21 Sept 2017

Oprah Winfrey’s African Women’s Public Service Fellowship at NYU 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st December, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa
To be taken at (country): New York University  Wagner, USA
About the Award: The African Women’s Public Service Fellowship, made possible by a donation from the Oprah Winfrey Foundation, expands the opportunity for African women to impact for public service in their home countries.
Fellowship recipients commit to return to their respective home countries at the conclusion of the program with the goal of assuming a leadership position on the continent where they can meaningfully contribute to the challenges currently confronting Africa.
Offered Since: 2016
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Citizen and resident in an African country at the time of application.
  • Strong academic record
  • Demonstrated commitment to public service
Number of Awardees: Not specifed
Value of Fellowship:
  • The Fellowship provides full tuition, fees, housing or a housing stipend (if enrolling in the Global EMPA program), travel to and from the United States, and a small stipend to cover books and miscellaneous expenses.
  • A NYU Wagner education would significantly enhance your ability to have a deep and lasting impact on public service issues in your home country and region.
Duration of Fellowship: 1 year
How to Apply: 
  • Submit your Fellowship Application Essay along with your online application to NYU Wagner for Fall 2018. The Fellowship Application Essay is included in the fellowship section of the online application; there is not a separate application.  Fellowship applicants must also submit the one-minute video essay in the application in order to be considered. 
    Applications are due by December 1, 2017 deadline.
  • Those selected as fellowship semi-finalists will be invited to participate in Skype interviews with the Fellowship Selection Committee in mid-to-late February 2018.
Award Provider: Oprah Winfrey, NYU Wagner

SAWISE Hope & Angus Scholarship for African Women in Science and Technology 2018

Application Deadline: 15th November 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Women in all African countries. South African applicants will be given preference.
To be taken at (country): Tenable at any of the following universities:
  • University of Cape Town
  • University of Johannesburg
  • University of Kwazulu-Natal
  • University of Pretoria
  • University of Stellenbosch
  • University of the Witwatersrand,
  • University of the Western Cape
About the Award: The Association of South African Women in Science and Engineering (SA WISE) is a dynamic association for all those who support the idea of strengthening the role of women in science and engineering in South Africa. The Hope Scholarship is for Honours/4th year level young women, preferably in the sciences and/or related field (medical included). Preference will be given to a candidate experiencing financial difficulty or distress.
Two SAWISE scholarships are available:
Please note that these are ONLY for females and ONLY for 4th year [e.g. BSc (Honours) or equivalent] of study at tertiary level.
  1. SAWISE Angus Scholarship (Download scholarship information in .pdf format).
  2. SAWISE Hope Scholarship (Find information on the Hope Scholarship website).
Eligible Field of Study: Science and Engineering
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility criteria: Eligibility criteria for SAWISE Angus Scholarship include:
i. A sub-Saharan black female.
ii. Must have achieved 70% or above grade average in her subject of study.
iii. Only for studies at Honours level (or 4th year equivalent e.g. in engineering).
iv. In any field of science and engineering.
Eligibility criteria for SAWISE Hope Scholarship include:
i. A South African female student.
ii. Must have achieved an academic average of over 65%.
iii. Only for studies at Honours level (or 4th year equivalent e.g. in engineering).
iv. In any field of science and engineering. Medical fields are also included.
v. Candidates must exhibit outstanding personal qualities and a strong desire to make a contribution to their respective fields and to society at large.
vi. Candidate must indicate financial need.
vii. Must be studying at one of following institutions: University of Cape Town, University of Johannesburg, University of KwaZulu-Natal, University of Pretoria, University of Stellenbosch, University of the Witwatersrand, and University of the Western Cape.
Number of Scholarships: Not Specified
Value of Scholarship: Recipients will receive R15 000.
The scholarship founding group will serve as mentors to the recipient over the course of her Honours year /4th year of study. The recipient will be assigned special industry-specific mentors that align with her field of study. The recipient will have the opportunity to interact with the founding network of professional women through her invitation to, and participation in, Hope Network and SAWISE events.
Duration of Scholarship: One year, full-time study.
How to Apply: 
It is important to go through the Application details on the Scholarship Webpage (See Link below) before applying.
Sponsors: The Association of South African Women in Science and Engineering (SAWISE)

