Turkey invades Syria to attack US-backed Kurdish forces

Halil Celik & Alex Lantier

On Sunday, at 11 AM local time, Turkish tanks and infantry invaded Afrin, a majority-Kurdish multi-ethnic region in northwestern Syria. The Turkish forces are targeting the US-backed Syrian-Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its militia, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which control Afrin. At the same time, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Ankara’s proxy force in Syria, attacked Afrin from the south and east, supported by Turkish tanks and Special Forces.

This aggression by Turkey is a reckless escalation that will exacerbate the conflicts raging across the Middle East and intensify the danger of war between the major powers. With Moscow’s tacit support, Turkey is attacking the YPG, the backbone of the main US proxy force in Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) militia. The danger of this triggering a clash between US forces and Russian and Turkish forces in Syria, and all-out war between the United States and Russia, is very real.

The ground invasion, code-named “Olive Branch,” came after hours of Turkish air strikes on Afrin, including strikes on an airfield used by US forces to deliver equipment and arms to the SDF.

It signifies a historic breakdown of the NATO alliance, of which the United States and Turkey are both members. Given that the Turkish invasion apparently has support in Berlin, it reflects deep and mounting conflicts between the major NATO powers.

In the first hours of the operation on Sunday, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim told reporters that its aim was to create a 30-kilometer “safe zone” along the Turkish-Syrian border. He said the operation would proceed in four phases, without giving further details. It seems likely to continue eastwards to Manbij, a region occupied by the SDF since it fought Islamic State (ISIS) forces in August 2016.

That development provoked Operation Euphrates Shield, an invasion by the Turkish army to block the Kurdish offensive in Syria and break up what Ankara called “a terror corridor along the Turkish border.”

Initial press reports of the Turkish attack were contradictory. Turkish officials and media unanimously hailed the operation as a great success. However, the YPG claimed to have repulsed Turkish and FSA forces “after fierce clashes.”

The Kurdish Communities Union (KCK), an umbrella group including the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) of Turkey and Kurdish organizations in Syria and Iran, condemned the operation and declared it would “stand by Afrin with all its strength.” In a written statement, it accused Russia and Syria of “permitting Turkey to attack Afrin.”

The offensive threatens to provoke civil war in Kurdish-majority areas of southern Turkey. Speaking in Bursa, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to crush all opposition within Turkey to the war, including from the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). “Whoever takes to the streets on the call of HDP, KCK and PKK should know that our security forces will keep a tight rein on them and they will pay a heavy price,” he said.

Late yesterday, Turkish media reported three missile attacks in the southeastern Turkish province of Reyhanlı, killing one and wounding 32 civilians.

Within Turkey, Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party is using the invasion to escalate its crackdown on political opposition, with the support of the opposition Republican People’s Party and the fascistic Nationalist Movement Party. Hundreds of people protesting the invasion were arrested in several Turkish cities. The judiciary launched investigations of Democratic Society Party (DTP) Co-Chair Leyla Güven, HDP spokesperson Ayhan Bilgen and HDP Deputy Co-Chair Nadir Yıldırım for criticizing the Afrin invasion.

Turkey was able to launch the operation only due to tacit Russian support. Moscow withdrew its forces stationed in Afrin as part of the Russian intervention against NATO-backed Islamist militias in Syria, and allowed Turkish aircraft to operate in the region’s air space. It also mediated for Turkey in relations with the Syrian and Iranian governments, which criticized the invasion.

Yesterday, Russian officials blamed Washington for the attack, saying it took “provocative steps” by saying it would arm the YPG and use it to control the Syrian-Turkish border.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry said Syria “strongly condemns the flagrant Turkish aggression on the city of Afrin, which is an integral part of Syrian territory, stressing that this aggression is the most recent in a series of Turkish transgressions against Syrian sovereignty.” It dismissed claims by Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu that Turkey had informed Syria beforehand, calling them “lies that the Turkish government continues to spout.”

Iran, Syria's main regional ally, said it hoped that “the operation will immediately come to an end.”

Turkey’s invasion of Syria is the outcome of decades of escalating carnage and imperialist war in the Middle East, led by Washington, since the Persian Gulf War and the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the USSR, both of which occurred in 1991. With the removal of the Soviet military threat, Washington was free to launch ever bloodier wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and beyond, with the aid of some or all of its NATO allies. It is increasingly clear, however, that the growing international conflicts provoked by these wars, including Ankara’s outrage over US reliance on Kurdish proxy forces, have reached an entirely new stage.

As Turkey moves to destroy the main US proxy force in Syria, NATO is on the verge of collapse and Washington is increasingly isolated. It faces a powerful coalition of opponents in the Middle East that enjoys support even among Washington’s nominal European allies. It is responding by announcing a military strategy that centers on preparations for total war against nuclear-armed powers such as Russia and China.

Initial US statements on the invasion were unclear and self-contradictory. US State Department sources said that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had spoken to his Russian and Turkish counterparts about “securing stability in the north of the country,” but gave no details. Pentagon officials said they “encourage all parties to avoid escalation and to focus on the most important task of defeating the Islamic State.”

