22 Mar 2018

Punishing Russia

Elias Akleh

The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union gave the American administration the opportunity to become the only political and military global power. The world, then, became unipolar. The American Military Industrial Complex, though, suffered greatly since the main American enemy; the Soviet Union, had been neutralized and there was no more need for arms race. The attacks on 911 had to be perpetrated in order to initiate a global war on terror to revive the military business. The American administration had a free unimpeded reign to wage wars all over the globe, especially in the Arabian Middle East to pursue the Zionist Greater Israel Project.
Within the next ten years the Russian Federation, especially under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, was able to rebuild itself and to rebound back to become, again, an important player into the global political arena. American administration’s global authority has been challenged, and most importantly its meddling in, and its terror campaign in the Arabian Middle East in pursuit of the Zionist Project has been exposed and forcefully opposed.
This challenge started in 2008 in Georgia. Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, came to power through the American led 2003 Rose Revolution (coup) to oust the pro-Russian president Eduard Shevardnadze. With the encouragement and support of George W. Bush’s administration, president Mikheil Saakashvili in 2008 invaded South Ossetia. Russia sent its troops to protect its citizens and defeated Georgian troops in five days spoiling the American plan.
Ukraine was the theatre of another confrontation. In 2004 an Orange Revolution deposed the pro-Russian prime minister Victor Yanukovych, replacing him with pro-western Viktor Yushchenko, who accused Russia of attempting to poison him, and Yulia Tymoshenko to power. According to The Guardian this Orange Revolution was planned and funded by US State Department and USAID along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and the National Endowment for Democracy among others. Yet in 2010 Yanukovych was elected again as president, who agreed to enter into a Euromaidan agreement with the European Union that would include the replacement of Russian forces in the Crimean Peninsula thus controlling the Black Sea.  But Yanukovych changed his mind and opted to stay with Russia. The US and the EU orchestrated in 2014 riots that eventually deposed Yanukovych and installed Petro Poroshenko in his place. Russia then arranged for a referendum in Crimea, that resulted with 97% wishing to join the Russian Federation and a treaty of accession was signed accordingly.
The biggest American defeat took place in Syria. The misnomer Arab Spring was actually a step within the Zionist Project, aimed at toppling strong Arab regimes, further dividing the Arab World and installing pro-Zionist rulers. In 2011, after spreading chaos in Tunisia, installing a crypto-Jew ruler in Egypt, and destroying Libya, Syria’s turn was up. But Syria proved to be different than the other Arab states, and the American orchestrated demonstrations against the Syrian regime failed to produce results. So, the American administration, partnered with UK, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, created, trained, financed, armed and smuggled into Syria terrorist groups, under different names, to destroy the country. In 2015, and on the request of Syrian president; Al-Asad, Russia sent military advisers, weapons and fighter planes to fight the terrorists. On the other hand, the American administration, uninvited, unlike Russia, and in a move that could be legally construed as military invasion, sent its troops and fighter planes into parts of Syria and established military bases under the false pretense of fighting terrorists while in fact, and as revealed many times, protecting, and arming the same terrorists it is claiming to fight. The presence of American forces in Syria has no legitimacy since they were not invited by the Syrian government, and the terrorists they claim to fight are half the globe away and are not posing threats to USA.
Documented with hard evidences and video recordings, Russia and Syria had exposed American, Israeli, Turkish, and Saudi support to the terrorist groups especially all the chemical weapons false flag attacks. Russia has recently warned “We will take all necessary measures to prevent other American mistakes against Russian military or other military facilities on the territory of Syrian Arab Republic”
Russia had become a big global rival to the American hegemony and had spoiled the Zionist plan to destroy Syria. The plan to weaken and divide Syria had backfired; instead of minimizing the Syrian threat to Israel it succeeded only in increasing it. Although wounded, Syria has become militarily stronger, battle hardened and experienced, better armed and supported by strong allies of Russia and Iran. This poses a serious stumbling block to the Zionist Project.
The Zionist-controlled American administration decided that Russia, represented by its President Vladimir Putin, needs to be contained, and to be taught a hard lesson; specifically, a Talmudic lesson. Such a lesson would come in a form of a gradual and long-running plot that includes false flag terror attacks, proxy wars, regime change, economic sanctions, character assassination, and breaking international laws and conventions. This lesson has culminated recently with accusations of meddling in the American election, use of chemical weapons in Syria, and assassinations of Russian defectors, secret agents, whistleblowers and double spies.
In April 2014, a renowned French security expert; Paul Barril, who was an officer in the French Gendarmerie Nationale, served in French presidential security, and led several private security companies, had exposed the existence of “Operation Beluga”; a plot that was formed primarily by American and British intelligence with the cooperation of Israeli Mossad and others to demonize Putin and to destabilize and weaken Russia.
The process of demonizing Putin started in 2004 when Ukrainian Victor Yanukovich accused Putin of poising him with dioxin; a poison that could hardly kill a person. Yet this allegation helped Yanukovich to get elected as president.
