8 Sept 2018

Following strike wave, New Zealand prime minister appeases the corporate elite

John Braddock 

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced on August 28 the creation of a new Business Advisory Council to build “closer relationships” between the Labour Party-led government and big business.
Ardern’s announcement, made to a gathering of corporate leaders in Auckland, was aimed at arresting a collapse in “business confidence” 10 months into her government’s term. A current ANZ bank outlook, the gloomiest monthly survey in a decade, shows 50 percent of businesses expect conditions to deteriorate. Economists are mostly downgrading growth forecasts for the coming year to around 2 percent, from about 3.5 percent a year ago.
Ardern had earlier described plummeting business confidence as the “elephant in the room” for the Labour-NZ First-Greens coalition government, but she opened her speech by declaring that the level of corporate disquiet had now become a “massive, big, flashing neon sign.”
Ardern reassured her audience that the government was “listening” to their concerns and promised to “do better.” Certainty, she warned, “should not be confused with stasis and complacency.” By failing to “transform” the economy in the 1970s and early 1980s, Ardern asserted, “we paid a price for that with the speed of reform that had to come after.”
The remarks were a reference to the brutal market-liberalisation attacks on jobs and living standards that was carried out by the Labour government of 1984–90. Ardern emphasised that her government has ambitious plans to further “transform the economy”—i.e., to extend the pro-capitalist agenda and deepen the assault on the working class—and “wants business to come with it.”
Ardern said the business council, to be chaired by Air New Zealand chief executive Christopher Luxon, will provide her with “high-level free and frank advice” on key economic issues, and “harness expertise” from the private sector to develop the government’s economic policies.
BusinessNZ chief executive Kirk Hope welcomed the move, describing it as a sign the government was heeding the “concerns” of the corporate elite. One Fairfax Media commentator described it as “a direct line for business into the upper floors of the Beehive”—the Wellington building that houses government ministers and top bureaucrats.
The government had already established two other business-led groups to “advise” it—the Tripartite Future Work Forum, which includes the Council of Trade Unions, and the Small Business Council.
Labour’s move to further appease business is a clear response to the shift to the left by the working class, with tens of thousands of workers—including nurses, teachers, public servants, retail workers and transport workers—initiating the largest strike movement for two decades over low wages and living standards.
The strike wave has emerged amid growing anger among workers with the trade unions, which are desperately manoeuvring to suppress workers’ demands and impose spending limits dictated by the government.
Signalling rising alarm in ruling circles, Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce manager Leeann Watson told Fairfax Media last month: “We’ve had more strikes in the last six months than we’ve had in years.”
Manufacturers’ and Exporters Association chief executive Dieter Adam warned against significant pay rises for nurses and teachers, declaring: “When employees in our sector see a bunch of state employees getting these high settlements, the logical question is ‘why not us?’”
Acutely aware of the widespread popular hostility to the political establishment after decades of attacks social conditions and entrenched inequality, Labour and its coalition partners have sought to present a “progressive” image. It has introduced a series of populist gestures, including freezing MPs’ pay, reining in state sector CEO bonuses, marginally improving tenants’ rights and banning single-use plastic bags supposedly to protect the environment.
Behind these cosmetic measures, however, Labour is maintaining the previous National Party government’s austerity program by keeping a tight lid on spending in health, education and other services. Its right-wing nationalist agenda includes slashing immigration and banning foreign house buyers. While claiming there is “no more money” for health and education, 1,800 new police are being recruited. Defence spending and NZ’s integration with Washington’s anti-China offensive in the Asia-Pacific is being ramped-up.
In her speech, Ardern sought to assuage business concerns over Labour’s industrial relations policies. She promised that there will be no more than two industry-wide “Fair-Pay Agreements” in the current term in office, and that none would impact on major industries. Most employers would be able to “sit back and see how they work,” she said.
The so-called Fair Pay Agreements (FPAs) were the cornerstone of Labour’s industrial policy during last September’s national election. The policy was fraudulently promoted as giving “power back to workers” by preventing a “race to the bottom” by employers competing with each other to lower wages.
The FPAs are not intended to restrict exploitation of workers. Their real role will be to establish a corporatist framework of employer-union-government wage setting, while outlawing industrial action. This process will entrench low pay across entire industries, enforced by draconian legislation. The unions will enforce the deals and suppress resistance from workers.
A working group chaired by right-wing former National Party Prime Minister Jim Bolger and including trade union representatives is drafting the plans for the FPAs, which will be presented by the end of this year.
With global financial turbulence rapidly intensifying, the ruling elite is preparing deep attacks on the working class. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an article on August 26 noting that currency traders are watching Australia, New Zealand and Canada for “signs of the sort of malaise that often hits emerging markets when the US dollar is rising.”
The article noted that rising US interest rates are hitting these currencies and “diminishing their attractiveness to overseas capital.” The three countries have relied increasingly on inflows of foreign investment to finance current account deficits. The weaknesses in their economies, mainly dependent on commodity exports and trade with China, will only be exacerbated as US-initiated trade conflicts worsen.
The New Zealand dollar has already lost 5.7 percent this year. The WSJ cited a NZ Reserve Bank statement that, in the light of an economic slowdown that could be “prolonged,” it will keep borrowing rates at record lows for the next two years. The central bank warned that trade wars, “or even their threat” could “stall global investment and spending, and reduce demand for our products.”
New Zealand’s economy has struggled in recent months, with a slump in retail and car sales, dropping global prices for milk products, the country’s main export, and major construction firms experiencing financial trouble and exiting the industry. Job cuts are under way in the tertiary education sector, the Warehouse retail chain, Auckland city libraries, Nestlé’s chocolate factory in south Auckland, in the core public service, and among rail workers .

