15 May 2017

As workers’ wages stagnated, UK super-rich “carried on making billions”

Simon Whelan

The UK’s richest 1,000 residents “kept calm and carried on making billions” amidst the Brexit vote of 2016, according to this year’s Sunday Times Rich List. Their collective wealth rose by £83 billion, a staggering 14 percent over the past year, to a record £658 billion.
The wealth of those on the list is always an underestimation, as it is based on “identifiable” assets and excludes money held in bank accounts.
This year’s list shows an extraordinary concentration of wealth among a few individuals. The top 500 entries have more wealth than last year’s top 1,000. The richest 500 have a combined wealth of £580 billion. In 2016, the top 1,000 richest people held a collective £575 billion.
Nineteen of the very richest increased their wealth by £1 billion or more in the past year. Of those in the top 20, only the Weston family, who still have £10.5 billion, lost money in the last year.
To enter this year’s top 1,000 richest British residents required £110 million, exactly double what was required to qualify for a top 1,000 spot as recently as 2009. With 86 billionaires, London has more than any other city in the world. There are now 134 British-based billionaires, up from 120 in 2016. London Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan spoke of his pride over such numbers.
The richest on the list are the Hinduja brothers, Sri and Gopi, whose wealth comes from property, health care, and oil and gas. The former Labour Party donors increased their fortune to £16.2 billion—up £3.2 billion on 2016.
The Sunday Times Rich List makes clear that workers’ falling wages and living standards are the direct source of enormous and ever-growing wealth for a tiny handful of parasites. Also on the list are Mike Ashley (£2.16 billion), the CEO of Sports Direct, who runs a warehousing and retail operation based on super-exploitation and low wages, and Sir Philip and Lady Green (£2.78 billion) who asset-stripped high street retailer British Home Stores, with many workers losing their pensions.
What the Sunday Times called “The astonishing strength of this year’s Rich List” is due in no small part to the enormous fillip given to the super-rich by the meteoric rises in stocks and equity markets fuelled by last June’s referendum vote to leave the European Union (EU).
A stock market feeding frenzy has taken place in anticipation of the bonfire of regulations that will accompany the UK’s exit from the EU, including gutting the maximum working week, the Temporary Agency Workers Directive (giving agency employees the same rights as other workers in similar fields) and holiday pay entitlements. Other corporations have enjoyed increased profits because of the steep decline in the value of sterling on international markets against other currencies, especially against the dollar and the euro.
List compiler Robert Watts said, “A buoyant stock market usually drives the wealth of Rich-Listers higher, and since last June equities have soared.” He added, “While many of us worried about the outcome of the EU referendum, many of Britain’s richest people just kept calm and carried on making billions.” While this is the case, it should be noted that 71 percent of donations made to the Leave and Remain camps in the referendum—representing competing factions of the ruling elite—came from just 59 people on the Rich List. Arron Banks, the major financial backer of the UK Independence Party—which supports Brexit—made his debut on the list, with an estimated worth of £250 million.
Manufacturer Sir James Dyson, who helped fund the Leave campaign, saw his wealth rise by £2.8 billion, up more than 50 percent from £5 billion last year. Dyson has profited from relocating his industrial production away from the UK to even cheaper wage locations and from more competitive export prices.
Amidst the triumphalism that generally accompanies the publication of the Rich List, this year a certain nervousness could be detected. The editorial in the newspaper owned by multi-billionaire oligarch Rupert Murdoch was headlined, “Don’t beat the rich—try to join them.” The editorial opened, “A billion here, a billion there and soon we are talking about real money. There is plenty of real money in today’s Rich List.”
The Times  editorial struck a defensive note, asserting, “There was a time when the dominant attitude in Britain to success was envy and a belief that the wealthy should be taxed out of existence” before concluding, “We have, it should be hoped, put all that behind us. We should celebrate the success of the wealthy and try to join them.”
The reason for the nervousness can be found in a poll commissioned on behalf of the Sunday Times itself. More than half those surveyed believe that it matters that the wealth of the richest is rising faster than that of the poorest Britons, and fully 78 percent support higher taxation on the wealth of those they consider rich. In addition, 80 percent believe the government ought to make it more difficult, not easier, to become extremely rich. Just 4 percent expressed an admiration for inherited wealth.
Those surveyed believed a salary of £100,000 per annum was sufficient to be considered rich. The £110 million needed to qualify for entry on this year’s Rich List is 1,100 times that amount.
The Sunday Times pointed to the class interests behind the explosion of identity politics among the upper middle class. “We’re seeing more and more diversity in the make-up of the Rich List. More women, more people from ethnic minority backgrounds.” It was, in particular, a bumper year for female oligarchs with “a record number” on the list.
The publication of this year’s list comes amidst an unprecedented crisis in funding for public health care and education, with millions struggling to pay their bills and mortgages, and with rented accommodation increasingly unaffordable. The social cost of the financial oligarchy is underscored by the following statistic: the wealth of just the top 10 people on this year’s Rich List is equal to the entire £120 billion annual budget of the National Health Service, relied on by 60 million people.
The gargantuan sums of money squandered by the super-rich were on display last week in London with a £453 million UK divorce settlement for the estranged wife of an oil and gas trader. The couple’s £1 billion in assets included a yacht, a plane and helicopter, and recent gifts to the wife had included €400,000 in jewellery. According to a report in the Guardian, “During the hearings, the man gave evidence to the court via video-link from the yacht, which cost €260m and underwent a €42m refit in 2016.”
The Sunday Times is right to be nervous. The financial aristocracy it lauds each year—who will allow nothing to stand in the way of wealth accumulation—wallow in obscene riches as the vast majority of society faces growing social misery. This situation cannot last indefinitely.

