26 Sept 2018

The Age of Fraud: the Link Between Capitalism and Profiteering by Deception

Jörg Wiegratz

Fraud is an issue that haunts many contemporary societies around the globe, including in East Africa. I have been researching the topic of economic trickery for over a decade in Uganda, and published a number of articles, books and opinion pieces about the matter.
As many of you might know, Uganda experiences intensive fraud levels in numerous economic sectors, from agricultural seeds and produce trade to land and the fuel business. Basically, all vital sectors of the economy are affected by fraud in one way or another.
As an analyst, I have for a while now regarded Uganda to be at the high end of the fraud problem in the region, at least in certain trades such as seeds. However, a few days ago I spent some time in Kenya and was taken somewhat by surprise by how dominant the theme of fraud – i.e. profiteering by deception – was in the Kenyan press. On the day I gave a talk at the Aga Khan University, the front and inside pages of one of the dailies was full of news about the latest scandals and the evening news started with and was dominated by the same theme: fraud and corruption.
It quickly became evident to me that this fraud-heavy news day was probably not a one-off, or an outlier. In a way I was prepared for this scenario and realisation: I have read over the past few years about some of the major fraud cases in Kenya (Goldenberg et al.), and was aware that the current government has declared to fight corruption vigorously.  But more broadly, I have watched fraud news become more or less a staple, not only in the country of my research focus, namely, Uganda, but also in my country of residence, the UK, and my home country, Germany. In fact, economic fraud has become, I think, a key component of global news and reporting, just like elections, security, natural disasters, and so on. Remember the waves of news and commentaries about the “Panama papers”, the VW ‘Dieselgate’ case, or the irregularities in the finance sector that contributed to the global financial crisis in 2008?
That said, my research has led me to argue for years now that we are currently living in the age of fraud. Fraud has become mainstream; it is at high levels, institutionalised, at the core of “the system” and part and parcel of the (re)production of contemporary society. That applies to many societies, not just in the often discussed Global South but also in the Global North.
Moreover, fraud at significant levels is evident across numerous sectors of the global economy: from tax advisory services, banking, manufacturing and “fair trade” to construction and pharmaceuticals. What makes the news is usually the proverbial “tip of the iceberg”. No one can reasonably say how long the age of fraud will last and what it will bring. Are we just in the early days of it and fraud will spread, accelerate and increase for many years to come, or are we somewhere near the top, or close to the end of the current intensive-fraud period? Your guess is as good as mine.
In any case, seven key characteristics of contemporary fraud in the global economy include: (i) fraud is at an industrial scale; (ii) it has become significantly routine; (iii) it is ever more blatant; (iv) it is spreading across the economy and society i.e. it is affecting new areas, such as education; (v) it produces staggering levels of social harm; (vi) it is co-produced by economic and state actors; and (vii) it implicates the most powerful members of society (the ruling class, transnational companies, top managers, top state officials, the rich and famous, celebrated role models, etc.). There are other major characteristics of our age of profit-by-fraud, but I leave that for another day.
I need to move on to another related issue: an overall highly impoverished debate and analysis about the mega phenomenon of fraud. Despite all the news reporting about economic fraud, corporate crime, malfeasance, trickery and so on, the overall public debate is small in scale and analytically flat. Economic fraud remains one of the most under-researched topics I am aware of; the primary data set gathered by scientists – via qualitative field research etc. – on some of the major dimensions of fraud seems minimal, compared to, again, the size of the phenomenon we face. For example, the moral compasses of fraudsters in different economic professions are hardly investigated, nor is the moral climate in the most fraud-infested sectors. This observation certainly applies to the countries and regions I know best – Germany, UK, US (aka ‘the West’), Uganda – and as far as I know from following research publications on the topic, it applies as well to Kenya, the East African region and the wider African continent. It definitely applies overall to the global conversation on fraud.
In the countries mentioned above, very few professional analysts and commentators or public debates (in print news or TV) explicitly try to connect the dots between two core issues: fraud and capitalism. They do not explore what the current fraud phenomenon tells us about the capitalist social order, that is about capitalist society, economy, polity, state, culture, social change, power structures, subjectivities, companies, and so on. Nor do they address the issue of the dominant moral order and moral climate in capitalist society: for example, our relationship with money and wealth, and about the ways in which we treat each other – including deceive and harm each other – when it comes to earning a living (i.e., making money, income or profit). Large-scale empirical research projects on the theme of the current moral economy of fraud are de-facto absent or negligible in many countries that actually have a substantial fraud problem. This observation applies to Uganda, Germany and the UK. Does it apply in the Kenyan context too? If it does, Kenya is, unsurprisingly, part of a global phenomenon. This state of play is in itself intriguing. I patiently checked whether Germany would get on the discussion more decidedly after the VW and Deutsche Bank fraud cases, or whether there would be a more substantial debate in the UK after the financial fraud and crisis years. But it didn’t really happen, not at significant scale and depth anyway.
We are therefore left with a fundamental analytical and political poverty concerning our deliberations about and understanding of fraud in the so-called private sector. The theme thus remains massively under-discussed, misrepresented and misunderstood, at least in the public sphere. Uganda is a typical example. Post-1986 Uganda is one of the most studied countries on the continent, if not across the Global South (check the ODI publication data base for example). In the last three decades, foreign donors have commissioned thousands of reports, studies and briefings on all sorts of matters related to politics, the economics, society and culture. But to the best of my knowledge, they have avoided to face one topic head on: the moral climate in the new neoliberal-capitalist Uganda. That is, more specifically, the moral-economic order of this ‘New Uganda’, and related features and transformations. Notably, donors themselves have co-produced the making of this new moral order, together with various other foreign and domestic actors. They have orchestrated, financed, advocated and pushed for a societal transformation process at the level of norms, values, orientations and practices that I have termed ‘neoliberal moral restructuring’. This the new society has been established, embedded, consolidated and locked-in for the last three decades via thousands (or is it millions?) of interventions in the political, economic, social, and cultural structure of this country. As it turned out, this neoliberal moral change has produced a new moral order – and more largely societal structure – that is for various reasons fraud-enabling rather than fraud-inhibiting; this process, it seems, is not unique to Uganda only.
