Right-wing nationalist Orban wins Hungarian election

Peter Schwarz 

The right-wing Fidesz Party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban won Sunday’s parliamentary election in Hungary by a wide margin. Expectations that the Fidesz Party would lose support due to several corruption scandals and claims by pollsters that the mood in the country was shifting did not materialise.

With the voter turnout a relatively high 67 percent, Fidesz secured 91 of the 106 directly elected parliamentary seats. Only in Budapest did the opposition manage to win 12 of the 18 directly elected seats.

In the second vote, based on which the 93 remaining seats are distributed proportionally, Fidesz won 49 percent, outperforming its vote in 2014 by 4 percentage points and securing a further 42 seats. With 133 seats in the 199-seat parliament, Fidesz will have a two-thirds majority for the third time in a row.

Orban waged a far-right election campaign focused solely on the issue of immigration. He warned of the complete collapse of the Hungarian state and the Hungarian nation as a result of uncontrolled mass migration, which only he could prevent. He demonised the US-based Hungarian billionaire George Soros as well as the European Union and the United Nations. With barely concealed anti-Semitic undertones, Orban accused Soros of planning to rob the people of their Christian and national heritage by encouraging mass migration by Muslims to Europe.

Yet the number of refugees living in Hungary, just a few thousand, is extremely low. Hungary was a transit country in 2015 along the so-called Balkan route. But the border has since been hermetically sealed and most refugees have left the country.

Orban’s ability to win the election is less an expression of his own strength than of the utter bankruptcy of the so-called opposition. None of the parties that stood in the election had any answers to the burning social issues facing the country, which is among the poorest in Europe. They represent sections of the middle class that see their own social rise hindered by Orban and his cronies. They either support the European Union, the driving force behind the policies of economic liberalisation and austerity, or seek to outflank Orban from the right, in some cases combining the two positions.

None of the parties challenged Orban’s anti-refugee propaganda. A cross-party consensus exists that immigration from “foreign cultures” is undesirable. Orban even came under attack from the right because he has accepted some 3,000 refugees in recent years under existing refugee laws.

The biggest loser in the election was the social democratic MSZP, which lost 13.3 percentage points and finished with just 12.2 percent of the vote. The successor organisation to the Stalinist state party, it led the government from 1994 to 1998 and from 2002 to 2010. While in power it imposed right-wing liberal economic reforms.

Ferenc Gyurcsany, the last MSZP prime minister, made a multi-million-euro fortune from investment banking and stock market speculation. He was brought down in 2009 over a series of corruption scandals. He now has his own party, the Democratic Coalition (DK), which secured 5.5 percent of the vote.

The far-right Jobbik emerged as the largest opposition party, with 19.4 percent of the vote. In the past, it pursued an openly neo-fascist line and collaborated with right-wing militias. However, it has attempted in the recent period under leader Gabor Vona to present a more moderate face. Several of the most radical members were forced out of the presidium.

Vona retreated from his previous call for an exit from the EU and instead called for its reform, and he sent greetings to the Jewish community. None of this helped the party. Compared to the last election, it lost close to 1 percentage point.

The Green LMP was another party to surpass the 5 percent hurdle for parliamentary representation, with 6.9 percent of the vote. The LMP increased its vote by 5 percentage points.

Orban’s election victory was welcomed by far-right parties across Europe. The first to congratulate him included Marine le Pen of France’s National Front and Geert Wilders from the Dutch Freedom Party. Le Pen boasted that Orban’s “big and decisive victory” reflected opposition to the mass migration made possible by the EU and said “nationalist” deputies could hold the majority in the European Parliament following the European elections in May 2019.

The leadership of the right-wing nationalist Alternative for Germany proclaimed the result of the Hungarian election to be “a good day for Europe.” Jaroslav Kaczynski, the leader of the Polish government party PiS, personally supported Orban during the election campaign.

However, Orban’s support comes not only from the far-right. Fidesz is a member of the European People’s Party, which includes most of the continent’s Christian Democratic and conservative parties, including the German government parties Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU). The CSU has repeatedly invited Orban as a guest to its party congresses in Bavaria.

CSU leader Horst Seehofer, who as interior minister in the current German government is responsible for the police, border protection and refugee policy, warmly congratulated Orban. Seehofer said he was very happy about Orban’s “very clear election victory.” The CSU would continue to maintain its partnership with Orban, he added.

He went on to state that he viewed “the policy of arrogance and paternalism towards certain member states” to be mistaken. This was obviously a reference to the EU Commission and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who have pressed Hungary to accept its share of refugees.

Merkel and EU President Jean-Claude Juncker also congratulated Orban on his victory, if in more reserved terms.

Under conditions of deepening social tensions and the growth of the class struggle, the established parties across Europe are moving ever further to the right. The agitation against refugees is serving as a means to mobilise right-wing and fascist forces to be thrown against workers in struggle.

French government launches brutal attack on environmental protest camp

Johannes Stern

On Monday morning the National Gendarmerie, France’s militarized police, deployed nearly 2,500 heavily armed officers to brutally attack an environmentalist camp in Notre-Dame-des-Landes near the city of Nantes. Scenes resembling civil war unfolded as bulldozers and armored vehicles moved into the camp to destroy a colony of about 100 huts and makeshift homes that protesters and farmers have built since they set up the camp 10 years ago.

By mid-morning some 10 huts had been destroyed, along with a watchtower erected by the activists to guard their site, regional security official Nicole Klein told the media. Six people living in one of the shelters were evicted, she said, claiming that they had refused an offer by the government to be rehoused. While journalists were banned from the site when the operation began, videos give an impression of the scale and brutality of the operation to clear out the camp.

