19 Sept 2017

Greek Debt Crisis: Why Syriza Continues to Lose

Jack Rasmus

This past August marked the second anniversary of the Greek debt crisis and the third major piling on of debt on Greece in August 2015 by the Eurozone ‘Troika’ of European Commission, European Central Bank, and the IMF. That 2015 third debt deal added $86 billion to the previous $230 billion imposed on Greece—all to be paid by various austerity measures squeezing Greek workers, taxpayers, retirees, and small businesses demanded by the Troika and their northern Euro bankers sitting behind it.
Studies by German academic institutions showed that more than 95% of the debt repayments by Greece to the Troika have ended up in Euro bankers’ hands.
But the third debt deal of August 2015, which extends another year to August 2018, was not the end. Every time a major multi-billion dollar interest payment from Greece was due to the Troika and their bankers, still more austerity was piled on the $83 billion August 2015 deal. The Troika forced Greece to introduce even more austerity in the summer of 2016, and again still more this past summer 2017, to pay for the deal.
Last month, August 2017, Syriza and its ‘rump’ leadership—-most of its militant elements were purged by Syriza’s leader, Alex Tsipras, following the August 2015 debt deal—-hailed as some kind of significant achievement that the private banks and markets were now willing to directly lend money to Greece once again. Instead of borrowing still more from the Troika—-i.e. the bankers representatives—-Greece now was able once again to borrow and owe still more to the private bankers instead. In other words, to pile on more private debt instead of Troika debt. To impose even more austerity in order to directly pay bankers, instead of indirectly pay their Troika friends. What an achievement!
Greece’s 2012 second debt deal borrowed $154 billion from the Troika, which Greece then had to pay, according to the debt terms, to the private bankers, hedge funds and speculators’ which had accumulated over preceding years and the first debt crisis of 2010. So the Troika simply fronted for the bankers and speculators in the 2nd and 3rd debt deals. Greece paid the Troika and it paid the bankers. But now, as of 2017, Syriza and Greece can indebt themselves once again directly to the bankers by borrowing from them in public markets. As the French say, everything changes but nothing changes!
What the Greek debt deals of 2010-2015, and the never-ending austerity, show is that supra-state institutions like the Troika function as debt collectors for the bankers and shadow bankers when the latter cannot successfully collect their debt payments on their own. This is the essence of the new, 21st century form of financial imperialism. New, emerging Supra-State institutions prefer weaker national governments to indebt themselves directly to the banks and squeeze their own populace with Austerity whenever they can to make the payments. The Supra-State may not be involved. But it will step in if necessary to play debt collector if and when popular governments get control of their governments and balk at onerous debt repayments. And in free trade currency zones and banking unions, like the Eurozone, that Supra-State role is becoming increasingly institutionalized and regularized. And as it does, forms of democracy in the associated weaker nation states become increasingly atrophied and eventually disappear.
Syriza came to power in January 2015 as one of those popularly elected governments intent on adjusting the terms of debt repayment. But after a tragic, comedy of errors negotiation effort, capitulated totally to the Troika’s negotiators after only seven months.
The capitulation by Syriza’s leader, Alex Tsipras, in July 2015 was doubly tragic in that he had just put to a vote to the Greek people a week beforehand whether to reject the Troika’s deal and its deeper austerity demands. And the Greek popular vote called for a rejection of the Troika’s terms and demands. But Tsipras and Syriza rejected their own supporters, not the Troika, and capitulated totally to the Troika’s terms.
The August 2015 3rd debt deal quickly thereafter signed by Syriza-Tsipras was so onerous—-and the Tsipras-Syriza treachery so odious—-that it left opposition and popular resistance temporarily immobilized. That of course was the Troika’s strategic objective. Together with Tsipras they then pushed through their $83 billion deal, while Tsipras simultaneously purged his own Syriza party to rid it of elements refusing to accept the deal. Polls showed at that time, in August-September 2015, that 70% of the Greek people opposed the deal and considered it even worse than the former two debt agreements of 2010 and 2012. Other polls showed 79% rejected Tsipras himself.
To remain in power, Tsipras immediately called new Parliamentary elections, blocking with the pro-Troika parties and against former Syriza dissidents, in order to push through the Troika’s $83 billion deal. This week, September 20, 2017 also marks the two year anniversary of that purge and election that solidified Troika and Euro banker control over the Syriza party—-a party that once dared to challenge it and the Eurozone’s neoliberal Supra-State regime.
The meteoric rise, capitulation, collapse, and aftermath ‘right-shift’ of Syriza raises fundamental questions and lessons still today. It raises questions about strategies of governments that make a social-democratic turn in response to popular uprisings, and then attempt to confront more powerful neoliberal capitalist regimes that retain control of their currencies, their banking systems, and their budgets–such as in the case of Greece. Even in the advanced capitalist economies, the message is smaller states beware of the integration within the larger capitalist states and economies–whether by free trade, central banking integration, budget consolidations, or common currencies. Democracy will soon become the victim in turn.