However, despite sustained public outcry about (i) fraud and (ii) aspects of moral change (including powerful state and non-state actors deploring levels of ‘greed’ and ‘dishonesty’ in society), the Government of Uganda has, as far as I am aware, not launched any substantial, large-scale empirical study into the matter of what the high level of fraud has to do with the neoliberal transformation of the country, including the severely altered moral (and highly relevant and interconnected political-economic) structure. Neither has the private sector and its associations or the academic community. Neither have the powers that be, as far as I know, funded seasoned corporate crime experts to have a good look at fraud in the private sector. This is in some ways surprising, in other ways it is not.
So, this is where we are regarding the science of the “capital-state-academia” nexus. If you know any empirical data set that has something to say about the dominant moral climate in your country’s economy and respective changes and trends, or about the link between neoliberal reforms and the current moral-economic order, please let me know (the Aga Khan University data set concerning youths’ views on money making is a rare gem in a large data desert). That said, if you have answers to the question why this state of academic enquiry and public debate is where it is in Uganda, Kenya or elsewhere, then you are already deep into the terrain of understanding of what capitalist society is and how it operates in a particular way, and why.
I want to make a final point about those who favour the “greed” explanation for fraud. The popular and often used ‘it’s greed’ explanation is in my view only the Mickey Mouse version of thinking about causalities when it comes to fraud in capitalism. If you think you can explain and understand fraud in its many versions with sole or main reference to greed, then you are adopting the position that many of those with political and social power put in front of us in their public utterances and debates. You are adopting the position of our rulers and overlords, and what one might call the “science of the establishment”. How analytically useful can that be?
To see where this sort of analysis leads to, you may want to check Jeffrey Sachs’ analysis. He basically suggests that we can yoga (i.e. relax and feel) our way out of the fraud problem (I have analysed and critiqued his take here). Finally then, here are the eight things he and others don’t tell you about fraud:
+ Contemporary fraud is not merely due to the so often mentioned greed but a much bigger system, namely, capitalist society and all that comes with it, especially in the current variant of capitalism, neoliberalism. The history of capitalist development across the world is rife with evidence that capitalism and endemic fraud are twins, from the colonial period to the present period. In other words, the warnings concerning the fraud and corruption (and the related social harms) that comes with capitalist development (and the capitalist corporation) has been on the wall for some time and yet those foreign and domestic actors in/with power on matters of neoliberal social engineering in Africa for years have all too often ‘ignored’ them, probably for good reasons.
+ Fraud is not about the economy only but also about our political system, our political economy, our culture, Frals. It is socio-cultural and political as much as it is an economic phenomenon. Most debates neglect the point that fraud is a political phenomenon, and a child of our political-economic order. Sometimes though there is a more or less explicit and substantial nod to the politics (broadly understood) that underpins a particular fraud case.
+ Fraud is a phenomenon of social, economic, cultural, moral and political power (see e.g. here).
+ Fraud is socially constituted, i.e. produced collectively by a range of actors. The lone wolf, errant individual type explanation does not make much analytical sense.
+ Contemporary fraud (in terms of scale, forms, facets, meaning etc.) has been shaped by the impact of neoliberalism, i.e. neoliberal policies, programmes, ideologies, discourses, practices etc. We can speak of a neoliberalisation of fraud (see also e.g. here)
+ Fraud does not indicate the absence of morals, or loss of moral compass by the actors concerned (e.g. the tricking banker, trader, farmer, doctor or sales staff), but indicates the presence of a particular moral order and moral climate, as well a particular moral view, reasoning, and priority setting, i.e. a particularly (re-)calibrated moral compass (see here).
+ Fraud is not a function of poverty or severe economic and social pressures alone i.e. a mere function of, for example, underdevelopment, the peripheral status of countries such as Uganda, or widespread and substantial destitution. We have escalating and routine fraud in the richest countries on earth, in the richest and mightiest companies run by the most highly paid managers, in prosperous sectors, regions and towns, i.e. at the core of the system. The German state, again often regarded and referred to by external audiences as the examplar of good governance and good statesmanship (whatever that means), has for years enabled the making of the pro-fraud culture in a range of the country’s industries, such as car making or banking. It has been a direct and indirect promoter of fraud at an industrial scale, which has social harm repercussions of a tremendous scale (ask customers of VW cars and their fumes). And, the German state has for long time not changed course significantly; it is overall still largely protecting the fraudulent car making companies. The state as an enabler, directly and indirectly, of a fraud-conducive economy in general and specific fraud incidences in particular is a major feature of neoliberalism.
+ Fraud in East African societies such as Uganda or Kenya cannot be explained with sole reference to internal actors and factors i.e. ‘This is Uganda’, or ‘This is Africa’ type explanations. Lots of external actors, factors, trends, pressures and incentives that originate from outside Africa shape the moral and political economy of fraud in Uganda and Kenya (in many ways, these relevant external actors are principally the same in both countries). In short, one has to de-Africanise the analysis and debate about fraud in the region. At the minimum, more analytical attention needs to be paid to the role that capitalism plays in driving fraud in the region; more specifically, the promotion, embedding and locking in of a particular variant of capitalist society – aka neoliberal market society – in, for example, Uganda and Kenya and the political-economic and cultural turbulences this process has brought about.
We are living our lives in the age of fraud and might have to do so for some time to come. Analysing and discussing how we got here and why is vital. It helps to understand why fraud is now so common and widespread, and, and the use of deception to get on economically in life seen by many as acceptable, normal, necessary, and appropriate, i.e. justified. But it also helps more broadly to better understand crucial aspects of economy, society, the state and human beings, i.e. who we are and have become (and why), individually and collectively, under the condition of capitalism in the 2010s.

