AAUW International Fellowship for Women, Masters & Doctoral program in USA 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st December 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries except US citizens

To be taken at (Institution): Accredited U.S. institutions

Accepted Subject Areas? Courses offered at the Universities

About Scholarship AAUW International Fellowships are awarded for full-time study or research in the United States to women who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Both graduate and postgraduate studies at accredited U.S. institutions are supported. Applicants must have earned the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree by September 30, 2017 and must have applied to their proposed institutions of study by the time of the application.

Recipients are selected for academic achievement and demonstrated commitment to women and girls. Recipients return to their home countries to become leaders in business, government, academia, community activism, the arts, and sciences.

Type: Masters, Doctoral/Postdoctoral, Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible for an International Fellowship, applicants must meet the following criteria:

• Have citizenship in a country other than the United States or possession of a nonimmigrant visa if residing in the United States. Women holding dual citizenship in the United States and another country or who are permanent legal residents of the United States are not eligible.
• Hold an academic degree (earned in the United States or abroad) equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree completed by September 30, 2017.
• Intend to devote herself full-time to the proposed academic plan during the fellowship year
• Intend to return to her home country to pursue a professional career
• Be proficient in English. Unless the applicant can verify that her native language is English, that she received her secondary diploma or undergraduate degree from an English-speaking institution, or that she will have completed one semester of full-time study in her discipline at an English-speaking college or university between October 2015 and September 30, 2017 (transcript required for validation), she must upload a recent ETS TOEFL* (Test of English as a Foreign Language) score (no older than December 2015). Institutional TOEFL scores and other English proficiency test scores (such as IELTS) will not be accepted. Minimum score acceptable: 550 for Paper-Based Test (TOEFL PBT); 79 for Internet-Based Test (TOEFL iBT); 60 for Revised TOEFL Paper-Delivered Test.
• Master’s/first professional degree and doctoral applicants must have applied by December 1, 2017, to an accredited institution of study for the period of the fellowship year and must indicate the name of the institution in the International Fellowship application.
• Master’s/first professional degree fellowships are intended for master’s or professional degree-level programs such as J.D., M.F.A., L.L.M., M.Arch., or medical degrees such as M.D., D.D.S., etc.
• Doctoral fellowships are intended for doctorate degrees, such as Ph.D. or Ed.D.
• Postdoctoral applicants must provide proof of their doctorate degree; hold a doctorate classified as a research degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D., D.B.A., D.M.) or an M.F.A. by December 1, 2017; and indicate where they will conduct their research.
• Master’s/first professional degree and doctoral applicants must be enrolled in a U.S. accredited institution located in the United States during the fellowship year.
• A limited number of awards are available to GWI members for study or research in any country other than their own. Note that foreign branches of U.S. institutions are considered outside of the United States.
• Applicants must be conducting a full year of study or research. International Fellowships do not provide funding for a partial year of study or research. Programs ending prior to April of the fellowship year are not eligible.
• Master’s/first professional degree and doctoral fellowships support traditional classroom-based courses of study at colleges or universities. This fellowship program does not provide funding for distance-learning or online programs or for degrees heavily dependent on distance-learning components.Final decisions about what constitutes distance learning under these fellowships will be made by AAUW.

Selection Criteria: The following criteria apply to the selection of International Fellowships:

• Residing in home country at time of application
• Position on return to home country
• Academic and/or professional qualifications
• Applicant’s commitment to the advancement of women and girls in her home country
• Proposed time schedule
• Quality and feasibility of proposed plan of study or research
• Demonstrated evidence of prior community and/or civic service in home country
• Applicant’s country’s need for the specialized knowledge or skill
• Financial need
• Motivation for graduate study or research
• Applicant is from an underrepresented area of the country and/or type of university other than a top-level research institution

Number of Awards: Up to five fellowships are renewable for a second year.

Value of Awards:

• Master’s/First Professional Degree Fellowship: $18,000
• Doctoral Fellowship: $20,000
• Postdoctoral Fellowship: $30,000

How to Apply: Visit the Scholarship Webpage to apply

Sponsors: The American Association of University Women (AAUW)

Important Notes: Applications, supporting documents, and recommendations will be accepted on the following business day if the deadline falls on a weekend. The online application and recommendation will state the actual submission deadline.

UNOY Peacebuilders International Secretariat Internships for Young People 2017 – The Hague, Netherlands

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): The Hague, Netherlands

About the Award: We have two internship positions available, starting as soon as possible

1. Advocacy & Communications Officer – analyse global and regional policy processes, support implementation of advocacy and outreach strategies, maintain online communications
2. Network & Fundraising Officer – support management of UNOY Peacebuilders’ membership and regional coordinators, support fundraising efforts including fundraising research and proposal development

UNOY Peacebuilders is a youth-led network of youth organisations working towards peaceful societies. We embrace values of peace, diversity, inclusion and participation. At UNOY, young people have the opportunity to gain work experience in the field of peacebuilding, join an international team, develop new skills and connect with youth and organisations around the world.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: We are looking for somebody who has:

• experience/interest in peacebuilding and youth work
• experience in project management, fundraising, events organisation, communication or working with networks
• a higher education degree (undergraduate or postgraduate) on a topic related to youth, peace, conflict or international relations. We can also accept candidates who are on their last years of undergraduate degree.
• leadership, planning, project writing and intercultural communication skills
• computer skills
• strong written and spoken English – French, Spanish and Arabic are all beneficial
• enthusiasm and commitment
• flexibility and capability to work independently and in a team

Number of Awards: 2

Value of Award: 

• Being full part of a young, dynamic and international team
• Opportunity to work independently and take responsibility
• A great stepping stone for your future career – former interns have moved on to work in international organizations, academia and in the business sector.
• Internal and external training opportunities
• Possibility to travel abroad with projects
• Possibility to use your internship for studies/research

Duration of Program: All internships are:

• 4 days a week (Monday-Thursday)
• 4-6 months long

How to Apply: If you are interested in joining the UNOY team, please apply as soon as possible by sending your CV and a letter stating your motivation to vacancy@unoy.org. Applications are reviewed on a rolling basis.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: UNOY

University of Warwick Full PhD Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019 -UK

Application Deadline: 2nd February 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Candidates of any nationality, including Africa are eligible for the scholarship

To be taken at (country): University of Warwick, UK

About Scholarship: The University of Warwick is offering the Chancellor’s International Scholarships for overseas Postgraduate research applications for entry in October 2018. The University Scholarship will offer full fees support and maintenance award to international doctoral students of the highest caliber. The University will offer scholarship to approximately 17 of the most outstanding international PhD applicants. Applicants may be from any discipline at Warwick, and be from any nationality.