The anarchist farmers and activists, called “zadistes” in France, set up the camp in 2008 to block the construction of an international airport to serve the Atlantic coast. The site had been earmarked for a new airport nearly five decades ago, before the French government finally abandoned plans to construct the controversial hub earlier this year. The government of French President Emmanuel Macron argued that since the decision had been taken to drop the plans to build the airport, the “zadistes” (from Zone to Defend or ZAD) had to leave.

Less than two hours after the official start of the evacuation of Notre-Dame-des-Landes, French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb went on air to defend the operation. On Europe1, he declared that after the announcement to halt the airport project, the government wanted “life in this sector to return to normal.” Pledging “to reinstate the law” he threatened: “Authority must reign everywhere, the law must be respected everywhere.”

There would be no arrests, “except for those who commit acts of rebellion,” Collomb threatened. He said it would be impossible to know how long the operation will last, and that police would operate “as long as it is necessary” to prevent new occupations. “I hope that within a few weeks, the order will be returned to Notre-Dame-des-Landes.”

The violent assault and the threats by Collomb come amid a rising strike and protest movement throughout the country. Yesterday the French rail strike entered its fourth day, bringing around 80 percent of trains to a halt. Today one in four flights at Air France will be canceled due to a pilot strike. Students who are occupying universities all over France have been calling for a “day of action” to denounce Macron’s plans to restructure the universities along neo-liberal lines.

The protests in France are part of a broader international upsurge of the class struggle. In Germany public sector workers are on strike for higher wages and better working conditions today. Lufthansa alone has been forced to cancel 800 flights. In the US the strike by tens of thousands of Oklahoma teachers and support staff entered its second week. Teachers have also been on strike in West Virginia and Arizona. Other strikes and protests this year included metal and autoworkers in Germany, Turkey, and Eastern Europe, pensioners in Spain and railway workers and lecturers in Britain.

The violent and unprovoked assault on the peaceful protest camp in Notre-Dame-des-Landes by the Macron government is a warning. The ruling class will stop at nothing to repress the explosive opposition in the working class against its unpopular pro-business and pro-war policies.

“I’m not sure that sending heavy forces against protesters is the best of tactics,” warned Philippe Martinez, the leader of the Stalinist CGT union. Martinez and the unions have been negotiating the attacks with Macron and are horrified by the danger of a social explosion and the development of an independent revolutionary movement of the working class.

On Monday evening, solidarity protests in support of occupants of Notre-Dame-des-Landes took place in the west of France, as well as in Paris, Lyon and Marseille. The largest erupted in Nantes where, according to police sources, some 1,200 people gathered. In Rennes around 200 demonstrators gathered on Sainte-Anne Square chanting: “They destroy, we rebuild.” At around 8:45 p.m. police forces reportedly fired tear gas at protesters.

In Paris hundreds of protesters gathered in the district of Belleville in the northeast of the capital. They blocked the Rue de Belleville with construction barriers and chanted, “Who is ZAD? She is ours,” and “ZAD everywhere, expulsion nowhere.” Marylène, a 49-year-old civil servant who participated in the spontaneous protest, told a reporter, “To send 2,500 gendarmes to evacuate families, sometimes with children, is worthy of an authoritarian regime.”

Turkish, Russian and Iranian presidents meet in Ankara

Halil Celik

On April 4, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Vladimir Putin and Hassan Rouhani—the presidents of Turkey, Russia and Iran, respectively—came together in Ankara to discuss developments in Syria as well as the relations between the three countries.

According to the joint statement issued after the summit, “The presidents rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism and expressed their determination to stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as the national security of neighbouring countries.”

Erdogan, Putin and Rouhani also “reaffirmed their determination to continue their cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate Daesh/ISIL, the Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al Qaeda or Daesh/ISIL.”

The Ankara summit, the second between the three countries, was part of the so-called Syria peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, bringing together different factions fighting in Syria. The first summit was hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in November in the Black Sea city of Sochi.

The tripartite summit came amidst the US-British-led aggression against Russia over the poisoning of the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and ongoing disputes within the ruling elites of the imperialist countries over the Syrian war and their attitude towards Russia and Iran.

With NATO and European Union states expelling Russian diplomats, Turkey, an important member of the alliance since 1952, refused to “express solidarity” with Britain and other NATO countries. On March 26, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag stated that Ankara will not take any actions against Moscow. “Relations between Turkey and Russia are currently positive and good,” he said. “In this sense, Turkey is not planning on taking any decisions against Russia.”

As for the attitude of the United States and other main NATO powers over the Syrian war, Ankara has long gone its own way in contradiction to its ostensible allies. In less than one and a half years, Ankara launched two successive military invasions against the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its militia, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Pentagon’s main proxy force in Syria, in defiance of sharp criticisms from its NATO partners and with the consent of Moscow.

The Turkish government, which considers the existence of a Kurdish enclave in northern Syria as a main threat to Turkey’s “territorial integrity,” has repeatedly declared its aim of extending its military operations towards the eastern bank of the Euphrates River, the oil-rich northeastern part of Syria controlled by the PYD/YPG.

In a press conference after the Ankara summit, Erdogan reiterated Ankara’s position, saying, “We are ready to work together with our Russian and Iranian friends in order to turn Tal Rifaat, too, into a liveable place for our Syrian brothers and sisters. I would like to reiterate that we will not stop until we turn all areas under PYD/YPG’s control into safe places, first and foremost Manbij.” The Turkish president has more than once vowed that the Turkish army will continue its operations until clearing “the area, which extends from the east of Euphrates to our border with northern Iraq.”