Dickson Poon Undergraduate Law Scholarships at Kings College, London 2018

Application Deadlines: 
  • 12 noon (GMT) Tuesday 31st October 2017,
  • 12 noon (GMT) Thursday 1st March 2018.
There are two application rounds, and applicants may only apply to one round.
Eligible Countries: UK, EU and international
To Be Taken At (Country): UK
About the Award: The Dickson Poon Undergraduate Law Scholarship Programme offers prestigious and generous scholarships to outstanding new Law students at The Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London.  The level of competition for the scholarships is high and Dickson Poon Scholars are expected to play an active role in the School community during their studies and in the global community after graduation.
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: 
  • The Dickson Poon Scholarship programme is open to all applicants who apply via UCAS for a place on an undergraduate Law programme at King’s commencing in September 2018 (2018 entry).
  • The programme is also open to applicants who apply via UCAS for deferred entry to an undergraduate Law programme at King’s commencing in September 2019 (deferred entry in 2018).
Number of Awards: Up to 30
Value of Award: Scholars will receive financial support of £5,000 per year for the duration of the degree programme to which they are admitted. Scholars will also receive complimentary King’s accommodation during the first year of their LLB programme.
 How to Apply: 
  • The scholarship application form can be downloaded at the bottom of this page and includes full instructions on how to apply. Please also carefully read the guidance notes, which can also be downloaded below.
  • The Scholarships will be awarded by a Selection Panel appointed by the Dean of The Dickson Poon School of Law. The Selection Panel will assess and select successful applicants on the basis of outstanding merit. The Panel will not take into account an applicant’s financial circumstances.
Award Provider: The scholarships are made possible by the generous support of Sir Dickson Poon.
Important Notes:
  • Applications received before the October deadline will be considered in the first round. Applications received at any time after the October deadline but before the March deadline will be considered in the second round. Applications received after the March deadline will not be considered.
  • You will be informed of the outcome of your application by Friday 1 December 2017 (for first round applications) or by Tuesday 10 April 2018 (for second round applicants), including whether you have been shortlisted for an interview, and in any case by no later than Friday 8 December 2017 (for first round applications) or Tuesday 17 April 2018 (for second round applications).

Nigerian Agip Oil Company Tertiary Scholarship Scheme for Undergraduate Nigerian Students 2017

Application Deadline: 29th September 2017
About the Award: Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited (NAOC) Joint Venture in pursuance of its Community Development Programme invites suitably qualified candidates for its 2016/2017 Tertiary Institutions Scholarship Awards Scheme.
Eligible Countries: Nigerian Students
To be taken at (country): Nigerian tertiary institutions
Categories of Awards
  • Host Communities Merit Award: For applicants strictly from NAOC host communities
  • National Merit Award: For applicants from non-host communities
Fields of Study: Only applicants studying Engineering, Geology, Geosciences and Agricultural Science are eligible for the National Merit Award.
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility
To qualify for consideration, applicants MUST be:
  • Registered Full TIME undergraduates in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions
  • Certified 100 level students at the time of application
NOTE: The following categories of students should NOT apply:
  • 200 level students and above
  • Current beneficiaries of similar awards from other companies and agencies
  • Dependants of employees of NAOC, AENR and NAE
Number of Scholarships: Several
What are the benefits? Monetary financial aid
Duration of Scholarship: As determined by the sponsor
How to Apply
  1. Before you start this application, ensure you have clear scanned copies of the following documents
    • Passport photograph with white background not more than 3 months old (450px by 450px not more than 200kb)
    • School ID card
    • O’Level Certificate
    • Admission letter
    • Birth certificate
    • Proof of Local Government Area of Origin
    • Letter from Community Paramount Ruler
    • Letter from CDC Chairman
    • JAMB Result
  2. Ensure the documents are named according to what they represent to avoid mixing up documents during upload
  3. Ensure you attach the appropriate documents when asked to upload
  4. Ensure to provide valid Email and Phone Contact for effective communication
For further information on how to apply for this scholarship, Visit the Scholarship Webpage
Sponsors: Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited (NAOC), Operator of the NNPC/NAOC/Phillips Joint Venture
Important Notes:
  • Please ensure you understand the Instructions carefully before you start application to avoid errors and disqualification.
  •  The aptitude test will take place at designated centers to be communicated to applicants on a later date and applicants are to fully bear the cost of transportation to and from Aptitude test centres.

