Increase in self-harm and suicides in UK immigration detention centres

Simon Whelan

A horrendous picture is emerging of the brutal and barbaric conditions faced by those held in British immigration detention centres.

Such conditions have led to approximately two suicide attempts by inmates every day in detention centres, according to a freedom of information (FoI) request seen by the Guardian newspaper.

These represent a doubling since 2016. The previous suicide attempt figure in the centres was itself an all-time high, according to official figures. In 2016, there were 393 recorded suicide attempts in detention centres—up 11 percent from 2015.

Figures published in April by the Independent newspaper showed more than one person a day requiring medical treatment for self-harming in UK detention, with the number of detainees on regular “suicide watch” also reported to be inexorably rising.

But between April and June of this year, there was a 22 percent increase in the number of detainees who made attempts to take their own lives. This information was obtained by the No Deportations rights organisation, via an FoI response from the Home Office.

In total, 159 attempts were recorded, more than half of them at just two sites, Colnbrook and Harmondsworth, which are located in the proximity of Heathrow Airport, to aid in the swift removal of detainees out of the country.

Suicides in removal centres are kept secret by the Home Office, which is why FoI requests have to be used to reveal deaths, according to former prison ombudsman Stephen Shaw. He was commissioned by the government to carry out a review of the immigration detention system. Shaw has raised concerns that the Home Office does not conform to the practice, followed by the Ministry of Justice, of publishing data on the deaths of immigration detainees.

Nevertheless, figures collected by the Inquest rights organisation, whose specialist casework includes deaths in immigration detention centres, suggest there were six deaths in immigration removal centres last year. Four of these were self-inflicted, making it the highest year for suicides on record. Through April 2018, the charity’s figures show there have been 35 deaths since 2000, 14 of which were self-inflicted.

People who have suffered torture are being held despite Home Office official policy that torture victims should not be detained under usual circumstances. Another FoI response passed to the Guardian revealed that over the past four years, medical professionals made more than 10,000 reports to Home Office officials about detainees believed to have experienced torture before arriving in the UK.

If they had not already suffered forms of abuse before arriving in Britain, many suffer it when arriving in detention camps. According to figures released by the Inspector of Prisons, in the year ending December 2016, 28,908 people entered immigration detention. At any time, more than 3,500 people are in immigration detention in the UK. They are held mainly in one of the nine Immigration Removal Centres, three Short Term Holding Facilities, or in prisons. During just one day, October 3, 2016, prisons held 442 people detained under immigration powers.

In October, the Guardian reported that from a sample of almost 200 migrants held in British detention centres, at least half were suicidal, victims of torture or seriously ill.

In February around 120 detainees at Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre in Bedfordshire, England began a hunger strike, protesting the “inhumane” conditions that dominate Europe’s largest detention facilities. The mainly women detainees demanded an end to indefinite detention, describing “systematic torture” by the Home Office and the private security firm, Serco.

Yarl’s Wood is designated a “detention” or “removal centre.” To all intents and purposes, however, it operates as a prison, located in the middle of miles of open fields and surrounded by high fences and barbed wire. Those under detention are kept under lock and key, while their appeals for asylum are processed and until they are due for deportation or released.

The most recent case of a suicide to be made public was that of Marcin Gwozdzinski, a 28-year-old Polish national immigration detainee. He had been detained for months on end and was increasingly depressed. He killed himself in September 2017, just two days after Harmondsworth detention centre staff determined in a cursory three-minute meeting that his distress was caused by mere “toothache”.

It remains unclear why Gwozdzinski was even being held at the detention centre. According to information from Gwozdzinki’s former fellow detainees at Harmondsworth, his mother travelled by bus from Poland to see her son before his life support machine was turned off. Detainees claimed Gwozdzinski had been granted bail two weeks before his death but the Home Office had failed to release him.

Fifty-nine detainees at Harmondsworth signed a protest letter after Gwozdzinski’s death stating, “It’s a disgrace that no one has been held accountable for such poor care. We are human beings not animals.”

Just the day before Gwozdzinski took his own life, the BBC aired a documentary that showed detention centre guards at another British detention facility mistreating vulnerable detainees, including some who were suicidal. In 2015, an undercover film by Channel 4 News provided disturbing evidence of the brutalised atmosphere detainees live under. In relation to 74 incidents of self-harm in 2013 which needed medical treatment, one guard was heard saying callously, “Let them slash their wrists. It’s attention seeking.”

Further research conducted by the Guardian and others provides more evidence that, of the 25,000-plus people interned every year, many hundreds, if not thousands, are deeply traumatised. A snapshot survey, taken on August 31 with the help of lawyers and charities that deal with deportation cases, found that almost 56 percent of detainees were either physically or mentally ill, or had suffered torture. The research found that the average detainee had been held four months and that 84 percent of those detained had not been told when they would be deported. Most of those surveyed had lived in the UK for more than five years, with the newspaper reporting that some had lived in the country for over 20 years.