India expands anti-China “strategic partnership” with Washington

Keith Jones

Thursday’s inaugural “2+2” strategic dialogue between the US and India ended with New Delhi signing on to yet another “foundational” military cooperation agreement aimed at transforming India into a front-line state in the US military-strategic offensive against China.
Patterned after one of the key mechanisms Washington uses to manage its military-strategic ties with Japan and Australia, its chief Asia-Pacific allies, the “2+2” dialogue is to be an annual event bringing together the US and Indian foreign and defence ministers.
The joint statement that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary James Mattis, Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj, and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman issued at the conclusion of their series of meetings in New Delhi Thursday outlined numerous initiatives to expand Indo-US military and strategic cooperation.
The most consequential of these is India’s adoption, after ten years of negotiations, of a Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) modeled on agreements Washington has with its most important NATO and treaty allies. It will enable the Indian military to obtain advanced US communications equipment for its weapons systems, and enhance encrypted communication and “inter-operability” between the militaries of the US, its allies, and India.
The agreement is expected to pave the way for a further major boost in Indian purchases of US weaponry, likely beginning with the procuring of armed naval drones for anti-submarine warfare. India’s military long balked at signing such an agreement for fear that it would facilitate US spying on its activities.
But the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has dramatically expanded India’s integration into Washington’s anti-China offensive, including sanctioning the exchange of intelligence about ship and submarine movements in the Indian Ocean and parroting the US line on the South China dispute.
COMCASA is the second of three bilateral agreements that Washington insists are “foundational” for any true military-strategic partnership, and for India gaining the full benefit—through access to the most advanced weapons systems that the Pentagon is willing to share with allies—of its recent designation as a “Major Defence Partner” of the US.
Under the Logistics Exchange Memorandum Agreement, which was signed in 2016 and operationalized last year, India has opened its air bases and naval ports to routine use by US warplanes and battleships for refueling and resupply.
With New Delhi inking the COMCASA pact, negotiations on the third and final “foundational” agreement, the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA), are expected to go into high-gear.
New Delhi and Washington also announced that they will stage their first-ever joint exercise involving all three branches of India’s military next year, and that they are setting up “hotlines” between their respective foreign and defence ministries “to help maintain regular high-level communication on emerging developments.”
The “2+2” joint statement also commits New Delhi and Washington to increased bilateral, trilateral and quadrilateral military-security cooperation. While they are not named in the statement, a longstanding US objective has been to draw India into closer cooperation with Japan and Australia, with the ultimate aim of creating a NATO-style US-led alliance against China.
Under Modi, New Delhi has increased trilateral cooperation with both Japan and Australia, including making the former a permanent partner, alongside India and the US, of the annual Malabar naval exercise. Last November, senior officials from the US, Japan, Australia and India held a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, reviving a forum that had been abandoned a decade before after vociferous protests from China.
The statement reiterated commitments from recent Indo-US communiqués to uphold a “rules-based order” and “freedom of navigation” in the Indo-Pacific region—that is, US hegemony, including the unfettered right of the US Navy to maintain an armada off China’s shores. No less significantly, it pledged the two countries will “work together to counter North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction,” under conditions where Trump has repeatedly threatened to annihilate that small, impoverished country.
On his way to New Delhi, Pompeo made a brief stop-over in Islamabad where he hectored Pakistan’s new government, insisting that they do more to assist Washington in subduing the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Pompeo’s threats were directed in the first instance at Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and the country’s military-security establishment. But they were also clearly aimed at New Delhi, which under Modi has adopted an even more belligerent posture against Pakistan than its predecessor, including cross-border military strikes and repeated threats of war.
The “2+2” statement welcomed “India’s enhanced role in Afghanistan’s development and stabilization,” while calling on Pakistan “to ensure that the territory under its control is not used to launch terrorist countries in other countries.”
At the conclusion of the “2+2” meetings, Defence Secretary Mattis said Washington would continue to work with India “to elevate our relationship to a level commensurate with our closest allies and partners.” His Indian counterpart, Nirmala Sitharaman, was even more effusive. “The momentum in our defense partnership,” she said, “has imbued a tremendous positive energy that has elevated India-US relations to unprecedented heights.”
Her colleague, Foreign Minister Swaraj, said India “welcome[s] President Trump’s policy on Afghanistan”—that is Washington’s plans to intensify the bloodletting in Afghanistan and turn the screws on India’s arch-rival Pakistan.
During the past two decades, a central objective of US foreign policy, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, has been to draw India into America’s strategic orbit and develop it as a military-strategic counterweight to China. Toward this end, Washington has plied New Delhi with strategic “favours,” including the 2008 nuclear deal, which allowed India to purchase civilian nuclear technology and fuel, enabling it to focus its indigenous nuclear program on developing its nuclear arsenal.
The pivotal role India and the Indian Ocean play in Washington’s plans to strategically encircle and subjugate China is reflected in the recent decision to rename the US Navy’s Pacific Command the Indo-Pacific Command.

India’s “reset” of its relations with China, and its limits

Over the course of the past half-year there has been much talk of a “reset” in Sino-Indian relations. It is certainly true that New Delhi has taken a number of steps to reduce tensions with Beijing, which in the summer of 2017, during the armed stand-off over control of a remote Himalayan ridge (the Doklam), threatened to spiral out of control. Concerns over Trump’s aggressive “America First” and oft-times erratic foreign policy, particularly his trade war measures, no doubt were also a factor in Modi’s sudden prioritizing last spring of improved relations with Beijing.
Thursday’s Indo-US “strategic dialogue” makes clear, however, that despite the “China reset,” the Indo-US alliance remains the cornerstone of India foreign policy. Under conditions of capitalist breakdown, the venal Indian bourgeoisie sees no other path to pursuing its great power ambitions than aligning itself with Washington, no matter how reckless and manifest becomes the crisis of US imperialism.
That said, there are significant tensions between New Delhi and Washington, as the US, anxious to stave off decline, demands “more” from rivals and allies alike.
India is certainly rankled by Trump’s protectionist measures, including the aluminum and steel tariffs, his demands India reduce its trade surplus with America and his restriction on the H1B Visa program, under which Indian-based IT companies have been able to bring skilled workers into the US.
The tensions over strategic questions are if anything greater. Washington is demanding India fall into line with its drive to crash the Iranian economy through the reintroduction of sanctions, an economic embargo that is tantamount to war, although Tehran has fulfilled all its obligations under the 2015 Iran nuclear accord.
Not only is India a major importer of Iranian oil, India has been developing the Iranian port of Chabahar to open a transit corridor to Central Asia, so it can vie for strategic influence and a share of that region’s massive energy reserves.
Prior to Thursday’s meeting, the Trump administration had been adamant that, unlike Obama, it will not provide any “waivers” exempting those dependent on imports of Iranian oil from the full force of the sanctions when they come into force on Nov. 4. As he left New Delhi, Pompeo was slightly more accommodating, indicating India could be offered a waiver but only for a brief interim. “We will consider waivers where appropriate,” said the US Secretary of State, “but it is our expectation that the purchases of Iranian crude oil will go to zero from every country or sanctions will be imposed.”
Everything indicates that when push comes to shove, New Delhi will bend to Washington’s diktats, just as it did to the Bush and Obama administrations’ campaign again Iran, so as not to jeopardize its “partnership” with the US.
Things are even more fractious when it comes to Russia. For many decades Moscow was New Delhi’s most important strategic partner and it continues to furnish India with crucial war materiel and plays a vital role in its nuclear program.
Washington is angered that India is in the process of purchasing Russia’s S-400 air defence system, with US officials warning that this could lead to sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).
The Trump administration is divided over the issue, with Mattis publicly arguing it would be a mistake to jeopardize the Indo-US partnership over it. But even if Washington does decide to give a waiver to India over the S-400, the long-term implication for India is clear: the US is intent on disrupting and ultimately breaking India’s partnership with Russia.