Procter & Gamble Internship Program for OND Holders 2017 – Nigeria

Application Deadline: Ongoing
Offered annually? Not stated
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Nigeria
Field of Work : The job openings cover departments like Sales, Supply Network Organization, Marketing, Customer Market Knowledge, Human Resources etc. Note that no specific field of study is required for any particular department.
About the Award: The Internship drive is for OND holders who are available to commence their one year industrial attachment. Our aim is to pre-select exceptional OND holders for internship openings in Procter and Gamble.
This opening is not limited to any specific field of study but only OND holders will be considered this time. Successful candidates will be considered for openings across Procter & Gamble departments in Lagos, Ibadan, and Agbara.
Type: Fulltime Internship
Eligibility: This opening is not limited to any specific field of study but only OND holders will be considered this time for the internship positions.
Number of Awardees: Several
Value of Position: Experience in the largest FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) company in the world with strong brands like Pampers, Ariel, Always, Gillette, Oral B just to name a few.
Duration of Position: One (1) year
How to Apply: Visit the Internship Webpage to apply
Award Provider: Procter & Gamble Nigeria
Important Notes: Interested candidates can also join the P&G Facebook page: www.facebook.com/PGCareersNigeria. Practice questions will be available for download on the Facebook page to help candidates prepare in time for the test.

Procter and Gamble (P&G) Internships for Recent Nigerian Graduates 2017

Application Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To Be Taken At (Country): Lagos, Nigeria
About the Award: Procter and Gamble is one of the largest FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) company in the world with strong brands like Pampers, Ariel, Always, Gillette and Oral B just to name a few. It has been in existence for over 179 years globally and 24 years in Nigeria.
Job ID: IME00000356
Field of Study: This opening is not limited to any specific field of study. The job openings cover departments like Sales, Supply Network Operations, Brand/Marketing, Consumer Market Knowledge, Human Resources e.t.c.
Type: Internship
Eligibility: The Internship drive is for fresh graduates who have NOT commenced their National Youth Service (NYSC) and have at least 7 months from now before starting NYSC (i.e. would not start NYSC until at least March 2018). Our aim is to pre-select exceptional fresh graduates for internship openings in P&G.
Selection: Candidates successful with this online application will be invited for a test.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: Successful candidates will be considered for openings across Procter & Gamble departments in Lagos.
How to Apply: APPLY NOW
Award Providers: Procter and Gamble (P&G)

Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program 2018

Application Deadline: 1st December, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): United States of America
About the Award: The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program supports independent research and study related to Smithsonian facilities, experts, or collection for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.
Program Description:
Smithsonian Institution Fellows conduct independent study and research related to SI collections, experts, or facilities in cooperation with at least one Smithsonian advisor. JessicaLindsay with Michael WiseThe Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program is open to:
  1. Graduate Students
  2. Predoctoral Students
  3. Postdoctoral Researchers and
  4. Senior Researchers
Graduate Student Fellowships: Graduate Student Fellowships are typically 10 weeks in length. Students must be formally enrolled in a graduate program of study at a degree granting institution. Before the appointment begins fellows must still be enrolled and must have completed at least one full time semester or its equivalent. Graduate Student Fellowships are usually intended for students who have not yet been advanced to candidacy if in a doctoral program. Graduate student fellowships are offered for ten weeks and are not available for periods of less or more than ten weeks.
Predoctoral Student Fellowships: Predoctoral Student Fellowships are typically (pls see below for exceptions) 3 to 12 months in length. Students must be enrolled in a university as a candidate for the Ph.D. or equivalent. By the time the appointment begins the university must approve the undertaking of dissertation research at the Smithsonian Institution and certify that requirements for the doctorate, other than the dissertation, have been met.
Postdoctoral Researcher Fellowships: Postdoctoral Student Fellowships are typically (pls see below for exceptions) 3 to 12 months in length. The doctorate degree must be completed by the time the fellowship begins.
Senior Researcher Fellowships: Senior Fellowships are typically 3 to 12 months in length. Applicants must have held a Ph.D. or equivalent for at least 7 years.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • The program is open to US citizens and Non-US citizens. Applicants whose native language is not English are expected to have the ability to write and converse fluently in English. All application materials must be presented in English (foreign transcripts may be translated, see below).
  • Past or current fellowship recipients are eligible to apply for another award.
Selection Criteria: Applications are evaluated and fellows are selected, by scholars in appropriate fields, on the basis of the proposal’s merit, the applicant’s ability to carry out the proposed research and study, the likelihood that the research could be completed in the requested time, and the extent to which the Smithsonian, through its research staff members and resources, could contribute to the proposed research. The number of appointments made each year is determined by the availability of funds for the program.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship award amounts are as follows:
  • Graduate Student Fellowship**: $7,500.00 for 10 weeks.
  • Predoctoral Fellowship: $36,000 annually; research allowance up to $4,000.
  • Postdoctoral Fellowship: $50,400 annually; research allowance up to $4,000.
  • Senior Fellowship: $50,400 annually; research allowance up to $4,000.
Fellows in earth/planetary sciences and conservatory sciences are eligible to receive up to $5,000.00 over the amounts listed above.
How to Apply: Apply Through: SOLAA
Please ensure you go through the application guidelines in Scholarship Webpage before applying.
Award Provider: The Smithsonian Institute

Who Will Pay for Huge Pentagon Budget Increase?