In 2006 UK had accused Putin of assassinating Alexander Litvinenko; a Russian defector and former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service of Russian Federation (FSB). UK explained that the assassination was ordered because Litvinenko accused Putin of ordering the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. It is known that Litvinenko had fled to the UK to avoid court prosecution in Russia. He was working for a Jewish-Russian oligarch; Boris Berezovsky, who in turn had fled Russia to the UK to avoid Russian judicial system for committing multiple crimes. Litvinenko died by Polonium-210 radioactive poisoning. Traces of Polonium found on the seat of the British Airways planes Litvinenko flew back and forth to Israel suggest that he was smuggling nuclear materials to Israel and his death was the result of mishandling and exposure to the radioactive material rather than by assassination.
UK had also accused Putin for the death of Boris Berezovsky, who was found hanged at his ex-wife’s mansion in Berkshire, UK in 2013. Berezovsky fled Russian courts and was granted political asylum by UK; an act that negatively affected UK-Russia relations. Berezovsky’s aggressive anti-Putin propaganda campaign gained him the friendship of MI6 and the CIA. Before his death Berezovsky had written letters to Putin pleading to be allowed back to his native Russia. The letters suggest that Berezovsky found himself in a difficult situation in the UK and he was requesting Putin’s protection. It was also reported that Berezovsky was about to hand Putin a video and audio evidence of a plot to organize a coup against Putin.
The US joined the UK in accusing Putin/Russia of meddling in 2016 election. Throughout the whole 2017 year all the American media were hammering this accusation, while ignoring the well-known and established fact that the only state that regularly interferes in American election is Israel through its agent AIPAC. Megyn Kelly had interviewed Putin twice, during which she fired direct accusations against Putin personally. While broadcasting the interviews, the TV was focused on Kelly’s accusations while Putin’s answers, in Russian, were not translated in English leaving the audience in the dark. Putin explained that Russia has no goal meddling in the American election. He also pointed out the numerous incidents where the US had meddled in elections of many other countries. He stated that the American politicians themselves brag about the fact that the US had interfered and changed the course of elections in other countries, justifying the act as spreading democracy. You can watch the whole translated interview here and compare it with the non-translated interview here.
The chemical weapons issue has been stressed by western powers as a prelude to a chemical weapon attack planned in Syria. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) had discovered in March 14 a chemical weapons lab belonging to Jaish al-Islam terrorist group in the recently liberated village of Al-Shifuniayh in Eastern Ghouta. The lab had American made equipment. The western plan was to accuse Russia of aiding Syria in alleged chemical weapon attacks against civilians. It is worth remembering that on March 12 Nimrata “Nikki” Haley; the American ambassador to the UN, warned that the US will take action on its own in Syria if the UNSC fails to do so as a response to the alleged chemical attacks on civilians.
The alleged Russian chemical weapons issue surfaced again in the UK when few weeks ago, it was reported that a UK-Russian double spy; Sergei Skripal, and his daughter were found poisoned allegedly by the Russian manufactured military-grade nerve agent called novichok (newbie). It was reported that Skripal and daughter were exposed to the nerve agent through the air-condition vents of his car. Such accusation is very ridiculous due to the fact that novichok is extemely potent, reported as up to eight times deadlier than VX nerve agent, that can kill a person with a mere pinhead sized drop. Yet Skripal and his daughter are still alive and under treatment. The other absurdity of this accusation is the fact that Russia would not use this very expensive agent to kill somebody when there are so many cheaper ways to do the act, and would never use a chemical agent, whose fingerprints points directly to Russia.
Theresa May accused Russia of assassination without presenting any evidence stating that “no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter.” She claimed that the Russians have done it because only they have these poisons. Vil Mirzayanov is a Russian chemist, who was involved in the manufacture of novichok, and later defected to the USA. In his 1995 paper he claimed that novichok can be easily manufactured by any laboratory that make fertilizers or pesticide. He also explained that Soviet Union’s chemical weapons storage sites became public knowledge when the Rossiiskaya Gazeta published in January 1994 the amount and type of chemical agents stored at each site. The paper further explained that the chemical weapons were vulnerable to theft due to inadequate security measures.
It is important to mention here that on Monday March 12 another Russian defector was found dead in the UK. Russian airline mogul Nikolai Glushkov was found dead with strangulation marks at his home in New Malden, UK. He was imprisoned in Russia for embezzlement and defrauding Russian airline company Aeroflot. Glushkov was a close friend and a business partner with Boris Berezovsky.
It seems that there is a close connection between all these murdered Russian defectors: Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, Sergei Skripal, and Nikolai Glushkov. They all live around the vicinity of the British chemical weapon lab Porton Down in Salisbury, UK. Knowing that Litvinenko was smuggling radioactive material to Israel it would be worthwhile investigating whether this group of Russian defectors were involved in a ring smuggling radioactive and chemical weapons from Porton Down lab in UK to the Israeli Institute for Biological Research (IIBR), that is also involved in the manufacture of chemical weapons. Israel’s use of chemical and biological weapons against Palestinian and Arab communities is well known.
There is a plan to relate Skripal’s assassination attempt with the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria to demonize Russia globally at the UN level in order to suspend Russia’s membership at least for a while until the UNSC passes anti-Syrian resolutions, without the threat of a Russian veto, to “legitimize” further destruction of the country. On Wednesday March 14 Nikki Haley accused Russia of flagrantly and aggressively using nerve agent to poison Skripal, and at the same time blaming Russia for chemical attacks in Syria. Nikki also warned that if no immediate concrete measures taken to contain Russia the next chemical weapons “could be used here in New York, or in cities of any country that sits on this Council.” This is an implied threat that similar attacks could take place by Russian imposter.