At the time of the Ankara summit, conflicting statements were being issued from Washington over US policy in Syria--an indication of the continuing factional warfare in which President Donald Trump is being targeted by the Democrats, sections of his own party and the military for not taking a sufficiently anti-Russian stance. During a March 29 speech in Ohio, Trump had said that the US would "be coming out of Syria like very soon. Let the other people take care of it now."  In a National Security Council meeting that coincided with the tripartite summit, however, the White House announced that there was no change in US policy toward Syria—a declaration that anticipated the current escalation of hostilities by the Trump administration against Syria, Russia and Iran.

In a lead article published April 7 by the Daily Sabah, Turkey’s main pro-government newspaper, Turkish presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin, attempted an appraisal of the attitude of Washington.  “It is becoming increasingly clear in recent months that the US wants to stay in eastern Syria as a counterforce to Iran—a policy supported by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). … Clearly, the issue is not about Daesh anymore, but about creating a new power balance in Syria and beyond. The fight against Daesh is a secondary goal now, and the US military has a problem finding justification to stay in Syria within US law, which allows the military to operate in foreign lands only to fight against terrorism,” he wrote.

European powers have also been in search of a more active military policy in Syria to advance their imperialist interests in the Middle East. In recent weeks, there were several news reports in the media that not only the Pentagon but also London and Paris have deployed additional troops in Manbij, in support of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the main proxy force of the Pentagon largely consisting of Kurdish nationalists. The escalation of British and French involvement in the Syrian war would only fan the flames of the Syrian conflict, while exacerbating the ongoing tensions within NATO, especially with Ankara, which has declared Manbij as its next military target.

It is the growing pressure of the imperialist drive to war in the Middle East as part of broader geostrategic aims against Russia, China and Iran that is forcing Moscow, Ankara and Tehran to leave aside, at least for now, their differences over the future of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. They do this under the cover of phrases such as being “in agreement on the restoration of Syria’s territorial integrity, prevention of bloody conflicts and reconstruction of the country’s future.”

In view of the fact that Ankara is a fierce enemy of the Syrian regime, which is resolutely supported by Moscow and Tehran, one could hardly imagine a lasting cooperation between the three initiators of the Astana talks, unless either party changes its position over the Syrian war.

This, however, does not prevent Ankara, Moscow and Tehran from improving their relations in areas of trade, economy and even the military, as they feel under threat from the US-led imperialist coalition. While coming closer together to defend their own capitalist interests and existence, the ruling elites of Turkey, Russia and Iran are trying to make use of the growing inter-imperialist contradictions in their own ways as well.

Deeply frustrated with its Western allies because of their support for the Kurdish nationalists, which Ankara considers as “terrorists,” and by their involvement in the attempted coup of July 15, 2016, the Turkish government has significantly boosted its ties with Moscow. It has initiated the Astana talks with Russia and Iran, largely excluding its NATO partners, and bought the S-400 air defence system from Moscow, despite repeated warnings from the US and NATO. Moreover, Moscow and Ankara are now discussing additional projects in military technical cooperation.

Russian President Putin came with ministers and representatives of various Russian companies to Turkey, where the Russia-Turkey High-Level Cooperation Council held several ministerial meetings. Turkish and Russian ministers signed dozens of agreements on trade, tourism, investments and the funding of several projects, including the Akkuyu nuclear power plant and a bilateral gas pipeline project.

According to media reports, Russian and Turkish agencies also signed memorandums of cooperation in information technology, physical fitness and sports, social policy, and the rights of women, families and children.

The Turkish president has already expressed his hope that the Turkish-Russian trade volume will grow to $100 billion from $22 billion in 2017. Turkey imports around half of its gas and 30 percent of coal from Russia, and Moscow is Ankara’s third biggest oil supplier. Russia is building Turkey’s first nuclear power plant and will supply the fuel for it. On Friday, April 6, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak declared that Russia is able to complete the construction of Turkey’s Akkuyu nuclear power plant even if it is unable to attract other investors.

On the brink of war: US and NATO prepare military strike on Syria

Keith Jones

The United States and NATO are on the brink of a major escalation of the war in Syria, which could lead to a direct clash with nuclear-armed Russia.

Amid a wave of labor unrest throughout the United States and Europe, coupled with acute domestic political crises, the ruling elites see in war a means not only of reversing a series of geopolitical setbacks in the Middle East, but also of cracking down on political opposition.

The United States, Britain, France and Germany are all being shaken by a growing strike movement amid crisis and turmoil within the political establishment and the state. On the very day that US President Trump met with his National Security Council to decide on military action against Syria, the FBI raided the office and residences of Trump’s personal lawyer, escalating the conflict raging within the American ruling class.

The potential consequences of a war against Syria are massive. Last month, Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov vowed to retaliate against any attack on Russian troops in Syria, declaring, “In the event of a threat to the lives of our servicemen, Russia’s armed forces will take retaliatory measures against the missiles and launchers used.”

On Monday, Gerasimov again warned, “We have to say once again that military interference in Syria…is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences.”

Such statements underscore just how close the world is to war between nuclear-armed powers, threatening the lives of millions of people and human civilization itself.

The pretext for this escalation is the chemical weapons attack alleged by the US, without any substantiation, to have been carried out by the Syrian government. This casus belli is the crudest of fabrications. What possible reason could there be for the Assad regime to stage such an attack under conditions where it has routed the US-backed Islamist rebels on the outskirts of Damascus and is in its strongest position since the early stages of the US-fomented civil war?

