What Results When U.S. Invades A Country

Eric Zuesse

The U.S. Government certainly leads the world in invasions and coups.

In recent years, it has invaded and occupied — either by military assault or by coup, but in either case followed by installing (or trying to install) a new regime there — a number of countries, especially Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen.

U.S. propaganda says that its invasions and military occupations (and it denies its coups) are to benefit the people in the invaded and militarily occupied countries, or to bring them ‘democracy’, and are not done merely to benefit the people who control the U.S. Government (which itself is not a democracy, and even the neoconservative — pro-invasion or “imperialistic” — American magazine The Atlantic has finally acknowledged this fact, even though it contradicts their continuing neoconservatism).

Polling and other evidences within the invaded/occupied countries shows the opposite of the U.S. claim: America’s invasions/occupations (after World War II, and especially after 2000) destroy those countries, not help them.

The most authoritative such study that has yet been done on this matter was recently released, and its findings regarding this matter will here be presented, and then supplemented with other relevant data so as to provide a fuller picture.

The U.N./Gallup surveys of the happiness/misery of the residents in 155 countries, as reported in 2017, were physically in-person interviews in almost all countries, but there was at least one exception, as they explained: “In Libya, telephone survey methodology has been used since 2015 owing to the country’s high rate of mobile phone coverage and ongoing instability which has made it too dangerous to use face-to-face interviewers.” That’s a highly euphemistic way of saying, actually: Libya was too dangerous, and perhaps too miserable, for opinions to be sampled by the ordinary methodology, the scientifically sound methodology, which is in-person interviews. It’s a way of saying this without even mentioning the invasion and war there — as if those things don’t even count. Therefore, the finding that Gallup reported about Libya is presumably being included in Gallup’s otherwise excellent report purely for Western propaganda purposes — they know that it’s not an actual scientific finding about Libya, not a finding that can reasonably be compared to the survey-findings in the other countries. As a result, Libya, which might have been the most miserable of all countries after the U.S.-UK-France-Canada invasion, scored in the top half of all countries, #68, 5.525. But, all of the other countries that the U.S. has recently invaded (the nations that are boldfaced below) scored at or below #132, 4.096 — Ukraine’s score — as is shown here below from that U.N. report:

Following are the happiness-scores of the bottom 24 out of the 155 happiness/misery-rated countries. (Iraq, which the U.S. had destroyed in 2003, perhaps is now recovering, and it scored as #117, with a score of 4.497; but, here only the bottom 24, the most-miserable of all of the 155 countries, are shown.) Here they are:

——

132 Ukraine                                       4.096

133 Uganda                                        4.081

134 Burkina Faso                                4.032

135 Niger                                            4.028

136 Malawi                                         3.970

137 Chad                                            3.936

138 Zimbabwe                                    3.875

139 Lesotho                                        3.808

140 Angola                                         3.795

141 Afghanistan                                3.794

142 Botswana                                     3.766

143 Benin                                            3.657

144 Madagascar                                  3.644

145 Haiti                                             3.603

146 Yemen                                         3.593

147 South Sudan                                3.591

148 Liberia                                          3.533

149 Guinea                                          3.507

150 Togo                                             3.495

151 Rwanda                                        3.471

152 Syria                                            3.462

153 Tanzania                                       3.349

154 Burundi                                        2.905

155 Central African Republic 2.693

——

Ukraine is (other than #117 Iraq) the least-miserable of the recently invaded countries, and perhaps the reason for this is that Ukraine was taken over by means of a coup, instead of by means of an outright and direct military invasion.

(You can see this coup happening, here. The way that U.S. President Barack Obama set it up is documented here. You can hear there his agent instructing the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine whom to place in charge of Ukraine’s Government once the coup will have been culminated (which happened 22 days later, and that person did get the leadership-position). It’s the full conversation. And here, you will see the phone-conversation in which top EU officials were shocked to find that it had been a coup instead of what Obama pretended, a ‘revolution’.) (These evidences are some of the reasons why the head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor called it “the most blatant coup in history.”)

The U.N. happiness surveys have been taken in Ukraine not only after the coup, which occurred in February 2014, but before it, in 2013. At https://countryeconomy.com/demography/world-happiness-index/ukraine you can see the happiness/misery scores shown by Ukrainians during the years 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017 (there was no survey in Ukraine during 2014, perhaps because of the rampant violence at that time.) In 2013, Ukraine’s happiness score was 5.057, but that steadily declined down to the 2017 score of 4.096, which placed Ukraine within the bottom 24 countries, all of which either were extremely poor, or at war, or both. You can also see there Ukraine’s resulting “World Happiness Index” rank for each one of those four years, 2013, before the coup, and then 2015-2017, after the coup. As you see there, Ukraine, which was #132  in 2017, had been #87 in 2013 before the coup. So: within just three years after the coup, it declined 45 places in the global rankings.

Some people might retort against this by saying that “happiness” is meaningless or unimportant and only physical welfare is ‘objective’,” but even on the most crudely physical measures, Ukraine has been enormously harmed by the U.S. coup. In 2013, Ukraine’s average annual household income was $2,601.40, and then it fell off a cliff and became $1,109.63 by 2015 and has stabilized at around that level since. Also, in 2013, Ukraine’s GDP was $183.31 billion, and by 2015 that had become $91.03 billion and stabilized at that level. Furthermore, some figures aren’t any longer even reported by the post-coup Ukrainian regime. For example, whereas the number of unemployed was shown in Ukrainian statistics in 2013, it disappeared in 2016 and subsequently. More information about the decline in Ukraine’s economic rankings can be seen here. The U.S. regime has been toxic to the Ukrainian people, no matter how one looks at it. But happiness/misery is the real bottom-line.

Two researchers, Tom Coupe and Maxym Obrizan, published together two separate studies, both in leading economics journals, one article titled “The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine”, and the other titled “Violence and political outcomes in Ukraine — Evidence from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk”. They reported, in “The Impact of war on happiness”:

The average level of happiness declined substantially in zones that experience war directly. …

This decline is comparable to the loss of happiness a relatively well-off person would experience if he/she were to become a poor person. …

Regions that are not directly affected by the war are basically as happy as they were before the war.

In other words: all of the increase in misery occurred only in the regions that have been “directly affected by the war.” The Ukrainians who reside outside those regions are “as happy as they were before the war.” They’re not happier than before the war; they haven’t been helped by the war; but, the misery — so intense for them that it has already lowered the happiness-ranking of the entire nation, from 87 down to 132 — just hasn’t bothered them, at all.