The University of Warwick values its increasingly developed reputation as an international university, and the Chancellor’s International Scholarships demonstrate the University’s commitment to fully supporting its most talented students, no matter their national origin.

Offered Since: 2011

Eligibility:

• Applicants for a Chancellor’s International Scholarship must also be applying for a PhD at the University of Warwick to begin in October 2018;
• Applicants must expect to be ‘overseas’ students for fees purposes, but there are no other nationality criteria;
• Applicants may be from any discipline at Warwick.

Selection Criteria: Candidates must have outstanding academic performance from previous education qualifications.

Number of Awards: 25 Scholarships will be awarded

Value of Award: 

• The full payment of overseas tuition fees (worth up to £20,730 at 17/18 rates, this figure is likely to increase with inflation for 2018/19)
• A maintenance stipend in line with RCUK rates (provisional £14,800* for full time award holders in 2018/19)

Duration of Program: 3.5 years unless you are already in your first year of study when you apply then the length of funding will be reduced accordingly

How can I Apply? Candidates should read the guidance notes carefully before completing the application form.

• New candidates can apply for the Chancellor’s International Scholarship by completing the Joint Postgraduate Admissions and Scholarship Application form. If you are eligible for this scholarship you will be asked if you would like to be considered for funding as part of your application to the University. Please select YES at this point and you will be invited to complete further information that will form the basis of your application for this Scholarship.
• If you are in the first year of your PhD or applied before 1st August 2016 and would like to be considered for this Scholarship to fund the remainder of your studies please complete the Single Scholarship Application form.

Sponsors:University of Warwick

Visit the Program Webpage for More Details

Award Providers: University of Warwick

Tunisia’s Incomplete Revolution

Jonathan Fenton-Harvey

Tunisia has a significant claim to fame. Not only did it ignite the revolutionary flames of the Arab Spring, it was the only nation to make a triumphant transition from dictatorship to a flourishing democracy in this series of uprisings.

Prior to travelling to the country, I myself held these same misconceptions – about how successful this transformation really was.

It was over 6 years ago that street vender Mohammad Boazizi’s act of self-immolation inspired other disenfranchised Tunisians to take to the streets, and demand the resignation of autocratic leader Zine al-Abadine Ben Ali. While Tunisia had not suffered the fate that other Arab nations did, such as Libya, Syria and Yemen, profound difficulties still persist. Many Tunisians feel that the revolution is incomplete. Whilst one corrupt regime has been abolished, another has simply replaced it.

In a sense, some positives did occur. The Tunisians prevented a greater Islamist presence from penetrating the nation’s politics. Due to the political Islamic nature of the Ennahda party, which was elected to power in 2011, many feared that Tunisia could follow the same path that Iran did in 1979. Similarities between both cases were stark, after all. Both entailed the toppling of an authoritarian, secular dictatorship at the hands of a popular uprising, with political Islamic forces capitalizing upon the masses’ frustrations.

Yet the Tunisian people were adamant. They made clear that they would not tolerate any such transformations. The uproar against Hamadi Jebali’s initial suggestion that Ennahda would implement Tunisia’s ‘sixth caliphate’ forced him to retract his statement shows this; as do the protests against making Sharia Law the constitution’s primary source. Ennahda has repeatedly been forced to pragmatize, and moderate itself – and was forced into a coalition with the secular Nidaa Tounes party in 2014.

This itself can be considered a successful element of the revolution. The Tunisian populace fought for a government representative of its ideological values.

Yet after speaking to a wide range of range of Tunisians across the country – whether during Ramadan iftars (meal for breaking the fast), in cafes or other social settings, people consistently voiced the same concerns about society.

Job prospects are dismal. Even those with years of experience and appropriate qualifications in their fields struggle to find consistent work that pays substantially. This is evidently more severe among the younger generation, with youth unemployment at a staggeringly high 40% – much worse than under Ben Ali!

Others have become very desperate for employment that they have resorted to paying 2000-3000 dinars (approximately $820-$1230) to officials as a bribe, just to secure employment. As this amounts to several month’s salary in full-time work, one can surely see how people can be stuck in an entrapping situation.

I noticed a sense of hopelessness for many Tunisians. I was told on numerous occasions that there is no future for people in their country. 27 year-old Mohammad shows much entrepreneurial flare and interest in his designing business – but tells me how, like with many other small businesses, it is extremely difficult for it to make progress, as the government does not facilitate much support.

While Mohammad is one of the few still striving to make change, others simply feel defeated. Instead of holding great dreams to accomplish in Tunisia, many instead dream of escaping Tunisia.

Ennahda has often been lambasted for mismanaging the economy. Critics have often cited it as lacking fiscal credibility. Furthermore, social disparity is still an issue, with a considerable rich-poor divide. Tunisians feel that the government is hording wealth, and does not care about them. Since I had heard endless claims that life was actually better under Ben Ali, the revolution has clearly failed to alleviate financial concerns.

