21 Feb 2018

University of Bridgeport Global Leader of Tomorrow (Fully-funded) Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019 – USA

Application Deadline: 1st April, 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Connecticut, USA

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: Applicants must demonstrate full English language proficiency, and possess the equivalent of a 3.5 Grade Point Average (GPA) or higher on a scale of 4.

Selection Criteria: Students will be selected on the basis of their academic performance in their secondary school studies and through a nomination provided by the student’s high school counselor or the local EducationUSA advisor. Nominations from other sources will not be accepted.
Final selection will be made based on the student’s potential for growth, academic performance, community involvement, and leadership, as demonstrated through academic transcripts, test scores, the counselor’s letter of nomination, and the student-authored supplementary essay.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The Global Leaders of Tomorrow Full Scholarship will cover:
  • the full cost of tuition and fees
  • cost of room and board in an on-campus residency hall for the duration of four years of undergraduate studies for first-time freshman students
Students receiving this scholarship are required to:
  • pay a minimal housing fee each semester
  • enroll in and pay for the University of Bridgeport’s mandatory health insurance
Duration of Scholarship: 4 years

How to Apply: Students must personally apply directly to the University of Bridgeport. Applications submitted through a third party will not be considered for the Global Leaders of Tomorrow Scholarship.

Apply For This Scholarship

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Bridgeport

University of Sheffield Merit Undergraduate Scholarships for Developing Regions 2018/2019

Application Timeline: 
  • A link to the online scholarship application will be sent by email to all eligible offer holders from February onwards.
  • You must have received an offer by 13th April 2018.
  • You must choose the University of Sheffield as your firm choice by Friday 20th April 2018.
  • The deadline for scholarship applications is 16:00 (UK time) on Friday 20th April 2018.
  • Scholarship results will be announced by 16:00 (UK time) on Friday 25th May 2018.
Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at (country): UK

Eligible Field of Study: All

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: 
  • To be eligible for the scholarships, applicants must be a national of or permanently domiciled in one of the following:
    • East and South Africa: Kenya, Uganda, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania, Mauritius
    • Middle East and North Africa: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco
    • South East Asia: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam
    • Hong Kong, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Japan, S. Korea, Norway, Turkey
  • Applicants must have applied for and been offered a study place at the University of Sheffield to be eligible to apply for the scholarship.
  • Applicants must apply for a study place by Friday 13 April 2018 for entry in September 2018 to be eligible to apply for the scholarship.
  • The scholarship will not be available to applicants who have made the University of Sheffield their insurance choice.
  • The scholarship application is a separate online process to applying for a course. A link to the online scholarship application will be sent by email to all eligible students from January onwards.
  • The scholarship will be awarded on the the basis of academic merit and the supporting statement. The final decision will be made by an academic panel.
  • The scholarship is guaranteed in the first year of study and you can also receive this in each subsequent year of study, subject to achieving 60% or above in the previous academic year. This excludes any years in industry or study abroad periods. This applies to all undergraduate programmes except Medicine and Dentistry. Students of Medicine or Dentistry will only receive the scholarship for the non-clinical years (Medicine years 1 & 2 and Dentistry year 1)
  • The scholarship can be awarded in conjunction with other University of Sheffield scholarships as long as the individual does not become fully funded, for tuition fee purposes, as a result of the sum of these awards.
  • The scholarships will take the form of a tuition fee reduction only.
  • You must be self-funding and classified as overseas for tuition fee purposes.
  • The scholarship will not be awarded where partial funding is applicable from an external body and there is an agreement already in place between the external body and the University of Sheffield to offer a tuition fee discount to the student.
  • The scholarships are for full-time and part-time students only. Students studying online or via distance learning are not eligible for the scholarships.
  • Part-time students will receive the full value of a one year of scholarship split pro rata over the duration of an equivalent single full-time academic year.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 50% tuition waiver

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of programme

How to Apply: A link to the online scholarship application will be sent by email to all eligible students from January onwards. First apply for admission into any of the school’s Undergraduate programs by Friday 13th April 2017

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Sheffield

Adelaide Scholarships International (ASI) Australia for Masters & Doctoral Studies 2018/2019 – Australia

Application Deadlines:
  • Round 1: 31st August 2017
  • Round 2: 31st January 2018
  • Round 3: 30th April 2018
Offered annually? Yes

Fields of Study: Courses offered at the university.