In fact, the Pentagon on Friday unveiled a National Defense Strategy that proclaims the “war on terror” to have been supplanted by the need to prepare for war against rival great powers. “Great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of US national security,” Defense Secretary James Mattis said as he unveiled the document, which singles out Russia and China as the preeminent threats to US global dominance.

The US is clearly concerned with the Turkish invasion. The Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, warned that it “could trigger a new, bloody phase of the long-running Syrian civil war” and “may also be aimed at the United States,” which “has spent three years balancing a troubled relationship with Turkey with the imperatives of the counter-IS campaign in Syria.” The Center for American Progress statement continued, “With the end of that campaign in sight, that balancing act is once again teetering on the brink.”

The contrast to the policy of Germany, the leading European power, could not be more striking. Berlin appears to have green-lighted the invasion. Last Wednesday, as Turkish artillery strikes on YPG positions began and Erdogan’s National Security Council threatened to invade Syria, a delegation of high-level Turkish security officials arrived for two days of friendly talks in Berlin. In these talks, German and Turkish officials discussed measures against the Kurds.

As the German press discussed Berlin’s “new turn back” toward Turkey, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said Berlin intended to have “better negotiations” with Ankara, “for the benefit of Turkey, Germany and Europe.” Berlin announced a new crackdown on PKK activities in Germany, with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office opening 130 investigations.

Berlin also signaled that Turkey will continue to enjoy German military support even after attacking US proxies in Syria. It did so by moving to fast-track Turkey’s requests for the modernization of its German “Leopard” tanks by Rheinmetall. “The federal government is showing itself to be flexible in its new turn back towards Turkey,” Der Spiegel wrote. “According to Der Spiegel’s sources, Berlin now wants to give the nod to a multi-million-euro arms deal with Ankara.”

These statements of German support for Turkey even as it bombards US proxy forces in Syria point to the profound tensions tearing apart the NATO military alliance and the escalating danger of direct conflict between the major world powers.

The class issues in the US federal shutdown

Patrick Martin

The partial shutdown of the US federal government continued into Sunday night without any clear possibility of immediate resolution. Much of the civilian federal workforce is expected either to report for work only briefly Monday, turning in official cellphones and laptops and closing down their workplaces, or to stay home entirely. As many as 800,000 would be furloughed.

The shutdown was sparked by discussions between Republicans and Democrats on immigration policy, and the outcome will be a further shift to the right in official American politics. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, the chief Democratic negotiator, signaled this with his capitulation to Trump Friday, when he visited the White House for one-on-one talks, and proffered a deal in which Trump would receive full funding to build his wall along the US-Mexico border, in return for legalization of the nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children and protected under the DACA program.

In effect, Trump will have used his rescinding of the executive order that established DACA to win Democratic Party support for the building of the wall, his signature campaign promise to the ultra-right political “base.” Such a deal would strengthen Trump immeasurably, breathing new life into an administration that was in dire crisis. That Trump senses the Democrats’ prostration was shown by his decision to spurn Schumer’s offer and demand even more concessions, including a sharp reduction in legal immigration.

The proposed deal demonstrates that the Democratic Party does not want to bring down the Trump administration, but rather induce Trump to be more “reasonable” and involve the Democrats as a partner in carrying out his right-wing political agenda. The Democrats in the end wanted the shutdown, preferably a brief one, to provide a cover and excuse for doing what they have already decided to do: back Trump’s border wall.

Trump is only stepping up his appeal to fascistic elements, with his reelection campaign having released a television ad saying that Democrats who oppose his attacks on immigrants “will be complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants.”

In terms of the actual impact of the government shutdown, the military and other uniformed federal services, including the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and TSA baggage and passenger screeners at airports will report for duty, although paychecks will be held back until Congress approves retroactive payment, as it has in every previous federal shutdown.

According to the Trump administration—and on this, there is no difference between the Republican president and his “opposition” among the congressional Democrats—the vast American military-intelligence apparatus must remain on duty, killing people overseas, patrolling battlefields on distant continents, and spying on the entire world, including the American population.

As Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan wrote in a memo Thursday, the US military “will, of course, continue to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and ongoing operations against Al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, including preparation of forces for deployment into those conflicts.”

But federal government functions that actually relate to the health and welfare of the American people will be shut down as inessential. This includes furloughing more than 60 percent of the staff of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (under conditions of a rampaging nationwide flu epidemic), 80 percent of the Department of Education (including supplementary funding for local public schools throughout the country), and a staggering 95 percent of the employees of the National Transportation Safety Board, (shutting down investigations into such disasters as the recent commuter rail crash in Washington state).

The determination of which federal offices and functions will remain open as “essential” and which will be closed provides an insight into the real character of the capitalist state machine. It corresponds entirely to the description by Frederick Engels, the great collaborator of Karl Marx, of the state as “special bodies of armed men,” including prisons and other facilities for internal repression as well as external aggression.

