Palestinians Will Not Cease to Demand their Rights

Basem Naim

The West has long been enamored with the specter of passive resistance with tens of thousands of unarmed demonstrators facing off against a heavily armed and ruthless force in pursuit of justice.

Today hundreds of thousands of peaceful unarmed demonstrators marched towards the rim of the sealed off Gaza Strip. They got no closer than several hundred yards from Israeli snipers before shots rang out leaving hundreds of Palestinians injured and at least ten dead.

This is not a movie. It is Gaza. It is Palestine.

For more than seventy years Palestinians have tried by all means possible to obtain their rights as guaranteed under international and humanitarian law.

Over these decades dozens of resolutions have come from a wide range of international bodies, associations and NGO’s in support of our fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination and a return to our homes, from which we were forcibly expelled in 1948.

Despite a romantic rewrite, dozens of respected historians and journalists including Israelis such as IlanPappe and Gideon Levy have documented the coordinated Zionist attack on hundreds of age-old Palestinian villages in 1948 as the onset of a calculated project of ethnic cleansing that continues unabated today.

To suggest that almost a million Palestinians voluntarily left their homes, schools, mosques and churches in 1948 is little more than to proclaim the earth is flat. The hurried desperate mass flight of Palestinians from the paramilitary assault upon our age-old communities is beyond honest debate or dispute.

Despite near unanimity among international jurists about our cause the world community has been unable or unwilling to provide justice for Palestinian people who live in walled-off Bantustans in our own homeland or in a forced diaspora as so-much stateless refugees throughout the world.

Meanwhile Western States have openly embraced policies that not only favor and protect Israel but empower it to continue a now decades old illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories.

No state has been more supportive of this historical injustice than has the United States. Not satisfied with more than 250 billion dollars in direct government aid to Israel, the USA has used its veto more than 70 times in the Security Council to prevent passage of resolutions condemning Israeli policies.

Among its unprecedented financial support for Israel, the US has provided many tens of billions of dollars in military aid and equipment that has subsidized Israeli control over the legitimate rights and aspirations of millions of Palestinians and inflicted widespread death and destruction among our communities. Tens of thousands have lost their lives, many more been injured  or crippled and even more detained for years on end in a military “justice” system which denies Palestinians any modicum of justice.

Recently, in an effort to further punish Palestinian civilians for the temerity of their political will, the US Administration cut more than $ 360 million in aid out of what was its $ 1.2 billion annual share to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).  This international aid effort provides health, education and food benefits to some 5 million Palestinian refugees’ worldwide that represent some forty per cent of the total population of 11.5 million Palestinians inside and out of Palestine.

For the last 25 years, Palestinians have tried in good faith, and in vain, to achieve their legitimate aspirations through participation in a long, complex and counter-productive negotiation process.

Because of the fundamental imbalance of power on the ground and an ever-present international pro Israeli bias, Israel has exploited this “negotiation” as little more than dilatory cover while it has continued its agenda of illegal annexation of Palestinian land in the West Bank.

Not satisfied with flooding the West Bank with hundreds of thousands of illegal “settlers” Israel has continued its systematic attack upon fundamental rights of Palestinians throughout all the Occupied Territories including Gaza.

What then has been the result of this 25 year old unilateral Israeli stall? Have we not seen the destruction of any meaningful opportunity for stability and de-escalation of violence that, predictably, has spilled over throughout the region?

Has not the delay, by design, challenged the remaining hope for our people for freedom, an independent state and a return to the homes they have been displaced from over these many years? And what of the daily life of Palestinians under occupation, whether in the West Bank that is divided into controlled cantons or the besieged Gaza Strip. Both have been turned into an unbearable hell, for all to see but for us to taste.  Murder, imprisonment, siege, land seizure, house demolitions, poverty, unemployment, and denial of medical treatment and travel have become the daily way of life for millions of Palestinians.

Like the rest of the world Palestinians are a people who love life, community and family and seek only a better future for our children. However, it seems as if our collective and lawful aspiration is unacceptable to some of the world which stands by with idle interest and even less action as the occupation and injustice unfolds in plain view.

It seems few at the table of nations have felt the need to confront the Israeli aggression and its occupation which, by any definition, offends all standards of decency and international law.

Having considered our various options as well as our lawful right to resist Palestinians in Gaza have decided to launch peaceful marches near the segregation barricades that deny us any meaningful scrap of self-determination. This campaign will demand an end to the occupation, an end to the siege of Gaza and recognition of the right of Palestinians to return to their homes in accordance with UN resolution 194, issued in December 1948.

These events which begin today coincide with the anniversary of “Land Day”, in which six Palestinians were killed in 1976 while defending their land as it was seized by Israeli authorities in the Galilee area.

In the tradition of passive resistance our activities will be peaceful and continue on the borders until May 15th, the 70th anniversary of the “Nakba”, when upwards of a million Palestinians were expelled from their homes.

All Palestinians in our homeland and diaspora including men, women and children will participate in these marches and related demonstrations that share a common theme of justice, opportunity and freedom. Our activity will be overseen by a national committee, which represents all Palestinian forces and factions as well as civil society and independent Palestinian figures and supporters.

The Committee has circulated numerous publications and directives for participants in the marches, which emphasize the peacefulness of this particular movement and the need to avoid violence or any provocative escalation by Israel. The Committee has also designated various on-site representatives to oversee our collective efforts and to ensure that our message is heard through powerful and peaceful means.

Notwithstanding our best efforts we full well expect provocation by Israel during our protests and will do all that we can to ensure its inflammatory efforts will pass without any response.

Despite our best efforts, once again, this fear proved to be reality today as Israel unleashed hundreds of rounds of live ammunition and canisters of tear gas at first sight of peaceful demonstrators armed with nothing more than their voice and self-determination.

Ultimately, Israel has long feared and challenged any and all efforts by Palestinians to expose the reality of the occupation and the siege of Gaza which certainly puts the lie to its claim as the only democratic state in the region; one that respects and protects human rights and honors the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Against this chant stands the daily practice of occupation forces that show a completely different face . . . one built of racism, violence and systematic violation of human rights.

Recently, the arrest and detention of now 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi in the West Bank because she slapped a heavily armed Israeli soldier who broke into her home is but one of hundreds of like stories which depict life and death in Palestine. Not long ago, wheelchair-bound Ibraheem Abu Thuraya was shot and killed by an Israeli sniper for little more than waving a Palestinian flag on the Gaza border in plain view of Israeli soldiers who control who and what may go in and out of the beleaguered home to some two million people.

Given a long and well documented history of violence in furtherance of the occupation, Palestinians have a well-founded fear that despite the peaceful nature of these marches, Israel will use them as a pretext to kill and injure more of our people.  In the past occupation forces have been quick to provoke non-violent expressions of protest into violent confrontations in which our communities and children have paid a dear price for their voice.

Once again, today’s Israeli attack upon our peaceful people proved that history is often the most certain indicator of what is yet to come.