About Scholarship: The University of Adelaide offers a scholarships scheme for international students undertaking postgraduate research study for Master’s and Doctoral degrees. The purpose of the financial award programme is to attract high quality overseas postgraduate students to areas of research strength in the University of Adelaide to support its research effort.

Type: Masters & Doctoral

Selection Criteria : The selection and ranking of applicants within the University of Adelaide is undertaken by the Graduate Scholarships Committee, using the criteria of academic merit and research potential.

Eligibility
  • In order to be eligible applicants are required to have successfully completed at least the equivalent of an Australian First Class Honours degree (this is a four year degree with a major research project in the final year). All qualifying programs of study must be successfully completed.
  • Scholarships will be awarded on academic merit and research potential. Extra-curricular achievements are not considered.
  • International applicants must not hold a research qualification regarded by the University of Adelaide to be equivalent to an Australian Research Doctorate degree or, if undertaking a Research Masters degree, not hold a research qualification regarded by the University of Adelaide to be equivalent to or higher than an Australian Research Masters degree.
  • International applicants who have not provided evidence of their meeting the minimum English language proficiency requirements for direct entry by the scholarship closing date, or who have completed a Pre-Enrolment English Program to meet the entry requirements for the intended program of study, are not eligible.
  • Candidates are required to enrol in the University of Adelaide as ‘international students’ and must maintain ‘international student’ status for the duration of their enrolment in the University.
  • International applicants are not eligible if they have already commenced the degree for which they are seeking an award, unless they can establish that they were unable to apply in the previous round.
  • Scholarships holders must commence study at the University of Adelaide in the semester the scholarship is offered.
  • Applicants who applied and were eligible for consideration in an international scholarship round, and were unsuccessful, will automatically be reconsidered in the following international scholarship round, assuming they hold a valid offer of candidature for that intake. An applicant who has been considered in 2 rounds cannot be reconsidered in any future scholarship rounds.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:
  • Course tuition fees for two years for a Masters degree by Research and three years for a Doctoral research degree (an extension is possible for doctoral programs only),
  • An annual living allowance ($26,288 in 2016) for two years for a Masters degree by Research and three years for a Doctoral research degree (an extension is possible for doctoral programs only), and
  • For Postgraduate Research (Subclass 574) visa holders the award provides compulsory standard Overseas Student Health Cover (OSHC) Worldcare policy for the student and their spouse and dependents (if any) for the standard duration of the student visa.  It does not cover the additional 6 month extended student visa period post thesis submission. If the award holder does not hold a subclass 574 visa then he/she is responsible for the cost of health insurance.
Duration of Scholarship: 2 years for Masters; 3 years for Doctoral

Eligible Countries: All countries except Australia and New Zealand

To be taken at (country): University of Adelaide, Australia

How to Apply
To apply, you have to submit a formal application for Admission and a Scholarship via an online application system. There is no application fee.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: University of Adelaide, Australia

Important Notes: The offer of a scholarship is contingent upon a student not being offered another award by the Commonwealth of Australia, the University of Adelaide, or an overseas sponsor. The University reserves the right to withdraw an offer of a scholarship at any time prior to enrolment if it is advised that an awardee has been offered a scholarship equal to or in excess of the financial value of the award offered by the University.

Newcastle University Overseas Research Scholarship (ORS) for International PhD Students 2018/2019 – UK

Application Deadline: 27th April 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Newcastle University UK

About Scholarship: Newcastle University is committed to offering support to the very best international students hoping to pursue a programme of research. We are pleased to offer a small number of University funded NUORS awards for outstanding international students who apply to commence PhD studies in any subject in 2017/18.

