United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) Fellowship for Young Leaders 2017

Application Deadline: 21st May 2017

Eligible Countries: Countries in Europe, North-America (EUNA), the Middle East and North-Africa (MENA).

About the Award: The UNAOC Fellowship Program was launched in 2010 with the aim to build bridges between cultures and societies through dialogue and cooperation, and to reinforce the global commitment to live together in mutual tolerance and respect. The Program was created to recognize the need for better understanding between peoples and societies from the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and North America.

By exposing participants to new ideas and perspectives, and by immersing them into culturally diverse environments, the Fellowship Program aims at challenging perceptions and deconstructing stereotypes. Building on that, participants become then better equipped to position themselves as informed stakeholders and to develop cross-cultural partnerships while bridging divides between peoples from different faiths and cultures.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants have to meet two eligibility criteria in order to apply. They have to be nationals of EUNA or MENA countries and be between 25 and 38 years old.

Selection Criteria: Candidates have to show a level of professional accomplishment in intercultural dialogue and in the theme chosen by UNAOC, through their involvement in politics, civil society, media, local community organizations, faith based associations, grassroots initiatives, academia, think-tanks, arts, and any other fields relevant to the objectives of the Fellowship Program.

Selection Process: Participants are selected for their potential in shaping opinion and taking strong initiatives within their community. In their applications, candidates have to demonstrate a strong interest – backed by concrete ideas – to engage with peers and partners from the countries they are going to visit, and propose positive and innovative models of intercultural cooperation.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: The Fellowship provides participants with first hand exposure to diversity and with the opportunity to experience cultural immersion while interacting with a wide range of local actors and partners. In every country visited, participants are being provided with crucial comprehension tools to help them understand the plurality of their surroundings, and to get an extensive grasp of host countries’ culture, politics, society, religion, media and more.

Duration of Program: 18 days in October or November 2017

How to Apply: 

• Apply
  • Call for Applications to candidates from EUNA countries
  • Call for Applications to candidates from MENA countries

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: UNAOC

XL Africa Business Acceleration Program for Digital Startups in Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 12th June 2017

Eligible Countries: Africa countries

To be taken at (country): South Africa

About the Award: If you are accepted into the program, you will be asked to:

• Engage regularly with mentors (4-6 hours a month) over five months. Remember it’s a two-way street – both mentors and mentees learn and commit to this relationship. In many cases, we expect these relationships to last long after the program has ended.
• Over 5 months, participate in four virtual webinar sessions run by global experts with inputs from leading African and US investors and successful entrepreneurs.
• Participate in the residential program in South Africa for two weeks in November 2017.
• Engage with 19 other African enterprises, along with mentors, investors and strategic partners.
• Come with an open mind and be willing to learn and collaborate.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

• Your startup is for profit and registered, with a team of at least three people
• Your team is based in one of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa
• You have a very strong management team
• You have a digital product or service available on the market right now, with demonstrated tangible traction and evidence of revenue
• You have potential to achieve scale
• You are seeking investment capital in the range of $250K – $1.5m
• While there will be exceptions, mostly likely your startup has already received investment capital, structured as either debt or equity, or received grants from donor organizations.

Selection Criteria: To select the top 20 start-ups, we will consider:

• Commercial Value of your Product/Service (25%): Your company addresses a real problem in the market. The digital solution is different to others in the industry. Your product or service is catalyzing social change.
• Strategy for Growth (25%): There is potential to expand into new markets or expand at home. We can see demonstrable progress, and your startup is scalable.
• Management (25%): The team have the qualifications needed to make the business successful.
• Market Traction & Financials (25%): We will evaluate your market traction and look at the potential market size. We’ll also look at your business model, revenue streams and unit economics, and if any outside funding has been raised before.

Number of Awards: 20

Value of Program: We will help your company access capital, expand market share, and refine its business model through tailored mentorship, coaching, and networking opportunities. Here’s what we offer:

• Structured access to investors throughout the program and at a Venture Showcase Day in South Africa.
• Mentoring from at least two successful entrepreneurs or investors (global and local) to develop accurate company valuations, financial forecasts, risk management and customer acquisition strategies. Access to other expertise is provided based on your specific needs.
• The opportunity to meet with investors, potential customers and partners as well as peers at an all-expenses paid residency in Cape Town, South Africa.
• Support in developing investment packages so you’re ready for investment following the program.
• Knowledge through curated content designed to teach you everything you need to know about marketing, financing and market expansion.

