2 Feb 2017

Fighting flares in eastern Ukraine amid continued NATO buildup against Russia

Bill Van Auken 

Renewed fighting in eastern Ukraine has killed and wounded dozens on both sides as the Ukrainian armed forces and allied militias have clashed with pro-Russian separatist forces in Donetsk province.
The fighting, while not as bloody as the battles that raged in 2014 and the winter of 2015, has seen heavy artillery and multiple Grad rocket launchers unleashed against civilian areas. The shelling has left Avdiivka, an industrial town of 20,000 which straddles the demarcation line between government and separatist-controlled territory, without water, electricity or heat in sub-freezing conditions.
“Not only are the lives of thousands of children in Avdiivka, and on all sides of the conflict, at risk, but to make matters worse the lack of water and electricity means that homes are becoming dangerously cold and health conditions deteriorating as we speak,” Giovanna Barberis, Unicef’s representative in Ukraine, said Tuesday.
The European Union, NATO, the US State Department and the United Nations have all issued calls for a renewal of the cease-fire imposed under the terms of the Minsk accords negotiated in February 2015. Washington and its European allies have repeatedly invoked alleged violations of the accords by the pro-Russian separatists as the pretext for maintaining sanctions against Moscow. Violations by Ukrainian government forces entail no such repercussions.
Nearly 10,000 people have been killed in the fighting since rebels in the Donbass region sought independence from the Ukrainian government following the 2014 US and German-backed coup that brought to power an extreme right-wing and virulently anti-Russian regime in Kiev. Washington and its allies accused Russia of instigating and militarily supporting the uprising in the east.
The situation in eastern Ukraine combined with Russia’s reincorporation of Crimea in the wake of the coup were invoked as the justification for sanctions by both the US and the EU.
Kiev and the separatists in Donetsk have each blamed the other for the latest outburst of violence.
“The current escalation in Donbass is a clear indication of Russia’s continued blatant disregard of its commitments under the Minsk agreements with a view to preventing stabilization of the situation,” the Ukrainian foreign ministry said in a statement.
For its part, Moscow pointed to an earlier statement issued by the Ukrainian defense ministry boasting that "the Ukrainian armed forces are advancing forward meter by meter" in the area around Avdiivka as proof that Kiev had launched the offensive.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the fighting was the result of a deliberate “provocation” by the government of President Petro Poroshenko designed to distract public attention from Ukraine’s protracted economic and political crisis.
The German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung suggested that the real motive for this provocation lay in Kiev’s determination to disrupt any rapprochement between Washington and Moscow under the new US administration of Republican president Donald Trump and to prevent any easing of sanctions against Russia.
“The Ukrainian military is currently trying to shift the situation at the front line to their favor. Apparently, they accept the fact that tensions are increasing ... Behind this position, according to some members of the German administration, could be an attempt to worsen the situation to the extent that US President Donald Trump's plans to ease the sanctions are suspended,” the newspaper reported. “According to Berlin's interpretation, Poroshenko is ready to do anything to prevent the withdrawal of the sanctions.”
Stratfor, the private US intelligence company which maintains close ties to the Pentagon and CIA, also suggested such a motive in its analysis of the renewed fighting: “Though Ukrainian officials accused Russia of orchestrating the flare-up to strengthen its negotiating position with the West, Kiev could have incited the violence to draw attention to the conflict and rally international support for continued sanctions on Moscow.”
As part of his government’s attempt to shore up support for sanctions and to offset any possibility of a move by the Trump administration toward a less confrontational posture toward Russia, Poroshenko traveled to Berlin on January 30 for a meeting with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. During his visit, Merkel reiterated her government’s support for keeping sanctions in place. Poroshenko staged a hasty exit from Berlin, claiming that he had to return to deal with the crisis in the Donbass.
The State Department’s response to the fighting in eastern Ukraine was notable for merely declaring that Washington was “deeply concerned” and “calling for a cease-fire” without placing the blame on Russia.
Rossiiskaya Gazeta, a Russian government daily, called attention to the statement as an indication of a shift in US policy: “Washington is not blaming the unrecognized republics for breaking the ceasefire, is not stating any support for Kiev, is not saying a single word about the role of Russia … Different variations of these elements were, as a rule, a key part of all statements of Ukraine under Barack Obama’s administration.”
On the other hand, US officials on the scene showed no such change in line, reflecting the increasingly open split between the Trump administration and the career employees of the State Department. “Russia and the separatists initiated the violence in Avdiivka,” US chargé d’affaires to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Kate Byrnes charged at an emergency OSCE meeting in Vienna Tuesday. “We call on Russia to stop the violence, honor the ceasefire, withdraw heavy weapons and end attempts to seize new territory beyond the line of contact.”
The day before his first post-inaugural telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, Trump declared, “As far as the sanctions, very early to be talking about that.” During the conversation itself, sanctions reportedly went unmentioned and there was no substantive discussion about Ukraine.
Meanwhile, both the US and the German military continue to build up forces near Russia’s western borders.
On Monday, US troops and tanks assembled for exercises in Poland that their commander acknowledged were meant to threaten Russia.
The deployment had been made necessary by “the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the unlawful annexation of Crimea,” Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of US ground forces in Europe, told the Washington Post. “The last American tank left Europe three years ago because we all hoped Russia was going to be our partner. And so we had to bring all this back.”
Meanwhile German tanks and troops began arriving in Lithuania on Tuesday, the first entry of the German military into the former Baltic Soviet republic since its occupation by the Nazis during the Second World War. The German deployment is to include 450 troops and some 200 vehicles, including 30 tanks.
In all, the NATO alliance has committed to moving four battalions, roughly 3,000 to 4,000 troops, to within striking distance of Russia in northeastern Europe as part of a permanent “rotating” deployment.
Whatever the statements of the Trump administration about improving relations with Moscow, the fighting in Ukraine combined with NATO’s aggressive military deployment on Russia’s borders are sharply elevating the threat of an armed confrontation between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