Nevertheless, we will not be deterred by Israeli aggression as we exercise our fundamental rights to resist and to demonstrate so as to ensure that the path for our children will lead to a better, just and equal future.

Endgame in Syria: Trump Signals Withdrawal of US Troops

Nauman Sadiq

In a momentous announcement at an event in Ohio on Thursday, Donald Trump said, “We’re knocking the hell out of ISIS. We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now.”

What lends credence to the statement that the Trump administration will soon be pulling 2,000 US troops out of Syria – mostly Special Forces assisting the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces – is that President Trump had recently announced to sack the National Security Advisor Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.

McMaster represented the institutional logic of the deep state in the Trump administration and was instrumental in advising Donald Trump to escalate the conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria. He had advised President Trump to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 8,400 to 15,000. And in Syria, he was in favor of the Pentagon’s policy of training and arming 30,000 Kurdish border guards to patrol Syria’s northern border with Turkey.

Both the decisions have spectacularly backfired on the Trump administration. The decision to train and arm 30,000 Kurdish border guards had annoyed the Erdogan administration to an extent that Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch in the Kurdish-held enclave of Afrin in Syria’s northwest on January 20.

After capturing Afrin on March 18, the Turkish armed forces and their Free Syria Army proxies have now cast their eyes further east on Manbij where the US Special Forces are closely cooperating with the Kurdish YPG militia, in line with the long-held Turkish military doctrine of denying the Kurds any Syrian territory west of River Euphrates.

More significantly, however, the US bombers and Apache helicopters struck a contingent of Syrian government troops and allied forces in Deir al-Zor on February 7 that reportedly killed and wounded dozens of Russian military contractors working for the private security firm, the Wagner group.

In order to understand the reason why the US brazenly attacked the Russian contractors, we need to keep the backdrop of seven-year-long Syrian conflict in mind. Washington has failed to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. After the Russian intervention in September 2015, the momentum of the battle has shifted in favor of the Syrian government and Washington’s proxies are on the receiving end in the conflict.

Washington’s policy of nurturing militants against the Syrian government has given birth to the Islamic State and myriads of jihadist groups that have carried out audacious terror attacks in Europe during the last three years. Out of necessity, Washington had to make the Kurds the centerpiece of its policy in Syria. But on January 20, its NATO-ally Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch against the Kurds in the northwestern Syrian canton of Afrin.

In order to save its reputation as a global power, Washington could have confronted Turkey and pressured it to desist from invading Afrin. But it chose the easier path and vented its frustration on the Syrian government forces in Deir al-Zor which led to the casualties of scores of Russian military contractors hired by the Syrian government.

Another reason why Washington struck Russian contractors working in Syria was that the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – which are mainly comprised of Kurdish YPG militias – had reportedly handed over the control of some areas east of Euphrates River to Deir al-Zor Military Council (DMC), which is the Arab-led component of SDF, and had relocated several battalions of Kurdish YPG militias to Afrin and along Syria’s northern border with Turkey in order to defend the Kurdish-held areas against the onslaught of Turkish armed forces and allied Free Syria Army (FSA) militias.

Syrian forces with the backing of Russian contractors took advantage of the opportunity and crossed the Euphrates River to capture an oil refinery located east of Euphrates River in the Kurdish-held area of Deir al-Zor. The US Air Force responded with full force, knowing well the ragtag Arab component of SDF – mainly comprised of local Arab tribesmen and mercenaries to make the Kurdish-led SDF appear more representative and inclusive – was simply not a match for the superior training and arms of Syrian troops and Russian military contractors, consequently causing a massacre in which scores of Russian citizens lost their lives.

It would be pertinent to note here that regarding the Syria policy, there is a schism between the White House and the American deep state led by the Pentagon. After Donald Trump’s inauguration as the US president, he has delegated operational-level decisions in conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to the Pentagon.

The way the US officials are evading responsibility for the incident, it appears the decision to strike pro-government forces in Deir al-Zor that included Russian contractors was taken by the operational commander of the US forces in Syria and the White House was not informed until after the strike.

Notwithstanding, it bears mentioning that unlike dyed-in-the-wool globalists and “liberal interventionists,” like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who cannot look past beyond the tunnel vision of political establishments, it appears that the protectionist Donald Trump not only follows news from conservative mainstream outlets, like the Fox News, but he has also been familiar with alternative news perspectives, such as Breitbart’s, no matter how racist and xenophobic.

Thus, Donald Trump is fully aware that the conflict in Syria is a proxy war initiated by the Western political establishments and their regional Middle Eastern allies against the Syrian government. He is also mindful of the fact that militants have been funded, trained and armed in the training camps located in Turkey’s border regions to the north of Syria and in Jordan’s border regions to the south of Syria.

According to the last year’s March 31 article for the New York Times by Michael Gordon, the US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and the recently sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had stated on the record that defeating the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq was the top priority of the Trump administration and the fate of Bashar al-Assad was of least concern to the new administration.

Under the previous Obama administration, the evident policy in Syria was regime change. The Trump administration, however, looks at the crisis in Syria from an entirely different perspective because Donald Trump regards Islamic jihadists as a much bigger threat to the security of the US.

In order to allay the concerns of Washington’s traditional allies in the Middle East, the Trump administration conducted a cruise missiles strike on al-Shayrat airfield in Homs governorate on April 6 last year after the chemical weapons strike in Khan Sheikhoun. But that isolated incident was nothing more than a show of force to bring home the point that the newly elected Donald Trump is an assertive and powerful president.

Finally, Karen De Young and Liz Sly made another startling revelation in the last year’s March 4 article for the Washington Post: “Trump has said repeatedly that the US and Russia should cooperate against the Islamic State, and he has indicated that the future of Russia-backed Assad is of less concern to him.”

Thus, the interests of all the major players in Syria have evidently converged on defeating Islamic jihadists, and the Obama-era policy of regime change has been put on the back burner. And after the recent announcement of complete withdrawal of US troops from Syria by President Trump, it appears that we are approaching the endgame in Syria, an event as momentous as the Fall of Saigon in 1975, which will mark a stellar military victory for Vladimir Putin.

On Founding Fathers and Hero-Worship in Bangladesh

Taj Hashmi

As there are multiple narratives about the Partition of 1947, so are there multiple theories about the emergence of Bangladesh. One school of thought tells us there was nothing inevitable about the emergence of Bangladesh; its birth could be averted had the main actors, Bhutto, Yahya, Mujib and some others behaved differently. The other narrative highlights the fundamental differences between the two wings of Pakistan – geographical, historical, ethno-linguistic, cultural, social, and economic – which are said to have made the separation of the two wings inevitable.

Then again, what politicians and their followers in socially and politically fractured Bangladesh assert in public about who and what turned the movement for provincial autonomy for East Pakistan into the Liberation War is mostly one-sided, biased accounts that glorify their own heroes and idols of the Liberation War. The ardent followers of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Awami League give all credits for achieving Bangladesh to Mujib and glorify him as the founding father of Bangladesh by undermining others, including freedom fighters like Maulana Bhashani, Tajuddin Ahmed, General Osmani, General Ziaur Rahman, Serajul Alam Khan and some other top leaders of Bangladesh.