The social services provided or supported by the federal government were only established as a byproduct of great struggles of the working class, from the 1930s through the 1960s, and are regarded by the American ruling elite as an unnecessary and increasingly unaffordable luxury under conditions of the long-term economic decline of American capitalism in relation to its foreign rivals.

As a political event, the federal shutdown is a demonstration that the American ruling elite as a whole, and not just Trump personally, is “unfit” to run a large, complex society of more than 330 million people. Perhaps the most truthful comment from a US congressman came from Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, who told the press Friday, “our country was founded by geniuses, but it’s being run by idiots.” It would be more precise to say criminals, but one can expect only so much from a senator.

A bitter conflict between two right-wing parties—driven largely by factional disputes over foreign policy that are being concealed from the American people—now threatens the continuation of basic public services on which tens of millions of people depend. There will be real damage, in terms of health care, environmental protection and other social needs, to say nothing of the wages lost by workers who are furloughed, and the economic impact on small businesses dependent on federal contracts.

The cynical political maneuvering of the Democrats as 2018 begins, follows and flows from their role in Trump’s first year—suppressing working class opposition and seeking to direct it behind the conflict within the ruling class over issues of foreign policy, while in practice facilitating Trump’s reactionary domestic policies.

Whatever the immediate result of the political deadlock in Washington, there will be no progressive outcome without the independent intervention of the working class against both the capitalist parties. If they are allowed to work through this crisis, the twin parties of the US ruling elite will produce only more social disasters and more attacks on the jobs, living standards and democratic rights of working people, as well as a further shift in foreign policy in the direction of war and militarism.

Iran Protests: Drivers and Consequences

Majid Izadpanahi


While much of the world was busy celebrating the new year, Iran was enveloped in protests. Spread across 70 cities, these protests began in the Shiite holy city of Mashhad in reaction to endemic inflation that has plagued the Iranian economy.

This demonstration was more significant than the Green Movement in 2009 or any previous demonstrations Iran has faced. Firstly, the Green Movement opposed the election of Ahmadinejad and was driven by the participation of the middle class and restricted to three or four large cities with a clear slogan, “Where Is My Vote?” This protest was much more widespread, targeting external policies perceived to have a direct influence on the current economic downturn and hence the average Iranian's standard of living. These policies include Iran’s involvement in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, leading to slogans like “Let Go of Syria, Think of Us,” or “No Gaza, No Lebanon, My Life for Iran.” Secondly, this protest was spontaneous, organised through the Internet - specifically a messaging application called Telegram - without leadership, and lacked the support of the established reformists as some of these voters have lost their faith in them and President Rouhani. Surprisingly, two conservative and religious cities – Mashhad and Qom – witnessed anti-Islamic Republic and pro-Iranian royal family slogans. 

Though triggered by inflation, there are many factors motivating the demonstrations: inflation, unemployment, pervasive corruption and embezzlement, to name but a few. These causes absorbed the nationwide protest organised a few months earlier by  people who lost money invested in financial institutions that became bankrupt. These earlier protests led by the normal salaried class comprising a spectrum, from teachers, to bus drivers and labourers, intensified after the earthquake in Western Iran and the lack of governmental aid to the survivors. Protestors were further aggravated when President Rouhani allocated more funds for religious institutes than other crucial administrative organisations, such as the Organisation of the Environment, which looks after Iran's many environment-related problems. In short, these protests represent a far wider cross-section of the population than previous protests. 

The Government's Approach
While officials accepted the right to protest and admitted to the existence of economic problems, they accused foreign powers - Saudi Arabia, the US, and Israel - of instigating the demonstrations. Consequently, the government response was three-fold: force, counter-propaganda, and censorship. Riot police was used to crack down on and arrest protestors. The counter-narrative of a foreign hand was created, stoking nationalist sentiments through mass media and organised pro-government demonstrations. Finally, apps like Telegram, Instagram and Facebook were blocked.

Consequences 
All of this leads to two main questions relating to the durability of the protests, and their consequences.

The demonstrations began based on economic motivations but very soon turned into political demands as they correctly blamed the officials’ inability to solve problems. Signs of confusion among Iranian officials over the state of affairs are visible. They failed to grapple with the demands of the demonstrators and resorted to deflection tactics accusing other countries. As long as the disillusionment with the economic function of the government and the grounds for discontent exist, the possibility of recurrent protests remains open.

While previous protests had been supported by reformists within Iran, the current demonstrations can be considered a third force outside the established political system, and beyond the reformist-fundamentalist equation. In fact, this third pole has pushed the reformists and fundamentalists closer to each other, possibly leading to the emergence of a new pro and anti-government equation. In other words, a new political makeup. 

Overplaying the foreign conspiracy angle may undermine President Rouhani’s détente foreign policy and bring about a new round of tensions between Iran and the West. The US is planning new political sanctions on Iran due to “the violation of human rights.” The continuation or recurrence of the protests may prevent foreign investments in Iran, especially in the energy sector, preventing any short-term bubbles or deeper economic recovery. 

Ultimately, if these protests achieve political amplification well beyond their current significance, the consequences will depend entirely on the reaction of the government to them.

