8 Sept 2017

Andela Nigeria Paid Fellowship (Cycle XXVIII) for Nigerian Tech Students 2017

Application Deadline: 22nd September, 2017
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Nigeria
About the Award: The Andela Fellowship is a four-year paid technical leadership program designed to shape you into an exceptional software engineer. The program requires that you dedicate yourself to the broader Andela community and requires that you apply yourself and challenge yourself to constantly improve personally and professionally throughout the four years of the Fellowship.
Andela’s four-year Technical Leadership Program is a blend of personalized instruction, supported self-study and hands-on experience building real products. Instead of paying tuition, as you would for a traditional academic program, you’ll earn a competitive salary and benefits throughout your four years with Andela.
After successfully completing the initial training period, you’ll be fully prepared to start working with one of our clients as a full-time, distributed team member. During the remaining 3.5 years, you’ll apply your knowledge to client work, while receiving ongoing professional and technical development, coaching and mentorship.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • You must be 18 or older
  • Andela does not have any degree or diploma requirements. (Nigeria only: However, if you have completed university or have a Higher National Diploma from a Polytechnic, and have not been formally exempted, you must complete your one-year National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) before applying to Andela)
  • Andela is a full-time, four-year commitment, so if you have any major commitment such as school or work, we recommend applying when you have graduated, stopped school or ended other commitments
  • Most importantly, you must embody Andela’s values: Excellence, Passion, Integrity and Collaboration
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: Through extensive training and work experience with top global technology companies, you’ll master the professional and technical skills needed to become a technology leader, both on the African continent and around the world.
Competitive monthly salaryWe are training future leaders committed to helping others succeed. As you advance in the program, you’ll mentor and support the next generation of Andela fellows. The Technical Leadership Program prepares you for endless career paths, including founding your own company, moving into management positions at Andela, and taking leadership roles at local and global tech companies. Graduates become a part of an exclusive alumni network and have access to career support, advice and opportunities.
  • High speed fibre internet
  • Financing plans for accommodations and a Macbook Pro
  • Breakfast and lunch Monday through Friday
  • Healthcare coverage
  • Savings account ($5,000 USD upon completion of Fellowship)
  • A community of excellence
  • A chance to change the world
Duration of Fellowship: 4 years
How to Apply: Join the Andela movement by applying via Fellowship Webpage link below
It is important to go through the Application Procedure and FAQs before applying.
Award Provider: Andela

Skoll Scholarships at Said Business School for International Students 2018/2019 – UK

Application Deadline: 5th January 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International students from all countries
To be taken at (country): Said Business School, University of Oxford, UK
Subject Areas: MBA, Management Studies in Social Entrepreneurship
About Scholarship: The Skoll Scholarship is a competitive scholarship for incoming MBA students who pursue entrepreneurial solutions for urgent social and environmental challenges. The Scholarship provides funding and exclusive opportunities to meet with world-renowned entrepreneurs, thought-leaders and investors. Once selected, these students are known as Skoll Skollars.
The Skoll Scholarship provides tuition for entrepreneurs who have set up or have been working in entrepreneurial ventures with a social purpose, and who wish to improve their knowledge of market-oriented practices so they can be more effective in their subsequent social change pursuits.
The Scholarship is given in recognition that the MBA may represent a significant financial burden, particularly for those who have chosen to work in social ventures rather than the commercial or public sectors.
Selection Criteria
  • All the candidates are required to take the GMAT test for entry to Oxford’s MBA programme.
  • Candidates whose first language is not English or who have not studied at an English speaking University are required to take either the TOEFL or IELTS tests.
  • Demonstrate evidence of need for financial support.
Who is qualified to apply?: To be considered, you need to meet the following criteria:
  1. By the time the candidates apply for the MBA, they must have spent preferably at least 3 years either:
      • starting and growing a social venture;
      • OR leading a major expansion of an existing social venture or programme within an organisation;
      • OR pursuing positive change as an impact career professional, i.e. someone who has used entrepreneurial approaches to address the same social/environmental issue, with a clear core thread that unites his/her work.
    In each of these 3 cases, candidates should be able to describe the outcomes/impact that has been created as a result of their work.
  1. Candidates will have used entrepreneurial approaches to identify opportunities, taken action to positively shift the status quo, and produced proven impact that contributes to rectifying unjust systems and practices in their chosen area of work.
  1. Candidates must demonstrate evidence of personal qualities strongly resonating with entrepreneurial leadership, and illustrate how these have influenced their career path thus far. These qualities include:
    • Single-mindedness and persistence in pursuit of a social/environmental benefit goal, including a willingness to face failure and start again;
    • A bias towards action rather than reflection on an issue and a willingness to apprentice with a problem* if they are tackling a challenge they didn’t personally live;
    • A tendency to explore the environment for opportunities and resources;
    • A willingness to take personal, and sometimes financial, risks;
    • A propensity to develop networks and draw upon their members to pursue mutual goals.
  1. Candidates must demonstrate how a business education can contribute to the wider development of their work. They will need to illustrate why a business degree at this stage of their career trajectory can help them amplify their impact.
  1. Candidates must demonstrate some evidence of their need for the Scholarship. This may be exhibited, for example, in previous work experiences or personal backgrounds which make self-funding the MBA a significant financial burden.
Number of Scholarships: No more than five scholarships will be awarded in any year.
What are the benefits? The Scholarship is intended to cover the Oxford Saïd MBA course and college fees, which in 2018-19 will be £55,000. Additional funds of up to £8,000 are provided as a contribution towards living expenses, totaling an award of £63,000.
Duration: Scholarship will last for the duration of the program
How to Apply
In order to apply for the Skoll Scholarship you first need to apply and be accepted onto the Saïd Business School’s MBA program. To be formally considered for a Skoll Scholarship, you need to state your interest in the “Scholarships” section of the MBA application form. Do this by checking the box next to “Skoll”.
When your MBA application is submitted, the MBA admissions team will first assess your application to ensure that you meet the academic requirements sought by the school. If you are accepted onto the programme, you will be sent an essay question that needs to be completed.
The Skoll Centre will then consider your candidacy for the scholarship. A final decision will be made after a phone interview.
Sponsors: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship

Saïd Business School Diploma in Strategic Management Scholarships for Women 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 23rd October 2017
Offered Annually?
To Be Taken At (Country): University of Oxford, UK
About the Award: The aim of these scholarships is to support female candidates of merit and to encourage an increase in women considering senior leadership roles.
Type: MBA
Eligibility: Scholarships are awarded to outstanding female candidates based on the breadth and depth of work experience, past academic and professional qualification performance, and potential career impact.
Number of Awards: 3
Value of Award: The Saïd Business School provides three scholarships on this programme. One scholarship covers 50% of the programme fee and a further two awards provide £5,000 towards the programme fee.
How to Apply: 
  • Candidates submitting a completed application, including references, before the scholarship deadline will automatically be considered.
  • Early application is advisable.
Award Providers: Saïd Business School, University of Oxford

The Future of Women Award 2017

Application Deadline: 15th September 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To Be Taken At (Country): New York, USA
About the Award: The 2017 award will recognize three rising African women leaders in the areas of Tech, Social Impact and Creative Entrepreneurship. Award winners will be announced via Facebook Live from the The Future of Women event in New York on 21 September 2017 in front of a live audience of African First Ladies and Women Leaders.
Type: Contests/Awards
Eligibility: The 2017 #TheFutureOfWomen Award is open to rising African women leaders of all ages, working in technology, social impact, or creative entrepreneurship; doing impactful work in Africa, primarily based on the continent.
Selection Criteria: Award selection will be based upon the following criteria:
  • Innovation
  • Creativity
  • Sustainability
  • Long term impact of the work on the future of women
  • Public support on Instagram + Facebook via likes, shares, and comments
  • How this award could benefit the work of the nominee
Nominations will be judged by a committee of four, comprised of one representative from Global First Ladies Alliance, Facebook, MAC AIDS Fund and OkayAfrica.
Number of Awards: 3
Value of Award:
How to Apply: Nominate yourself or someone else in two simple steps:
1. Post your nomination on Instagram or Facebook:
2. Fill out the nomination form online
If posting on Facebook:
1. Follow and post to the @gflaorg Facebook page and tag your nominee.
2. Describe the impactful work the nominee is doing for #thefutureofwomen using the hashtag.
If posting on Instagram:
1. Follow and tag @gflaorg and tag your nominee.
2. Describe the impactful work the nominee is doing for #thefutureofwomen using the hashtag.
Award Providers: The award is supported by Global First Ladies Alliance, Facebook, MAC AIDS Fund, and OkayAfrica.