Michael Sainato

This week, the United States Senate overwhelmingly voted in favor of increasing military spending by $700 billion, pouring even more money into by far the most expensive military in the world and exceeding military funding from any time during the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The U.S. Military budget is larger than the next nine most expensive countries combined, and this new budget now makes it ten countries.
Though both political parties are abrasive toward spending on social programs, from expanding the social safety net through policies like single payer healthcare, to boosting welfare, medicare, and social security, military spending receives little resistance, even in the wake of a massive accounting error at the Pentagon in which trillions of dollars are still unaccounted for. The spending increases continue a trend of enormous military spending set under the Obama Administration, in which the United States’ military budget was the highest its been since World War II.
89 Senators voted in favor of the bill that increased spending than what even Trump’s Administration proposed for programs in funded in the bill, from North Korea defense missile systems to new ships and aircraft. The bill provides funding that far exceeds what is reportedly saved by kicking 32 million people off of healthcare through the proposed Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal efforts. The Intercept reported it would take just $80 billion a year to provide enough funding to enact free public college tuition across the country. But instead these policy proposals are dismissed or attacked with fear mongering, baseless rhetoric to frame them as intangible and too expensive. Pundits, think tank fellows, and lobbyists jump through hoops trying to come up with ways to discredit social welfare program proposals as far too ambitious, or down right socialist, to try to delegitimize them. Imagine if the same scrutiny was applied to military spending, but when it comes to funding war, the funding source is never up for debate.
Its disturbing how unanimous support is for significant boosts in military spending are compared to making investments and providing funding into a healthcare program that millions of Americans depend on to survive. Though there is no shortage of virtue signaling or criticisms toward universal healthcare proposals on the potential costs, often ignoring the savings yielded in return, when it comes to war, few elected officials are willing to challenge the military industrial complex. It also reveals a lot about the Democratic Party, who has branded itself on the Trump Resistance, yet poses virtually no resistance for boosting funds for the military that Trump and his administration presides over.
Only 8 Senators voted against the military spending boost, compared to 89 who voted in favor of it, a rare instance of bipartisanship in a highly polarized political climate. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Corker (R-TN), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Mike Lee (R-UT) were the only votes against the spending increase.
This bipartisanship is reflective of special interests and war hawks who profit immensely off military spending, rather than representative of the interests of American voters. In 2017, weapons manufacturers and the Defense Industry have continued pouring millions of dollars in campaign contributions to both Republicans and Democrats. While less than 10 percent of Senators opposed this drastic boost in funding, several polls conducted over the course of the past few years affirm that a majority of voters support cutting military spending rather than adding to it. The military budget is just one prime example of how congress reflects the interests of corporations and wealthy donors, while ignoring and in many cases starkly opposing the interests of voters.