The media hysteria over the alleged gas attack is in line with the relentless campaign of provocations and threats against Russia—a campaign that has reached a new crescendo in recent weeks. The latest allegations take place within days of the discrediting of the claims that Russia was responsible for the supposed chemical poisoning in Salisbury, England of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

Trump has issued a series of tweets that proclaim the Syrian government guilty of “horrendous” crimes, charging Russia and Iran with complicity and promising that those responsible will pay a “big price.”

The US media, military-intelligence apparatus and political establishment are baying for blood. Republican Senator John McCain blamed Trump’s “inaction” in Syria for “emboldening” Washington’s enemies. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party leader in the House of Representatives, signaled her support for military action against Syria while demanding that the Trump administration “finally provide a smart, strong and consistent strategy” to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

France and Britain have said they will join the US attack in Syria, if invited, or even mount their own strikes. The New York Times cited a Trump administration official as saying that Washington is feeling pressure to hasten an American attack on Syria “lest French President Emanuel Macron do so first.”

Last week saw a furious dispute within the American ruling elite, including the senior-most levels of the Trump administration, as the Pentagon, the CIA, the Democrats and much of the Republican Party leadership successfully pushed back against Trump’s suggestion that US troops would soon be “coming home” from Syria. Trump was bluntly told that such a pullout would not only be to the benefit of Russia, but would also cut across Trump’s plans to intensify economic and military pressure on Iran by torpedoing the Iran nuclear accord.

Vladimir Putin and the regime of capitalist oligarchs he heads have long sought an accommodation with Washington. But US imperialism, under successive administrations, has made clear that it would be satisfied only with Russia’s semi-colonial subjugation.

That Moscow, in the face of NATO’s expansion to its borders, US-sponsored “color revolutions” in neighboring states, and a quarter-century of US wars across North Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and Central Asia, has intervened to disrupt Washington’s plans in Ukraine and Syria is deemed by Washington and Wall Street to be intolerable.

The real causes of the United States’ reckless provocations against Russia have nothing to do with “meddling” in US politics or an alleged poison gas attack.

In the quarter-century since the dissolution of the USSR, US imperialism sought to reverse the erosion of its global economic position through aggression and war. In its quest for world hegemony, the United States has razed entire countries such as Libya and Iraq. But Washington’s never-ending wars have failed to reverse its decline. Instead, they have metastasized into military-strategic offensives against Russia and China and official declarations from Washington that the US is involved in a new age of great-power conflict.

The eruption of US militarism is accelerated by deepening economic crisis. In an article titled “Cracks Form in Global Growth Story, Rattling Investors,” published Monday, the Wall Street Journal warned, “Investor confidence has flagged amid fears that a long-expected global synchronized surge may be turning into a synchronized stall.”

Most importantly, the ruling elite sees war as the most expedient means of attacking democratic rights at home in order to crush the growing upsurge of the working class. On Tuesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will testify before Congress amid demands that major technology firms implement even more aggressive measures to crack down on “foreign propaganda” and “fake news.” Against the backdrop of a major new military conflict, calls will be redoubled for the banning of political opposition.

Africa-India Mobility Fund for African and Indian Researchers 2018

Application Deadline: 

• Applications are being accepted on a rolling basis from 3^rd April, 2018 and reviewed as received.
• The Award period will be April 2018 to March 2019 with 5 funding cycles per year. The funding committee will meet on the 5^th week of each funding cycle and funding decision communicated in 6 weeks.

Eligible Countries: African countries and India

To Be Taken At (Country): African countries and India (In an exchange format ie Africans

About the Award: The AIMF initiative by the African Academy of Sciences and the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (India Alliance) intends to encourage South-South collaborations and learning between the two ecosystems. This is in recognition of the fact that Africa and India face similar challenges, both in the diseases that affect their populations and socio-political issues as well as the leadership required to address these. The exchanges are expected to enhance their skills and contribute to the growth of knowledge and leadership towards common health challenges.

Objectives

• To strengthen research & innovation capacity and knowledge exchange
• To strengthen scientific collaboration between Indian and African teams

Type: Short courses, Grants

Eligibility: 

• Applications broadly focused on infectious and non-communicable diseases of relevance to local, national, or global health will be accepted every month. The scope of the collaborative opportunity may include but is not limited to HIV/AIDS, TB, dengue, malaria, vector-borne diseases, parasitic infections, emerging infections, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, health systems research, antimicrobial resistance, drug development, microbiome and general biomedical sciences.
• While applications that involve existing collaborations will be considered, applications that target new collaborations and encourage diversity especially female and young applicants are particularly encouraged.

Selection Criteria: 

• The candidate – evidence of scientific track record or achievements (if young researcher) in the specified project area and demonstrated interest in collaborating with India/Africa.
• The proposal – scientific quality and feasibility of the proposal.
• Evidence that the grant will facilitate scientific exchange that would otherwise not be possible from distance. Evidence of added value for addressing the disease area/challenge and for fostering Africa-India collaboration.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• The award will cover directly incurred costs upto $5,000 / INR 325,000 for travel lasting up to 3 months. This is to cover the applicant’s airfare (at Economy class) and subsistence whilst on the visit.
• Salaries and fees to attend meetings will not be eligible.
• An additional $2,500 may be requested for laboratory reagents, however, the decision to award the extra funds will be on case by case basis upon justification of the needs.
• The amount of each individual award will vary according to location and timescale. For example, if staying for a 3-month placement, the applicant may be expected to source university accommodation, or a short term let. However, if visiting for a week, a hotel or equivalent may be more suitable.
• Applicants may not seek funding for conference attendance, salary, equipment, per diem and indirect costs.