Far-right Sweden Democrats poised to make gains in general election

Jordan Shilton

The official narrative ahead of Sweden’s parliamentary elections tomorrow is that the Scandinavian country, overrun by refugees, is no longer able to fund public spending and welfare services.
Whether one follows the campaign of the far-right Sweden Democrats or the governing Social Democrats, virtually identical policies are on offer: a vicious crackdown on immigrants and refugees, hikes in military spending in the face of alleged “Russian aggression,” and the strengthening of the police and repressive state apparatus.
As with the AfD in Germany or the National Rally (formerly National Front) in France, this right-wing conspiracy involving the entire political establishment is playing directly into the hands of the Sweden Democrats while disenfranchising the majority of the population. The political elite is widely viewed with contempt. Capitalising on this social anger, the Sweden Democrats are projected to increase their share of the vote to around 20 percent on Sunday from 13 percent in 2014. Some polls even suggest that the party, which emerged out of the neo-Nazi movement in the 1980s, could win the election.
The drive to scapegoat immigrants for all of Sweden’s social problems is part of a deliberate attempt to cover up the role of the political establishment, above all its nominal left-wing, in gutting public services and the welfare state. Since the early 1990s, successive governments led by the Social Democrats and right-wing Alliance have carried out an onslaught, including slashing taxes for corporations and the rich, privatising education, healthcare, and welfare services, and cutting back on social benefits.
Although it was the Alliance government between 2006 and 2014 that spearheaded the largest privatisation drive in Swedish history, the groundwork for this assault on working people was laid by over a decade of Social Democratic rule from 1994 to 2006 under Göran Persson. This included support for a regulation on budgetary discipline following the economic crisis of the early 1990s aimed at clawing back from the working class the billions used to bail out Sweden’s financial institutions.
These policies produced a sharp rise in social inequality. Between the mid-1980s and the 2000s, Sweden’s GINI coefficient, measuring income inequality, rose by 30 percent. In 1980, the richest 10 percent of the population received 23 percent of total income, but by 2013 this had risen to over 30 percent. Whereas in education the average of 15-year-olds leaving school without any qualification stands at 17.5 percent nationally, it rises to over 50 percent in many suburbs of Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö, where most immigrants live. In Bergsjön, a suburb of Gothenburg, 69 percent of students leave school without a qualification and are effectively condemned to joblessness.
Polls suggest that support for the Social Democrats will fall on Sunday to less than 25 percent, the worst result since 1917. A measure of the collapse in support for Sweden’s traditional party of government is that as recently as 1994, the party obtained well over 40 percent of the vote. Now, even with the support of the Greens and Left Party, the “left block” will likely struggle to reach 40 percent on Sunday.
The opposition Alliance is also polling around the 40 percent mark. The Moderates, the largest of the four Alliance members, which advocates further tax cuts for big business, an intensification of the government’s hardline anti-refugee stance, and deeper cuts to welfare, is garnering around 18 percent support. The Center Party, which has its traditional base in rural areas but has sought to attract a wider base of support by raising certain environmental issues, is set to secure 12-13 percent. The smaller Liberals and Christian Democrats are expected to pass the 4 percent threshold required for parliamentary representation.
Over the past four years, Stefan Löfven’s Social Democrats have led a minority coalition with the Greens, which has relied on informal support from the Stalinist Left Party in parliamentary votes. However, the decline in support for the Social Democrats meant that even this three-party coalition could not secure a majority in parliament. Löfven, who first came to prominence due to his role in enforcing pay cuts and reduced working hours following the 2008 economic crisis as the leader of the IF Metall trade union, has only remained in power due to the tacit acceptance of the right-wing Alliance parties. Following the 2014 election, the Alliance struck a deal with Löfven that committed the government to fiscal restraint and the opposition to abstaining on government budget proposals.
The so-called December Agreement was reached in behind-the-scenes negotiations after the Alliance parties united with the Sweden Democrats to block the Social Democrats’ first budget and threaten a snap election. It was cynically portrayed as a means of stopping the rise of the far-right and offering political “stability.” The deal effectively ensured that the far-right party’s refugee policies became government policy. It also continued to enforce the regressive tax regime and spending restraint on public services imposed under Reinfeldt between 2006 and 2014, while handing Löfven the majority he needed to press ahead with an anti-refugee clampdown and military spending hikes.
The December Agreement formally collapsed in the autumn of 2015 after the smallest member of the Alliance, the socially conservative Christian Democrats, withdrew, but this changed very little. The Alliance parties continued to effectively endorse the Social Democrats’ right-wing agenda by agreeing that each Alliance party would table their own budget proposal in parliament, ensuring that none of the four would secure a majority.
The leading conservative parties openly backed the government on critical votes. In late 2015, Löfven fully embraced the Sweden Democrats’ vicious anti-immigrant line when his government ordered the effective closure of Sweden’s borders to asylum seekers. In a dramatic reversal of the country’s relatively open asylum policy, the Social Democrat-Green coalition imposed temporary residency permits for refugees and invested hundreds of millions in accelerating the asylum process to increase deportations.
Last year, Löfven’s Social Democrat-Green coalition concluded an agreement with the Moderates and Centre Party to hike military spending by over 8 billion kronor ($1 billion) between 2018 and 2020.
In March 2017, the Social Democrat government reintroduced the draft, and made no secret of the fact that this was a step in the preparation for Swedish involvement in a major war.
The Social Democrats, Greens, and Left Party, no less than their right-wing opponents, are fully committed to Sweden’s close alliance with US imperialism and NATO. Under successive governments, the Swedish army has been integrated ever more into NATO command structures, although the country retains its formal opposition to joining the military alliance.
The ruling elite is determined to continue to pursue its right-wing agenda following Sunday’s vote, but is concerned that the electoral vote may produce an unstable outcome. If both official blocks obtain around 40 percent of the vote and the Sweden Democrats take 20 percent, none of the traditional coalitions will be able to form a government.
One possibility that has been raised is that Löfven could seek support from the Center and Liberal parties. Alternatively, a significant section of the Moderates is pushing for direct collaboration with the Sweden Democrats. During the Moderate-led Alliance’s second term in office between 2010 and 2014, the Sweden Democrats backed the government on 80 percent of parliamentary votes.
Whatever the composition of Sweden’s next government, it will preside over a further shift to the right in Swedish politics characterised by intensified attacks on refugees and social spending, and an explosion of militarism.