White House issues war threat against Iran

Peter Symonds

In an extraordinarily bellicose statement Wednesday, US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn accused Iran of “destabilising behaviour across the Middle East” and warned, “As of today we are officially putting Iran on notice.”
He denounced Tehran for carrying out a ballistic missile test on Sunday and accused the Iranian regime, without any substantiation, of responsibility for an attack on a Saudi Arabian warship by Houthi rebels in Yemen on Monday.
Flynn appeared at the daily briefing for the White House press corps, which had no advance notice that he would make a statement. He was called to the podium by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to deliver a blistering tirade not only against Iran, but also against the Obama administration, after which he walked out without taking any questions.
Flynn gave no indication of the US actions being prepared against Iran. Hours later, in a closed-door briefing to the media, senior administration officials declared that the US intended to take “appropriate action” against Iran over its missile test. “We are considering a whole range of options,” one official said, refusing to rule out military action against Iran.
Flynn condemned Sunday’s “provocative ballistic missile launch,” claiming it was “in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls upon Iran ‘not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.’”
Iran has repeatedly denied that its ballistic missiles can carry nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency—the organisation responsible for monitoring Resolution 2231—has confirmed this. An Iranian foreign ministry statement declared that missile tests “are an integral component” of Iran’s self-defence” and rejected “politically motivated comments regarding Iran’s missile program.”
Flynn provided no evidence to back up his claims, either on the missile test or the alleged attack on the Saudi warship.
The national security adviser declared that Monday’s attack on the Saudi naval vessel was one of “a series of incidents in the past six months in which Houthi forces that Iran has trained and armed have struck Emirati and Saudi vessels, and threatened US and allied vessels transiting the Red Sea. In these and similar activities, Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region.”
Neither Flynn nor anyone else in the Trump administration has demonstrated that Iran is training and arming the Houthi rebels. What is clear, however, is that Saudi Arabia, in league with the US and various Gulf States, is waging a bloody war, in which more than 10,000 people have been killed, to oust the Houthi-led government in Yemen. Saudi warplanes, supported by the US armed forces, have killed civilians in attacks on hospitals and other non-military facilities.
Flynn’s remarks follow the bellicose comments of the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, after an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Tuesday, convened at Washington’s request over Iran’s missile test. Haley branded the missile launch as “absolutely unacceptable” and declared: “We’re going to act. We’re going to be strong. We’re going to be loud and we’re going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people and the people across the world.”
Tehran is already at loggerheads with Washington over the Trump administration’s visa ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iran. Tehran retaliated on Tuesday, imposing a ban on American citizens traveling to Iran.
The Trump administration’s immediate target is the nuclear agreement reached with Iran in 2015 by the Obama administration, along with Britain, Germany, France, China and Russia. The deal, formalised in UN resolution 2231, ended the crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for the shut-down of Iran’s nuclear programs and intrusive inspections.
Flynn condemned the Obama administration for failing “to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions.” He continued: “President Trump has severely criticised the various agreements reached between Iran and the Obama administration, as well as the UN, as being weak and ineffective.”
Speaking last March to the Zionist lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Trump declared: “My No.1 priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran… This deal is catastrophic—for America, for Israel, and for the whole Middle East.” He vowed to halt Iran’s missile program, claiming it threatened Israel, Europe and the United States. “We are not going to let that happen,” Trump stated.
Israel, Washington’s closest ally in the Middle East, is armed to the teeth with the aid and assistance of the United States, and has built its own substantial nuclear arsenal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who bitterly opposed the 2015 nuclear agreement, immediately condemned the Iranian missile test on Monday. He said he would press the Trump administration to renew economic sanctions on Tehran when he visits Washington this month.
The Trump administration includes pro-Zionist figures, such as his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, as well as politicians and generals who are deeply hostile to Iran. Newly-installed CIA chief Mike Pompeo led the campaign in Congress in 2015 to block the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Flynn is notorious for his anti-Muslim xenophobia and outlandish views, which contributed to his removal as Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) director. The New York Times reported one case involving the attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012. Flynn blamed Iran and insisted that his DIA subordinates find evidence to prove he was right. None existed.
Flynn told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2015 that “regime-change in Iran” was the best means to stop Iran’s nuclear programs. In a book entitled The Field of Fight: How We can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies, he and anti-Iran hawk Michael Ledeen laid out a blueprint for war against Iran. They denounced Iran as “the lynchpin” of a coalition of nation states and terrorist groups focused on attacking the US.
At the same time, divisions exist within the Trump administration over tearing up the 2015 nuclear deal. That would create a major rift with key European allies and undermine commercial opportunities, including for American corporations, which have an eye on the Iranian market and large reserves of oil and gas.
At his confirmation hearing last month, Defence Secretary James Mattis declared that the nuclear pact was “an imperfect arms control agreement” but the US was obliged to continue to abide by it. For Mattis, the issue is a tactical one—a clash with Iran might not be the top priority as Trump prepares to confront China. On his first overseas trip, Mattis is en route to East Asia to visit two American allies, South Korea and Japan.
That said, Mattis is not opposed in principle to a war against Iran. During his time as head of the US Central Command, he was preoccupied with the alleged threat posed by the Iranian regime. He reportedly advised the Obama administration in 2011 to take military action inside Iran in retaliation for alleged attacks on US forces in Iraq by Iranian-backed militia. He was removed from his post after urging the deployment of a third aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf in preparation for war with Iran.
The escalating war of words with Iran has its own logic. It could lead to clashes and conflict that would rapidly draw in other countries in the Middle East and internationally. The fact that the threat against Iran has emanated from Trump’s National Security Council, a cabal of ex-generals and extreme right-wing figures, including the fascistic Stephen Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, is the sharpest of warnings.
Less than two weeks in office, the Trump administration is rapidly emerging as a regime of militarism and war directed at any obstacle to the interests of the super-rich oligarchy it represents.

