16 Aug 2017

Exploitation, poverty, and repression threaten Haitians facing deportation from US and Canada

John Marion

More than 50,000 Haitians face deportation from the United States when their Temporary Protected Status ends in January; thousands who have crossed into Canada in search of better conditions are faring no better. Both imperialist governments, if they follow through on the deportation plans, will be sending people back to a country where those who are lucky enough to find work are paid a pittance enforced by a ruthless government in league with the native bourgeoisie.
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Religion Antonio Rodrigue told Le Nouvellistelast week that, while he feels a responsibility to receive fellow Haitians deported by Canada, he doesn’t think the country can afford to accept them. According to Rodrigue, Hurricane Matthew destroyed 32 percent of Haiti’s wealth last year. “We’re not ready nor happy nor do we have the means to receive them,” said Rodrigue.
Millions of Haitians cannot afford electricity, and either go without or illegally wire their devices to the grid. The Haitian government and IMF call this practice “theft,” in a country where the unemployment rate is at least 30 percent and more than half the population subsists on less than $1.25 per day.
Haiti has no reserve stock of gasoline, most of which it imports from Venezuela through the Petrocarïbe program; a missed delivery can therefore be catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of households use charcoal for cooking.
While the textile industry employs only 41,000 workers, the European Union—in addition to the United States and Canada—is looking for cheap labor. At a September 2016 Round Table on “Micro Industrial Parks,” then-Minister of Commerce and Industry Jessy C. Petit-Frère boasted of 189 million Haitian gourdes the government had received from the EU in 2016 and of plans to put the funds toward industrial parks in industries including tourism, agriculture, energy, and fishing.
On May 19, textile workers at the SANOPI industrial park in Port-au-Prince went on strike, demanding an increase in the minimum daily wage from 300 to 800 gourdes (US $12.70 at the time). The government first offered an increase of only 35 gourdes, which it then increased by another 15 on July 27. The resulting amount, 350 gourdes per day in a country with an inflation rate of more than 15 percent, still stands.
The unions then called another week of strikes starting July 31, but were met on the first day by the PNH (Haitian National Police), which had deployed at least three police vehicles in front of each factory. The strike was then called off.
The government has promised a paltry subsidy of workers’ meals—bringing the cost for a worker from 75 gourdes to 40—as an excuse for keeping the minimum wage low. A 40 gourde meal is still more than 10 percent of the daily minimum wage. In a June 7 press conference, Minister of Social Affairs and Labor Roosevelt Bellevue also promised a fleet of 300 buses which would carry textile workers to and from their jobs for free. In reality, this scheme will benefit the employers whose labor costs will remain criminally low while the government pays for transportation.
At the end of 2013, when workers were protesting for an increase of the minimum wage to 500 gourdes—the government had offered only 225—the factory owners cried that the existing rate was already four times higher than Bangladesh’s. According to the Guardian, the owners went so far as to issue an open letter to workers about “keeping Haiti competitive.”
The government has spent years building up the 15,000-strong PNH to replace the UN’s hated MINUSTAH “peacekeeping” force, which is scheduled to be withdrawn in October. It is also re-establishing the country’s army, the Forces Armées d’Haiti (FAD’H), which will soon be recommissioned. The FAD’H, a pillar of the blood-soaked Duvalier dictatorship was disbanded by Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1995, but its reconstitution was begun by Michel Martelly in 2011. A July recruitment drive was heavily advertised; recruits were required to be celibate and in possession of a “Certificate of Good Living and Morals” from the PNH.
Defense Minister Hervé Denis’ instructions from the Prime Minister include “assuring the defense of the coast; protecting the maritime borders; monitoring the maritime territory … and ensuring maritime patrols.” In other words, the FAD’H will stop the poor and desperate from leaving the country in boats. Borrowing from the US government’s propaganda, the FAD’H will carry out its mission under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking and terrorism.
Denis began his political career in 1969 in the Duvalier regime, and in 1985 he was appointed Minister of Labor and Social Affairs by Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. According to his biography, in that job he “developed close relations among the employers and unions in order to re-enforce the ties between these institutions.”
On July 20, Le Nouvelliste published a long commentary in support of the new army by Prosper Avril, a Duvalier general who seized power after the St. Jean Bosco massacre in 1988 and whose year-and-a-half rule was infamous for torture. In the article, Avril lays out a detailed list of tasks for the new organization.
MINUSTAH forces brought cholera to Haiti in 2010, and, according to a recent Associated Press report, sexually exploited Haitian children beginning shortly after the mission arrived in 2004. Despite acknowledgement of the crimes and promises of reform by the UN, sexual exploitation by its troops occurred as recently as 2016.
Although the rate of cholera infections is decreasing, more than 7,600 suspected cases were reported in the first six months of this year. Even though its own epidemiologists released a report less than two years after the outbreak proving that UN soldiers were responsible, Ban Ki-Moon refused to acknowledge the fact until last year. The UN then promised to raise $400 million to fight the epidemic but, according to Foreign Policy, only $2.7 million had been raised as of June 1 of this year. The Trump administration has refused to contribute anything to the fund.
The Dominican Republic has increased its military presence on the border between the two countries in anticipation of MINUSTAH’s withdrawal. According to Dominican Today, Defense Minister Ruben Dario Paulino toured the border on August 9 and warned Haiti that “an army is to defend its territory, not to invade another territory.” Since June 2015 nearly 200,000 people have been deported from the Dominican Republic to Haiti or returned themselves under threat of deportation.
Having won an election in which only 20 percent of eligible voters turned out, Moïse is well aware that he is sitting on a social powder keg. The US—which deployed only 200 marines after Hurricane Matthew, compared to the tens of thousands of troops it sent after the 2010 earthquake—expects him to rely on the PNH and FAD’H. Nonetheless, they are keeping a close eye on his government: in June Defense Minister Denis was summoned to Washington to meet with the US Congress and the Inter-American Development Bank about Haiti’s maritime borders.
Moïse, a former secretary general of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Haiti, has close ties with Haiti’s big bourgeoisie, including Reginald Boulos and André Apaid, Jr., one of the biggest textile bosses of Port-au-Prince.
The destitution from which Haitian immigrants have fled is the direct result of more than a century of US imperialist oppression, which followed a century of French revenge for the revolution of 1804.
In a December 1914 prelude to the 20-year occupation of the country by the US, Marines from the USS Machias seized $500,000 of Haitian reserves and took them back to New York. From that act of aggression through Reagan’s support for “Baby Doc,” to the 2004 coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the US bears responsibility for the crimes of Haiti’s ruling elite.