The following is an excerpt from the concluding chapter of this writer’s October 2016 book, Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges, Clarity Press, which questioned strategies that attempted to resurrect 20th century forms of social-democracy in the 21st century world of supra-State neoliberal regimes. It summarizes Syriza’s ‘fundamental error’—a naïve belief that elements of European social democracy would rally around it and together they—i.e. resurgent social democracy and Syriza Greece—would successfully outmaneuver the German-banker-Troika dominated Euro neoliberal regime that solidified its power with the 1999 Euro currency reforms.
Syriza and Tsipras continue to employ the same error, it appears, hoping to be rescued by other Euro regime leaders instead of relying on the Greek people. Tsipras-Syriza recently invited the new banker-president of France, Emmanuel Macron, who this past month visited Athens. Their meeting suggests Tsipras and the rump Syriza still don’t understand why they were so thoroughly defeated by the Troika in 2015, and have been consistently pushed even further into austerity and retreat over the past two years.
But perhaps it no longer matters. Polls show Tsipras and the rump Syriza trailing their political opponents by more than two to one in elections set to occur in 2018.
EXCERPT from ‘Looting Greece’, Chapter 10, ‘Why the Troika Prevailed’.
Syriza’s Fundamental Error
To have succeeded in negotiations with the Troika, Syriza would have had to achieve one or more of the following— expand the space for fiscal spending on its domestic economy, end the dominance and control of the ECB by the German coalition, restore Greece’s central bank independence from the ECB, or end the control of its own Greek private banking system from northern Europe core banks. None of these objectives could have been achieved by Syriza alone. Syriza’s grand error, however, was to think that it could rally the remnants of European social democracy to its side and support and together have achieved these goals—especially the expanding of space for domestic fiscal investment. It was Syriza’s fundamental strategic miscalculation to think it could rally this support and thereby create an effective counter to the German coalition’s dominant influence within the Troika.
Syriza went into the fight with the Troika with a Greek central bank that was the appendage, even agent, of the ECB in Greece, and with a private banking system in Greece that was primarily an extension of Euro banks outside Greece. Syriza struggled to create some space for fiscal stimulus within the Troika imposed debt deal, but it was thoroughly rebuffed by the Troika in that effort. It sought to launch a new policy throughout the Eurozone targeting fiscal investment, from which it might benefit as well. But just as the ECB was thwarted by German-core northern Euro alliance countries, the German coalition also successfully prevented efforts to promote fiscal stimulus by the EC as well. The Troika-German coalition had been, and continues to be, successful in preventing even much stronger members states in France and Italy from exceeding Eurozone fiscal stimulus rules. The dominant Troika German faction was not about to let Greece prevail and restore fiscal stimulus, therefore, when France and Italy were not. Greece was not only blocked from launching a Euro-wide fiscal investment spending policy; it was forced to introduce ‘reverse fiscal spending’ in the form of austerity.
Syriza’s insistence on remaining in the Euro system meant Grexit was never an option. That in turn meant Greece would not have an independent central bank providing liquidity when needed to its banking system. With ECB control over the currency and therefore liquidity, the ECB could reduce or turn on or off the money flow to Greece’s central bank and thus its entire private banking system at will—which it did repeatedly at key moments during the 2015 debt crisis to influence negotiations.
As one member of the Syriza party’s central committee reflected on the weeks leading up to the July 5 capitulation, “The European Central Bank had already begun to carry out its threats, closing down the country’s banking system”.
The ECB had actually begun turning the economic screws on Syriza well before the final weeks preceding the referendum: It refused to release interest on Greek bonds it owed under the old debt agreement to Greece from the outset of negotiations. It refused to accept Greek government bonds as collateral necessary for Greek central bank support of Greece’s private banks. It doled out Emergency Lending Assistance, ELA, funds in amounts just enough to keep Greek banks from imploding from March to June and constantly threatened to withhold those same ELA funds when Troika negotiators periodically demanded more austerity concessions from Greece. And it pressured Greece not to impose meaningful controls on bank withdrawals and capital flight during negotiations, even as those withdrawals and money flowing out of the country was creating a slow motion train wreck of the banking system itself. The ECB, in other words, was engineering a staged collapse of Greece’s banking system, and yet Syriza refused to implement any possible policy or strategy for preventing or impeding it.