1 Feb 2017

Lagos State Employment Trust Fund for Entrepreneurs 2017

Application Deadline: 3rd February, 2017
Eligible Countries: Nigeria. Residents of Lagos
About the Award: LSETF serves as an instrument to inspire the creative and innovative energies of all Lagos residents and reduce unemployment across the State. The Fund has the mandate to directly invest N25Billion in helping Lagos residents grow and scale their Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (“MSMEs”) or acquire skills to get better jobs.
The Fund expects to create 300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand) direct and 600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand) indirect jobs within three years, by supporting at least 100,000 (One Hundred Thousand) MSMEs.
The Fund will deliver primarily through its partners and will leverage their experience & capabilities to achieve its goals.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: This call is open to:
  • Micro-enterprises
  • In need of N500, 000 or less
  • Residents of Lagos
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Program: The Fund will use various interventions to boost job creation in Lagos State, energize the Lagos economy to boost the state’s production, support various initiatives designed to make Lagos a preferred investment destination and support Lagosians seeking to start or run their businesses and unemployed Lagosians who lack the skills to take existing jobs.
How to Apply: Click here to download application forms and submit at the LSETF office.
Award Provider: Lagos State Employment Trust Fund

University of Sussex Undergraduate Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 3rd April 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: Candidate will automatically be awarded the Sussex Excellence Scholarship if they have achieved the required scholarship threshold in one of the eligible academic qualifications.
  • All subject areas are eligible except Brighton and Sussex Medical School (BSMS) degrees.
  • You must have accepted the University of Sussex as your firm choice.
  • The Sussex Excellence Scholarship can be combined with other University of Sussex awards.
  • You must have, or obtain, a UK bank account, and the details of this account must be added to your Sussex Direct profile, in order to receive payment.
  • To be eligible for the Sussex Excellence Scholarship, you will need to achieve at least AAA in A level. This means any of the following combinations of grades: AAA or A*AA or A*A*A or A*A*A*.
  • Other equivalent combinations of grades (such as A*AB) would not meet the eligibility requirements for the scholarship as one of the three grades is below an A grade. To be eligible for the Sussex Excellence Scholarship you must have at least 3 A levels at grade A or higher.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value and Duration of Scholarship: The Sussex Excellence Scholarship is worth £3,000 in Year One of a three or four year undergraduate degree:
  • £1,000 cash award and £2,000 rent reduction if you are living in University-managed accommodation *
or
  • £3,000 cash award if you are not living in University-managed accommodation *
How to Apply: Applications will open on Wednesday 1st February 2017 and the deadline for applying is Monday 3rd April 2017. The online application will be available here during this period.
Award Provider: University of Sussex