Seventy years since the communal Partition of South Asia

Keith Jones

Seventy years ago this week, on August 15, 1947, South Asia’s British colonial overlords transferred power to an “independent” Indian government headed by the Indian National Congress of Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi.
The previous day, the last Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, joined Muslim League President M.A. Jinnah in Karachi to inaugurate Pakistan as an expressly Muslim state. Pakistan was carved out of the Muslim-majority areas of the northwest and northeast of Britain’s Indian Empire, thus transforming the “new” India into a primarily Hindu state.
Yet, Muslims had lived in all parts of the Indian subcontinent for well over a millennium.
The communal Partition was one of the great crimes of the 20th century—a crime that has shaped, or more precisely deformed, the entire subsequent history of South Asia.
Partition precipitated months of horrific communal violence, in which as many as two million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs perished, and provoked one of the greatest mass migrations in human history.
Within the space of the next four years, more than 15 million people, generally carrying no more than what they could hold in their hands and on their backs, migrated from one country to the other: Hindus and Sikhs fled Pakistan for India, and Muslims India for Pakistan.
Partition defied South Asia’s geography, history and culture, and the logic of its economic development, including the rational use of its water resources. Seven decades on, South Asia is the world’s least economically integrated region.
The architects of Partition, including Nehru, independent India’s first prime minister, claimed it would attenuate communal frictions, if not lance the communal boil. In reality, it built communalism into the very state structure of South Asia, thereby entrenching and magnifying it.
The ruling elites of Muslim Pakistan and ostensibly secular India have promoted communalism and its ideological cousins, religious fundamentalism and caste-ism, as a means of channeling social anger in a reactionary direction and splitting the working class.
Partition gave rise to a reactionary military-strategic rivalry between India and Pakistan that has squandered vital resources and today threatens the people of South Asia with nuclear annihilation. Over the past seven decades, India and Pakistan have fought three declared wars and several undeclared wars, and passed through numerous war crises.
The Congress, until recently the premier party of the Indian bourgeoisie, has always presented itself as a victim of Partition, that is of the machinations of the British imperialism and the Muslim League.
To be sure, the British practiced “divide and rule,” incorporating communal categories into their system of imperial control, and the Muslim League connived with India’s colonial overlords.
But there are fundamental class reasons why the Congress could not counter this communalist stratagem; why it betrayed its own program of Hindu-Muslim-Sikh unity in the struggle for a “united, democratic and secular” India, and implemented Partition. This included collaborating closely with the arch-Hindu and Sikh communalists Shyma Prasad Mukherjee and Master Tara Singh in tearing Bengal and the Punjab asunder.
The bourgeois Congress was hostile to and organically incapable of mobilizing the workers and toilers of South Asia based on an appeal to their common class interests and thereby uniting South Asia “from below.”
The Congress reflected the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie, which rankled under British rule because of its own limited opportunities for exploiting the working class. Under Gandhi’s leadership, it mounted a series of tightly-controlled and politically-emasculated mass mobilizations, between 1920 and 1942. But the more the masses, especially workers, emerged onto the scene, the more tenaciously the Congress sought a settlement with imperialism.
Especially after the experience of the 1942 “Quit India” movement, the Congress was deeply fearful that mass workers’ and peasants’ struggles would erupt outside of its control and that the struggle against the British Raj would come under the leadership of more radical forces that would threaten capitalist property.
Between 1945 and 1947, India was convulsed by struggles of a pre-revolutionary character, including mass strikes, anti-imperialist mobilizations involving direct clashes with the police and army in the proletarian centers of Calcutta and Bombay, and a mutiny of Royal Indian Navy sailors.
The more the masses came forward, the more anxious the Congress leaders became to get their hands on the repressive machinery of the colonial state, so as to stabilize capitalist rule. Toward that end, they eagerly sought a deal with the British. The latter recognized the need to change from direct to indirect imperialist rule over South Asia, but were nonetheless intent on using the communal card and their Muslim bourgeois and landlord clients to drive a hard bargain, so as to clip the wings of the Congress and the Indian bourgeoisie.
The ability of the Congress to maintain control over and ultimately suppress the mass anti-imperialist movement that convulsed South Asia in the three decades prior to August 1947 was bound up with the betrayals of the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and their Indian acolytes, organized in the Communist Party of India (CPI).
Willfully ignoring the central lessons of the 1917 October Revolution, the Stalinists pursued a course that at every point served to reinforce the control of the national bourgeoisie over the anti-imperialist struggle and prevent the working class from challenging it for the leadership of the peasant masses. This included hailing the bourgeois Congress as a multi-class front; supporting the British Indian authorities in their repression of the 1942 Quit India movement on the grounds it was jeopardizing the Allied war effort; and supporting the Muslim League’s reactionary demand for a separate Pakistan.
During the 1945-47 upsurge, the Stalinists insisted that the working class must subordinate its demands and struggles to the building of a “National Front” that would secure India’s independence under the joint leadership of the Congress and Muslim League. It did not matter that these organizations were maneuvering, with daggers drawn, against each other to secure the best deal from British imperialism.
Partition was only the most immediate and striking expression of the suppression of the democratic revolution at the hands of the Indian and Pakistani bourgeoisies, which was itself a major element in the post-World War II war restabilization of world capitalism. None of the burning problems facing the peasant masses, beginning with a radical transformation in agrarian relations, and the eradication of caste-ism, were addressed. In both countries, the working class was condemned to eking out a living on poverty, even subsistence, wages, without basic social protections, and with its struggles threatened from the outset by state repression.
Much is made in the Western media today about India’s “rise.” But, if anything, the Indian bourgeoisie is even more reactionary and hostile to the interests of India’s workers and toilers in 2017 than seven decades ago.
India’s transformation into a cheap-labour producer for world capitalism over the past quarter century has enriched a tiny stratum. While India now boasts the world’s third-largest number of billionaires, three-quarters of India’s 1.3 billion people survive on less than $US2 per day.
Just as Donald Trump personifies the criminality and brutality of the American ruling class, so the true face of the Indian ruling class is found in its current prime minister, the Hindu-supremacist, authoritarian Narendra Modi.
Modi has been tasked with propelling the further rise of the Indian capitalism, including its great power ambitions, by accelerating pro-investor “reform” and unabashedly aligning India with US imperialism.
India is now serving as a frontline state in the US military-strategic offensive against China. That ominous development is underscored by the threat that a two-month-old Sino-Indian border standoff in the Himalayas could erupt in war and by Modi’s full-throated support for Trump’s threats to incinerate North Korea.
For decades, the reactionary Pakistani bourgeoisie served as a satrap for US imperialism. It remains eager to do so today. But Washington has ever-more tightly embraced its arch-rival India, despite repeated Pakistani warnings that this has dangerously destabilized South Asia and is fueling an arms and nuclear-arms race. This has caused an increasingly anxious Islamabad to tighten its longstanding ties with Beijing.
Thus the reactionary Indo-Pakistani rivalry born of the Partition has now become enmeshed with the US-China conflict, adding to each a massive new explosive charge.
The workers of South Asia must draw the lessons of the great strategic experiences of the past century, of the Russian Revolution, but also the colonial bourgeoisie’s suppression of the democratic, anti-imperialist revolution in South Asia and the failure of “independent” capitalist rule.

