8 Feb 2017

Trump proposes tax break for church political activities

Ed Hightower

President Donald Trump made a bizarre and rambling speech at the National Prayer Breakfast last week attacking the bedrock democratic principle of the separation of church and state, by promising to eliminate restrictions under the tax code on political activities by religious groups.
Trump told the audience of religious and political leaders that he would “get rid [of] and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.”
The president was referring to a section of the tax code that makes the tax-exempt status of religious or charitable organizations dependent on their refraining from endorsing candidates for office or from otherwise engaging in partisan electoral politics. The rule, part of the 1954 version of the Internal Revenue Code and bearing the name of then-senator Lyndon Johnson, was regarded for decades as spelling out in the language of tax law the longstanding custom that church groups did not engage in overt political campaigns.
Only in the last 25 years have politically active right-wing Christian fundamentalists and Republican politicians begun to paint the Johnson Amendment as a violation of freedom of speech and religion. This turns reality on its head.
The Johnson Amendment applies only to organizations that are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions, such as churches and synagogues, universities, or any number of charities e.g. the Salvation Army, Goodwill, the Red Cross and so on. Since 1917 American tax law has favored such enterprises on the grounds that they serve a public good. In order to encourage donations to organizations that will provide important social services, the tax code has allowed taxpayers to deduct from their taxable income a certain amount of funds they donate to such groups. These 501(c)3 organizations—named for the section of the tax code that applies to them—are essentially subsidized by the federal government through the tax revenue that it gives up.
There are 29 categories of non-profit organizations in section 501 of the tax code, covering everything from professional organizations, chambers of commerce, athletic leagues and social clubs, political parties, all of which can avoid paying taxes on the money they collect from members. Those who donate to most of these groups, however, are not be able to take a tax deduction for it. Only 501c(3) and 501(c)4 organizations offer this substantial benefit to their donors.
The Johnson Amendment allows the Internal Revenue Service to revoke an organization’s 501c(3) or 501(c)4 status if it endorses a political candidate or otherwise engages in partisan politics. This does not prohibit an organization from taking a position on a political issue. For example, the Catholic Church opposes abortion, says so openly and constantly, and maintains its tax status, receiving money that can be deducted from the donor’s taxable income. A priest or bishop can vote for whatever candidate or party, and can even speak at a political event if they refrain from doing so in their capacity as a religious leader. This happens every day in the United States without a single federal agent raising an eyebrow.
The law does not prohibit the aforementioned political activities, it only imposes an indirect financial penalty, because the church organization that engaged in electoral campaigns and other partisan activities would lose contributions from donors who only gave in order to gain the tax deduction.
It should be noted that Johnson proposed the amendment to the tax code in 1954 not out of a deep commitment to constitutional principles, but rather out of political expediency. (At the time, certain religious leaders in Texas supported his opponent in a primary campaign.) The Amendment served basically to codify what had been the relationship between religious groups and the IRS.
For decades, the Johnson Amendment was a complete political non-issue. However, politicization of the evangelical protestant churches, most notably the Southern Baptists, which developed in reaction to Supreme Court decisions desegregating public schools (1954), striking down school prayer (1962), permitting marriage betweens persons of different races (1967) and legalizing access to abortion (1973).
In 1979 the right-wing minister Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, which opposed homosexuality, abortion, and secularism in thoroughly political terms, jettisoning the traditional Baptist position of abstention from partisan politics. The organization served to integrate the new Christian fundamentalist movement into the Republican Party. Politically active evangelical churches now form the principal social base of the Republicans.
Evangelical churches brought court cases challenging the Johnson Amendment but lost in the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. Finally, in 2008, they began a campaign of open defiance, seeking to provoke a confrontation with the IRS by preaching partisan political sermons on a coordinated, advertised day. With the tacit approval of the Obama White House, the IRS took no action against any of the churches involved. Only one in 2,000 instances of “pulpit freedom Sundays,” as they were called, resulted in an audit. At the same time, the Republican Party adopted the repeal of the Johnson Amendment as part of its political platform.
Trump, who had little prior connection to the Christian Right, made repeal of the Johnson Amendment part of his 2016 presidential campaign to curry favor with this reactionary constituency and its leaders.
While the Johnson Amendment did not represent a very significant advance for secularism, its removal would have immediate and substantial consequences for the separation of church and state. Repeal of the Amendment would turn “faith leaders” and religious outfits into entities with more rights than normal citizens, especially if those citizens are disinclined to support any religion at all.
The Trump administration is making every effort to mold the most debased sections of society into a fascistic base of support for social policies that will devastate the working class and broad layers of the middle class. Paeans to the clergy, the appointment of pro-life judges, the curtailing of the rights of religious minorities and foreign nationals, these are the political chum thrown out to mobilize support for dictatorship.