Awami League leaders invariably undermine Zia as a freedom fighter, let alone as one who formally declared the Independence of Bangladesh on 27 March 1971, and later became the President of the Republic and founder of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Some top Awami League leaders, including Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, denigrate Zia at best as an insignificant actor in the Liberation War, and at worst as a Pakistani agent, collaborator, and enemy of Bangladesh. What we hear from BNP leaders and activists is equally partisan, glorifying Zia as the real founding father, and even as the “first president” of the Republic, as his son and political heir Tareq Zia has asserted many times, publicly. By demonizing Mujib as anti-Liberation, Indian agent, or even as a Pakistani collaborator, BNP top brasses assert Mujib only wanted to become the Prime Minister of united Pakistan by using the sentiment of the freedom-loving Bengali radical forces in East Pakistan. So, at the end of the day, it seems both the parties’ leaders and workers leave no stone unturned to see if the main patriarch of the rival party – Mujib or Zia – is denigrated and demonized enough to their own (perceived) political advantage!

Today some ultra-radical “leftist” leaders of the National Socialist Party (JSD), which emerged out of the Awami League, glorify their own leaders, especially the enigmatic Sirajul Alam Khan and A.S.M. Abdur Rab, as the real founders of Bangladesh. In late 1972, they established the (JSD) as an alternative to the ruling Awami League. Their version of the history of the Liberation War is very different from the Awami League and BNP versions. The Awami League version of the history of the emergence of Bangladesh is very different from those who lived through the turbulent period of 1960s and 1971 (both within and beyond Bangladesh) as well.

The historiography of the Liberation War of Bangladesh is full of diametrically opposite versions of “history”, and many of them are “eye-witness” accounts as well! These accounts are reflective of the over-polarised and emotionally-charged well-informed, less-informed, and uninformed people’s ideologies, sentiments, and emotionally- and politically-charged blatant lies. They represent the viewpoints of politically over-polarised sections of the people, as well as those who are plain and simple hero-worshippers. Both are equally capable of lying in support of their political ideologies, and the ideologues or heroes they love, adore, and glorify which is understandable from Carlyle’s important work on heroes and hero worship.

What Carlyle said about the hero-worshippers with regard to “The Hero as King”, namely Cromwell and Napoleon, are applicable to the blind admirers of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman, who are the main idols or cult figures in Bangladesh. What he said about the worshippers of Cromwell and Napoleon in his sixth lecture in 1840 is applicable to what Mujib’s and Zia’s blind followers are doing, decades after their tragic deaths. The hero-worshippers find no wrong with their idols.

Carlyle said:

“The Ablest Man: he means also the truest-hearted, justest, the Noblest Man: what he tells us to do must be the wisest, fittest, that we could anywhere or anyhow learn:—the things which it will in all ways behoove US, with right loyal thankfulness and nothing doubting, to do! Our doing and life were then, so far as government could regulate it, well regulated; that were the ideal of constitutions.”

Ardent followers of the two main heroes in Bangladesh  are sharply polarized into two hostile groups of people, who are least interested in respecting each other, let alone, coming to a working political understanding or relationship. Many of their crafty leaders tactfully play the divide-and-rule game for the sake of absolute power. Most of them do not nurture and respect democracy. The absence of intra-party democracy in all the major political parties in the country substantiates this. The cult of hero-worship is a stumbling block in the way toward any meaningful understanding of history and society in Bangladesh. It shrouds the truth and reality from the objective investigators.

Last but not least, the United States recognizes at least six other people — John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison — besides George Washington as its founding fathers. Glorifying single individuals as founding fathers is very common in relatively backward and premodern countries, mainly in the Afro-Asian continents. One may mention Mustafa Kamal, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Sukarno, Gandhi, Jinnah, Mujib, and among others, Mugabe in this regard. And the countries they represent as their sole founding fathers are nominal / dysfunctional democracies or totalitarian dictatorships.

Had Bangladesh adopted the concept of multiple founding fathers, it would have possibly been a democracy without any dynastic rule and cult figures around. At least one of them, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman aka Bangabandhu (Friend of Bangladesh), would not have remained a demigod beyond any reproach or criticism. It is a criminal offence in Bangladesh to question his persona or denying him as the Father of the Nation. People even cannot raise the question if he ever declared the independence of Bangladesh! The country is possibly only comparable to North Korea with regard to the jealously guarded cult of personality. In India and Pakistan people can get away with saying not-so-nice things about their founding fathers, Gandhi and Jinnah respectively, not so in Bangladesh and North Korea!

Russian Exodus From The West

Peter Koenig

By now the West – the US, Canada, Australia and the super-puppets of Europe, overall more than 25 countries – has expelled more than 130 Russian diplomats. All as punishment for Russia’s alleged nerve gas poisoning of a former Russian / MI6 double-agent, Sergei Skripal (66) and his daughter Yulia (33), who was visiting her father from Moscow. Sergei Skripal lived in the UK for the last seven years, ever since President Putin lifted his prison sentence in 2010 in a spy swap with the UK. The pair, father and daughter, was allegedly discovered on 4 March slumped on a park bench in Salisbury, England, not far from Sergei’s home. Apparently traces of the same nerve agent were found at the Skripal home’s door.

Russia in the meantime has started in a tit-for-tat move expelling western diplomats – in a first round 60, plus closing the US Consulate in St. Petersburg. According to Mr. Lavrov, more will most likely follow. – There will be an exodus and a counter-exodus of diplomats, west-east and east-west. It looks like a Kindergarten at play – but is of course a blatant provocation by the west on Russia and a continuation of the vilification of President Putin – especially after he has just been reelected with an overwhelming majority of over 76%. It’s a provocation with zero substance, to further justify an escalating NATO aggression against Russia. The war-bells are ringing – for a lie, an abject farce, visible to a child. Only the blind, those puppets, because out of fear or out of stupidity, who do not want to see – are supporting this new US instigated, UK executed drive against Russia.

The nerve gas, called Novichok, had been produced by the Soviet Union in the 1970s, but was subsequently banned and destroyed under international supervision. The ‘inventor’ of Novichok lives apparently in the US. Mr. Putin said, if the military-grade Novichok would have been used, the only form the USSR ever produced, there would have been no survivors.

What hardly anybody talks about is that the secretive UK Defense (War) Ministry’s laboratory of Porton Down, is but 13 km away from where father and daughter were allegedly found unconscious on a park bench. Porton Down is a highly sophisticated chemical and biological weapons lab that entertains contracts with the Pentagon of more than US$ 70 million for carrying out “experiments”, including on humans and animals. Porton Down has the capacity to produce Novichok. See the full story on Porton Down, by Bulgarian investigative journalist, Dilyana Gaytandzhieva – https://southfront.org/salisbury-nerve-agent-attack-reveals-70-million-pentagon-program-porton/ .