German enthusiasm for Macron begins to wane

Peter Schwarz

The German enthusiasm for Emmanuel Macron has not lasted long. On the evening of the election, all parties, with the exception of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), cheered the victory of the candidate regarded as the most pro-German and pro-EU of those standing in the French presidential election. But even before Macron has taken office and formed his government, fierce disputes about how to deal with the new president have erupted.
Macron’s plans to liberalize the French labour market, to cut billions in government spending and reduce taxes are generally welcomed. However, his demand to obtain more financial leeway from the European Union for the realization of this offensive against the working class is meeting strong opposition in German government and business circles.
The Frankfurter Rundschau describes the fundamental conflict as follows: “Macron wants to reform and spend more money. Merkel and Schäuble want to reform and save money.”
In the Bild tabloid, Finance Secretary Jens Spahn (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) rejected Macron’s ideas, arguing that “neither the eurozone nor France suffer from too little debt.” Manfred Weber (Christian Social Union, CSU), the head of the conservative group in the European parliament, told the Rheinische Post, “Macron can only demand reforms in Europe when he has proved that his own country is capable of reform.”
In Bild, Christian Lindner, head of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), stressed, “France will not solve its problems though credit, but with economic reforms. We have hopes for Macron, but he cannot make more debts than allowed.”
Eric Schweitzer, president of the German Chambers of Commerce and Industry (DIHK), expressed similar views. “I do not think much about the socialisation of debts,” he told the Rheinische Post. “This would weaken Germany and Europe, because investors and savers could lose confidence in the euro.”
The weekly Die Zeit posed the question in large letters: “Should we pay for France?” Numerous newspapers also dealt with the subject in commentaries and editorials.
Macron’s proposals to establish a joint finance and economic ministry and its own budget for the eurozone are particularly controversial. So-called eurobonds are anathema to Chancellor Angela Merkel and her finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble. They would reduce interest rates for heavily indebted countries and increase them for Germany. Government spokesman Steffen Seibert already made clear the day after Macron’s electoral victory that nothing had changed regarding the clear “no” of the German government regarding such bonds.
There are, however, German proponents of Macron’s proposals, especially in the ranks of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens. They fear that Macron’s anti-worker reforms could trigger revolutionary rebellions or boost the right-wing National Front, and therefore want to allow him more financial leeway.
When the German government of Gerhard Schröder (SPD) and Joschka Fischer (Greens) introduced the Agenda 2010 welfare and labour reforms between 2003 to 2005, which Macron regards as a model, they were able to keep resistance under control by temporarily ignoring the supposedly strict EU budget criteria. Macron, on the other hand, already provoked fierce protests in 2016 when he introduced a reform of the labour market as the economics minister of President François Hollande.
In a press release, Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), who as German minister of economic affairs worked closely with Macron in 2016, is now calling for “fiscal policy orthodoxy” to be abandoned and “to work together with the French on a Franco-German investment fund.” “The foreign minister is convinced,” writes Spiegel Online, “if Berlin does not now make concessions to the 39-year-old in the Élysée Palace, Marine Le Pen could yet become president in five years.”
Similarly, a commentary in Die Zeit argues, “If this president believes fiscal policy concessions from Germany will help him to sell the necessary reforms to his own electorate, then, from a German perspective, political wisdom dictates to accept such a deal.”
Should Macron not demonstrate rapid progress, according to Die Zeit, Marine Le Pen “would reach again for the presidency in five years, at the latest. And with whom would we join forces if France left the EU and the European post-war order is in ruins? With the Turks? The Russians? Donald Trump?” Macron’s failure would be “significantly more expensive for Germany than any Eurobond.”
The dispute over how to deal with Macron is primarily about questions of foreign policy. While most of the CDU, CSU and FDP are set on maintaining a strict austerity course, even if this creates difficulties for the new French president, the SPD and the Greens consider the Franco-German axis to be so important for the preservation of the European Union that they are prepared to make financial concessions. All parties agree, however, that Macron’s attacks on the rights and achievements of French workers must be fully supported.
The fact that conflicts over these questions are erupting only days after Macron’s election shows the depth of social and national tensions in Europe. The notion that the continent could be united on a capitalist basis emerges more and more as an illusion.
Germany and France have drifted wide apart economically, especially since the 2008 financial crisis. While Germany has recorded budget surpluses and reports new foreign trade records almost every month—for the month of March exports rose to €118.2 billion and the export surplus to €25.3 billion—France is experiencing high deficits. In France, the official unemployment rate is almost double Germany’s and youth unemployment three times higher than in Germany.
The conflicting economic interests of the leading imperialist countries inevitably lead to ferocious political tensions, no matter who forms the government. They are the main reason for the growth of nationalism, authoritarian forms of rule, and militarism.