Taiwan Government International Scholarship Programme 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st March 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: The scholarship is open to all international students (excluding students from Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau) from any country
To be taken at (country): Universities and Colleges in Taiwan
About the Award: The Government of Taiwan through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has established the Taiwan Scholarship Program for foreign students in an effort to encourage outstanding international students to undertake degree studies in Taiwan so as to familiarize themselves with the academic environment in Taiwan and promote communication, understanding and friendship between Taiwan and countries around the world.
Offered Since: 2010
Eligibility: Candidate:
  • Is a high school graduate or above with an excellent academic record, of good moral character and has no criminal record.
  • Is not a national of the Republic of China (Taiwan).
  • Is not an overseas compatriot student.
  • Has never attended an educational institution in Taiwan at the same level of degree or LEP that he/she intends to apply for.
  • Is not an exchange student through any cooperation agreement between a foreign university/college and an educational institute in Taiwan while receiving the Scholarship.
  • Has not previously had a Scholarship revoked by an ROC  government agency or other relevant institution.
Number of Scholarships: A number of scholarships will be awarded
Benefits: Scholarship recipients will be given a monthly stipend of NT$25,000 for the LEP and NT$30,000 for degree programs. Recipients are responsible for all expenses during their stay in Taiwan. MOFA will not provide any other subsidies. MOFA will, however, provide recipients with one-way, economy-class plane tickets for direct flights to and from Taiwan.
Duration:
Non-degree LEP: one year.
2. Degree programs:
(1) Undergraduate program: four years maximum
(2) Master’s program: two years maximum
(3) Doctoralprogram: four years maximum
How to Apply: Applicants should send the following document within the period specified enclosed with their application to the nearest Taiwan Embassy or Representative Office in their country.
  • Taiwan Scholarship Application Form (available here)
  • A copy of the applicant’s passport or other nationality certificates.
  • A copy of the highest degree and academic transcripts. If issued by international educational institutions, these documents must be authenticated by an overseas Representative Office or be sealed and delivered by the awarding institutions. Documents in a language other than Chinese or English must be translated into Chinese or English and the translated documents must be authenticated.
  • A copy of admission application materials to universities/colleges in Taiwan (e.g., copies of application fee remittance, application form, receipt of application from universities/colleges, e-mails, ).
  • A copy of a language proficiency certificate:
    • 1.A copy of results or certificate for the “Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language” (TOCFL) Basic or above.
    • 2.For applications to all-English programs, a copy of TOEFL test scores or other recognized English language proficiency exams or degrees awarded in English must be submitted. English-speaking nationals are exempt from this rule.
    • Two letters of reference, signed and sealed in envelopes (i.e. from the principals, professors, or supervisors). Photo copies and email submissions of letters of recommendation will not be considered.
    • Additional documents as specified by the individual representative offices.
Sponsors: The Taiwan Scholarship Program is jointly established and funded by three government agencies of the Republic of China (Taiwan) — the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and the National Science Council of the Executive Yuan (NSC)

Zawadi Africa Education Fund Undergraduate Scholarship for Women 2017

Application Deadline: 31st March 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and Mozambique
About the Award: Zawadi Africa Education Fund is a leadership development program that provides university scholarships and leadership development and life skills training to academically gifted but financially disadvantaged African girls, with the objective of developing a pipeline of young African women leaders.
Zawadi Africa was formed with the belief that together with a world class education and the right character development, these young African women will be able to return to their home countries empowered and equipped with the skills needed to make significant, positive impact in their communities in a continent where traditionally women have not had a voice in the development of their community.
Eligibility: To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, the following criteria must be met:
  • A girl who has completed her secondary school examination i.e. The Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination (KCSE)
  • Has demonstrated academic excellence (A Plain or A Minus)
  • Has demonstrated leadership qualities e.g. in school as a prefect, in the community, church, leadership in peer related activities etc.)
  • Has overcome insurmountable odds such as serious financial challenges, oppressive social-cultural practices such as early marriages and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) etc. in order to attain academic excellence.
  • Come from a financially disadvantaged background.
  • Has demonstrated clear financial need
Selection Criteria: includes excellent academics, extracurricular involvement, leadership potential and financial need.
Selection: The Admission decision is entirely dependent on the Universities’ Admission Boards. Shortlisted candidates will be called for an interview a month after the deadline of this application.
How to Apply: 
  1. If you meet the above criteria, ensure that you complete every part of this application form. Your application will only be considered if it completely filled.
  2. Attach a one page biography and a passport photo. The biography should be TYPED and highlight your family and educational background, your aspirations, financial status, as well as hobbies and activities that you have undertaken while in school and in your community.
  3. Attach a 500-650 word essay on ONLY ONE of three topics listed on page seven.
  4. Attach a copy of your high school leaving certificate and K.C.S.E result slip as well as copies of high school certificates that show your involvement in extracurricular activities and leadership related initiatives.
  5. Attach a signed recommendation letter from your class teacher or head teacher.
  6. Attach a copy of your birth certificate and your National Identity Card (if you have one).
  7. Attach a letter from your local chief confirming his knowledge of your family and yourself. The letter should preferably be written on a government letter headed document.
  8. Any false statements, omissions or forged documents will lead to automatic disqualification.
  9. 9. Submit a Hard Copy of this application form and the required supporting documents on or before the deadline (31st March, 2017) to the designated offices written in the application forms.