Facebook’s partnership with the Atlantic Council

Kevin Reed

On May 17, Facebook announced a partnership with the Atlantic Council, the bipartisan think tank that has participated in every political and military crime of US imperialism over the past half-century. In a brief blog post by Katie Harbath, Facebook’s Global Politics and Government Outreach Director explained that the relationship was necessary “to prevent our service from being abused during elections.”
Harbath went on, “We’re more actively working with outside experts, governments and other companies because we know that we can’t solve these challenges on our own. … Today, we’re excited to launch a new partnership with the Atlantic Council, which has a stellar reputation looking at innovative solutions to hard problems.” The other governments and outside experts that Facebook is working with were not mentioned by name.
That Harbath—a former digital strategist for the Republican Party Senatorial Committee—can speak of the Atlantic Council as having a “stellar reputation” dealing with “hard problems” shows that Facebook is being staffed with functionaries of the US political establishment. In reality, the Atlantic Council has a reputation as a clearing house for political and ideological propaganda—including perpetrating and defending election abuse throughout the world—in the service of the strategic interests of American capitalism.
Harbath also wrote that Facebook’s expanding team of security and artificial intelligence experts will be working closely with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRL) “to get Facebook real-time insights and updates on emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world. This will help increase the number of ‘eyes and ears’ we have working to spot potential abuse on our service—enabling us to more effectively identify gaps in our systems, preempt obstacles, and ensure that Facebook plays a positive role during elections all around the world.”
The Atlantic Council’s DFRL is staffed by a team of “disinformation” specialists and former US intelligence establishment technology staffers. Its stated mission, as published on the website digitalsherlocks.com, is: “To identify, expose, and explain disinformation where and when it occurs using open source research; to promote objective truth as a foundation of government for and by people; to protect democratic institutions and norms from those who would seek to undermine them in the digital engagement space.”
Anyone familiar with the history and role of the Atlantic Council knows what this language from the DFRL really means. It has nothing to do with establishing objective truth or protecting the democratic rights of the people. These are the established euphemisms of US imperialism that have been used for decades to cover up CIA-sponsored skullduggery, assassination and political manipulation in every corner of the globe.
While the Facebook announcement last May was either ignored or reported in the capitalist media as a matter of course, this new collaboration of Facebook with the Atlantic Council is a warning: the campaign against “fake news,” “election meddling” and “disinformation” is emerging as the integration of the social media monopolies into the operations of the US state and military-intelligence apparatus.
This integration of the social media platforms into the state has three key objectives:
• to manipulate and influence political outcomes in countries around the world to serve American global interests, including manipulation of elections;
• to gather data on the growth of social opposition and influence of political parties and individuals and to funnel this information into the intelligence establishment
• and to censor political content opposed to the interests of American capitalism, especially socialist, left-wing and anti-war views.
The use of social media by the US government to manipulate elections in other countries was analyzed thoroughly on the World Socialist Web Site last April in the two-part series “US election meddling in the age of the Internet: How Google, Facebook and Twitter are manipulating the Mexican presidential elections.”
Meanwhile, the recent censorship moves by Facebook along with Twitter and Google—the shuttering of accounts, pages, blogs and YouTube channels based on unsubstantiated claims of Iranian and Russian government influence campaigns—is also proof that the transformation of the social media and Internet tech companies into an arm of the state is well underway.