Sixth Grade Recess

Winslow Myers

How close are we today to nuclear war between the United States and North Korea? As close as somebody in the military on either side making a mistake that looks to the other side like an escalation from mere words, however heated, to actual intent to kill. As close as a group of military hawks egged on rather than restrained by civilian authority (See John and Robert Kennedy versus the chief of the Strategic Air Command, Curtis Lemay, during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Lemay was hell-bent to attack Cuba, which we now know would almost certainly have resulted in holocaust.)
Hot words are all about credibility. But nuclear credibility contains a tragic paradox. Nuclear weapons are not intended for actual use, but to deter adversaries, while at the same time nuclear weapons, in order to deter adversaries credibly, must be ready for instant use—and so must conventional weapons for that matter. So everyone is rehearsing madly—madly in both senses of the word. Rehearsals take the form of joint military exercises on the part of South Korea and the U.S., and test firings of missiles and warheads on the part of the North, accompanied by fiery contests of macho rhetoric from leaders who really, really ought to know better.
When nuclear war gets this close, the situation begs examination beyond the level of right and wrong, of sides, of positions, of causes, of who was the first to violate agreements. It needs to be observed systemically as a planetary event, in terms of interests and probable results. What we find is that (setting aside momentary differences in tactics between the Presidents of the U.S. and South Korea) the U.S. is locked into its pledge to support its ally, and locked into credibility generally, just as North Korea is locked into its nuclear program as a reliable way to maintain the regime’s power in spite of being regarded as an international pariah.
Working backward from a war that went nuclear without anyone wanting it, what would have been resolved as a result of mass death on both sides of the 38th parallel? “The North Koreans begged for war; they brought it on themselves” would ring pretty hollow as a rationale. The United States would instantly join North Korea, what was left of it, in the pariah role. There would be a fission-level increase in the plotting of all those anywhere who wish America ill to make the United States suffer as they have made others suffer. The Korean peninsula would be united after fifty years of tension—united in a horrendous agony and chaos beyond description. The earth would endure yet more poisoning of the total life system by radioactive clouds of soot. This is resolution?
The question is, as realists, are we trapped? Are all parties, not just the U.S., constrained by the pitiless demands of credibility to keep escalating their chest-thumping, as war-abetting pundits make what seem like reasonable arguments to justify each further step into the abyss?
As a system, nuclear chicken is completely nuts—and not less so because our representatives and their day-by-day pronouncements, lines in the sand, threats, ultimatums, sound so reasonable to the patriotic ear—that is until everything spirals out of control.
One hundred and twenty-two nations recently signed a U.N. treaty outlawing nuclear weapons, but the nine nuclear nations still haven’t gotten the message. If humans can acquire the immensely complex technological expertise to build these no-win weapons, we can also figure out how to make a gradual transition to a security system that does not rely upon them, knowing that security with them is a technological fantasy.
The United States, with its clear superiority in conventional forces, becomes the indispensable nuclear nation to lead the other eight beyond nukes. Without any loss of security we can pledge no first use. We can promise not to pursue regime change in North Korea as long as South Korea is not threatened. We can take measured diplomatic de-escalating and confidence-building steps. We can acknowledge, as President Reagan inevitably had to, that a nuclear war cannot be won and thus must never be fought. We can rely upon our experience of containing the Soviet Union for 50 years to contain North Korea, while an international conference implementing mutual, reciprocal, verifiable reduction and final elimination of all nuclear weapons goes forward, prodded and encouraged by those 122 nations who have already decided against deterrence by mutual assured destruction in favor of mutually assured survival.
Meanwhile we in the United States could use a good long look at ourselves—at a political system that allows a person of this level of inexperience, poor judgment, and impulsive temperament to get so close to nuclear decision-making that could affect the fate of millions.
If we get past the present acute crisis unscathed, someday North Koreans, South Koreans and Americans are going to meet and build relationship on post-nuclear ground, the common ground of a shared desire to survive and flourish. They will look back and see just how deeply irrational and silly this moment was, when humans possessing and possessed by immense, world-destroying powers threatened each other like sixth graders challenging each other to a recess brawl.

Pius XII, European Fascism, and the Vatican’s WWII Records

Ezra Kronfeld

As a young man, Benito Mussolini referred to Catholic priests with the utmost disdain, and his family did not want the Church to be as powerful and influential as it was. In 1922, he had been elected as Italy’s Prime Minister after founding and leading the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party). Initially, Mussolini’s violent Black Shirt squads had beat up Catholics in Italy, but in his late 30s, he decided to give in and work alongside the Church. He had his whole family baptized, and began to try and persuade the leaders of the Catholic faith to support fascism by advocating for the traditional Catholic lifestyle and pushing laws against “sinful” behavior, such as cursing, drinking, and divorce. The Vatican city-state was eventually created from 109 acres of land in Rome, and millions of Euros from fascist Italy.
Soon Catholicism was being taught in Italian schools, and the Church had fully aligned itself with Mussolini’s fascist government. Pope Pius XI, to his credit, publicly opposed authoritarian Communism, Nazism, and Italian fascism the year before the outbreak of World War II. That said, the facts clearly indicate that the Church had few reservations about associating with Mussolini’s brutal government in order to expand the Church and build their small country. The succeeding Pope Pius XII was notorious in his failure to support the Jewish people during the Holocaust. To this day, the Vatican restricts public access to a lot of their archives from World War II. Gee, I wonder why that might be?
While Pope Pius XI delivered a series of encyclicals challenging totalitarianism across the world at the end of his life and pontificate, Pius XII concerned himself almost exclusively with the rise of atheistic Communism, and seemed to harbor some sympathy for Hitler’s regime.
Many detractors of the popular sentiment that Pius XII claim that through encouraging Catholics to aid Jews fleeing Germany and other Nazi-occupied lands, he saved the lives of thousands. While this may have a modicum of truth, as it is recorded that he directed the Church to do this, history presents a solid case for the theory that he did this for selfish reasons. Pius XII was only really against ethnic antisemitism. He stood against the racial components of the Nazis’ rhetoric, but unless Jews actually converted to Catholicism, he didn’t care much for them. This is why he wanted the Church to aid the Jews: he hoped he’d get a few new Catholics out of it.
He referred to Jews with an underlying disgust, and according to John Cornwell, British academic and author of Hitler’s Pope, in response to a request from a German rabbi for Pope Benedict XV to assist the Jews in having some palm fronds exported from Italy for their upcoming Festival of Tabernacles, he told fellow diplomat Pietro Gasparri that it wouldn’t be appropriate for the Vatican to assist them in “the exercise of their Jewish cult”. This is just one piece of evidence that Pius XII held antisemetic beliefs, and none of this is to mention the volumes upon volumes upon volumes of evidence that he remained silent when faced with the threat of Nazism. He let the world down.
Many may say that none of this is too worrying, since the Vatican clearly doesn’t display legitimate antisemitism in these times, and they’d be right on the latter front. But until the Vatican willingly makes their entire World War II archive public, the Church can not be considered innocent, and they certainly can’t be considered honest. It is only when the wrongs of an institution, nation, or people are made wholly accessible to us all, under the direction of the perpetrator, can any sense of redemption occur.