Duration of Program: August 1 – December 31, 2017

How to Apply: APPLY NOW

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: XL Africa

Treating Mental Health Patients as Criminals

Patrick Cockburn

The criminalisation of the mentally ill is one of the cruellest and most easily avoidable tragedies of our era. In the next few days, the state of Arkansas is intending to execute by lethal injection a 60-year-old man called Bruce Ward who showed signs of insanity at the time of his conviction for murder and was diagnosed by a court-recognised psychiatrist in 2006 as being a paranoid schizophrenic.

Ward is one of seven men facing execution in Arkansas after the first death sentence in the state since 2005 was carried out on Thursday. “He appears not to understand that he is about to die, believing instead that he is preparing for a ‘special mission’ as an evangelist,” says a report by the Harvard University Fair Punishment Project. A second man scheduled for execution is Jason McGehee who suffers from bipolar disorder and possible brain damage.

The prison systems in the US and UK have replaced psychiatric hospitals as the place where people suffering from severe mental illness are most likely to find themselves. It is a process that has been going on since the 1960s, fuelled by a desire to save money, a belief that medication would replace hospitalisation, and a liberal reaction against what was seen as unnecessary incarceration. Between 1955 and 2016, the number of state hospital beds in the US available to psychiatric patients fell by over 97 per cent from 559,000 to just 38,000. An expert noted despairingly that the biggest de facto psychiatric institutions in the US today are Los Angeles County jail, Chicago’s Cook County jail and New York’s Riker’s Island. Those who are not in prison or hospital “become violent or, more often, the victims of violence. They grow sicker and die. The personal and public costs are incalculable,” says a report by the Treatment Advocacy Center in Virginia. Mentally ill people, usually poor and unemployable because of their condition, are sometimes advised that the only way they will get even the crudest treatment is by being sent to prison.

The same process is happening in Britain. One of the justifications for closing down the old asylum system was that they were too much like prisons, but the paradoxical result has been that psychiatric patients are now ending up in real prisons. The number of beds available for mental health patients in the UK has dropped by three quarters since 1986/87 to about 17,000, while the Centre for Mental Health says that 21,000 mentally ill people are imprisoned, making up a quarter of the prison population.

For many mentally ill people, the prospect of incarceration is becoming probable in an unexpected reversion to eighteenth century practice. Some are left to wander the streets but most are looked after by their families who may not have the resources to do so. Deceptively progressive sounding words, like ‘deinstitutionalisation’ in the US and ‘care in the community’ in the UK, are used to describe the ending of the vast system that once catered for psychiatric patients.

Some of these institutions were hellholes, and others became unnecessary because medication was available from the 1950s that controlled some of the worst symptoms of mental illness. But the old system did at least provide an asylum in the sense of a place of safety where people who could not look after themselves were cared for. Supposing ‘care in the community’ had been more than an attractive slogan, it might have provided something of a replacement for the old asylums, but the care it provided was always inadequate.

The reality of the new system was best described by the detective-story writer P.D. James, an administrator in the NHS in London whose husband was a long-term patient in a mental hospital. She wrote that since the 1970s community care “could be described more accurately as the absence of care in a community still largely resentful or frightened of mental illness.”

Not much has changed for the better since P.D.James was writing, as was made plain this week by the report of the Sir Thomas Winsor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, who complained that the police are increasingly being used as the “first resort” for people with mental health problems. He said that sometimes they ended up spending the night in police cells even though they had committed no crime because no hospital beds were available. He added that the “inadequacy” of mental health provision should “disturb everyone”.

Marjorie Wallace, the founder and chief executive of SANE, a mental health charity, explains that governments have every incentive to keep mental patients out of hospital, since “providing a single bed costs the same as ‘treating’ 44 people in the community.” She welcomed Theresa May’s intention expressed in a speech earlier this year to do something about “the burning injustice of mental health and inadequate treatment”, but says that this will remain a Utopian vision unless there is more ring-fenced money for psychiatric services which are already close to breakdown.

There is more open discussion than there used to be about mental illness, with a campaign against stigmatisation and exhortations for people to seek counseling or simply speak up about their mental troubles before they become chronic and irreversible. Prince Harry spoke movingly about the negative consequences for himself of repressing his grief over the death of his mother when he was twelve years old. Celebrities reveal their anxieties and breakdowns. Such openness is important because it reduces personal isolation and makes people feel that they will not be treated as pariahs if they speak up.

When I first began to write about schizophrenia in 2002, I found that my friends and relatives divided into those who knew nothing about mental illness and those who knew all too much about it. But the latter had often never mentioned previously that they were looking after a sister with schizophrenia or a brother who could not leave his flat without having a breakdown. One friend disclosed a terrible story of a sister-in-law who had poured petrol over herself and set it alight, suffering burns over three quarters of her body from which she took weeks to die in agony.