Barely any “affordable” housing being built in the UK

Margot Miller

Practically no affordable homes are being built in the UK, even according to the government’s own dubious definition of “affordability.”
The vast majority of new apartments are built either for the well-off or as buy-to-lets at exorbitant rents.
Responsibility for this crisis in housing lies not just with the Conservative government, but with Labour, the party that runs most borough councils in London, as well as the local authorities in every major city. The Grenfell fire in London’s Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea last June, with the loss of at least 72 lives, highlighted the callous indifference on the part of the authorities to the most basic needs for safe, good-quality homes.
Planning documents researched by the Guardian show that of 14,667 new homes built in Manchester in the last two years, none met even the government’s criteria of “affordability.” Over the last decade, Manchester’s skyline has changed dramatically with new for private rent towers springing up and cranes building more. There are plans for new blocks of 18, 26 and 32 storeys.
With only the housing requirements of the well-off being catered for, 12,900 people are on a growing waiting list for social housing. The number of homeless has swelled, with rough sleepers every few yards on the main shopping thoroughfares.
Labour-run Manchester City Council issued a rebuttal of the Guardian ’s figures, claiming that 10.7 percent of new housing was affordable. Even if true, this means that almost 90 percent of units built are beyond the means of most working class Mancunians. In a clear policy of social cleansing, any planned “affordable” homes will be outside the city centre, and its amenities, where land is cheaper.
Other Labour-run councils building hardly any “affordable” houses include Sheffield—only 1.4 percent of its new homes, 97 out of 6,943, were deemed “affordable.” In Leeds—just 3.4 percent are “affordable” (7,871 of 3,522). Only Cardiff in Wales exceeded the council’s own target of 20 percent. Even then, there are just 24 percent “affordable” new homes out of a total of 12,085.
The government’s National Planning Policy Framework, which informs local councils, includes under “affordable” housing: “Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing [including shared ownership] provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.”
“Affordable” rent is either the social rent rate or no more than 80 percent of the local market rent. Affordable mortgage payments are classed as higher than social rent, but lower than market levels.
According to housing charity Shelter’s definition of “affordability,” rent/mortgage should ideally not consume more than a third of household income. On the median income of £27,000, that translates to rent of £687.50 per month, or a mortgage of around £125,000.
One of the main reasons so few affordable homes are built by private developers is an escape clause contained in the Conservative’s Town and Country Planning Act 1990, known as Section 106. This enables property developers to abrogate the commitment made with local councils to build an agreed percentage of “affordable” homes simply by claiming this would make their project financially unviable and agreeing to pay a fee instead.
Using research conducted by EGi, the news and research arm of commercial property magazine Es tates Gazette, Shelter found that across 11 local authorities 79 percent of “affordable” homes were lost through viability assessments last year.
Shelter found Manchester City Council built no affordable housing out of a 20 percent target, losing a possible 472 units out of 2,362 units, when viability was used. When viability was not applied in the case of a further 1,911 units, just 178 were “affordable.”
Birmingham, with a Labour majority on the council, only achieved 1 percent of its 35 percent target of affordable homes last year when viability was applied. Labour-run Brent achieved 25 percent out of a 50 percent target. Other councils failing to achieve their targets include Bristol, Cambridge, Leeds, Leicester, Newcastle, Southwark, and Manchester—all Labour-run authorities.
Research into 26 sites by Sheffield University’s Jonathan Silver revealed Labour-run Salford lost 2,194 affordable properties.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs report in 2016/2017 recommended that 300,000 new homes were needed annually in England just to meet existing housing needs. Last year saw an increase of up to 217,350 units, but less than a quarter (41,530) were “affordable.”
Social rented housing is the cheapest form of housing—applying to local government (council)-owned homes—but most council stock was sold off by Conservative and Labour councils. The number of council homes in Britain fell by 69 percent (down from 6.5 to 1.6 million in 2017) since the right-to-buy scheme was introduced by the Tories in 1980.
With the collapse in social housing provision, the expensive and far less secure private rented sector now provides more households than the social sector. However, access to this sector is fraught with obstacles, including rent to be paid in advance and hefty deposits. Many private landlords will not let to those receiving welfare.
According to the government’s Valuation Office Agency, the median monthly private rent for England (all bedrooms) was £675 for April 2016 to March 2017. This includes London, average median rent £1,495; the North West, £535; the West Midlands, £575; the South East, £875. The lowest average private rent was in the North East at £495.
With house price growth outstripping wages—by 7.7 percent in England on average, and as high as 24.8 percent in London’s affluent Chelsea and Fulham areas—obtaining a mortgage is almost impossible even for those on the median income. This has resulted in an exodus from London in the decade up to 2016, with 292,000 driven out by rising house prices. There are now 50,000 people living in temporary accommodation in the capital.
Local councils, many Labour-run, have responded to rapacious funding cuts from central government by privatising services, selling off remaining council stock and facilitating highly profitable deals with developers. This is set to escalate with central government funding to local councils being phased out and ending completely by 2020.
Property developers are making a killing in “regeneration” schemes centred on replacing working class neighbourhoods with high-end apartments. Residents mobilised recently in opposition to Labour-run Haringey Council in London, which set up the Haringey Development Vehicle run jointly with Lendlease to privatise £2 billion in public assets and demolish seven council estates.
Dr. Jonathan Silver of the Urban Institute at the University of Sheffield recently authored a research paper into the financialisation of housing in Greater Manchester. He concluded that housing has become “an investment opportunity for financial actors, from within the UK and increasingly internationally.”
Labour has embraced this ethos, with many of its senior local council officials intimately involved with property developers. This month, Salford’s Labour Mayor Paul Dennett and Sir Richard Leese, Labour leader of Manchester Council—along with representatives from other councils—attended the world’s leading annual real estate event, MIPIM, in Cannes, France. Dennett unveiled his council’s plans for a 240-acre development area, including 2,000 residential units as an £800 million investment opportunity to the approximately 20,000 global property speculators.

Chinese president expounds on his nationalist “dream”

