and later Saudi Arabia shifted towards supporting regime change. Revolutions transmuted into counter-revolutions with a strong sectarian cutting edge in countries like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain where there were Sunni and non-Sunni populations.

Critics of Saudi and Qatari policies often demonise them as cunning and effective, but their most striking characteristic is their extreme messiness and ignorance of real conditions on the ground. In 2011, Qatar believed that Assad could be quickly driven from power just like Muamar Gaddafi in Libya. When this did not happen they pumped in money and weapons willy-nilly while hoping that the US could be persuaded to intervene militarily to overthrow Assad as Nato had done in Libya.

Experts on in Syria argue about the extent to which the Saudis and the Qataris knowingly funded Islamic State and various al-Qaeda clones. The answer seems to be that they did not know, and often did not care, exactly who they were funding and that, in any case, it often came from wealthy individuals and not from the Saudi government or intelligence services.

The mechanism whereby Saudi money finances extreme jihadi groups was explained in an article by Carlotta Gall in the New York Times in December on how the Saudis had bankrolled the Taliban after their defeat in 2001. The article cites the former Taliban Finance Minister, Agha Jan Motasim, as explaining in an interview how he would travel to Saudi Arabia to raise large sums of money from private individuals which was then covertly transferred to Afghanistan. Afghan officials are quoted as saying that a recent offensive by 40,000 Taliban cost foreign donors $1 billion.

The attempt by Saudi Arabia and Gulf oil states to achieve hegemony in the Arab and Sunni Muslim worlds has proved disastrous for almost everybody. The capture of east Aleppo by the Syrian Army and the likely fall of Mosul to the Iraqi Army means defeat for that the Sunni Arabs in a great swathe of territory stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean. Largely thanks to their Gulf benefactors, they are facing permanent subjection to hostile governments.