In “Violence and political outcomes in Ukraine” they reported:

We also find that property damage is associated with greater support for pro-Western parties, lower support for keeping Donbas in Ukraine and lower support for compromise as a way to stop the conflict.

In other words: Ukrainians who live close to the Ukraine-Donbass border; that is, who live inside Ukraine but close to Donbass and so are in the Ukrainian portion of the conflict-zone (not in Donbass, where the vast majority of the “property damage” is actually occurring), have “greater support for pro-Western parties” (i.e., for the Obama-installed regime), but “lower support for keeping Donbas in Ukraine.” Although they endorse the overthrow that had been done of the pre-coup government (because they receive ‘news’media only from the post-coup regime, in the Ukrainian language), they want to get on with their lives without the war that’s since been causing them “property damage.” (U.S. propaganda notes that “the separatist-controlled parts of Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts ([the two Donbass] provinces) only have access to Russian TV channels” but avoids noting that the Ukrainian regime’s blocking of Russian-language media on the other side of that border — inside Ukraine — exists and is even more severe.) Apparently, Ukrainians near the border just want the war to end — no “compromise” — no negotiations, no Minsk process; they want their Government to simply quit trying to conquer Donbass, no negotiations about it, at all. And they’re ignored.

Right now in Ukraine, the central political controversy is between the U.S.-puppet President of Ukraine, who promises to conquer both of the two breakaway provinces, Donbass and also Crimea — but who hasn’t yet been able to do it — versus Ukraine’s political parties, in western and northern Ukraine, that derived from the organizations which had supported Hitler against Stalin in World War II and who still crave to kill Russian-speakers. Those passionately racist-fascist, anti-Russian, ideologically nazi, political organizations, are determined to actually carry out those additional invasions, no matter what the cost. However, according to this finding by Coupe and Obrizon, the Ukrainians who are suffering the “property damage” and whose personal scores on happiness have thus become so abysmally low as to have dragged the whole Ukrainian nation down to a 132nd ranking, are opposed to that nazi position, and they just want the war to end. And they’re ignored.

Where, then, is the support for the war to be found (except amongst the U.S. Congress and President and the U.S. arms-makers whose products have been selling so well to Ukraine’s government and which are now being used against the residents of Donbass)? That support is to be found as far away from the conflict-zone as possible: in Lviv and the rest of far-western and northern Ukraine, the areas that were cheering Hitler’s forces in WW II, and where the ‘news’ media today are owned by U.S.-supported oligarchs and their NGOs.

Ukraine was a severely divided nation even before the coup. In the last Ukrainian election in which the residents within the Ukraine that then included both Donbass and Crimea voted, which was the election in 2010, the candidate who won Ukraine’s Presidency and whom Obama ousted, had won 90% of the vote in Donbass, and 75% of the vote in Crimea. However, in far-western Ukraine, his opponent — whom Obama had been hoping that Ukrainians would elect as Ukraine’s President in 2014 after the coup — won 90% of the vote. That’s the candidate whose party (though not herself) now dominates (in conjunction with the two outright nazi parties) the Ukrainian Government. The man whom the residents in the rump Ukraine chose, was the more moderate candidate, and he is increasingly being challenged by the nazis. (Ukraine is the world’s only nation that has two nazi political parties. Both of them have been clients of the U.S. Government ever since the end of World War II, but only with Obama did they win control of the country — that is, of its non-breakaway regions.) For example, on 18 January 2018, the AP headlined “Ukraine passes bill to get occupied regions back from Russia” and reported that, “Ukraine’s parliament on Thursday passed a bill that aims to reintegrate the eastern territories currently controlled by Russia-backed separatists, and goes as far as to declare support for taking them back by military force if necessary.” Though that position is a minority position amongst the Ukrainian public, it authentically represents the position that Obama wanted. In fact, he even overrode his own Secretary of State, John Kerry, to push for it. That’s the position of Ukraine’s two nazi parties, which are trying to replace the existing President. (Trump hasn’t yet made clear whether he backs them, but he is expected to.)

So: that’s Ukraine — the happiest of the nations that the U.S. has recently invaded.

——

UPDATE: On March 15th, the “World Happiness Report 2018” was issued, and here are the bottom-scoring countries:

138. Ukraine (4.103)
139. Togo (3.999)
140. Guinea (3.964)
141. Lesotho (3.808)
142. Angola (3.795)
143. Madagascar (3.774)
144. Zimbabwe (3.692)
145. Afghanistan (3.632)
146. Botswana (3.590)
147. Malawi (3.587)
148. Haiti (3.582)
149. Liberia (3.495)
150. Syria (3.462)
151. Rwanda (3.408)
152. Yemen (3.355)
153. Tanzania (3.303)
154. South Sudan (3.254)
155. Central African Republic (3.083)
156. Burundi (2.905)

How Facebook Protects Israel

Tamara Nassar

The Israeli authorities are exerting pressure on Facebook to comply with more of their demands.

Earlier this month, members of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, discussed how to suppress content of which they disapproved on the social media website.

One objective was to get Facebook to ban pictures of Ahmad Nasser Jarrar, a Palestinian extrajudicially executed by the Israeli army in February. Human rights groups have concluded that the military sought to kill, rather than arrest, Jarrar, a suspect in the shooting death of an Israeli settler in the occupied West Bank.

Uri Maklev, an Israeli lawmaker, claimed there is a “correlation between social networks and terror operations,” and that “Facebook is responsible for what is being done on its platform” and must do “everything to remove such content.”

According to Israel’s state attorney office, the Israeli government requests an average of 12,000 cases of content to be removed from Facebook each year.

This information was relayed by Itai Gohar, representing the cyber department at the state attorney’s office, during the recent discussion in the Knesset.

Gohar added that Facebook complies with “only” 85 percent of reports from Israel’s state attorney office. The response rate is as quick as a few hours “during periods of security escalation,” and 24 hours otherwise.

This claim suggests that Facebook works in favor of Israel’s security apparatus.

Contradiction

However, the claims by Israel’s state attorney office directly contradict Facebook’s transparency reports, which are available on its site.

Facebook’s documentation reveals that content removed at the request of the Israeli government averages about 550 pieces of content each year. That is many times lower than the figure indicated by the Israeli authorities.

The number of pieces of content removed each year at the request of the Israeli government was 113 for the second half of 2013, according to Facebook. The removal figure came to 30 during the entire year of 2014 and 431 in 2015.

The number of removals rose to 1,623 in 2016, according to Facebook data. And the figure for the first half of 2017 was 472.