Peter Symonds

Chinese President Xi Jinping concluded this month’s National People’s Congress with a speech on Tuesday emphasising the nationalist themes of his “dream” of Chinese rejuvenation and a central role in world politics. As he did last year, Xi declared that China was “standing tall in the east with a brand new posture.”
“We must ride on the mighty east wind of the new era, charge forward with a full tank and steadily steer the wheel with full power, so that the giant ship of China carrying the great dream of more than 1.3 billion Chinese people will continue to cleave the waves and sail to victory with a promising tomorrow,” Xi proclaimed.
The forthright nationalist character of Xi’s speech reflects his further elevation by the congress, which approved constitutional amendments removing the limit of two five-year terms on the president. Xi’s consolidation as China’s political strongman, who can now hold office indefinitely, takes place amid growing US threats of trade war and war, as well as intense social tensions at home.
Xi and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) represent the interests of a tiny layer of multi-billionaires who have accumulated vast fortunes as a result of the CCP’s restoration of capitalism over the past three decades. His nationalist fervour, which reflects the ambitions of the ultra-rich in China for a greater say in world affairs, is aimed at securing a base of support among the Chinese middle classes and sowing divisions in the working class.
Xi pointedly stressed Chinese unity just days after US President Donald Trump signed the Taiwan Travel Act authorising official visits between Taiwan and the US “at all levels,” a move that foreshadows stronger ties with Taiwan and undermines the US commitment to the “One China” policy. Washington broke diplomatic relations with Taipei in 1979 when it de facto recognised Beijing as the only government of all China, including Taiwan.
“Safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity and realising the complete reunification of the country are the common aspirations of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation,” Xi said. “All acts and tricks to split China are doomed to failure and will be condemned by the people and punished by history!”
China regards Taiwan as a renegade province and has threatened to use military force if the government in Taipei formally declares independence from China. In another sign of the mounting tensions over Taiwan being stoked by the Trump administration, the Chinese aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, sailed into the Taiwan Strait yesterday. The Taiwanese military responded by dispatching warships and aircraft to shadow the vessel.
On the same day, US deputy assistant secretary of state Alex Wong told an audience of 700 business people and officials in Taipei that the US commitment “to the Taiwan people, to their security, to their democracy, has never been stronger.”
Washington, which backed a brutal military dictatorship in Taiwan for decades, has never been concerned with defending the democratic rights of the Taiwanese people. Rather, as it prepares for war with China, the Trump administration regards Taiwan as a crucial strategic stronghold. By strengthening ties with Taiwan, it is recklessly inflaming tensions in what has long been a dangerous flashpoint for conflict.
In his speech, Xi denied that China posed a threat to US global dominance, saying Beijing did not wish to “displace” any other country. In an implicit criticism of US aggression, he added: “Only those who are accustomed to threatening others will see everyone as a threat.”
The CCP bureaucracy has elevated Xi as a Bonapartist figure, both to defend Chinese interests against US threats and suppress mounting internal class tensions. Over the past five years, he has restructured the military and brought it more tightly under his control. At the same time, Xi has tightened censorship, cracked down on critics, and conducted an “anti-corruption” purge designed to eliminate and intimidate potential rivals and opposition.
The National People’s Congress (NPC) approved further increases in the military and internal security budgets, as well as the establishment of a new anti-corruption body with greater powers and scope. China’s spending on its internal police-state apparatus is greater than on the military, underscoring the CCP’s fear of an eruption of class struggles in China.
Xi’s pivotal political role is reflected in the slavish official adulation that is now mandatory. After Xi’s speech, NPC Standing Committee chairman Li Zhanshu declared: “Comrade Xi is the core of the Party, commander of the army and leader of the people, who is supported by the whole Party, loved and respected by the people.” He declared that Xi was the national “helmsman,” recalling the term used to refer to Mao Zedong.
The NPC installed key political lieutenants of Xi in powerful positions. Wang Qishan was Xi’s right-hand man in the anti-corruption purge before he stood down from the Politburo Standing Committee at last year’s CCP Congress due to his age. He has been installed as vice-president and, as a result of the constitutional changes, can remain in that post indefinitely.
The NPC appointed Xi’s top economic adviser, Liu He, as one of four vice-premiers. He was in charge of one of the “small leading groups,” established and led by Xi to extend his grip over key areas of policy. Liu was effectively in charge of the Central Leading Group for Financial and Economic Affairs, which now has been elevated to the status of a commission.
Xi used this group and Liu to undermine the position of Premier Li Keqiang, who is nominally in charge of economic and financial matters. Significantly, Xi sent Liu to Washington in February for discussions on the Trump administration’s trade war threats and to Davos in January to lead China’s delegation to the World Economic Forum. Liu is likely to be put in charge of reining in China’s massive debt, which threatens to destabilise its financial system.
This year’s NPC marks something of a turning point. Confronted with threats at home and abroad, the CCP apparatus has come together around a political strongman in the desperate hope that he can avert the crises ahead.

US to launch trade measures against China

Nick Beams

The Trump administration is set to announce tariff measures directed against China, possibly this afternoon, aimed at countering what it claims are malpractices on technology transfers and the state-subsidising of companies competing with hi-tech US firms.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer set out the plan’s broad outlines in testimony to the US Congress House Ways and Means Committee yesterday. Lighthizer will speak to the US Senate today. Then, according to the Wall Street Journal, the measures will be announced. The actual implementation will follow after consultation with US business groups.
The tariff measures have been the subject of a months-long discussion in the administration. Trump ordered an investigation into Chinese trade practices last year under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the president to take action against any harm inflicted on US businesses.
In his written statement, Lighthizer said action would be taken outside the framework of the global trade regulatory authority, the World Trade Organisation, because it “has proven to be wholly inadequate to deal with China’s version of a state-dominated economy that rejects market principles.”
“Our view is that we have a very serious problem of losing our intellectual property, which is really the biggest single advantage of the American economy,” Lighthizer said. This advantage was being lost to China in a way that did not reflect economic fundamentals.
The administration claims that in requiring US companies in China to form joint ventures, Beijing pressures them to transfer important technology to their Chinese partners. It also maintains that the Chinese government subsidises firms looking to compete with US rivals in hi-tech products, including semi-conductors, artificial intelligence and robotics.
Lighthizer’s office has claimed that the damage to US companies from so-called forced technology transfers is $30 billion per year.
Mindful of the possible impact of tariffs on US companies and consumers in raising prices, Lighthizer said his office had developed an “algorithm” that would “put maximum pressure on China and the minimum pressure on American consumers.”
Citing the annual US trade deficit with China of $375 billion, he said: “We think that it is perhaps the most important thing that will have been done in a long time in terms of rebalancing trade with China.”
The US did not want a trade war but “the reality is that if you are on a course that is unsustainable you have to do something to change.”
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also articulated the increasingly aggressive mood in the White House earlier this week. He spoke at the close of a G20 finance ministers meeting in Argentina that was overshadowed by the proposed US tariffs on steel and aluminium and the impending moves against China.
The US actions were not about protectionism, Mnuchin asserted, but concerned unfair trade practices. “We need to be prepared to act in US interests to defend free and fair trade and reciprocal trade.” While there was a risk of retaliation, “we are not afraid of getting into a trade war.”
The steel and aluminium tariff measures are due to come into effect on Friday. The European Union has been scrambling to secure an exemption, with the senior EU trade negotiator, Cecilia Malmström holding talks with US officials in Washington this week.
The US is reported to have offered concessions, provided the EU supports its actions on overcapacity in steel, as well as measures against China over intellectual property rights.
In his remarks, Lighthizer offered a concession to the EU, indicating it would not face immediate tariffs on steel and aluminium while negotiations were taking place on possible exemptions. This is a clear sign that the administration is looking for support in its actions against China.
The EU will give its response at a leadership meeting in Brussels today after publishing a 10-page document listing possible tariffs on US exports if the steel and aluminium measures go ahead.
The depth of the conflict was indicated by one unnamed euro zone finance minister cited by the Financial Times. The minister said Trump knew what he was doing and wanted to “put his finger in the wounds of Europe” and “we have to show we are strong … otherwise there is no reason for Europe anymore.”
The response of Kevin Brady, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to the proposed measures on China reflected the views in broad sections of US business and political circles that they must be skillfully directed.
Brady warned against imposing “indiscriminate” tariffs against China and called for a public discussion before any measures are implemented. “The challenge for any president in tariffs is to ensure that ultimately, you don’t punish Americans for China’s misbehaviour,” he said. This was “not about backing down, it’s about hitting the target.”
China has taken a low-key approach to the steel and aluminium tariffs, largely because it is no longer a major exporter to the US. But Beijing has been preparing retaliatory action under measures imposed under Section 301.
These counter-measures will likely target US exports to China of soybeans, sorghum and live pigs. They could have significant effect. Around one third of the soybeans that the US produces go to the Chinese market.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the Chinese Commerce Ministry set out the retaliatory measures at a meeting last month with importers of US farm products, and Chinese firms have been lining up alternative sources of supply.
China is reported to be offering some concessions to the US through easing restrictions on activities by US financial corporations. But the Chinese regime rejects the central US claims of malpractice with regard to technology and intellectual property.
“China places a high priority on protecting intellectual-property rights and improving its business operating environment,” a Commerce Ministry spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal.
While it is impossible to predict the outcome of the various manoeuvres—measures and counter-measures—it is clear that the first stages of a global trade war have been set in motion.
While the Trump administration has provided the catalyst for this conflict, its actions are only the particular expression of deeper processes—above all, the long-term economic decline of the US.
In international trade, the US still carries considerable clout. It is the world’s largest importer and the second largest exporter, but its overall weight in the world economy has declined.
In 1960, the US accounted for around 40 percent of global gross domestic product. By 2016, its share had declined to about 25 percent. Faced with the loss of strength against its old rivals in Europe and confronting new ones in China and elsewhere, it is seeking to maintain its dominance. Trade war measures can only lead ultimately, as the bloody history of the 1930s shows, to military methods.