The Wage Dividend From Low Unemployment: Blacks and Whites

DANIELLA ZESSOULES & DEAN BAKER

As we previously pointed out, the most disadvantaged segments of the labor market benefit disproportionately from low unemployment. This shows up both in terms of getting a disproportionate share of the job growth and also from seeing more rapid wage growth as a result of the tightening of the labor market they face.
The logic is straightforward. When the economy goes into a slump, it is more likely that a retail clerk or person on the factory floor will lose their job than a manager or a highly educated professional, like a doctor or dentist.
This means that when the unemployment rate soars, as it did in the Great Recession, it is the workers at the bottom of the ladder who are at greatest risk of losing their jobs. They are also the ones who see the largest loss in pay, as their bargaining power diminishes with their employment opportunities.
This post looks at the difference in patterns between blacks and whites. The graphs below shows real wage growth for full-time black and white workers since 2008 at the cutoff for the tenth and ninth deciles of wage distribution as well as the cutoffs for the first quartile, the median, and the third quartile. These data show usual weekly earnings. (The base is the year-round average for 2007.) The changes in this measure reflect both changes in average hours and also in hourly wages.
As can be seen, both black and white workers at the cutoff for the top decile of the wage distribution (the 90th percentile) did reasonably well through the Great Recession and the weak recovery that followed. (The data for black workers is more erratic due to the fact that the sample is smaller.) In fact, the 90th percentile black worker seems to have done somewhat better than the 90th percentile white worker in the recession and immediate aftermath. By 2012, when the unemployment rate still averaged 8.1 percent, their real wages were more than 5 percent higher than in 2007, whereas the gain for the 90th percentile white worker was roughly 4 percent. (It is important to remember that these are changes, the 90th percentile white worker earns far more than the 90th percentile black worker.)
Black workers at the cutoff for the third quartile (the 75th percentile) also appear to do have done slightly better than white workers at the same point along the wage distribution. Their wage gains are roughly a percentage point higher than for whites at the same point along the wage distribution.
However, the story reverses sharply when we look at the lower end of the wage distribution. Black workers at the cutoff for the first decline (10th percentile) and the first quartile (25th percentile) both saw real wage declines of close to 5 percent by 2012. For whites, the wage loss was in the range of 2–3 percent. This gap holds true at the median also, with the median black worker seeing a fall in real wages of close to 3 percent at a time when the median wages were roughly even with their 2008 level. This is consistent with the view that lower paid black workers are the biggest losers when the unemployment rate turns up.
The situation for lower paid black workers has improved substantially as the labor market has tightened in the last five years. Real weekly earnings for black workers at the cutoffs for the first decile and first quartile of the wage distribution, as well as the median, were 3.8 percent above their 2007 level in the most recent data. This still indicates a gap with whites at the same points of the distribution, who all saw gains in real wages of just over 5.0 percent. However, this indicates that the tightening of the labor market has disproportionately benefited blacks at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution.
By contrast, blacks at the top end of the wage distribution have fared less well. Real average weekly earnings for workers at the cutoff for the 9th decile were just 7.2 percent higher than their 2007 level in the most recent data, pretty much unchanged since the 2012 level. By contrast, wages for white workers at the cutoff for the 9th decile were 8.9 percent higher than their 2007 level.
This pattern suggests that wages for black workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution are far more sensitive to the unemployment rate than for white workers at the same point of the distribution. The implication is that if the labor market is allowed to continue to tighten, black workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution will see the largest wage gains. This is in addition to the fact that they are likely to also get a disproportionate share of employment gains.