Type: PhD, Research

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: A candidate could be eligible to apply for a NUORS award if:
  • they have been offered a place on a PhD research programme
  • they have been assessed as international/overseas for fees purposes, and are wholly or partially self-financing
  • they intend to register to start your studies during the 2018/19 academic year.
Applications for a NUORS award cannot be made for a course that has already been started by a student.

Number of Scholarships: 15

Value of Scholarship: This award covers the difference between home and overseas fee rates (value approximately £10,800 to £16,200 per annum)

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of the programme

How to Apply
  • You must have already applied for and been offered a place to study at Newcastle University before you apply for a NUORS award.
  • Please complete the NUORS application form electronically and in accordance with the NUORS regulations, which are provided at the end of the application form.  You will also be required to provide details of an academic referee; the University will then contact your referee directly.
  • Applications must be submitted electronically via the email address provided below. Unfortunately paper copies cannot be accepted.
  • If you experience problems with the application form, please contact Student Financial Support who can e-mail a copy of the form and the regulations to you.
Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: Newcastle University, UK

6th RUFORUM African Higher Agricultural Education Week and Biennial Conference 2018

Application Deadline: 31st July, 2018.

Offered Annually? The Program is held once every two years.

To Be Taken At (Country):  Kenyatta International Convention Centre (KICC), Nairobi Kenya.

About the Award: As part of strengthening dissemination of research outputs and lesson sharing RUFORUM invites interested authors (University researchers, researchers and scientists from National, regional and international l Research Institutes, Higher Education stakeholders and beneficiaries of RUFORUM supported projects, including postgraduates students and their supervisors) to submit Research Application Summary/“Extended Abstract” maximum of 8 page (for examples and guidelines of developing Extended Abstracts please visit RUFORUM website.
Conference objectives are focused on:
  1. Unpack university transformation: From what to where and when?
  2. Effective support mechanisms that enable business-university collaboration
  3. University-farming communities engagement and transformation space
  4. Innovations for making agriculture attractive and driving growth in Africa
  5. Making a difference in Africa through capacity building in research, outreach and community engagement
Type: Call for Papers

Eligibility: The publication is bilingual and authors are free to submit abstracts in either English or French.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Duration of Program: 22 – 26 October 2018

How to Apply: 
  • The Abstracts should be submitted via an online platform accessed from the African Journal of Rural Development website.
  • For inquiries about your submission please use ruforumbiennial2018@afjrd.org and editor@afjrd.org
  • All submissions will be peer reviewed and published as open access resource materials in a serialized RUFORUM Working document series (ISSN: 1993-8462) which will be made available to various stakeholders in both print and electronic formats.
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The meeting will be co-organized by The Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM), and all the RUFORUM Member Universities in Kenya and other partners.