A Global Nuclear Order in Crisis

Sheel Kant Sharma


The year 2017 saw the iconic clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists slide to two-and-a-half minutes to midnight. It is set closer than ever to the brink except in 1952 when US-Soviet hydrogen bomb tests within six months of each other had pushed it to two minutes to midnight. In fact, the furthest it came from midnight was 17 minutes in 1991 after the end of the Cold War with a raft of nuclear arms control measures agreed by Washington and Moscow. In the past 26 years, that reassuring distance from doomsday has again diminished steadily as deterioration rather than improvements have been the hall mark of great power relations. Besides, since 2007, the danger of a climate change catastrophe has combined with nuclear peril in the analysis of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. 

 The last hopeful moment for this clock was in 2009 when the  Nobel Prize for peace was awarded to President Obama. That was an investment in hope aroused by Obama’s pitch on abolition of nuclear weapons and his inclination to drafting a Nuclear Posture Review much less prone to resort to nuclear weapons (all he could eventually muster in 2010 was narrowing the definition of the country facing an “extreme circumstance”). In contrast, last year’s Nobel to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) for its determined campaign for the Ban Treaty had a marked sense of despair. In just eight years, hope has given way to rising unease and hopelessness. 

As things stand today, even tentative global rules – written and unwritten – for managing the nuclear age and avoidance of nuclear war have suffered severe damage. The damage appears to have been to the core. These rules as one understood them comprised a seven decade-old informal taboo against nuclear weapons, a tacit assurance among nuclear weapon states about not crossing red lines regarding respective security sensitivities, and observance of the international as well as bilateral treaties and understanding. All that compendium is severely undermined today by a number of threatening developments. A fervent urgency to respond with finality to North Korea’s provocations and North Korean actions in continued defiance are on one end of the spectrum. The weak response to the Ban Treaty by the nuclear weapon states while dismissing its clarion call figures somewhere in the middle. The inherent logic of the Ban Treaty’s prohibition is not challenged by those rejecting it. Among the argumentation adduced for their rejection are the familiar deterrence stability theories and security architecture based on nuclear weapons and also fears about the adverse impact of the Ban Treaty on the long-standing NPT. 

A breakdown in communication between Moscow and Washington about the path-breaking treaties of late last century seems to be almost complete with openly voiced intentions on their part to outstrip the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing new medium range missiles. The entente among the P5 about managing a world with nuclear weapons is at its weakest. Politics among nations seem to override today the almost century old wisdom of commonly pursuing agreed restraints on weapons; restraints which commenced with the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and progressively gained heft in the half century after World War II. The chimera still burns of a miracle breakthrough in technology that would trounce one’s adversary by beating all technologies of weapons, both offensive and defensive. Outlaws like North Korea meanwhile resolutely pursue the trodden path to acquire and test old-fashioned nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. The past year saw a harrowing spectacle of it in North Korea’s tests of hydrogen bomb and long range missile capable of hitting mainland US; capped by the threat of a demonstrative atmospheric nuclear test. Were that to happen the comity of nations would backtrack to 1980 when China had last conducted its nuclear test in the atmosphere. 

 There is no realistic chance in this setting of nuclear 'haves' agreeing to move further on reductions or even accept declaratory constraints on use of nuclear weapons. India and China maintain No First Use (NFU) doctrines although given the miasma that prevails, such exceptions are likely drowned in uncertainty. 

The roots of this uncertainty stem from widening divergence and lack of trust among Russia, China and the US on security, growing gaps in their approaches to global tensions, including in Ukraine, North East Asia and the Indo-Pacific, and flaring up of dangerous psychoses in West and South Asia against Iran, Syria and in Afghanistan. One captious ground against the ‘deterrence-only’ role of nuclear weapons has been extended deterrence, which seems to be challenged when South Korean president shows his pronounced unease about the dangerous nuclear war rhetoric. South Korean preference for dialogue and sanctions is reminiscent of Helmut Kohl’s Cold War Oestpolitik and the panic of many in Germany as potential victims of deterrence failure rather than beneficiaries of European missile deployment.  

The passionate advocacy of the Ban Treaty falls short of carrying conviction with those toward whom it is directed. Only a minority among the nine nuclear-armed states values the merit of the campaign which highlights that the world is just "a tantrum away" from doomsday, to quote from the Nobel ceremony. The latest news reports indicate that a draft US Nuclear Posture Review in US visualises a devastating cyber attack as an "extreme circumstance” for resorting to use of nuclear weapons. A host of questions arise about likely pre-emption or retaliation targets and a repeat of post 9/11 arguments about terror attacks justifying nuclear weapons’ use. On the other hand, reports about Russian possession of an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven intercontinental nuclear torpedo portend a new spiral of escalation.

There is, for an optimist, a faint trickle of light that shines on North Korea’s upcoming participation in the Winter Olympics in South Korea and prospect of dialogue or positive turn of events there, Iran deal’s surviving yet another killer deadline and unconfirmed informal contacts between US State Department officials and counterparts in Moscow on these issues. The enlightened appeal of the Ban Treaty in these trying times, however, is for doing much more than clutching at straws in the wind. 