Facebook stated last year that the main reason why it restricted access to certain items at Israel’s request was because the posts in question promoted denial of the Holocaust.

This data demonstrates that either Facebook transparency reports or Israel’s state attorney office have presented false data. The data presented by one of them can’t be true.

“Another face of occupation”

Palestinian journalists held a demonstration in Gaza City on 5 March, to protest Facebook’s persistent blocking of Palestinian accounts.

Protesters held banners that read, “Facebook collaboration with Israel transforms it from [a] social media platform for all to another face of occupation,” and used the hashtag “#FBfightspalestine” on social media.

In 2016, Israel struck an accord with Facebook. Under it, the corporation agreed to collaborate in monitoring what Israel claims is “incitement” by Palestinians.

Since then, the number of Palestinian posts removed by Facebook at the request of the Israeli government has risen. Some Palestinian news organizations have been obstructed from publishing material on the website.

While Palestinians have been subject to greater censorship, a large number of Israelis have used Facebook for posting racist material.

One out of every nine Facebook posts written about Palestinians contains a call for violence or a curse, according to a new study conducted by the Palestinian campaign group 7amleh.

A new post containing incitement against Palestinians is uploaded every 71 seconds, the group has calculated.

The study also found that the number of right-wing Israeli Facebook groups and pages that incite against Palestinians dramatically increased in 2017.

The report complains that while “Facebook intensifies its efforts to suspend, delete and ban Palestinian accounts and pages under the pretext of ‘incitement,’ the social media giant expanded its platform for Israeli incitement.”

Israeli online violence is especially directed towards Palestinian politicians. Ahmad Tibi and Haneen Zoabi, both Palestinian members of the Knesset, are regularly subjected to violent threats on Facebook.

The Strategy of Tension Towards Russia and the Push to Nuclear War

Colin Todhunter

The United States has devised on ongoing strategy of tension towards Russia. It has initiated economic sanctions against Moscow, concocted a narrative about ‘Russian aggression’ for public consumption and has by various means attempted to undermine and weaken the energy-dependent Russian economy. It has moreover instigated a coup on Russia’s doorstep in Ukraine and is escalating tensions by placing troops in Europe.

The reality is that the US, not Russia, has around 800 military bases in over 100 countries and military personnel in almost 150 countries. US spending on its military dwarfs what the rest of the world spends together. For example, it outspends China by a ratio of 6:1.

But what does the corporate media in the West say about this? That the US is a ‘force for good’ and constitutes the ‘world’s policeman’ – not a calculating empire underpinned by militarism.

By the 1980s, Washington’s wars, death squads and covert operations were responsible for six million deaths in the ‘developing’ world. Other estimates suggests a figure closer to 20 million deaths in 37 nations since 1945.

Breaking previous agreements made with Russia/the USSR, over the past two decades the US and NATO have moved into Eastern Europe and continue to encircle Russia and install missile systems aimed at it. It has surrounded Iran with military bases. It is also ‘intervening’ in countries across Africa to weaken Chinese trade and investment links and influence. It intends to eventually militarily ‘pivot’ towards Asia to encircle China.

William Blum has presented a long list of Washington’s crimes across the planet since 1945 in terms of its numerous bombings of countries, assassinations of elected leaders and destabilisations. No other country comes close to matching the scale of such global criminality. Under the smokescreen of exporting ‘freedom and democracy’, the US has deemed it necessary to ignore international laws and carry out atrocities to further its interests across the globe.

The ultimate goal for the current century is to prevent any rival emerging to challenge Washington’s global hegemony. Washington’s long-term game plan for Russia has been to destroy is as a functioning state or to permanently weaken it so it submits to US hegemony. Getting a compliant leader installed would be ideal for the US; Putin is anything but.

Unfortunately, many members of the Western public believe the narrative about Putin as an aggressor. The lies being fed to the them are built on gullible, easily manipulated public opinion fanned by emotive outbursts from politicians and the media.

These politicians express fake concern for the lives of people in far-off lands, including outrage about alleged atrocities by people like Gaddafi or Assad. Meanwhile, these same politicians, under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention’, are responsible for millions of deaths due to their illegal wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere.

A few years ago, former US Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst spoke about the merits of the coup in Ukraine and the installation of an illegitimate government and the rise of fascist groups there. He called the violent removal of Ukraine’s democratically elected government as enhancing democracy. Herbst displayed all the arrogance associated with the ideology of US ‘exceptionalism’.

As if to underline this, in a recent interview for NBC, Vladimir Putin laid bare this warped mentality by stating:

“Please listen to me and take to your viewers and listeners what I am about to say. We are holding discussions with our American friends and partners, people who represent the government by the way, and when they claim that some Russians interfered in the US elections, we tell them (we did so fairly recently at a very high level): ‘But you are constantly interfering in our political life’. Would you believe it, they are not even denying it.”

He continued:

“Do you know what they told us last time? They said, ‘Yes, we do interfere, but we are entitled to do so, because we are spreading democracy, and you are not, and so you cannot do it.’ Do you think this is a civilised and modern approach to international affairs?”

We can see the smoking ruins, the ongoing violence, the mass displacement and the deaths that have resulted in Libya and across the Middle East as a result of exporting US ‘democracy’.

What Putin is really guilty of is calling for a multi-polar world, not one dominated by the US. It’s a goal that most of humanity is guilty of. It is a world the US will not tolerate.

In the wake of the recent use of a deadly nerve agent in the UK, PM Theresa May is accusing Russia of carrying out the attack. However, Russia has demanded evidence. Quite reasonable one would assume, but it has not been forthcoming. May believes that by saying and repeating there is unequivocal evidence to implicate Moscow will be enough to disguise the fact she cannot offer any. Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray has written some revealing articles which undermine May’s accusation about Russian involvement.

While May offers moral outrage for public consumption about this attack, supposedly by a foreign power on two individuals on British territory, nothing is said in or by the media about her own disregard for the sovereign integrity of other nations, British involvement in destabilising Syria and the death the West has brought to countries in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, US and the West’s foreign policy is being driven on the basis of fake morality and duplicity.

The US wanted Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden and refused to give the Afghan government evidence for him to be extradited (as international law requires), on the assumption he was guilty of the 9/11 attack in New York. The Afghan government asked for evidence and received none. The US illegally attacked and now has a foothold in mineral-rich, strategically important Afghanistan.

Saddam Hussein was accused of having weapons of mass destruction. He had none. Iraq was illegally attacked and invaded regardless on the basis of a ‘pack of lies’. Now Western oil interests have what they coveted all along.