To make matters worse, the regime is known to be oppressive, authoritarian, and riddled with corruption. The Tunisian government showed this in response to recent mass protests for better living conditions occurred in Tatoutine – a city disproportionately hit by unemployment. Instead of listening to the public’s concerns, the government allowed protesters to be met with brutality from security forces, leaving one dead and many others injured.

Yet those who are detained face barbaric treatment too, as exposed from numerous reports from organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. There are numerous cases of people suffering torture, arbitrary imprisonments, and many other forms of violence from the authorities.

The government has acted, often illegally, to curtail freedom of speech and individual liberties too. In Ramadan this year, many arrests for eating, drinking and smoking in public were made. This is clearly a violation of the democracy in Tunisia, as such a punishment is not included in the constitution. Anyone prominent trying to criticize the government will be tackled too: journalists and bloggers have often been arrested for ‘offending’ the army and the police force.

It is reasonable to say that the revolution has not been a success. Some believe that the revolution is still not complete. Evidently, they are correct.

Throughout history, other revolutions – genuine strides for progress and change – have been hijacked by self-serving movements, acting on their own interests. Tunisia is seemingly no exception.

The establishment of democratic elections in Tunisia was an outstanding achievement. It shows progress can be made, if enough people push for it. But while people’s attention is diverted with desires to flee the country, or people continue to become disenfranchised with political participation – little will change. Only repeated pressure from below, people making their voices heard, can ensure that lasting change will occur.

Reviving the Cult of Princess Diana

Binoy Kampmark

There is no rational explanation for this, even after searching for the coded meanings culture throws up.  A not very bright, propelled on a wave of the pre-Kardashian phenomenon of celebrity for its own meaning; a youthful flower, gathered by the Grim Reaper while speeding off with her lover in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris.  That was the fate of the Princess of Wales.

As Christopher Hitchens was to observe, the orgy of sentimentality and reaction to the death of Princess Diana in 1997 was excruciating, dangerous, and debilitating. It silenced dissent about the late princess, reconstituting Britain, however briefly, as a “one-party state” replete with emotive ridden foot soldiers.

It also supplied the new Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the material of naked publicity, a moment to peak ever higher in the opinion polls by feeding the Cult of Diana.  New Labour, New Britain, New Sentiment.

Jonathan Freedland confessed on cringing in the aftermath of the princess’s death.  “It is our collective moment of madness, a week when somehow we lost our grip.” Outside Buckingham Palace were hundreds of thousands of cellophane protected bouquets, a sort of “floral fascism” made leaf and stem.

The celebrity as pox syndrome persists in the context of the anniversary of Diana’s death, which has been spiced by the debate on whether Channel 4 should release video tape interviews drawn from encounters between the princess and her speech coach and actor Peter Settelen.  (Settelen had been retained by Diana between 1992 and 1993.)  These form the subject of yet another yawn inducing product of the Princess Industry, a documentary titled Diana: In Her Own Words set to be released on the twentieth anniversary of her death.

The Spencer family, led by Earl Spencer, was determined to assert control over the tapes and foil the use of the private conversations.  They had initially found their way into the possession of Scotland Yard in 2001 after a raid on the home of former royal butler, Paul Burrell.

The American broadcaster NBC broadcasted teasing excerpts in 2004, but the BBC, which was considering a commemoration documentary ten years after the event, abandoned the project.  Channel 4’s management felt otherwise, wanting to make some mileage on the insipid nature of the whole matter.  The unconvincing view, nothing more of a sales pitch, was that the tapes “provide a unique insight”.

Aggressive pots have been calling similarly aggressive kettles black.  The original sinner, Burrell, felt that the channel’s decision to broadcast the tapes was a “seedy” gesture akin to “raiding her diary”.

The seediness of his own less than noble history was lost on Burrell, who milked the cash cow of experience after Diana’s death much to the consternation of Princes Harry and William.  A Royal Duty (2003) went into the personal drawers and the details with relish.  Burrell, in the true bravado of one who betrays, labelled his own effort a “tribute to their mother”.

Rosa Monckton, another touted friend of the princess, tweeted that, “Friend of Diana urges Channel 4 to scrap ‘intrusive’ documentary.  If you agree with me, please write to Channel 4.” To The Guardian, Monckton explained that the tapes did not belong to the public domain, featuring those silly confidences that Diana should never have parted with. “It is a betrayal of her privacy and of the family’s privacy.”

The material is hardly incendiary, but accords with the worst tendencies of the pop-fluff market of reality television.  (Diana, indeed, would have been a suitable pioneer in the cannibalising disgrace of a Big Brother Household.)  “He chatted me up – like a bad rash,” notes Diana in describing her soon to be husband, Prince Charles – “he was all over me.”

Charles had just lost his great uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, a high calibre casualty of the IRA.  The prince needed companionship, comforting.  The emotional raw spot drew sympathy from the Diana, but she had played a false stroke.  Charles, sensing a chance “leapt upon me and started kissing me and everything”.  How delightful.

The romps and travails of the House of Windsor have become the tabloid link via the people and the monarchy, a trashy reminder that flawed relationships transcend the straightjacket (apt, that) of class.  This is vulgarity in its true meaning: the common, the vernacular, the dirt earthy.  We can call be dysfunctional together.

For a country like Australia, whose head of state remains the Queen, interest piqued by such revelations remains.  Anniversary issues are being released for readers of The Herald and The Courier Mail, if they indeed deserve the name, as issues to keep. Get your copy now!   Expect, however, little by way of substance, critique or self-awareness.

The Cult of Diana may have been subjected to a more trenchant analysis in recent years, leaving aside the conspiracy pedlars at The Express who have blamed everybody from the French to aliens for her demise. But in an age of Trump, a revival is being prodded and fanned.  As former royal spokesman Dickie Arbiter explained to the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire, Channel 4 was “laughing all the way to the bank.”