Lawmakers push legislation seeking to criminalize protest throughout the US

Nick Barrickman

As mass protests grow internationally against the anti-democratic measures enacted by President Trump, Republican state legislators in the US are preparing a raft of bills intended to restrict demonstrators’ right of free speech and ability to peacefully assemble. 

At least 10 state legislatures are planning to vote on bills attacking the right to protest in various ways. “I’ve never seen a coordinated attack on protesters’ rights anywhere near this scale,” stated the American Civil Liberties Union’s senior staff attorney Lee Rowland to the Washington Post. “What all of these bills have in common is they may be dressed up as being about obstruction or public safety, but make no mistake about it: These are about suppressing protests with draconian penalties so that the average person would think twice before getting out on the street and making their voice heard.”
The bills range from the overtly reactionary to the “merely” anti-democratic. In North Dakota, where ongoing protests against construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) are occurring, state Republicans have sponsored House Bill 1203, which grants legal exemption to motorists who “negligently [cause] injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road…” The bill is in response to anti-DAPL protesters that have snarled traffic on major roadways.
Indiana’s Senate Bill 285 empowers law enforcement to “use any means necessary to clear the roads of the persons unlawfully obstructing vehicular traffic” once a gathering has been determined to be unlawful. In Missouri, a bill would target anyone “wearing a mask, hood, or covering that conceals the person’s identity during an unlawful assembly or riot.”
In Washington state, lawmakers wish to increase the amount of jail time for an individual engaged in an “economic disruption,” while forcing those convicted to pay up to three times the cost of damages incurred by a protest. In Minnesota, which has been wracked by protests against police brutality, in addition to the anti-Trump demonstrations, Republicans have authored a bill which would force protesters convicted of blocking roadways to pay for the incurred costs of law enforcement and security at the event.
Last year the Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill that would fine a person $1,000 a day and an organization (such as a union) up to $10,000 a day for picketing.
Numerous liberal commentators have noted the implications of such laws for free speech. “As someone who is a direct beneficiary of the civil rights movement and all the gains that were the direct result of civil disobedience, I strongly oppose this effort to further criminalize dissent,” said Virginia State Senator Jennifer McLellan to The Intercept in response to state legislation which would increase fines for someone refusing to disperse from an unlawful gathering.
“The way the bill is worded is very broad: Take the student sit-in leaders — you could put those protesters in jail for up to a year,” McLellan added, referring to the student protests that occurred against segregated lunchrooms in the 1960s.
The legislative attacks against free speech come as President Trump has issued executive orders and made statements asserting near-dictatorial powers. In late November, the president-elect attacked the Constitutionally-protected act of flag burning, declaring in a Twitter comment “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag—if they do, there must be consequences—perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail!”
In a Thursday message on social media, Trump tweeted threats to cut federal funding to the University of California, Berkeley campus after protests against ultra-right lecturer and editor at the “alt-right” Breitbart News, Milo Yiannopoulos, forced the fascistic provocateur to cancel his speech last week.
The largely peaceful protests, which were broken up when a small group of “black bloc” anarchists sought to confront police and physically assault Trump supporters, have been seized upon by the president and his sympathizers in order to present all opposition to his administration as violent and illegitimate.
The campaign has inspired the more deranged elements within the Republican Party to encourage violence against anti-Trump protesters. In a particularly crude example, Dan Adamini, the secretary of the Marquette County Republican Party and a local Michigan right-wing radio host, drew outrage for comments he made on social media in response to the UC Berkeley protests.
Tweeting a day after the protests forced Yiannopoulos to cancel his engagement, Adamini mused, “Violent protesters who shut down free speech? Time for another Kent State perhaps. One bullet stops a lot of thuggery.” Adamini followed this comment with a Facebook post that declared “I’m thinking that another Kent State might be the only solution...They [protesters] do it because they know there are no consequences yet.”
Adamini’s “Kent State” comments refer to the May 4, 1970 shootings at Ohio’s Kent State University, where National Guardsmen opened fire on an anti-war protest, killing 4 students and injuring 9 others. Adamini has since shut down his social media accounts due to the slew of hostile commentary his posts have received.