Africa Youth in Agribusiness Day Challenge for Young Africans (fully-sponsored trip to selected incubators in Africa, Asia and Europe) 2017

Application Deadline: 1st September, 2017.
Eligible Countries: African countries
To Be Taken At (Country): Dakar, Senegal.
About the Award: Here is your chance to win sponsorship from the African Agribusiness Incubators Network (AAIN) and partners to represent the youth from your country at the 2017 edition of the  5th October “Africa Youth in Agribusiness Day” during the forthcoming 2017 Africa Agribusiness Incubation Conference and Expo that will run from the 8th to the 10th of November of October in Dakar, Senegal.
Type: Contest
Eligibility: For youth between 18-35 years
Number of Awards: 20
Value of Award: The top 20 winners also stand a chance to earn a fully-sponsored trip to selected incubators in Africa, Asia and Europe.
How to Apply: 
  1. Get acquainted with the history of the “Africa Youth in Agribusiness Day” and the “Africa Agribusiness Incubation Conference and Expo”. Do your homework on global business incubation, opportunities in ICT integration in agribusiness, AAIN core investment areas, the 2017 theme of the African Union, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and Agenda 2063.
  2. With reference to the above, structure your own essay (maximum 1000 words) with the title “Youth in Africa, the time is now. We can take agribusiness development and job creation to the next level.”
  3. Submit your essay by email with subject line “2nd Africa Youth in Agribusiness Day Challenge” to info@africaain.org before the 1st of September, 2017.
Award Providers: African Agribusiness Incubators Network (AAIN)
Important Notes: How to earn extra points
Take a photo of African youth engaging in an agribusiness activity, upload it to twitter with the promotional flyer (downloadable from tweet pinned to the AAIN twitter page or website www.africaain.org) and put hashtag #AfricaYouthinAg2 and tag the official AAIN twitter page @AAINOnline. The more likes you get the better.
OR:
Reply to the latest upload to our official Facebook page with the photo of African youth engaging in an agribusiness activity and put hashtag #AfricaYouthinAg2, type your first name and country. The more likes you get, the better.