Openness and discussion are important, but they skirt the heart of the problem, which is that a proportion of people who are mentally ill cannot look after themselves. The severity and incurability of a mental illnesses are often underestimated and there may be exaggerated expectations of preventing their onset by early intervention. The precise causes and nature of mental illness remains very much a mystery so a large number of people are always going to become desperately ill. Schizophrenia, for instance, is to mental illness what cancer is to physical illness. When Prince Harry talked about psychological troubles, debilitating though these may be, they are still not the same as full blown psychosis or, in other words, madness.

The present system has failed and the result is the creeping criminalisation of madness. The only way to reverse this is to build a core of dedicated hospitals that will care for and protect psychiatric patients who cannot do this for themselves and are a potential danger to themselves and others.

US prepares military response to world-historic famine in sub-Saharan Africa, Arabian Peninsula

Thomas Gaist 

Widespread and deepening famine is threatening the lives of tens of millions across large parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Analysts describe the outbreak of mass hunger as completely historically unprecedented and warn that record-breaking levels of malnourishment and starvation are overwhelming the capacity of existing humanitarian infrastructure.

Tens of millions people, including 17 million Yemenis, 7 million Nigerians, 3 million Somalis and 1 million South Sudanese, are in imminent danger of dying from lack of adequate nutrition, according to United Nations (UN) estimates. Countries impacted by famine and food shortages include South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

In Somalia, where the Trump administration announced the deployment of regular US ground troops for the first time since 1994, the price of a 20-liter can of water increased from 4 to 40 cents during the past few weeks alone. Somalia is experiencing record rates of child malnutrition and faces the die off of 75 percent of its livestock, according to Save the Children.

The Yemen war, waged by the United States and Saudi Arabia since April 2015, has transformed one of the most ancient societies in the world into the ground-zero of world famine. Some 20 million Yemenis are now on the verge of starvation. The naval blockade of Yemen’s ports, enforced by American and Saudi ships, is strangling the flow of goods into a country that depends on imports for 90 percent of its food supply. The US-Saudi bombing campaign has relentlessly targeted Yemen’s social infrastructure, completely paralyzing its economy and turning 80 percent of its population into paupers. The approval by Trump of a Navy SEALs raid into Yemen, as his first official military action, has signaled his intention to expand direct US participation in the war.

The response of Africa’s national elites to the famine has been intensified social attacks against their own populations. The US-backed governments of Djibouti, Tanzania, Rwanda and Ethiopia have slashed food rations in recent months. The US-backed South Sudanese government is employing starvation as a weapon against ethnic minorities, and has “actively blocked and prevented aid access” to famine-stricken areas, the UN said.

In the teeth of a world-historic famine, instead of food deliveries, the White House is organizing expanded war throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Trump has approved “increasing American military pressure” in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, Central African Republic, Chad and Somalia, according to Breitbart News, a web site with close ties to the American President.

Last week, Trump approved the sale of fighter jets to Nigeria, signaling his intention to escalate the US proxy war in Nigeria. Now in its seventh year, the war has already displaced some 2.5 million, and transformed northern Nigeria into one of the worst famine hotspots on the continent.

The American military is deploying “advisors, intelligence, training, and equipment” throughout West Africa, US Africa Command (AFRICOM) commander General Thomas Waldhauser announced in comments March 24.

Last week, Waldhauser hosted dozens of African military officers for discussions at the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The purpose of the US Africa Command Chiefs of Defense (CHoD) meetings is to recruit “liaison” officers from African governments who will be permanently stationed alongside US commanders in Europe, coordinating joint US-African military operations on the continent.

AFRICOM’s military presence in Africa is geared to crush the mass social opposition to Africa’s national governments and militaries that will inevitably arise out of the famine and other manifestations of the deepening economic and social crisis.

“On the African continent, when you have, you know, the top 50 poorest countries on the planet. Obviously the migrant problem is a huge issue,” Waldhauser remarked.

The American military is “war-gaming procedures to work in a famine-type environment,” the top US Africa General said.

Aside from its role in policing the increasingly restive African population, the continuous expansion of AFRICOM’s war operations on the continent is aimed at seizing the continent’s most strategic resources and infrastructure. The huge potential profits to be coined out of the labor-power of Africa’s working class, and the untold trillions in mineral wealth buried in its lands, are greedily sought after by the American and European ruling elites. Africa has been at the center of the military and strategic aggression waged by the Western powers against the entire former colonial world since the end of the USSR.