European Development Days Young Leaders Programme 2017 (Fully-funded to Brussels, Belgium)

Application Deadline: 9th March 2017 at 1pm CET (Central European Time).
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Brussels, Belgium
About the Award: Youth are a driving force behind some of the most inspiring development projects. At EDD 2017, youth will have their voices heard in policy discussions that will shape our future. The 16 selected Young Leaders will share their views and experiences in the high-level debates of the forum, alongside world leaders and other change-makers in the development field.
The meaningful participation of children and youth is mandated by global and European policy commitments, including the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, for their opinion to be heard and taken seriously, and a role in decision-making. Youth inclusion leads to an innovative and more inclusive development. The empowerment of young people contributes to build responsible citizenship, which helps shaping democratic societies and good governance, which are high priorities for the EU. Motivating young people will ensure a long-term commitment to development, which can help increase ownership, accountability and innovation in their countries.
Type: Events and Conferences
Eligibility: 
  • Applicants must be between 21 and 26 at the time of the forum (7-8 June 2017).
  • Applications are open to young adults from all around the world, without restriction of nationality.
  • Applications must be submitted in one of the following official European Commission languages: English / French / Spanish. The candidate must be able to speak clearly and comprehensively in one of these languages, as well as have a mandatory intermediate level of English.
  • Applicants must be able to travel to and participate in EDD 2017 in Brussels (Belgium) from 31 May to 10 June 2017.
Selection Criteria: We will evaluate your application based on three criteria:
  • 40% Your knowledge of your chosen topic and the relevance of your active engagement. We encourage candidates to show how their activities have had an impact on the community.
  • 30% Your role as a representative of an organisation, other youth or community, and your leadership experience or potential.
  • 30% Your public speaking skills and ability to speak at a high-level panel.
Number of Awardees: 16
Value of Program: The 16 selected Young Leaders will be invited to Brussels, Belgium, and all expenses (Visa, travel, accommodation) will be covered by the European Commission.
During their visit to Brussels, Young Leaders get the chance to visit European institutions, participate in workshops, meet key policymakers and interact with other young people driving change around the world. They will speak at various sessions and enjoy full access to the whole conference. Travel and accommodation is covered by the European Commission.
Duration of Program: 7-8 JUNE 2017
How to Apply: You will find the application form and instructions for applying on the Program Webpage. Don’t forget that you should submit a completed form before Thursday 9 March 2017 at 1pm (Central European Time)!
You will be applying to speak at one of the EDD 2017 Auditorium sessions, according to the topic of the panel. To complete the form, you must select at least one EDD topic that you wish to speak about. You must feel comfortable and knowledgeable about the topics of your choice and they must relate closely to your interests and expertise.
Please explore the 16 EDD 2017 topics in the ‘About EDD 2017’ page of the website.
Award Provider: European Commission
Important Notes:  Note that you will be required to create a profile on the website before starting the application. Don’t forget to tick the box “I want to apply for the Young Leaders Programme” when you create your profile.

AIMS Postdoctoral Fellowship in Data Science for African Scholars 2017

Application Deadline: 15th February 2017
Eligible Countries: Preference will be given to applicants from SADC member states but candidates from all over Africa are encouraged to apply.
To be taken at (country): South Africa
About the Award: The very crucial new field of Data Science is evolving very rapidly and has the potential to affect many applications. For the Mathematical Science community, we see lots of challenging mathematical and computational underpinnings of Data Science with tons of interesting research questions to investigate. The Data Science research group that is being built around the German Research Chair in Mathematics with specialization in Data Science will undertake research on the mathematical and computational challenges of the field.
Field of Research: Research projects will be spread over the following thematic areas:
  • Mathematical methods for data science
  • Computational techniques (algorithms) for data science
  • Application of data science tools to problems from industry
  • HPC implementations and studies of arising scientific computing issues
Type: Research
Eligibility: 
  • A relevant doctorate of high standing
  • A developing research capability which will lead to good publications
  • Ability to tutor postgraduate students successfully
  • Ability to work as part of an interdisciplinary team
  • Good communication skills
  • Fluency in English

Value and Duration of Fellowship: Fellowships are tenable for one year, contingent on satisfactory progress, and could be extended for a second year. Fellowships are immediately available and the value of the award ranges between R200 – R240k per annum, tax-free, subject to qualification and experience. Other benefits included the provision of a laptop, coverage of all cost associated with the use of HPC resources, and a conference travel allowance of R 30,000 per annum.
How to Apply: 
  • A covering letter motivating the application
  • A comprehensive CV stating research plans in the above or related areas
  • Two reference letters from academics familiar with your work
  • Statement on citizenship and whether a South African work permit is currently being held
  • Other practical information such as earliest date of commencement
  • Please note the Fellowship cannot be held concurrently with any supplementary funding.
Send completed applications to joan@aims.ac.za
Award Provider: African Institute for Mathematical Sciences