100 Days in Office: The Trump Administration

Chintamani Mahapatra



More than a hundred days have passed since Donald Trump entered the Oval Office as the forty-fifth president of the US. US domestic politics and Washington’s engagement with the rest of the world since then have entered an unprecedented period of uncertainty and there is no surety that  this era of uncertainty is going to end any time soon.
Donald Trump has done several things that none of his predecessors either attempted or succeeded in doing. He draws only a dollar a month as his presidential salary. At the same time, he doggedly refuses to reveal his income tax returns. He has stopped former senior US officials from serving as lobbyists on behalf of foreign governments, which was a big blow to several countries that periodically used US officials to promote their respective national interests in the corridors of power in Washington. President Trump also signed a few executive orders aimed at protecting the job market for US citizens and making it costlier for US companies to hire foreign workers. The unemployment rate in the US has witnessed a record reduction in the first few months of the Trump administration.
The other side of the domestic scenario is equally striking. Trump is yet to gain the confidence of a large number of Republican legislators, but has managed a legislative victory in the US House of Representatives in his attempt to repeal the Obamacare health insurance policy. While he did not have his way in getting the appropriate budget allocation for the proposed wall across the US-Mexico border, he managed a substantial allocation to enhance US' defence preparedness. He could not stop Congressional oversight over his campaign team members' alleged connection with Russian intelligence, but displayed his mettle in firing the director of the powerful Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He has waged a prolonged war with the US media by criticising and snubbing it, and has even prevented their entry into White House events. On social media, however, he continues to have a large fan following.
In the arena of world affairs, Trump, the presidential hopeful, unnerved several foreign leaders and alliance partners. He declared NATO obsolete, asked Japan and South Korea to have their own nuclear arsenals to defend themselves, declared China a currency manipulator, and Pakistan, an unreliable ally. He promised to build a wall to stop immigrants them from entering the US. He vowed to completely defeat the Islamic State (IS).
Many analysts argued that candidate Trump would be different from President Trump, and that he would behave like his predecessors by taking a 180 degree turn and abandoning his campaign rhetoric on US foreign policy. Many expected the Trump administration to build a cooperative relationship with Russia, US' erstwhile Cold War adversary, and seriously combat emerging challenges from China.
However, Trump, as president, appears to exhibit a smart foreign policy strategy mixed with ambiguity and surprise moves. He no longer considered NATO obsolete but insists that NATO partners must pay more towards defence burden-sharing. He has promised to continue to extend US' nuclear umbrella to Japan and South Korea, but has also demanded more money in exchange for the security guarantee. He has stopped calling China a currency manipulator, after having offended it through his telephonic conversation with the Taiwanese president. He continues to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin, but has also dealt him a political blow by raining down missiles on Syria on the basis of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the pro-Russia Syrian regime. He has sought to ban Muslim immigration from seven countries in an unintended projection of his image as anti-Muslim, but has also sent his vice-president to visit the largest mosque in Southeast Asia.
He has not walked away from the Iran nuclear deal, but is going to make Saudi Arabia his maiden foreign visit to balance Washington’s engagement in the Middle East. In other words, the Trump administration is going to be an administration with a difference. India will have to learn to deal with this administration with caution and innovative diplomacy because uncertainty will be the name of the game. Navigating this political environment will require deft diplomatic skill. The bipartisan consensus in the US for a stronger strategic partnership with India notwithstanding, playing ball with Trump is going to be hard.