Princeton University Postdoctoral Fellowships in Humanities and Social Sciences 2018-2021

Application Deadline: 15th September, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Field of Research: Human and Allied Social Science. Candidates will pursue research and teach half-time in the following areas: OPEN discipline; Humanistic Studies; LGBT Studies; Race and Ethnicity Studies.
Type: Fellowship
About the Award: Four three-year Postdoctoral Fellowships will be awarded this year. The stipend for each of the three years of the fellowship will be approximately $84,500. In addition, fellows are provided with a shared office, a personal computer, a research account of $5,000 a year, access to university grants, benefits and other resources.
Fellows are expected to reside in or near Princeton during the academic year in order to attend weekly seminars and participate fully in the intellectual life of the Society.
Eligibility: PhD degree requirements. Please note the Society’s dates of degree eligibility. These are firm dates with no exceptions:
a) Candidates already holding the PhD degree at time of application:
Candidate must have received their degree between January 1, 2016 and September 15, 2017.
b) Candidates who are ABD (All But Dissertation) at time of application:
  • If candidate is sure they will not meet the September 15, 2017, deadline for receipt of PhD but are expected to have fulfilled all conditions for the degree, including defense and filing of dissertation, by June 15, 2018, you may still apply for a postdoctoral fellowship provided you have completed a substantial portion of the dissertation (approximately half). We ask that you include in your dossier a letter confirming your “progress to degree” from either your Department Chair or your Director of Graduate Studies (see details of letter below).
  • Priority will be given to candidates who have received no more than one year of research-only funding past the Ph.D. degree.
  • Fellowships will be awarded to candidates at the beginning of their academic career. Candidates must have already demonstrated outstanding scholarly achievement and excellence in teaching. Their work should also show evidence of unusual promise. The Society has a particular interest in fostering innovative interdisciplinary approaches in the humanities and social sciences.
  • US citizens and non-US citizens, regardless of race, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, or disability, are eligible to apply. The Society of Fellows seeks a diverse and international pool of applicants and especially welcomes candidates from underrepresented backgrounds.
  • Fellows must reside in or near Princeton during the academic year of their fellowship term in order that they can attend weekly seminars and other events on campus.
Number of Awardees: 4
Value of Scholarship: The stipend for each of the three years of the fellowship will be approximately $86,600. In addition, fellows are provided with a shared office, a personal computer, a research account of $5,000 a year, access to university grants, benefits and other resources.
Duration of Scholarship: 3 years
How to Apply: Visit Fellowship Webpage to apply
Award Provider: Princeton University
Important Notes: 
  • Names of fellowship winners will be posted on the Society of Fellows’ website in July 2018.
  • Recipients of doctorates in Education (Ed.D. or Ph.D. degrees), doctorates of Jurisprudence, and holders of Ph.D. degrees from Princeton University are not eligible to apply.
  • If you have already applied to the Princeton Society of Fellows, you may not apply a second time. We therefore recommend that candidates wait until they have completed a substantial portion of the dissertation (approximately half) before applying.

15 Aug 2017

American University of Beirut Graduate Scholarship in Health Science for MENA Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 1st November, 2017
Eligible Countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Morocco, Lebanon, EgyptDjibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, LibyaMauritania, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, SomaliaSudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, Yemen.
To be taken at (country): Beirut, Lebanon
Eligible Fields of Study:  
  • Master of Public Health (MPH) with 3 areas of concentration:
    • Epidemiology and Biostatistics (EPBS)
    • Health Promotion and Community Health (HPCH)
    • Health Management and Policy (HMP)
  • Master of Science in Epidemiology (MS EPID)
  • Master of Science in Environmental Sciences – Major in  Environmental Health (MS EH)
About the Award: A limited number of partial or full scholarships are available to students from the Arab region interested in the MPH and MS programs at the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS).
Scholarship opportunities are only available for the Fall admission term of every academic year. 
Type: Master’s taught
Selection Criteria: Prospective students will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
  • Commitment to service in public health in the region.
  • Relevance of work experience to public health or related fields.
  • Duration of work experience.
  • Local need for public health graduates in the country of the applicant.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Full scholarships cover tuition and related academic expenses, travel to and from the country of residence as well as basic living expenses. Partial scholarships provide financial support for a range of these expenses.
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of programme
How to Apply: The scholarship application form is part of the AUB online graduate application. Interested students who meet the selection criteria must first submit a complete AUB graduate application online, which includes the scholarship application.
Award Provider: American University of Beirut

Georg Forster Research Award for Developing and Transition Countries 2018 – Germany