UK Mass Digital Surveillance Regime Ruled Illegal

Julian Vigo

On 30 January, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act of 2014 (DRIPA), which made way for the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016 (IPA), did not restrict the access of confidential personal phone and web browsing records to investigations of serious crime. The IPA means that Internet service providers must now store details of everything we do online for twelve months and render it accessible to dozens of public bodies. 
This data can be virtually everything, from browsing records to personal information on private citizens, to include but not limited to: search engine activity, every phone call to text message plus geographical location, private financial and credit repair services, personal correspondence, medical records, and data from banking, insurance, and investment services which is stored on computers and mobile telephones.  This law obliges technology companies to hand over the data that they have about private citizens to intelligence agencies and it can force tech companies like Apple to remove encryption, ultimately weakening the security of their own products in total secrecy.
The ability of the government to spy on private citizens’ includes the encroachment upon the fundamental rights of privacy in financial matters, such that a “super-spy search engine” has become part of the arsenal that the Home Office is accused of hosting.  What does surveillance mean in an era where financial information needs to be safeguarded and when economic interests such as crypto robots and cryptocurrencies could face government spying?
Let’s step back to 2004, when philosopher Giorgio Agamben refused to submit passport biodata in 2004 in the United States when he famously rescinded his appointment to lecture at New York University.  Resisting the submission of fingerprints required to enter
the United States as a foreign visitor, Agamben’s actions then foreshadowed what he would later address in his 2013 Athens lecture:
The primacy of the biological identity over the political identity is certainly linked to the politicization of bare life in modern states. But one should never forget that the leveling of social identity on body identity began with the attempt to identify the recidivist criminals. We should not be astonished if today the normal relationship between the state and its citizens is defined by suspicion, police filing and control. The unspoken principle which rules our society can be stated like that: every citizen is a potential terrorist. But what is a State which is ruled by such a principle? Can we still define it as democratic State?
Agamben lays out the principle contradiction of surveillance within a democracy and this question must not only be applied to the current metamorphosis of the Global War on Terror (renamed by Obama as “overseas contingency operations”) in the US, but merits investigation right here in Britain.
The IPA represents the most Draconian of legislation to hit Britain in well over a century and has infectiously taken hold of privacy laws abroad in countries from the Netherlands to the Morocco.  And the notion of privacy has been enshrined in law for several centuries since Thomas M. Cooley outlined privacy as the “right to be left alone” in 1878.  With the increase of technology in our daily lives, the ability for the human subject to retain privacy remains a challenge today. Yet the 1990 inquiry, the Calcutt Report on privacy, rendered inconclusive the very definition of privacy. So if we do not define privacy, we are allowing this sort of subversion by our governments to encroach up that which is simply not theirs.
Why should we care about our privacy? After all, we are being told that this is in the interest of safety, right? The bare minimum of human life is hinged upon our ability to evoke power over our lives: who we allow in, who we do not. In essence, this law is about protecting both privacy and the free will attached to it.  The very insistence by any government that assumes eliminating privacy is key to its operations means that we have seriously miscalculated the government’s role in our lives. And inversely, that the government assumes that it can make such a request means that something is very wrong with our democracy.
Microsoft president Brad Smith has been one of the most vocal opponents of laws such as the IPA, suggesting that citizens should be protected in cyberspace just as they are in the physical world by the Geneva Convention.   Smith wrote about a digital Geneva Convention which would “require governments to come together, affirm international cybersecurity norms that have emerged in recent years, adopt new and binding rules.” If major players in the world of digital security and artificial intelligence are aware of the dangers posed by laws of the IPA, why then are members of Parliament largely unconcerned by this?
January’s judgement from the UK court could not have come at a better time when the right to human dignity and privacy are under assault internationally.  We must demand of the British government to respect our human rights to privacy and dignity of self-determination.