Google sets up “news initiative” to censor political opposition and promote mainstream media

Andre Damon 

Google announced Wednesday that it is partnering with the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times and other major news outlets to reinforce their monopoly over news coverage by blocking independent news organizations.
The New York Times, whose stock price soared after the announcement, said Google’s initiative was aimed at combatting “the epidemic of false and unreliable information on the internet,” by “pledging to spend $300 million over the next three years to support authoritative journalism.”
In reality, Google’s action is the latest step in a protracted campaign on the part of the major technology companies, working with the Democratic Party and the US intelligence agencies, to censor the Internet.
The campaign for Internet censorship has been spearheaded by the major media outlets, including the Times and the Post, who have seen their subscription base eroded by the growth of oppositional news outlets and “citizen journalism.” By working with the technology giants and intelligence agencies to censor smaller news outlets, the media giants hope to regain the monopoly over the distribution of news they held before the rise of the Internet.
In April of last year, Google announced measures to promote “authoritative content” over “alternative viewpoints,” which led search traffic to left-wing, antiwar, and socialist web sites to plunge by over 50 percent.
After Google’s announcement last year, other major technology companies followed suit in implementing their own measures to censor the Internet. This year, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that it would promote “trusted” news sources, such as the New York Times, over public postings by individuals and independent news agencies. At a congressional hearing this year, Facebook said it had hired some 10,000 content moderators, and would double that number by the end of the year.
But despite Facebook’s moves to rapidly implement the demands of the intelligence agencies for Internet censorship, leading Democrats, including Senator Mark Warner, have called on them to do more to crack down on social opposition.
Amid a growing strike wave by workers all over the world, including struggles this month by teachers in West Virginia and Oklahoma, university lecturers in the United Kingdom, and Amazon warehouse workers in Spain, leading news outlets have repeatedly warned that Facebook was being used to mobilize social opposition outside of the framework of the trade union establishment.
Within this context, the major news outlets have, in pursuit of their own aims, seized upon revelations that the election data firm Cambridge Analytica harvested the personal information of some 50 million Facebook users without their knowledge in 2014. At the time, the firm was owned by Robert Mercer, a billionaire who would later back the Trump campaign, and was headed by Steve Bannon, who would later serve as Trump’s campaign manager.
While the type of data harvesting conducted by Cambridge Analytica raises serious privacy concerns, the media firestorm that has followed the revelations is highly selective.
Cambridge Analytica had access to only a fraction of the data that Facebook itself collects and uses—often in secret—for political purposes. The company’s actions, moreover, are par for the course for the conduct of bourgeois election campaigns, which have come more and more to rely on data analytics and artificial intelligence to assess and impact voters’ political views.
A recent report by Investor’s Business Daily noted “In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends.” According to the report, up to 190 million people may have “had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.”
Commenting on the Obama campaign’s data mining operation, former campaign director Carol Davidsen tweeted, “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.”
In leaked emails released by WikiLeaks in 2016, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg told Clinton campaign officials that she “badly” wanted Clinton to win, and that she had met with the candidate and campaign officials on multiple occasions.
While the actions taken by Cambridge Analytica point to a substantial violation of users’ privacy, they pale in comparison to the massive surveillance and content harvesting operation carried out by Facebook itself, with the assistance of the leading US intelligence agencies and Democratic Party, which, in the name of fighting “fake news” and extremist content, aim to review and censor everything posted on the social media platform.
Even more importantly, the Democrats’ highly selective outrage over the Cambridge Analytica scandal is being used to hold Facebook’s feet to the fire, with the aim of forcing it to more aggressively censor social opposition in the name of cracking down on Russian “bots and trolls.” Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading proponent of internet censorship, seized on the scandal to put further pressure on Facebook to declare that it was “misused” by the “Russians” in the 2016 election campaign.
Warner told ABC, “Facebook, since the beginnings of this investigation, has been reluctant, to say the least, to be fully forthcoming. I think it’s time for the CEO, Mr. Zuckerberg, and other top officials, to come and testify, and not tell part of the story, but tell the whole story of their involvement, not only with the Trump campaign, but their ability to have their platform misused by the Russians.”
In an op-ed entitled “Facebook Doesn’t Get It,” New York Times columnist David Leonhardt claimed that, “By spreading false news stories and giving a megaphone to Russian trolls, Facebook — a vastly larger social network than Twitter — played a meaningful role in the presidential campaign.”
In fact, the massive data mining operations carried out by both the Democratic and Republican parties render absurd the argument that a few hundred thousand dollars of Facebook advertisements allegedly bought by “Russians” swayed the 2016 election. Both parties spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the type of data operations carried out by Cambridge Analytica, seeking to analyze, quantify, and affect the political viewpoints of hundreds of millions of people.
In fact, undercutting his own argument, Leonhardt called alleged Russian meddling a “scapegoat” for the election of Donald Trump and the electoral defeat of Hillary Clinton. Regardless, the “scapegoat” of “Russian meddling” is being used to fuel an even further crackdown on the Internet, in the name of blocking “fake news” and “divisive content.”
In just one example of the growing crackdown on freedom of expression on the Internet, over the past 48 hours, Facebook deleted a link published by the World Socialist Web Site to its recent review of the Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam War, allegedly because the posting contained “nudity.” In fact, the article contained well-known images of Vietnamese civilians fleeing the atrocities of the United States and its proxy South Vietnamese forces; photos that have been published in dozens of leading newspapers all over the world.