Nikki Haley, Israel and Lebanon: When Ignorance is Not Bliss

Robert Fisk

Under a broiling hot midday sun on the south Lebanese-Israeli border this summer, an extraordinary and very angry meeting took place between two major generals: the 60-year-old Irish UN force commander in Lebanon and the 54-year-old deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army. Listening to them was the ambitious, pro-Israeli – but very inexperienced – US ambassador to the United Nations. The row between the two men appears to have been pre-planned by the Israelis to impress the highly impressionable Nikki Haley. It worked.
Haley had been helicoptered up to the border from Jerusalem on 8 June by Israeli General Aviv Kochavi for a tour regularly laid on for visiting – and gullible – US officials: a walk to the Lebanese frontier wire with many a fearful warning from the Israelis about Hezbollah “terrorists”, “secret” Hezbollah missile bunkers in UN-controlled territory and the failure of UN troops to “disarm” the “terrorists” in Lebanon. This is a familiar horror story, trotted out for American and other Western diplomats and politicians over more than 30 years.
All seemed bright sunshine and optimism when the UN force commander, General Mick Beary – one of Ireland’s most experienced UN peacekeepers with three tours of duty in Lebanon and postings to Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan behind him – explained to Haley that the situation on the Lebanese-Israeli border was stable, did not require further intervention and that the frontier was currently experiencing one of the most peaceful periods in its modern history. All true.
But not according to Kochavi – former Gaza divisional commander and Israeli ex-military intelligence director – who angrily told Beary that the UN was not doing its job and was frightened of entering Shiite villages in southern Lebanon for fear of confronting the pro-Iranian Hezbollah. Kochavi, say the Israelis, told Haley that the UN’s mandate should be changed to ensure its soldiers “disarmed” Hezbollah.
Beary stood his ground. He had heard this kind of stuff before. The UN is supposed to operate alongside the sovereign Lebanese army to ensure Lebanese government control (and peace) in a narrow sector along the Lebanese border – not battle with Hezbollah on behalf of the Israelis as part of their proxy war against Iran.
A wiser person might have checked all this out. Haley might have reminded herself, for example, how often the Israelis have cried wolf before, how frequently their claims of hidden rockets had turned out to be untrue – not many years ago, they showed drone-taken photo images of “missiles” being taken from a bombed garage in southern Lebanon under the eyes of the UN. One of the UN soldiers, however, had taken a snapshot of the “missiles” from a few feet away – in which the “rockets” were clearly no more than the damaged roll-up corrugated front doors of the bombed garages. Haley might even have read a few books about Lebanon – in which every Israeli incursion has ended in utter disaster.
But no. Within 11 weeks, Haley was sounding off in the UN about Major General Beary’s “embarrassing lack of understanding about what is going on” in southern Lebanon, of how “blind” he was to the spread of illegal arms. Beary responded to this attack on his competence as an officer – which, needless to say, went down very badly in the general’s native Ireland – by repeating that there was no evidence of any increase in weaponry. “If there was a large cache of weapons,” he said, “we would know about it.”
Now for the Department of Home Truths. Beary is right. But he also knows – as we all do who reside in Lebanon – that Hezbollah fighters live in the Shiite villages inside the UN zone. Of course they do. They are Shiites. These are their homes. And we also know that they have weapons. Hezbollah made this embarrassingly clear last April when they bussed a bunch of journalists down to the border – where reporters saw around a dozen Hezbollah men armed with rifles, machine guns and rocket launchers not far from the UN headquarters.
The UN were apparently unaware of the trip in advance and the Lebanese government was outraged afterwards, while Hezbollah preened themselves for showing to the reporters some new Israeli frontline listening devices on the other side of the border.
This was farce. But there are other, more disturbing elements to the story. There are indeed certain Shiite villages in southern Lebanon in which UN soldiers do not linger. And there is a small hilltop plateau – known locally as “the Iranian gardens” – inside which the UN do not stray. But it lies within their area of operations.
UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon, has been around for almost 40 years, its 250 fatalities killed by an assortment of armed groups including Hezbollah, the Israelis and Palestinians. Its 15,000-strong force now monitors a ceasefire drawn up after the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war; their mandate also tasks them to ensure “the immediate cessation of all offensive military operations” by Israel. Israel’s constant overflights of Lebanon, going on for nigh on 40 years, are themselves in contravention of UN resolutions.
None of this, however, justified Haley’s ignorance of southern Lebanon. Beary, she said, “seems to be the only person in south Lebanon who is blind to what Hezbollah is doing”. Alas, Haley seems to be the only diplomat in the UN who is blind to just how dangerous the situation in south Lebanon would be if it wasn’t for older fellers like Beary.
Kochavi, a shrewd lad if ever there was one in the Israeli higher command, is the one man who does not want another war along the border. Which is why, every time there is the remotest sniff of violence on the frontier, the Israelis are on to UN headquarters in Naqqoura to ask for help.
The Lebanese still fear that – having failed to engineer the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and thus Iran’s Arab ally in the Middle East – the Israelis will kick off another war in Lebanon to get rid of Hezbollah, something they hopelessly failed to do in 2006 during a war which Hezbollah may not have won but which Israel certainly lost.
But Israel’s own threats against Lebanon long ago lost their sting. In my own files, I have repeated warnings from Israel that civilian villages would be attacked in the “next” war, that Lebanon will be smashed back 400 years with the utter destruction of its infrastructure. But the Israelis destroyed much of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure in 1982 and 1996 and again in 2006. And Lebanon simply rebuilt itself with Saudi, Qatari and Kuwaiti money.
Israel has spent millions of dollars bombing Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces inside Syria over the past five years. Throughout the entire Syrian war, it hasn’t fired a shot at Isis and has even allowed Islamist fighters to go to Haifa hospitals for medical treatment. But the folk Israel didn’t shoot at appear to be losing and the Shiite forces it did bomb appear to be winning. Which is why Israel is wondering just what Hezbollah now has in store for them.
Unfortunately – as Kochavi is well aware – Hezbollah keeps its missiles well north of the UN lines. After all, with a range stretching as far as the Negev desert in southern Israel, why should Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader – who admittedly sometimes talks as if he’s the President of Lebanon – bunker his rockets inside the UN zone which is right on the border?
In Washington, Donald Trump, who knows even less about Lebanon than Nikki Haley, talked to the Lebanese Prime Minister recently about the latter’s battle with Hezbollah – apparently unaware that Hezbollah has ministers in the Lebanese government and that Michel Aoun (the real President of Lebanon) supports the militia.
Under sane leadership, the US usually managed to broker ceasefires in past Lebanon wars. But the current problem is that the US President is mad. Nikki Haley is thus reduced to using a string of clichés in the UN worthy of Theresa May.
“Enough is enough,” she said of North Korea’s missile pirouetting. North Korea is “begging for war”. America would not go on “kicking the can down the road”. This kind of codswallop may have gone down well when she was governor of South Carolina, but it’s pretty sorry stuff to hear from a UN ambassador who tells a senior UN officer in Lebanon that he’s “blind” to his duties.
The French, with around 1,000 UN troops in Lebanon, have quietly told the UN they are more than happy with Beary’s leadership. The UN says the same. But how do you persuade Haley to do her homework, drop the pro-Israeli propaganda line and keep her mouth shut unless she knows what she’s talking about? Words, words, words…