DAAD-RUFORUM In-Country/In-Region Doctoral Scholarships for African Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 8th February 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: These scholarships are targeting both in-country/in-region (sub-Saharan Africa) applicants to support selected RUFORUM regional PhD Programmes in the Eastern and Central Africa (ECA). The scholarships are tenable for the 2018/19 academic period. DAAD promotes international academic exchange as well as educational cooperation with developing countries through various funding and scholarship programmes. The PhD training programmes will commence in September 2018; therefore, only candidates available to start the PhD training this September 2018 need to apply.

Fields of Study: The call is open to students who are interested/ registered in the following programmes:

• PhD in Life Sciences at Nelson Mandela African Institution of Sciences and Technology – Tanzania (2 in-region)
• PhD in Food Science and Nutrition at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology – Kenya (1 in-region & 1 in-country)
• PhD in Plant Breeding & Biotechnology – Makerere University, Uganda(1 in-region & 1 in-country);
• PhD Agricultural and Rural Innovations at Makerere University, Uganda (1 in-region & 1 in- country)

Type: PhD

Eligibility: 

• Applications are invited from qualified candidates in relevant disciplines (the last university degree (MSc) must have been completed less than six years ago at the time of application) from Sub Saharan Africa.
• Female applicants, candidates from less privileged regions or groups as well as candidates with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply.
• It is important to note that applicants with other funding sources for their PhD programmes will not be considered for the DAAD/RUFORUM scholarships.

Number of Awardees: up to 8

Duration of Scholarship: The PhD Scholarships are available for a period of three years beginning in September 2018. The scholarships will be initially granted for one year and may be extended upon individual student request and receipt of a complete application by using the attached form provided by DAAD secretariat.

How to Apply: 

1. Certified copies of all university degree certificates
2. Certified copies of all university transcripts
3. At least temporary admission letter including fee structure of respective course (original or certified copy only), or an official letter assuring admission
4. A Ph.D. research proposal (which must demonstrate relevance to development (the sections should include research area (background, rationale, objectives of the proposed research, proposed Methodology, and expected Results) and a detailed work plan (10 to 15 pages); plagiarism will be checked by DAAD!
5. An abstract of the proposal on one page (please include name and title of proposal)
6. A recommendation letter by head of department indicating that you are a member or prospective member of staff and how you will be integrated into the staff development agenda of the university.
7. Confirmation of study leave from your university (if applicable)
8. Confirmation of teaching release (university staff members only)
9. A letter from the applicant confirming availability to start PhD studies in September 2018 at the host university

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: DAAD, The Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM)

Open Society’s Civil Society Scholar Awards for Doctoral Research Students and Faculties 2018

Application Deadline: 31st March 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: See Below

Type: Research Grants, Awards

Eligibility: The awards are open to the following academic populations:

• doctoral students of eligible fields studying at accredited universities inside or outside of their home country
• full-time faculty members teaching at universities in their home country

Candidates must be citizens of the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Kosovo, Laos, Libya,Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Myanmar/Burma, Nepal, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Serbia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Yemen.

Selection Criteria: Civil Society Scholars are selected on the basis of their outstanding contributions to research or other engagement with local communities, to furthering debates on challenging societal questions, and to strengthening critical scholarship and academic networks within their fields.

Requests for support for first-year tuition and fees only will be considered on the basis of a clearly demonstrated need from doctoral students who have gained admission to universities outside of their home country.

Selected grantees may be invited by CSSA to attend short-term trainings/summer school, and a participant conference during the grant period. Travel costs and accommodation for these events will be covered by CSSA.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Program: Maximum funding requests: $10,000 for doctoral students; $15,000 for faculty members.

The awards support short-term, international academic projects, such as: fieldwork (data collection); research visits to libraries, archives, or universities; course/curriculum development; and international research collaborations leading to peer-reviewed publication.

Duration of Program: 

• Project duration: between two and nine months
• Eligible dates: September 1, 2018 – August 31, 2019

How to Apply: Detailed guidelines on the conditions of these awards are available in the Program Webpage link below.

• Online Applications: Applicants are strongly advised to submit their application online.
• Paper Applications: For those wishing to submit a paper application, an application form and budget/timeline template can be downloaded from the Download Files section.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Open Society Foundation

Middle East and North Africa MENA Scholarship Programme (MSP) for Students in North Africa 2018 – The Netherlands

Application Deadline: April 2018. Participating institutions have different application deadlines. Please check the website of your desired school for individual deadline

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman and Tunisia. 

To be taken at (country): The Netherlands

Accepted Subject Areas: You can use an MSP scholarship for a number of selected short courses in one of the following fields of study:

• Economics
• Commerce
• Management and Accounting
• Agriculture and Environment
• Mathematics
• Natural sciences and Computer sciences
• Engineering
• Law Public Administration
• Public order and Safety
• Humanities
• Social sciences
• Communication and Arts

About Scholarship: The MENA Scholarship Programme (MSP) enables professionals from ten selected countries to participate in a short course in the Netherlands. The overall aim of the MSP is to contribute to the democratic transition in the participating countries. It also aims at building capacity within organisations, by enabling employees to take part in short courses in various fields of study.
There are scholarships available for short courses with a duration of two to twelve weeks.