Battling it out at the UN: Potholes overshadow US-Iran confrontation

James M. Dorsey 

It’s easy to dismiss Iranian denunciations of the United States and its Middle Eastern allies as part of the Islamic republic’s long-standing rhetoric. The rhetoric makes it equally easy to understand American distrust.
But as President J. Trump and Hassan Rouhani, his Iranian counterpart, gear up for two days of diplomatic sabre rattling at the United Nations in advance of next month’s imposition of a second round of harsh US sanctions, both men risk fuelling a conflict that could escalate out of hand.
Both are scheduled to address the UN general assembly on Tuesday and Mr. Trump is slated to chair a meeting on Wednesday of the Security Council expected to focus on Iran.
Adding to the likely drama at the UN, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, speaking alongside Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, snubbed Mr. Trump, by announcing the creation of a payment system that would allow oil companies and businesses to continue trading with Iran despite US sanctions.
The risk of escalation is enhanced by the fact that Messrs. Trump and Rouhani are sending mixed messages.
Mr. Trump’s administration insists that its confrontational approach is designed to alter Iranian behaviour and curb its policies, not topple its regime.
Yet, the administration stepped up its engagement with exile groups associated with the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a controversial Saudi-backed organization that calls for the violent overthrow of the government in Tehran and enjoys support among current and former Western officials, as Messrs. Trump and Rouhani battle it out at the UN.
John Bolton, who has repeatedly advocated regime change before becoming Mr. Trump’s national security advisor, is scheduled to give a keynote address at the United Against Nuclear Iran’s (UANI) annual summit during the UN assembly. So is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, another hardliner on Iran.
Mr. Pompeo and Mr, Bolton, who has spoken in the past at events related to the Mujahedeen, had so far since coming to office refrained from addressing gatherings associated with opposition groups.
The administration left that to Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, who last weekend told the Iran Uprising Summit organized by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, a Washington-based group associated with the Mujahedeen and attended by the exile’s leader, Maryam Rajavi, that US. sanctions were causing economic pain and could lead to a “successful revolution” in Iran.
“I don’t know when we’re going to overthrow them. It could be in a few days, months, a couple of years. But it’s going to happen,” Mr. Giuliani, said speaking on the day of an attack on a military march in the southern Iranian city of Ahvaz that killed 25 people and wounded at least 70 others.
Messrs. Bolton, Pompeo and Giuliani’s hardline stems from US suspicions rooted in anti-American and anti-Western attitudes that are grafted in the Islamic republic’s DNA and produced the 444-day occupation in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. They are reinforced by the humiliation of a failed US military operation to rescue 66 Americans held hostages during the occupation.
Iranian rhetoric; bombastic threats against Israel; denial of the Holocaust, support for anti-American insurgents in Iraq, the brutal regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas in the Gaza Strip; propagation of religiously inspired republican government as an alternative to conservative monarchy in the Gulf; and degrees of duplicity regarding its nuclear program, reaffirm America’s suspicion.
Iran’s seemingly mirror image of the United States traces its roots further back to the 1953 US-supported overthrow of the nationalist government of prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh and his replacement by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi whom Washington staunchly supported till his fall in 1979.
Iranian concerns were reinforced by American backing of Iraq in the 1980s Gulf war, US support for Kurdish and Baloch insurgents, the broad spectrum of support of former and serving US officials for the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, unequivocal Saudi signals of support for ethnic strife as a strategy to destabilize Iran, and Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 international agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program despite confirmation of its adherence to the accord.
Responses by the US and its Gulf allies as well as a series of statements by militant Iranian Arab groups, including the Ahvaz Resistance Movement, suspected of being responsible for this weekend’s attack, have only deepened Iranian distrust.
Those statements included one by the Arab Liberation Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz effusively praising Saudi Arabia on its national day that the kingdom celebrated a day after the attack.
Yadollah Javani, the deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the target of the attack, vowed revenge for what he termed years of conspiracies against the Iranian revolution by its enemies.
Mr. Javani was referring to past US attempts to destabilize Iran and a four-decade long global Saudi campaign that included backing of Iraq in the Gulf war during the 1980s and an estimated $100 billion investment in support of anti-Iranian, anti-Shiite ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim groups.
All of this means that mounting hostility between the United States and Iran is muddied as much by fact as by perception – a combustible mix that is easily exploitable by parties on both sides of the divide seeking to raise the ante.

A Milestone for Global Capitalism

Peter Phillips

Exciting news for capitalism is the recent achievement of trillion-dollar value for both Amazon and Apple, making them the first corporations to obtain such a lofty status. Amazon’s skyrocketing growth makes its CEO, Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person with an $160 billion net worth.
Driving the engine of global wealth concentration are giant transnational investment management firms. In 2017, seventeen trillion-dollar investment companies collectively controlled $41.1 trillion of capital. These firms are all directly invested in each other, making them a huge cluster of centralized capital managed by just 199 people, who decide how and where that wealth will be invested.
In the case of Amazon,the top investment management corporations are: Vanguard $56.7 billion, BlackRock $49.5 billion, FMR $33 billion, Capital $33 billion, State Street $29 billion, and most of the other trillion-dollar Giants and many others who hold 58.6% of Amazon shares.
So, while Bezos is a large tree in the forest, the forest itself is groomed by a few hundred global power elites making investment decisions that drive the concentration of wealth into coffers of the 1%. These elites interact through non-governmental policy-making organizations—privately funded by large corporations—that include the Council of Thirty, Trilateral Commission, and the Atlantic Council. Their role is to facilitate, manage, and protect the free flow of global capital. They do this by providing policy recommendations and instructions to governments, intelligence services, security forces, NATO, the Pentagon, and transnational governmental groups including the G-7 G-20, World Bank, IMF, and International Bank of Settlements.
The biggest problem global power elite investors face is that they have more capital than there are safe investment opportunities, which leads to risky speculative investments, permanent war spending, and the privatization of the public commons.
The world’s total wealth is estimated to be close to $255 trillion, with the United States and Europe holding approximately two-thirds of that total; meanwhile, 80 percent of the world’s people live on less than $10 per day, the poorest half of the global population lives on less than $2.50 per day, and more than 1.3 billion people live on only $1.25 per day. 795 million people on the planet are suffering from chronic hunger, according to the United Nations World Food Program.  Each year, poor nutrition kills 3.1 million children under the age of five. Each day 25,000-30,000 people die from starvation or malnutrition, a staggering total of more than ten million such fatalities each year. Chronic hunger is mostly a problem of distribution, as one third of all food produced in the world is wasted and lost. So, while the global power elite can manifest a Bezos, they cannot or will not address the crisis of inequality and mass death in the world today. In 2017, 2.3 million new millionaires were created, bringing the total number of millionaires around the globe to more than 36 million. These millionaires represent 0.7 percent of the world’s population and they control more than 47% of global wealth. At the same time, the world’s bottom 70 percent only control 2.7% of the total wealth.
There can be no doubt that continued concentration of wealth is economically unsustainable. Extreme inequality and massive repression will only bring resistance and rebellion by the world’s masses.
The danger is that global power elites will fail to recognize the inevitability of economic and/or environmental collapse before making the necessary adjustments to prevent millions of deaths and massive civil unrest. Without significant corrective adjustments by the global power elites, mass social movements and rebellions, coupled with environmental collapse, will inevitably lead to global chaos and widespread war. We must institute a simple guiding principle of thinking of the future of our grandchildren and their grandchildren when making decisions about the use of global capital resources.
Seventy years ago, after World War II ended, people throughout the world were motivated to find ways to permanently prevent such terrible bloodshed from ever again taking place. As the United Nations was forming, a Commission on the moral principles necessary for sustainable peace, made up of eighteen nations, met at Hunter College in New York City in 1946. They began what two years later would become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved unanimously by the United Nations in December 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a document that social movements can easily adopt as a statement of moral principles for actions of resistance to wealth concentration and global inequality. It is equally important as a document of principles for the global power elite to use as a guide for corrective actions needed in the world today.
It is no longer acceptable to believe that global power elites can manage capitalism to grow its way out of the gross inequalities we all now face. The environment cannot accept more pollution and waste, and civil unrest is inevitable. We need to pressure global capital elites to step up and insure that trickle-down becomes a river of resources that reaches every child, every family, and all human beings. These changes are required for nothing less than humanity’s long-term survival.