Bangladesh: Political Polarisation and Resurgence of Terrorism

Krishna Kumar Saha


On 27 February 2018, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added ‘ISIS-Bangladesh’ to its sanctions list for global terrorism. Following months of denial from Dhaka about the presence of the Islamic State (IS) in Bangladesh, this sanction creates a new, contravening understanding. Although the terrorist groups that were active in the country in the recent past are now struggling to regain ground due to the Sheikh Hasina government’s aggressive counter-terrorist response, the intensifying political polarisation between the ruling and the opposition factions will create fertile conditions for the resurgence of IS.

Terrorism in Bangladesh: Past to PresentTerrorism in Bangladesh dates back to the 1980s when close to three thousand Bangladeshis joined the US and Saudi-sponsored anti-Soviet offensives in Afghanistan. Three war veterans from these Afghan wars formed the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B) in 1992, which sought to establish an Islamic state in Bangladesh through its subversive activities till 2001. After 9/11, HuJI-B and similar groups became more active. Three groups remain, which are variously active and inactive: al Qaeda-affiliated Ansarul-Islam; IS-affiliated Neo-Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen (neo-JMB), and as per current understanding, an independent strain of IS.

These groups have emerged and re-emerged under different circumstances, largely taking advantage of political uncertainty or unrest. Between 2006-08, the military-backed caretaker government increased the state’s counter-terrorism response by, amongst others, providing training to law enforcers and propagating anti-militancy messages in the mainstream media. All of these pushed the terrorist presence back significantly. 

After assuming power in 2009, the ruling Awami League (AL) began prosecuting the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamat-e-Islami (JeI) leaders for war crimes committed during the 1971 Liberation War. Eventually, the Supreme Cour tbanned the JeI from contesting parliamentary elections in 2015 on the grounds that an Islamist party running in the polls would violate the secular constitution. With the law enforcement agencies directing their resources towards indicting AL's political opponents, the terrorists began to regain lost ground. 

In addition, 50 to 250 military officers have been sacked since 2009 due to their involvement in terrorist activities, attempted coups, or mutinies. A Bangladeshi army major, Syed Mohammad Ziaul Haque, became the military commander of a terrorist group. In 2015, several young men were arrested from a former army officer’s house for alleged connections with IS. Official military training manuals and military-issued uniforms and ammunition were found in terrorist hideouts in Chittagong during the raid. 

Since the Dhaka Holey Bakery attack in 2016, law enforcement agencies have raided numerous terrorist hideouts in different parts of the country. Most of these operations have focused on killing suspected members of extremist groups rather than bringing them to trial.This was done mostly because the judicial processcan be time-consuming and often, not feasible due to lack of witnesses.

The recent Rohingya crisis also has re-ignited the issue of terrorism in the state’s discourse. A brutal military crackdown by the Myanmar military on the Rohingya community in August 2017, following an attack by local militants on security outposts, has created conditions conducive for terrorist recruitment. This is largely because the majority of the Rohingya population is Muslim and likely open to offering their sympathy to these groups.

Political Polarisation
Today, there is an increasing polarisation of the narrative around the counter-terrorism agenda, wherein the ruling party continues to blame the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its affiliate, JeI, for lending support to terrorism. In some cases, this claim is true. For example, theJeI’s student wing, Islami Chhatra Shibir, was once a key source of recruits for JMB. The group’s founder, Shaikh Abdur Rahman, was himself a Shibir member.

However, these groups have their own recruitment methods now. Today, for most militant groups, the internet serves as an effective medium for radicalisation and recruitment. The paltry salaries and low-level training of law enforcement members are creating further challenges to disrupting terrorist recruitment. In addition, the ruling party’s political crackdowns, the Rohingya influx, strong transitional and regional networks of terrorists, and unemployment may lead to fresh recruitment drives for these groups.

Due to the allegedly politically motivated corruption trials of major party leaders - including party chief, Khaleda Zia - the BNP has been marginalised. On the other hand, the JeI has been paralysed by the war crimes tribunal through a ban on electoral participation. Both of them are major political parties with grassroots support. In addition, AL is now the courting Hefazat-e-Islam (HeI)- a conservative faction more hardline than the JeI - to counter JeI. HeI is opposed to women in workplaces, secular democracies, and non-Muslim officials in major government posts. 

It is important for the current government to reconcile with the mainstream opposition factions since bipolarity dominates Bangladesh's political arena. BNP's marginalisation will create a political vacuum which may be taken advantage of by terrorist groups, leading to the rise of a new generation of potentially more dangerous elements with apparent links to groups such as IS. This is alarming for a secular country like Bangladesh, and above all, the entire South Asian region.

21 Mar 2018

KPMG East Africa Graduate Recruitment Programme for Young East Africans 2018

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: East African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Associates will be hired for Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania and serve in one of KPMG’s Audit, Tax and Advisory divisions.

About the Award: KPMG East Africa is seeking highly motivated and talented young professionals to join as Associates as part of its Graduate Recruitment Programme. The structured Graduate Programme provides a fun, open culture where associates can bring their great ideas to life. An important part of the team from day one, associates work face-to-face with world class clients on jobs that are relevant to their interests. The Graduate Recruitment Programme offers a supportive environment where leaders are accessible and everyone is invested in training and growth.