Forecast 2017: East Asia

Sandip Kumar Mishra


Among others, at present, the East Asian theatre could be characterised by two key distinctions. First, with Donald Trump as the US president, regional politics is led by a squad of ‘aggressive’ leaders. The leadership in each East Asian country - namely, China, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea - was already in the hands of aggressive leaders, and the US has joined this phenomenon with the Trump's victory. Second, the ‘rising power’, China, and existing superpower, the US, both take this region as their non-negotiable influence zone and have been at loggerheads with each other.

In the above context, it could be said that East Asia is going to be the most significant theatre of international politics in 2017. It is interesting to note that in the region, neither the countries that want to maintain ‘status quo’ nor those who want to ‘revise’ it have sufficient capacity to do so. However, all of them appear to be adamant to retain their aggressive orientation; and the implications for the region will be dire. 
 
China
Scholars like David Shambough have raised questions about China's future by conducting a survey of China’s economics, politics, society, and foreign policy. However, China's President Xi Jinping has been more aggressive in projecting himself as the ‘core leader’ in domestic politics and has been asking for a ‘great power relationship’ with the US. China has been overtly assertive in the South and East China seas, albeit its ‘soft power’ in the region is on a decline. Beijing is talking about its One Belt One Road (OBOR) project and has established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) but appears to spend more attention on strangulating the US' regional allies and friendly countries. China’s recently published White Paper on Asia-Pacific Security outlines strategies to deal with these issues but appears to be tilted towards a non-compromising attitude. 
 
US
The US under the President Donald Trump's administration also appears to be determined to challenge Chinese aggressiveness. The US' priority regarding East Asia in general and China in particular could be gauged from the fact that in the first foreign visit by the new administration’s representative, US Defense Secretary James Mattis went to South Korea and Japan and assured its allies. President Trump has indicated that on trade issues, South China Sea, cyber security and North Korea, China has to listen to Washington, or else Taiwan or other issues that are considered as settled may be brought on board again. Having a phone conversation with the Taiwanese President immediately after his election might be a glimpse of this policy. It seems that although President Trump had initially demanded more burden-sharing of the alliances from Japan and South Korea - which may have created a drift in the relations - the administration has realised that these allies are extremely important to Washington's counter-strategy against Beijing, and have therefore decided to postpone burden-sharing issue.
 
Unfortunately, by announcing the end of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), by announcing ‘America First’ by trade protectionism, and by restricting immigration, Trump is going to necessarily hurt these allies. Overall, it seems that the US has neither the domestic means nor a detailed external strategy in place to check China but yet, it's eager to do so.
 
Japan
Japan’s search for its ‘pride place’ is going to be another important variable in the East Asian regional politics in 2017. Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is determined to retrieve Japan's economic viability and military strength, under his leadership. Prime Minister Abe has been gradually working to make required changes in the Japanese constitution and other legal documents. Furthermore, he seeks to challenge China, maintain good relations with the US and reach out to the Southeast Asian countries. Tokyo wants to challenge Beijing not only in the East China Sea where the two countries have a dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), but also in the South China Sea. In doing so, Tokyo needs to forge better relations with the Southeast Asian countries. However, it may be noted that Japan’s aggressiveness is equally alarming for the Southeast Asian countries and South Korea. Furthermore, Prime Minister Abe’s military posture must be supported by Japan's economic recovery; and despite all the hype of ‘Abenomics’, that is still not taking place. 
 