As ISIS Shrinks, Al Qaeda Expands

Patrick Cockburn

Al-Qaeda is creating its most powerful stronghold ever in north-west Syria at a time when world attention is almost entirely focused on the impending defeat of Isis in the east of the country. It has established full control of Idlib province and of a vital Syrian-Turkish border crossing since July. “Idlib Province is the largest al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11,” says Brett McGurk, the senior US envoy to the international coalition fighting Isis.
The al-Qaeda-linked movement, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which used to be called Jabhat al-Nusra, has long been the most powerful rebel group in western Syria. After the capture of east Aleppo by the Syrian army last December, it moved to eliminate its rivals in Idlib, including its powerful former Turkish-backed ally Ahrar al-Sham. HTS is estimated to have 30,000 experienced fighters whose numbers will grow as it integrates brigades from other defeated rebel groups and recruits young men from the camps for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) who have sought refuge in Idlib from President Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
Al-Qaeda is growing in strength in and around Idlib province just as Isis is suffering defeat after defeat in eastern Syria and Iraq. Its latest setback was its failure on Tuesday to stop the Syrian army linking up with its enclave at Deir Ezzor, where Isis has been besieging the government held part of the city for three years. Divided by the Euphrates, the city is the largest in eastern Syria and its complete recapture opens the way to the al-Omar oilfields that once provided half of Syria’s crude production.
The end of the siege, supposing encircling Isis forces are permanently driven back, frees up a Syrian army garrison of 5,000 to 10,000 soldiers as well as the 93,000 civilians trapped in the government-held zone who had been supplied with food by airdrops. Deir Ezzor is only the latest Isis urban centre to be lost on the Syrian portion of the Euphrates valley which was the heartland of its territories in Syria. Isis is everywhere on the retreat. Upriver from Deir Ezzor at Raqqa, the American-backed and Kurdish-run Syrian Democratic Forces are fighting their way into the city and has captured its old city quarter in the last few days.
Despite its proven fighting prowess, Isis is collapsing under the impact of ground attacks launched by different parties on multiple fronts in Iraq and Syria. What tips the balance against it in all cases is the massive firepower of the Russian and US air forces in support of ground assaults. Isis’s defeat in eastern Syria will accelerate as local tribes, previously won over or intimidated by Isis, join the winning side. The US and the Syrian Kurds may not like the return of Syrian government authority in eastern Syria, south of Raqqa, but they do not look as if they are prepared to fight hard to stop it. President Trump’s priority is to eradicate Isis and al-Qaeda, regardless of who rules Syria in future.
Bad news for Isis is good news for HTS and al-Qaeda. Its defeat preoccupies its myriad enemies and largely monopolises their military efforts. Short of combat troops, the Syrian army is only really capable of making a maximum effort on one front at a time. The Syrian Kurds have an interest in fighting Isis but not necessarily defeating it so decisively that the US would no longer need a Kurdish alliance and could return to the embrace of its old Nato ally Turkey.
HTS stands to benefit politically and militarily from the decline of Isis, the original creator and mentor of Jabhat al-Nusra, as the earliest of al-Qaeda’s incarnations in Syria was known. Under the name of al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of the movement split off in 2013 and the two sides fought a bloody inter-jihadi civil war. If Isis is destroyed or rendered a marginal force, Sunni Arab jihadis refusing to surrender to Mr Assad’s army and intelligence service will have no alternative but to join HTS. Moreover, Sunni Arabs in eastern Syria may soon be looking for any effective vehicle for resistance, if Syrian government armed forces behave with their traditional mix of brutality and corruption.
HTS will expect the many states now attacking Isis, and battering to pieces its three-year-old caliphate, to turn on them next. But they will hope to delay the confrontation for as long as possible while they strengthen their movement. Ideologically similar but politically more astute than Isis, they will seek to avoid provoking a final territorial battle which they are bound to lose. Some Syrian specialists warn against waiting too long. “The international community must seek urgently to counter-attack HTS, which grows stronger by the day, without waiting for the complete destruction of the Islamic State,” writes Fabrice Balanche in a study published by the Washington Institute for Near East Studies called Preventing a Jihadist Factory in Idlib. He says that HTS wants to dominate the whole Syrian rebellion and is close to succeeding.
The open dominance of an extreme Islamic jihadi movement like HTS creates a problem for foreign powers, notably the US, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, previous funders and suppliers of the Syrian rebels. HTS, whose attempt to distinguish itself from al-Qaeda has convinced few, is listed in many countries as a terrorist organisation, unlike its former ally, the Ahrar al-Sham. It will be difficult for foreign powers to do business with it, though the armed opposition to Mr Assad has long been dominated by extreme Islamist jihadi groups. The difference is that today there are no longer any nominally independent groups through which anti-Assad states and private donors can channel arms, money and aid while still pretending that they were not supporting terrorism.
Isis declared war against the whole world in 2014 and inevitably paid the price of creating a multitude of enemies who are now crushing it in Syria and Iraq. Many of the members of this de facto alliance always disliked each other almost as much as they hated Isis. It was only fear of the latter that forced them to cooperate, or at least not fight each other. It may not be possible to recreate the same unity of purpose against al-Qaeda.