Reporting

• Recipients will be expected to submit a 3-4 page scientific report on the outcomes of the collaboration one month after the end of the visit. This should include scientific outcomes, experience and value gained from the visit, and proposed future steps (a standard narrative form will be provided).
• Financial reports will be submitted by the home institutions as per the prescribed template.  Proof of expenditure may be requested.

Awardees will also be expected to write at least one blog or a publication including photos about their experiences.

Duration of Program: 3 months.

How to Apply: All application forms should be submitted through the AAS Grants Management System (Ishango). Register and apply here.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The AIMF initiative by the African Academy of Sciences and the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (India Alliance)

Important Notes: Please note that the grant can only be used to deliver the objectives stated in the grant application. Ensure that the best estimates for the full cost of undertaking the project described in the application are requested.

Climate Change Media Partnership Reporting Fellowships for Journalists in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to US and Poland) 2018

Application Deadline: 4th May 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): San Francisco, United States; Katowice, Poland.

About the Award: The Climate Change Media Partnership (CCMP), led by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Foundation this year, is pleased to announce an expanded Fellowship program for journalists. Successful applicants will have the opportunity to attend two major climate change summits taking place in 2018: the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, United States, and the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP 24) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Katowice, Poland.
This year, a group of 15-20  journalists will be selected to attend both the Global Climate Action Summit (GCAS), to be held this September in San Francisco, United States and the second week of the UN climate negotiations (COP 24) in Katowice, Poland in December 2018. The GCAS will be a key gathering of non-state actors and sub-national governments working towards the Paris Agreement goal to keep global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. The Summit will take place just eleven weeks ahead of COP 24, when the world’s leaders will gather in Poland to participate in the “stock-taking” of progress since the Paris Agreement was signed.
At the GCAS and COP 24, Fellows will engage with other participants and Fellowship program organizers in a series of specially designed activities, including an orientation session, daily breakfast briefings, and interviews and briefings with high-level officials.

Type: Conference, Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Fellowship, applicants must:

• Be a professional journalist from or representing an established media house, and reporting from a developing country;
• Fill out the application form using the link below, including answering essay questions that illustrate his/her experience reporting on climate change issues and the kinds of stories you might pursue at the conferences;
• Be available to travel so that you can attend both events: arriving in San Francisco, California on September 10^th and departing on Sept 15^th, and arriving in Katowice, Poland on December 7^th and departing on Dec 15^th.
• Commit to participate in all Fellowship activities;
• Provide a letter of support from an editor, producer or supervisor who can confirm your ability to publish or broadcast your material in an established media organization. Freelancers are welcome to apply, but must provide a letter of support.

Selection Criteria: Criteria for evaluating applicants will include the prospective Fellow’s demonstrated experience covering climate change and other environmental topics, their interest in continued coverage of these issues, and their audience and outlet reach.

Number of Awards: 15-20

Value of Award: As part of this expanded program, the 2018 CCMP partners will cover:

• Nonrefundable economy-class airfare, hotel, meals, and transportation in both locations.
• CCMP will also reimburse for meal and other transport expenses in transit, help with the press accreditation process, and provide other support services relating to the trips.
• Please note that the process of obtaining any necessary visas is a Fellow’s responsibility; however, visa costs can be reimbursed.

Duration of Program: 

• San Francisco, California USA: September 10^th – Sept 15th 2018
• Katowice, Poland: December 7^th – Dec 15th 2018.

How to Apply: As part of the application process, journalists will be asked to submit examples of their work. These can be uploaded as pasted text or links; stories can be sent in a native language as long as they are accompanied by a short English synopsis. A good command of English, however, will be needed to answer the essay questions and will also be important to participate in Fellowship activities.

 Apply Now

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Climate Change Media Partnership

Important Notes: The CCMP fully respects the editorial independence of all journalists. Throughout the conference, Fellows are free to report as they see fit. As well as the requirements above, we ask that journalists agree to cross-post all stories they file during the Global Climate Action Summit and COP 24 on the Earth Journalism Network website and local and regional partner sites (it is okay if the story is first published or broadcast by a Fellow’s home media outlet).

LSHTM Professional Diploma in Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Scholarships for Medical Doctors in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 7th May 2018.

Eligible Countries: Low and Middle Income Countries

About the Award: The aim of the intensive professional development programme is to build capacity for postgraduate training and clinical research in Africa, including for doctors from outside the Region who intend to work locally. It is designed to introduce physicians to the knowledge and skills needed to practise medicine and promote health effectively, and to inspire them to develop their own careers in the field.

Type: Short courses

Eligibility: Open for applicants from Low-and Middle-Income countries only.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Full scholarships are competitively awarded to postgraduate doctors from low- and middle-income countries. There is an administrative fee.