KPMG’s East Africa practice comprises of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda and additionally provides services to Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Burundi, Somalia, Ethiopia as well as Eritrea.

Type: Job

Eligibility: If you are a recent graduate or you are graduating later this year and you are already eligible to work in any of the aforementioned East African countries, you are encouraged to apply.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Duration of Program: Full-time

How to Apply: Please click on this link to apply:
Visit the Program Webpage for Details 

Award Providers: KPMG

Chinese Government-Chinese University Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Timeline: 15th April 2018 (Generally)

Offered annually? Yes

Type: Masters, Doctorate

About the Scholarship: Chinese University Program is a full scholarship for designated Chinese universities and certain provincial education offices in specific provinces or autonomous regions to recruit outstanding international students for graduate studies in China. It only supports graduate students.

Eligibility: 
  • Applicants must be a citizen of a country other than the People’s Republic of China, and be in good health
  • The requirements for applicants’ degree and age are that applicants must:
  • be a bachelor’s degree holder under the age of 35 when applying for the master’s programs;
  • be a master’s degree holder under the age of 40 when applying for the doctoral programs.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Duration of Awards: This scholarship only supports master’s students for no more than 3 academic years or doctoral students for no more than 4 academic years. The scholarship covers both major study and Chinese language/preparatory study, as specified in the Admission Letter.

Value of Scholarship: The Chinese University Program provides a full scholarship which covers tuition waiver, accommodation, stipend, and comprehensive medical insurance. Please refer to Introduction to CGS—Coverage and Standard for details of each item.

How to Apply: 
  • Step 1 – Apply to the designated Chinese universities undertaking this program.
  • Step 2 – Complete the online application procedure at CGS Information System (Visit http://www.csc.edu.cn/studyinchina or http://www.campuschina.org and click “Application Online” to log in),
  • submit online the completed Application Form for Chinese Government Scholarship, and print a hard copy. Please consult your target university for the Instructions of the CGS Information System and Agency Number.
  • Step 3 – Submit all your application documents to your target university before the deadline.
You need to apply between early January and early April. Please consult the Chinese universities for the specific deadline of each year.

Learn more about the Chinese Government Scholarship

Important Notes: Only applications of recommended candidates from designated Chinese universities will be considered by CSC.

Civil Society Leadership Awards (CSLA) Fully-Funded Masters Degree Scholarship for Developing Countries 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 15th May, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial  Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Laos, Libya, Myanmar/Burma, Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

To be taken at (country):  Host countries

Fields of Study: Awards are available in the following fields at host universities across the world:
  • Communications, Journalism & Media
  • Culture, History & Society
  • Development Studies
  • Economics
  • Education Management & Leadership
  • Environment & Natural Resource Management
  • Gender Studies
  • Human Rights
  • Law (including Human Rights law)
  • Politics & International Studies
  • Public Health Policy & Health Management
  • Public Administration
  • Public Policy
  • Social Policy
  • Social Work
About the Award: CSLA directly assists future leaders in countries where civil society is challenged by a deficit of democratic practice in local governance and social development.
Competition for the Civil Society Leadership Awards is open and merit-based. Selection is based on an applicant’s fit with the program’s objectives as well the graduate admissions criteria of the participating universities. Academic excellence, professional aptitude, leadership potential in the field of specialization, proven commitment to open society values, and appropriate language proficiency are all important factors in evaluation.
All eligible applicants will be reviewed by an international selection committee. The proposed field of study should be logical for the goals expressed in the essays, and the application itself should be organized and complete. Compelling candidates will be interviewed by a selection committee comprised of university representatives, CSLA staff, and partner organization representatives, such as the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

Type: Master’s degree study

Eligibility: CSLA does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

Selection Criteria: Applicants must meet all of the following criteria:
  • be a citizen of an eligible country;
  • demonstrate maturity, flexibility, and civil society leadership potential
  • have an earned bachelor’s degree as of May 15, 2018 with an excellent academic record;
  • demonstrate professional experience related to your chosen field of study;
  • demonstrate proficiency in the language of instruction (English, German or French) at a level required for admission by host universities;
  • be able to participate in an intensive pre-academic summer school in July or August 2019 and start their degree program in August or September 2019;
  • be able to receive and maintain a visa or study permit as required by the host country; and
  • demonstrate a clear commitment to their home country or region to strengthen open society development.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded. Successful applicants will receive the following support:
  • Tuition and mandatory university fees;
  • Monthly stipend for room, board, and other living expenses;
  • Program-related travel;
  • Accident and sickness insurance during the program;
  • Funds for educational materials and professional development;
  • Attendance at a regional grantee conference;
  • Pre-academic preparation via summer schools
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of course

How to Apply: All candidates are strongly encouraged to apply online if possible using Submittable, an online platform. To apply online, please register on Submittable and then follow instructions.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Open Society Foundation

Important Notes: Applicants will be notified of their status via email in September 2018.

African Development Bank (AfDB) Internship Programme for African Students 2018

Application Deadline: 2nd April 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible African Countries: Member countries of the African Development Bank

To be taken at (country): Headquarters (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire)

Subject Areas: The specific disciplines and specialist professional areas are aligned to the Bank’s Ten-Year Strategy (TYS) and the gender strategy.  In addition to the fields that are in the job families of the Bank, focus will be on the following areas:
  • Power, Energy, Climate and Green Growth;
  • Agriculture, Human and Social Development;
  • Private Sector, Infrastructure and Industrialization;
  • Economy, Statistics;
  • Governance and knowledge Management
  • Finance
  • Legal
  • Human Resources and Corporates Services: IT, Language Services, General Service a& Procurement, HR Management
  • Audit, Anti-corruption
  • Evaluation;
  • Communication & External Relations
  • Public Relations
  • Gender.
About Program: African Development Bank offers internship programme to students from its member African countries currently undertaking their masters’ programme at a recognized public or private institution.
The broad objectives of the program are to:
  • Provide students with an opportunity to acquire professional and practical experience at the African Development Bank.
  • Provide the Bank with a pool of potential candidates for future recruitment purposes.
However applicants should not expect the internship to lead to immediate employment with the AfDB.