Gaddafi was accused of slaughtering civilians as a pretext for his removal. Terror groups were used as NATO’s proxy army and France and Britain supplied air support. Libya lies in ruins and Gadhafi’s plans for unifying Africa and asserting African self-autonomy have met a similar fate.

In Syria, despite the official reasons for Western intervention, including support for a ‘democratic revolution’, what we have seen is imperialist intent backed by a ‘dirty war‘ to remove a sovereign government that would not comply with US interests.

And Russia is condemned for using deadly nerve agent on British soil. While the Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn is smeared for demanding clear evidence that the Russian state was behind the attack, May and Trump think blanket condemnation without evidence will suffice.

Whether it is Bush and Blair or the current crop of political leaders, fake morality and deception is used time and again to further Washington’s global hegemony. With millions of dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya as a result of US-led imperialism, Russia is constantly demonised simply because it will not acquiesce to Washington and serve as a vassal state.

Regardless of actual facts, the psychological operations about ‘Russian aggression’ directed at the public is unrelenting. All in support of the US, a country that has flagrantly abused international law to carry out illegal wars, torture, drone assassinations and mass murder as and when it deems necessary.

Before finishing, we should not overlook the way US militarism is being driven by a moribund neoliberal capitalism. According to William Robinson, professor of sociology at the University of California, the US and other states that have adopted the neoliberal agenda have turned to four mechanisms in the face of economic stagnation and massive inequalities: the raiding and sacking of public budgets; the expansion of credit to consumers and to governments to sustain spending and consumption; frenzied financial speculation; and militarism.

Robinson concludes that the “creative destruction” of the wars we see have served to throw fresh firewood on the smoldering embers of a stagnant global economy.

Be in no doubt that the ongoing death and destruction in the Middle East has been a boon to the arms industry and demonisation of Russia is a mouthwatering prospect this sector, which is pushing for a new cold war and financially lucrative weapons race.

In the meantime, Theresa May and pro-Washington establishment politicians and media will continue to try to tell the public about ‘Russian aggression’. May and other political leaders are doing the bidding of the interests they ultimately represent. These politicians must act in a manner that mirrors the scant regard for human life exhibited by the elite they serve. Whether it involves the role of the British in the 1943 Bengal famine, which killed up to four million, or the US dropping of atom bombs on Japan a couple of years later, it’s a defining trait of empire.

When Washington’s strategy of tension with a nuclear armed Russia stretches to breaking point, it won’t be millions who lie dead and wasted this time around; it will be the entire planet.

Sri Lankan government continues to use draconian terror laws

Minusha Fernando

Sri Lanka continues to use the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) to torture detainees and extract confessions under President Maithripala Sirisena’s administration, according to Locked Up Without Evidence, a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The report, published in late January, is based on interviews with 34 former PTA detainees, the family members of seven current detainees and the lawyers and human rights defenders working on these cases. The detainees are victims of Colombo’s 26-year war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which ended in the Sri Lankan military’s victory in 2009, and its aftermath.

The PTA was enacted in 1979, supposedly to curb the LTTE and other militant Tamil groups. Before it unleashed full-scale war against the separatists in 1983, Colombo used the law to repress Tamils, workers and youth.

Police and the security forces have extensive powers under the PTA to arbitrarily arrest people, detain them without charge for up to 18 months and obtain forced confessions. The laws provide immunity for government officials responsible for torture and other acts.

During his 2015 election campaign against incumbent president Mahinda Rajapakse, Sirisena exploited the widespread popular opposition to Rajapakse’s human rights violations. The PTA, however, remains in effect under Sirisena and, according to the HRW, has been used to arrest and detain people.

In 2016, for example, police claimed to have found a suicide jacket and arrested 11 youth from Chavakachcheri, about 14 kilometres south of Jaffna. They were held without trial for several months before six were released and three others were granted bail. Two youth remain in jail, pending charges and trial.

All the detainees mentioned in the HRW report have been kidnapped and arrested without due process and incarcerated without charge for lengthy periods.

The only option for most of those held is to plead guilty in order to end the indefinite detention. Vivodhani Givoshan, for example, was arrested under the PTA in 2010. He told HRW how his brother, who was also held under the PTA for long period and tortured, was forced to take that decision.

“In six out of his eight cases, the ones that actually went to court, we decided that it would be easier for him [my brother] to plead guilty, so there was actually no trial, even we know the prosecution had no evidence, or at least none that my brother’s lawyers could see,” Givoshan said. His brother is still in custody.

A majority of those incarcerated under the PTA have been tortured. This has included assaulting detainees with poles and sticks, hanging them by their hands, and forcing them to breathe through plastic bags that contain kerosene. Those not subjected to physical brutality were mentally tortured.

Gurupharan Gurudharan, who was arrested in 2008, told HRW he was hung by his hands and beaten by Special Task Force (STF) members until he fainted. Denied drinking water during this torture, he even checked the toilet for water but STF officers had emptied it. He was released in February 2017 but is still under police surveillance.

Locked Up Without Evidence reveals that all those released are still attempting to recover from physical and psychological damage. Gurudharan’s health, for example, has not fully recuperated. He cannot stay in sunlight and has no strength in his right arm.

Angela Croos, who taught English at a school in Kandy, never recovered her health and died two years after her release. Murali Rajalechchami, a former student who had done well at school, is still traumatised by the treatment he endured in police custody.

The report also reviews the experiences of “Sinhala Tigers”—ethnic Sinhalese accused of supporting Tamil separatists.

Sudesh Nandimal, secretary of the railway trade union, was kidnapped by state authorities in April 2007. He was beaten, made to breathe through plastic bags containing kerosene and had a high-pressure water hose put in his mouth. He was incarcerated for 18 months and then released without charge.

Sahan Kirthi, another ethnic Sinhalese, who, according to the HRW, worked for a trade union newspaper, was arrested in February 2007 and beaten until he confessed to being a “Sinhala Tiger.” Kirthi lost the hearing in his left ear as a result of the beatings. Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) officers told him that his sister would be raped unless he confessed.

Kirthi’s testimony to HRW reveals how these draconian methods are enforced throughout the entire state apparatus. “When I was produced before the magistrate, I started telling my story,” he said. “She called us into her chambers instead and scolded me for saying that the TID had tortured me. I showed her my wounds and scars and she said, ‘You must have hit yourself.’”