Bannon’s Coup

Mel Gurtov

Stephen K. Bannon, Donald Trump’s chief strategist, has been elevated to the Principals Committee of the National Security Council, the top tier of national-security policymakers.*  It is the first time a political affairs official has been made a regular participant in the NSC’s work.  The appointment is the most important piece in an extraordinary and dangerous bureaucratic reorganization that Bannon himself may have engineered.
Anyone who thinks bureaucracy doesn’t count should think twice after witnessing what amounts to a coup.  Bannon may attend any session of the NSC and the Principals Committee while the intelligence community, represented by the Director of National Intelligence (Mike Pompeo) and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may not.**  Officially, Bannon is now on par with Michael Flynn, the special assistant for national security; but in terms of real access to the president, Bannon’s only peer is Jared Kushner.  “It is a startling elevation of a political adviser,” the New York Times says.
Thus, the most important foreign and national security decisions, meaning those made during a crisis, are going to be most influenced by a far-right rabble-rouser and Trump’s son-in-law, neither of whom has anything remotely resembling international experience. (I don’t count Bannon’s time in the Navy, any more than I count Kushner’s donations to Israel.)  And in Bannon’s case, that influence is likely to bend the president toward aggressive, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later actions with little or no consultation with experts.  What else should we expect from the man who guided Trump’s campaign and essentially wrote his inaugural address on the theme of “America First”?
In practical terms, what might Bannon’s coup mean?
First, it means that the policy-relevant government agencies can expect to be bypassed on important decisions.  Thus, for example, Trump’s executive order banning Muslim immigration reportedly was issued without reference to the Office of Legal Counsel in the Exec. Off. of the President, the Dept. of State, or the Dept. of Homeland Security.  Nor, evidently, were local-level officials at airports alerted.  The Washington Post reported on January 30 that a dissent letter on Trump’s immigration order was being circulated in the State Department. With mass resignations—or were they firings?—of the State Department’s entire management team, Rex Tillerson will be taking over a badly weakened agency largely devoid of experienced leaders and perhaps facing a morale crisis.
Second, despite administration denials, the professional military and intelligence viewpoints at NSC meetings will only be at the table “where issues pertaining to the responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.”  Is that qualification intended to promote efficiency, as Trump’s people say, or to lay the basis for exclusion from the most important decisions?
Third, it means that Trump’s financial interests will remain secret and under his control, so that the inevitable conflicts with payments by foreign governments to Trump will go unpunished.
Fourth, it means that Bannon et al. will continue to work with and encourage right-wing leaders in Europe and elsewhere who are as determined as he to carry out a white nationalist agenda that is anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and anti-globalist.
Fifth, it means that Israel will get everything it wants, without a word of concern from Washington.  What a sad joke that Trump expects his son-in-law to craft an Israeli-Palestinian settlement while Netanyahu authorizes more settlements in occupied territory, and applauds Trump’s intention to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
Sixth, it means that Trump’s version of a “reset” of policy toward Russia will avoid the key issues that led to the demise of Obama’s reset in the first place: NATO’s eastward movement, and Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and seizure of Crimea.  Those matters call for careful diplomacy.  Trump is likely to start dismantling sanctions and increasing US investments in Russia without a resolution of geopolitical issues.
Seventh, US policy toward China will be opposite of policy toward Russia.  China will be the hard edge of policy: naval buildup, deeper involvement in the South China Sea dispute, support of a Japanese military buildup in contravention of long-established policy, and erosion of the One China policy.
Eighth, nuclear rearmament will again come into vogue—a reversal of the downward trend of recent decades in numbers of weapons and means of delivery.
Ninth, traditional friends of the US will find that friendship doesn’t carry much weight anymore.  Mexico’s president and Britain’s prime minister have now discovered that.  Alliances therefore will not have the credibility they once had with an unpredictable partner such as the Trump administration.
Eliot Cohen, former counselor to Condoleezza Rice at the State Department and now at Johns Hopkins University, has this warning about the NSC reorganization for his conservative colleagues:
Trump’s disregard for either Secretary of Defense Mattis or Secretary-designate Tillerson in his disastrous policy salvos this week [on immigration and the Mexico wall], in favor of his White House advisers [Bannon, et al.], tells you all you need to know about who is really in charge. To be associated with these people is going to be, for all but the strongest characters, an exercise in moral self-destruction.
For the community of conservative thinkers and experts, and more importantly, conservative politicians, this is a testing time. Either you stand up for your principles and for what you know is decent behavior, or you go down, if not now, then years from now, as a coward or opportunist. Your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
Cohen concludes that Trump will fail because the people he attacks will not go away, will persevere, and will ultimately say “enough.” We must hold everyone, especially officeholders, to account, he writes. I have to hope his confidence is warranted.
Notes
*The NSC Principals Committee (PC) is the “Cabinet-level senior interagency forum for considering policy issues that affect the national security interests of the United States.” The PC can be convened and chaired by either the National Security Advisor or the Homeland Security Advisor. Its regular attendees will now include the following: Secretary of State; Secretary of the Treasury; Secretary of Defense; Attorney General; Secretary of Homeland Security; Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff; Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist; National Security Advisor; Homeland Security Advisor.  The Counsel to the President, Deputy Counsel for National Security Affairs, and the Director of the OMB are also permitted to attend all meetings.
**The Director of National Intelligence is not on either the NSC or the PC. The DNI and JCS Chairman are to attend “where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed,” making their presence optional The Secretary of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy will be regular attendees “when international economic issues” are on the agenda. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology, who under the Obama administration was to be present when “science and technology related issues” were on the agenda, will no longer attend.