Bangladesh finance minister to revise country’s budget

Wimal Perera

In late June, the Bangladesh parliament passed the Awami League-led government’s 2017-18 national budget. Three weeks later, Finance Minister A.M.A. Muhith announced that the budget would probably be revised in February, five months ahead of schedule.

Muhith’s decision appears to have been taken in response to criticism from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) over the government’s decision to delay the imposition of a 15 percent uniform Value Added Tax (VAT). Currently the rate varies from 1.5 percent to 15 percent. The IMF and the World Bank have been calling for the higher rate since 2012.

Muhith originally included the 15 percent VAT proposal when he first announced the budget, a decision that the IMF and World Bank publicly welcomed.

However, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, fearful of the popular opposition to her already discredited government, intervened and postponed the VAT increase for another two years. Sections of big business also opposed the tax hike, concerned that the increase would undermine their competitive edge in export markets.

Hasina’s coalition faces national elections at the end of 2018 or early 2019. A July 1 New Age editorial said the government “appears to have suspended” the VAT “not because ordinary people would suffer, but because of the national elections.”

Expressing “regret” over the VAT postponement, the IMF warned that the government would face a 200 billion Takas ($US2.46 billion) shortfall in tax revenue, widening the budget deficit. Both the World Bank and the IMF claimed it would be impossible to achieve the government’s much-hyped estimate of 7.4 percent economic growth without the 15 percent VAT.

The IMF’s concern is not economic growth but lowering the fiscal deficit by pushing up consumption taxes and imposing other austerity measures. According to World Bank figures released in May, Bangladesh’s growth is slowing because of declining exports, falling remittances from workers overseas and food price inflation. Last year’s 7.2 percent growth is expected to fall to 6.7 percent this year and 6.6 percent next year.

It is not clear whether Muhith’s revised budget will impose the postponed VAT or cut social spending to cover the revenue shortfall. Either way, there will be a heavy impact on workers and the poor. Annual inflation stood at 5.4 percent in the past financial year, and food inflation was 6 percent, up from 4.9 percent from the previous year. The food inflation rise is mainly due to price hikes for rice, meat, edible oil, milk and other basic items.

Government expenditure in the current budget will rise to 4 trillion Takas, an increase of almost 25 percent on the previous fiscal year. This, however, will do nothing to ease the poverty and social burdens confronting workers. The funds will be used to expand the military and build infrastructure to attract foreign investment. The budget did not announce any wage rises for government or private sector workers.

During his initial budget speech, Muhith boasted that the government would “expand the scope of education and health systems, making them pro-people, and encourage pro-poor socio-economic activities.”

Education spending is supposed to rise by 14 percent to 504 billion Takas. In reality, education and health spending is only about 2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), so this is a cosmetic increase, aimed at hoodwinking the population ahead of the next election. Promised increases in education spending last year, moreover, proved false. The education budget was cut by 10 percent.

Big business is particularly concerned about the declining export growth, which has dropped to a 15-year low. Last fiscal year, exports rose by only 1.7percent, compared to the previous year. Garment exports, which account for 82 percent of total exports, declined by 0.2 percent to $28.14 billion.

Prime Minister Hasina has declared that work on 10 economic zones will commence this year as part of the government’s 14-year plan to build 100 such cheap labour zones.

While the budget offers a 10-year Public Private Partnership income tax exemption on large infrastructure projects, the government is still struggling to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). According to the 2016 World Investment Report, FDI inflows into Bangladesh increased by just 4.3 percent to $2.33 billion, compared to 2015.

The ongoing global economic instability has seen Bangladesh’s balance of payments drop from a surplus of $3.7 billion in 2015-16 to a deficit of $1.8 billion in the first 10 months of the last fiscal year.

Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have hit remittances from migrant workers. Eight million Bangladeshis are working abroad, but recorded remittances are expected to fall for the second consecutive year, the first time in three decades, according to the Daily Star .

Finance Minister Muhith claimed that poverty and extreme poverty rates have been reduced since 2005-06 from 38.4 and 24.2 percent respectively, to 23.2 and 12.9 percent in the last fiscal year. But a Financial Express editorial noted on June 30, that “at least 40 million people live below the poverty line in Bangladesh. The number may go up to 80–110 million if $US2 a day is taken as the poverty line.”

Muhith has insisted that high GDP growth targets above 7 percent would solve unemployment and “absorb the additional workforce.” However, around 1.6 million workers enter the job market annually. According to a Labour Force Survey cited by the Bangladesh Center for Policy Dialogue, less than half a million people secured jobs annually between 2013 and 2016. This was down from 1.3 million annually between 2010 and 2013 and 1.7 million annually between 2006 and 2010.

These figures underscore the intense economic problems and volatile political situation. Hasina’s government has responded to increasing poverty, unemployment and other social tensions by adopting more autocratic and repressive forms of rule.

Last December and in early January the government used its notorious Special Powers Act to detain dozens of protesting workers calling for higher wages. Police have brutally assaulted garment workers striking for higher salaries and better working conditions.

Europe steps up crackdown on refugees in Mediterranean

Marianne Arens 

The grizzly balance of the European Union’s refugee policy in the first six months of 2017 amounts to close to 2,400 people who have either died or are missing in the Mediterranean. And if the wishes of the EU and its member states are realised, this number will rise significantly.

The “Sophia” mission, jointly conducted by Germany, France, Italy and other EU members, is allegedly supposed to reduce the number of drownings by combating people smuggling. Warships have been deployed equipped with the most modern drones and satellite technology, enabling them to carry out surveillance on every centimetre of the Mediterranean. In spite of this, 2,385 people either died or went missing in the Mediterranean this year by the end of July, according to the International Organisation of Migration.

Only some 8 percent of those who survive the Mediterranean crossing in one piece are rescued by the “Sophia” mission. By contrast, some 40 percent of those who reach the European coast are rescued by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). However, Italy, with the backing of Germany and the EU, is adopting a series of new measures to bully these organisations.