Duration of Program: 27 August – 23 November 2018

How to Apply: Apply now

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

SA-GER-CDR Masters & PhD Scholarships + Internships for African Students (Fully-funded to study in South Africa and Germany) 2018/2019

Application Deadlines:

• the MA in Development Studies (next deadline 31 July 2018, online application is available in the “How to apply” section of the Programme!)
• the Master in Public Administration (next deadline 31 July 2018, online application is available in the “How to apply” section of the Programme!)
• the MA in Development Management (Bochum Programme, next deadline 30 November 2017)
  (separate online application platform, access and guidelines via “How to apply” section of the Bochum programme or via the course homepage)
• the different PhD options at the centre (PhD UWC) (next deadline 31 July 2018, online application is available in the “How to apply” section of the Programme!)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa

To be taken at (country): School of Government, University of the Western Cape, South Africa and Ruhr-University of Bochum, Germany

Eligible Field of Study: Scholarships are available for full-time students of

• MA in Development Studies
• Master in Public Administration
• PhD options at the CDR

About Scholarship: In order to adequately prepare the next generation of leaders through research-oriented training it is not sufficient to have the possibility to award scholarships to promising candidates from all over Sub-Saharan Africa, but it is also necessary to maintain a strong research focus on the work of the centre and to cooperate closely with other leading universities in the region.

Type: Masters, PhD

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: Scholarship applicants are adviced to carefully read about the specific entry requirements and course application procedure of the programme of their choice. The information is available from the respective programmes sections.

In addition to programme requirements, all applicants have to meet the following requirements:

• Applicants should be from Sub-Sahara Africa
• Applicants should have an outstanding academic record – at least 70% for your last degree
• Applicants should apply within 6 years of having completed their previous degree
• The study must have been completed at an internationally recognised university
• The previous degree (Baccalaureus or Master) should have been an academic discipline which is related to Development Studies or Public Administration
• South African students are required to have an honours degree in order to be admitted to a Masters degree course. Other students need the equivalent of a 4 year undergraduate degree
• Applicants must provide evidence of proficiency in English, both written and spoken. This can be TOEFL test or a similar standard test or a letter from an academic institution
• Work and/or voluntary experience in your field of interest would be a recommendation
• Women are encouraged to apply
• South African students are encouraged to apply
• Applicants must be able to study fulltime at the UWC for the required period.

Number of Scholarships: not specified

Value of Scholarship:

• Scholarships include monthly allowances of 650 Euro plus travel allowances for Master candidates and 900 Euro plus travel allowances for PhD candidates.
• Tuition and registration fees are covered by the Scholarship Programme.

Duration of Scholarship: for period of the programme

How to Apply: 

• You will have to fill in an electronic application form (ONLY AVAILABLE FROM mid APRIL to 31st July)!
• As the e-form can only be submitted once, please make sure that your application is complete before submitting it!

It is important to go through the Application requirements Scholarship Webpage before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: DAAD

Rockefeller Foundation Art Residency Programme for International Writers 2018 – Italy

Application Deadline: 

• The application deadline  for an Academic Writing residency is 1st May 2018, for residencies in 2018.
• The application period for Arts & Literary Arts residency will soon open. Application Dates will be updated on this site when it opens
• Applications for practitioner residencies are not open.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the United States

To be taken at (country): Bellagio, Italy. The Center consists of several buildings in 55 acres grounds on Lake Como in Northern Italy: the Villa Serbelloni and Villa Maranese house the resident fellows (scholars, practitioners and artists); the Sfondrata and Frati buildings are reserved for meetings. The town of Bellagio, immediately adjacent to the Bellagio Center, is located in northern Italy at the point where Lake Como divides to form its Lecco and Como arms. It is approximately 75 km. (47 miles) north of Milan.

Eligible Fields: The Rockefeller Foundation seeks applicants with projects that contribute to discourse and progress related to its dual goals: i) advancing inclusive economies that expand opportunities for more broadly shared prosperity, and ii) building resilience by helping people, communities and institutions prepare for, withstand, and emerge stronger from acute shocks and chronic stresses. To achieve these goals, The Rockefeller Foundation works at the intersection of four related focus areas: Advance Health, Revalue Ecosystems, Secure Livelihoods, and Transform Cities.
Applicants with projects that may help shape thinking or catalyze action in these areas are also strongly encouraged to apply.

About the Award:  The Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Residency Programme is split into 3 areas:

• Academic Writing residency
• Arts & Literary Arts residency
• Practitioner residencies

The Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Residency Programme has a track record for supporting the generation of important new knowledge addressing some of the most complex issues facing our world, and innovative new works of art that inspire reflection and understanding of global and social issues.

The Bellagio Center Residency Program is committed to creating an environment that fosters rich cross-cultural and interdisciplinary exchanges, which arise from bringing highly diverse and international cohorts of artists, academics, practitioners, and policymakers together. The Bellagio Center typically offers residencies of two to four weeks for no more than 15 residents at a time. Collegial interaction within the community of residents is an integral dimension of the Bellagio experience. Meals and informal presentations of residents’ work afford an opportunity for dynamic discussions and engagement within and across disciplines. To help build connections across one another’s work, residents are also offered opportunities to interact with participants from international conferences that are hosted in other buildings on the Bellagio Center’s grounds.

Type: Short courses

Eligibility: 

• Residencies are open to university or think-thank based academics in all disciplines, literary artists, visual artists, and practitioners from a variety of fields, particularly those working on socially impactful endeavors. The Foundation seeks to promote a broad, stimulating mix of disciplines and fields within the Bellagio Community.
• The Academic Writing residency is for university and think tank-based academics, researchers, professors, and scientists working in any discipline. Successful applicants can either demonstrate decades of significant professional contributions to their field or show evidence of being on a strong upward trajectory in their careers.
• The Bellagio Arts & Literary Arts residency is for artists working in any discipline including composers, fiction and non-fiction writers, playwrights, poets, video/filmmakers, and visual artists who share in the Foundation’s mission of promoting the well-being of humankind and whose work is inspired by or relates to global or social issues.
• The Center also welcomes applications from practitioners, defined as senior-level policymakers, nonprofit leaders, journalists, private sector leaders and public advocates with ten or more years of leadership experience in a variety of fields and sectors.