The past two-and-a-half decades of the so-called “post-colonial” era have witnessed a renaissance of colonialism. Thousands of US and European troops and commandos now rampage freely on the continent, establishing proxy armies and organizing the toppling and murder of numerous African leaders considered insufficiently compliant with US imperialism’s line.

The alternative between socialism and a new round of imperialist barbarism is posed most starkly on the African continent, the birthplace of the human species. Only a unified mass movement of the entire African working class, leading behind it the oppressed peasantry, can drive the imperialists from the continent and resolve the urgent social problems facing the masses. Such a movement requires the building of sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the only genuine socialist leadership in existence, in every country of Africa.

Hundreds of Afghan soldiers die in Taliban attack

Jordan Shilton

At least 140 soldiers of the Afghan National Army were killed Friday in the deadliest Taliban attack since the Islamist regime’s overthrow in the US-led invasion in 2001. Some local sources in the northern Afghan province of Balkh placed the death toll as high as 200.

The attack was conducted by a group of ten fighters, who managed to penetrate the army’s largest base in the north of the country. The manner of the attack strongly suggests that the Taliban enjoyed inside support and demonstrates the increasing inability of the US puppet government led by President Ashraf Ghani to maintain control over the country.

The assailants, dressed in Afghan army fatigues, gained entry to the base in military vehicles before opening fire on the unarmed soldiers as they emerged from Friday prayers. Some of the attackers blew themselves up, with one blast killing 80 people, according to one source. It took a five-hour intervention by special commando forces to restore control over the base and kill all of the Taliban members.

Friday’s attack is only the latest in a number of insurgent assaults on government institutions over recent months. In March, militants linked to ISIS entered the main military hospital in Kabul dressed as doctors and launched an attack that claimed more than 50 casualties. A dozen officers in the Afghan army, including two generals, were subsequently removed from their posts due to lapses prior to the incident.

Following Friday’s attack, a number of parliamentary deputies and former security officials called on several senior figures to accept responsibility for the attack and resign, including Major General Mohmand Katawazai, the commander of the 209 Army Corps that occupied the base, Balkh Governor Atta Mohammad Noor, and Defense Minister Abdullah Habibi. The group also accused President Ghani of nepotism in his appointments of leading military personnel.

The insurgency against the US-led occupation has continued to grow. According to information from the US special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction (SIGAR), the Afghan government controls just 52 percent of the country, with more than one third of provinces contested by insurgents and around 10 percent under the control of the Taliban. These figures come ahead of the Taliban’s anticipated spring offensive, and show that despite investing hundreds of billions of dollars to establish a pro-Western puppet regime in Kabul, Washington has failed to establish a viable government.

The attack on the Afghan army base came less than a week after President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, General H.R. McMaster, visited Kabul for talks with the Afghan government. The main purpose of the talks was to consider whether additional US military personnel would be required to turn the tide of the conflict. Currently, some 8,500 US troops operate in Afghanistan, nominally in the capacity of advising and assisting Afghan troops.

The latest attack, which has exposed once again the fragility of the US-trained forces, will only intensify calls for further US deployments.

The request for additional forces was made by the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, to a congressional committee in February. Although no decision has yet been made about such a deployment, the comments of McMaster indicated that this is the direction the Trump administration will take. He said in a ToloNews interview that fighters who did not accept the Afghan government’s offer of peace “will have to be defeated on battlefields,” adding that Washington was “committed to give the Afghan state, the Afghan security forces, the strength they need.”

A stepped-up US presence is even more likely given the deepening crisis facing the Afghan army and the mounting alienation felt by ordinary Afghans towards Washington’s corrupt client regime in Kabul. As well as the apparent existence of elements that are facilitating the Taliban attacks within its ranks, the Afghan National Army is also suffering dramatic casualty rates. In 2016 alone there were more than 6,700 deaths.

Indicating the deep unpopularity of the Kabul government, many relatives of those killed in the latest Taliban attack and other Afghans expressed anger and frustration with the authorities. “Mothers lost their sons, sisters lost their brothers and wives lost their husbands. What is the government doing to prevent such atrocities, only condemning? I am so tired. I can’t do anything but to cry,” Zabiullah commented, according to Al-Jazeera. “We always thought our house was safe because of the base,” a local resident added, “but now we are shocked. How could this have happened? I can’t believe we lost all these young men.”

McMaster’s visit came just days after the US military dropped its largest nonnuclear bomb, the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), in the east of the country, ostensibly to target a few hundred ISIS supporters operating in a cave network. The blast killed an estimated 94 ISIS fighters and an unknown number of civilians, with reports of houses being destroyed some three miles away from the blast site.

US politicians and media outlets applauded the strike as a demonstration of US military power and a warning to Russia, China and North Korea as to the methods to which US imperialism is prepared to resort in pursuit of its drive for global hegemony.