With the assistance of some lawyers who heard him shouting in the courtroom, Kirthi was brought before a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO). But the JMO “didn’t listen to me,” he said. “There is a network between the JMO, magistrate, and the TID, I am certain of that. They protect each other.” Kirthi was incarcerated for seven years and then released without charge.

The government is proposing new “counter-terrorism” laws in an attempt to deflect mounting opposition to the PTA. The legislation could result in various political activities or protests defined as terrorist actions.

The report notes that the term “terrorist act” vaguely and broadly “includes ‘intimidating a population’ and threatening ‘the unity, territorial integrity, sovereignty of Sri Lanka, or the national security or defense of Sri Lanka.’”

The HRW warned that the legislation would “facilitate human rights violations.” In fact, the new laws indicate that the ruling class is preparing for even more ruthless measures.

The HRW report insists that the government has made positive steps. But, as the WSWS has explained, the new act goes far beyond the PTA. It provides the framework for a police-state regime being prepared by the ruling elite as it confronts growing opposition and political struggles by the working class.

Former Tongan PM charged in passport inquiry

John Braddock

Amid deepening political turmoil in the small Pacific island kingdom of Tonga, police announced on March 2 the arrest of former prime minister Lord Tu’ivakano in connection with a passport fraud scandal.

It is the most high-profile arrest by the Passport Taskforce, set up in 2015 to investigate the alleged scams. More than a dozen people, including several politicians, have so far pleaded guilty to various charges.

Tu’ivakano, prime minister from 2010 to 2014, and a sitting member of parliament appointed by the country’s nobility, is charged with making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a passport, perjury, acceptance of a bribe, and money laundering.

In a separate case, Internal Affairs Minister ‘Akosita Lavulavu and her husband, former cabinet minister ‘Etuate Lavulavu, were arrested on March 4. The charges include knowingly dealing in forged documents.

An audit of Tonga’s immigration divisions, completed in 2013, found a Chinese couple, Sien Lee and his wife, had been issued seven diplomatic and 15 ordinary passports since 2003. Local media reported that King George Tupou VI told Tu’ivakano not to issue diplomatic passports to the couple. However, the Queen Mother ordered that they be given to her friends.

Documents provided to Fairfax Media in New Zealand last year also revealed Tu’ivakano had signed off on five passports in October 2014, despite concerns about the validity of the applicants. The Chinese nationals claimed they were granted citizenship and issued passports in Tonga during the 1990s.

Tonga’s police commissioner Steve Caldwell is a New Zealander. His position is funded by the NZ government’s aid program, which largely pays for Tonga’s police and courts. The NZ Serious Fraud Office played a major role in the passport investigation. Possibly in retaliation for the arrests, Police Minister Māteni Tapueluelu has since made a cabinet submission to dismiss Caldwell over the alleged importation of prohibited weapons and large amounts of ammunition by the armed forces and police.

These episodes point to the instability of Tonga’s autocratic and semi-feudal political system and also highlight the extent of New Zealand imperialism’s direct interference in the country’s affairs.

The New Zealand ruling elite has always considered Tonga to be part of its neo-colonial sphere, along with Samoa. The impoverished country is a significant source of cheap labour for the New Zealand and Australian agricultural sector. Both imperialist countries are intervening throughout the Pacific to assert their control and push back against China’s increasing economic influence, which has been encouraged by the Tongan monarchy.

Last August King Tupou dissolved parliament on the advice of Tu’ivakano, who was then the speaker. Tu’ivakano declared that a bill, which sought to give cabinet direct responsibility for appointing positions such as the police commissioner and attorney general was “a clear attempt to erode the powers of the king and privy council.”

A snap election in November resulted in a decisive win for the Democratic Party of incumbent Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pōhiva, who was reinstated by vote of the parliament.

Conflicts appear to be intensifying between the king and the unelected nobles, who appoint nine of the 26 MPs in parliament, on the one hand, and the “pro-democracy” faction headed by Pōhiva, on the other.

New Zealand-based Tongan academic Malakai Koloamatangi told Radio NZ last year that Pōhiva’s government “bent on reform may have pushed too hard.” The proposals to take away the constitutional power of the king to deny assent to bills before they become law, would effectively take the king out of the law-making process.

Pōhiva became prime minister following the 2014 elections, supported and promoted by Canberra and Wellington. The regional powers remain frustrated, however, at the slow pace of pro-business economic “reform” in Tonga, and are alarmed at China’s strengthening ties with the country.

Tonga took out a $US118 million low-interest Chinese loan a decade ago, which the country has since been hoping would be written off as aid. The Chinese government has provided Tonga with a significant amount of aid, but has not written off the loan, for which a strict repayment schedule is expected to begin this year.

During his first official visit to New Zealand in August 2016, Pōhiva came under pressure over a Chinese passenger plane operating in Tonga, which did not comply with New Zealand’s civil aviation laws. After the plane was gifted to Tonga by Beijing in 2013, New Zealand issued travel warnings and suspended $NZ10 million of aid, causing outrage in Beijing.

These political tensions have been building up for more than a decade. Following public sector strikes and anti-monarchy riots in 2006, which profoundly shook the Tongan elite, Australia and New Zealand sent troops to the impoverished country to protect their strategic and economic interests and prevent Tonga’s political crisis from spiralling out of their control.

Under pressure from Canberra and Wellington, the Tongan government responded with limited measures to “democratise” the electoral system. Beginning with the 2010 election, the monarchy agreed to increase the number of elected MPs in parliament from 9 to 17, with 9 seats reserved for nobles. Further constitutional changes saw the king relinquish some of his powers. The royal family also divested itself of business assets.

The regional powers have no concern for the social conditions and basic democratic rights of ordinary Tongans, but have pushed for market liberalisation. The royal family implemented some pro-market measures in the past decade—leading to increased social inequality, poverty and unemployment. But as far as Australia, New Zealand, and the International Monetary Fund are concerned, not enough has been done to open up Tonga’s markets and resources for exploitation.

This month, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern visited Tonga as part of a high-powered Pacific tour. It followed a speech by NZ Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters at the Lowy Institute in Australia on the need for New Zealand to be more assertive in the Pacific against “external actors and interests,” especially China.

During the visit, Peters announced the appointment of a new high commissioner, Tiffany Babington, who will lead the delivery of $US47 million of investment over three years, focused on the areas of “energy, policing, justice and education.” Key parts of the state apparatus, in other words, will remain under New Zealand’s control.

The geo-political rivalry destabilizing Tonga’s fragile political order is likely to worsen. Significantly, King Tupou and his deputy prime minister were both in Beijing for the duration of Ardern’s visit. The king’s week-long absence also coincided with the arrest of Tu’ivakano.