Global watchdog takes Saudi Arabia to task for lax anti-terrorism finance measures

James M. Dorsey

Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report criticizing Saudi Arabia’s anti-money laundering and terrorism finance measures puts the kingdom on the spot 17 years after the 9/11 attacks and casts a shadow over its diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar on the grounds that the Gulf state supports militants.
In a nod to the kingdom, the international watchdog described as “understandable” the fact the kingdom’s “almost exclusive focus of authorities on domestic (terrorist financing) offences means the authorities are not prioritizing disruption of support for threats outside the kingdom.”
The 246-page report contrasted starkly with US President Donald J. Trump’s assessment expressed in his address to the United Nations general assembly. “Following my trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Gulf countries opened a new centre to target terrorist financing. They are enforcing new sanctions. They are working with us to identify and track terrorist networks and taking more responsibility for fighting terrorism and extremism in their own region, Mr. Trump said.
Mr. Trump, by design or default, did not take into account the flow of substantial amounts of Saudi money to militants in the Pakistani province of Balochistan that borders on Iran. Mounting indications suggest that the Islamic republic’s detractors may be moving to stir unrest among Iran’s ethnic minorities in a bid to change the regime in Tehran.
The flow of funds leaves open the possibility that the kingdom’s laxity in cracking down on funds flowing to extremists beyond its frontiers may be deliberate.
To be sure, Saudi Arabia has been strengthening its anti-money laundering and terrorism finance regime ever since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington in which the perpetrators were primarily Saudi nationals and Al Qaeda attacks in the kingdom itself in 2003 and 2004.
Writing in Forbes, journalist Dominic Dudley noted that the FATF report may not have taken into account new anti-money laundering and terrorism finance-related laws adopted last year by Saudi Arabia. “The new laws were coming in just as the FATF was conducting its research for this report and it is too soon to judge how effective they have been,” Mr. Dudley said.
Even so, it was only with the ascendancy to the throne of King Salman in 2015 and the rise of his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, that the kingdom began to review its more than four decades long global funding of intolerant, anti-pluralistic, supremacist, ant-Shiite and anti-Iranian ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim groups and institutions.
While financing has been severely curtailed and funding vehicles like the Muslim World League have been refashioned to propagate moderation and inter-faith dialogue, the kingdom, as in the case of Balochistan, continues to support ultra-conservatives where it serves its geopolitical goals.
In what apparently reflected frustration with the kingdom’s progress in countering money laundering and terrorism, FATF did not mince its words in its report. “Saudi Arabia is not effectively investigating and prosecuting individuals involved in larger scale or professional (money laundering] activity” and is “not effectively confiscating the proceeds of crime,” the report said.
FATF suggested that the problem was the kingdom’s implementation of anti-money laundering and terrorism finance measures rather than its legal infrastructure. “Saudi Arabia has a legal framework that provides it with an adequate basis to investigate and prosecute ML (money laundering) activities… Saudi Arabia is not effectively investigating and prosecuting individuals involved in larger scale or professional ML activity. Investigations are often reactive rather than proactive, and tend to be straightforward and single layered.,” the report said.
The report’s wording left the possibility open that poor implementation was the result of either a lack of political will or the fact that there is widespread criticism of Prince Mohammed’s reforms within the bureaucracy and the kingdom’s religious establishment despite a crackdown on any form of dissent.
That possibility gains currency given the fact that FATF acknowledges that “Saudi Arabia has demonstrated an ability to respond to the dynamic terrorism threat it faces in country. Saudi Arabian authorities have demonstrated that they have the training, experience and willingness to pursue TF (terrorism finance) investigations in conjunction with and alongside terrorism cases.”
The report noted that Saudi Arabia seldom convicted funders of political violence who were not directly involved in attacks. “This includes TF cases in relation to funds raised in the Saudi Arabia for support of individuals affiliated with terrorist entities outside the kingdom, particularly outside the Middle-East region, which remains a risk. Saudi Arabia’s overall strategy for fighting terrorist financing mainly focuses on using law enforcement measures to disrupt terrorist threats directed at the kingdom and its immediate vicinity,” the report said.
FATF’s criticism is embarrassing for a country that ever since the 9/11 attacks has been attempting to shed its image of having fuelled militancy, position itself as a leader in the struggle against militancy and extremism, and project itself as a 21st century knowledge hub by liberalizing its strict social and cultural norms, including the recent lifting of the ban on women’s driving.
It is also awkward because the report puts Saudi Arabia in the position of the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to the 15-month-old Saudi-United Arab Emirates-led boycott of Qatar because it allegedly funds and supports militancy. Saudi Arabia’s failure to garner widespread international support for its boycott or force Qatar to concede heightens the awkwardness.
That is even more the case given that Saudi Arabia together with the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt is demanding among other things that Qatar “consent to monthly compliance audits in the first year after agreeing to the demands, followed by quarterly audits in the second year, and annual audits in the following 10 years” – something the kingdom would be unlikely to accept if hypothetically asked in the wake of the FATF report to submit to a similar regime.