Application Deadline: 31st October 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries (excluding People’s Republic of China and India). See List below
To be taken at (country): Germany
Eligible Fields: Research programmes offered by the university
About Scholarship: The Georg Forster Research Award is granted in recognition of a researcher’s entire achievements to date to academics of all disciplines whose fundamental discoveries, new theories, or insights have had a significant impact on their own discipline and beyond and who are expected to continue developing research-based solutions to the specific challenges facing transition and developing countries.
Type: Research/Grants
Selection Criteria: 
  • The Selection Committee makes its decision solely on the basis of the nominees’ academic qualifications and the relevance of their research to the development of their own countries.
  • The applicants must have had their main residence and place of work in one of these countries for at least five years at the time of their nomination.
Eligible
  • -Nominees must be nationals of a developing or transition country (excluding People’s Republic of China and India; cf. detailed list of countries).
  • -Furthermore, at the time of nomination, they must have had their main residence and place of work in one of these countries for at least five years.
  • -The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation particularly encourages the nomination of qualified female researchers.
Number of Scholarships: up to six Georg Forster Research Awards annually.
Value of Scholarship: The award amount totals €60,000. In Germany, research awards are generally exempt from income tax under German tax law.
Duration of Scholarship: The project duration of about six to twelve months may be divided into segments.
Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Ecuador, Macedonia, Samoa Albania, Egypt, Madagascar, Sao Tomé, Príncipe Algeria, El Salvador, Malawi, Senegal, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia, Serbia, Antigua and Barbuda, Eritrea, Maldives, Seychelles, Argentina, Ethiopia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Armenia, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Azerbaijan, Fiji, Mauritania, Somalia, Mauritius, South Africa, Mexico, South Sudan, Bangladesh, Gabon, Micronesia, Fed. States, Sri Lanka, Belarus, Gambia, Moldova, Rep. St. Kitts and Nevis, Belize, Georgia, Montenegro, St. Lucia, Benin, Ghana, Morocco, St. Vincent, Bhutan, Grenada Mongolia, the Grenadines, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mozambique, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Guinea, Myanmar, Suriname, Botswana, Guinea-Bissau, Swaziland, Brazil, Guyana, Syria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Namibia, Tajikistan, Haiti, Nauru, Tanzania, Honduras, Nepal, Thailand, Nicaragua, Timor-Leste Cambodia, Indonesia, Niger, Togo, Cameroon, Iran, Nigeria, Tonga, Cape Verde, Iraq Niue Tunisia, Central African Republic, Turkey, Chad, Jamaica, Turkmenistan, Chile , Jordan, Tuvalu, Colombia, Pakistan, Comoros, Kazakhstan, Palestinian territories, Congo, Dem. Rep. of Kenya, Palau, Uganda, Congo, Rep. of the Kiribati, Panama, Ukraine, Cook Islands, Korea, Dem. PR of Papua New Guinea, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Kosovo, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Cote d’Ivoire, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, Cuba, Philippines, Vanuatu, Laos, Venezuela, Lesotho, Rwanda, Vietnam, Dominica, Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Liberia, Djibouti, Libya, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
How to Apply
Sponsors: Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany
Important Notes: The Humboldt Foundation has changed its nomination procedure in the Georg Forster Research Award Programme. As of now, you can only nominate and upload your nomination documents online.

European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) Career Development Fellowships for Researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa 2018