Tupou and Chinese President Xi Jinping proclaimed a new “strategic partnership” between the nations. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said China-Tonga relations had entered a new stage of rapid development since 2014 when Xi paid a visit to the Pacific, pledging increased support for economic and infrastructure development.

Australian government to push through anti-democratic “foreign interference” bills

Mike Head

Despite numerous submissions to a parliamentary committee that provide chilling examples of how its sweeping “foreign interference” bills will eviscerate freedom of political expression and organisation, the Liberal-National government is trying to ram the legislation through as quickly as possible.

Submissions and government answers to committee questions have revealed that, for instance, political parties could be criminalised for participating in global campaigns within Australia, and protestors could be jailed for up to 20 years for blocking a public road over an international issue, such as uranium mining.

To get the bills through as quickly as possible, Attorney-General Christian Porter last week offered minor amendments to their draconian secrecy clauses. The move was to try to satisfy concerns expressed by the large media corporations, which could be classified as “foreign principals” under the legislation. Porter unveiled vague “public interest” exemptions for professional journalists and media staff.

However, with the overwhelming support of the same corporate media establishment, and in-principle backing from the Labor Party, the government remains adamant about the central provisions and thrust of the legislation. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is now due to report next month, potentially clearing the way for a bid to push the bills through during parliament’s May budget session.

While nominally directed at combating “improper influence” by any foreign power, the bills are aimed, as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has stressed, against China in particular. The legislation has vast implications for free speech and political dissent. For the first time, criminal offences, carrying up to 20 years’ imprisonment, would apply to simply undertaking political activity in partnership with any overseas organisation.

In addition, all individuals or organisations engaged in any political activity with a possible international link, including lobbyists, activist groups, media organisations and charities, would have to register under a Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme—a new form of political intrusion and surveillance.

The bills amount to a fundamental assault on legal and democratic rights, including freedom of association. They could be used to jail government opponents under conditions of mounting war preparations by the US and its closest allies, such as Australia, against China, which the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy has branded a “strategic” threat to US global pre-eminence.

The five bills add to the barrage of unprecedented police-state laws already passed since 2001 under the banner of the “war on terror.” These measures are directed at silencing opposition and suppressing unrest as the war danger grows, accompanied by ever-widening social inequality and deepening cuts to social spending.

Among the examples raised in committee hearings:

A Labor MP asked the Attorney-General’s Department to clarify the “foreign agents” registration scheme. One scenario concerned officials or members of like-minded political parties from the UK and Australia meeting to agree on pursuing common party platforms.

Would that constitute “collaboration” with a “foreign principal”? The evasive answer was: “Possibly. This will depend on the facts and circumstances.”

Another question was: “Which of the Australians present would have to register—parliamentarians, party officials, party members? The answer was: “It is not possible to provide a more definite answer without a full understanding of all the relevant facts and circumstances.”

A further scenario was an environmental organisation, headquartered overseas, but operating through a local branch in a global campaign urging governments to commit to a particular climate target. Again, the department’s answer was “possibly, depending on the facts and circumstances,” the Australian branch would have to register.

Another question was whether an overseas grandmother asking her Australian-based grandson to write to the home affairs minister about the progress of a cousin’s student visa would require the grandson to register. This answer was unequivocal: “As the Bill is currently drafted, the Australian permanent resident would be required to register under the Scheme.”

The Chinese Community Council of Australia said the 1.2 million Chinese Australians would be at particular “bureaucratic risk” under the bills, as would “academics who research and teach Chinese economic, cultural and foreign affairs policies,” organisations that “shed light on the pros and cons of the interplay of Australia, Chinese and US policies” and “cultural, community and business exchange groups who publish comments and papers about aspects of foreign relationships on social and public media.”

GetUp!, a reformist lobby group, said anyone who communicated Australian breaches of international law to a world body, such as the UN or an international news agency, would be liable to life imprisonment, or 25 years’ imprisonment for merely collecting or possessing such evidence.

However, GetUp!, which is generally aligned with the Labor and Greens parties, did not call for the scrapping of the bills. Instead, it urged redrafting, so that the legislation would only “capture bona fide threats to Australian sovereignty.” What is in effect the defence of the Australian capitalist nation-state is in keeping with the government and corporate media campaign against alleged Chinese “interference” in Australia.

Another submission gave a clear indication of the pressure being applied by the US and the Australian military and intelligence apparatus for the rapid passage of the bills. Professor Rory Medcalf, a former senior intelligence officer who heads the National Security College at the Australian National University, told the committee: “Foreign interference, specifically from the authoritarian Party-State that is the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is a real and pressing challenge to Australia’s democratic institutions and foreign policy independence.”

Australia, Medcalf declared, is “a strategic bellwether” in Beijing’s quest to “attain a military and economic edge over the United States, its allies and partners.” Therefore, the Australian response would be “globally significant” and “Australia’s seriousness of purpose and reliability as a security partner will be judged by other democracies, in part, on how we handle (or ignore) the foreign interference issue.”

In effect, Medcalf was outlining the demands of the military and intelligence services, which increasingly have been integrated into the US war plans. He cited repeated recent warnings issued by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) against what he termed China’s “‘sharp power’ intrusive influence” in Australia.

Medcalf praised as “excellent” Clive Hamilton’s new book, Silent Invasion, China’s Influence in Australia, which insists that a US-led war against China is the only way to stop Australia from becoming a “tribute state of the resurgent Middle Kingdom.”

According to Medcalf, the bills “reflect the kind of legislation Australia urgently needs to protect its national security from what ASIO has identified as an unprecedented set of threats of foreign interference and influence.” His testimony, however, underscores the enormous political influence that Washington, unlike Beijing, exerts in Australian ruling circles, both directly and indirectly.

Medcalf’s submission is a further warning that the legislation is part of preparations for a catastrophic, potentially nuclear, military conflict, and seeks to suppress any criticism, opposition or mobilisation against militarism and war, and the ruling class responsible for them.

In name of fighting sex trafficking, US Congress set to pass internet censorship law

Will Morrow

In the latest attack on internet freedom, the US Senate is expected to pass legislation as early as next week that, in the name of combating online sex trafficking, will further increase the powers of the state to censor the internet.

The bill, named Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), allows for the prosecution of a broad array of websites and other online services if users of their platforms publish illegal content.