South Korea
For South Korea, 2017 began with political crisis in which President Park Geun-hye's impeachment by the National Assembly is being vetted by the constitutional court. There is strong possibility that she would finally be impeached, and the next president - who would be elected in mid-2017 or in the latter half of the year - would not be from the conservative party. Perhaps this is why South Korea's Acting President, Hwang Kyo-an, has been trying to push the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in South Korea and military intelligence sharing agreement with Japan to an irreversible stage. It would be a tumultuous year for South Korea both in the domestic politics as well as its foreign policy, which has to position itself in the great powers’ contest in the region along with ongoing aggressive posturing of North Korea at its doorsteps.
 
North Korea
Although, Pyongyang is determined to continue its provocative and aggressive behaviour, an active US involvement would make it difficult for North Korea to do so. President Trump has announced to change former US President Barack Obama’s policy of ‘strategic patience’ vis-a-vis North Korea. Even though he does not get enough support from China in resolving the North Korean issue, he would take bilateral actions or steps with its regional allies, Seoul and Tokyo, to cap Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs. China would utilise President Trump’s desperation on North Korea as a bargaining chip with the US. In all probability, North Korean foreign policy as well as domestic politics would witness significant change in 2017. If the US and China are unable to deal with the North Korean issue, there would be stronger demands by South Korea and Japan to go nuclear along with continuous increase in their defence expenditure.
 
Overall, 2017 will be a determining year in geopolitical relations in East Asia as well as globally; and unfortunately, it appears that there will be more overt contestations and face-offs between the regional countries. It will be a big test for the quest for a liberal order in the region and regarding the arrival on a modus vivendi of coexisting with differences.

7 Feb 2017

Laureate Global Fellowship for Young Leaders 2017. Fully-funded to Spain

Application Deadline: 6th March  2017
Eligible Countries: Global
To be Taken at (Country): Spain
About the Award: Each year, YouthActionNet selects 20 young social entrepreneurs to participate in the Laureate Global Fellowship through a unique partnership between Laureate International Universities and the International Youth Foundation. Laureate Global Fellows are distinguished by their track records for success in achieving positive change in their communities, by their innovative approaches, and their ability to mobilize their peers and community members in support of their social change visions.
Fellows develop leadership expertise and deepen their impact through a dynamic, yearlong learning experience, and join a network of nearly 1500 changemakers like them who continue to benefit from learning opportunities and connections throughout their social change careers.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Applicants must be:
  • 18 – 29 years old as of October 1, 2017
  • Founders or co-founders of existing ventures with at least one year of impact*
  • Fluent in English (applications must be completed in English)
*Applicants must be founder or co-founder of a venture that has not previously participated in the Laureate Global Fellowship, and only one co-founder per venture may apply.
Number of Awardees: 20
Value of Fellowship: Through the Fellowship, they receive: training and peer-to-peer learning opportunities at a week-long workshop; recognition for their efforts at an annual awards ceremony; and a robust package of yearlong support, including virtual learning, personalized coaching, and access to global advocacy and funding opportunities.
Duration of Fellowship: October 2-10, 2017
How to Apply: Please apply through YouthActionNet’s 2017 Laureate Global Fellowship Online Application.
While online applications are preferred, there is a Microsoft Word version of the application for those who require it due to limited internet bandwidth. Click here to access the Word application.
Before applying, be sure to read the full Terms & Conditions.
Award Provider:  Laureate International Universities

Cardiff University Vice-Chancellor’s International Scholarship 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline:  31st August 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Undergraduate and Postgraduate
Eligibility: 
Undergraduate
  • International applicants holding offers for selected undergraduate programmes will automatically be eligible for the Vice-Chancellor’s Scholarship. This means you do not need to apply for an award. Students who qualify for the scholarship will be contacted to confirm their eligibility.
  • Candidates who meet the conditions stated in their UCAS offer will automatically be awarded the scholarship as a tuition fee discount.
Postgraduate
  • International applicants holding offers for selected postgraduate programmes will automatically be eligible for the Vice-Chancellor’s Scholarship. This means you do not need to apply for an award.
  • To be awarded a Vice-Chancellor’s International Scholarship you must meet, or exceed, the University’s standard requirement set for your programme. This is typically a 2:1 in your Bachelor’s degree (or the equivalent grade from your country), however, some courses will require you to achieve a 2:2 in your Bachelor’s degree (or the equivalent grade from your country).
  • Applicants who do not meet the stated requirements will not be eligible for the Scholarship.
Number of Awardees:  Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The Vice-Chancellor’s International Scholarship is a £2,000 award applied to the first year of study only.
Duration of Scholarship: One time
How to Apply: If you meet the conditions stated in your offer you will automatically be awarded the scholarship as a tuition fee discount.
Award Provider: Cardiff University