Steering Co-operation Across Oceans

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera


“We should not develop a habit of retreating to the harbour whenever we encounter a storm, for this will never get us to the other side of the ocean.”

                                                        -Xi Jinping, President, People's Republic of China

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, which is the size of three football fields and holds the capacity to launch 75 fighter jets at any given time, sailed to the Korean peninsula several weeks ago. US President Donald Trump speaking to the media claimed, "We are sending an armada. Very powerful, we have submarines. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier. That I can tell you.” It looks like Trump has taken a leaf out of Kissinger’s limited war strategy.

In a 1958 interview, Kissinger advocated the importance of limited warfare and why the US should adopt it. What we are witnessing today is significantly different from 1958 when nuclear deterrence was at the top of the agenda with the erstwhile Soviet Union. 

Asia is going through profound transformations. China is in the process of expanding its blue water navy and seeks domination of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. This resonates a familiar chord with the US, which had a similar two ocean strategy in the past that sought US domination over the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. 

US Vice President Mike Pence’s first visit to Asia took place against the background of mounting tensions. Its objectives included to reaffirm the US commitment to the region. Pence also wanted to clarify and ensure that the US is compensated as the arbiter of regional security and stability. Finally, the visit was also meant to discuss China’s continued effort to expand its maritime capability in the region, especially in the South China Sea.

Pence described the Pacific situation as “just a very serious time” during his discussion with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. He further explained that “The US and Australia face this threat and every other one together, because we know that our security is the foundation of our prosperity.” Both nations agreed to raise pressure on North Korea and seek China’s support. 

The author, as a participant at last year’s Shamgri-La Dialogue, raised a question from the Indian minister of defence regarding the circumstances of another Chinese submarine’s visit to Sri Lanka. Although defence strategies should be considered keeping broader strategic implications in mind, the Indian defence minister replied that they would take this up on a case-by-case basis. 

As China witnesses geopolitical developments, there is a high probability of a sudden appearance of another Chinese submarine in the future. In October 2006, when USS Kitty Hawk was sailing through the East China Sea between southern Japan and Taiwan, a Chinese submarine surfaced without prior warning. The Americans were amazed when the Song-class Attack Submarine surfaced at a torpedo distance. The same sentiments applied when the last Chinese submarine’s appearance in Sri Lanka created tensions between Colombo and New Delhi. According to some experts, Indians exaggerated the event for political purposes to remove the pro-Chinese Rajapaksa government of that time.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Sri Lanka for the UN international Vesak celebrations, a day recognised by the UN after the tremendous effort of late Lakshman Kadirgamar, Sri Lanka’s truly visionary former foreign minister. Modi's second visit is a clear indication of the friendship between the leaders of India and Sri Lanka.

After this celebration, Sri Lankan  Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe headed to China for the country’s largest One Belt, One Road (OBOR) conference. Sri Lanka’s strategic role in the Maritime Silk road is an important area, which will be addressed. This happens at a time when the Sri Lankan government is in discussions with India to lease out the tank farm in the east coast harbour of Trincomalee.

136 countries, and 28 heads of states are in Beijing for this large-scale high powered summit. Of the South Asian countries, India will not participate. It is a clear indication of India’s reservations. As explained by Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, "I have no hesitation in saying that we have some serious reservations about it, because of sovereignty issues.” In an expert commentary written for the Institute for National Security Studies Sri Lanka, Swaran Singh explained tensions within India’s neighborhood, especially the USD 62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, in his article titled 'OBOR: Getting India Onboard as a Partner.'  

With such developments, Sri Lanka’s geopolitical role in the Indian Ocean remains crucial and essential to regional and extra regional nations. The OBOR could be seen by some as a platform to side with China. While China is promoting OBOR, the US is seeking to demonstrate to the whole region that it is in China’s best interest to side with Washington. In 1907, US President Theodore Roosevelt sailed his 16 battleships as ‘the great white fleet’ to 20 ports, a mixture of hard and soft power - depicting the military term ‘force projection’ - a factor even proven today from the visit of USS Carl Vinson.