The record of the Atlantic Council

A review of the Atlantic Council, an organization that has largely escaped public scrutiny, and its 57-year record shows that it is a pioneer in developing and peddling the criminal operations of the US State Department and the Pentagon as furthering “democracy” and “human rights” around the world. It is also a training ground and revolving door for people in the foreign policy and intelligence establishment in Washington, D.C. as well as a conduit for former Pentagon brass into civilian business and government roles.
The current, honorary and lifetime Atlantic Council directors list reads like a bipartisan rogues gallery of American war-criminals, including Henry Kissinger, George P. Shultz, Frank Carlucci, James A. Baker, R. James Woosley, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. Among the former Atlantic Council chairman have been Obama administration officials James L. Jones, (national security advisor) and Chuck Hagel (secretary of state). The chairman of the council is Brent Scowcroft, the retired US Air Force officer who held national security and intelligence positions in the Nixon, Bush I and Bush II administrations.
The Atlantic Council is funded by substantial government and corporate interests from the financial, defense and petroleum industries. Its 2017 annual report documents substantial contributions from HSBC, Chevron, The Blackstone Group, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Ford Motor Company, among many others. Also listed is Google Inc. in the $100,000 to $250,000 donor category. Among the largest council contributors are the US State Department, The Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the UK, and the United Arab Emirates. Other contributors include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Boeing, BP, Exxon and the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.
The Atlantic Council of the United States was founded in 1961 as a think tank and anticommunist public relations organization to prop up support within the US for NATO in the post-World War II era. It was established by Cold War former State Department leaders such as Dean Acheson and Christian Herter, along with other prominent political and business figures, as a coalition of non-government organizations who were concerned that the NATO alliance was fragmenting.
In its early activities, the council published books and journals and developed propaganda, including TV commercials starring the actor and comedian Bob Hope, to promote public support for American and European political and military cooperation against the USSR. With its founding focus on Europe and the postwar conflict with the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries, the Atlantic Council became involved in the intrigue and maneuvering of US foreign policy during the social unrest and political crisis around the world in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The council played a direct role in the response of the US government to the resignation of Charles de Gaulle in France and the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Throughout the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the council supported the US war in Vietnam.
In the aftermath of Vietnam, the Atlantic Council continued to play a role in the foreign policy of both the Carter and Reagan administrations. Its program and influence were rooted in the US drive for hegemonic control of the world’s petroleum and energy resources and markets. The council’s emphasis was shifted toward Asia, the Middle East and Latin America and the cover-up of black-ops and other illegal covert US military operations such as the Iran-Contra money-for-arms deal in the 1980s.
With the dissolution of the USSR and the restoration of capitalism in the former Eastern Bloc countries, the strategic orientation of the Atlantic Council shifted further as the machine of US imperialism began its now more than 25 years of unending wars in the Middle East and North Africa. During this timeframe the council opened special centers devoted to US policy in the Middle East, Latin America, Eurasia, Europe, South Asia and Africa.
It is difficult to find information about the Atlantic Council and its activities online, except for what the organization itself publishes. In 2014, the New York Times reported that Fed Ex, after it made a donation to the Atlantic Council, had worked with the organization to push a treaty through the European American Chamber of Commerce to reduce transatlantic tariffs and allow more duty-free shipments.
A review of the papers and documents from these centers on the Atlantic Council website, as well as the individuals responsible and the countries under “study,” reveals a comprehensive list of foreign meddling, manipulation and mayhem by the United States over the recent decades. One can find on the council’s website links to initiatives such as “Emerging Leaders of Pakistan,” “Ukraine in Europe,” “Eurasian Energy Futures,” “Afghanistan Rising” and “Rebuilding Syria.”
A search of the site for the phrase “human rights” yields dozens of papers, speeches and reports dating back to 2015 on Iran, Russia, Syria, Turkey and other countries in Africa and the Middle East. Additionally, one can find articles devoted to human rights and identity politics from the standpoint of feminism and LGBT rights, especially during the final years of the Obama administration.
The Atlantic Council has a long record of posturing as a defender of “democracy” and “human rights” when it corresponds to the needs of US imperialism. The coordination of Facebook’s safety and security operations with the Atlantic Council’s Digital and Forensic Research Lab represents a new stage in the development of Internet censorship and political manipulation against left-wing and socialist views that has been underway for more than a year, as documented by the World Socialist Web Site .
There can be no illusions that this partnership is anything other than the expansion of the “eyes and ears” of the state into the ideas and activities of individuals and organizations both inside and outside the US, especially those that oppose the strategic interests of American imperialism. This, of course, includes the activities of workers and youth who organize and communicate on Facebook to express their views and take action to fight the conditions inside their workplaces and neighborhoods. New forms of social media cooperation and communication, which are secure, encrypted and free from the state, must be developed and adopted in order for workers to fight the capitalist system and for socialism in a coordinated international struggle.

Mass social unrest leaves Iraq’s oil capital in flames

Bill Van Auken

Iraq’s southern city of Basra, the country’s oil capital and center of its Shia majority, has seen mass protests that have left many of the buildings housing offices of the government, the main political parties, Shia militias and even the Iranian consulate in flames.
Iraqi security officials announced a curfew Friday across this city of 2 million, warning that anyone found in the streets would be arrested. An earlier attempt to impose such a curfew was rescinded after crowds defied the government and set up blockades across the Basra-Baghdad highway and the main port of Umm Qasr on the Persian Gulf, through which flow both Iraqi oil exports and food supplies as well as other goods imported into the country.
At least a dozen protesters have been killed in the course of the demonstrations, many of them victims of live fire by security forces. One demonstrator died Thursday night after being shot in the head with a teargas cannister.
Hundreds have been arrested, with reports that detainees have been routinely tortured. Two lawyers who came forward to represent the arrested demonstrators were assassinated.
Among the buildings torched by demonstrators were the offices of the state-run Iraqiya TV, the headquarters of the ruling Dawa Party, the Supreme Islamic Council and the Badr Organization, all of whose leaders are in Baghdad conducting corrupt, but so-far unsuccessful, attempts to cobble together a new ruling coalition government.
Protesters set fire to the offices of the Shia armed militia, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, as well as those of the Hikma Movement. They also stormed the house of the acting head of the provincial council.
The attack on the Iranian consulate stemmed at least in part from the fact that Iran cut off electricity supplies to the region after the Iraqi government failed to pay for them. The Iranian government has also been identified with the leading Shia parties that have dominated the regime in Baghdad, and the Iranian media had denounced earlier protests as the work of “infiltrators,” much as it had reacted to similar protests in Iran itself.
Angry and bloody protests have gripped the region since July. Thousands have poured into the streets to protest conditions of mass unemployment, desperate poverty and the breakdown of essential infrastructure. The water system has failed to provide potable water to the population, sending as many as 30,000 people to the hospital with bacterial infections. The electrical system has been subject to 10-hour blackouts under conditions of an unprecedented heat wave, with temperatures climbing to 50 degrees centigrade. Health officials have warned that the city faces an imminent threat of a cholera epidemic.
Anger has only intensified amid reports of resurgent oil production, which is centered in the province of Basra. August recorded the extraction of 4 million barrels a day, yielding hefty profits for the foreign companies that operate the fields—including US-based Exxon and the Russian energy firm Lukoil—as well as $7.7 billion that month alone for the government’s coffers. While enriching a thin layer of Iraqi businessmen and politicians, none of this money has been invested in improving the conditions of life for the working class in Basra or any other part of the country.
The areas of the mass protests were largely unaffected by the brutal military campaign waged against ISIS, with US airstrikes reducing much of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, to rubble and leaving tens of thousands dead and wounded. Many of the militia members who went to fight ISIS, however, came from Basra, with many losing their lives. This has not stopped crowds from burning down Shia militia headquarters, in a clear indication that the class issues are overriding the sectarian divisions nurtured by the former US occupation to advance its aim of divide and conquer, continued by the Iraqi ruling establishment to cement its domination.
The deep concerns within Iraq’s ruling layers over the events in Basra found expression Friday in a statement by the country’s senior Shia cleric, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who delivered an “even-handed” sermon calling for a change in the methods of the government and an end to violence by protesters.
“The failings of Iraqi political leaders in recent years have caused the anger of people in Basra,” Sistani said. “This reality cannot change if the next government is formed according to the same criteria adopted when forming previous governments. Pressure must be exerted for the new government to be different from its predecessors.”
There is no indication that any such change will take place within the confines of exiting Iraqi politics. The Iraqi parliament suspended its session September 4 amid an apparent stalemate over determining which of two rival coalitions the majority needed to form a new government. In the face of the eruptions in Basra, the parliament was called back into session Saturday.
Had the events in Basra taken place in Iran, one can be assured that they would have been afforded front-page coverage in every major newspaper in the United States and would have led the evening news.
Instead, however, the US media is maintaining close to a universal silence over the upheavals, as Washington is intervening directly in Iraqi politics in an attempt to secure a second term for Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.
The US special envoy to the so-called anti-ISIS coalition, Brett McGurk, has been flown into both the Iraqi Kurdish capital of Erbil and Baghdad in what is universally recognized as an attempt by Washington to cobble together a majority needed to keep Abadi in power.
Abadi—whose “Victory” electoral coalition came in third in the May election—depends for his dominance over the parliament on an alliance with the populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose list of candidates placed first. Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army once fought against US occupation troops, but he has long since made his peace with the American Embassy.
Washington views the Abadi-Sadr alliance as the lesser of two evils compared to the electoral group that placed second in the May election, led by Hadi al-Amiri, the former leader of the Badr Brigades, one of the prominent Shia militias with close ties to Iran. Al-Amiri is allied with former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his State of Law coalition. In 2006, al-Maliki was installed under the US occupation as prime minister, having been vetted by the CIA as the preferred candidate.
McGurk’s mission to Iraq was apparently aimed at swinging the support of minority Kurdish and Sunni factions behind the Abadi-Sadr coalition.
Whichever bloc prevails, the Iraqi ruling establishment will find itself in the maelstrom of Washington’s drive toward war with Iran. Baghdad shares close political relations with Iran, and Iraq’s economy is heavily reliant upon trade links that are in direct conflict with the Trump administration’s sweeping sanctions.
Neither of these two contenders for power will do anything to alter the corrupt political system of sectarian politics and massive bribery and kickbacks that has been in place since the US invaded Iraq and decimated its society.
“The whole system is rotten and has to be toppled,” Haitham, an Iraqi soldier from Basra who has joined the demonstrations, told the British daily Guardian. “We are peaceful, but each of us sits on a warehouse of weapons. In 15 years [since the US invasion] 1 million Iraqis have been martyred. Had we held demonstrations early on and lost a thousand people we would be in a better place now.”
The emergence of a mass working class upheaval among the Shia population of Basra against the bourgeois Shia parties and militias that have dominated the political life of the country since the end of the US occupation threatens to unleash a revolutionary explosion that can spread beyond Iraq’s borders.