The latest attempt at harassment, the code of conduct, is equivalent to a blatant attempt to block the rescue of refugees at sea. NGO ships will have to accept armed Frontex police on board. The ships will also no longer be allowed to transfer rescued refugees to larger ships, meaning they will waste much more time sailing to and from ports, instead of providing aid on location. All of this is aimed at hampering the NGOs and keeping them away from the most dangerous waters where the most people face emergencies.

Five aid organisations—Doctors Without Borders, Sea Watch, Sea Eye, Jugend Rettet (Youth Rescue), and SOS Méditerrannée—have rejected the code of conduct. “We could not sign it due to our principles,” said Titus Molkenbur of Jugend Rettet. The organisations invoked the law of the sea, which applies to all captains.

Italy is now threatening to close its ports to them, and the Austrian Interior Minister has added another threat: “These NGOs are automatically placing themselves outside of the organised rescue system in the Mediterranean, with all of the consequences that brings for their security.” The conflict will further restrict their rescue work, with deadly consequences for refugees.

The EU states, led by Germany and Italy, continue to adopt new measures against refugees. Their proposals are increasingly aimed at keeping refugees in North Africa and preventing them from even reaching Europe.

The Italian government agreed July 28 to send its navy with 1,000 sailors and soldiers into Libyan territorial waters to support the Libyan coastguard in “combating people smugglers.” Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni (Democratic Party, PD) described the move as a “possible turning point in the refugee crisis.” Parliament still has to agree to the proposal.

The move means that shortly after they start out from Libya, refugees will be intercepted by the Italian navy, brought back to Libya and turned over to the Libyan coast guard’s notorious prisons and those run by other warlords.

These prisons are among the worst imaginable. Refugees are confined by the hundreds in spaces which are far too small and exposed to violence, including beatings, rape, and even death. The necessities of life are often entirely absent—washing facilities, clean drinking water and food—and disease is frequently rampant. The Libyan coast guard, which is corrupt and brutal, is enriching itself through the smuggling business. With its support, the EU is making itself complicit in torture, people trafficking and murder.

The Libyan government has protested Italy’s move. The presidential council (the Libyan cabinet), led by Fayez al-Sarraj, immediately denied having requested military assistance. Libya is a sovereign state, it said, and Italy did not have permission for such an intervention within Libyan territorial waters. Only further cooperation with the coast guard in training and the provision of equipment had been agreed in the latest talks in Paris and Rome, it added.

Shortly before the Gentiloni government’s decision, a proposal by French President Emmanuel Macron hit the headlines. Macron declared suddenly on July 27 that before the end of the summer he would ensure that hot spots for refugees would be established on Libyan territory as reception centres for refugees.

The proposal is not new. European politicians have been suggesting for months that Libya be turned into a bulwark against refugees and that reception centres, or “hot spots”—it would be more accurate to say concentration camps—be established on African soil. This has been coupled with the implicit assumption that setting up such camps would require the deployment of European soldiers in North Africa.

Macron invited Libyan Prime Minister al-Sarraj, a UN puppet, and his rival, General Khalid Hafta, to Paris. He subsequently declared that the two parties in Libya’s civil war were ready to end their armed conflict. Macron went public with his proposal for hot spots in Libya shortly afterwards. This prompted significant disquiet in Italy, which as Libya’s former colonial power sees itself as responsible for Libya.

French-Italian relations have also become tense over the STX shipyard in the French port city of St. Nazaire. Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri, a joint venture with a Chinese consortium, was originally set to take control of a large proportion of the shipyard’s shares. The world’s largest cruise ships are built there, but it is also important for the navy. Macron has now annulled the deal with Fincantieri and moved swiftly to “temporarily nationalise” the shipyard, as the government put it.

On August 1, German Social Democrat (SPD) politician Boris Pistorius, who is responsible for domestic security in the SPD election campaign team, called for reception centres in North Africa. In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Saxony’s Interior Minister declared, “People who have fled their homes must be kept outside of Europe’s borders. The people should not sit waiting in Italy, but already have advisers to speak to outside the EU if possible, in processing camps,” Pistorius said. Asked who would operate these camps, he said, “Either the Europeans or the UN would have to operate them.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel and Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière (both Christian Democratic Union, CDU) have already proposed holding refugees in internment camps in North Africa. They are thereby reviving the worst traditions of colonial rule.

Camps where masses of people are confined have a grim historical record in Libya. Around 100,000 people were interned in concentration camps, where one in two people died, under the Italian occupation of 1911-1942. Libya’s legendary Omar Muchtar was executed in front of the prisoners. Under fascism, the occupation was accompanied by widespread terror, with more than 100,000 dying in Cyrenaica and Tripolitania, now Libya. The latest plans by European governments to detain refugees en masse revive the terrible memories of these crimes.

Several weeks ago, de Maizière and his Italian counterpart, Marco Minniti, presented a plan to the EU to militarily seal off Libya’s southern border with UN and EU troops.

The latest proposal from German and French defence ministers Ursula Von der Leyen and Florence Parly is also the result of the same neo-colonial policy. They intend to create a joint military force for the Sahel zone and station soldiers in Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali and Mauritania. The German army already has troops deployed in Mali, Western Sahara, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti and in the Horn of Africa, while France has secured its supply of uranium from Niger and has troops deployed throughout Central Africa.

The goal, according to Von der Leyen, is to combat Islamist groups and “stabilise the region.” Germany’s new great power policies are being packaged with the slogan of “more security and stability.” At the same time, all of the European powers are rearming so as not to leave North Africa to the United States, the main imperialist plunderer, or the rising power China.

Their efforts are part of a new imperialist scramble for Africa to secure strategic positions and oil, gas and other raw materials. The latest phase of this scramble began six years ago with the destruction of Libya and the murder of then-leader Muammar Gaddafi. This was the chief factor in the destabilisation of North Africa.