At this point there is no prove – other than what the police reported – that Sergei and Yulia Skripal were found on that dubious park bench. There are no civil witnesses. The UK government does not disclose where the two are treated, what their current health status is. Only on the repeated insistence of Mr. Lavrov that according to an agreement between the UK and Russia (the USSR) in the 1960s, both countries have the right to inquire and investigate about the wellbeing of their respective citizens, an official statement on 29 March from the UK said that Yulia is doing better and is on her way to recovery, while her father is still in critical but stable conditions (The Guardian, 29 March 2018). Is it true? – What if one or both recover and have enough memory of the events to go public?

What if the two have indeed been poisoned at Sergei’s home, or abducted and brought to the Porton Down laboratory to be infected with the nerve gas and then later dumped to the park bench? Why does the UK not disclose any ‘evidence’ they apparently have against Russia? – No details of where the two are being treated? – No visits allowed. Russia’s offer to collaborate in the investigation is laughed off and refused. Is this a well-orchestrated MI6 / CIA false flag, followed by outrageous lambasting by the UK’s highest leadership against Russia and her newly re-elected President Putin?

This criminal propaganda event is so full of lies, false accusations and deceit, pulling along more than 25 (so far) western nations to condemn and sanction Russia in unison for something Russia has with absolute certainty not committed. Just apply logic – a tough challenge, I know, these days for the dumb-folded west – but logic would tell a child that there is no sense, absolutely no sense, for Russia to carry out such an evil act. So, the usual question is: cui bono – who benefits? – And the answer is also crystal clear: Profiting from this sham are the war-mongering US / NATO and their miserable vassal-allies – spineless for years – following lies, their governments are fully aware of the lies, of the untruth Russia is accused of.

Adding injury to insult is Ecuador’s new President, Lenin Moreno, who a few days ago has shut up Julian Assange, Wikileaks editor, who is in political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since July 2012. Under Moreno’s gag-order, Assange is no longer allowed to communicate with anybody in any form and shape and cannot receive visitors. The official reason for Moreno – who has clearly become a traitor on his people – is that Assange tweeted a protest against the arrest in Germany of Catalonian ex-leader, Carles Puigdemont. Moreno has condemned Assange to a sort of isolation prison in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Who gave Moreno orders to do so? – Well, I leave the guessing up to you. In any case Moreno has become a prostitute as are most of the western world “leaders”.

The real reason is most likely Assange’s strong critique of the UK government, especially PM Teresa May and her Foreign and Defense Ministers, for their vitriolic and unjustified accusations and slandering of Russia and particularly of President Putin in the Skripal poison case. Assange cannot leave the embassy for fear of being arrested and extradited to the US, where he may face torture and worse, possibly the death penalty.

---

Let’s take this a step further. Diplomatic relations between the west and Russia have totally fallen apart. The doors are closed. Russia doesn’t need the west. But the west, especially Europe, badly needs and will every day more need Russia, a close ally and trading partner for hundreds of years. The west, eventually abandoned and every day more enslaved by Washington with weaponized refugees, with false flag terror attacks, leading to increased militarization, to oppression and censorship, privatization of public goods and infrastructure – Greece is but an example – and strangulation by Wall Street private banking and troika (IMF, European Central Bank, European Commission) imposed debt, the west will beg Russia to open her doors and show them her kindness – the kindness and openness Russia has been demonstrating to the west over the past almost 20 years, despite flagrant western abuse and demonization no end.

The western Anglo-Zionist-led empire will collapse. It’s a mere question of time but collapse it will. Today, not only a few, but all western “leaders” (sic) know that they are committing suicide by teaming up with destructive Washington – and this against the will of the majority of the European people. – Yet, they push a long this path of auto-destruction. Why? – Have they been personally threatened, or else lavishly rewarded if they follow the dictate of deep state-led White House and Pentagon?

The day may come when the west will knock desperately at Russia’s door – please talk to us, we need you. But this may happen only if they have not let themselves be pulled into the abyss of annihilation by Washington. Their stupidity may just do that – another few lies, accusing Russia of crimes against humanity she didn’t commit and prompting a war, an all-destructive nuclear war. The pretext could be another false flag Syrian sarin attack on “her own people”, wrongly blaming Bashar al-Assad; or a missile landing in Israel, blaming Iran with the same no-proof propaganda fervor applied by the UK in the Sergei and Yulia Skripal case; or North Korea – in the course of negotiations between Trump and Kim Jong-un next month (April), the US / west launches a false flag missile, for example, from Guam, that lands in Japan, destroying infrastructure and killing people, blaming it immediately on DPRK, without any evidence whatsoever, but with a rigorous campaign UK-style, to the point that nobody dares to contradict the obvious lie.

What if the current UK virulent and violent Russia slandering campaign is but a dry-run for much worse to come? – By now the mental state of western society is at the level of Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Goebbels’, statement – “Let me control the media, and I will turn any Nation into a herd of Pigs”. Yes, that’s what the west has become, a herd of pigs.

New Zealand: Labour government hit by sexual assault allegations

John Braddock

In what is an ongoing media campaign, the New Zealand Labour Party has been embroiled for two weeks in a sexual assault scandal that has served to undermine the position of the recently elected Labour-led coalition government.

The claims of sexual assault stem from an alleged incident at a Labour Youth camp in February. According to Newsroom, which broke the story on March 12, four Young Labour members—two boys and two girls, all aged 16—told party officials that a 20-year-old man had put his hands down the pants of at least three of them during an alcohol-fuelled social event.

The media has seized on the allegation to attack the Labour Party. With the truth far from established, a replication of the reactionary #MeToo campaign has been under way. Anonymous accusations have been leaked to media sources, without any evidence or independent corroboration, and sweeping denunciations made.

None of the young people involved has been identified by name and no witnesses have been produced. The only “admission” came second-hand from Labour Party secretary Andrew Kirton, who told media that the alleged offender was “deeply embarrassed” when confronted about the incidents the following day. “My understanding from the conversation relayed back to me was that he recognised he had drunk too much and that he was embarrassed by what happened,” Kirton said.

Kirton added that party officials ejected the young man—labelled “the culprit” in one headline—from the camp and banned him from Labour Youth events. However, Kirton then faced mounting calls for his own resignation, including from the trade union-funded Daily Blog, for failing to tell the police, the teens’ parents or Prime Minister Ardern about the alleged “assault.”

Police announced on March 14 that they will formally investigate the case after one of the teens contacted them. Yielding to the media onslaught, the Labour Party has now suspended all Young Labour events. Ardern and party president Nigel Haworth apologised abjectly, declaring that Labour had failed to provide “a safe environment for camp attendees.” Labour has also engaged a senior solicitor to conduct an “independent inquiry” into the incident and party’s procedures.