War Preparations on Venezuela as Election Nears

Kevin Zeese & Margaret Flowers

Since we published “Regime Change Fails: Is a Military Coup or Invasion Next,” we received more information showing steps toward preparing for a potential military attack on Venezuela. Stopping this war needs to become a top priority for the peace movement.
Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) published a newsletter that reported “troubling news of an impending military assault on the sovereign nation of Venezuela by states and forces allied with the United States.” Ajamu Baraka, the director, said the US is concerned that President Maduro will win the April 22 election, which would mean six more years in office. BAP urges people to include “No War On Venezuela” in actions being planned from February 16-23 for the 115th anniversary of the United States occupying Guantanamo.
Is the Path to War Through Border Disputes?
One way to start a war would be a cross-border dispute between Venezuela and Colombia, Brazil or Guyana. On February 12, the Maritime Herald reported that Admiral Kurt Tidd, head of the US Southern Command, arrived in Colombia just two days after the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with President Juan Manuel Santos as part of Tillerson’s unprecedented regime change tour. Tidd met with Colombian Defense Minister Luis Carlos Villegas and other senior officials to coordinate efforts around “regional stability” with a focus on Venezuela.
The Maritime Herald also reports US troops coming to Colombian military bases, paramilitaries coming to Colombian towns along the Venezuelan border, plans for “a joint naval force between the United States, Colombia and Mexico,” and arrival of a contingent of 415 members of the United States Air Force to Panama to create support and logistics points for the operation against Venezuela. Also important are two fast-acting US military bases installed in the communities of Vichada and Leticia, Colombia, bordering Venezuela.
Both Colombia and Brazil have deployed more troops to their borders with Venezuela. Colombian President Santos ordered “the deployment of 3000 additional security personnel to the Venezuelan border. This figure included 2,120 more soldiers.” The decision came the day before officials from the US Southern Command met in Colombia to “discuss security cooperation.” Brazil also announced plans to “double its border patrols on the Venezuelan frontier.” The excuse for these increased deployments was due to Venezuelan migrants crossing the border into Colombia and Brazil.
To calm these concerns, President Maduro called for a meeting between Venezuelan authorities and Colombia over security concerns along their border. The Colombian government estimates that 450,000 Venezuelan migrants have entered the country in the last 18 months.  Maduro said that official numbers did not equate to a “massive exodus” and reminded Colombia that during the Colombian civil war with the FARC, 5.6 million Colombians crossed the border to make Venezuela their home.
The corporate intelligence firm, Stratfor, which works closely with the US government, recently published a report that could be laying the groundwork for a border dispute. Stratfor wrote that Brazilian intelligence officials are goinging to meet with Guyana’s officials to warn them that Venezuela is planning to attack Guyana. There is a long-term dispute over land between Venezuela and Guyana that is being litigated before the International Court of Justice. The report includes a questionable claim that there is an “ongoing dialogue with the Trump administration over the terms of President Nicolas Maduro and his party’s departure from power.” The reality is that President Maduro is preparing for the April election.
In response to these actions, President Maduro announced the Venezuelan armed forces will carry out military exercises on February 24 and 25 in “defense” of the nation to fine-tune the movement of “tanks, missiles, and helicopters as part of the nation’s defense strategy.”
Upcoming Elections in Venezuela
The opposition in Venezuela has been seeking presidential elections since 2016 when they presented a petition for the recall of President Maduro. They claimed to collect enough signatures, but there were allegations of voter fraud, including thousands of dead people’s names listed on the petitions.