The decision to drop the MOAB, together with remarks by various think tanks, point to a deliberate effort by Washington to escalate tensions with Russia and other regional powers over Afghanistan.

Stratfor, which has close links with the US intelligence apparatus, described the Central Asian country in an April 20 analysis as “an increasingly important theater for the US-Russia competition.” It complained that Moscow was working to deploy additional troops in Tajikistan on the Afghan border as part of a military cooperation agreement with the Central Asian country.

US and Afghan officials have also made provocative allegations that Russia is aiding the Taliban, claims the Kremlin has dismissed as “fabrications.”

On April 14, Moscow held peace talks with the Afghan government and other regional powers. While an invitation was extended to Washington, the Trump administration refused to attend and instead dropped the MOAB a day prior to the meeting.

During his Afghan trip, McMaster also took a swipe at Pakistan, suggesting that the Trump administration was no longer willing to tolerate Islamabad’s refusal to confront Taliban fighters based in the border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. “We have hoped that Pakistani leaders will understand that it is in their interest to go after these groups less selectively than they have in the past,” he said, before traveling to Pakistan, where he delivered a similar message. “The best way to pursue their interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere is through the use of diplomacy and not through the use of proxies that engage in violence.”

The escalation of the Afghanistan conflict by the Trump administration will intensify the already horrific conditions faced by the country’s long-suffering population after more than fifteen years of war. Hundreds of thousands have lost their lives as a result of US imperialist aggression and millions more have been forced to flee their homes. Civilian deaths reached a record high in 2016, when close to 11,500 noncombatants were killed or wounded. According to the United Nations, one third of these casualties were children.

IMF meeting signals descent into global trade war

Nick Beams

In another step toward world-wide trade war, the International Monetary Fund over the weekend became the second major global economic organisation to back away from a commitment to “resist all forms of protectionism.”

In the wake of the decision at last month’s meeting of the G20 finance ministers to drop the phrase from its communiqué, the IMF adopted the same course at its spring meeting in Washington. In both cases, the “free trade” commitment was removed as a result of pressure from the Trump administration, in line with the White House’s “America First” agenda.

The statement issued by the IMF’s International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) said it sought to “promote a level playing field in international trade,” dropping the previous wording.

The current chair of the committee, Agustin Carstens, the governor of the Bank of Mexico, sought to cover over the significance of the decision by suggesting that the previous wording had been removed because “the use of the word protectionism is very ambiguous.”

In reality, the omission of any disavowal of protectionism is an unmistakable expression of mounting trade tensions, fueled above all by the Trump administration.

These conflicts could not be completely suppressed at the meeting. In his statement to the IMFC, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said Germany “commits to keep the global economy open, resist protectionism and keep global economic and financial cooperation on track.”

This statement stood in stark contrast to the remarks of US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. He said the US would “promote an expansion of trade with those partners committed to market-based competition, while more rigorously defending ourselves against unfair trade practices.”

He directed his comment in particular against the two major countries, China and Germany, that have the largest trade surpluses with the US. Washington insists that the Chinese economy is not market-based, while members of the Trump administration have asserted that Germany enjoys unfair advantages because the value of the euro is lower than where its former currency, the deutschmark, would have been.

While not directly naming Germany, which recorded a record trade surplus last year, Mnuchin said that “countries with large external surpluses and sound public finances have a particular responsibility for contributing to a more robust global economy.”

The decision of the IMF to bow to US pressure came just days after the Trump administration announced a major initiative aimed at imposing sweeping restrictions on steel imports, which, if carried through, will have far-reaching implications for the global market in this basic commodity.

Under a little-used law dating from 1962, Trump signed an executive order to launch an investigation into the impact of steel imports on US national security. Describing the decision as a “historic day for America,” he declared that steel was “critical to both our economy and military,” and that this was not “an area where we can afford to become dependent on foreign countries.”

The invocation of “national security” has clear connections to the militarist drive of the administration. But the use of this legislation is also part of a broader strategy on protectionism laid out by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, the head of Trump’s National Trade Council, in a submission to Congress earlier this year.

It is based on using previous US legislation to circumvent international trade laws enforced by the World Trade Organization, enabling the United States to impose protectionist measures with impunity. Significantly, in their paper, Ross and Navarro invoked the infamous Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, widely credited with being responsible for the trade conflicts of the 1930s that contributed to the outbreak of World War II.

Commenting on the latest Trump move to the Financial Times, Chad Brown, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute and a former economic adviser to President Obama, said that citing “national security” to justify restrictions on steel imports amounted to carrying out the “nuclear option” on trade.