Target group:  The MSP target group consists of professionals, aged up to 45, who are nationals of and work in one of the selected countries.
Scholarships are awarded to individuals, but the need for training must be demonstrated within the context of the organisation for which the applicant works. The training must help the organisation develop its capacity. Therefore, applicants must be nominated by their employers who have to motivate their nomination in a supporting letter.

Selection Criteria: The candidates must be nationals of and working in one of the selected countries.

Who is qualified to apply:

• must be a national of, and working and living in one of the countries on the MSP country list valid at the time of application;
• must have an employer’s statement that complies with the format EP-Nuffic has provided. All information must be provided and all commitments that are included in the format must be endorsed in the statement;
• must not be employed by an organisation that has its own means of staff-development. Organisations that are considered to have their own means for staff development are for example:
  • multinational corporations (e.g. Shell, Unilever, Microsoft),
  • large national and/or a large commercial organisations,
  • bilateral donor organisations (e.g. USAID, DFID, Danida, Sida, Dutch ministry of Foreign affairs, FinAid, AusAid, ADC, SwissAid),
  • multilateral donor organisations, (e.g. a UN organization, the World Bank, the IMF, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IADB),
  • international NGO’s (e.g. Oxfam, Plan, Care);
• must have an official and valid passport (valid at least three months after the candidate’s submission date);
• must have a government statement that meets the requirements of the country in which the employer is established (if applicable);
• must not be over 45 years of age at the time of the grant submission.

Number of Scholarship:  Several

Value: A MENA scholarship is a contribution to the costs of the selected short course and is intended to supplement the salary that the scholarship holder must continue to receive during the study period.

The following items are covered:

• subsistence allowance
• international travel costs
• visa costs
• course fee
• medical insurance
• allowance for study materials.

The allowances are considered to be sufficient to cover one person’s living expenses during the study period. The scholarship holders must cover any other costs from their own resources.

How to Apply: You need to apply directly at the Dutch higher education institution of your choice.

1. Check whether you are in the abovementioned target groups.
2. Check whether your employer will nominate you.
3. An overview of the MSP courses available for the April 2018 deadline will be available in February 2018.
4. Contact the Dutch higher education institution that offers the course of your choice to find out whether this course is eligible for an MSP scholarship and how to apply.

It is important to go through the application information details on the Scholarship Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: The MENA Scholarship Programme is initiated and fully funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Important Notes: MSP is not currently open to applicants applying from Syria. Applicants with the Syrian nationality may however apply if they are residing and working in one of the other selected MSP countries.

Hack Reactor Coding Scholarship for Tech Students 2018 – USA

Application Deadline: 23rd February, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): United States of America

About the Award: Hack Reactor believes in a more diverse and equitable tech workforce. As part of our Diversity and Inclusion efforts, we will be awarding at least 50% of all scholarships to underrepresented groups in software engineering*. Women, People of Color and LGBTQ community members are strongly encouraged to apply.

Type: Training

Selection Criteria: This scholarship is merit based and everyone is welcome to apply.

• Clear, Empathic Communicators
• Passionate, intelligent learners
• JavaScript Fundamentals

Number of Awardees: Not specified

How to Apply: Begin by filling out the first part of the application form. From there, you will be redirected to the full scholarship application form. You will need to complete all portions of the scholarship application, then be accepted into the program via the standard Hack Reactor admissions process to be considered for the scholarship.

Apply Now

Check out this FAQ for more information.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Hack Reactor

Koffi Addo Prize for Creative Nonfiction African Writers 2018

Application Deadline: 31st March 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (country): Kampala, Uganda

Type: Contest/Award

Eligibility: 

1. Entrants must be unpublished writers (unpublished here means those who have not had a book published), resident in an African country. Questions of eligibility shall be resolved by the CACE administration and their decision is final.
2. The writer must include in the body of the email, other information about him/her i.e country of residence, age, legal name and pen name (where applicable) and telephone contact.
3. Only one entry per writer may be submitted for the Koffi Addo Writivism Prize for Creative Nonfiction. The story must be original and previously unpublished in any form (including on the writer’s personal blog).
4. All entries will be checked automatically for plagiarism using electronic software. Entries found to be plagiarized will be disqualified without notification to the writer.
5. All entries must be in English, and 2,500 – 3,500 words long.
6. Entries should be attached in Microsoft Word or Rich Text formats, with the title of the story as the file name. The first page of the story should include the title of the story and the number of words.
7. The entry must be typed in Times New Roman 12 point font and 1.5 line spacing. No mention should be made on the identity of the writer in the entry.
8. Entrants agree as a condition of entry that CACE may publicize the fact that a story has been entered or shortlisted for the Prize. Worldwide copyright of each story remains with the writer. CACE will have the unrestricted right to publish and translate the short-listed stories in an anthology and elsewhere.
9. The writer shall not publish the shortlisted story elsewhere, until ten years from the first date of the original publication by CACE.
10. Longlisted writers will edit their stories with a commissioned editor prior to publication in the annual anthology. Failure to cooperate with the editorial team will lead to exclusion of the story from the anthology.