Banking on Uranium Makes the World Less Safe

Linda Pentz Gunter

There is a curious fallacy that continues to persist among arms control groups rightly concerned with reducing the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. It is that encouraging the use of nuclear energy will achieve this goal.
This illogical notion is enshrined in Article IV of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which rewards signatories who do not yet have nuclear weapons with the “inalienable right” to “develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”
Now comes the international low-enriched uranium bank, which opened on August 29 in Kazakhstan, to expedite this right. It further reinforces the Article IV doctrine— that the spread of nuclear power will diminish the capability and the desire to manufacture nuclear weapons.
The uranium bank will purchase and store low-enriched uranium, fuel for civilian reactors, ostensibly guaranteeing a ready supply in case of market disruptions. But it is also positioned as a response to the Iran conundrum, a country whose uranium enrichment program cast suspicion over whether its real agenda was to continue enriching its uranium supply to weapons-grade level.
The bank will be run by the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose remit is “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy.” Evidently the IAEA has been quite successful in this promotional endeavor since the agency boasts that “dozens of countries today are interested in pursuing nuclear energy.”
A caveat here, borne out by the evidence of nuclear energy’s declining global share of the electricity market, is that far more countries are “interested” than are actually pursuing nuclear energy. The IAEA numbers are more aspiration than reality.
Superficially at least, the bank idea sounds sensible enough. There will be no need to worry that countries considering a nuclear power program might secretly shift to nuclear weapons production. In addition to a proliferation barrier, the bank will serve as a huge cost savings, sparing countries the expense of investing in their own uranium enrichment facilities.
The problem with this premise is that, rather than make the planet safer, it actually adds to the risks we already face. News reports pointed to the bank’s advantages for developing countries. But developing nations would be much better off implementing cheaper, safer renewable energy, far more suited to countries that lack major infrastructure and widespread electrical grid penetration.
Instead, the IAEA will use its uranium bank to provide a financial incentive to poorer countries in good standing with the agency to choose nuclear energy over renewables. For developing countries already struggling with poverty and the effects of climate change, this creates the added risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident, the financial burden of building nuclear power plants in the first place, and of course an unsolved radioactive waste problem.
No country needs nuclear energy. Renewable energy is soaring worldwide, is far cheaper than nuclear, and obviously a whole lot safer. No country has to worry about another’s potential misuse of the sun or wind as a deadly weapon. There is no solar non-proliferation treaty. We should be talking countries out of developing dangerous and expensive nuclear energy, not paving the way for them.
There is zero logic for a country like Saudi Arabia, also mentioned during the uranium bank’s unveiling, to choose nuclear over solar or wind energy. As Senator Markey (D-MA) once unforgettably pointed out: “Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of solar.” But the uranium bank could be just the carrot that sunny country needs to abandon renewables in favor of uranium.
This is precisely the problem with the NPT Article IV. Why “reward” non-nuclear weapons countries with dangerous nuclear energy? If they really need electricity, and the UN wants to be helpful, why not support a major investment in renewables? It all goes back to the Bomb, of course, and the Gordian knot of nuclear power and nuclear weapons that the uranium bank just pulled even tighter.
Will the uranium bank be too big to fail? Or will it even be big at all? With nuclear energy in steep decline worldwide, unable to compete with renewables and natural gas; and with major nuclear corporations, including Areva and Westinghouse, going bankrupt, will there even be enough customers?
Clothed in wooly non-proliferation rhetoric, the uranium bank is nothing more than a lupine marketing enterprise to support a struggling nuclear industry desperate to remain relevant as more and more plants close and new construction plans are canceled. The IAEA and its uranium bank just made its prospects a whole lot brighter and a safer future for our planet a whole lot dimmer.