Violent protests followed the rejection of the petition and Henrique Capriles set a deadline for an election in November 2016, threatening larger protests. On November 1, opposition leader Henry Ramos, the head of the national assembly, announced the cancellation of the protests.  The opposition still pressed for an election. The government announced a special election to be held in February or March of 2018.
Now,  Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza announced, “We have a date for the presidential election, which is the date proposed by the opposition, April 22. Furthermore, we have the electoral guarantees proposed by the opposition, so we are going to the elections and the Venezuelan people will decide their future with democracy and votes.” Officials of the Dominican Republic observers guaranteeing the legitimacy of the elections. Venezuela will invite the United Nations and others to also serve as observers. Despite this, the United States and members of the right-wing Lima Group of US allies, say they will not recognize the elections.
Does the Trump Administration Want War to “Unify the Country”
President Trump’s divisive presidency has left him unpopular in the polls. Hours before his State of the Union speech, Trump told television news anchors, “I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity. Without a major event where people pull together, that’s hard to do. But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing.”
We hope President Trump is not looking at the increase in public support that President George W. Bush received after he attacked Iraq as a model for his administration. Instead, he should remember President Lyndon Johnson being driven from office after his landslide election because of the Vietnam war.
The Trump administration has failed in its attempts to instigate war with North Korea and Iran. The terrible diplomatic performance of Vice President Pence at the Olympic games, where the two Koreas began to make progress toward peace and unification, puts the US in a weaker position to threaten North Korea. President Kim invited President Moon to North Korea to continue peace talks. Now there is rising hope for an agreement between the two Koreas.
Similarly, the protests in Iran, which the US may have encouraged, fizzled. When the US brought the protests to the UN Security Council and used them to call for action against Iran, the US was isolated. Countries asked whether the UN should have taken action against the US after the protests in Ferguson over the police killing of Michael Brown. The protests also exposed massive US spending to create opposition to the government in Iran, as well as coordination with Israel.
Stopping the US Attack on Venezuela
In our last article, we indicated the reasons for the threat of a military coup and military attack were because Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves and because Venezuela has set an example of breaking from US dominance of the region and challenging capitalism.
In addition, economic sanctions have pushed Venezuela to have closer relations with Russia and China to circumvent US sanctions.  The US does not want these global rivals in what it has considered its backyard since the Monroe Doctrine.
Finally, the US is concerned with Venezuela’s new cryptocurrency, which will launch within days and be backed by 5.3 billion barrels of oil worth $267 billion. The cryptocurrency is a bid to offset Venezuela’s deep financial crisis. This threatens US economic domination.
We must expose the reasons for increasing US aggression towards Venezuela and work to counter misinformation in the media that is attempting to build support for a military conflict with Venezuela. Here are actions you can take:
1. Use this tool to contact your Members of Congress. Urge them to use diplomacy with Venezuela and to stop the sanctions, which are a deadly form of economic warfare. CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION.
2. Share this newsletter widely in your community and through social media.
3. Join the actions on February 23 with messages of “US out of Guantanamo” and “No war with Venezuela.”
Let’s stop this next war before it begins!