Value of Award: 

1. Shortlisted writers may be invited to attend the annual Writivism Festival in Kampala, Uganda, in August 2018.
2. The winner of the prize will be awarded $500 (USD) cash and may be considered for a one-month writing residency at a university in an African country.
3. The winner will be required to produce a complete first draft of a publishable creative nonfiction manuscript before the residency.
4. The winner, on taking up the residency commits to publishing the manuscript edited through the residency, under the Writivism Series with a CACE partner publisher.

How to Apply: 

• Entries must be submitted online, by emailing them to info@writivism.com as attachments (not in the body of the email), clearly labelled in the subject: 2018 Koffi Addo Prize.
• The writer must include in the body of the email, other information about him/her i.e country of residence, age, legal name and pen name (where applicable) and telephone contact.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Award Provider: Writivism

GSK Scholarships for Future Health Leaders in sub-Saharan Africa (Fully-funded to study in UK) 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 18th February 2018

Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan Africa

To be Taken at (country): UK

About the Award: These highly competitive scholarships are available to applicants intending to study on a one-year, full-time, London-based MSc programme at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To be eligible for these scholarships, applicants must

• be nationals of, and resident in, countries in sub-Saharan Africa; and
• intend to return to sub-Saharan Africa on completion of their MSc year at the School; and
• confirm in writing that they would not otherwise be able to pay for the proposed programme of study; and
• meet the School’s minimum English language requirements; and
• hold a first degree at either a first or upper second class equivalency level, and
• hold an offer of admission for 2018-19 for one of the School’s 18 London-based MSc programmes of study.

Preference will be given to applicants who demonstrate (in their application documentation) the potential to make significant contributions to public health and/or health-related research in Africa.

Number of Awards: 3

Value of Award: Each scholarship will cover

• tuition fees, including any mandatory field trip fees, and
• a tax-free stipend (living allowance) of GBP16,750.00.

Duration of Program: 1 year

How to Apply: Applicants should complete both steps below by the scholarship deadline.

• Step 1: Submit an application for 2018-19 for a London-based MSc programme of study (See link in Program Webpage), as per instructions under the ‘How to Apply’ tab on the relevant programme of study page. Applicants should ensure that all necessary supplementary documents (including references) are submitted via the School’s Admissions Portal by the scholarship deadline.
• Step 2: Submit an online scholarships application, selecting this scholarship option from the drop-down menu. A completed Supplementary Questions Form for this scholarship must be uploaded as part of this application. This is the only attachment required in Step 2 (as applicants should have already submitted references; transcripts; a CV etc with their application for study).

If you encounter any technical difficulties whilst using the online application system please contact LSHTM IT by email, providing them with your full name; the scholarship that you are applying for; and the issue that you have encountered. Please attach a screen shot of the difficulty.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Award Provider: GSK

Important Notes: 

• Applicants who have already submitted a completed 2018-19 London-based MSc application and/or have been made an Offer of Admission should apply for the scholarship by completing the scholarship application (Step 2 above) and submitting this by the scholarship deadline.
• Incomplete applications will not be considered for this funding. Incomplete applications include those with missing supplementary documentation at either/both Steps 1 and 2 above. Both the application to study and the scholarship application must be complete by the scholarship deadline.
• If you have a deferred offer of admission from the 2017-18 cycle you do not need to resubmit your application to study at the school. You will need to submit a scholarships application.
• These scholarships are open to applicants for any of the 18 non-distance learning programmes offered by the School (including our joint programmes: MSc Global Mental Health; MSc Health Policy, Planning & Financing; MSc One Health; MSc Veterinary Epidemiology). Please note that for the following programmes you will be directed to the joint provider to complete your application to study as the School does not administer the admissions for these courses: MSc Global Mental Health; MSc One Health; MSc Veterinary Epidemiology.
• By applying for this funding applicants agree to its Terms & Conditions.

Full-Spectrum Arrogance: US Bases Span the Globe

Ann Garrison

Late last year, a divided Congress approved a military spending bill of 700 billion dollars, more than either the President or the Pentagon had requested. Hundreds of billions will go to US military bases and troops on foreign soil. The US is the largest, most lethal military power in human history with seven geographic commands spanning the globe, but that didn’t stop the new Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases from holding its first conference at the University of Baltimore from Friday to Sunday, January 12 to 14.

Here are just a few voices from the conference.

Leah Bolger, retired US military commander, full-time peace activist, and past President of Veterans for Peace:

“This conference is the first action, the first event, of a relatively new coalition, which is a coalition against US foreign military bases that has come together with 13 charter organizations. We are joined to address the issue of US foreign bases, which are everywhere—somewhere between 800 and 1000. It’s ridiculous.”