University of British Columbia Four Year Doctoral Fellowship (4YF) for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: No application deadline
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Canada, Permanent Resident, International
To be taken at (country): Canada
Type: Doctoral
Eligibility: Four Year Fellowships may be held by domestic and international students. In general, the fellowships are offered to students beginning their first year of PhD, DMA, or MDPhD studies, but may be offered to continuing students. 4YF funding may be offered for up to four years, but the duration of funding may be less in some circumstances (please refer to the 4YF Guidelines for details). In all cases, funding is subject to satisfactory academic progress.
Students holding the following Tri-Agency awards automatically become 4YF designates: Vanier Scholarships, Doctoral Canada Graduate Scholarships (CGSD), CIHR Doctoral Research Awards, NSERC Doctoral Postgraduate Scholarships (PGSD), and SSHRC Doctoral Fellowships. Doctoral students who obtain Tri-Agency scholarships may be eligible for 4YF tuition coverage and will receive 4YF stipend and tuition support once their external scholarship funding ends, until four years after the external award start date or until the end of their 5th year in Doctoral program, whichever comes first.
Other major external scholarship winners who are selected as 4YF designates may be eligible for 4YF tuition coverage and will receive 4YF stipend and tuition support once their external scholarship funding ends, until four years after the 4YF start date or until the end of their 5th year in Doctoral program, whichever comes first.
Selection Criteria: Selection based on academic excellence, upon the recommendation of the graduate program.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: $18,200 per year plus tuition for up to four years of their Doctoral studies.
How to Apply: To be considered for Four Year Fellowship funding, students submit an application for admission to the appropriate graduate program at UBC.
Award Provider: University of British Columbia

Humber College Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018 – Canada

Application Deadlines: Please see table below
Eligible Countries: International 
To be Taken at (Country): Humber College in Toronto, Canada
Type: Undergraduate
About the Award: All new international students, studying in an academic program are eligible to apply for the following scholarships:
Full Tuition Renewable Scholarships
Humber offers two full tuition renewable scholarships. Both of these scholarships are available for NEW international students beginning classes in September of each year. Applications will be considered based on academics, community involvement, referee/reference letters and statement of interest. Renewal of the scholarship will be based on the student’s ability to maintain a 70% GPA in each year of his/her program at Humber. Application will be included with your acceptance package.
International Entrance Scholarships
Twelve (12) one-time entrance scholarships valued at $1,000 each will also be presented to international students. The scholarships are divided throughout the three semesters each year; eight (8) available for September, three (3) available for January, and one (1) available for May. Applications will be considered based on academics, community involvement, referee/reference letters and statement of interest. Application will be included with your acceptance package.
Bachelor’s Degree Scholarships for EAP Graduates
Graduates of Humber’s English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program with a GPA of 80% or higher in Level 8, who are applying for a Humber Degree, will be eligible to receive a one-time non-renewable scholarship of $1,500.
Student must maintain a minimum average of 75% in order to be eligible for renewal of these scholarships.
Eligibility: These awards are based on the following criteria:
  • GPA
  • significant improvement in all areas of English language development and
  • characteristics of respect, support, and cross-cultural communication within the Humber community.
These awards are only available to EAP graduates who have begun a diploma, degree, or postgraduate certificate program at Humber College. EAP graduates do not need to apply for these awards. Faculty nominate recipients each Fall semester, and the recipients are notified in November.
AMOUNTRENEWABLE*SEPTEMBER 2016JANUARY 2017MAY 2017SEPTEMBER 2017
Full Tuition2 available1 availableNA2 available
$5,0002 available1 availableNA2 available
$1,000one-time10 available8 available2 available10 available
Application DeadlinevariousMay 20, 2016Sep 30, 2016Feb 3, 2017May 19, 2017
Important Notice: The scholarships are divided throughout The University’s three semesters each year. Applications will be considered based on academics, community involvement, referee/reference letters and statement of interest.