What Happened to the Arms Trade Treaty?

Harry Blain

April 2, 2013 was an unusually happy day at UN headquarters in New York. After years of pressure from civil society groups, the General Assembly adopted a new treaty establishing “the highest possible common standards” for regulating the “international trade in conventional arms.”
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was variously described as a “landmark agreement” (by British Prime Minister David Cameron), “ground-breaking” (by Oxfam), and “a direct win that will help save thousands of lives” (by Amnesty International).
There were good reasons for optimism, with two major victories standing out: the enthusiastic backing of the British government and the United States’ reversal of its long-standing opposition to arms trade regulation. Yet since then, neither of these major arms exporters has reduced weapons sales, nor seriously regulated them.
Instead, their arms companies have cashed in on perhaps the world’s worst humanitarian disaster — the Saudi-led destruction of Yemen.
There, bombings led by the Saudis and backed by the U.S. have left thousands of civilians dead, precipitated a cholera crisis that’s infected thousands, and brought the Arab world’s already poorest country to the brink of famine. Yet neither Washington nor London has turned off the spigot of arms to the Saudi coalition.
What went wrong?
An Unprecedented Achievement
When it was passed, the Arms Trade Treaty was without precedent. Uniquely, it focused on so-called “conventional” weapons — from small arms and light weapons to battle tanks, combat aircraft, and armored vehicles — which do most of the world’s killing and maiming but haven’t received the same international attention as their nuclear, biological, or chemical cousins.
Article Six of the ATT boldly declares that a state should not transfer conventional arms if it has knowledge “that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party.”
The fact that a treaty containing this language passed the General Assembly by an overwhelming 154 votes to 3 — and has since been ratified by 89 UN member states — is a testament to the tremendous efforts of the Control Arms campaign that lobbied for it since 2003.
However, the most recent appraisal of the treaty published by Control Arms on September 11 strikes a mixed tone. It highlights “encouraging signs,” including better reporting of arms sales at the national level and the limitation of exports to South Sudan, where a ghastly civil war has given way to famine. Yet the review also describes how, in conflict-zones worldwide, “ongoing arms transfers are playing an acute destabilizing role – nowhere more so than in Yemen.”
Yemen, it continues, represents “one of the most urgently concerning cases in which arms transfers have continued despite information of clear risk of negative consequences.” No fewer than 19 state parties and three signatories continue to export “arms, ammunition parts, and components to Saudi Arabia” despite “mounting evidence” of war crimes. Each of these states is consciously undermining a treaty that they were praising so effusively four-and-a-half years ago.
Record-Setting Arms Sales
Britain and the United States have led the way.
In April 2014, Britain ratified the ATT, with the government promising that it would build on the UK’s “robust” licensing regulations. By December the following year, this claim was tested in a 91-page comprehensive legal opinion on arms exports to Saudi Arabia.
The British government, the authors argued, was “placing undue reliance on Saudi assurances that they are complying with international law” in Yemen, even though these assurances were “not supported by independent evidence from reliable sources.” Their conclusion was clear: “the UK Government has misdirected itself in fact and law in relation to its obligations arising under the ATT.”
While Britain licensed $3.7 billion worth of arms sales in the first year of the Saudi air campaign, the United Nations documented 119 Saudi-led sorties violating international humanitarian law, including airstrikes on targets such as refugee camps, weddings, buses, medical facilities, schools, and mosques. At the same time, as the director of Physicians for Human Rights has put it, the Saudi-led coalition has sought to “weaponize” disease by imposing a harsh blockade which has deepened Yemen’s cholera and malnutrition crises.
If Britain has disregarded the Arms Trade Treaty, then the United States — which is a signatory but not a party — has been even more dismissive. In May, President Trump sealed the largest arms deal in American history with Saudi Arabia, helping the State Department to set an all-time record for arms sales in the 2017 fiscal year.
Yet President Obama — who signed the ATT and attempted to get it through Congress — was if anything even more complicit in the destruction of Yemen, providing the Saudis with almost unquestioned support from March 2015, when the bombing started, to the end of his second term.
During the Obama era, Human Rights Watch cited numerous examples of U.S.-produced weapons striking civilian targets in Yemen, including a March 2016 attack on Mastaba market, which killed at least 97 civilians, and an October 2016 attack on a funeral hall which killed over 100. By the time he left office, President Obama had “overseen more sales of military weaponry than any other president,” Mother Jones reports. Saudi Arabia was among the top five customers.
A False Distinction
With such obvious disregard of its core principles, the Arms Trade Treaty is looking toothless. Critics anticipated this in 2013, pointing to the treaty’s lack of proper enforcement mechanisms. This, however, is a charge that can be made against all international treaties, which ultimately rely on the actions of self-interested and often duplicitous governments.
Instead, there’s a deeper problem with the ATT: its insistence on distinguishing between the “legitimate” and “illicit” arms trade. The treaty pledges to “eradicate” the latter, while protecting the former.
Although the black-market gun runner makes for a good movie plot, the biggest and most lethal arms dealers are governments. Legal sanctions don’t make a missile less deadly — as any Yemeni will tell you. Twenty-six countries legally sold weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, as the two countries nearly bled each other to death. And — at least according to the UK high court — there’s nothing illegal about selling weapons to the Saudi regime as it crushes its far poorer neighbor.
This is the “legitimate” face of the international arms trade. Until it is seriously confronted — nationally and globally — noble efforts like the Arms Trade Treaty will fail.