The new law would represent a significant shift in the legal framework governing the internet, with far-reaching implications. Currently, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, passed as the internet was emerging, websites and internet service providers are not, in general, legally responsible for content that users publish on their platforms. This means, for example, that if an individual publishes illegal or defamatory statements on Facebook, only that person, rather than Facebook itself, can be prosecuted. In a similar way, telephone network providers cannot be prosecuted for crimes that individuals coordinate over the phone.

The FOSTA bill modifies the Communications Act to “prohibit construing section 230 to limit state criminal charges for conduct” that “promotes or facilitates prostitution” or “constitutes child sex trafficking.” In particular, an internet service or website can be prosecuted for “knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating” such activities.

As always, the anti-democratic measure is framed in supposedly noble terms to provide it with a benign veneer. Who, after all, would oppose efforts to prevent the sexual exploitation of young children? But the real purpose of the bill is to enable a broad array of internet platforms and services to be targeted, censored and ultimately shut down based on material posted by lone individuals.

Commentators have noted that the law will force websites, discussion forums, online marketplaces, and other services to impose far more onerous censorship of what content they allow users to publish, for fear of being prosecuted.

Civil liberties and internet organizations have published statements opposing the legislation and warning about its anti-democratic implications.

The Wikimedia foundation, which operates WikiLeaks, released a statement by executive director Katherine Maher noting that Wikipedia “is written and maintained by hundreds of thousands of volunteer contributors… CDA 230 enables the Wikimedia Foundation to host this remarkable user-generated resource. The Wikipedia we know today would not exist without CDA 230.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation released a statement noting that if FOSTA is passed, “many online platforms will be forced to place strong restrictions on their users’ speech.”

The bill was passed through the lower house on February 28 with overwhelming bipartisan support by a margin of 388-25. No similar statements of opposition to child exploitation were heard from Democrats or Republicans less than a month earlier, with the release of a report showing that the US military covered up reports of more than 6,000 cases of abuse of young boys in Afghanistan by high-ranking allies of the US occupying forces.

Given that the legislation could be used to target social media and technology companies including Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Google, it is remarkable that these giant corporations have given their support to the bill.

As late as August 2017, the Internet Association lobby, which represents all four companies, issued a letter opposing the bill, declaring that it would have a “devastating impact on legitimate online services,” while the “threat of vexatious subpoenas and increased liability under the proposed carve-out would likely result in mass removals of legitimate content” and result in a “chilling effect.”

Last November, the Internet Association reversed its position, claiming that it was satisfied with an amended version of the bill which retained its main sweeping and anti-democratic provisions. Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg released a statement on February 26 declaring, “Facebook is committed to working with them and with legislators in the House and Senate as the process moves forward to make sure we pass meaningful and strong legislation to stop sex trafficking.”

Other corporations supporting the bill include 21st Century Fox, Oracle and IBM. A number of smaller technology companies, which are more financially vulnerable to lawsuits, have opposed it.

While Facebook, Google, and the other technology behemoths would, at an earlier time, have publicly opposed any infringement on their platforms’ ability to host user-generated content without fear of prosecution, all of them have been integrated into the campaign by the Democratic Party and the military/ intelligence agencies for online censorship and into their operations.

On March 6, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, admitted that it provides software to the US military used as part of the latter’s drone assassination program. Since the start of the year, under the banner of combating “fake news,” Facebook has introduced a series of changes to its News Feed to reduce the proliferation of news, in favour of users’ “personal moments,” and censor alternative news sites in favour of “authoritative” publications such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Pentagon concealed role of US special forces in deadly Niger offensive

Eddie Haywood 

AFRICOM acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that it kept quiet about a deadly offensive its elite forces conducted late last year with Nigerien soldiers, highlighting the scale of US special operations in West Africa and illustrating clearly the predatory aims that underlay the Pentagon’s deployment of elite soldiers in the region.

On December 6 last year, Green Berets coordinating a military operation with Nigerien forces, killed 11 militants near the town of Diffa, close to the Nigerian border. The announcement by the Pentagon on Wednesday marks the first time it has acknowledged its role in the December engagement.

AFRICOM’s silence regarding the operation was no doubt influenced by the international outcry provoked by the October 4 killing of four Green Berets during an ambush in northwestern Niger, which exposed the vast scale of US military operations across West Africa.

The Pentagon’s operations in Niger are extensive and far-reaching—last year the US finished construction of a drone base in Agadez, located in central Niger, which AFRICOM stated is equipped with the capability of conducting armed drone flights across the entire Sahel region and into northern Africa to carry out surveillance and assassinations.

Speaking to the New York Times regarding the December 6 offensive,AFRICOM spokesperson Samantha Reho stated that American and Nigerien troops on a mission in the Lake Chad Basin region came under fire from a “formation of violent extremists.” Reho portrayed the event as an act of defense on the part of US and Nigerien troops after Islamist militants attacked their garrison.

“The purpose of the mission was to set the conditions for future partner-led operations against violent extremist organizations in the region,” she said. “There was no aspect of this mission focused on pursuing enemy militants, and the combined force was postured to respond as necessary in case contact with the enemy occurred,” Reho claimed.

Reho added, “With that said, our forces do operate in unstable areas and are occasionally exposed to danger from enemy forces. When such a situation occurs, our personnel are authorized to respond to threats and violence appropriately.”

Refuting Reho’s claims and making clear the predatory character of US military operations in Niger is the October interview of Nigerien Defense Minister Kalla Mountari by Reuters. When asked to describe the mission of US Special Forces deployed to Niger and their relationship to the Nigerien forces, Mountari matter-of-factly stated, “The Americans are not just exchanging information with us. They are waging war when necessary. We are working hand in hand. The clear proof is that the Americans and Nigeriens fell on the battlefield for the peace and security of our country.”

Further contradicting the account provided by Reho was the statement to the New York Times by an unnamed official familiar with the firefight, which suggested the elite commandos were conducting an offensive operation with the aim of establishing an outpost.

According to the official, US forces were conducting a multi-day operation with Nigerien troops. The official said that the operation’s aim was to clear the area of hostile forces so that a new outpost could be created, which would be very advantageous to US aims in the region.

The location of the offensive near Diffa, a town in southeastern Niger close to the border with Nigeria, is a region long inflamed with conflict between the joint Nigerien-US forces and the Islamist militia Boko Haram, which has been warring in northern Nigeria, with frequent cross-border skirmishes and raids.

The criminal character of US Special Forces deployed to West Africa was underscored by the arrest of two Navy Seals in Mali for the June 2017 murder of Logan Melgar, a Green Beret stationed at the US embassy in Bamako. US Special Forces troops were deployed to the West African nation to conduct intelligence and training operations against Al Qaeda-affiliated militants waging war against the US/French-backed government.