For the imperialist powers, the refugees are merely a cost factor. They view them as they view the working class: as material for exploitation or cannon fodder, or as an irritating burden that must be dispensed with. Without batting an eyelid, they are permitting thousands to drown or die of thirst in the desert. Instead of assisting refugees, they are sending tanks, bombs, warships, submarines and drones to Africa, and ensuring that more people will be turned into refugees.

France launches attack on rights of refugees and immigrant workers

Athiyan Silva

President Emmanuel Macron is preparing a drastic assault on the rights of refugees and immigrants designed to appeal to nationalist and far-right sentiment in France. Last Thursday, at Orléans, he said, “By the end of the year, I do not want to see anyone in the streets or in the woods anymore.”

Macron’s action plan includes both attacks on democratic rights of refugees and immigrants who have been able to arrive in France, and plans to set up a network of concentration camps in Africa to prevent the majority of refugees from ever arriving to Europe. In this, Macron is continuing the reactionary attacks on refugees and immigrants carried out by France’s previous Socialist Party (PS) government, in which Macron was a minister.

Already, Macron’s prime minister, Edouard Philippe, has announced a new plan of action for refugees and immigrants, which cuts the time for examining immigrants’ asylum and residency cases from 14 months into six months. Those not approved by then could be rapidly deported.

Before they prepare their documents, refugees will be called for an inquiry by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) and the National Court of Asylum (CNDA). The OFPRA and CNDA reject most cases. Under these conditions, refugees would likely be forced to live without any documents. Today, approximately 400,000 undocumented immigrants live in France under imminent danger of deportation.

Macron’s government also plans to construct detention centres in Libya to block refugees and immigrants from coming to Europe. At these detention centres, OFPRA officials would arrive and examine immigrants’ files to identify the “real refugees.” There can be little doubt that the overwhelming majority of people will be turned away, and that French officials would only allow in immigrants based on their calculation of the French state’s financial and political interests.

The Italian government already signed an agreement last May with Libya, Niger and Chad to set up similar detention centres. Macron also aims to reinforce the European border agency Frontex in the Mediterranean, where thousands of refugees have drowned in recent years trying to escape countries devastated by poverty and imperialist wars, from Iraq and Syria to Libya and Niger.

Macron’s policy is a reactionary attempt to deal with the consequences of these wars. Millions of innocent people have been killed, and 65.3 million people worldwide have been forced to flee their homes as refugees, the greatest refugee crisis since the end of World War II. Earlier this year, a German intelligence report estimated that over 6 million refugees have arrived in North Africa, hoping to attempt the crossing of the Mediterranean to Europe.

The UN High Commissioner on Refugees issued a report finding that in Libya over 1.3 million refugees or displaced persons are living in appalling conditions, preparing to attempt the dangerous crossing of the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. All suffer from the bloodshed and civil war unleashed by the war waged by the NATO powers, including France, to overthrow the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

Most of them, however, are living in notorious detentions camps run by Western-backed President Fayez al-Sarraj’s corrupt government, together with various Islamist militias and criminal gangs. According to media reports, 34 detention centres have been identified in Libya, holding between 4,000 and 7,000 detainees each. Refugees are treated as prisoners in these centres, facing torture, extortion, or even rape and execution. There are reports that women and children face sexual abuse or are sold by their captors. Food, drinking water, health care and education are inadequate.

Last May, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi visited the Tariq al-Sikka detention camp and commented on the condition of refugees: “I was shocked at the harsh conditions in which refugees and migrants are held, generally due to lack of resources. Children, women and men who have suffered so much already should not have to endure such hardship.”

These are the camps to which Macron will send OFPRA officials to determine who are “real refugees” who can be rescued, and who should be left to rot in misery.

This underscores that Macron’s government is a full participant in the Fortress Europe policy pursued by the European Union (EU) against refugees and immigrants. His main ally in Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and other European governments deployed similar drastic measures to tighten external borders to block refugees’ entry into Europe. They closed the Balkan land route from the Middle East with barbed wire fences last year, and coordinated with Turkey the construction of mass detention camps in Turkey, to block refugees from arriving to Europe.

This also exposes the falseness of arguments that workers were obliged to vote for Macron in the presidential elections because, as a pro-immigrant candidate, he was a “lesser evil” than his opponent, neo-fascist Marine Le Pen. In fact, he bases himself not only on the ruthless oppression of refugees, but on nationalist and anti-immigrant appeals that will inevitably strengthen Le Pen’s National Front.

Two days after announcing his immigration policy, Macron invited the two rival imperialist proxies vying for control of Libya, al-Sarraj and Benghazi-based military strongman Khalifa Haftar, to the château at La Celle-Saint-Cloud, west of Paris. One subject in the talks was how to strengthen the Libyan coast guard, which is tasked with preventing refugees from leaving the Libyan coast. France, Italy and Germany also provide money, military equipment and training to the Libyan military and collaborate in hunting for refugees in the Mediterranean.

While Macron mounts his offensive against refugees in France and in Africa, he is simultaneously launching a new military intervention into Africa’s Sahel region, which includes countries such as Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mauritania and Chad. On July 2, he visited the Malian capital, Bamako, to meet the Malian government , advocating French intervention in the name of the “war on terror.”

Some 5,000 French troops will operate in a new French force deployed to the Sahel, alongside 12,000 UN peacekeeping forces. The various military operations carried out by these new forces will create new waves of refugees seeking to escape these countries.

With as many as 17 million people internally displaced by war and climate change in the Sahel countries, Macron is planning to set up new detention camps in states bordering Libya, including Niger and Chad, to prevent these refugees from coming to Europe.

Conservative daily promotes Germany’s nuclear armament

Sven Heymanns

“The German elites want war again—We do not!” is one of the slogans the Socialist Equality Party (SGP) is advancing in the Bundestag (parliamentary) election. The urgency of this warning was demonstrated by two articles published in the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) recently. One calls for Germany to arm itself with nuclear weapons for a war against nuclear powers China and Russia. The other opposes the prohibition against non-nuclear countries acquiring atomic weapons.