Apart from MP Megan Woods, who received a Facebook note from one of the teenagers, news of the incident was initially confined to the party hierarchy. Officials contacted the four young people and decided on a “survivor-led” response. At the young peoples’ request, their parents were not informed. Ardern, who had opened the camp, was not told, Kirton said, for fear the alleged victims would be “traumatised” by more people knowing.

While criticising Labour’s tardiness in responding, the head of Help, a sexual abuse support organisation, said the officials had followed the correct process. Spokesperson Conor Twyford told Radio NZ it was up to the victims to tell police or parents. All four were above the age of consent. Twyford emphasised that regardless of their age, police or others should only be notified by a third party, if a person was in danger of harming themselves.

The media, however, has deliberately inflated what appears to have been a minor incident into a major national issue for political purposes. The Dominion Post declared that Labour had “usurped the role of the law enforcers” over what it deemed was likely “criminal activity.” It repeatedly described the four youth as “children” and insisted that the “rights of parents” were sacrosanct. Opposition National Party leader Simon Bridges accused Labour of a “cover up.”

The Labour-led coalition government, which includes the rightwing nationalist NZ First, has enjoyed a protracted media honeymoon since its formation following last September’s election. The corporate media has glorified Ardern, fawning over her youth, gender and pregnancy. It fully backed Labour’s right-wing political trajectory, including Ardern’s support for US president Trump’s threat to “annihilate” North Korea and threats against China.

On March 14, however, a Dominion Post editorial said it was “quite extraordinary” that Labour, which “appeared to embrace… the momentum behind the #metoo movement and the rise of young, ambitious women,” should have “got it all wrong.” Referring to Ardern, broadcaster Duncan Garner declared: “The golden glow and constant smile were never going to stretch through an alleged sex scandal involving young people and booze.”

The so-called “scandal” is being used to push official politics further to the right. Internationally, the reactionary #MeToo movement is cynically exploiting unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct to attack basic legal norms and democratic rights and promote the material interests of a privileged upper middle-class layer.

In New Zealand, the Labour Party has previously advocated legislation to undermine the presumption of innocence in rape cases. In 2016, The Daily Blog called for scrapping trial by jury, based on the reactionary slander that the population as a whole condones “rape culture.”

Last month Fairfax Media’s Stuff website launched a “#MeTooNZ investigation” fronted by prominent journalist Alison Mau, to solicit “stories” from alleged sexual assault and harassment victims. Editorial director Mark Stevens promised that a team of journalists would produce “confronting” stories. This sets the stage for more trials by media based on unsubstantiated, anonymous allegations and sensationalised denunciations.

One thing is certain: the media’s insistence that “the gloss came off” Labour in the past two weeks has nothing to do with whatever did or did not happen at the Labour Youth event. Behind the hypocritical moral outrage is a growing impatience among sections of the ruling elite with the new government. Pressure is building on Ardern to press ahead with the agenda for which she was installed—to deepen the attacks on the social position of the working class and step up preparations for war.

Protests erupt in Ghana over US military agreement

Eddie Haywood

Thousands of Ghanaians demonstrated in the capital city Accra on Tuesday against a military agreement between the US and Ghanaian governments that would allow for a significant expansion of the US military’s presence in the West African nation. The government deployed a contingent of riot police as massive crowds poured into the streets of Accra’s business district chanting, “Ghana is not for sale!”

The military agreement was signed by President Nana Akufo-Addo on Friday of the previous week after its approval in parliament. The agreement faced strong opposition from the minority National Democratic Congress (NDC), who boycotted the vote.

The ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) of President Akufo-Addo, which holds the majority of seats in parliament, characterized the military agreement as a mere continuation of Ghana’s two-decade military relationship with the United States. Ghana has hosted US troops in several annually held combat exercises, and has contributed troops to several US-backed interventions across the continent. Ministry of Information Deputy Secretary Kojo Oppong Nkrumah told the New York Times, “It’s the same arrangement we’ve had in times past.”

The key parts of the agreement include Washington’s investment of $20 million to train the Ghanaian military and the granting by the Ghanaian government of an airstrip for use by US military personnel, together with giving over the exclusive use of airwaves in the country to the US military for communications. Additionally, the US military would be allowed to deploy troops throughout the country and granted the ability to import equipment necessary for its operations tax-free.

The estimated crowd of 3,500 demonstrators carried placards emblazoned with the statements: “Create Jobs, Not Military Base,” “Trump Take Your Military Base Away”, and “Shithole Country,” a reference to Trump’s disparaging remarks towards African countries in January.

Expressing outrage towards the growing militarism the agreement represents, Gifty Yankson, a local trader from Accra, told Africa News, “They [the US military] become a curse everywhere they are, and I am not ready to mortgage my security.”

Another demonstrator, Yaa Yaa Abban, expressed contempt toward the ruling government, “This is an insensitive government. We’ll resist this deal with the US because it does not favor us.”

The protest was called by the opposition party NDC, who have attempted to direct popular opposition to the deal into an appeal for national chauvinism. The NDC organized the protest with the Twitter hash tag #GhanaFirst and have stated the military agreement undermines the country’s sovereignty.

Also pushing this poisonous nationalist perspective was Frank Amoako Hene, president of the National Union of Ghana Students, “Having partaken in the struggle and fight towards our independence, we can never sit unconcerned when it comes to an agreement which has the tendency of compromising our sovereignty and integrity.”

With the NDC’s attempt to frame the protest along chauvinistic lines, the party’s leadership is attempting to bury the economic and social disaster experienced by the Ghanaian masses facilitated by past and current governments of both the NPP and NDC parties.

A tiny layer of Ghanaian elites sits atop a society that is riven by extreme social inequality. With a population of 28 million, the majority of whom subsist on under $3 per day, there are 10 individuals at the top who hold collectively $6 billion.

Reigning over this social powder keg, the ruling elite is fearful of a social explosion that threatens its rule. To this end, on Tuesday the Ghana Police Service arrested and detained NDC deputy secretary Koku Anyidoho on a charge of treason for remarks he made during an interview on a radio show in Accra in which he opinionated that President Akufo-Addo would be overthrown through a civil revolt.

Anyidoho stated: “On January 13, 1972, a certain Col. Ignatius Kutu Acheampong led a movement that removed the Progress Party from power. Busia was the Prime Minister and [President] Akufo-Addo’s father was a ceremonial president. Somebody should tell Nana Akufo-Addo that history has a very interesting way of repeating itself. There’ll be a civil revolt.”

The arrest of an opposition political figure on charges of treason for remarks made during an interview testifies not only to the fear of a large-scale uprising from the working masses, but also to the completely antidemocratic character of the ruling government.

For its part, Washington is well aware of growing opposition to its military operations on the continent. Attempting to assuage the eruption of social anger, the US Ambassador to Ghana Robert Jackson made a statement in the wake of the demonstrations, in which he portrayed the military agreement as not materially different from US agreements made with other countries.