How Top Food Companies Fail to Protect Environmental Activists in Supply Chains

Benjamin Dangl

A recent investigation by the anti-poverty advocacy organization Oxfam reveals how the world’s top ten food and beverage companies are failing to protect environmental and human rights defenders caught in the companies’ supply chains.
The Oxfam report, Pathways to Deforestation-Free Food, demonstrates how Associated British Foods, Danone, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelēz, PepsiCo, Nestlé and Unilever have committed to tackling deforestation caused by their companies, but crucially lack policies to protect local activists and environmentalists within their supply networks from violence, threats, and attacks.
“A glaring policy gap across all the companies analyzed,” the Oxfam report found, “is that none have policies to protect human rights defenders, nor require their suppliers to put in place policies of zero threats, intimidation or attacks against human rights defenders and local communities.”
Industrial farming of food ingredients such as soy and palm oil, for example, have led to massive deforestation and displacement of rural communities in Indonesia, Brazil, Colombia, and elsewhere throughout the globe. Activists standing up against such industries in defense of forests, rivers, land, and the livelihoods of local communities have been threatened and murdered at an increased rate in recent years.
Four environmental activists were murdered each week in 2016 for defending their communities and environment from the impacts of agribusiness, mining, and logging industries, according to a report from the human rights organization Global Witness.
In Colombia, activists standing up against the impacts of El Cerrejón, Latin America’s largest open-pit mine, have faced regular threats and violence.
Jakeline Romero has organized against the water shortages and displacement caused by this mine, which is owned by Glencore, BHP Billiton, and Anglo-American.
“They threaten you so you will shut up,” Romero told Global Witness. “I can’t shut up. I can’t stay silent faced with all that is happening to my people. We are fighting for our lands, for our water, for our lives.”
The world’s leading food and beverage companies are not doing enough to stem the violence against environmental activists in their own supply chains, the new Oxfam report found.
“In many countries where agribusiness companies are investing, the rights of community activists are under attack because of their work to defend the rights of their communities—the right to forests and natural resources, to their land and water, their livelihood and their way of life,” Oxfam stated.
“From violent crackdowns on protests and criminalization of speech, to arbitrary arrests and assaults or, in some cases, murder of human rights defenders, as well as restrictions on activities of civil society organizations, such attacks seek to delegitimize the voice and interests of communities,” Oxfam explained.
Across the world, from Indonesia to Honduras, environmental defenders are facing down multinational corporations and the devastating impacts of their industries on local communities, rivers, forests, and indigenous ways of life.
Honduran activist and social justice leader Berta Cáceres was murdered in March, 2016 for her environmental activism and leadership of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH).
In an interview on the legacy of her mother’s struggle, Berta Cáceres’ daughter Berta Zúñiga Cáceres, explained the vision of COPINH and how it challenges the economic model guiding multinational corporations and their political allies.
“It’s a very rich vision and one that exists among many indigenous peoples,” Cáceres explained. “It has to do with building a logic that’s completely opposed to the hegemonic way of thinking that we’re always taught. The vision and proposals are defiant, totally different than the academic, patriarchal, racist, positivist vision of the world. They include relations between people that are much more communitarian and collective, and that also have a strong relationship to the global commons and to nature, defying the dominant anthropocentric vision. They relate to spirituality and the relationships we have with all living beings – a holistic vision of life.”
“Indigenous people find themselves battling extractivism, companies, mining, because that’s the battleground where these different ways of knowing, of feeling, of cosmovision play out,” she said. “This is the wealth of indigenous peoples. But it also represents a threat for the economic model that’s based on profits and money, and that’s developed through repression and exclusion.”