Application Deadline: 21st November 2017
Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan African countries
About the Award: Application for a Career Development Fellowship must be submitted by an organisation with an established legal entity in sub-Saharan Africa (‘the applicant legal entity’) on behalf of the prospective fellow employed by that organisation.
The grants are awarded to the host organisation with the explicit commitment that this organisation offers appropriate conditions for the fellow to direct and manage its funding for the duration of the fellowship.
The purpose of this Call for Proposals is to provide funding to actions that aim to support junior to mid-career researchers (‘fellows’) to train and develop their clinical research skills.
The objectives are:
  1. To promote career development and retention of postdoctoral researchers and postgraduate medical researchers in the research field and in sub-Saharan Africa;
  2. To equip the fellows with the ability to establish themselves as independent researchers and with the skills to initiate and manage their own research at host organisations in sub-Saharan Africa.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • The applicant must be an organisation with an established legal entity in sub-Saharan Africa (the applicant legal entity).(3)
  • The fellow must be employed or have guaranteed employment by the applicant legal entity (the host organisation) where they intend to remain working for a minimum of two years after the expiration of the grant
  • Fellows must:
    • be resident of or be willing to relocate to a sub-Saharan African country;
    • be either a graduate in a subject relevant to the EDCTP2 programme, with a PhD and up to five years’ relevant postdoctoral research experience, or a medical doctor with up to five years’ research experience;
    • have at least one publication in an international peer-reviewed journal;
    • not have been funded under this fellowship scheme before.
  • The requested EDCTP contribution per action shall not exceed € 150,000.
  • The maximum fellowship duration shall be 36 months.
Selection Criteria: Following an admissibility and eligibility check, letters of intent and full proposals are evaluated by external, independent experts. Proposals are evaluated according to the criteria Excellence, Impact and Implementation. Each criterion is scored between 0 and 5.
The following aspects are considered under the evaluation criteria:
  1. Excellence
  • Fit with the scope and objectives of the EDCTP2 Programme, the EDCTP strategic research agenda and the call topic description.
  • Importance, relevance/pertinence and clarity of the objectives.
  • Soundness of the concept and credibility of the proposed approach/methodology.
  • Suitability of the candidate, considering their track record, degree of independence and/or potential, and how the fellowship will further the individual’s career.
  • Quality of the project and its fit with the fellow’s expertise and career development plan, including acquired competencies and skills to be developed further.
  1. Impact
  • The extent to which the outputs of the proposed work would contribute, at the European, African and/or International level, to each of the expected impacts listed in the work plan under the relevant topic.
  • Likelihood to result in major advances in the field.
  • Contribution of the fellowship to the fellow’s clinical research skills and career development.
  • Contribution to strengthening clinical research capacity at the home or host organisation.
  • Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate results generated during the fellowship (including management of IPR), to communicate the fellowship activities, and, where relevant, to manage clinical data.
  • Sustainability and retention of capacity post-award.
  1. Quality and efficiency of the implementation
  • Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which the resources assigned to work packages are in line with their objectives and deliverables;
  • Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management, and how responsibilities for research data quality and sharing, and security will be met.
  • Complementarity of the participants within the consortium, and the extent to which the consortium as whole brings together the necessary expertise.
  • Appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources, ensuring that all participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfil that role.
  • Feasibility and appropriateness of the methods and project management to achieve the objectives within the timeframe of the grant.
  • Compliance with national and international standards of research, Good Clinical Practice, ethics and safety related issues.
  • Participants have the operational capacity, to carry out the proposed work, based on the competence and experience of the individual participant(s).
  • Suitability of the fellow’s home organisation to support the fellowship project.
  • Intention of the fellow’s home organisation to develop and commit to a career post-fellowship or re-integration plan.
Number of Awards:  17-19
Value of Award: 
  • Call budget: €2.5 M
  • Maximum funding: €150,000
  • Funding level: Up to 100% of eligible costs
How to Apply: This is a single-stage application procedure. Proposals must be submitted by 21 November 2017 via EDCTPgrants. Evaluation results are expected to be made available by 16 April 2018.
The host organisation (applicant) must provide a support letter confirming that the organisation is supportive of the proposed action and willing through its financial and administrative systems to enable the fellow to direct independently the proposed action and manage its funding for the duration of the fellowship.
Award Providers: EDCTP

$150,000 Google Research Awards in Sciences and Engineering for Academic Institutions Worldwide 2018

Application Deadline: 30th September 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): respective institutions worldwide
Eligible Fields of Research: The intent of the Google Research Awards is to support cutting-edge research in Computer Science, Engineering, and related fields. Applicants are to categorize their proposals into one of the following broad research areas of interest to Google:
  • Economics and market algorithms
  • Geo/maps
  • Human-computer interaction
  • Information retrieval, extraction, and organization
  • Machine learning and data mining
  • Machine perception
  • Machine translation
  • Mobile
  • Natural language processing
  • Networking
  • Policy and standards
  • Privacy
  • Security
  • Social networks
  • Software engineering
  • Speech
  • Structured data and database management
  • Systems (hardware and software)
Google faculty research awardAbout Google Research Award: Google is committed to developing new technologies to help users find and use information. As part of its vision to maintain strong ties with academic institutions worldwide pursuing innovative research in core areas relevant to our mission, the Google Research Awards program aims to identify and support world-class, full-time faculty pursuing research in areas of mutual interest.
Google is excited to support the university research, academic development and technological innovation that happens across the globe. Google has teams in China, EMEA, Australia, New Zealand, India and North America who build and maintain relationships with university research and faculty in their regions and support continuing innovation in computer science education.
In EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), the focus is on top computer science research across all EMEA universities.
Similarly, the group in Japan concentrates on extending Google’s global programs to the top universities in Japan.
The focus is on academic development and research through a variety of programs in China, including curriculum development, the student entrepreneurship program, and computer science education outreach program.
In Australia and New Zealand the focus is on excellence in research at leading universities, academic development programs, and STEM outreach initiatives.
The programs in India focus on promoting state-of-the-art research at Indian universities and academic development programs that use the Internet to reach a large number of students and faculty.
Type: Research
Number of Awards: Several
Value of Award: Faculty members can apply for up to 150,000 USD in eligible expenses, but actual award amounts are frequently less than the full amount requested. Most awards are funded at the amount needed to support basic expenses for one graduate student for one year.
How to Apply: The application process for the Research Awards includes filling out an online form requesting basic information and uploading a proposal via the form. As part of the online form, you will be asked to select a topic area from among the 18 areas listed above. Please select carefully, as this will determine which of the review committees will review your proposal.
Before submitting a proposal, please carefully review all the instructions in the link below, including FAQs and proposal advice.
To apply for a Google research award, faculty members should use the general guidelines on this link for proposal submission.
Award Provider: Google