New Zealand election: The fraud of Labour’s “free education” policy

Tom Peters & Daniel Bradley

One of the New Zealand Labour Party’s main promises for this Saturday’s national election, printed on flyers sent to homes throughout the country, is to “introduce three years’ free university or trade education.”
Like all the party’s promises to reduce poverty and social inequality, its education policy is highly deceptive. Labour leader Jacinda Ardern told the Australian newspaper on September 8: “I believe in free education but I know we can’t afford that right now.” She described three years’ free study as an “aspiration.”
While attempting to appeal to widespread opposition to the National Party government’s drastic austerity measures imposed since the 2008 financial crisis, the Labour Party and the Greens have reassured big business that, if elected, they will continue National’s spending restrictions and preparations for war.
The Labour Party’s flyer does not explain that it would remove student fees for only one year of post-secondary study, starting next year. Its web site says it would fund another free year in 2021 and a third in 2024. In other words, “three years’ free” education would be implemented only after two more elections, making the promise worthless. There is ample time between now and 2024 for Labour to scrap the policy as “no longer affordable.”
The one year of “free” education would apply only to students who start their courses in 2018 or later. Hundreds of thousands of current, former and returning students, as well as foreign students, would get nothing. Moreover, new domestic students would still have to pay for textbooks and other course-related costs.
The Labour Party proposes a small increase in student allowances, from $170 to $220 a week, not enough to pay for accommodation and living costs in the main cities. These payments are available only to a small minority of students from low-income families. Eligibility criteria, tightened in recent years, would remain. In 2015, only 17.8 percent of students received the allowance, down from 21 percent in 2011.
A mountain of student debt, accumulated under successive Labour and National Party governments, will continue to expand, regardless of who wins the election. Most universities and other institutions routinely increase their fees each year by around 5 percent to compensate for repeated government spending cuts.
The 1980s Labour government of David Lange introduced the first tertiary education fees in 1989. A National Party government scrapped universal student allowances and introduced means-testing in 1991.
The 1999–2008 Labour government, which had promised to relieve the burden on students, provoked nationwide protests in 2000 as fees continued to rise. Despite Labour’s removal of interest on student loans—a ploy to win the 2005 election—by 2008, total debt had reached $10 billion. This year, debt soared above $15 billion, owed by more than 700,000 people. More than 100,000 people have defaulted on their loans and last year the government began arresting people at the border who had not made repayments.
A recent OECD report noted that New Zealand had the seventh-highest fees of 35 developed countries, and government funding provided only half of tertiary institutions’ income in 2014. Fees are around $NZ6,000 a year for a bachelor’s degree, but students in medicine, law and other advanced courses can accumulate debts of up to $100,000 or even higher.
Students face growing poverty and distress. A survey of 2,000 Unitec students in Auckland, released in May, found 17 percent “regularly go without food or other necessities” and 55 percent were unable to afford basic needs at some point in the previous 12 months. This situation is the outcome of attacks by Labour and National governments. Real median incomes for people aged under 25 plummeted between 1986 and 2006, from $18,900 to just $11,500.
The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) has falsely portrayed Labour’s election policy as “a credible and popular alternative to the clear failings of National’s market-based approach to tertiary education.” The union has a long history of suppressing resistance to pro-market restructuring by successive governments.
The TEU’s predecessor, the Association of University Staff (AUS), worked closely with the 1999–2008 Labour government to suppress resistance by university workers. When 79 percent of union members voted for a nationwide strike in April 2004 for better wages and more government funding, the AUS cancelled the industrial action and negotiated minimal pay rises, of about 4 percent, that were acceptable to the universities and the government. By 2006–2007, NZ academics’ salaries were still 44 percent lower than those in Australia and 14 percent below their British counterparts.
Under National since 2008, the TEU has refused to organise a nationwide industrial campaign against course- and job-cutting throughout the country, including 300 redundancies last year at Unitec in Auckland, and an announcement in July of 182 full time equivalent job cuts at Dunedin’s University of Otago. University entrance requirements also have been tightened, barring many students from working-class backgrounds.
These attacks would continue under Labour. In an attempt to whip up nationalism and scapegoat foreigners for the social crisis, the party is calling for immigration to be cut by up to 30,000 per year, or 40 percent. Backed by the trade unions, Labour has called for tighter restrictions on student visas and for foreign students in some courses to be banned from working in New Zealand during and after study. Announcing the policy in June, then-Labour leader Andrew Little echoed the viciously anti-Asian NZ First Party’s claim that foreigners were using study as “a backdoor entry” to residency.
Foreign students currently make up about 15 percent of the student population and they are charged even higher, unsubsidised fees. To compensate for reduced numbers of foreign students, universities and polytechs will further increase their fees and rely more heavily on private investment.
Whatever party wins the election on Saturday, students will quickly come into conflict with the new government and the education unions, as they continue to slash education and impose austerity on young people. To fight back, students will need to oppose every party of the political establishment and adopt a socialist perspective.
The demand must be raised for tens of billions of dollars to fund free, publicly-owned and accessible education for all, regardless of nationality or race. We appeal to students who agree with this perspective to form branches of the International Youth and Students for Social Equality, the youth movement of the Socialist Equality Group and the International Committee of the Fourth International, in universities, polytechs and high schools.