What We Sow is What We Eat

Michael D. Yates

I am lying in a meadow high in the Rocky Mountains. The sun is warm and comforting. I watch the clouds, puffy white in the blue sky, but soon pull a cap over my eyes and enter that state where thoughts swirl through your head and you don’t know if you’re sleeping or not.
While I rest, Karen is looking for wild strawberries. She has a remarkable eye for them, and has found the delicate plants everywhere from along the ocean in Nova Scotia to the volcanic highlands of the Big Island in Hawai’i. She remembers as she is searching the hard labor of picking the tiny berries as a girl, gathering enough for her mother to make jelly. No easy task as I have learned when she finds a patch big enough for me to collect some too.
When all you have ever eaten are the overly large and often woody and tasteless strawberries sold in grocery stores, putting a wild one in your mouth is a revelation. A gift from the earth, sweet, tart, wonderful, perfect. They leave your fingers smelling like, well, strawberries.
We’ve found many fruits on our hikes. Strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, cherries sweet and sour, currants, huckleberries, apples, plums, even liliko’i (passion fruit), guava, lemons, and limes. Some like the berries grow wild. Others have flourished long after they were planted and then abandoned.
Seeing and tasting these gifts of nature can’t help but make you think of the foods most of us eat.  Heavily processed and full of salt, hydrogenated oil, and high fructose corn syrup; loaded with chemicals; laden with pesticides; grown on factory farms; treated like any other mass-produced products, aimed for the market with costs per unit low and profits high. Our crops are planted and harvested in this country by a largely black and brown workforce, poorly paid and forced to live in shacks and tents. They are poisoned, along with their children, every day they labor, and their life expectancy, in the United States, is barely fifty years. What it was when Edward R. Murrow’s documentary, Harvest of Shame, was shown on television in 1960. Much the same can be said about farm laborers anywhere in the world.
Literally underlying the production of food is soil, that “mixture of minerals, organic matter, gases, liquids, and countless organisms that together support life on Earth.”  Food requires soil and labor, and as should be obvious, our relationship to the soil has always been a feature of human existence. For most of our time on earth, we have connected to the soil in an integral and sustaining way, taking care of it so that we could continue to harvest its gifts. We learned as we produced our sustenance, and developed greater understanding of how the earth yielded its bounties. While we made mistakes that sometimes led to disaster, we lived in relative harmony with the soil and all of the natural world.
Given our past, more than 100,000 years, it is astonishing that today, with our scientific knowledge, technological prowess, and wealth, we squander soil with reckless abandon. We devote less and less of it to food production and more and more to mega cities, endless suburbs, and exurbs. Of the land presumably reserved for farming, we grow soybeans and corn for animal feed and biofuels. In the Global South, peasants are losing their land to rich speculators, who hold large acreages idle in anticipation of price increases.  Everywhere we cut down trees, build huge dams, allow agriculture to contaminate the air, water, and earth. We have so degraded the soil that it has lost its material elasticity, its ability to thrive and regenerate, which means that like an overstretched rubber band, it can never be restored to full health.   The natural harmony that once defined humanity has disappeared. The awe with which we embraced the earth, the love we once felt for the land, had been replaced by arrogance, a hubris declaring that we can do what we please, and if the soil doesn’t like it, too bad for it.
Our treatment of the earth, of the dirt beneath our feet, is directly connected to our system of food production. The pollutants we put in the soil show up in our groceries. And the entire wretched business of agriculture derives from the nature of our economic system, which compels every giant corporation, every “entrepreneur,” to grow, to compete, to consider everything and everyone a commodity. Buy cheap, sell dear. These are the words that drive all of life.
There is no end to the propaganda denying this. Green Revolutions, GMO seeds, endless advertisements (even Tyson claims to be producing organic chicken in an ad that would make you think that this company is a steward of the earth), misleading reports from Non-Government Organizations and the major global financial entities like the IMF and the World Bank. If we were to take the hype as truth, we would conclude that the world has never been more productive, healthier, and happier.
However, reality is considerably different. Modern food production has failed utterly. At least a billion people worldwide are undernourished. Agriculture adds significantly to global warming, and it wreaks havoc on nature’s metabolism.   Recent evidence suggests that as Co2 levels rise, major food commodities contain more sugar and fewer nutrients, very likely leading to more obesity and poorer health.
Corporate agriculture also reinforces the marked increase in income and wealth inequality evident in almost every nation. Those with means get decent nourishment and enjoy good health; those without have neither. Those who grow the food suffer; those who sell it get rich. Making matters worse, those with power tell us that the only remedy for the problems to which they will admit, is more of the same. More chemicals, more GMOs, more mechanization, more land consolidation.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We already know how to treat the soil with respect, producing organically, on relatively small farms, utilizing techniques of land management that are in harmony with a sustainable environment. We know, from examples around the world, especially in Cuba, how to feed urban populations with food grown in the cities themselves.   There are food cooperatives, run democratically and non-capitalistically, that combine food production and distribution, serving local communities. We know how to conduct socially useful research that will show what works and what does not. If the will were there, we could greatly reduce global warming.
As we did these things, we would become more aware of the necessity for closing the ecological rifts that now threaten our existence, mainly the rift between town and country that has shaped the modern world, with destitute rural areas on the one hand and mega-cities on the other. Our actions would in turn shape our consciousness and help us build an ever more communal world.
It is one thing to say what needs to be done, and another to believe that it will happen. It is probably easier to imagine the sun growing cold and the solar system dying than it is to be sanguine that humanity will do the right thing. All I can do is try to tell the truth. And remember the wild strawberries, in the hope, vain though it may be, that someday the earth will smell, taste, and feel as alive as it once was.