The OBOR project will be welcomed by many countries, particularly to uplift the economies and social conditions of third world states. Countries absent from the processes and events of OBOR could limit global benefits of the Chinese State-led initiative, and as explained by Chinese President Xi Jinping, perhaps, will not see the other side of the ocean.

13 May 2017

University of Malawi College of Medicine PhD Fellowships 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th May, 2017
Eligible Countries: Countries in East Africa
To be taken at (Universities): 
Ethiopia institutions
  • Addis Ababa University
  • Bahir Dar University
  • Debre Tabor University
  • Jimma University
  • Mekelle University
  • University of Gondar
Regional institutions
  • Makerere University
  • Mbarara University
  • Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences
  • University of Malawi
  • University of Zambia
Fields of Research Study: CDT-Africa supports PhD fellowships through full or partial scholarships in the following programs:
Pharmacology     Mental Health Epidemiology                       Public Health Microbiology        Immunology and Parasitology
Pharmaceutics    Tropical and Infectious Diseases                Biochemistry
About the Award: The Center for Innovative Drug Development and Therapeutic Trials for Africa (CDT-Africa) is a regional (Africa) center of excellence that supports capacity development for therapeutic discovery in Africa. By therapeutic, all relevant therapeutic innovations are included: medicines, vaccines, diagnostics and complex interventions (behavioural interventions and health service implementations). CDT-Africa is supported by the World Bank and the government of Ethiopia and hosted by Addis Ababa University.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: The applicant has to meet the requirements of Addis Ababa University entry into a PhD programme as well as the requirements of CDT-Africa. There will also be an interview process in which the School running the programme and CDTAfrica team members will participate. Applicants from overseas (other African countries) will be interviewed by phone or Skype. Successful overseas students are expected to have the required visa and to have their qualifications approved in Ethiopia.
Number of Awards: Up to 30
Value of Program: ten exceptional regional female PhD fellows and up to five exceptional regional male PhD fellows. Fellowship status will be subject to regular reviews.
Other successful candidates (up to a maximum of 15) will be offered partial scholarships, which will support tuition fee, research projects and for a 1-3 months internship of an approved programme of work in an international training institution.
How to Apply: Application deadline for 2017 entry Application document (CV, concept note for PhD thesis, official transcript, and copies of diploma, etc) must be submitted in
electronic copy to the following address before May 30, 2017:
Dr Anteneh Belete
CDT-Africa Training Lead  antbeletes@yahoo.com or   anteneh.belete@aau.edu.et
Dr Abebaw Fekadu
CDT-Africa Center Leader   abebaw.fekadu@aau.edu.et
Tigist Eshetu
Research Coordinator Tigi.eshetu@yahoo.com
Award Provider:  The Center for Innovative Drug Development and Therapeutic Trials for Africa (CDT-Africa)

Virginia International University (VIU) Undergraduate and Graduate Scholarships for International Students 2017

Application Deadlines: 
  • Fall 2017 :  26th May 2017
  • Spring 2018: 1st September –  6th October 2017
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): USA
About the Award: VIU has been attracting individuals who take their VIU experiences into their own cultures, share their knowledge with future generations, and launch successful careers. Thus, there are several different types of scholarships available based on exemplary personal skills, academic achievement, extracurricular participation, on-campus work, and residency.
Type: Graduate, undergraduate and ESL programs On-ground & Online
Eligibility: Current and prospective students are eligible to apply. Students who are enrolled in any of VIU’s undergraduate, graduate, and language studies programs as full-time students are eligible to apply for a scholarship if requirements are met. Students enrolled in the language studies program (ex. ESL program) as part-time students are also eligible to apply. Prospective students have the chance to apply for scholarships during their application process for admission to VIU.
Selection: The scholarship selection process begins immediately after the application period ends. All applications are initially screened for completion and criteria assessment. Once the application is deemed complete, the application will be available for the Scholarship Committee’s review. Each application is reviewed and assessed on an individual basis.
Selected applicants will be invited for an interview with the members of the Scholarship Committee as part of the selection process. The interview will be held at VIU campus or via Skype. Applicants may bring additional supporting materials to the interview if they wish.
Scholarship awards will be determined by the Scholarship Committee prior to the first day of classes for the semester to which the student applied. Awardees will be notified by email.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Program: Scholarship awards are given as a credit towards semester tuition only.
How to Apply: To apply for a scholarship, students must follow these steps:
  1. New students: Apply for admissions at VIU
  2. Browse the scholarship opportunities
  3. Choose up to two types of scholarship
  4. Review the requirements for the scholarship application
  5. Apply online (applicant portal or student portal)
  6. Upload your documents via applicant portal or student portal.
Once the application form and all the supporting documents are received, students will receive a confirmation email.
Document Submission: 
All submissions must be scanned, color copies of the original document. Samples of these documents may include transcripts, diplomas, certificates, and test scores. Photocopies are NOT considered acceptable documentation. If any document is issued in the applicants’ native language, they must provide both the original document and a translation of the document in English. Translated documents must be notarized. VIU has the right to request original documentation. Submission of fabricated or false documents will result in disqualification from future scholarship application.
Award Provider: Virginia International University