“This is one more piece of evidence in the worrisome trend that Trump seems to be turning over every rock and investigating each tool available under US law to stop trade,” he said.

In recent years, the US has launched 152 anti-steel dumping cases and has another 25 in the pipeline. But the latest move represents a major escalation. According to Commerce Secretary Ross, the present system is too “porous” and allows only for narrow complaints against particular countries, which can be easily skirted.

The new measures are intended to bring about a “more comprehensive solution with a very wide range of steel products and a very wide range of countries,” which could “conceivably result in a recommendation to take action on all steel imports.”

This would cause chaos in international markets, as steel exporters sought to shift their output to other markets, leading to accusations of dumping, the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions—in short, a full-scale trade war.

There are two essential driving forces behind the actions of the American government: First, the ongoing economic decline of the US, which it now seeks to overcome by political and military means—a process that has accelerated in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent decline in world economic growth and contraction of world markets.

Second, the striving by the Trump administration to deflect rising social tensions caused by low wages and growing economic hardship, and channel them along reactionary economic nationalist lines. In this, Trump has the full support of the trade union bureaucracy, with key union leaders standing beside him as he signed his executive order on steel. It is also backed by the economic nationalists of the Democratic Party, whose most prominent representative is the self-styled “socialist” Bernie Sanders.

The inherent, objective logic of these processes is economic and military war, to which the capitalist politicians can offer no progressive alternative, as the impotence displayed by the IMF in the face of what it recognises as a great danger once again underscored. This is because the growth of economic nationalism and protectionism is rooted in the very foundations of the socio-economic system based on private profit and the division of the world into rival nation-states.

One hundred years ago, the world was embroiled in the carnage of World War I. It was not the “war to end all wars,” but only the start of a more than three-decade-long struggle to decide which of the imperialist powers would achieve global dominance. Eventually, after tens of millions of deaths and untold horrors, including the Holocaust and the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, the US emerged as the preeminent global power.

Now the world is being brought face to face with the even more explosive consequences of America’s economic decline.

But this year also marks the centenary of the greatest event of the 20th century, the Russian Revolution, and the successful conquest of political power by the working class, led by the Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik Party on the basis of the program of world socialist revolution. That must be the perspective that animates the international working class in the struggles it now directly confronts.

Egerton University Msc and PhD Scholarships for East African Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th April, 2017.

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Kenyan, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, South Sudan, and Burundi.

To be taken at (country): Egerton University, Kenya

About the Award: Food insecurity and poverty remain the major challenges to Africa’s development, affecting about 33% of its population. One key approach in addressing Africa’s food insecurity is to build capacity along the agricultural value chains. The Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Agriculture and Agribusiness Management (CESAAM) at Egerton University (Kenya), funded by World Bank is modeled to address the above issues. The broad objective of CESAAM is to contribute to sustainable agricultural and agribusiness management through capacity development, research and technology transfer for enhanced food security. The fellowships will therefore support students training and research in field addressing sustainable agriculture and agribusiness management. Key focus areas include Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management, Animal Sciences, Crop and Soil Sciences, Dairy and Food Sciences.

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility: 

1. Applicants must meet the admission criteria for postgraduate programmes of Egerton University.
2. MSc applicants must have attained at least a Second Class Honours (Upper Division) or equivalent in relevant agricultural science or related field.
3. PhD applicants must have successfully completed masters or equivalent in a relevant agricultural science or related field.
4. Applicants must submit a recommendation letter from their Head of Department, Dean or Principal of the specified institution collaborating with the CESAAM center.
5. Qualified women are encouraged to apply and will be given priority.

Preference will be given to students from the following institutions that are key partners in the project:

• University of Rwanda, Rwanda
• University of Juba, South Sudan
• University of Burundi, Burundi
• Gulu University, Uganda
• Egerton University, Kenya
• Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, Kenya
• BecA ILRI

Female applicants and students from countries emerging from conflict will be given special consideration.

Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: This is a comprehensive scholarship that will cover tuition fees, thesis research costs, stipend (to cover living expenses and hostel) and a return air-ticket for applicants from outside Kenya and Uganda.

Duration of Scholarship: The Awardees for the MSc programmes will be on a two year full time study while the PhD awardees will be on a three year full-time study programme.

How to Apply: Interested candidates may apply either online, or by post enclosing their applications in envelope marked CESAAM programmes, to the addressees below. The applicant must submit the following documents:

1. Application cover letter
2. Curriculum vitae
3. Certified copies of transcripts and certificates
4. For PhD applicants, a concept note of not more than 4 pages stipulating research area of interest

N/B: The deadline for applying for the scholarships is April 30, 2017.