Microsoft PhD Fellowship in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Mathematics 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 16th October, 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Field of Study: Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Mathematics department
Eligible Countries: Student from any part of the world attending a United States or Canadian university
To be taken at (university): United States or Canadian university
About the Award: Microsoft Research is on the lookout for exceptional students in computer science, electrical engineering, and mathematics, as well as interdisciplinary studies, to apply for the two-year PhD fellowship program for the 2018–2019 academic year. Department heads at universities in the United States and Canada should start preparing applications to nominate fellows now. The submission period is October 2–16, 2017.
The Microsoft Research PhD Fellowship Program has supported 122 fellows since the program was established in 2008, many of whom have gone on to work within the Microsoft Research organization. Others have gone on to perform pioneering research elsewhere within the technology industry or accept faculty appointments at leading universities.
Type: PhD, Fellowship
Selection Criteria and Eligibility:
  • Applicants for the Microsoft Research PhD Fellowship Program must be nominated by their universities, and their nominations must be confirmed by the office of the chair of the eligible department. Direct applications from students are not accepted.
  • Students must attend a United States or Canadian university and be enrolled in the computer science, electrical engineering, or mathematics department. If your department is within the scope of these areas but is titled differently, you are eligible.
  • The proposed research must be closely related to the research topics carried out by Microsoft Research as noted in the Research areas tab. We are particularly interested in proposals related to Systems & Networking and AI (including Machine Learning, Computer Vision, and Robotics).
  • Students must be in their second or third year of an eligible PhD program in the fall semester or quarter of 2017. The nominating university will be asked to confirm the student’s PhD program start date (month/year).
  • A maximum of three applicants per eligible department, per eligible university, will be accepted. A total of nine applications per university will be allowed.
  • Microsoft will have discretion as to how any remaining funds will be used if the student is no longer qualified to receive funding (e.g. if the student unenrolls from the program, graduates, or transfers to a different university).
  • The recipient must remain an active, full-time student in a PhD program during the two consecutive academic years of the award or forfeit the award.
  • A recipient of a Microsoft Research PhD Fellowship may not receive another fellowship from another company or institution for the same academic period. Fellows accepting multiple fellowships will become ineligible to receive continued funding from Microsoft.
Number of Awardees: A maximum of three applicants per eligible department, per eligible university, will be accepted. A total of nine applications per university will be allowed.
Value of Fellowship:
  • The fellowship recipient award will cover 100 percent of the tuition and fees for two academic years (2018–19 and 2019–20).
  • A stipend is provided to help cover living expenses while in school (US$28,000 for 2018–19 and US$28,000 for 2019–20).
  • A conference and travel allowance is provided for recipients to attend professional conferences or seminars (US$4,000 for 2018–19 and US$4,000 for 2019–20).
  • The award includes the opportunity to complete one salaried internship in 2018 with leading Microsoft researchers working on cutting-edge projects related to the recipient’s field of study.
  • Fellowships are awarded to recipients for two consecutive academic years only and are not available for extension.
Duration of Fellowship: 2 years
How to Apply: 
  • Applications must include: nominee’s thesis proposal or research statement, a one (1) page summary of their thesis proposal or research statement, nominee’s curriculum vitae, and three (3) letters of reference from established researchers familiar with the nominee’s research. Of these, one (1) letter should come from the student’s advisor. Only one (1) letter can be from a current Microsoft employee.
  • Applications must be submitted via the online application tool in any of the following formats: Word document, text-only file, or PDF. Email or hard-copy applications will not be considered. All application materials must be submitted by the person who is designated as the application contact by the departmental chair’s office and must not be the applicant.
  • Applications submitted to Microsoft will not be returned. Microsoft cannot assume responsibility for the confidentiality of information in submitted applications. Therefore, applications should not contain information that is confidential, restricted, or sensitive. Microsoft reserves the right to make public information from applications that receive awards, except those portions containing budgetary or personally identifiable information.
  • Incomplete applications cannot be considered, and notification of incompleteness will not be made.
  • Due to the volume of submissions, Microsoft Research cannot provide individual feedback on applications that do not receive Fellowship awards.
To apply, please submit via the online application tool at https://cmt.research.microsoft.com/MSRFellowship/.
Sponsors: Microsoft Research