Eligibility: To be eligible for internship, applicants must meet the following criteria:
  • Students, aged between eighteen (18) to thirty (30) years, and currently enrolled in a Master’s level degree program or its equivalent in a recognized public or private institution of higher learning.
  • The candidate can apply for an internship within one (1) year of having obtained such a degree.
  • Provide a letter from their school confirming their enrollment or a copy of the above mentioned Degree.
  • Citizens of one of the Bank’s member countries.
  • Applicants must be fluent in at least one of the Banks’s two working languages (English or French).
Selection Criteria: In addition to above, preference will be given to candidates who demonstrate Including desirable skills, knowledge and experience

Number of Internship Positions: Not Specified

Award Benefits: 
  • Interns will be provided with a monthly stipend.
  • Interns shall be responsible for their air travel (where applicable) to and from the Bank’s location as well as their upkeep.
  • Interns shall be responsible for their medical insurance coverage and for obtaining entry and residence visas in the host country of the Bank.
Duration of Program: Internships will initially be for a period of three months, renewable for up to six months (maximum).

How can I Apply? Applicants will only be considered if they submit an online complete application and attach a comprehensive Curriculum Vitae (CV).

Apply Here

Visit the Internship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: African Development Bank

Important Notes: Applicants who fully meet the Bank’s requirements and are considered for the Programme will be contacted. Applicants should submit a concise Curriculum Vitae (CV) and any additional documents that may be stated as required. The African Development Bank is an equal opportunities employer. Female candidates are strongly encouraged to apply. http://www.afdb.org

Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) University of Manitoba Fellowship (Fully-funded to Canada) 2018

Application Deadline: 6th May 2018

Eligible Countries: Members of the Commonwealth.

To Be Taken At (Country): Canada

About the Award: Tenable at University of Manitoba, Canada. The fellowship can be used for either a collaborative academic research visit, or a collaborative fact-finding visit.

Fields of Study: Awarded for any of the priority subject areas:
  • Education
  • Health and related social sciences
  • Information technology
  • Information management
  • STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects
  • Sustainable development
  • University development and management
Type: Fellowship (Academic)

Eligibility: Applicants must be professional or academic staff of, or a nominee of, an ACU member university in a country other than Canada (external nominees should be working in industry, commerce or public service in a Commonwealth country).

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Up to GBP £5000 and intended to cover:
  • international economy return airfare and other travel costs
  • medical insurance and visa fees
  • board and lodging fees
  • research costs
The ACU cannot arrange fellows’ attachments, travel or accommodation, nor can it work out itineraries for them. Applicants should be aware that ACU Fellowships allow for small scale conference or course attendance within a wider programme, but applications where the primary or sole purpose is attendance of a conference or course will not be considered.

Duration of Program: The tenure of the fellowship must be for a period of less than six months, and travel must take place between 1 August 2018 and 31 July 2019.

How to Apply: Fellows are required to submit a 1000-2500 word report within three months of the Fellowship ending.
Applicants must submit a proposal for their fellowship and provide proof of support for their fellowship from their host institution, as well as from their head of department at their home institution.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: ACU

Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) Award for Young Agricultural Researchers in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 18th May 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries and/or territories, belong to a non-Japanese research institute or a non-Japanese university

To be taken at (country): Japan

Fields of Research: The award covers research areas in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related industries in developing regions, including the industry sectors of food and the fields of environment.

About the Award: This annual award, which began in 2007, is organized and presented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) of Japan. Its purpose is to increase motivation among young researchers contributing to research and development in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and related industries in developing regions, which is promoted by Japan for the benefit of those countries. Up to three young researchers who have shown
  1. outstanding performance in research and development in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, or related industries for a developing region, and who show great promise
  2. outstanding achievements in research and development that will lead to future technological innovation in agriculture, forestry, fisheries or related industries for a developing area, and who show great promise
will be invited to Japan to attend the commendation ceremony this November and accept their awards and cash gifts (US$5,000 will be given per awardee).

Type: Award, Research

Eligibility: 
  1. Should be under the age of 40 (as of January 1, 2018)
  2. Should be researchers who have the nationality of developing countries and/or territories, belong to a non-Japanese research institute or a non-Japanese university
  3. Should be engaged in research and development in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related industries in developing regions
  4. Must be able to attend the commendation ceremony and deliver a lecture on November 6, 2018.
Selection Criteria:  Those who have shown outstanding performance in research and development in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, or related industries for a developing region, and who show great promise. (b) Those who have shown outstanding achievements in research and development that will lead to future technological innovation in agriculture, forestry, fisheries or related industries for a developing region, and who show great promise

Number of Awards: Up to three award winners will be named.

Value of Program: 
  • The award winners will be invited to Japan to receive their awards personally and present their research results and achievements.
  • The winners will be bestowed a testimonial by the Chairman of the AFFRC during the commendation ceremony and will also receive a cash prize of US$5,000 each from JIRCAS.
How to Apply: Applications must be prepared according to the “Instructions in the Preparation of Application Forms” and submitted by the recommending institute by post. Moreover, word-processed files of each form must be submitted by the recommending institute via email as they will be used for the preparation of a short-list.
  • Only one researcher can be recommended from each institute, including its branches.
  • If an institute recommends two candidates or more, the Secretariat will ask the institute to choose one. If the institute does not respond by the due date, all applications from that institute will be excluded.
  • The application must include supporting materials that substantiate the candidate’s achievements, such as the applicant’s most important research papers (three items), technical handbooks, patent applications or utility models, newspaper articles etc., and the entire publication list directly related to the applicant’s research.
  • Applications that are insufficient or incorrect will be excluded from the evaluation.
Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: This annual award is organized by the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council (AFFRC), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Japan, and supported by Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS). 

Oxford-CSAE Short-term Fellowships for African Students (Fully-funded to University of Oxford) 2019

Application Deadline: 27th May 2018

Eligible Countries: All African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): University of Oxford, UK

Type: Fellowship (Academic)

Eligibility: Candidate must be an African national

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Award covers Fully-paid flights, accommodation, and a small stipend.

Duration of Program: 2 months (January – March 2019)

How to Apply:
  • Apply using the form in the Program Webpage (see Link below)
  • Candidates must apply before 27th May 2018 to be eligible.
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Centre for the Study of African Economies