Australian royal commission reveals predatory practices of insurance companies

Oscar Grenfell 

Hearings at the ongoing Royal Commission into financial services have revealed that some of Australia’s largest insurance companies routinely use aggressive tactics to sell products to people who do not require them, do everything they can to avoid paying claims, and operate with impunity in the increasingly unregulated sector.
The testimony in recent weeks follows exposures of the parasitic activities of the country’s banks, which are among the most profitable in the world. Like the Royal Commission as a whole, however, the hearings on the insurance industry are an exercise in damage control.
The Commission was called by the federal Liberal-National government to assuage widespread public anger. Its aim is to present the activities of the financial institutions as the result of mistakes and isolated cases of wrongdoing. This is to obscure the fact that they result from the ever-greater dominance of the financial sector over the economy, which has been promoted by successive governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike.
The hearings have nevertheless pointed to systematic malpractice across the insurance sector. In an indication of the scale, the Commission received over 8,700 public submissions, only a fraction of which will be the subject of testimony.
Almost 10 percent of the submissions related to the rapidly growing life insurance market.
Among the most explosive revelations at this month’s hearings was that AMP continued to charge at least 4,656 life insurance holders a total of $1.3 million after they had died. Company representatives acknowledged that the deductions had not ended, and up to $1 million in owed payouts had not been made, despite the fact that AMP had been notified of the deaths. The company claimed that this was the result of “systems errors.”
In other cases, health risks were apparently exaggerated to justify maximum premiums. One worker was overcharged $76,700 in life insurance premiums deducted by AMP from his superannuation. When he complained the company refused to repay him.
The worker, along with many others, had been incorrectly labelled as a “smoker” when he had left one employer and moved to another. If they did not reaffirm that they were “non-smokers,” AMP’s systems automatically assumed that customers who changed employers were now “smokers.” This resulted in premiums of at least $1,000 more per month.
The hearings also heard testimony that major funds sought to avoid paying out when their clients suffered life threatening illnesses.
In one instance, TAL Life Limited, one of the country’s largest providers of life insurance, terminated $5,000 per month payments to a customer who had been diagnosed with cervical cancer five months before.
After the woman’s cancer diagnosis in late 2013 the company had apparently sought to find grounds for withholding payments. Its investigators found that the woman had sought professional help for depression, between 2007 and 2009, and used the fact that she had not declared this on her application as grounds for cancelling her coverage. The woman was compelled to take action through the Financial Services Ombudsman to seek recompense.
Testimony also documented an aggressive sales culture driven by commissions. According to senior counsel assisting Rowena Orr, ten of the largest life insurance companies had paid $6 billion to financial advisers in commissions over a five-year period. In comments to the press, former employees stated that they could make up to $8,000 per week on their base salary in commissions.
This has included cold-calling the vulnerable and the poor. In a particularly egregious case in 2016, a Freedom Insurance representative sold a policy over the phone to a 26-year-old man with Down syndrome. During the call, the man was clearly unaware of what he was agreeing to. When his father complained, Freedom Insurance initially refused to cancel the policy before subsequently issuing an apology.
It emerged at the hearing that the sales representative had been the subject of multiple complaints for predatory calls. He had, however, been praised by managers for the volume of his sales. An April 2016 email from his team leader congratulated the representative for “smashing over 200 lives and earning amazing commissions.”
ClearView Wealth acknowledged that it may have breached anti-hawking provisions in federal legislation over 300,000 times by trying to sell life insurance through cold calls.
The company’s chief actuary and risk officer Gregory Martin acknowledged that poor people had been targeted. When asked about the precise demographic, however, he stated, “I’d emphasise lower, not lowest. After all, there was no point selling to customers who couldn’t afford the product or were too poor.”
Among the litany of issues covered at the hearings, it has again been underscored that the largest insurers seek to avoid payouts after natural disasters. In one case, Suncorp offered a couple with home insurance just $30,000 after their property was inundated by flooding in the Hunter Valley in 2015. The damage cost them $744,000.
After Victoria’s 2015 Christmas Day bushfires, Suncorp and its subsidiaries offered cash payments to insured customers hit by the disaster that were hundreds of thousands of dollars below the value of what they had lost. The company was fined just $43,200 for misleading advertising, well below the possible sanction of $7.2 million contained in legislation.
Throughout the hearings, it has been clear that regulation is largely for appearances. Rules are rarely enforced, and breaches infrequently penalised with more than a slap on the wrist.
Orr stated last week, for instance, that general insurance companies had breached their own self-regulations over 31,000 times without penalty. The industry lobby group, the Insurance Council of Australia, responded by declaring that this was because they were more concerned with “customer remediation” than with “punishing” constituent companies. In other words, nothing is done to prevent the same practices being repeated.
The parasitic activities of the insurance companies are the direct result of the economic deregulation carried out by the Labor governments of prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, in office from 1983–1996.
Responding to the globalisation of production, Labor junked previous regulations on the money markets and sold off the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. This was part of a broader program, aimed at attracting international investment and removing any barriers to maximum profit-accumulation by the largest financial operators.
A 2004 study by Deakin University academic Monica Keneley noted that in the life insurance sector this was accompanied by a decline in earlier mutual funds that were less profitable, and an increase in the direct involvement of the banks. In 1980 there had been no bank-owned life insurance companies. In 1990 banks controlled 9 percent of the market, while in 2000 the figure was 44 percent.
The banks’ turn to life insurance was part of a diversification of their operations that included the provision of speculative financial services and exorbitant housing loans. As a result of this—and the fact that they have been effectively propped-up by successive governments, including during the 2008 financial crisis—the profits of the four largest banks have risen almost six-fold from $5.4 billion to just under $30 billion over the past two decades.