Curtain Descending: Fascistization of America

Norman Pollack

When does a qualitative change occur in the course of a nation’s history, particularly when traces of the New appear steadily and throughout in the Old? Gradualism is deceptive. We conveniently think, e.g., of the Nazi Revolution, when in Germany, especially its Bismarckian side, exhibited an authoritarian bent that led to the cartelization of capitalism, from which internal hierarchy poisoned—from a democratic standpoint—social structure, ideology, political values, the people ground down into a uniform massive congealment of consciousness. The folk, its mystical antecedents in the distant past (Wagner’s creative energies did not arise in a vacuum), enveloped in fog, created a disposition to mythologize, under strong leadership, its mission in the world. Enter Hitler. If he didn’t exist, he would have had to be invented.
But he did, and the 20th century would never be the same. Weimar was part holding action, part churning out the social forces of the future (despite its astonishing gifts in literature, painting, architecture, etc.). Creativity is not a sure sign of democracy. Primordial structure and political economy roll again, perverting and taking hostage of whatever they touch, everything in their grasp. Germany could not escape its destiny, nor transcend its past.
Nor could America, a lineal pattern of development founded on capitalism (the relative absence of feudalism, but the presence of plantation slavery, made over however to ensure that itself was an adjunct of capitalism) which denied from the outset the equitable distribution of wealth and power, and thus foretold a future, not unlike that of Germany: homogenization of thought feeding into its own self-serving mythology of exceptionalism and national greatness. Both the US and Germany had vital labor movements—consensus, for America, quite meaningless until following World War II, political consciousness in Germany always facing a tough uphill battle.
Analogies abound where they are not expected, the appearance (only!) of freedom in America. its at best adulterated form in Germany. A convenient test of reality in this respect would be the prevalence of MILITARISM in the respective histories/political cultures, and here both pass with flying colors, America’s the more deceptive (though just as accentuated) because aligned with a “free world” (aka, entrepreneurial) mindset. Among the world’s most uncomplicated and intensive capitalistic formations—what I term its purist foundations—the US, one notes, provides the ideal social laboratory for testing the salience of capitalism, whether as alienation or the consolidation of industry and banking, or, a proclivity to military advancement.
One can perhaps only guess the reasons for the historical and societal alignment of capitalism and militarism, but if not divinely attributable it is possible to trace their close relationship to a demiurge of profit maximization, intracapitalist rivalry, and, since 1917, the fear of socialism. On these counts alone, even subtracting for cultural differences, America and Germany are not that far apart. But let’s leave Germany, and focus on America. (Japan, in its own way, would duplicate some of the features of the other two, particularly the genesis and mode of industrial organization.)
These preliminary observations are a way of saying, America today, under Trump, is not something new to its own internal history. We demonize Trump, when in reality he stands on the shoulders of American presidents, their parties, their policies, and their practices—in sum, government itself—going back in recognizable form to McKinley (Open Door), T. Roosevelt (battleship navy), and Wilson (liberal internationalism, i.e., antiradical global stabilization). To experience qualitative change, which I think Trump does bring on, because of its visibility and overtness, does not make light of the past, simply acknowledges the accretive details as making possible the turning of a corner long in the making. Trump is the face of capitalism approaching its undisguised capacity for inflicting harm. As a total social system we can expect more Trumps down the road, provided not interrupted by a nuclear holocaust.
The firing last night of the acting AG, the invitation to dissident State personnel to get lost, the obduracy on the immigration issue, the plutocratic underside of federal appointments, these are but straws in the wind. It can only get worse, and perhaps never better, as the Constitution becomes a freely interpreted document of political gangsterism and hatred for the “softness” of human rights. Capitalism has robbed Americans of compassion. The present crew will have it its own way, because the polity knows of no other way than showing deference to the sources of power, an elite structure combining capitalism and the state, the latter organized first and foremost to expanding the advantages of the former. Trump brings back the Social Darwinian features of the earlier capitalism (circa 1880s-90s) while projecting forward its totalitarian attributes looking to a dystopian future of further concentration, manipulation of the people, and war-provoking tendencies.
We’ve already seen these characteristics in more attenuated form (although Vietnam certified the cruelty and go-for-broke mental set energizing the momentum forward). Those looking back years from now may see in Trump the moderate or liberal fascist, so terrible what is yet, or maybe yet, to follow in his wake. All bets are now off. Let’s hear it for torture, for stripping the social safety net of significant protections, for a world of conflict (an ingrained doctrine of permanent war already on the table thanks to Obama, as a transitional figure), and for Fortress America solidified, thrown back on itself, when it becomes clear to the leadership in business and government that undisputed world dominance is no longer within reach. Plow on, Ship of State; take pride in the consistency of American capitalist development.