Capitalism, the State and the Drowning of America

Ted Steinberg

As Hurricane Harvey lashed Texas, Naomi Klein wasted no time in diagnosing the “real root causes” behind the disaster, indicting “climate pollution, systemic racism, underfunding of social services, and overfunding of police.” A day after her essay appeared, George Monbiot argued that no one wants to ask the tough questions about the coastal flooding spawned during Hurricane Harvey because to do so would be to challenge capitalism—a system wedded to “perpetual growth on a finite planet”—and call into question the very foundations of “the entire political and economic system.”
Of the two choices, I vote for Monbiot’s interpretation. Nearly forty years ago, the historian Donald Worster in his classic study of one of the worst natural disasters in world history, the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, wrote that capitalism, which he understood as an economic culture founded on maximizing imperatives and a determination to treat nature as a form of capital, “has been the decisive factor in this nation’s use of nature.”
Care must be taken not to imagine capitalism as a timeless phenomenon. Capitalism has a history and that history is important if we are to properly diagnose what happened recently in Texas and is about to happen as Hurricane Irma bears down on Florida. What we need to understand is how capitalism has managed to reproduce itself since the Great Depression, but in a way that has put enormous numbers of people and tremendous amounts of property in harm’s way along the stretch from Texas to New England.
The production of risk began during the era of what is sometimes called regulated capitalism between the 1930s and the early 1970s. This form of capitalism with a “human face” involved state intervention to ensure a modicum of economic freedom but it also led the federal government to undertake sweeping efforts to control nature. The motives may well have seemed pure. But the efforts to control the natural world, though they worked in the near term, are beginning to seem inadequate to the new world we currently inhabit. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built reservoirs to control floods in Houston just as it built other water-control structures during the same period in New Orleans and South Florida. These sweeping water-control exploits laid the groundwork for massive real estate development in the post–World War II era.
All along the coast from Texas to New York and beyond developers plowed under wetlands to make way for more building and more impervious ground cover. But the development at the expense of marsh and water could never have happened on the scale it did without the help of the American state. Ruinous flooding of Houston in 1929 and 1935 compelled the Corps of Engineers to build the Addicks and Barker Dams. The dams combined with a massive network of channels—extending today to over 2,000 miles—to carry water off the land, and allowed Houston, which has famously eschewed zoning, to boom during the postwar era.
The same story unfolded in South Florida. A 1947 hurricane caused the worst coastal flooding in a generation and precipitated federal intervention in the form of the Central and Southern Florida Project. Again, the Corps of Engineers set to work transforming the land. Eventually a system of canals that if laid end to end would extend all the way from New York City to Las Vegas crisscrossed the southern part of the peninsula. Life for the more than five million people who live in between Orlando and Florida Bay would be unimaginable without this unparalleled exercise in the control of nature.
It is not simply that developers bulldozed wetlands with reckless abandon in the postwar period. The American state paved the way for that development by underwriting private accumulation.
Concrete was the capitalist state’s favored medium. But as the floods
mounted in the 1960s, it turned to non-structural approaches meant to keep the sea at bay. The most famous program along these lines was the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) established in 1968, a liberal reform that grew out of the Great Society. The idea was that the federal government would oversee a subsidized insurance program for homeowners and in return state and local municipalities would impose regulations to keep people and property out of harm’s way.
At the same time that the U.S. government launched the NFIP, a Keynesian crisis that would extend over the course of the next decade and a half began to unfold. Declining corporate profits were brought on by rising wages, mounting class conflict, escalating competition from Japan and western Europe, and increased consumer and environmental regulation. The profit squeeze combined with stagflation and widespread fiscal problems to produce major economic dislocation.
A new form of capitalism began to slowly emerge as business responded to the crisis. Major institutional change occurred in the global economy, in the relationship between capital and labor, and most important for our concerns here, in the state’s role in economic life. In the early 1970s the Business Roundtable was established as a corporate lobbying group. Among its tasks was to undermine various forms of consumer and environmental regulation.
This was the context for the assault on the liberal flood insurance program. By the 1990s, under the Clinton Administration, the pretense of regulating land use on the local level was all but dismissed in favor of a policy that simply encouraged localities to do the right thing to ensure the safety of people and property. It is not an accident that one of the worst-hit developments in Houston—southern Kingwood—was built in the last years of the twentieth century and the aughts right in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s designated 100-year floodplain.
Nor is there anything the least bit natural in how cities in the postwar United States have functioned as profitable sites for capital accumulation. Developers have been able to derive profits from capitalist urbanization in coastal locations because of what was effectively a giant subsidy by the American state.
Flirtation with disaster is in a sense the essence of neoliberal capitalism, a hyperactive form of this exploitative economic order that seems to know no limits. Some might find comfort in the words of Alexander Cockburn: “A capitalism that thrives best on the abnormal, on disasters, is by definition in decline.”
Others, myself included, worry that the current organization of this market economy to benefit the interests of capitalists, with its blind, utopian faith in the price mechanism, is likely to head in precisely the direction that the economic historian Karl Polanyi predicted in 1944. An institutional arrangement organized around a “self-adjusting market,” he warned, “could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness.”