Apply for Scholarship

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award  Provider: Egerton University

Barclays Rising Eagles Graduate Programme for Africans 2017

Application Deadline: 11th August 2017

Offered Annually?

Eligible Countries: Barclays recruits graduates from each country in which it operates. Barclays offer opportunities in the following countries:

• Botswana
• Ghana
• Seychelles
• South Africa
• Tanzania
• Uganda

About the Award: We have opportunities across Africa. Wherever you join us from, and in whatever role, you’ll be working alongside the best in the business – go-getting achievers with sky-high aspirations just like yours. You’ll be challenged. You’ll be inspired to spread your wings. And you’ll define where your ambitions lie within our dynamic, global organisation. Expect the Rising Eagles Graduation Programme, with its many great benefits, to nurture your passion for ideas and help make them come to life.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Barclays recruits graduates from each country in which it operates. Interested candidate will need to be a citizen of the country in which you are applying. If you are not a citizen in the country where you are applying, you will need to ensure you are eligible to work in that country, as well as obtain the necessary work permits and/or documentation to allow you to work in that country (you will need to obtain these prior to your application).

• A postgraduate qualification (minimum NQF Level 8) in any of the disciplines that we recruit from, obtained before January 2018.
• There is an exception for Tanzania whereby a three year degree will be accepted.
• Less than 24 months’ permanent work experience (this excludes temporary work during full-time studies).

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: 

• Training and Development
  Rising Eagles offers a blended approach to training and development that combines classroom training, group activities, assignments and e-learning. The programme is enhanced with specific events where we host specialist speakers to deliver key topics that affect our business and your role. Whichever one of our business areas you join, you’ll be guided, moulded and trained for 12 months– building up the skills and experience you’ll need to become a leader for our future. Every step of the way, our training and support will keep your development on track.
• Support
  You won’t be on this journey alone. From the day you arrive, you’ll have a buddy on hand – a previous graduate – to offer guidance, advice and support – who’ll always be there to share their experience and expertise with you.
• Additional training
  We know the more clued up you are, the better you’ll perform. Which is why, as your career with us develops, we’ll continue to support your personal and professional development. There’s a vast array of training opportunities available from talks, projects and competitions to practical skills sessions. Not to mention the 300+ online learning modules available through our Learning for Africa portal.

How to Apply: 

1. Online application
   Applications are screened to ensure they meet our minimum academic requirements. How you approach and answer the application questions will also play a role in our selection process.
2. First round interview
   As a quick way to get to know you, interviews will be done over the phone or face-to-face.
3. Psychometric assessment
   An online assessment will be sent to you to complete.
4. Assessment centre
   Depending on the business area you have been shortlisted for, you’ll be invited for further assessments, which may include a variety of group exercises, role-plays, case studies and interviews.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award  Provider: Barclays

Estonian School of Diplomacy (ESD) Full Scholarships for Young Diplomats and Civil Servants 2017

Application Deadline: 9th June 2017

Eligible Countries: Low and Middle Income countries

To be taken at (country): Tallinn, Estonia

Field of Study:  Training course will be on International Relations and European Integration with the value of 60 ECTS Credit Points.

The training course includes three thematic modules:
         International Relations;
European Studies;
Diplomatic Studies.

Type: Training

Eligibility: The person applying for the scholarship:

–  comes from a country eligible for ODA (developing country. See in link below)
– is not older than 35 years (when applying);
– has at least a BA degree;
– has very good command of English (speaking, reading, writing skills are required at the level of advanced);
– is currently employed by their country’s/territory’s foreign or civil service and has been working there for at least one year;
– is highly motivated to learn about international relations and related disciplines. Priority will be given to the candidates strongly motivated to continue their professional careers within the service of their respective country/territory;
– is hard working, co-operative and ready for cross-cultural study environment.

Number of Scholarships: Not specific

Value of Scholarship: 

• tuition fee;
  – monthly allowance (450 EUR);
  – accommodation in Tallinn (incl. utilities and internet connection);
  – health insurance in Estonia during the studies;
  – cost of Schengen visa and Estonian residence permit;
  – scholarship does NOT cover the costs of travel to and from Tallinn.

Duration of Scholarship:  Training course International Relations and European Integration starts on September, 18 2017 and ends on May 31, 2018;

How to Apply: The applicant should present:
– ESD application form (downloadable HERE);
– CV in English;
– Motivation letter (1 page/300-400 words, explaining the reasons for applying, previous experience and how the studies will benefit the student’s future development);
– copies of university transcript in (unofficial) English translation, i.e. diploma of higher education and academic record;
– copy of (international) passport;
– 1 passport-sized photograph (to be added to the application form);
– academic essay (1,300-1,500 words with references) to be written on one of the topics below:

1. My three visions on future US foreign policy
2. Europe after Brexit
3. A new international settlement for the Middle East
4. Quo vadis Eastern Partnership?