Burkina Faso: 17 dead in terror attack at Ouagadougou

Anthony Torres

Two gunmen allegedly linked to the Islamic State organisation killed 18 and wounded 7 in an attack on the Istanbul restaurant, which is commonly frequented by foreigners in the capital of Burkina Faso, Ouagadougou. This attack is a consequence of the war for regime change carried out by NATO and its Islamist allies in Libya six years ago, which has spread since across the Sahel.
There were at least seven Burkinabès and eight foreigners among the dead, said Foreign Minister Alpha Barry. “Besides the seven Burkinabès, there was a Frenchman, a Canadian, a Senegalese, a Nigerian, a Turk, and two Kuwaitis,” Barry stated, adding that there were also “three victims who have yet to be identified.”
No organisation has claimed responsibility for the attack, but press reports stressed that the modus operandi recalled that of the attack on the Capuccino café last year, only 200 metres away from the Instanbul restaurant. That attack claimed 29 lives and was claimed by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
gendarmerie (military police) official told AFP that “according to multiple witnesses, at least two assailants arrived on a motorcycle around 9 p.m. with Kalachnikov rifles and opened fire on the Istanbul restaurant.” The restaurant, situated on a major thoroughfare, Kwame Nkrumah Avenue, is well known for serving a largely expatriate clientele.
Both gunmen were shot and killed. “The two assailants were young, wearing jeans and armed with Kalashnikovs,” said the police official. The captain and spokesman for the gendarmerie, Guy-Hervé Yé, told Le Monde that “they hid in the building [where the Istanbul café is located] and as the security forces thought they might have hostages, this dragged out the intervention, which terminated around 4 a.m., when both men were neutralised at the back of the building.”
Burkina Faso’s president, Marc Christian Kaboré, said he “condemned with the greatest firmness the repugnant attack which has bloodied Ouagadougou,” insisting that “Burkina Faso will rise up from this test, because its valiant people will resist terrorism without any concessions.”
In a communiqué, Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, the former colonial power, condemned the “terrorist attack.” The Elysée presidential palace added that “French and Burkina authorities remained in close contact throughout the night,” and Macron and Kaboré spoke Monday morning. The French president wrote that Macron “stressed his solidarity in the new tragedy facing Burkina Faso and reiterated his determination to deepen” ties between the two countries.
France Info editorialist Anthony Bellanger wrote that Burkina Faso’s ex-president, Blaise Compaoré, had established a sort of non-aggression pact with the jihadist groups in the region. “They had tables and hotel rooms available to them in Ouagadougou, and negotiations for the release of hostages, for instance, often took place in Burkina Faso. In exchange, the rule was: no attacks. It was not a big secret, everyone knew it in the region. But...no more Compaoré, no more sanctuary for terrorists, no more suites reserved at hotels in the capital, and the jihadists began striking at the heart of Burkina Faso.”
Bellanger added, “In January 2016, a few days after the installation of the new government, they killed 30 people in the same place as the current attack. The message was clear at the time and it is clear today, as the trial in absentia of Blaise Compaoré just opened in April.”
France’s so-called war on terror in Mali and the broader Sahel region is a pile of lies. While the Socialist Party (PS) government of President François Hollande invoked humanitarian reasons to launch the Mali war, sending thousands of soldiers to fight jihadist militias leaving Libya, France’s ally in Burkina Faso was serving as a sanctuary for negotiations with the Islamist militias without any overt criticism emerging of Compaoré’s regime.
The Mali war was one of the devastating consequences of the regime-change war NATO waged in Libya in 2011. The fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime spread war across the region. Starting in January 2012, the Tuareg-nationalist National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) militia launched an insurrection against the Malian state, taking over parts of northern Mali. After a March 2012 coup in the Malian capital of Bamako, they were able to profit from the chaos in the Malian army and take over the cities of Gao, Timbuktu and Kidal.
Starting in January 2013, Paris sent waves of troops to the region with the support of Washington. Operation Serval, the French invasion of Mali, served as the spearhead of a major expansion of French militarism in its former colonies in West Africa. In exchange for French “aid” to stabilise northern Mali and fight various rebel militias, Paris demanded and received the right to deploy its troops throughout the country. Its aim is to re-establish the colonial order first established by French imperialism in the region at the end of the nineteenth century.
Compaoré, who had ruled with French support for decades, was forced to abandon power in 2014 at France’s request after opposition parties’ calls for demonstrations unleashed mass protests and riots. The protests were called against Compaoré’s attempt to amend the constitution to run for a fifth term in office. The opposition was horrified, however, when a protest call designed to strengthen its position in the political establishment provoked a broader response. It rapidly sought to re-establish control of the situation, negotiating an accord with elements of the Compaoré regime.
Compaoré fell as the Islamic State militia was preparing a series of deadly terror attacks in Paris in 2015, and the various Islamist militias subsequently lost the support they had enjoyed in Burkina Faso. The attacks now carried out by the Islamist forces are the bloody consequences of these reactionary manoeuvres of French imperialism and its neocolonial client states in Africa.