“This agreement is about bringing Ghana into deeper security cooperation. It doesn’t involve a base; it doesn’t endanger Ghana’s security and it does not impose any harsh obligations on the government and the people of Ghana. This rather strengthens Ghana’s security,” Jackson stated.

The military deal between the US and Ghana comes amid escalation of AFRICOM’s military offensive in West Africa, with US forces currently waging war across several countries in the region.

Last week in Libya, US forces for the first time carried out a drone strike against Al-Qaeda militants in the southern part of the country, and in Niger, the Pentagon has finished construction on a military base in Agadez, which it projects will provide AFRICOM the capability of conducting full-spectrum drone surveillance and warfare over Western and Northern Africa.

Beginning in April 2017, the Trump administration issued new rules of engagement that essentially constitute granting blanket authority to AFRICOM to wage open-ended warfare. Along with new rules of engagement, Trump authorized increased drone strikes in Somalia, as well as increased numbers of troops deployed overall across the continent.

With the expansion of its military footprint in West Africa, Washington is seeking to block China’s growing economic influence in the region. Last June, Beijing committed to a $15 billion investment agreement with the Akufo-Addo government for the development of the country’s manufacturing sector.

Israel kills 17 border demonstrators in Gaza

Jean Shaoul 

Israeli troops, using live fire, killed at least 17 Palestinians and injured more than 1,400 during demonstrations along Gaza’s border with Israel and in cities throughout the Palestinian enclave. The demonstrators were armed solely with stones and homemade firebombs.

The Israeli army, using riot control measures, injured a further 27 Palestinians in clashes in the city of Nablus as nearly 900 Palestinians demonstrated in cities throughout the West Bank.

The organisers of the protests have called for six weeks of demonstrations, called the “Great Return March,” along the border of Gaza that has been subject to an 11 year-long illegal and inhumane blockade by Israel and Egypt.

The demonstrations, starting on Friday, are set to continue for six weeks until May 15, the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel and the subsequent war between Israel and her Arab neighbours, which the Palestinians commemorate as Nakba (Catastrophe) Day.

Following the 1948-49 war, only about 200,000 of the 1.2 million Palestinians remained in the parts of Palestine that had become Israel. While many fled to avoid the war, most left out of fear of what might happen to them at the hands of Zionist terrorists. Their homes and land were seized by the newly established state. One of the most notorious incidents was the Deir Yassin massacre where 250 men, women and children were murdered in cold blood by Menachem Begin’s Irgun group, as it went from house to house to drive out the Palestinians.

According to the United Nations, there are presently some 5 million registered Palestinian refugees. They include those expelled, or their descendants, following the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-49 and the June 1967 war, as well as countless others expelled later from the Occupied Territories or Israel. The majority have lived their lives in wretched conditions in refugee camps in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Many now live elsewhere in the Middle East, while others have moved to the West.

Israel adamantly refuses to acknowledge the principle of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants because this would be tantamount to accepting responsibility for what happened to them. Moreover, since it would end the Jewish majority in Israel, it has been repeatedly denounced as a threat to the very survival of the Zionist state.

Friday’s demonstrations also mark 42 years since Land Day—commemorated every year by Palestinians throughout the world—when Israeli security forces shot and killed six Palestinian citizens of Israel protesting the expropriation of Palestinian-owned land in northern Israel to build Jewish communities. A further 100 were injured and hundreds were arrested during the March 30, 1976 protest.

A key demand of the Great Return March is the full implementation of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948, which stipulates that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.”

Of the 1.9 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, 1.3 million are refugees, according to a Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics report in February 2018.

The Palestinians have set up several tent camps to house thousands near the Israel-Gaza border. They will camp out near the fence as part of an extended protest, with weekly demonstrations on Fridays until Nakba Day on May 15.

Israel made extensive preparations. Barbed wire fences have been set up and more than 100 snipers deployed. The government confirmed ahead of yesterday’s protest that it would use “riot dispersal means” that include tear gas and sound bombs as well as firing at “the main instigators” of the protest. It called in the army as opposed to the police and Border Police, citing Land Day demonstrations within Israel and fears of attacks in Jerusalem.

Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Gadi Eizenkot said that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would not allow “mass infiltration” or tolerate any damage to the barrier on Israel’s border with Gaza during the protests.

He said, “We have deployed more than 100 sharpshooters who were called up from all of the military’s units, primarily from the special forces,” and added, “If [Israeli] lives are in jeopardy, there is permission to open fire. We won’t allow mass infiltration into Israel and to damage the fence, and certainly not to reach the communities.”

To this end, the entire border area has been declared a closed military zone. This is nothing short of a shoot-to-kill policy.

In addition, Israel has put pressure on Facebook to censor Palestinian journalists and any critical reporting of Israel. Last week, the social media corporation dutifully shut down the page of a major Palestinian news outlet, the Safa Palestinian Press Agency, which has 1.3 million followers, as well as its Instagram account. Facebook defended its action, claiming it was a move against “hate speech” and “incitement.”

According to Ha’aretz, Facebook has closed about 500 pages of Palestinian activists and journalists since the beginning of the year. The paper notes that Safa is a “Hamas-affiliated” counterpart to Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency controlled by the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah faction led by Mahmoud Abbas. As such, its reporting is typical of a wide range of Palestinian news outlets.

The Facebook ban takes place in the wake of the live streaming of the Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi slapping a heavily armed Israeli soldier in the West Bank. Her arrest and sentencing to an eight-month prison term, along with the jailing of her mother for filming the incident, have made her an international rallying point for Palestinians.

The Israeli foreign ministry has briefed its embassies and sought to pre-emptively lay the blame for any clashes on “Hamas and the other Palestinian organisations who have manufactured this entire campaign.”

Just hours before the demonstrations began, an Israeli tank shell killed a Gaza farmer who had been gathering crops and wounded another in a southern Gaza village.

The Great Return March takes place amid rising tensions over the collapse of Gaza’s already blighted economy following the crippling blockade and Israel’s murderous assaults on Gaza in 2008-09, 2012 and 2014 that killed 1,417, 147 and 2,250 Palestinians respectively and destroyed much of Gaza’s basic infrastructure and tens of thousands of homes.

Further power cuts led to water shortages and untreated sewage after the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority stopped paying Israel for fuel for Gaza’s power station and electrical transmission, and ended or cut salary payments to thousands of public sector workers. While these measures forced Hamas into “reconciliation” talks with Fatah, the talks have stalled and brought no material relief.

In October, the World Food Programme announced a cutback in its food voucher programme in Gaza due to a budget shortfall. Earlier this year, the Trump administration withheld funding for food aid and the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA), which supports some 1.2 million in Gaza, cutting off Gaza’s last remaining lifeline.

For months there have been almost weekly demonstrations protesting the blockade and the humanitarian crisis. Last December, tensions rose to fever pitch after US President Donald Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Earlier this year, Gaza’s traders closed in protest over the deteriorating situation.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has described Gaza as a “constant humanitarian emergency.” Last year, a UN report stated that the living conditions for Gaza’s 2 million inhabitants had deteriorated even “further and faster” than the prediction made in 2012 that the enclave would become “unliveable” by 2020.