Selection Criteria: Bellagio Center arts & literary arts residencies are for composers, fiction and non-fiction writers, playwrights, poets, video/filmmakers, interdisciplinary and visual artists seeking time for disciplined work, reflection, and collegial engagement, uninterrupted by the usual professional and personal demands.

Number of Awardees: Not more than 15 residents

Value of Residency: 

• During the course of the residency, room, meals and board are provided without charge.
• Opportunity for dynamic discussions and engagement within and across disciplines.
• Accessibility: housing/grounds/studios are accessible
• Studios/special equipment: Painting, Photography (digital)
• Additional studio information: The Maranese Art Studio (for painters) is located directly one flight downstairs from the bedroom (access through an outside stairway).
• To help build connections across one another’s work, residents are also offered opportunities to interact with participants from international conferences that are hosted in other buildings on the Bellagio Center’s grounds.
• Space for Spouses/Life Partners of residents are welcomed at the Center and can utilize this time to work on their own projects
• Travel grants and modest stipends to offset incidental travel costs are available on a needs basis, with awards granted to approximately half of all resident fellows.

Duration of Residency: 2 to 4 weeks

Go to Application
It is important to go through individual application requirements of each residency on the Rockefeller Foundation Webpage before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Rockefeller Foundation

The Perils of Predicting Events in the Middle East

Robert Fisk

Prediction is a precise, elusive and dangerous science. We journalists are usually asked to practise this dodgy skill on political anniversaries, elections, before invasions or – even more perilously – during invasions.

Take the city of Afrin. The Turks invaded the Syrian and largely Kurdish province just under two months ago. They took their time. They had few tanks. Their “Free Syrian Army” allies appeared to be nonexistent. Alas, their new found Islamist allies were not.

But when I visited Afrin less than two weeks after the start of Turkey’s “Operation Olive Branch” – as sinister a name as any in recent decades for armed aggression – its citizens were shopping in crowded streets, their homes unbombed, the restaurants open; I reported that if the Turks really used all their firepower, they could have entered the city in half an hour.

They appeared to be “sheep in sheep’s clothing,” I suggested, quoting Churchill’s description of Clement Attlee. I should have known better. Attlee won the 1945 election. And the Turks entered Afrin city on 18 March.

Well, at least I hadn’t said they wouldn’t capture the place. But back in Damascus this month, an old Syrian friend cheerfully reminded me that when I returned from Afrin in January, I did tell him that I thought the Turks had no intention of entering the provincial capital.

“You said the Turks would not go there,” he admonished me. “What you said about Turkey was right from the start of the war – but this time, you got it wrong.” I fear he was right.

The problem, of course, was that the Kurds, especially the People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia and its associates, were already famous in song and legend for crushing Isis. How could they destroy so much of this vicious cult, I had asked myself, but then lose to the Turks?

My mistake. I forgot – a real error in the false art of prediction – that the Kurds had not stood their ground against Iraqi forces in Kirkuk. They had largely abandoned their front lines. Which is exactly what they did again in Afrin. But why did the Russians leave the Kurds to their fate?

Well, here are a few reasons. Firstly, the Russians were tired of the Kurds’ decision to act as America’s footsoldiers in Syria as well as Iraq. They had, in the words of my Syrian friend, “put all their eggs in the American basket”.

Secondly, the Russians suspected that the mortar shell which killed one of their most senior officers in Syria – Lieutenant General Valery Asapov, commander of the Russian Fifth Army in the Far East city of Ussuriysk (not far from Vladivostok) – was fired into the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor by Isis, while the Americans were arranging free passage through Isis lines for Kurdish forces en route to Raqqa. Did the Kurds help Isis – they were talking to each other a few weeks earlier – strike a blow at Russia’s military operations in Syria?

More important, however, was an incident in which the Kurds deliberately destroyed a military bridge constructed by the Russians over the Euphrates River for pro-Syrian militias. The Kurds opened the sluice gates on a neighbouring dam and flooded the river – and the bridge collapsed.

Without Russian air cover – and the Turks must also have had Vladimir Putin’s permission to hoist their flag over Afrin’s city hall – the Kurds were doomed. The civilians fled in their tens of thousands, and so did their YPG defenders. No doubt Putin and Erdogan are enjoying their talks in Ankara this week as they confirm the construction of a Turkish-Russian nuclear reactor and a new missile defence shield.

I doubt if they had much time to discuss Afrin – and why should President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, who joined them, care about the Kurds? So much for my prediction to my Syrian friend.

But there are some crystal balls which will always reflect the truth. Take Arab elections. Or, more to the point, Egyptian elections. It’s a fair bet that almost any Arab potentate – Saddam in his day, Assad, Sadat or Mubarak – will win a presidential poll by more than 90 per cent.

But, having covered parliamentary and presidential elections in Cairo for more than four decades, I thought I’d have a crack at Field Marshal/President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s victorious results a week before the election was actually held.

Since he picked up more than 96 per cent in previous polls, I reportedin The Independent: “I have a hunch it will be somewhere between 93.73 per cent and 97.37 per cent for the President… But my second gamble is a shoo-in. Will President Trump call Mr Sisi after his election victory to congratulate him? Of course he will. And he will call him ‘a great guy’ who’s doing ‘a great job’.”