Treating North Korea Rough

Edward Hunt

Since entering office, the Trump administration has directed a reckless and dangerous pressure campaign against North Korea that has made life worse for the North Korean people while increasing the likelihood of war.
The pressure campaign includes increasingly stringent sanctions backed by the threat of war. Administration officials say the campaign is necessary to pressure the North Korean government into abandoning its nuclear weapons program.
“My deal was that, we’ve got to treat them rough,” President Trump explained last year.
The Trump administration is directing the campaign despite a growing consensus that it will not work. Over the past year, U.S. officials have largely concluded that no amount of pressure will force the North Korean government to give up its nuclear weapons.
Last year, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats explained at the Aspen Security Forum that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un believed that nuclear weapons were necessary for “survival for his regime” and “survival for his country.” The basic reason is that “having the nuclear card in your pocket results in a lot of deterrence capability,” Coats said.
Over the past few years, many leaders around the world have reached the same conclusion, according to Coats. After watching outside powers interfere in Libya and Ukraine, he explained, heads of state have concluded that they need nuclear weapons to deter invasions. “The lessons that we learned out of Libya giving up its nukes and Ukraine giving up its nukes is unfortunately if you had nukes, never give them up,” Coats said. “If you don’t have them, get them.”
Despite these assessments, the Trump administration has been continuing to increase the pressure on North Korea. With its “maximum pressure campaign,” as the White House calls it, the Trump administration is testing the general consensus that the North Korean government will never abandon its nuclear weapons.
“What I think Kim Jong-un needs to realize is, he cannot survive with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons because the international community will not allow him to survive,” General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last year.
With its approach, the Trump administration has applied numerous kinds of pressure. On one level, it has worked through the United Nations Security Council to impose increasingly restrictive sanctions on North Korea. In 2017, the Security Council passed sanctions to block North Korea’s exports of coal and severely restrict its imports of fuel.
“We’ve never had this level of extreme sanctions,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson commented at the end of last year.
The extreme sanctions have placed significant strains on the North Korean economy. As of last September, the sanctions were making it very difficult for the North Korean people to acquire fuel.
“Just imagine if this happened to the United States — a 55 percent reduction in diesel and oil,” Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, remarked at the time. “They said it was a full-scale economic blockade, suffocating its state and its people,” Haley said. “This is dramatic.”
The extreme sanctions have also been devastating for North Korea’s fishermen. Forced to take increasingly dangerous risks to find food, many North Korean fisherman have been dying at sea, with their boats washing ashore Japanese beaches.
Secretary Tillerson explained earlier this year that the North Korean fishermen are “being sent out in the wintertime to fish because there’s food shortages, and they’re being sent out to fish with inadequate fuel to get back.” Tillerson interpreted these developments as a sign of success, calling them “evidence that these sanctions are really starting to hurt.”
Even with these devastating consequences for the people of North Korea, the sanctions have still not been enough for the Trump administration. As the sanctions have turned deadly, the Trump administration has continued to threaten North Korea with war.
President Trump has threatened to “totally destroy North Korea.” Secretary of Defense James Mattis has spoken of “the total annihilation” of the country.
Administration officials make these threats as they acknowledge that they face no serious threat from North Korea. Although the North Korean government has been testing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, most people in Washington believe that the North Korean government would never actually launch an attack.
“Right now, we think the threat is manageable,” Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly said last October.
At a congressional hearing last month, a number of former U.S. officials provided similar reassurances.
Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the committee that North Korea would only become a problem if administration officials began to believe their own rhetoric about the country. “We have been talking these guys up a lot more than they deserve,” Blair said. “I think we can handle these guys, and we only talk ourselves into being at a disadvantage by our own rhetoric.”
Former U.S. official Michael Green provided the committee with additional reassurances, suggesting that the North Koreans would not start a war and risk massive retaliation by the U.S. and its allies. “They are not suicidal,” Green said. “No one thinks Kim Jong-un is suicidal.”
At the end of the hearing, former U.S. official Kelly Magsamen provided the committee with the strongest reassurances, insisting that Kim Jong-un only wanted nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a U.S. attack. “I do think that he is aggressively pursuing the capability as a deterrent to the United States attacking him,” Magsamen said. “I think he does look around and sees the Qaddafi scenario and Saddam, and thinks, ‘This is my best insurance policy and deterrent against a potential preventive attack by the United States.’ I think that is true.”
As numerous officials now acknowledge there is little to fear from North Korea, the Trump administration continues to increase the pressure on the country. Although most serious analysts in Washington agree that Kim Jong-un only wants nuclear weapons to deter a U.S. attack, the Trump administration keeps treating the country rough while the North Korean people suffer the consequences and the risk of war increases.
“This pressure campaign is going to stay in place and it’s going to continue to be intensified until we achieve our policy objective and the objective of the world,” Secretary Tillerson said earlier this year.