Application documents can be submitted from April 14, 2017 by using Online Scholarship Application System.
– Application must reach ESD by June 9, 2017 at the latest. Skype interviews will be conducted with shortlisted candidates.
– All candidates will be informed by e-mail about their enrolment status at the latest on June 19, 2017.
– Selected participants are expected to arrive in Tallinn on September 16-17, 2017.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award  Provider: Estonian School of Diplomacy (ESD), in co-operation with the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Kashmir: Time For UN To Act

Naveed Qazi

There has been no transparency in discussions arising from bilateral talks on Kashmir. From the last few years, calling off the Kashmir dispute has been the favourite argument arising out of Indian media commentators and political leaders. It is because of existing narration of implanting fervent Indian nationalism inside Kashmir valley.

Economic development, financial incentives and being part of India’s GDP growth have been other reasons given to call off Kashmir dispute. But is it fair? Why did India and Pakistan make attempts to reconcile through international agreements in the past at the first place, despite several wars fought on the borders?

British research has also deemed instrument of accession controversial. Importantly, what makes India run away from its moral responsibility when thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in the conflict? When were economic grants more sacrosanct than human lives? Maybe, when it comes to Kashmir, all humanist ideals, which Indian politicians adhere to, fall apart.

Indian sponsored elections and the Constituent Assembly can never equate to plebiscite, as recommended by the UN in Security Resolution dated 30 March, 1951:“Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the “All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference” and any action that Assembly might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle (plebiscite under UN auspices).”

To add to that, Article 103 of the UN Charter clearly overrides all failed commitments of India and Pakistan through pacts: “ In the event of conflict between obligations of the Members of United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” As, India and Pakistan have hailed UN Charter in Lahore Agreement and signed other multiple bilateral agreements in the past, India cannot evade its responsibility of being a UN member.

Between the years 1948 to 1971, the UN has passed 23 resolutions. These resolutions have been passed through Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, which make them advisory and as recommendations. Chapter 6 calls for peaceful resolutions instead of war. It bounds India to adopt these resolutions passed on Kashmir ‘morally’, if not ‘legally enforceable’ as from Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

However, according to Article 35 of UN, any country that is a UN member can bring a dispute into attention in the General Assembly. Quite recently, Pakistan, under Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif brought Kashmir dispute into attention in the UN General Assembly after the reaction of 2016 protests in Kashmir Valley.

UN encourages ceasefire between two nations. It is for this reason UN Military Observers Group was formed. No resolution has been passed to terminate the functions of UN Military Observers Group as of now. The present Hindutva government has also failed in winding up the UN Observers Group mission in Kashmir. It is likely because UN encourages a peaceful settlement of Kashmir dispute.

Many countries in the recent past such as Norway, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Turkey and United States have called for a peaceful resolution. But India on the other hand, has been evading this responsibility for national interests. Kashmiri people have been betrayed and trapped in this propaganda of India by calling it as an integral part.

To be clear, it is the state of India that is provoking Kashmir to be a nuclear flashpoint in recent years. It is also the State of India that is provoking violence in Kashmir because of implanting a strategy of calling off the Kashmir dispute completely, despite giving false promises to Kashmiri people and making them wait for decades since partition.

If economic incentives could win the hearts of Kashmiri people and end the conflict, we wouldn’t have seen worst forms of anarchy on the streets on Kashmir. Youth have become protestors not because they don’t have jobs but because of political injustice. Seasons of calm have never stayed for long inside Kashmir Valley.

India has no legal proof regarding resolution-seeking activists and political amalgams being on the payroll of people that harm the national interests of India. It is infact an excuse and a false propaganda to choke the political aspirations in Kashmir and to further trivialise the issue.

It is worth mentioning that Simla Agreement doesn’t suggest a resolution as per ‘wishes of Kashmiri people’. So, it cannot be deemed as a substitute for passed UN resolutions. Infact, these bilateral agreements have vested interests which ignore the real sentiments of Kashmiri people.

Looking at the political and religious diversity of J&K, it would be better if new set of resolutions are drafted by UN. Not only because the past UN resolutions and bilateral agreements have yielded nothing, but it would make India more aware of its responsibility to address the political grievances. But in present circumstances, UN unfortunately hasn’t taken any concrete steps. This aloofness is alienating the aspirations of Kashmiri people and making Kashmir look like no dispute at all.