Law to “moralize” French politics: A fig leaf for austerity

Francis Dubois 

The law to “moralize” political life, approved August 3 and 9 by the two houses of the French parliament, is a desperate and farcical attempt to spread illusions in a political establishment that is nothing more than a tool of the banks and the financial oligarchy.
The campaign to “re-establish confidence” that produced this law began after the “Penelope affair,” launched against conservative candidate François Fillon over his pro-Russian positions, but which revealed endemic corruption in the French ruling elite. The drafting of the bill was given over to François Bayrou, the leader of the Democratic Movement (MoDem), who has since resigned as charges surfaced that his party illegally organized no-show jobs at the European Parliament.
The law was approved last Wednesday by a vote 412 to 74 with 62 abstentions. Most conservative The Republicans (LR) deputies voted against; Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Unsubmissive France (UF), the Stalinist French Communist Party, and the New Left group (Socialist Party and allies) abstained. After the vote, the deputies gave the government a standing ovation.
The law is a purely cosmetic measure aimed at covering up the most embarrassing faults of the system, while giving the financial aristocracy all the powers it needs to buy the parliament. Sections of the law do, however, give a revealing look at the practices of the French regime.
The suppression of the “parliamentary reserve,” a €150 million slush fund placed at the disposal of the deputies and senators to fund various retinues in their districts, could not be avoided; otherwise the entire exercise would have been discredited. It was in part motivated by the fact that its distribution was creating growing tensions within the political establishment. It was opposed by LR, which apparently had the most to lose.
The measure on the official and pervasive lobbying activities of major corporations—who each year pay out considerable sums of money that are rarely declared and produce amendments that are then submitted by parliamentarians—is a “corrective” that will correct nothing. The ban on lobbyists paying the salaries of advisors of the president, of parliamentarians, and of members of ministerial staffs will not prevent the financial aristocracy from making the laws. A deputy will no longer be authorized to participate himself in lobbying activity.
Parliamentarians’ lucrative “consulting” activity will not be banned, but will be subject to certain restrictions. A member of parliament will not be able to engage in consulting during his or her term in office, or to advise firms bidding for state contracts. Otherwise, everything remains the same as before.
As for pantouflage, the revolving door between top jobs in the state bureaucracy and in finance and industry—of which president Macron, a former Rothschild banker, is a classic example—the law changes nothing.
The new law prevents parliamentarians from financing a “close relative” via an advisor position, though they can hire nephews, nieces, cousins or members of the families of other deputies. In this case, they are simply obliged to report it to the High Authority for the Transparency of Public Life. A priori, nothing prevents a pair of parliamentarians from financing each other’s families: they will only be required to state that they are doing it.
Expenses up to €5,840 per month will no longer be paid to National Assembly deputies. They have €5,782 monthly salary, a credit line of €9,500, the right to up to €2,800 monthly for local salaries, the right to travel first class in trains and to take taxis and flights (up to 80 per year) for free. Previously they had to give their word that this was being used for their official functions. Now expenses will only be reimbursed if the deputies provide receipts.
At the same time, the law reintroduces the famous “Bercy lock,” which gives the Finance Ministry at Bercy, instead of the justice system, the right to investigate budgetary infractions. This makes the ministry a key tool for factional political warfare.
For the financing of political parties, the government is creating by decree a “Bank for Democracy,” to regulate party financing and prevent scandals like the Liliane Bettencourt affair, in which LR presidential campaigns received illicit funding directly from France’s wealthiest woman. Public subsidies, as before, will be based on how many parliamentarians belonging to the respective parties, thus favoring the established parties. It is safe to say that this bank’s loans will not in any way hamper the financial aristocracy’s financing of parties that are favorable to it.
The moralization law is an attempt to give limited political credibility to a political establishment and parliament directed controlled by the ruling elite and led by cabals that are nostalgic of the monarchy and the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy régime and aspire to build a police state. This system of representation is largely rejected by the population, and above all by the working class, as was shown by the massive abstention in both rounds of the June legislative elections.
As social inequality reaches ever more monstrous proportions, it is less and less compatible even with the trappings of democracy. The pretense of “moralizing” the French capitalist class is absurd. It is an operation intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the attacks on basic social and democratic rights that Macron aims to impose, with his unilateral decrees to rewrite French labor law and his creation of a permanent state of emergency.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Unsubmissive France (LFI) participated in this operation, trying to provide another layer of whitewashing to the ruling elite, proposing various amendments to the bill. LFI did everything it could to insist that “citizen control” over the parliament is possible. Mélenchon—a close collaborator of the late president François Mitterrand, the founder of the PS and master of political corruption—proposed to pay parliamentarians the minimum wage and give the citizens the right to recall them at any time.
Mélenchon personally tried to participate in talks with Bayrou on modifying the bill after the May presidential election. LFI ultimately abstained, however, after having suggested at the end of July that it would oppose the moralization law by presenting two censure motions.
LFI’s main concern was that the veneer of morality was too thin and already beginning to crack. Clémentine Autain of LFI told France Info: “We voted for a certain number of things, but what bothers us is that this law will not allow us to address the basic issue, which is the massive popular distrust of the political system and institutions. So we abstained, because that is our way of saying that we are not happy.”
Mélenchon hopes to profit from this cynical word-juggling. His perspective for a parliamentary “opposition” to Macron, alongside toothless street protests policed by the union bureaucracies and various NGOs, is based on this conception of parliament as an institution that can be pressured to fight for marginal modifications and improvements in social conditions.