Pro-US candidate wins Maldives presidential election

Rohantha De Silva 

Joint opposition candidate Ibrahim Mohamed Solih won the presidential election in the Maldives on Sunday defeating President Abdulla Yameen. Solih’s victory is the outcome of a regime-change operation backed by the US and India in the strategically-located Indian Ocean archipelago.
Over recent months, the US, India and the European Union have intensified their hypocritical criticism of Yameen’s anti-democratic methods of rule and his pro-Beijing tilt. Determined that Yameen be ousted, they overtly and covertly supported the opposition.
Yameen acknowledged his defeat in a televised address to the nation on Monday, declaring, “[T]he Maldivian people have decided what they want. I have accepted the results.”
Although the final result will be announced in a week, the Electoral Commission declared on Monday that Solih had a majority winning 58 percent of the vote with Yameen receiving 42 percent from a turnout of nearly 90 percent.
Solih became the opposition alliance candidate because the Electoral Commission ruled that former President Mohamed Nasheed was ineligible to contest the election. The opposition front included Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), the Jumhooree Party and the Adhaalath Party. Solih has been the MDP’s parliamentary leader since 2011.
Nasheed, who was previously jailed by the Yameen government on terrorism charges, is currently in exile in Sri Lanka. Under pressure from the US and Britain, Yameen allowed Nasheed to travel to London in early 2016 for “medical treatment.” Nasheed immediately stepped up his campaign to oust Yameen.
Addressing reporters in Male, the Maldives capital, Solih said: “The message is loud and clear. The people of Maldives want change, peace and justice.” Nasheed congratulated Solih via twitter, declaring, “You have done an extremely good service not only to the people of Maldives, but also to freedom loving people everywhere. Democracy is a historical inevitability.”
While Yameen violated basic democratic rights in order to maintain his rule, all claims that his ousting, and the installation of a pro - western president represents t he dawn of democracy in the Maldives are far from truth.
The election was held under pressure from the US and the EU, who threatened to impose sanctions if Yameen won. It was a clear attempt to intimidate the population into voting for the opposition candidate.
US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert issued a statement early this month declaring that Washington was concerned about “democratic backsliding in the Maldives.” She warned that the US would consider taking “appropriate measures against those individuals who undermine democracy, the rule of law, and a free and fair electoral process.”
In July the European Union warned that sanctions, including travel bans and an asset freeze, would be imposed against those responsible for human rights violations and the undermining of the rule of law in the Maldives.
If Yameen had won the election, the US and the EU would have declared his victory unlawful and refused to recognise his government.
The US and India immediately welcomed Solih’s win. The Indian External Affairs Ministry issued a statement complimenting Solih and declaring that it hoped “the Election Commission will officially confirm the result at the earliest.”
The Maldives Independent reported yesterday that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had phoned Solih to offer his congratulations. The newspaper reported that Modi “expressed his wish to repair strained relations and pledged assistance to restore democracy” and suggested that they meet soon. Solih immediately accepted the invitation.
US State Department spokesperson Nauert voiced her approval and said the election was “calm and respected the will of the people.”
The real concerns of the US and India had nothing to do with democracy, but involved the pro-Chinese orientation of the Yameen government which cut across their geo-strategic interests.
The Maldives, which has a population of just 400,000, is strategically located 400 km southwest of India and close to the world’s busiest shipping lanes between the Middle East and Africa to East Asia. The archipelago of a thousand small islands is spread across 35,000 square miles of the Indian Ocean and the focal point of intense rivalry between the US and India on one side and China on the other.
Reporting the election result, the New York Times, a leading mouthpiece for US imperialism, wrote on Sunday that “the Maldives has been caught up in recent years in Beijing’s growing global ambitions, which the United States and its allies have struggled to contain.”
In line with Washington’s propaganda against Beijing the newspaper declared “China has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure projects in the Maldives, which critics, including the political opposition, warn amount to ‘debt-trap diplomacy.’” These claims have been denied by China and the Yameen government.
Responding to the escalating Western pressure on the Yameen government, the Maldives Supreme Court in February ordered the immediate release of jailed opposition MPs, including Nasheed and eight other political leaders. If this verdict had been carried out, Yameen would have lost his parliamentary majority and could have been impeached by the opposition.
Yameen responded autocratically, imposing a state of emergency, and arrested two Supreme Court judges, including the pro-Indian Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed. Saeed and the other judge were later sentenced to one year and seven-month prison terms, along with former Maldives President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom—a staunch Indian supporter—for plotting to overthrow the government. Under pressure, the remaining judges invalidated the previous Supreme Court order.
Indian media reports at the time revealed that New Delhi was actively considering directly intervening in the Maldives and that its military had been readied to deploy at “short notice.” Nasheed openly called on India to invade the Maldives.
India has always considered the Maldives, as well as other South Asian countries, such as Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh, as part of its sphere of influence and is hostile to Beijing’s influence in the region.
China, which consistently supported the Yameen government, began building infrastructure in the Maldives including ports and roads, and providing loans and investments as part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to expand its influence across Asia, Africa and Europe and, in particular, protect vital energy imports.
Beijing, however, confronts Washington’s increasingly aggressive attempts to halt its rise and subordinate it to the US. Control of the Indian Ocean sea lanes, and thus China’s access to energy and raw materials in the Middle East and Africa, is vital to the US strategy.
Yameen’s election defeat, which will be used by the US and India to boost their political and strategic influence in the Maldives, foreshadows increasing geopolitical manoeuvres and tensions in the region.