Taking Aim: WikiLeaks, Congress And Hostile Agencies

Binoy Kampmark

Various scribbles have started to pepper the conversation started by the adventurous Mike Pompeo after he branded WikiLeaks a hostile intelligence agency before the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  (This would have generated a wry smile of content from Julian Assange.)
The words of the Central Intelligence Agency chief are worth retelling in their mind distorting wonder: “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Individuals like Assange and Edward Snowden receive the necessary special treatment as history’s great turncoats: “As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage they cause to national security.” Celebrity disrupters, dangerous irritants, narcissists in pursuit of personal glory.
This wretchedly desperate sentiment – for its nothing else – has wound its way into Congressional ponderings.  Prior to the August District Work Period, the Senate Intelligence Committee took up Pompeo’s views, slotting into the Senate Intelligence Authorization Act (SB 1761) some suggestive wording:
“It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resembles a non-state  hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.”
This inventive provision passed 14-1, the only demurral coming from Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon.  To The Hill, Wyden explained that “the use of the novel phrase ‘non-state intelligence service’ may have legal, constitutional, and policy implications, particularly should it be applied to journalists inquiring about secrets.” And what, he feared, of the “unstated course of action” against those sinister non-state hostile intelligence services?
Responses to the provision have varied.  Patrick G. Eddington of the Cato Institute was less than rosy about WikiLeaks, suggesting that such “Sense of Congress” provisions are pure “legislative puffery” lacking legal force, at least as far as Assange is concerned.  “To claim otherwise trivializes the real threats that actual investigative journalists and their news organizations face from the US government.”
Forget the Assange obsession, Eddington suggests to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, and focus on dragging out the rotten apples, those “real problems and real bad actors inside the American Intelligence Community”. Eddington evidently forgets that such rotten fruit can have establishment camouflage.
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi takes the wording of the clause more seriously, seeing it as a form of justification to ground an action against WikiLeaks. But another expansive outcome could just as well ensue, empowering “federal law enforcement agencies to go after legitimate media outlets that obtain and publish classified information regarded as critical or even damaging to government policies.” (Giraldi shares with Eddington a common trait of not regarding WikiLeaks as a legitimate media outlet.  Such is the nature of backhanded praise.)
This sort of legislative interference is far from unusual.  Australia’s own parliament, whose laws originally supplied no means or facility to prosecute Assange or WikiLeaks activities over US material per se, did pass what was tantamount to a “WikiLeaks amendment” in 2011.
To understand the amendment, it is worth looking at the political contortions adopted by the Australia prime minister of the period, Julia Gillard.  Rather than considering the legal improbabilities at hand, she openly called the publishing of US cables “a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do”, a point at odds with the finding by the Australian Federal Police that nothing unlawful had happened – at least in the Australian context.
“The AFP has completed its evaluation of the material available,” came its statement in December 2010, “and has not established the existence of any criminal offences where Australia would have jurisdiction.”
A year later, the Intelligence Services Legislative Amendment Bill 2011 made its way through the drafting process. It seemed innocuous, a sort of laundry list of inoffensive provisions. But one crucial change mattered: the tinkering of the term “foreign intelligence” in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
The original definition was a narrower one, making foreign intelligence relevant to covering “capabilities, intentions or activities” of foreign governments, entities controlled by the same or foreign political organisations.  The current definition draws the tent outwards to the “capabilities, intentions or activities of people or organisations outside Australia.”
Such a change should have sent the political classes into a furious state. But it passed with barely a murmur, only ruffling the Australian Greens concerned that it might arrogate too much power to ASIO.
So soporific was the debate that some senators never bothered to turn up.  Few, it seemed, had read the submission by law academic Patrick Emerton to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.  It reads as a sober warning to legislative overstretch, a parliamentary gift to bureaucratic paranoia: “The amendments would permit ASIO to investigate a far wider range of individuals and organisations, even where Australia’s defence interests and international relations are not at stake.”
Legislative sloppiness, congressional warnings, and the ignorant passage of statutes – these point to business as usual, the wood of unwary representatives.  But they also suggest a serious program at work: the targeting and punishment, not merely of whistleblowers, but the outlets that disseminate their findings.  That much can be said for such legislative puffery.