The imperialist powers, so eager to employ human rights to justify war in their own geostrategic interests have once again remained silent in defence of their regional policeman.

Why has Ecuador silenced Julian Assange?

Bill Van Auken

The draconian measures taken by the government of Ecuador to cut off all access to the outside world by Julian Assange represent a reactionary attack on basic democratic rights that must be vigorously opposed by workers and youth in every country.

Ecuadorian authorities have blocked the WikiLeaks founder’s access to the Internet as well as all other means of communication from Quito’s embassy in London, where Assange has been confined for nearly six years. In addition, it is barring visitors from seeing him, leaving him with fewer rights than a prisoner behind bars.

Assange continues to face coordinated conspiracies by the British and US governments to have him arrested and extradited to face US charges of treason and espionage, which carry potential death penalties.

The attack on Assange is part of a global assault on democratic rights that increasingly recalls the darkest days of the 1930s, in the midst of the rise of fascism and the drive to world war. It is significant that he was subjected to his enforced isolation in part for making a telling comparison on Twitter between the German government’s recent arrest of Catalonian leader Carles Puigdemont at the behest of Spain and the 1940 arrest of the president of Catalonia, Lluís Companys, who was extradited by the Nazis to Franco’s fascist dictatorship, which tortured and executed him.

The placing of Assange under what amounts to incommunicado detention coincides with a drive by governments all over the world to impose censorship on the Internet. Assange has been in the forefront of the resistance to this antidemocratic campaign.

These actions are also bound up with a sharp turn to the right not only by the government of Ecuador, but by those of a number of Latin American countries that were previously associated with the so-called “turn to the left” or “Pink Tide,” which began in 1998 with the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

In August of 2012, Ecuador announced that it was granting asylum to Assange, who faced trumped-up sexual misconduct allegations in Sweden. The Swedish investigation—which was dropped last May—was a fabrication designed to enable his extradition from the UK to the US, where he would be tried for the offense of making public hundreds of thousands of confidential documents exposing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the conspiracies of the US State Department worldwide. While Sweden has dropped the case, British authorities are still seeking Assange’s arrest.

When the government of Ecuador’s former president Rafael Correa granted Assange asylum, it declared that it was a fundamental human right that should be respected by every government and was necessary in the case of Assange, who faced the threat of ending up in Guantanamo or suffering the kind of torture and abuse meted out to Chelsea Manning. When it asked the British government to allow Assange to leave for Ecuador, London not only denied the request, but threatened to revoke the diplomatic status of Quito’s embassy and send police to storm the building.

The intransigence of the British government has kept Assange trapped in the confines of the embassy ever since under conditions described as “arbitrary, unreasonable, unnecessary, disproportionate” by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which called for him to be freed and compensated.

The Ecuadorian government cut off Assange’s communications after he expressed his opinion via Twitter on two of the most burning current world developments, condemning Germany’s detention of Puigdemont and questioning the measures taken against Russia over wholly unsubstantiated allegations of its involvement in the poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the English city of Salisbury earlier this month.

Assange’s messages, the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry stated, “put at risk the good relations that the country maintains with the United Kingdom, with the rest of the states of the European Union and other nations.”

“Other nations” no doubt includes the United States, with which the new government of President Lenin Moreno has been seeking a rapprochement.

The silencing of Assange came just one day after the Ecuadorian government welcomed a delegation from the US Southern Command, the Pentagon’s arm in Latin America and the Caribbean, headed by Southcom’s deputy military commander, Gen. Joseph DiSalvo, and its chief political officer, Ambassador Liliana Ayalde. Southcom issued a statement declaring that the discussions were held to strengthen “security cooperation” and “exchange ideas and reiterate US commitment to the longstanding partnership.”

Was the timing a coincidence? Or did the Pentagon’s representatives deliver a blunt directive to their Ecuadorian counterparts to silence Julian Assange? The obvious question that follows is what other demands have been made. Do they include handing over Assange to Washington?

Since his election last May, Moreno—Correa’s hand-picked successor—has carried out a sharp turn to the right, implementing tax cuts for big business, cuts in social spending and an attempt to reduce Ecuador’s dependence on loans and investment from China in favor of closer relations with US imperialism, which is seeking to reassert its hegemony in the region and counter Beijing’s growing influence.

The turn to the right in Ecuador is part of a broader ebbing of the-called “Pink Tide,” i.e., the rule by various populist, nationalist bourgeois parties in Latin America. It is of a piece with the election of the right-wing multimillionaire Mauricio Macri in Argentina in 2015, the impeachment of Workers Party President Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and her replacement by her right-wing vice president Michel Temer, the intense crisis of the government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and the defeat of Bolivia’s President Evo Morales’s attempt to amend the constitution to secure for himself a fourth term in office.

The right-wing turn in Latin America was prepared by all of the governments that were identified with the so-called “turn to the left” that began two decades ago. While proclaiming themselves as left-wing and even “socialist”—illusions that were promoted by a host of pseudo-left organizations in Latin America, the US and Europe—these were bourgeois governments that defended private property and the interests of both native and foreign capital.

On the basis of the commodities and emerging markets boom, they were able to create minimal assistance programs for the poor and assume a stance of limited independence from US imperialism, in large part based upon expanded commercial ties with US rivals, particularly China.

With the crisis resulting from the collapse in the prices of commodities, particularly oil, upon which Ecuador depends for 40 percent of its earnings, these governments responded by implementing mounting attacks on the working class, thereby diminishing their popularity and paving the way for the return of the right.

Correa had himself ordered the severing of Assange’s Internet connection in 2016 under US government pressure over WikiLeaks’ publication of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee, and two years earlier he had transferred more than half of Ecuador’s gold reserves to Goldman Sachs to secure the confidence of capitalist financial markets.

Similarly, the Workers Party government in Brazil and the Kirchnerista Peronist government in Argentina carried out antidemocratic measures and attacks on workers’ rights that paved the way for the rise of the most right-wing governments to rule those countries since the fall of the US-backed military dictatorships.

These developments have confirmed that the defense of democratic rights, the overcoming of the region’s pervasive poverty and inequality and the overthrow of imperialist domination can be achieved only through the political mobilization of the working class, independent of all bourgeois parties—including the PT in Brazil, chavismo in Venezuela, Peronism in Argentina and similar movements—based on a socialist program and the unification of the struggles of the workers of Latin America with those of workers in the US, Europe and across the globe.

The attack on Assange has posed this same fundamental question on an international scale. The only genuine constituency for the defense of democratic rights is the working class. Working people must come to the defense of Assange, demanding the lifting of the restrictions on his communications and his immediate freedom. Any attempt to arrest or extradite him must be answered with mass demonstrations and work actions in the UK, the US and all over the world.

This campaign in defense of Assange and the other victims of state repression can be waged successfully only as part of the struggle of the international working class to put an end to the capitalist system, whose historic crisis threatens humanity with both world war and police state dictatorship.