Under the headline, “Atomic submarines for the Baltic Sea,” Maximilian Terhalle writes that “Germany, together with Poland and the Baltic, should now also use the know-how Israel has long made available about nuclear-armed submarines for its own protection. Such nuclear-equipped vessels should operate as a deterrent in the Baltic.”

“The nuclear protection of Europe must be re-conceptualized” with France and Britain, the article continues. “Germany’s contribution must be directed towards its own abilities,” that is, to build up its own nuclear arsenal.

Terhalle’s demands for Germany to have its own nuclear weapons are embedded in a long complaint about Berlin’s lack of a real foreign policy strategy. The “mantra” that “Germany should assume more responsibility for security policy” was launched years ago, “primarily at the Munich Security Conference,” he writes. However, if one asks how this should look concretely, “this is often met only with empty phrases”.

The foreign operations of the Bundeswehr (armed forces) were not being determined according to strategic criteria, complains Terhalle. For this reason, they have “led to an irresponsible erosion of the strategic orientation and capacities of Germany over the past 20 years.” In other words: Germany had always oriented its foreign policy only in response to acute conflicts, but not according to its own world-strategic interests.

Terhalle sees the “vital security-policy and economic foundations of our existence” threatened above all by China and Russia. Islamic terrorism also is not given sufficient weight, he adds. He believes a war between China and the United States, “which would only remain strictly limited in the best scenario,” is unavoidable because of the “lack of compromise on both sides.”

As far as Terhalle is concerned, this is where Germany must act “in association with others.” Since there are enormous economic interests on the ground there—almost a third of German trade is conducted with the Far East—Germany would be directly affected. But what Germany lacks is a “militarily underpinned strategy” to deal with China’s supposed expansionist policies.

More importantly for Terhalle is Germany arming itself with nuclear weapons against Russia. In his opinion, Germany has missed a great opportunity in this regard. At the beginning of this year, the Baltic states, even Poland, had demanded stronger German engagement in Eastern Europe and “visibly welcomed” the idea of a European nuclear arsenal under German leadership. But in Germany, the proposal had been rejected by politicians and the media “lock, stock and barrel.”

Two days later, the FAZ further stoked the fire. In a guest commentary titled, “A nuclear ban would be damaging,” Karl-Heinz Kamp argued that there are “good reasons against a world free of nuclear weapons.” The condemnation of nuclear weapons, as demanded by their opponents, undermined “the idea of nuclear deterrence for the prevention of war, upon which NATO has successfully rested for almost seven decades.” A ban on nuclear weapons soothed “one’s own conscience in an uncertain world ... it does not contribute to greater security and stability.”

The idea that a nuclear arms race in Europe and Germany’s armament with atomic weapons would contribute to “more security and stability” is sheer insanity.

An article published in the July/August edition of the journal InternationalePolitik paints the following scenario: “If Germany were to build its own genuine military nuclear potential, the risk of conflict in Europe would be considerably exacerbated. Russia would probably do something to prevent a German rearmament. It could try to have German scientists assassinated, to paralyse industrial plants with cyberattacks, or perhaps even to destroy them with air strikes.”

If it really came to nuclear war, either in Europe or in China, it would cost hundreds of millions of lives and probably mean the end of humanity.

But Terhalle and Kamp are not insane, at least not in the clinical sense, but are well-connected servants of the ruling class. Terhalle is a political scientist and major in the reserve. He is currently teaching at the University of Winchester in England.

Kamp has worked for the Christian Democrats’ Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and for NATO, for many years. Since October 2015, he has been president of the Federal Academy for Security Policy (BAKS) in Berlin. BAKS functions as a think tank as well as a training institution for state and political leaders in the fields of security and defence policy. As can be seen on its web site, it is “directly linked to the federal government as a central training institution.” Its leading body, the Board of Trustees, is also the Bundessicherheitsrat (Federal Security Council), which is composed of a number of federal ministers and is chaired by the chancellor.

The fact that a leading member of the security apparatus like Kamp publishes such a piece in the FAZ shows how far the discussion about the armament of the Bundeswehr with nuclear weapons has already advanced behind closed doors.

The fact that these contributions appeared in the FAZ is no coincidence. The newspaper plays a leading role in the ideological preparations for war. For example, it has defended professors Herfried Münkler and Jörg Baberowski in hysterical articles against students who denounced their militaristic and ultra-right views—especially against the SGP and its youth organization, the IYSSE.

In his book “Macht in der Mitte” (“Power in the Middle”), Münkler had already declared two years ago that Germany had to go from being “paymaster” to become “Europe’s task master.” Significantly, he is also a member of the BAKS Advisory Board and is involved in foreign policy discussions at the highest level. Baberowski minimises the crimes of the Nazis, rails against refugees, and asserts that violence can only be answered by counter-violence, and that the terrorists’ own methods must be used in the fight against them.

The call for German nuclear weapons in one of the most powerful German daily newspapers two months before the Bundestag elections is a warning. In its plans to impose its imperialist interests a third time on the global arena, the German ruling class will shrink from nothing. It is therefore all the more urgent to build the SGP as a new socialist mass party. The SGP is the only party that places the struggle against militarism and war at the centre of its election campaign and links this with the struggle against their source, capitalism. We call on all readers to contact us today and support the election campaign of the SGP financially.

Israel: Netanyahu forced to remove metal detectors from the al-Aqsa compound

Jean Shaoul 

Last week, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu ordered the removal of metal detectors and security cameras that provoked mass protests by the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. But he has ordered them to be replaced with “smart” cameras that identity faces and “see though” clothing for weapons.