WAAW Foundation Free STEM Teacher Training for Teachers in Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 30th July 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa
To be taken at (country): Nigeria
Eligible Fields of Study: Subjects in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Fields
About the Award: WAAW Foundation understands that training STEM Teachers is a critical component in ensuring that African girls are trained in STEM.
For STEM secondary school teachers and educators in Africa, the WAAW Foundation offers engaging, rigorous teacher professional development model which provides tools to empower teachers and their students and transform the classroom into a collaboration space where STEM content comes to life.
Type: Training
Eligibility: This training is for all STEM Secondary Teachers across Africa
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Programme: 
  • hands-on learning away from the blackboard
  • Africa-focused integrated curriculum that help teachers break down the rote memorization methodologies which are prevalent in the African educational system and which stifles creativity.
  • Teachers are trained to develop cutting edge STEM curriculum for their classrooms using affordable locally available resources, train in digital literacy and employ technology and free online resources to enhance learning and engagement in their classrooms.
  • Resources for continued learning for STEM teachers and facilitate communities and networks for peer support, mentoring and continued engagement.
  • STEM competitions that motivate teachers to keep innovating in their classrooms.
Duration of Programme: July 31st – August 4th, 2017
How to Apply: Visit Programme Webpage to apply
Award Provider: Working to Advance STEM Education for African Women (WAAW) Foundation.

University of Glasgow African Excellence Full Tuition Scholarships 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 
  • Applicants holding a programme offer by 1st December 2016 will receive their scholarship outcome by 16th December
  • Applicants holding a programme offer by 1st March 2017 will receive their scholarship outcome by 16th March
  • Applicants holding a programme offer by 1st June 2017 will receive their scholarship outcome by 16th June
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): UK
Eligible Field of Study: All
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Applicants will be evaluated on the basis of their application for admission and must:
  • be resident in Africa at time of applying have completed a first degree in Africa
  • demonstrate academic excellence and achieve grades equivalent to a degree equivalent to a UK 2:1 Hons or better
Selection Criteria: Applicants will be automatically assessed for a scholarship based on academic merit.
Number of Awardees: 2 per College
Value of Scholarship: Full fee waiver
Duration of Scholarship:  1 year
How to Apply: Applicants who are being considered  will be notified within the timeframes above. There is no separate application form required.
Offer holders who are being considered for the scholarship will be contacted and asked to submit a 400 word personal statement detailing:
  • why you have selected the programme at the University of Glasgow
  • why you merit the funded-place (e.g academic/personal achievement)
  • how you will benefit from it (e.g. employment prospects, financial relief, etc)
  • Your personal statement should be around 400 words and include your full name and applicant number.
Award Provider: University of Glasgow