Deutsche Bank Scholarships for Women at London Business School 2017/2018

Application Deadlines:  24th February 2017
ELIGIBILITY: 
  • This scholarship is open to all successful female MBA applicants with an interest in a career in financial services.
  • Candidates applying in Rounds 1, 2 or 3 will be given details of how to apply for this award (application dates above)
  • Applicants must be Women MBA students of any nationality.
To be considered for admission to London Business School’s MBA Programme, students are required to submit:
  • Completed application form
  • Application essays
  • A one-page Curriculum Vitae/Resume
  • Names and Details of two referees
  • Two letters of recommendation (References are now completed and submitted online)
  • Proof of English Language ability
  • Original copies of the official transcript of grades from each university attended
  • GMAT score (Valid for five years)
    TOEFL iBT, IELTS or CPE (Certificate of Proficiency in English) where applicable
HOW to APPLY:
Details on how to apply for this award will be made available to successful candidates once an offer of a place on the MBA Programme has been made.
Scholarships are awarded every year- Annually.

King Abdulaziz University Masters and PhD Scholarship 2017/2018 – Saudi Arabia

Application Deadline: 28th February 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Saudi Arabia
Type: Postgraduate
Eligibility: 
1) The Applicant’s age doesn’t exceed (35) years For PhD, and (30) years for Masters.
2) The Applicant must have a university degree from an accredited college or university and should have a degree with “very good” at least.
3) An approved exam in English is required for applicant whose first language is not English. The approved exams and minimum required scores are listed below:
  • TOEFL (PBT): 500
  • TOEFL (CBT): 173
  • TOEFL (IBT): 61
  • TOEFL (BT): 5
4) He must have a record of good Conduct and must be medically fit.
5) He must not have been dismissed from any university in the kingdom.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
  1. A monthly bursary of SR 1,900
    2. A preparation allowance when coming for the first time of SR 1,800.
    3. The candidate would receive the health care.
    4. Providing an accommodation and facilities.
    5. Subsidized meals can be provided for the candidate.
    6. A total sum of SR 4,000 for PhD, and SR 3.000 for masters’ allowance for printing the thesis.
    7. An allowance of SR 2,700 for shipping books (when graduated).
    8. Providing the candidate with a two-way ticket annually.
How to Apply: International students should submit the online application,
Award Provider: King Abdulaziz University

RNTC Fully-funded Media & Journalism Scholarships for African & Developing Countries 2017 – Netherlands

Application Deadline: 29th March 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligibility Subject Areas: As of today you can apply with a scholarship for the following courses:
  • Investigative journalism
  • Media campaigns
  • Producing media to counter radicalisation
  • Using media for development
About Scholarship: The RNTC Netherlands training centre provides training for media professionals from all over the world: from journalists and programme-makers to social activists and communications professionals from non-governmental organisations. Whether you are a journalist, a blogger or a media manager, there are courses to fit your needs.
The most commonly used scholarship for RNTC courses are the NFP and MSP (MENA) scholarships. NFP stands for Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP), MSP stands for MENA (Middle East and North Africa) Scholarship Programme
web-rntc-media-training-michiel-bles-19
Offered Since: 2012
Type: Short courses
Selection Criteria: The scholarships will be awarded on academic and professional merit.
Eligibility: RNTC Netherland Fellowships are available for professional journalists, programme-makers, broadcast trainers and managers coming from the countries listed below (a combined NFP list and low-middle-income countries according to the World Bank criteria).
Scholarship Benefits: An NFP or MSP scholarship will cover the full cost of your travel and visa (if required), accommodation and meals, insurance, and the course fee. The NFP and the MSP scholarship programmes are funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and administered by Nuffic, the Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education.
Duration: scholarships are available for courses of two weeks or longer.
Eligible African Countries: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Djibouti, DR Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Other Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Autonomous Palestinian Territories, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Fiji, Georgia, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kiribati, Kosovo, Laos, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen
To be taken at (country): The Netherlands
How to Apply: If you want apply for a scholarship to cover the costs of the course, you need to apply to both RNTC (for your course application) and Nuffic (for a fellowship).
There is no preference for where you start, but it’s wise to start with RNTC and to wait to hear whether or not you are eligible. Once you’ve received RNTC’s positive reaction, you can start your application with Nuffic.
It is important to visit the Scholarship Webpage for more information on how to apply.
Sponsors: RNTC Netherlands