A record $31.5 trillion hoarded by corporate oligarchs

Eric London

According to the Wealth-X World Ultra Wealth Report 2018, 255,810 “ultra high net worth” (UHNW) individuals with a minimum $30 million in wealth now collectively own $31.5 trillion, an increase of 16.3 percent between 2016 and 2017.
In other words, a group of oligarchs equal in number to the population of Plano, Texas or Nottingham, England own more than the poorest 80 percent of the world—some 5.6 billion people.
The figures of wealth concentration are hard to fathom:
* In North America, the total number of UHNW individuals rose 9.5 percent to 90,440 and their wealth rose 13.1 percent to $11 trillion.
* In Europe, the UHNW population rose 12.8 percent to 72,570, with a total wealth of $8.8 trillion, up 13.5 percent.
* In Asia, there were 68,970 UHNW individuals in 2017, an 18.5 percent increase from 2016. Their wealth shot up 26.7 percent during this period to $8.4 trillion.
* By 2022, the UHNW population is expected to increase to 360,390 people, whose combined wealth “is projected to rise to $44.3 trillion, implying an additional $12.8 trillion of newly created wealth over the next five years.”
* Those 22.3 million people with a net worth over $1 million own a combined $91.7 trillion, almost triple the combined wealth of the poorest 90 percent of the world’s population.
The Wealth X report makes clear that the rise in wealth concentration is the product of deliberate policies enacted by governments all over the world. It credits loose monetary policy—market liberalization in China, tax reform and corporate deregulation in India, and massive tax cuts for the wealthy in the US—that the report notes were “aimed squarely at providing generous exemptions to corporations and the ultra wealthy.”
In Volume 1 of Capital, Karl Marx, the founder of scientific socialism, wrote: “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole.”
Under capitalism, the wealth of the super-rich comes from the exploitation of the international working class.
* Half the world lacks access to healthcare and 100 million people are forced into extreme poverty each year due to healthcare expenses (World Health Organization, 2017).
* 1.2 billion people lack access to electricity (Rockefeller Foundation, 2017).
* 2 billion people use a drinking water source that is contaminated with feces (World Health Organization, 2018).
* 8.6 million people die each year from lack of healthcare or poor quality healthcare ( The Lancet, 2018).
* 750 million adults do not know how to read or write (UNESCO, 2017).
* By 2020, 1.6 billion people will lack access to secure, adequate housing (World Resources Institute, 2017).
* 50.5 million children under the age of 5 are “wasting” due to malnutrition (World Bank, 2018).
* 850 million people suffer from “chronic undernourishment” (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016).
* 4 billion people do not have internet access (UNESCO, 2017).
Even in the most advanced countries of Europe and North America, the working class faces increasingly precarious conditions dominated by declining life expectancy, greater incidences of suicide and drug/alcohol abuse, growing student debt, declining wages and cuts to social programs. In the United States, home to roughly one third of the world’s ultra-wealthy individuals, some 69 percent of people have less than $1,000 in total savings.
The international working class has no representation in any government or any capitalist political party, and the political establishment is dominated by the super-rich. The billionaire and multimillionaire “ultra-high net worth” individuals deliberate and reach decisions regarding state policy and the distribution of resources entirely behind the backs of the population.
All the official and semi-official institutions of government, including academia, the corporate media, and the trade unions, are subordinated to the interests of the modern aristocracy and serve to constrain and block the development of a unified movement of the working class for social equality. As inequality grows, the ruling elite are preparing for the threat of social revolution by rescinding basic democratic rights, censoring the internet, establishing permanent states of emergency, and elevating extreme-right-wing and neo-fascistic parties to poison the airwaves with racism, xenophobia and nationalism.
However, the working class is not only an oppressed class, it is also a powerful revolutionary social force.
Advances in technology, communications and transportation have led to a significant expansion of the numeric size of the international working class. Over the last 50 years, countries like India, China, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, Iran and many more have been transformed from countries with relatively small working-class populations to massive centers of industrial output involving tens of millions or billions of workers.
At the same time, globalization has linked workers in all corners of the world together in the process of production. The internet has made it possible for workers to communicate and strategize with one another across workplaces and national borders. The democratic and revolutionary potential of the internet has made it a target of censorship by the ruling class around the world, led by the efforts by US-based corporations Google, Facebook and Twitter to downgrade and hide left-wing websites like the World Socialist Web Site .
The Wealth X report points to the immense revolutionary potential in the present situation. As Friedrich Engels wrote in Anti-Duhring :
“The growing perception that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust, that reason has become unreason, and right wrong, is only proof that in the modes of production and exchange changes have silently taken place with which the social order, adapted to earlier economic conditions, is no longer in keeping. From this it also follows that the means of getting rid of the incongruities that have been brought to light must also be present, in a more or less developed condition, within the changed modes of production themselves.”
The Wealth X report confirms that the resources for the transformation of the planet on an egalitarian basis already exist.
The Socialist Equality Party calls for the trillions hoarded by the super-rich to be confiscated by the masses of people and allocated to meet the basic needs of the world population. The massive corporations whose exploitative operations touch every country must be seized and transformed into public utilities run democratically by the workers themselves.
No aristocracy has ever given up power simply because their existence is a brake on the development of the productive forces. To free up the tens of trillions of dollars needed to meet the needs of the world population requires a socialist revolution.