University of Queensland Master of Leadership in Global Development Scholarship for Developing Countries 2018 – Australia

Application Deadline: 6th November 2017
Eligible Countries: Low and middle Income countries
To Be Taken At (Country): Australia
About the Award: The purpose of the scholarship is to encourage and support international students from low to middle income countries with demonstrated frontline experience of working on development projects. Applicants must have a stated desire and purpose to bring frontline learning to higher levels of aid organisations and development policy arenas. Applicants must have been educationally disadvantaged as a result of their financial circumstances.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: An applicant is eligible for the scholarship, if the applicant –
  1. Has an existing application with UQ for the MLGD and meets all entry requirements for the program – conditional on earning the MicroMasters® credential; and
  2. Submits an application to the Head, by the closing date for applications; and
  3. Is an international student within the meaning of the Fee Rules.
Incomplete applications and applications not meeting the eligibility requirements will not be considered.
Selection Criteria: 
  1. The scholarship is awarded to the applicant showing greatest merit as demonstrated by –
    1. Demonstrated frontline experience working on development projects
    2. Educational disadvantage experienced as a result of financial circumstances;
    3. Demonstrated interest in a continued career in the development sector;
    4. Personal qualities, including leadership potential, community service and engagement; and
    5. Any other matter that the selection committee considers to be relevant to the applicant’s futursuccess in the development profession
  2. For the selection process, the Head must establish a Selection Committee, comprising –
    1. The Head, or nominee, as Chair of the Committee; and
    2. The Program Director of the MLGD program; and
    3. One member of the university’s academic staff who is currently teaching into the program.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: $36,688.  The value of the scholarship is $36,688 (indexed annually) to cover EITHER
  • Scholarship A) full tuition fees for the MLGD program for the year for which it is held OR
  • Scholarship B) a Living Allowance, Visa application fees, a Travel & Establishment grant, Standard Overseas Student Health (OSHC) cover and the UQ Student Services Amenities Fee (SSAF)
Duration of Program: 
How to Apply: 
  • Applicants must complete an application form and submit this to issr@uq.edu.au by the closing date.
Award Providers: University of Queensland

MasterCard Foundation Scholarships at Michigan State University For African Students 2018/2019 – USA

Application Deadline: 1st February 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): Michigan State University, USA
Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the university
About Scholarship: The MasterCard Foundation has partnered with Michigan State University USA to provide full tuition scholarships to students from Sub-Saharan Africa. The university will receive $45 million in funding from the foundation to support 185 scholars throughout the nine-year program, which includes 100 four-year undergraduates and 85 master’s degree students. MSU will host the most scholars among the six U.S. partner institutions.
Students who have demonstrated academic talent, are economically disadvantaged and have a personal commitment to give back to their countries are invited to apply for these scholarships.
Through financial, academic, social and post-graduation support, The Scholars Program will ensure that young people are equipped with the skills and competencies needed to spur economic growth and social development in their respective countries of origin.
MSU mastercard-foundation-scholarshipOffered Since: 2012
Type: Masters taught
Selection Criteria and Eligibility
The program is open to residents and citizens of Sub-Saharan African countries. Students must be first-time applicants to MSU. Transfer students are not eligible for the program.
Undergraduate Students
  • Strong academic performance to date in secondary school suggesting continued academic success as an undergraduate student.
  • An interest in and capacity for give-back, evidenced by commitment and engagement outside the classroom in the school and/or community.
  • Manifest ethical behavior and strong character essential to joining The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Network.
  • Ability to deal with change, uncertainty, and adversity, as well as interest in other countries and cultures, necessary to succeed as a student overseas and represent one’s home country in this role.
  • Significant financial need and/or from lowest income bracket in country of origin.
  • Commitment to give back in ways that enhance the economic growth and social development of Africa.
 Graduate Students
  • Prior completion of a Bachelor’s Degree in Africa with academic achievements suggesting continued academic success as graduate student.
  • Strong commitment to a professional path in line with the area of study that can positively impact Africa.
  • An interest in and capacity for give-back, evidenced by commitment and engagement on campus, in professional pursuits and/or community.
  • Manifest ethical behavior and strong character essential to joining The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Network.
  • Ability to deal with change, uncertainty, and adversity, as well as interest in other countries and cultures, necessary to succeed as a student overseas and represent one’s home country in this role.
  • Significant financial need and/or from lowest income bracket in country of origin
  • Commitment to give back in ways that enhance the economic growth and social development of Africa.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Full financial, academic, social and post-graduation support. The Scholars Program will ensure that young people are equipped with the skills and competencies needed to spur economic growth and social development in their respective countries of origin.
Duration of Scholarship: For the full period of undergraduate or masters study
How to Apply:
  • It is important to go through instructions for application on the Scholarship Webpage before applying.
  • This application is for GRADUATE applicants only.
Sponsors: MasterCard Foundation Scholarship Programme (MFSP), Michigan State University
Important Notes: Students do not need to receive notification of acceptance to MSU prior to submitting their scholarship application. However, students must complete an application to MSU in order to be considered for the scholarship. Students who are already enrolled at MSU are not eligible for The Scholars Program.