A Corrupt Establishment, Lies and Resistance in the Time of Trump

Michael Sainato

Donald Trump is a pathological liar, who often covers up his own lies with more lies, or deliberately exaggerates or makes sarcastic comments to lead the mainstream media off into a tangential frenzy. In each instance, mainstream media journalists react with outrage, “how can a President say such a thing?” This media cycle repeated itself throughout on a loop throughout the presidential election. From Trump’s announcement of his presidential bid, the media feigned shock and outrage at the audacity of his presidential ambitions. Then his commentary, from campaign promises to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, to attacks on how awful and corrupt the current political system is elicited responses from clueless Republican establishment candidates like Jeb Bush, to gleeful opportunism from Hillary Clinton, who was presumed to be the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee as early as 2008. The focal point of the Republican Primaries quickly became Donald Trump, and resentment toward the mainstream media and this disdain coming from the left and right political establishment toward Trump’s candidacy elevated his candidacy to the front runner of a large field of Republican candidates.
It became an opportunistic outlet for any fringe politician, B-list celebrity, or anyone in desperate need of boosting their career with positive publicity to attack Donald Trump, no matter how vague or generalized of an attack, to garner media attention. Social media posts directed at criticizing Trump provide opportunities for people, who would otherwise get little attention, to trend. Hating Trump has become a national pastime and a pop culture novelty, championed by Republican rejects like Evan McMullin, Glenn Beck, or any Republican elected official dissenting from Trump on any issue, even if their opposition is based on a more conservative stance.
The resistance or challenge to Trump’s candidacy and now his presidency is based on preserving the elitist status quo, and reasserting the establishment’s control. Trump facilitates this with overtly false statements from his administration, enacting an unpopular Muslim travel ban, and provoking such a strong reaction from the media, instigated by his disdain for them, that millions of Americans tune out both sides, accepting that both are awful, self-serving apparatuses with no sincere interest to help the working class, middle class, and poor in this country. Opportunism and political manipulation are the only two constants from Trump and the mainstream media, both favoring corporate and wealthy interests over public interests.
In the context of policy and expression of everything Trump stands for, Hillary Clinton’s egregious mistakes during her campaign and career appear frivolous to the mainstream media, who strongly advocated for her candidacy before she even formally announced her campaign. In the end, the relentless cynicism millions of Americans felt toward the political and media establishment won out against the relentless outrage provoked by Trump on a seemingly daily basis.
The resistance toward Trump’s presidency has produced several positive movements and induced a moral clarity among millions on the left that has been virtually non-existent before as the mainstream media, for the most party covered the Bush and Obama Administration, and their most abhorrent policies, with a favorable decree of consent. But at the same time, some of the resistance being manufactured in response to Trump is doubling down on the same tone deaf, novelty act based on fear mongering Trump that helped elevate him to the presidency, rather than focusing on opposition to his policies, or often lack thereof. The resistance focuses too much and far too often on Trump the person rather than his actions and policies, and pushing for systemic change needed to restore the Democratic party to fighting for working, middle class, and low income voters, not the top 1 percent.