David Swanson, co-founder of World Beyond War and author of the books “War is a Lie” and “War is Never Just”:

“Y’know, I watch a lot of basketball games because the University of Virginia is so darn good, and I’m just disgusted because at every single game, they thank the troops for watching from 175—sometimes they say more than 175 or 177—countries. They thank the “almost a million men and women serving our country.” They don’t explain what the service is, they don’t explain why they have to be in 177 countries. They don’t explain that there are only about 200 countries on earth, and that there are at least a dozen more countries they’re not telling us about. These are the ones they admit to.

“What are they doing there? What are they needed for? In some cases, it’s thousands; in some it’s tens of thousands. There are 50,000 troops still in Germany, still winning World War II three quarters of a century later. It’s insanity, and of course it costs hundreds of billions of dollars. People who think that we’re running low on money and we can’t afford things should understand that we could afford anything we wanted if we didn’t do things this stupid.”

Ajamu Baraka, Black Agenda Report Editor, Founder of the National Black Alliance for Peace, and 2016 Green Party vice presidential candidate:

“We have a task before us this weekend. We have to struggle among ourselves to build a base line for unity, because we know that all of us may not be there in terms of being prepared to take a clear class line, we may not be in full agreement about what national oppression and national liberation mean, we may not agree about the character of this state. But we can agree that anytime you have this state involved in direct intervention, anytime you have this nation attacking another nation, that is a crime that all of us can be united in opposing.”

The Real News Network, based there in Baltimore, livestreamed the event from gavel to gavel, and I produced a brief KPFA Radio-Berkeley News report while watching and downloading audio. However, I seemed to be the only other press to take any interest, beyond the websites of the conference participants themselves. So on Monday I nominated the conference and its video archive for a Project Censored Award. I recommend all eight sessions now on the YouTube:

Public Meeting/International Night; US Foreign Policy and the Strategic Role of Foreign Military Bases

History and Economic Costs of US Foreign Military Bases

The Environmental and Health Impact of US Foreign Military Bases

South America and Guantanamo; Asia Pacific and the Pivot to Asia

The Middle East: US/NATO Plan

Europe and the Expansion of NATO

AFRICOM and the Invasion of Africa

Coalition’s Future Plan of Action

In the final session, reps from the 13 founding organizations met to hammer out their unity statement and plan the next conference. The location isn’t yet set, but it will take place on US-occupied foreign soil, so there’s a world of possibilities.

Women Pay a Grievous Price in Congo’s Conflict

Cesar Chelala

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) is a country of many paradoxes. Potentially among the riches countries in the world, it is now one of the poorest. The reason for this paradoxical situation: ravaging internal and external conflicts. One of its most dire consequences is that its female population, although young, energetic, and entrepreneurial, has suffered grievously. Women rape victims are numbered in the tens of thousands.

Congo has a deadly combination of warring ethnic groups, a weak and corrupt central government, greedy political and military leaders, and international corporations and neighboring countries eager to exploit the country’s abundant resources. Their illegal exploitation is taking place at a brutally swift pace.

The situation remains volatile, particularly in eastern Congo where civilians are targets of vicious attacks from government forces and armed groups, dozens of them active. Their commanders have been accused of ethnic massacres, rapes of women and children, forced recruitment of minors and widespread pillage.

Most rapists are soldiers, and a significant proportion of them are HIV-infected. “Rape is an engine of HIV infection,” said Anne-Christine d’Adesky, an American journalist and AIDS and human rights activist. Transmitting the infection to women can be a death sentence for them, since few resources are available to treat the infection.

Rape is a brutal way of showing male dominance, frequently conducted in public in front of husbands and children. Dr. Denis Mukwege, who does extraordinary work in treating rape victims, calls this behavior “toxic masculinity”.

Rape has many other negative effects, medical and social, and it has an impact on families and communities. Gang rape -a frequent occurrence in Congo- can provoke internal bleeding and vaginal fistulas, which prevent women from controlling their bodily functions. Dr. Mukwege, believes that warfare is responsible for these massive cases of rape.

Besides humiliating their victims, men also commit rape to debase their ethnic, tribal or religious group. In addition to the obvious physical and psychological violence of the act itself, many women get pregnant as a result of the rape. Even when pregnancy doesn’t occur, a significant proportion of men still reject their wives, mothers or daughters because of the stigma attached to rape. Among the survivors, many are forced to become sex slaves.

Some of the raped women have found that speaking about the crime committed against them reduces the stigmatization associated with the act. In Shabunda, a territory in South Kivu, victims have formed a psychological support group of 500 members. This is an important endeavor, since medical staff in charge of treating these women is poorly trained in offering psychological treatment and have no equipment to treat them medically.

In some areas, priests fill an important function. They publicize the availability of medical treatment and counseling for victims of sexual violence. In so doing, they contribute to reduce the stigma, and make it easier for victims to seek help.

Dr. Mukwege believes that African societies will not advance until they address the impact of both ‘toxic masculinity’ and the negative cultural norms on women. For African women, the time to reclaim their rights is now.