7 Sept 2018

Quebec Government Research Internship for International Students 2019 – Canada

Application Deadline: 1st March, 2019 11:59 PM
The internship must start no later than March 31, 2019.

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Quebec, Canada

About the Award: The FRQNT’s (Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies) international internship aims to foster international mobility of students whose research activities are part of the scientific program of a strategic cluster funded by the FRQNT.
The internship is a supplementary tool available to a strategic cluster to strengthen its position at the international level through research projects and partnerships that have already been established or which are under development.
The proposed research outlined in the application as part of the internship must be part of the scientific program of the strategic cluster.

Type: Research, Internship

Eligibility: 
  • All of the strategic clusters supported by the FRQNT may submit an application to this program.
  • The applicant proposed by the strategic cluster must meet all of the eligibility requirements listed here after.
  • The applicant must have the valid study permits or visa for the entire duration of the internship;\
  • The applicant can’t be enrolled in a co-degree from more than one institution including a Québec university. For the students enrolled in a co-degree see the rules of the Frontenac program.
  • Students who are jointly supervised by a researcher in a foreign university (co-degree) are not eligible to apply for an international internship scholarship to visit one of their home universities.
Selection Criteria: 
  • The academic excellence and research aptitude of the candidate: 50 points
  • The correspondence of the internship with the scientific program of the cluster’s: 25 points
  • The insertion of the internship in international action of the strategic cluster: 25 points
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Internship: The scholarship for internship is of a maximum value of $15,000. However, the FRQNT will allow no more than the equivalent of $2,500/month in living expenses and will permit internship expenses (ex.: airfare, room rental agreement, etc.) to be covered by the strategic cluster.

Duration of Internship: The internship must be of a minimum duration of 2 months and a maximum of 6 months.

How to Apply: 
  • Candidates interested within this program must file their application within their strategic cluster (see list on FRQNT’s Web Site) Validate the list of documents required for this application with the specific strategic cluster.
  • The strategic clusters which recommend a candidate must fill the specific form available on FRQNT’s Web site as well as transmit it electronically. The form includes the complete addresses of the student, the academic supervisor, and the internship supervisor. A brief description of the nature of the internship is also required.
  • The strategic clusters must also submit the selection committee report that states the results for each of the three criteria in effect, the assessment process and the names of the committee members.
  • The strategic clusters must also send in the electronic form, a letter signed by the supervisor of the student specifying the start and end dates of the internship.
  • Any internship application must be filed by the strategic cluster and approved by the FRQNT before the leaving of the trainee.
Visit Internship Webpage for details

Award Provider: FRQNT’s (Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies)

Important Notes: All projects involving human subjects or biological materials (body parts, products, tissues, cells or genetic material from a human body, of a person living or dead) or administrative, scientific or descriptive data from human subjects, require the approval of the research ethics board of the principal applicant’s institution (Common General Rules , article 5.3). Furthermore, if applicable, researchers must report any environmental impacts of their research and employ reasonable efforts to minimize them. To this end, they must obtain the required authorization and permit before the start of the project.

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) Tourism for Tomorrow Awards 2019

Application Deadline: 14th November 2018

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: WTTC’s Tourism for Tomorrow (T4T) Awards are the world’s top accolade in sustainable tourism; they recognise the highest ethical standards in the sector and are respected by industry leaders, governments and international media alike. The Awards are aimed at recognising best practice in sustainable tourism within the industry globally, based upon the principles of environmentally friendly operations; support for the protection of cultural and natural heritage; and direct benefits to the social and economic well-being of local people in travel destinations around the world.
Candidates can apply in one of the five categories: Social Impact, Destination Stewardship, Climate Action, Changemakers or Investing in People. Judging process is based on three-steps: Finalist Selection, On-Site Visit by an expert and Winner Selection. An international team of 18-20 judges, representing a wide range of professional backgrounds and expertise in Travel & Tourism, first choose three finalists in each category to later decide on the winners

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 
  • There is no charge to enter the WTTC Tourism for Tomorrow Awards
  • All applications must be in ENGLISH
  • All companies/organisations must have been in operation for at least THREE full years and the sustainable tourism project/initiative submitted for consideration must be in operation for at least ONE full year. There is no minimum length of time for applicants to have been in operation who are applying to the Innovation category.
  • Only complete entries will be considered
  • Companies/organisations may only submit ONE entry in any given year
  • Entries must be for ONE category only
  • Applications must provide full contact details for two independent references not directly associated with the business or project. References for all applicants may be contacted.
  • During the 2nd judging phase, finalists will be visited by on-site evaluators. WTTC will cover the evaluator’s expenses; however, any assistance in facilitating the on-site visit and hosting would be appreciated
  • Applicants should contact WTTC in regards to any questions they may have about the judging process
  • The Award applicants may not contact any individual members of the judging panel prior to the Awards ceremony without the approval of the Lead Judge.
  • Finalists will be asked to provide supporting materials including photos, videos, newspaper articles, brochures for marketing purposes. Do not include such supporting materials with your application
  • Previous winners and finalists may reapply in any category but must clearly demonstrate sustainable tourism initiatives that are new, and expand above and beyond what they have been previously recognised for by the Tourism for Tomorrow Awards
  • Finalists and winners of the Awards may not disclose any of the judging material developed by a member of the judging panel throughout the judging process to the general public, including media, industry partners and associates, without prior consent from WTTC.
  • By applying for the WTTC Tourism for Tomorrow Awards, the applicant agrees that in the case of being selected a finalist of the 2018 Tourism for Tomorrow Awards, a company representative of appropriate level will attend the Awards ceremony.
Value of Award: Entering the Awards could earn your business the real credit it deserves. Becoming a finalist means:
  • corporate endorsement by a panel of internationally acclaimed experts in sustainable tourism
  • an invitation to the grand awards ceremony at the 19th WTTC Global Summit in Seville, Spain 3-4 April 2019
  • complimentary flights and accommodation to the ceremony in Seville
  • outstanding international Media exposure
  • the opportunity to network with the leaders of the Travel & Tourism sector
Duration of Program:  In 2019, this will be held on 3-4 April