Israel Passes Law To Legalize Theft Of Private Palestinian Land

Charlotte Silver


Late Monday night, Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, approved a bill to retroactively legalize the expropriation by settlers of private Palestinian land that has taken place over the last two decades.
Passed by 60-52, the so-called Regularization Bill will legalize around 4,000 settlement homes in so-called unauthorized outposts and settlements.
Human Rights Watch swiftly condemned the vote, noting that the Regularization Bill “undoes years of established Israeli law and, coming just weeks after the [UN] Security Council’s unanimous passage of Resolution 2334 on the illegality of settlements, reflects Israel’s manifest disregard of international law.”
The group added that the law “entrenches the current reality in the West Bank of de facto permanent occupation where Israeli settlers and Palestinians living in the same territory are subject to ‘separate and unequal’ systems of laws, rules and services.”
The law will grant recognition to 53 of the approximately 100 outposts, expropriating 2,000 acres of private Palestinian land, according to anti-settlement group Peace Now.
It will also deny Palestinian owners the right to claim the land until there is a “diplomatic resolution to the status of the territories.”
The law allows justice minister Ayelet Shaked to expand the list of outposts that will gain legal status.
All settlements are illegal
Moves to legalize outposts have been underway for several years. Last summer, The New York Times revealed that one-third of the outposts had already been retroactively legalized or were on their way, through a policy initiated in 2011.
Adalah, a legal advocacy group for Palestinians in Israel, has vowed to challenge the law in the Israeli high court.
“This sweeping and dangerous law permits the expropriation of vast tracts of private Palestinian land, giving absolute preference to the political interests of Israel as an occupying power and to Israeli settlers,” Adalah lawyer Suhad Bishara told the Associated Press.
While Israel’s high court has tended to rule in favor of Israel’s settlement enterprise, it has ruled against settlements built on private Palestinian land.
Israel’s attorney general Avichai Mendelblit has said he won’t defend the law in the high court, calling it unconstititional and illegal under international law.
Since Israel stopped officially establishing new settlements after it signed the Oslo accords in the early 1990s, it began surreptitiously funding and supporting settler groups to colonize West Bank hilltops, property that belongs to Palestinians.
These became known as “outposts,” technically illegal even under Israeli law, but supported by the government.
Israel also gets around the high court’s prohibition by simply redesignating vast tracts of private Palestinian land as “state land.”
All Israel’s settlements and outposts in the West Bank are illegal under international law.
Towards annexation
According to The Jerusalem Post, this is the first time the Knesset has formally attempted to legislate in Area C, the approximately 60 percent of the West Bank left under full Israeli military control under the Oslo agreements.
Calling the law “evil and dangerous,” former Likud minister Dan Meridor noted that Palestinians in the West Bank “did not vote for the Knesset, and it has no authority to legislate for them. These are basic principles of democracy and Israeli law.”
Though it is unlikely that many Palestinians would see Israel’s decades-long military rule as any more democratic or respectful of their rights.
Peace Now has described the law as a “big step towards annexation.”
Right-wing Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post called the legislation the “most significant event in the settlement movement since the 2005 withdrawal,” referring to Israel’s removal of its military and settlers from the occupied Gaza Strip and a small part of the West Bank. The newspaper also called the law the “first step toward annexation of Area C.”
Appeasing settlers
But as much as the bill may signal Israel’s move towards annexation, it has also been used to score political points with the powerful settler movement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially opposed the bill, warning his cabinet that it would land its backers at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
But his position has shifted as the bill gained popularity within his coalition.
It was advanced in late 2016, as the Amona outpost approached its court-ordered deadline to evacuate.
As the Amona settlers were removed on 1 February, the Israeli government announced plans to build thousands of new settlement homes elsewhere in the West Bank.
The most vocal supporter of annexation is the Jewish Home party, led by education minister Naftali Bennett.
A strong competitor to Netanyahu’s Likud party for right-wing support, Bennett had accused Netanyahu of trying to delay a final vote on the bill.
On Monday, after meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May in London and reportedly speaking to the White House, Netanyahu scheduled a vote on the bill.
His decision came even though May had told Netanyahu that the bill “is unhelpful and would make things more difficult for Israel’s friends around the world,” the Tel Aviv newspaper *Haaretz reported.
In a surprise move on Friday, the administration of US President Donald Trump issued a public warning to Israel over its accelerating construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Though this statement is considerably softer than past US rhetoric on settlement construction, it was perceived as relatively stern in light of expectations that Trump would relax even further any obstacles to Israeli colonialism and militarism.