Microsoft 4Afrika Paid Internships for Young African Graduates 2018

Application Deadline: 22nd September 2017
Eligible Countries: All African countries
To be taken at (country): Internships are available across the African continent
Eligible Fields: There are internships available across the African continent in three distinct areas: salesmarketing and technical and we ask you to apply for one of these paths depending on where your skills and passions are. e. If you are successful in your application, you will be matched to great roles with Microsoft partners
About the Award: The Interns4Afrika program offers talented young people a unique experience with a dynamic and agile technology organization on the African continent. You will work for 6 months with a Microsoft partner on real projects, collaborating and learning from your colleagues. Whether you’re aspiring for a future in sales, marketing or technology, this is your chance to kick-start your future
To give you the best chance of success 4 weeks of your internship will be dedicated to developing world class business and technical skills. We’ll support you to rapidly develop your capabilities through the (virtual) classroom and the great work you will do.The competition for a place on Interns 4Afrika is tough but if you are entrepreneurial with a passion for technology, are keen to continue learning and have a flexible can-do attitude we want to hear from you. Join us today, and help shape the Africa of tomorrow.
Type: Internship
Eligibility: Apply if:
  • You are able to commit to completing full time internship for 6 months
  • You are currently in education or have graduated from an Undergraduate or Postgraduate course within the last 12 months
  • You have a BA/BSc in a business related or IT degree
  • You are based on the African continent and You have right to work in the country in which you are currently located
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Internship: All interns will be paid a salary and will be located at and employed by the partner organization for the six-month internship period.
Duration of Internship6 months
How to Apply: Select your most suitable internship position and Apply now
Don’t forget to sell yourself on your application form and CV as the competition for this internship is tough!
Award Provider: Microsoft

Microsoft Research Scholarship for Scholars in Europe Africa Middle East (EMEA) 2018

Application Deadline: 12th October 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries in Europe Africa Middle East
About the Award: Each year, PhD supervisors from academic institutions in EMEA are invited to submit their proposals for collaborative research projects with Microsoft Research Cambridge. Applications are then peer reviewed and up to 16 projects will be selected for funding. PhD students are appointed to the selected projects and begin their research in the following academic year under the supervision of their academic supervisor, with co-supervision from a researcher at Microsoft Research Cambridge.
The Microsoft Research PhD Scholarship Programme in EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) was launched in 2004 and has so far supported more than 200 PhD students from more than 18 countries and 51 institutions.
Some of the Scholars may also be offered—at the sole discretion of Microsoft Research—an internship in one of the Microsoft Research laboratories. Internships involve working on a project alongside and as part of a team of Microsoft researchers. Scholars are paid during their internship—in addition to their scholarship bursary.         
Type: PhD, Research
Eligibility: Applications must not be made by students but by PhD supervisors, who must have been in dialogue with the prospective Microsoft supervisor and jointly collaborated on the proposal prior to the submission deadline. If their project is selected, the supervisor has until 31 March 2019 to find the best possible student for the project; otherwise, the PhD Agreement will be terminated automatically. Only applications from institutions in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa will be considered.
For an application to be considered, the following key requirements apply:
  1. The institute agrees to the terms and conditions in the PhD Term Sheet and EPSRC Term Sheet where appropriate .
  2. The applicant must be in dialogue with the prospective Microsoft supervisor prior to the submission deadline and jointly drafting the proposal.
  3. The proposed research must be closely related to our research ambitions at Microsoft Research in Cambridge:
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Infrastructure for the Cloud
    • The Future of Work
    • Biological Computation
This year, Microsoft is particularly interested in proposals related to:
  • Machine Learning for Healthcare
  • Optics in the Cloud (networking, storage and compute)
  • Confidential Computation
  • Designing AI for Human Partnership
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The monetary value of the award varies by country to reflect local differences in costs and overheads. Payment is made directly to the institution. The amount of the scholarship is the maximum amount Microsoft Research pays to the institution. In addition, every Scholar receives a fixed hardware allowance and conference allowance.
Duration of Program: Maximum of 3 years
Timeline:
  • Notification of results: Stage 1 ~ By the end of October 2017
Stage 2 ~ By the end of January 2018
  • PhD Agreements sent to Institutes by: 16th February 2018
  • Signed PhD Agreements returned to MSR via Docusign by: 30th June 2018
  • PhD students to be appointed by: 31st March 2019
How to Apply: Please submit your application via this link
Award Providers: Microsoft
Important Notes: Microsoft actively seeks to foster greater levels of diversity in our workforce and in our pipeline of future researchers. We are always looking for the best and brightest talent and pride ourselves on our individuality.