Well, what do you know? The Egyptian people, with an admittedly miserable turnout and an even more pathetic electoral opponent to Sisi, gave their beloved leader 97 per cent of their votes. The nearest percentage point appeared to be 97.08.

That means I got the result to well within my prediction a week earlier and, without any Egyptian opinion polls to help me, just 0.29 from my own top percentage point. Psephologists must surely stand in awe.

But they must also forget that Mubarak won 96.3 per cent for his third six-year term in office in 1993, that Sadat won a thumping 99.95 victory for political reform in a 1974 referendum and Saddam scored 99.96 for his presidency in 1993. Hafez al-Assad, however, picked up 99.987 per cent of the Syrian vote for a new seven-year term in office in 1999. Only 219 erring citizens voted against him.

So if you spend your time reporting this stuff, you can predict the future with considerable accuracy. And after Trump’s congratulatory call to Tsar Putin after his election, it was also inevitable that the wretched man would telephone Sisi to congratulate him on his superb – nay, miraculous – triumph in Egypt, just as I said he would.

But did he call Sisi “a great guy” and tell him he was doing “a great job”? According to the White House, the two leaders “affirmed the strategic partnership between the United States and Egypt” and spoke of “Russia and Iran’s irresponsible support of the Assad regime’s brutal attacks against innocent civilians”.

Which means that Sisi, for Trump, is indeed a great guy doing a great job.

Funny, though, how Trump is becoming as predictable as an Arab election. Do they perhaps have something in common?

Plastic Waste Kills Six-Ton Whale

Robert Hunziker

In the annals of human history, modern day society is already setting records never before dreamed possible, as human-trashed plastic officially kills a six-ton six-year-old sperm whale. Yes, and it only took a total of 64 pounds of plastic to do the nasty deed.

An autopsy of the dead whale found on a beach in southern Spain brought to light the cause of death, which according to experts at El Valle Wildlife Rescue Centre concluded the whale was unable to digest or excrete plastic it ingested. The official cause of death is termed peritonitis, which is an infection of the inner lining of the stomach.

Additionally, according to Consuelo Rosauro, director-general for natural environment of the region, this is not a “one-off” situation. He informed The Telegraph (April 6, 2018) that many animals die from the horrid “Plastic Sudden-Death Epidemic.”

Interestingly, and somewhat ironically, the sperm whale has the biggest brain of any creature on Earth and a life expectancy of 70 years, similar to humans, except for brain size, which is much bigger than human brains… hmm! Still, it’s human thinking (“processing”) with resultant behavior, carelessly, and maybe even sadistically instinctively, tossing plastic waste somewhere on the planet, ending up in the young sperm whale’s stomach.

It would be absolutely fascinating to connect each discarded piece of plastic to the original human hand(s) that tossed it aside. Then, maybe bring together all of those human animals to commemorate the whale’s untimely death at the spot in southern Spain where it washed ashore. And, since the authorities retrieved all of the plastic from the young whale’s stomach, insist that each of the perpetrators select their own piece of plastic, sorting it out from within the batch of 64 pounds of plastic, and take it, hold it, maybe for a couple of hours, and carry it to a proper plastic recycling facility. This entire commemoration could be filmed for posterity to honor the short lifespan of the young sperm whale. And, this will make the perpetrators feel better about themselves, maybe.

But, it is impossible to trace the pieces of plastic back to each person that originally tossed it aside. The plastic may have come from “who knows from where?” Here’s the problem: Male sperm whales have no predetermined migration patterns. They are wanderers and travel the entire world’s oceans, which makes it all the harder to determine where the plastic originated. On second thought, plastic is found throughout the world’s oceans, making it even more difficult to understand the origin.

The problem of understanding the origin of the plastic is further complicated by the fact that, according to National Geographic, at current rates of haphazard plastic waste disposal, by mid-century the oceans will contain more plastic waste ton-for-ton than fish. Then, imagine the problem identifying the origin of the plastic that kills another sperm whale, or by then, many sperm whales, assuming they have not already been completely wiped-out by the nasty unrelenting Plastic Sudden-Death Epidemic.

The amount of plastic that will displace all of the ocean’s fish amounts to 5-to-14 million tons per year, the current amount of plastic waste haphazardly thrown out per year, or enough plastic end-to-end to travel halfway to Mars. That calculation comes from engineering professor Jenna Jambeck/University of Georgia.

A human trip to Mars will likely take 6-to-8 months. So, the annual ocean plastic calculation is roughly equivalent to 3-4 months travel time in outer space. The correlation is not perfect, as the concept is awkward in the first instance, but trying to understand “plastic whale death” is so insanely screwball wacky that nothing makes sense anyways.

Nowadays, insanity may be the only reprieve from reality.

Especially when absorbing the thought processes behind the realization that, in January 2016, 29 sperm whales stranded on the shores around the North Sea. Necropsies (animal equivalent of autopsies) showed several stomachs filled with plastic, full up!

These horrifying Plastic Sudden-Death Epidemic stories seem endless but sorrowfully, sea animal abundance is not.

What to do?

Do something!

A good starting point for human animals that really, truly care can be found at Mission Blue, headed by the National Geographic Society Explorer in Residence Dr. Sylvia A. Earle, aka: “Her Deepness.”

Or, a really good alternative, don’t toss plastic into the ocean or into the street where storm sewers ultimately take it to a body of water somewhere in the world, or also a good idea, be sure to recycle.

According to National Geographic, 90% of plastic is not recycled.

Where does it go?

Sperm whales!

Really?

Yes, really… honestly… we’ve got hard evidence!