UK military step up marches and parades on streets of Britain

Thomas Scripps 

On September 13, several hundred soldiers from The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion of The Royal Regiment of Scotland marched through the streets of Inverness in full battle gear. The battalion had recently returned from a six-month tour in Iraq training Iraqi security forces. In a series of homecoming parades, the battalion marched over four successive days through towns and cities in Black Watch’s traditional recruiting areas, including Forfar, Dunfermline and Perth.
The Black Watch played a critical role in the war against Iraq, as British imperialism escalated its intervention after the illegal 2003 invasion. In October 2004, the regiment was moved 380 miles north from southern Iraq to Camp Dogwood, 20 miles (32 km) southwest of Baghdad. This was done in order to allow the UK’s main partner in crime, the US, to concentrate its forces on the bloody suppression of Fallujah.
Within 48 hours of arriving at their new base, the regiment suffered its first fatalities, as five members of the 850-strong Black Watch were killed and several others seriously wounded. The deaths led to growing opposition to the war, which the year before had sparked an anti-war march by some 2 million people in London.
The Inverness event was clearly intended to provide an intimidating display of firepower. Soldiers on the march wore body armour and carried assault rifles with bayonets attached. Some wore camouflage and carried sniper rifles. The soldiers marched alongside several large armoured vehicles equipped with manned, high-calibre machine guns. A section of the march appeared to be mimicking the routines of a live patrol.
The show of force in Scotland is one particularly extreme example of a succession of military parades that have taken place across Britain in just the last few months.
Many of these demonstrations have been held in connection with the awarding of the “freedom” of the city, town or borough to a particular regiment. Voted on by local councils, this is the highest honour a local authority can award.
In the case of military units, it gives the soldiers in question the right to “march with drums beating, bands playing, colours flying and bayonets fixed” through the streets of the town. There are roughly 640 such “freedoms” currently awarded to military bodies—at least 280 of which have been given since 2008.
* In February, the Royal Marines were granted the freedom of Birmingham—the UK’s second largest city—in a ceremony in its central square, followed by a parade along its main streets.
* On June 3, soldiers from the 21 Engineer Regiment exercised the Corps of Royal Engineers’ freedom to march in Ripon, Yorkshire.
* Earlier this month, 500 soldiers of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers were allowed to march from the Tower of London to Guildhall. The City of London’s Square Mile was closed while the parade took place.
* The 75 Engineers Regiment marched through Warrington, Cheshire last Saturday, having been awarded the Freedom of the Borough in 2013.
In many places, Freedom of the Borough parades were held in connection with Armed Forces Week. The Yorkshire Regiment marched through Redcar and Stockton in the North East of England on June 28 as part of a series of events, including a drill display and flyover by a Dakota Royal Air Force plane. Redcar’s high street was decked in red, white and blue bunting for the occasion.
Two days later, St Ives hosted 120 soldiers of the 42 Engineer Regiment for the same occasion, after which residents were encouraged to get to know the regiment at a local museum. In July, plans were announced for hundreds of soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers to march in Nuneaton on June 9 next year, to mark the 75th anniversary of D-Day and celebrate Armed Forces Day. The town closed its streets for a march by soldiers from the 30 Signal Regiment in 2015.
Some army units are marching through Britain’s streets on multiple occasions. Earlier this month, The Rifles regiment exercised the Freedom of the Town of Wakefield, Yorkshire. They will do the same this month in Sherborne, Dorset, and again in Lyme Regis, as part of an event to commemorate the centenary of the ending of the First World War.
The Duke of Lancaster’s regiment, having marched through Blackpool’s city centre some months ago, visited three additional towns and cities this year. On June 30, soldiers carried out a 40 minute march through Preston, protected by armed police. On September 15, the regiment’s 2nd Battalion participated in a 200-strong Battle of Britain parade through the centre of Barrow. Another march, this time through the town of Wyre, was announced for sometime this month.
The British people are being inured to the regular presence of the armed forces on the streets. In recent weeks, the crisis over Brexit has seen numerous warnings that such could be the economic tumult and “civil unrest” following the UK’s formal exit from the European Union next March that plans are in place to put troops onto the streets.
The regular presence of serving soldiers in public spaces is intended both to glorify the military and intimidate the population. The ruling class is deeply concerned by the growth of anti-war sentiment and widespread revulsion at the actions of British imperialism around the world over the past 15 years, since the invasion of Iraq.
Armed Forces Day was established in 2009 by the Labour government of Gordon Brown to counteract this sentiment, replacing Veterans’ Day, which had been observed since 2006. The parades and ceremonies are an attempt to create a bond between the population and “their” local regiments.
The aim is to assert the centrality of the military and its interests in British political life. The event in Inverness indicates that this purpose is to be pursued more aggressively in the future.
In conducting these parades, the armed forces have the full support of the whole spectrum of bourgeois political parties, not least the Labour Party. Barrow, Birmingham, Redcar, Stockton, Nuneaton, Preston, Warrington and Wakefield are all governed by majority-Labour councils, whose members hail the presence of the military on their streets.
Labour Councilor Karen Mundry, mayor of Warrington, said of the town’s march: “The men and women of the 75 Engineers Regiment have long had a close association with Warrington. We were delighted to bestow upon them our highest honour by granting them the Freedom of the Borough in 2013.”
She added, “We are very proud of the regiment and this is a fantastic opportunity to thank them for the work they do… I’d urge everyone to come along, show their support and see this magnificent regiment in all its glory.”
The Labour leader of Wakefield Council, Peter Box, enthused: “It is a great honour to welcome the men and women of the Rifles Regiment, who are the largest regiment in the British Army. Please come along, welcome them to the city and celebrate our servicemen and women by lining the streets and enjoying the military displays.”
Barry Longden, a Labour member in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, described a planned march through Nuneaton as “a fantastic day out for all of the residents in the borough and further afield, so I hope we will all support this.”
For all the talk of support and celebration, the truth is that the imperialist violence and banditry carried out by Britain’s armed forces over the last two decades are widely opposed by the population. The spree of military parades reflects the deep concerns of the ruling elite over this opposition, which stands in the way of the militarist agenda shared by both main parties.
In recent years, the armed forces have intervened in political affairs in Britain in a manner unprecedented in modern history. Only a week after Jeremy Corbyn was first elected as Labour leader, Murdoch’s Sunday Times reported the threat of a “mutiny” by a “senior serving general” in the event of his becoming prime minister. This was due to Corbyn’s professed opposition to nuclear weapons and war.
Lord West, the former first sea lord and ex-Labour minister, declared that Corbyn “should not lead the nation.” West warned that Corbyn’s criticisms of militarism might get “the unthinking masses to vote for him.”

The Geopolitics of Ports and the Silk Road of the Sea

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera

The expertise of a country’s diplomats and the effectiveness of its armed forces are not the only variables determining its rise. Geographical factors must also be considered. Influencing the overall prosperity of a nation are its access to raw materials and trade routes, its climate, and – most critical in informing foreign policy – its strategic location.
In this light, it was no coincidence that the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte commissioned the translation of the works of the ancient geographer Strabo. The 'subordination' of Asian countries to Western powers began in 1798 when Napoleon led a 40,000-strong French army into Egypt, ostensibly to protect French trade interests. Shortly afterward, issues concerning trade resulted in Western countries driving a wedge between China and India. Economic interests have similarly followed military interests on several occasions in the arc of history, and history could repeat itself. This time, though, the difference will be an Eastern power as the most significant player in the global arena.
Southern Sri Lanka has become a geopolitical hotbed after the construction of the Hambantota harbour and the recent relocation of the Galle Southern Naval Command next to Hambantota Port. There are more than 700 naval officers engaged in maritime security efforts who are based next to the harbour premises leased by China. The relocated post in Galle will be occupied by the Sri Lankan coast guard to further protect the oceans using its new military hardware. In doing so, scholars have suggested that Sri Lanka should opt for the P-3C Orion naval reconnaissance anti-submarine aircraft instead of Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs). This aircraft enables scanning a larger area and has been proven effective by many other countries. According to the latest statement by Prime Minister Wickramasinghe, Sri Lanka should prepare for anti-submarine warfare. 
On a recent visit to the port of Hambantota, the Japanese Defence Minister, Itsunori Onedera, stated, “Despite the lease there was an agreement that the port remains free of military activities.” This statement reflects concerns over the leasing of the facility to China for 99 years. Onedera was the first Japanese defence minister to visit Sri Lanka in a period in which the island finds itself in the spheres of influence of India, the US, and China. Unfortunately,the expectation that Hambantota should remain free of Chinese military activities – as well as the other details of the lease agreement– has received little attention from the general public of Sri Lanka.
China’s geopolitical presence is rapidly expanding under the aegis of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Starting with ports such as Sittwe, Gwadar, Djibouti, Hambantota, and Dar es Salaam, China is testing a strategy of using its economic influence to advance its security interests, much like Western powers have done in the past. To counter China’s influence through BRI, the 'Quad' (the US, India, Japan, Australia) was formed.
It has been argued that Sri Lanka has benefited from Japan’s hedging strategies in the South Asia region. A tactic that could unfold into a larger strategy was the agreement signed on 12 April 2017 aimed at the 'Deepening and Expansion of Comprehensive Partnership between Japan and Sri Lanka'. The agreement covers three areas: First, Japan is to expand its maritime cooperation with Sri Lanka; second, Japan is to improve Sri Lanka's maritime capability by providing two OPVs in support of the bilateral defence partnership; and third, Sri Lanka is to participate as an observer in the next Japan-India joint exercise between coast guards. New alliances such as with Sri Lanka will further support and cement the core strategy between the US and Japan in the Indo-Pacific.
Djibouti is a former French colony with a small population and scarce natural resources. The country’s GDP remains below US$ 1.8 billion and it has only one significant geopolitical offering: its strategic location. Sitting at the eastern edge of the African continent and the western shore of the Indian Ocean, Djibouti has become a multi-military base and logistics operational hub. Even Japan’s first overseas military base since World War II is found in this strategic location. Within Djibouti, a Chinese logistics base also sits merely eight miles away from Camp Lemonnier. There are 4,000 personnel from the US Combined Joint Task Force stationed in the Horn of Africa. From a realist lens, of the various countries who have leased property for military bases, China has a strategic advantage due to the billions of dollars of financial support it has offered continuously to Djibouti. One example is an infrastructural mega-project in the form of a railway connecting Djibouti and Ethiopia.
Outside powers pledging non-interference to the region and neighboring countries has significant economic and military implications. Other new ports emerging in the region could copy Djibouti’s model in the years to come. Sri Lanka is not unique in this sense. Currently, Sri Lanka’s Trincomalee Port is planned to be jointly developed by India, Japan and Singapore; Hambantota Port is already leased to China, and the adjoining Mattala Airport will be operated by India, all in a bid to counter-balance China’s influence. Merely moving a Sri Lankan naval post next to the plot leased by China for 99 years will not guarantee the ability to secure economic or military interests in the future.
Fluctuations in the frequency, scope, and intensity of diplomatic and military engagements are inherent to a volatile, multipolar world. China’s rise, made possible by its economic advances, is seen by many observers also as a result of it winning every move on the geopolitical chess board. Djibouti was the initial victory in the Indian Ocean and presumably, other small states will give in to this tide.