Fake News Inquiry: Old Wine in New Bottles

Binoy Kampmark

London.
Any inquiry into fake news is much like having a Royal Commission into the make up and motivation for Halal food. (The latter absurd proposition has been put forth by a few Australian politicians irritated by the Islamist bogeyman.)  Neither mission is particularly helpful, other than to illustrate a mounting ignorance about a phenomenon that always was.
In the United Kingdom, the Culture, Media and Sports Committee has made an announcement that it will investigate claims about the public being persuaded by untruths and the dazzling influence of propaganda.
Invited submissions are to consider, among others, such questions as to what fake news is and where “biased but legitimate commentary shade into propaganda and lies”; the impact of such news on “public understanding of the world, and also on the public response to traditional journalism”.
In the hyperbolic words of committee chairman Damian Collins MP, the rise of such fabrications constituted “a threat to democracy and undermines the confidence in the media in general”.  The point is almost prosaic, given that Britain has been labouring under such fabrications and propaganda for a good deal since the seedy reign of tycoon Rupert Murdoch commenced.
A society that actually reads The Sun for factual enlightenment is bound to be a victim of the now touted propaganda that is supposedly afflicting the public. It is astonishing that the only reason that “fake news” has renewed currency is because of recent flavourings emanating from the alt-right, or from the Kremlin. In truth, the condition is a pre-existing one in the fourth estate.
Fake news is standard: cereal, wheat and bran, the fibre of the information world.  It has been the foodstuff of media for decades, if not centuries. What matters now is the outrage felt by those in news outlets who believe that a tinge of objectivity still remains in the process of news production.  It ignores that news that is often not authentic has always been the mainstay of journalism, a case of unchecked sources, careless investigation or, in some cases, pure invention.
Much of journalism, for all its purported merits, supplies an illusion of objectivity. Government spin doctors have capitalised, and some, such as former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s terrier-like Alastair Campbell, were formerly of the press.  Campbell, as Director of Communications and Strategy, knew exactly how information might gestate and, in time, mutate into “news”.
If one was to be rude about it, calculated dissimulation would be far more appropriate.  Consider the way a person is interviewed on the arrival of a press crew.  The subject interviewed is placed in an artificial setting pretending to read papers he has never touched, nor is interested in.  The camera is trained in such a manner suggesting an open office space with light, when the office is essentially a closet space with a dying plant in the corner. The fake walk is staged, as is the fake reading with shuffling paper.
The Australian watch dog media program, Media Watch, over the course of its history regularly exposed instances of flagrant abuse of the supposed rule of authenticity. Journalists pretended to be in one city when they were evidently in another.  Scenes were staged, car chases manufactured.  Reports were filed from hotel rooms.
Similarly, Evelyn Waugh touches upon this very idea of exaggeration in Scoop (1938), the classic novel on Fleet Street journalism in its sensationalist form.  Truth is something otherwise left to others.  Instead, the herd instinct kicks in and clamours.
Imaginary bodies, tracks of devastation and mutilation, will be conjured up for good copy.  Fictional stories will stem from arranged liaisons, much in keeping with Clint Smoker in Martin Amis’ Yellow Dog (2003).  Again, the State will always volunteer its own version to be circulated to the unwitting press corps: in the Vietnam War, it was the infamous body count masking the US inability to win; in Iraq 2003, it was spectral Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Fakery all round; fakery through and through even from self-appointed defenders of Freedom’s Land.
The death of the credible investigative journalist in the wake of the teeming blogosphere, and the nature of how news is actually crafted, suggests that fake news had a crown well and truly made before it was brought out during the US election campaign in 2016.
Fake news is no longer the preserve of the ruthless press oligarch, disturbed tabloid journalist, or a communications official: it is the democratic preserve of the people.  It caters for those who wish to be deceived, since truth is not so much uncomfortable as mind splittingly painful.
Where, then, does the burden lie to combat such material?  Where it always did: at the end of the production process (for news is undeniably produced, as opposed to discovered). It is the consumer of news who remains judge, the reader, however well informed. All agents have responsibility to oversee it, to question it, but the ultimate point of reception should be the greatest questioner, checking, reading, painstakingly, between the lines. Unfortunately, much in the way of news is merely read to affirm a pre-existing position.
Such inquiries as those proposed by the UK parliament cannot mask a broader purpose, which is to rein in the influence and spread of alternative media. This will be achieved through imposing on social media outlets obligations to stop, in the words of Collins, “the spreading of fake news,” a point analogous to tech companies who “have accepted they have a social responsibility to combat piracy online and the illegal sharing of content”.  The firm, gagging hand of censorship is being readied.
One would have thought that views not connected to the conventional organs of the Mainstream Press add to, rather than spoil, the broth. Percolating through the media networks, some semblance of a picture can be attained.  Not so for mainstream stalwarts who believe that their profession is the mainstay of a bright, spoken truth.