General Electric Undergraduate Scholarships for Ghanaian Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 3rd November, 2017
Offered annually? Yes. Till 2018
Eligible Countries: Ghana
To be taken at (country): Ghana
Eligible Field of Study: BA Computer Science and any of the following BSc Applied Sciences:
School of Engineering:
1.      Bachelor of Science in Computer Engineering
2.      Bachelor of Science in Material Science and Engineering
School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences
1.      Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
2.      Bachelor of Science in Earth Science
3.      Bachelor of Science in Information Technology
About the Award: General Electric will provide a flat-rated scholarship support through the “the GE Scholarship”, for the benefit of certain University of Ghana under-graduate students in the areas of BA Computer Science and some BSc Applied Sciences during the next three years of  2016, 2017 and 2018 (individually theScholarship Year”). Scholarships are renewable annually provided they maintain a Grade Point Average of (GPA) 2.5 or better.
Offered Since: 2016
Type: Under-graduate taught
Eligibility: Candidate is eligible to apply if he/she:
  1. is a Ghanaian.
  2. is a Level 100 student.
  3. Obtained an aggregate of 15 or better at the WASSCE.
  4. is able to demonstrate limited family income and/or insufficient funds to cover most or all educational related expenses.
  5. has the will to succeed (determination, perseverance and success in other pursuits).
  6. is reading BA Computer Science or Basic Applied Sciences in the following areas:  BSc in Information Technology, Material Science and Engineering, Earth Science, Computer Engineering or Computer Science.
  7. Will maintain a 2.5 CGPA
  8. is of a Good Conduct.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship covers:
  • Academic and residential fees
  • Book allowance and out of pocket.
  • Leadership training and limited Internship (If candidate maintains excellent academic standard and need is demonstrated)
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of course
How to Apply:  Interested candidates should provide the following to apply:
For need:
• Official pay slip or payroll record of parents/guardians or the applicant.
• Recent school receipts/ bills of siblings of school going age.
• Tax return receipts– IRS, VAT, tabletop hawking receipts, etc.
• Birth Certificates (of siblings).
• Death Certificate or Burial permit (in case of death of a parent).
• Pension letter for retired parents/guardians.
• Bank Statements / Ghana Cocoa Board Farmers Association Passbook.
• SSNIT contribution statements.
• Money transfer receipts.
• National Health Insurance receipts (showing premium paid).
• Evidence of other dependents of parents/guardians.
• Any other supporting documents that you believe will assist in the processing, of your application.
For Academic
• High School Transcripts (Terminal Reports)
• West African Senior School Certificate Exam Results (WASSCE)
• University Acceptance Letter
• Records regarding achievement tests, academic awards, honors, and substantive assessments by teachers, including letters of recommendation.
• Confirm That you are not currently receiving support through any other scholarship program
Interested candidates should download and submit a completed GE- FUND SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION FORM  and the required essays, a copy of candidates academic records (WASSCE grades), letters of recommendation and supporting need documents.
Award Provider: General Electric

Blasphemy as Weapon: Undermining Ahok

Binoy Kampmark


“The result of all of this, besides the abuse of law, is that people may be afraid to exert their rights to be critical of Muslims who use religion to justify inexcusable actions.” – The Jakarta Post, Oct 18, 2016
One need not be a zealot in the human rights field to find the latest turn in Indonesian politics disconcerting. Jakarta’s governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, known as Ahok, was always a nicely packaged target, confident and assertive, very much the beaming confident politician. Being Chinese was one aspect of problem; being a non-Muslim was the other. From that standpoint, vulnerabilities were always going to be emphasised, and slipups pounced upon ruthlessly.
Indonesia’s post-colonial history is littered with bloody spectaculars, featuring outbursts of sectarian atrocity or state-directed massacres of political opponents. Ahok’s case is not in that league, but it opens a window to it, shining dark rays of foreboding as to what might come. At times, for instance, in 1998, the Chinese minority has found itself to be a convenient target of spoilation and vengeance.
It took one remark by Ahok to light the powder keg. “Maybe in your heart,” suggested Ahok last September to unsuspecting fishermen in the Thousand Islands province, “you think you couldn’t vote for me – but you are being lied to by using Al Maidah 51.”
The particular Koranic verse has become something of a crutch, used by candidates who have preferred the weapon of scripture, dubiously interpreted, to the weapon of sound policy. Clerics have waded into the business, some suggesting that al-Maidah: 51 makes the case that non-Muslims should not be leaders in Muslim communities. Be wary, effectively, of the religious foreigner who seeks alliances. As the Jakarta Post surmised, “This kind of interpretation goes against the principle of good citizenship.”
As with much theological disputation, there is no agreement, sensible or otherwise, on this point, and the argument that such a passage requires a current modern interpretation is sorely needed. The fundamentalist roadblock here, however, is a formidable one indeed. When linked to political opportunism, it becomes lethal.
The deputy secretary-general of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) gave a demonstration about how moderate he was intending to be by suggesting last October that religious defamation had to be punished by “death, crucifixion or at least hand amputation and expulsion.”
Unfortunately for those willing to engage in any sensible debate, the good deputy was referring to the hirabah verses, which stress punishment of such crimes as sedition, piracy, robbery and highway robbery. Islamic State followers would have approved, given their own reference to those passages in justifying their treatment of the infidel.
Individuals such as Rizieq Shibab of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), twice imprisoned for inciting violence, also smelt blood, shifting the focus away from soft-headed clericalism to the Koran itself. Protests were organised, and the fever, once stirred, concerned Indonesian authorities.
The trial gave an inkling that Ahok might still have his day, receiving the lightest of sentences. The prosecution team were not convinced that he had ever intended to insult Islam, and for that reason, pushed for a suspended sentence. The defence were buoyed, and it was one marked by curious references, not least of all the comparison, made by Ahok himself, to the resilient clownfish Nemo, who braves against the current.
His supporters were also to be found aplenty, spanning the spectrum. City Hall was assailed with decorative flower boards and balloons festooned with messages of encouragement. Even for various Muslims, Ahok was their man.
The five judges of the North Jakarta District Court, donning faces and views of severity, thought otherwise, conforming to a long pattern that tends to find blasphemy even where there is none. They were already under pressure from such groups as the National Movement to Safeguard the Indonesian Ulema Council’s Fatwa (GNPF-MUI) to impose the maximum sentence of five years. Rizieq, who had also been a witness for the prosecution, made his views felt.
Ahok was to be made an example of, deserving a jail sentence for having deliberately made a nuisance of himself in his position as governor. Not only had he blasphemed with intent; he had also threatened public order.
Judge Abdul Rosyad was in a particularly scolding mood, detecting a certain lack of guilt on Ahok’s part. “As Governor, as a public officer, the defendant should have known that religion is a sensitive issue so he should have avoided talking about religion.” Not that this meant opponents could not use religion, or at least its pretext, in terms of framing their opposition to Ahok. As ever, the victim in this case deserved punishment rather than protection.
Lynch mob justice is never pretty, and resisting it, if not scotching it altogether, is the hallmark of maturity. It has been a maturity that the current Indonesian president praises, and one seen to have emerged in the post-Suharto era.
Scratching the surface reveals otherwise, a society of tinder waiting to catch fire and conflagrate. The Indonesian government, aware of this, is seeking to have the agitating, pro global-Caliphate group Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, disbanded through the courts. But for Ahok, this whole process has meant one thing: the establishment was going to give the protestors what they wanted, though others would have preferred something more appropriately savage.