Profit Maximization Is Easy: Invest in Violence

Robert J. Burrowes

For those of us committed to systematically reducing and, one day, ending human violence, it is vital to understand what is causing and driving it so that effective strategies can be developed for dealing with violence in its myriad contexts. For an understanding of the fundamental cause of violence, see ‘Why Violence?’
However, while we can tackle violence at its source by each of us making and implementing ‘My Promise to Children’, the widespread violence in our world is driven by just one factor: fear or, more accurately, terror. And I am not talking about jihadist terror or even the terror caused by US warmaking. Let me explain, starting from the beginning.
The person who is fearless has no use for violence and has no trouble achieving their goals, including their own defence, without it. But fearlessness is a state that few humans would claim. Hence violence is rampant.
Moreover, once someone is afraid, they will be less likely to perceive the truth behind the delusions with which they are presented. They will also be less able to access and rely on other mental functions, such as conscience and intelligence, to decide their course of action in any context. Worse still, the range of their possible responses to perceived threats will be extremely limited. And they will be more easily mobilised to support or even participate in violence, in the delusional belief that this will make them safe.
For reasons such as these, it is useful for political and corporate elites to keep us in a state of fear: social control is much easier in this context. But so is profit maximization. And the most profitable enterprise on the planet is violence. In essence then: more violence leads to more fear making it easier to gain greater social control to inflict more violence…. And starting early, by terrorizing children, is the most efficient way to initiate and maintain this cycle. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.
So, for example, if you think the massive number of police killings of innocent civilians in the United States – see ‘Killed by Police’ and ‘The Counted: People killed by police in the US’ – is a problem, you are not considering it from the perspective of maintaining elite social control and maximizing corporate profit. Police killings of innocent civilians is just one (necessary) part of the formula for maintaining control and maximising profit.
This is because if you want to make a lot of money in this world, then killing or exploiting fellow human beings and destroying the natural world are the three most lucrative business enterprises on the planet. And we are now very good at it, as the record shows, with the planetary death toll from violence and exploitation now well over 100,000 human beings each day, 200 species driven to extinction each day and ecological destruction so advanced that the end of all life (not just human life) on Earth is postulated to occur within decades, if not sooner, depending on the scenario. See, for example, ‘The End of Being: Abrupt Climate Change One of Many Ecological Crises Threatening to Collapse the Biosphere’.
So what forms does this violence take? Here is a daily accounting.
Corporate capitalist control of national economies, held in place by military violence, kills vast numbers of people (nearly one million each week) by starving them to death in Africa, Asia and Central/South America. This is because this ‘economic’ system is designed and managed to allocate resources for military weapons and corporate profits for the wealthy, instead of resources for living.
Wars kill, wound and incapacitate a substantial number of civilians, mostly women and children, as do genocidal assaults, on a daily basis, in countries all over the planet. Wars also kill some soldiers and mercenaries.
Apart from those people we kill every day, we sell many women and children into sexual slavery, we kidnap children to terrorise them into becoming child soldiers and force men, women and children to work as slave labourers, in horrific conditions, in fields and factories (and buy the cheap products of their exploited labour as our latest ‘bargain’).
We condemn millions of people to live in poverty, homelessness and misery, even in industrialized countries where the refugees of western-instigated wars and climate-destroying policies are often treated with contempt. We cause many children to be born with grotesque genetic deformities because we use horrific weapons, like those with depleted uranium, on their parents. We also inflict violence on women and children in many other forms, ranging from ‘ordinary’ domestic violence to genital mutilation.
We ensnare and imprison vast numbers of people in the police-legal-prison complex. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’. We pay the pharmaceutical industry and its handmaiden, psychiatry, to destroy our minds with drugs and electro-shocking. See ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’.We imprison vast numbers of children in school in the delusional belief that this is good for them. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’ And we kill or otherwise exploit animals, mostly for human consumption, in numbers so vast the death toll is probably beyond calculation.
We also engage in an endless assault on the Earth’s biosphere. Apart from the phenomenal damage done to the environment and climate by military violence: we emit gases and pollutants to heat and destroy the atmosphere and destroy its oxygen content. We cut down and burn rainforests. We cut down mangroves and woodlands and pave grasslands. We poison the soil with herbicides and pesticides. We pollute the waterways and oceans with everything from carbon and nitrogenous fertilizers to plastic, as well as the radioactive contamination from Fukushima. And delude ourselves that our token gestures to remedy this destruction constitutes ‘conservation’.
So if you are seeking work, whether as a recent graduate or long-term unemployed person, then the most readily available form of work, where you will undoubtedly be exploited as well, is a government bureaucracy or large corporation that inflicts violence on life itself. Whether it is the military, the police, legal or prison system, a weapons, fossil fuel, banking, pharmaceutical, media, mining, agricultural, logging, food or water corporation, a farm that exploits animals or even a retail outlet that sells poisonous, processed and often genetically-mutilated substances under the label ‘food’ – see Defeating the Violence in Our Food and Medicine’ – you will have many options to help add to the profits of those corporations and government ‘services’ that exist to inflict violence on you, your family and every other living being that shares this biosphere.
Tragically, genuinely ethical employment is a rarity because most industries, even those that seem benign like the education, finance, information technology and electronics industries, usually end up providing skilled personnel, finance, services or components that are used to inflict violence. And other industries such as those in insurance and superannuation, like the corporate banks, usually invest in violence (such as the military and fossil fuel industries): it is the most profitable.
So while many government bureaucracies and corporate industries exist to inflict violence, in one form or another, they can only do so because we are too scared to insist on seeking out ethical employment. In the end, we will take a job as a teacher, corporate journalist or pharmaceutical drug pusher, serve junk food, work in a bank, join the police or military, work in the legal system, assemble a weapons component… rather than ask ourselves the frightening questions ‘Is this nonviolent? Is this ethical? Does it enhance life?’
And yes, I know about structural violence and the way it limits options and opportunities for those of particular classes, races, genders…. But if ordinary people like us don’t consider moral issues and make moral choices, why should governments and corporations?
Moral choices? you might ask in confusion. In this day and age? Well, it might seem old-fashioned but, in fact, while most of us have been drawn along by the events in our life to make choices based on such considerations as self-interest, personal gain and ‘financial security’, there is a deeper path. Remember Gandhi? ‘True morality consists not in following the beaten track, but in finding the true path for ourselves, and fearlessly following it.’
Strange words they no doubt sound in this world where our attention is endlessly taken by all of those high-tech devices. But Gandhi’s words remind us that there is something deeper in life that the violence we have suffered throughout our lives has taken from us. The courage to be ourselves and to seek our own unique destiny.
Do you have this courage? To be yourself, rather than a cog in someone else’s machine? To refuse to submit to the violence that surrounds and overwhelms us on a daily basis?
If you are inclined to ponder these questions, you might also consider making moral choices that work systematically to end the violence in our world: consider participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’, signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ and/or helping to develop and implement an effective strategy to resist one or the other of the many threats to our survival using the strategic framework explained in Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.
Of course, these choices aren’t for everyone. As Gandhi observed: ‘Cowards can never be moral.’