25 Sept 2018

WAAW Foundation Undergraduate STEM Scholarships for Young African Women 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 30th November, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Women from all Africa countries

To be taken at: Applicants home country

Eligible Fields of Study: The following courses in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
Agriculture, Aircraft engineering, Architecture, Bio Medical, Biochemistry, Biology, Botany, Chemistry, Civil engineering and urbanism, Computer Science, Construction technology and management, Economics, Electronics Engineering, Engineering Agriculture, Environmental Health, Environmental Science, Food Science Technology, Genetics, Geography, Geology, Home Science Nutrition and Dietetics, Industrial Chemistry, IT, Math related fields, Natural Science, Pharmacy, Physics, Science related fields, Statistics, Technology, Zoology

About the Award: The Working to Advance African Women (WAAW) foundation aim to increase the pipeline of African women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) related disciplines, and work to ensure that this talent is engaged in African innovation. Scholarships are renewable annually, following proof of the student’s continued academic performance.

Type: Undergraduate

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: WAAW foundation’s annual scholarship initiative is aimed at supporting need based African female STEM-focused college education. Please read the eligibility criteria before you apply. All non qualifying applications will be automatically deleted! Criteria for eligibility includes:
  • Female students of African origin, living and studying in Africa.
  • Currently enrolled in undergraduate B.S.degree program.
  • Studying STEM related courses in a University or college in Africa.
  • Demonstrable financial need, and
  • Excellent Academic Record.
  • Below the age of 32 years.
  • Graduation date is after December of award year
Please note that WAAW does not fund graduate (masters, MBA or Phd) programs, second or subsequent degrees, students older than 32 years, non-STEM focused courses or Diploma degrees. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to these requirements.

Number of Scholarship: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholarship recipients will receive an award of $500 for the academic year, or the equivalent in their country’s local currency. Scholarship recipients may reapply for renewal the following year, with proof of continued excellent academic performance.

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarship is a onetime fund but is renewable annually, following proof of the student’s continued academic performance.

How to Apply: Complete all sections of the application form and submit all required materials to WAAW foundation by the deadline. Application may be completed online.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Sponsors: WAAW- Working to Advance African Women

Important Notes: WAAW will only accept online application this year. Scholarship applications are reviewed by the WAAW Scholarship Committee, and awards are announced by February.
Only shortlisted candidates will be asked for recommendation letters or University transcripts during the verification process.

Foreign Press Association Scholarship Awards 2018 for Foreign Graduate Students of Journalism – USA

Application Deadline: ​11.55 pm on 30th September, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: Founded in 1918, the Foreign Press Association (“FPA”) is the oldest association of journalists in the United States of America, and the second in the world. The Foreign Press Association Scholarship Awards (“FPASA”) was founded on the 75th Anniversary of FPA’s formation to encourage the pursuit of a career in journalism by the next generation of foreign correspondents.
The Foreign Press Association Scholarship Awards contribute to the development of the next generation of international reporters.

Type: Awards

Eligibility: The Foreign Press Association Scholarship Awards is open to individuals who are:
  • Foreign nationals having graduated during 2018 or who will be enrolled in a graduate journalism program in the United States of America during 2018
  • Held or holding an F-1 or J-1 Visa during 2018
  • Demonstrate an interest and commitment to international affairs reporting
Selection Criteria: Every year, a special Awards Committee appointed by the Foreign Press Association, (“FPA”), seeks out appropriate scholarship awardees based on the following criteria:
  • Will be attending or attended a U.S. graduate school of journalism during 2018.
  • A record of excellence.
  • A citizen of a foreign country.
  • In need of financial aid.
Selection: Applications will be judged on:
1. The submission response to the Op-Ed question.
2. A short statement detailing how you will utilize your FPA Scholarship Award.

An impartial panel of journalists, editors, publishers, media directors, and other professionals will select the winning awards.  Scholarship Awardees will be invited to receive their awards at the FPA’s Centennial Gala event, attended by an audience of global influencers in business, foreign affairs and media, on Thursday, 1st November, 2018 in New York City.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Cash scholarships, ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 (USD), will be awarded.

How to Apply: 
  • The application requires the submission of a commentary on a subject matter decided upon by the Awards Committee.
  • Scholarship awards will be presented in two categories: print and multi-media.
  • Applications will be adjudicated on the response to an opinion-editorial question.
It is important to go through application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details