According to military officials investigating the murder, the two Navy Seals, who were also stationed at the embassy, were allegedly pilfering cash from a slush fund made available by the embassy to pay informants. When Melgar discovered the skimming operation and threatened to alert authorities, the two Seals killed him.

Joshua Geltzer, the senior director of counter-terrorism with the National Security Council under then-president Barack Obama, sought to place the blame for keeping the war in Niger secret entirely within the context of the Trump administration and thereby obscuring the role of the Democratic president who initiated the military intervention in Niger.

“It’s disappointing to see this administration show disrespect for Congress’s effort to obtain public answers to key legal questions of our time,” Geltzer told the New York Times.

As the WSWS has reported, Washington has been building and expanding its military forces on the African continent beginning with the Republican George W. Bush administration and continuing through Obama and Trump as part of America’s imperialist strategy for Africa.

The ongoing conflict in Niger and the wider region is the outcome of the 2011 US-backed NATO bombardment of Libya, in which the Obama administration utilized Islamist militias to conduct a regime change operation that culminated with the assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the killing of thousands of Libyans by NATO bombs. Libyan society was completely destroyed, and the Islamist fighters that Washington armed spilled forth from Libya across the Sahel and into West Africa.

Furthermore, the development of American military outposts across the African continent must be seen within the context of China’s growing economic influence across the continent. Washington perceives Beijing as an intolerable rival for Africa’s vast economic resources, which includes substantial reserves of minerals, oil, gas, and precious metals and is using its vast military power in an effort to offset China’s economic clout.

OWSD PhD Fellowships for Women Scientists from Science and Technology Lagging Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st June 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): The award will give nominated students the opportunity  to study in centres of excellence in the developing world, and help educate the next generation of mathematicians thereby advancing science in the home countries of those chosen for the fellowship.

Fields of Study:
01-Agricultural Sciences
02-Structural, Cell and Molecular Biology
03-Biological Systems and Organisms
04-Medical and Health Sciences incl. Neurosciences
05-Chemical Sciences
06-Engineering Sciences
08-Mathematical Sciences
09-Physics

About the Award: The “South to South PhD Training” fellowships for Women Scientists from 

Science and Technology Lagging Countries (STLCs) to undertake PhD research in the Natural, Engineering and Information Technology sciences at a host institute in the South. The fellowships are to be held at a centre of excellence in a developing country outside the applicant’s own country.
Candidates can choose between two study schemes:

• a full-time fellowship (maximum 4 years funding), where the research is undertaken entirely at a host institute in another developing country in the South.
• a sandwich fellowship, where the candidate must be a registered PhD student in her home country and undertakes part of her studies at a host institute in another developing country.
  The sandwich fellowship is awarded for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 research visits at the host institute. The minimum duration of the first visit is 6 months. The total number of months spent at the host institute cannot exceed 20 months. The funding period cannot exceed 4 years.
  OWSD particularly encourages candidates to consider the sandwich option, which allows them to earn the PhD in their home country while accessing specialist researchers and equipment abroad, at the host institute.

The fellowship support is only provided while the student is on site, at the host institute.

Type: Postgraduate (Doctorate)

Eligibility: To be eligible, candidates must confirm that they intend to return to their home country as soon as possible after completion of the fellowship.
The minimum qualification is an MSc degree in one of the above listed study fields.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Each fellowship will cover the following:

• A monthly allowance to cover basic living expenses such as accommodation and meals while in the host country
• A special allowance to attend international conferences during the period of the fellowship
• A return ticket from the home country to the host institute for the agreed research period
• Visa expenses
• Annual medical insurance contribution
• The opportunity to attend regional science communications workshops, on a competitive basis
• Study fees (including tuition and registration fees) in agreement with the chosen host institute which is also expected to contribute
• Travel expenses to and from the host institute

Duration of Award: up to four years

How to Apply: The online application system will only accept applications complete in all parts, including the required documents. All documents must be uploaded through the online application system. Do not email any document to OWSD unless requested.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World  and The World Academy of Science (TWAS)

Government of Malta Scholarships in Climate Action for Students from Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 25th May 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing nations listed in link below

To be taken at (country): Malta

About the Award: Three scholarships in postgraduate studies are being offered for students seeking to enroll in Postgraduate Studies at the University of Malta commencing in October 2018. Each scholarship will focus on one of the three key areas recognised as essential pathways for ensuring effective climate action on a national level.

These pathways are:

• mitigation of climate change and low carbon transportation
• adaptation to climate change to enhance resilience for the conservation of living marine resources
• climate change governance in the context of small island states and territories.

The scholarships would offer students from developing States the opportunity to focus their studies and research according to their national needs and realities. A number of developing states are already exploring methodologies on how to build a better future in view of the impacts of climate change. The formation of young professionals in this field will directly support the growth and consolidation of these home-grown initiatives. The aim of these scholarships donated by the government of Malta will serve to complement other national climate action projects and provide the opportunity to educate academically and train professionally, young people from developing Page 2 of 16 States on how to manage mitigation, adaptation and governance of climate change.

Type: Postgraduate

Eligibility: In order to be considered eligible

• applicants should be Nationals and current residents of one of the countries indicated in the following list available here
• Applications should demonstrate a clear intention of returning to their home country at the end of their studies in Malta.

Number of Awardees: 3

Value of Scholarship: Funding will cover:

• Payment of the University of Malta Tuition Fees and/or Enrolment fee.
• Health Insurance to cover a premium up to a maximum of EUR 500 per year. Students will be guided on this and other arrangements upon arrival.
• Reimbursement for visa expenses amounting to 60 eur.
• A monthly subsistence allowance amounting to EUR 750 per month to be used towards accommodation, living, transport, academic expenses and any other expenses that may arise. Students will receive this monthly allowance for a maximum and continued duration of 16 months. The study programme must be completed on a full-time basis within the same time-frame.
• One return journey to the home country the cost of which is capped at 1000 euro. Any additional trips or travel costs higher than this amount will have to be covered by the student.

The scholarship holders will be requested to attend the Orientation Programme that is organised for all new international students joining the University of Malta. This will be held towards the end of September 2018.

How to Apply: Applicants need to have submitted their application online and provided copies of their academic qualifications and all other requested documentation to the University of Malta by the 25th May 2018.
It is important to go through the Application criteria and process before applying for this scholarship.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Government of Malta