The Coming Crisis for the World’s Farmers

JILL RICHARDSON

Remember the climate crisis? It’s still happening. Having a government that resembles a circus, it turns out, hasn’t stopped the clock on the level of greenhouse gases in the air.
At a conference in Italy, former president Barack Obama spoke recently about the impact the climate crisis will have on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.
The points he made were common sense: The majority of the world’s poor in the Global South are farmers, and the changing climate is already making it harder for them to produce the food they need. If nothing changes, the refugees already pouring into Europe will just be the warm-up act for the flood that will come later.
When the climate changes, weather extremes become more pronounced and more common. Droughts and floods harm crops, particularly in regions where farmers don’t have access to irrigation. Warming temperatures can also bring pests and diseases (human, animal, and plant) to regions where they previously didn’t exist.
I’ve traveled to peasant farms in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, and all are impacted by climate change already.
In Kenya, farmers told me their rain patterns had changed, becoming less predictable and making it harder to grow their crops. Some farmers had given up planting during one of the usual annual rainy seasons because the weather was so erratic that it wasn’t even worth the risk.
There’s no safety net if you’re a subsistence farmer in a poor country. You grow what you eat, and maybe a small surplus to sell for cash. No crops equals no food. There’s no crop insurance or farm subsidies.
The solutions to these problems are two-fold.
First, we must address the climate crisis head on. And peasant farmers in the Global South can’t do that, because they aren’t the ones putting all the emissions in the air. It’s industrialized countries like ours doing that.
Second, many hope to help farmers grow more food or adapt to the changing climate to improve their fates. Unfortunately, the types of policies the Obama administration promoted are better for U.S. agribusiness corporations than they are for peasant farmers.
Despite being poor, or lacking formal education, peasant farmers aren’t ignorant or helpless. There’s a global peasant movement advocating for a set of solutions they believe will help them the most — and those aren’t the solutions the U.S. government has favored under Obama or any other president, much less our current one.
The global peasant movement points the finger at corporate-friendly economic policies and organizations like the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. The U.S. government, under both major political parties, unilaterally favors these institutions.
Trump, of course, appears to be different. but given that experts are now openly speculating whether he’s mentally ill, and his policies lead others to ask whether he’s a fascist, I don’t think he’s the answer the global peasantry is looking for.
At the end of the day, the nations who can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions the most are the nations that emit the most. We account for 17 percent of global emissions, which means we can solve at least 17 percent of the problem.
Americans have made their mark on the world for their ingenuity and innovation. We’re smart enough to figure this out. All it takes is the will to do so. First, because the fate of the world’s poorest people rests in our hands, and second because they’ll be flooding over borders as refugees if we don’t.