PTDF Masters & PhD Scholarships for Universities in United Kingdom 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 28th April 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (Universities): United Kingdom. Universities include:

1. IMPERIAL COLLEGE, LONDON
2. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON
3. KINGS COLLEGE, LONDON
4. UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
5. UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
6. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
7. NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY
8. UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
9. UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL
10. CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY
11. ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY
12. HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY
13. UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD
14. PORTSMOUTH UNIVERSITY
15. UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE

Fields of Study:  For 2018, the scholarships to the UK will be restricted to select courses (available on the PTDF website) at the following universities

About the Award: The Strategic Partnership Scholarship was developed to improve the Funds’ Overseas Scholarship Scheme by offering candidates the opportunity to benefit from a diversified pool of knowledge and the facilities offered by world-class institutions across the globe.
In recognition of the fact that the best education can be found on numerous shores, the Fund has sought out strategic partnerships in Germany, France and China where candidates are offered the opportunity to study in English-taught classes and conduct research in world-class facilities where they will also have the opportunity of experiencing new cultures and work environments.
Under this scheme, candidates are invited to apply through PTDF to specific programmes at the partner institutions in any of the three countries (full list of sponsored courses is available below). The award includes the provision of flight tickets, payment of health insurance, payment of tuition and bench fees (where applicable) as well as the provision of allowances to meet the costs of accommodation and living expenses. The programmes will also include language classes to aid scholars settle into their new environments. Please note that the Fund will be responsible for obtaining admissions for the candidates to their selected programmes.

Type: Masters, PhD

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: PTDF scholarships are highly competitive and only candidates who are outstanding across the board are selected. A selection committee will be constituted to assess applications using the following criteria;

• Academic merit as evidenced by quality of degrees, full academic transcripts, other professional qualifications acquired, and relevant publications to be referenced by applicant (PhD applicants only)
• Membership of professional bodies
• The viability of the study/research plan.

• Applicants are required to make a case for their scholarship by submitting a statement of purpose (maximum 500 words) stating the reason(s) they want to undertake the study, the relevance of the proposed study to the industry and its expected impact on national development.

Requirements

1. MSc
2. A minimum of Second Class Upper (2.1) qualification in their first degree or a Second Class Lower (2.2) with relevant industry experience
3. Must have completed the mandatory National Youth Service (NYSC)
4. Must be computer literate
5. Possession of 5 O/level credits including English Language.

1. PhD
2. Must have completed the mandatory National Youth Service (NYSC)
3. Must be computer literate
4. A minimum of Second Class Lower (2.2) in their first degree and a good second degree certificate;
5. Must submit a research proposal relevant to the oil and gas industry (of not more than 5 pages) to include: Topic, introduction, objective, methodology and mode of data collection;
6. Applicants must also include their masters degree project
7. All lecturers must produce a letter from their Vice Chancellor confirming that they are not in receipt of any other scholarships.

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: Full scholarship

Duration of Scholarship: for the duration of the degree programme

How to Apply: 

• Application forms can be accessed on the Website.
•  Applicants are advised to read through the requirements in the link below before applying.

Visit Scholarship webpage for details to apply

Sponsors: The Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF)

SAG-SEED Starter Workshop for Eco-inclusive Startups in Africa 2018 – South Africa

Application Deadline: 12th April, 2018

Eligible Countries: South Africa, Mauritius, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Burkina Faso

To Be Taken At (Country): Cape Town, South Africa

About the Award: During the application period for the SAG-SEED Starter Months future eco-entrepreneurs form their teams and come up with their business ideas to tackle one of the main challenges in their country. Under expert guidance the selected teams will come together during two workshops to develop and refine their business ideas. The time between the workshops is used for testing the idea on with potential customers and partners. After the Starter Months the teams have proven their concept and are ready to engage partners, funders, and go to the market.

Fields: Agriculture, Manufacturing, Waste Management

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Teams with 2-5 team members and an idea for addressing one of the three challenges above can
apply. We particularly welcome applications from women and youth.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Participation is for free! You only cover your transport and accommodation expenses.

Duration of Program: 2-4 May & 29-30 May 2018

How to Apply: 

• Download the application form & send the completed form to starter-southafrica@seed.uno
• For more information see and download the application toolkit.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The Starter Months in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, South Africa and Uganda are supported by SWITCH-Africa Green. SWITCH-Africa Green is implemented by UNEP with the assistance of the European Union.

Nelson Mandela World Human Rights Moot Court Competition for Law Students Worldwide 2018

Application Deadline: 23rd April 2018
Timeline:

• Release of hypothetical case to be argued: 20 December 2017
• Request for clarification of facts: Submit by 12 February 2018
• Response to requests for clarification of facts: Publicised by 26 February 2018
• Announcement of the 50 qualifying teams: 30 April 2018
• Confirmation of travel details: 2 July 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Palais des Nations, in Geneva, Switzerland

About the Award:  The Nelson Mandela World Human Rights Moot Court Competition is an international human rights law moot court competition.
Participation in the Competition is open to students from all universities in the world. The Competition involves a written phase after which teams are selected for the oral phase. Teams argue a hypothetical case on issues of international human rights law, as if they were before a hypothetical world Human Rights Court, on the basis of the International Bill of Human Rights and other applicable (such as regional) human rights instruments.
The 2018 Nelson Mandela World Human Rights Moot Court Competition will include a one-day event, designed to expose students to the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as well as the Human Rights Council. This will involve personal interaction with senior staff members of both institutions who are involved key activities and processes. This practical exercise promises to be an eye –opening and personally enriching series of encounters which will add value to what many World Moot participants have already described as the highlight of their university studies.

Offered Since: 2009

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 

• The Competition is open to both undergraduate and master’s degree law students.
• A team of two students from each university – preferably one woman and one man – is invited to participate.

Selection Process: 

• In the preliminary rounds the students submit heads of argument for a hypothetical case, which are assessed by a panel of experts.
• The best 10 teams from each UN region are then invited to participate in the pre-final and final rounds of the Competition in Geneva. Here, teams have to argue the two sides of the hypothetical case, the Applicant and the Respondent, before a ‘bench’ of human rights experts.
• The two best teams proceed to the final round, which is presided over by judges from international courts and tribunals. The Competition will be held in English and French.

Value of Contest: 

• No registration fees are charged
• However, participants must cover all their own costs (air tickets, accommodation, meals and medical insurance).
• As participants have to cover all their costs, they are encouraged to begin fundraising as soon as possible. Donors may include embassies, the UN and EU, bar associations and law firms, corporate donors and their own universities.

Duration of Contest: 15 to 20 July 2018

How to Apply: Apply here
It is important to go through the Contest Guidelines and Application requirements before applying.

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Nelson Mandela World Human Rights Moot Court Competition is presented by the Center for Human Rights, based at the University of Pretoria, in partnership with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva Switzerland.