Venezuela: Revenge of the Mad-Dog Empire

Ajamu Baraka

Only in the world of comic-book fantasies is the United States a friend to the oppressed in Africa or anywhere else on the planet. In the real world, the U.S. is a predator, colonial/capitalist nation. But like the imagined nation of Wakanda, in the latest cultural assault on critical mass consciousness, “American exceptionalism” and “make America great again” – two slogans representing both sides of the imperialist coin, ruling class interests are obscured and the people are reduced to working against their objective interests and being accomplices to imperial lawlessness.
In every part of the world, the United States is engaged in maniacal, criminal assaults on democracy, basic human decency and common sense.  From its support for armed jihadists groups in Syria and its illegal occupation of that nation, transferring heavy military equipment to its puppet regime in Ukraine, supporting unending war in Afghanistan, to the military invasion of African, the commitment to maintaining U.S. global dominance has moved war and militarism to the center of U.S. strategy.
But nowhere is U.S. criminality more apparent and unrelenting than right here in the Americas where the Pan-European project was born in 1492. That was the year “Europe” was born, emerging from its relative cultural backwardness using with terrifying efficiency the only advantage it had over the more civilized people of the region—armor protection and steel weapons—to slaughter the people, take the land and begin the 500-hundred-year nightmare the people of the world have suffered ever since.
Today, the barbarism of the Pan-European project continues under the tutelage of what history will record—if humanity survives—as the most violent, racist, oppressive human experience ever to have emerged in the short span of human existence on Earth: The United States of America.
After centuries experiencing the horrors of genocide, slavery, military dictatorships, environmental destruction, and neoliberal exploitation, the people of Latin America began to slowly extract themselves from the clutches of the hegemon from the North. Social movements and peoples undeterred by coups, structural adjustment and death squads started to take back their history in Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, and the rest of the continent. Venezuela has led the way, proclaiming the dawn of a 21st century socialism that would create the new society and the new human in the process.
Because of imperial overreach, the same trap that has ensnared other empires in decline, the U.S. was preoccupied with attempting to manage the mess it had created for itself as a result of the disastrous belief that it could fight two major wars simultaneously. So, while it was bogged down in Western Asia and the so-called “Middle East”, the full force of the U.S. repressive apparatus was not deployed against the fledgling people’s movements and the nominal capture of the state by those movements in Latin America. Of course, the United States helped to engineer a failed coup against Hugo Chavez and it continued training police and military forces in the region. But it wasn’t until the administration of Barack Obama that the deadly gaze of the United States began to really re-focus on Latin America, with Venezuela as its main target.
In what appears on the surface to be a ludicrous position, Barack Obama declared Venezuela a threat to U.S. national security on three different occasions. However, the United States is the enforcer for the global capitalist system and the head of the white, Western, capitalist united front. With that in mind, seeing Venezuela as a threat made sense. Venezuela has been the driving force for the nations of the Americas south of the U.S. border attempting to free themselves from the yoke of U.S. imperialism.
The Trump administration took up with enthusiasm the policy of destabilization, subversion, and economic warfare that was intensified under the Obama administration. Violent regime change is now clearly the objective of the administration. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called for the Venezuelan military to overthrow the government while on a visit to the region and reports have surfaced of military forces from Colombia and Brazil being deployed to their respective borders with Venezuela.
Another clear sign that the lives of the people of Venezuela will be sacrificed with violent regime change is the collapse of the dialogue between the Venezuelan government and the counter-revolutionary opposition that had been taking place for almost two years. Up until just a few days ago, it appeared an agreement was in place for a peaceful political resolution.
The move toward a violent intervention became more apparent when discussions abruptly ended as the opposition decided not to sign an agreement designed  to move both parties toward an eventual political resolution.
Concerned about the general disarray among the opposition and the fact that the ruling party and government won 18 out of 23 governorships in regional elections in October 2017, the Trump administration announced that it would not recognize the results of the upcoming Presidential election to be held April 22. All the evidence points to the administration, along with the Venezuela oligarchy, opting for a strategy of regime change, even though it will result in mass slaughter and the dictatorship that the United States pretends to be opposed to in Venezuela.
The moves by the Trump administration represent an ominous re-introduction of the worst imperialist excesses of the late 20th century, where violent coups were the preferred response to any threats to the rule of capital and U.S. imperialist control. Yet, what is even more ominous about the situation unfolding in Venezuela is that unlike a few decades ago, when there was a vocal and active radical and left opposition to U.S. imperialism, the left and many radicals in the U.S. are in open class collaboration with imperialism.
The left in the United States and Western Europe has completely abandoned any idea of solidarity with global South’s revolutionary projects. A bizarre example of the reactionary nature of the European left was the European Parliament awarding the Sakharov Freedom Prize to the Venezuelan “opposition,” a group that has openly attacked journalists and burned alive two dozen people of primarily Black or dark complexions who they assumed were probably government supporters because they were poor and black. Clearly for the representatives in the European Union’s only democratic body, the integrity of the press and “Black lives” really don’t matter!
The courageous struggle of the Venezuelan people to defend their national sovereignty and dignity in the face of the murderous intentions of their North American neighbors and the racist obsequious Venezuelan oligarchy deserves the support of all true anti-imperialists. Whatever failure or internal contradiction we see in the Bolivarian process does not outweigh the principle that anti-imperialists must support national independence, especially when a nation is in the cross hairs of the greatest gangster nation on the planet.
For those of us who inhibit the colonized Black and Brown zones of non-being, as Fanon referred to them, to not resist the white supremacist, colonial/capitalist patriarchy at the center of the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination is moral and political suicide.
When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson orders the Venezuelan opposition to undermine the agreement to stabilize the situation in Venezuela while simultaneously undermining the internal Korea efforts toward de-escalating the tensions between North and South Korea, we see the familiar hand of classic European colonialist divide-and-rule tactics that propelled them to global dominance and continues to give Western imperialism a leash (lease?) on life.
But for James “Mad Dog” Mattis, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and all the Mad Dogs of empire, the people of the world have seen behind the curtain and are not impressed with the diversionary smoke and fire of your weapons and bellicosity. The people know they have the cure for the virus that affects you, but you will not be happy with their treatment plan.