How to Apply: Apply here
Before applying, It is important to go through the Rules and guidelines, Tips for applying as awell as the FAQ

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC).

Nuffic Fellowships at the Hague Academy for Local Governance 2019

Application Deadline: 18th October 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at (country): The Netherlands

About the Award: The Netherlands organisation for international cooperation in higher education (EP-NUFFIC) offers fellowships to participate in training courses in The Netherlands. The aim is to promote capacity building within organisations in eligible countries via training and education for professionals. This is initiated and (almost) fully funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the budget for development cooperation.
  • The Netherlands Fellowship Programme (NFP) offers scholarships to participants living and working in one of the following 30 eligible countries (See list n Program Webpage link below).
  • The MENA Scholarship Programme (MSP) aims to contribute to the democratic transition in one of the 10 participating countries (See list n Program Webpage link below) in the Middle East and North Africa region. It seeks to build capacity within organisations by enabling employees to take part in short courses offered in various fields of study.
As a result of the changes, The Hague Academy is now accepting Nuffic applicants to the following four open-subscription courses in 2019. The deadline for Nuffic applications is 18 October 2018.
  • Inclusive Service Delivery & the SDGs (18 – 29 March 2019)
    Local public services such as waste management, water access, and social services have a huge impact on our daily lives and well-being. This course discusses how different levels of government can cooperate effectively and involve citizens and the private sector to promote pro-poor local service delivery.
  • Citizen Participation and Inclusive Governance (8 – 19 April 2019)In this training course, participants will discuss ways to involve citizens – especially minorities and marginalised groups – to create a culture of inclusive governance.
  • Integrity and Anti-Corruption (17 – 28 June 2019)This course will help you to understand the drivers of corruption. You will strengthen your analytical skills and learn about the instruments necessary to develop integrity and anti-corruption policies and programmes in line with recent international initiatives, legislation and agreements.
Type: Fellowship, Short courses

Eligibility: In order to qualify for a NFP Scholarship, you need to meet the following selection criteria. You must:
  • be a national of, and working and living in one of the countries on the following
    NFP country list (in link below);
  • not be employed by an organisation that has its own means of staff-development, for example:
    • multinational corporations (e.g. Shell, Unilever, Microsoft),
    • large national and/or a large commercial organisations,
    • bilateral donor organisations (e.g. USAID, DFID, Danida, Sida, Dutch ministry of Foreign affairs, FinAid, AusAid, ADC, SwissAid),
    • multilateral donor organisations, (e.g. a UN organization, the World Bank, the IMF, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IADB),
    • international NGO’s (e.g. Oxfam, Plan, Care);
  • must have an official passport that will still be valid for at least three months after completion of the training;
  • must not receive more than one fellowship for courses that take place at the same time;
  • English Language skills: The short courses are taught in English. Therefore, it is important that your English language skills (writing and speaking) are good.
  • Work experience: Minimum of 2 years of experience required, working with or for local or regional authorities. It is to your advantage if the work/experience is related to the content of the training.
To be eligible for a MSP Scholarship you must meet some of the selection criteria mentioned above. Furthermore you must:
  • be a national of, and working and living in one of the countries on the following MSP country list  valid at the time of application;
  • have an official passport that will still be valid at least three months after completion of the training;
  • not be over 45 years of age at the time of the grant submission
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The Nuffic Fellowship programmes covers cost of tuition fee, travel costs, accommodation and living expenses in The Netherlands.

How to Apply: To apply for a fellowship, You will have to answer the following 3 questions to support your application:
  • Question 1: What is the issue or problem you want to address in your country?
  • Question 2. How will this training course enable you to address this issue?
  • Question 3. How will you address this issue with your position within your organisation?
It is very important to go therough the Application Guidelines before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Hague, The Netherlands

Important Notes: You can only apply for one Fellowship per deadline.

Adobe Research Fellowship for Graduate Students in STEM Fields 2019

Application Deadline: 28th September 2018 at 5pm Pacific Time

About the Award: This year, Adobe will be awarding fellowships to graduate students working in the areas of computer graphics, computer vision, human-computer interaction, machine learning, visualization, audio, natural language processing, and programming languages.

Type: Fellowship, Research

Eligibility: In order to be considered for the 2019 Adobe Research Fellowship, students must meet the following criteria:
  • Be registered as a full-time graduate student at a university.
  • Remain an active, full-time student in a PhD program for the full duration of 20189 or forfeit the award.
  • Cannot have a close relative working for Adobe Research.
Selection Criteria: Recipients are selected based on their research (creative, impactful, important, and realistic in scope), how their work would contribute to Adobe, their technical skills (ability to build complex computer programs), and their personal skills (problem-solving ability, communication, leadership, organizational skills, ability to work in teams).

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Adobe Research Fellowship consists of:
  • A $10,000 award paid once.
  • A Creative Cloud subscription membership for one year.
  • An Adobe Research mentor.
  • An internship at Adobe for the 2019 summer.
Duration of Program:

How to Apply: Applications must include:
  • A research overview comprising two pages of text and figures not including citations. At least half a page should highlight how the student’s research could contribute to Adobe.
  • Three letters of recommendation from those familiar with the students work. One letter should come from the student’s advisor.
  • A CV.
  • A transcript of current and previous academic records both undergraduate and graduate.
 Click here to begin.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Adobe