Israel installed the metal detectors at the entrances to Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa/Temple Mount complex following an attack on July 14 by three Israeli Palestinians in which two policemen were killed. Palestinians responded by boycotting the al-Aqsa Mosque and holding their prayers outside the compound. This and the broader protests were attributed to Hamas, the militant Islamist group that controls Gaza.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas used the opportunity to posture as an opponent of Israel. The Palestinian Authority (PA) would freeze ties with Israel until all the recently installed security devices were dismantled, he said, while worshippers would continue to stay out of al-Aqsa and hold prayers in the street.

Netanyahu removed the metal detectors under pressure from Washington, after the Saudi Arabian and Jordanian monarchs warned their US protectors that unrest could spiral out of control, destabilise their regimes, give succour to Qatar, which sponsors Hamas, and derail Washington’s broader machinations against Iran. Nearly all the Arab media sought to minimise their coverage of the conflict so as not to bring protestors out onto the streets.

Jordan, where the economic situation for workers is dire, is particularly vulnerable. The Muslim Brotherhood there, in contrast to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, enjoys legal status, has 16 of the 130 seats in parliament and is able to mount demonstrations over relations with Israel and the holy sites.

Palestinians held street parties around the Old City after the withdrawal of Israeli police checkpoints at the entry points to the al-Aqsa compound.

The crisis had intensified on July 23, after an Israeli guard at the embassy in Amman, Jordan, which is the ultimate controlling authority of al-Aqsa, shot dead two Jordanians while allegedly fighting off a stabbing attack in retaliation for imposing the metal detectors.

Jordan, one of two Arab states with which Israel has peace treaties, had refused to allow the Israeli ambassador Einat Shlein and her staff to return to Amman unless the guard was put on trial. Jordanian forces held the embassy in lockdown, as Amman demanded the guard’s handover for questioning and trial--which Israel rejected citing diplomatic immunity.

Jordan’s King Abdullah held telephone calls with US President Donald Trump. After this, Netanyahu despatched Shin Bet security service director Nadav Argaman to join Trump’s special envoy, Jason Greenblatt, in Amman to resolve the standoff and seek the release of the embassy staff to return to Israel.

After speaking with Abdullah, Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to the removal of the metal detectors as the price for their release. But, in a move aimed at shoring up his support among his political base, Netanyahu publicly embraced the returning Jordanian guard as a hero.

Infuriated and embarrassed Abdullah said, “We demand that the Israeli prime minister abides by his commitment and takes all measures to ensure the trial of the killer and not to handle this like a political show to achieve personal political gains.”

The Israeli authorities have also handed over the bodies of the three Israeli Palestinians who killed the two police officers to their families.

Greenblatt said that he “welcomes the efforts undertaken to de-escalate tensions in Jerusalem today” and added that, “calm and security will create the best opportunity to return to dialogue and the pursuit of peace.”

However, the number of people praying on the streets outside the compound in Jerusalem continued to increase as a mark of opposition to Israel, with the PA, Fatah’s militia Tanzim and Hamas all calling for protests across the Occupied Territories. Israel has responded with its customary brutality. Israel’s Defense Forces ordered the deployment of six more battalions to the West Bank ahead of Friday prayers, while police restricted access to the mosque to men over the age 50.

Israel’s ultra-nationalists feel emboldened by Trump’s declared support, including his visit to the Old City of Jerusalem, which takes place in the context of his attempt to build a regional alliance against Iran encompassing the Sunni oil monarchies. As a result, Netanyahu is coming under increasing pressure from the right wingers within his cabinet, who accuse him of surrendering Israeli sovereignty over the issue. He also faces several investigations for fraud and breach of trust for accepting very expensive gifts from businessmen who are his close friends that could lead to an indictment.

Thus, far from seeking to calm the situation, Netanyahu has further inflamed tensions. Speaking at a visit to Halamish, where a Palestinian stabbed to death three members of the Salomon family, Netanyahu called for the death sentence for terrorists.

The prime minister’s office announced that Netanyahu had “instructed” Likud legislator Yoav Kish to submit a bill that would expand Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries to incorporate Ma’aleh Adumim and the settlements of the Gush Etzion Regional Council in the West Bank.

Netanyahu’s office also announced that he would take action to stop Al-Jazeera broadcasts from Israel, a move that delighted Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies which are locked in a bitter conflict with Qatar.

On Thursday, thousands of worshippers poured into the compound and neighbouring areas of the Old City, protesting Netanyahu’s announcements. Police fired stun grenades, fired rubber-coated steel bullets and tear gas, wounding around 100 people.

On Friday, angry clashes also broke out in the West Bank and Gaza on Friday, leading to the killing of two Palestinians and injuries to around 122, bringing the total to six deaths and 225 wounded since the violence started on July 14, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent. Fifty-four Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire so far this year.

Israel’s continuous provocations threaten the precarious compromise over the management of al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount compound, regarded as sacred by Muslims and Jews alike. Under the arrangement between Israel and Jordan, following Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem after the 1967 June war, the site continues to be managed by the Islamic Waqf trust and Jews are allowed to enter, but not pray, inside the compound.

For some years, Zionist leaders and politicians, including the leader of the Temple movement Likud legislator Yehuda Glick, have been agitating for Jews to be able to pray inside the compound, once the site of two ancient Jewish temples, as well as visit it. The additional security measures, coming atop a series of provocations surrounding the mosque, angered the Palestinians who viewed them as the first step by Israel to assert greater control over the al-Aqsa Mosque compound.

Sections of the military-intelligence forces fear that inflaming Muslim sentiment across the Middle East could disrupt the plans for an anti-Iranian alliance.

The head of the Arab League warned that Israel’s attempts to control the highly sensitive religious sites in Jerusalem risked igniting a “religious war.” Ahmed Abul Gheit, speaking at a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, said that Israel’s actions were “playing with fire, and will only ignite a religious war and shift the core of the conflict from politics to religion.”