The UK has one of the largest immigration detention systems in Europe and is the only country in the region without a statutory time limit on length of detention. There is no statutory limit on immigration detention but the courts have held that detention with a view to removal is lawful only if there is a realistic prospect of this occurring within a reasonable period. Campaigners say this is not closely adhered to.

Workers and young people must demand the end to the systematic brutalisation of immigrants and asylum seekers. The Socialist Equality Party demands the immediate closure of all immigration detention centres and upholds the right of all workers and young people to live in the country of their choice, with full citizenship rights and access to welfare, housing, health care and education.

US, Turkey risk direct military clash as they escalate war in Syria

Barış Demir

As it pursues its war with US-backed Kurdish-nationalist organizations, the Turkish government is threatening an outright military occupation of large parts of Syria that could provoke war with Syria and a direct clash with US forces.

On Tuesday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced joint patrols by US forces and Kurdish-led militias as “unacceptable.” Speaking to reporters in Ankara, he said: “Not only can we not accept (the joint patrols), such a development will cause serious problems at the border.”

This came after Turkey shelled positions of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the Zor Magar region east of the Euphrates River and the town of Tal Abyad starting on October 28, killing at least 10 Kurdish fighters. Two days earlier, Erdogan had delivered a “final warning” to Syrian Kurdish fighters to retreat. He also warned that Turkey’s next target would be positions of the People’s Protection Units (YPG, a Kurdish force that is the key component of the SDF) east of the Euphrates.

On October 30, as shelling continued, Erdogan stepped up threats to invade Syria to attack the US-backed Kurdish forces: “We are going to destroy the terrorist organization… preparations and plans have been completed. We’ve made our plans and programs, and initiated it in the previous days. We will come down on the terrorist organization’s neck with more extensive, effective operations. We could arrive suddenly one night.”

This provoked an angry warning from Washington on October 31. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Palladino said: “Unilateral military strikes into northwest Syria by any party, particularly as American personnel may be present or in the vicinity, are of great concern to us … Coordination and consultation between the United States and Turkey on issues of security concern is a better approach.”

Ankara, however, is determined to crush the YPG, which it views as an affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Turkish Kurdish separatist movement against which it has waged a bloody counter insurgency campaign for more than 30 years. Ankara also fears Kurdish autonomy in Syria, worried it will provoke demands for Kurdish autonomy in eastern Turkey.

In an apparent attempt to placate Ankara, Washington announced on Tuesday that it would place bounties on the heads of three PKK leaders. Visiting Turkey, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Palmer announced that the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program is offering money for information leading to the capture of the PKK officials. The bounties are $5 million for Murat Karayilan, $4 million for Cemil Bayik and $3 million for Duran Kalkan.

But Ambassador James Jeffrey, the US special representative for Syria engagement, said Washington did not see the YPG and PKK as the same entity. He declared: “For us, the PKK is a terrorist organization. We are not of the same opinion on the YPG. We ensure that the YPG operates as part of the Syrian Democratic Forces in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant [ISIL] in a way that does not pose a threat to Turkey.”

Turkish presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin rebuffed the US initiative, saying Ankara would treat it “with caution” and demanding that Washington sever all ties with the YPG.

Turkey’s ever-deeper involvement in the bloodshed across the region is the product of Erdogan’s decision to support the proxy war for regime change launched by the NATO imperialist powers in Syria in 2011.

As the WSWS previously noted: “All Erdogan’s calculations were upended by the intensification of the war and of the class struggle in the Middle East. In 2013, amid growing working class anger against Egypt’s Islamist President Mohammad Mursi and social protests in Turkey centred in Gezi Park, the imperialist powers backed an army coup that toppled Mursi. As the Islamic State (IS) militia grew in Syria and invaded Iraq, moreover, they turned to the use of Kurdish nationalist groups as their proxies against IS.

“Erdogan could not adapt himself to these sudden, violent shifts in imperialist war policy, and Ankara’s imperialist allies rapidly came to see him not as a ‘strategic partner,’ but as an unreliable one.”

After Russia intervened militarily to prevent NATO-backed Islamist militias from overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Turkish jets shot down a Russian jet over Syria in November 2015, with US support. After Russia escalated its military posture in response and threatened economic sanctions in retaliation against Turkey, however, Ankara tacked back toward Russia and China. Ankara turned first to China and then Russia for an air defence system, while its relations with the Obama administration and its European allies rapidly deteriorated.

In July 2016, a section of Turkey’s military, encouraged by Washington and Berlin, launched an abortive putsch out of NATO’s Incirlik air base, aiming to murder Erdogan and carry out regime change in Turkey.

Erdogan responded to the coup by stepping up the war against the Kurds and imposing a state of emergency, seeking to strangle all political opposition. Ankara also maneuvered closer to Moscow and Tehran, setting up talks in Astana for a “solution” to the Syria war. And Erdogan ordered the Turkish army to launch its own invasions of Syria, “Operation Euphrates Shield” (in August 2016) and “Operation Olive Branch” (in January 2018), directed against the YPG.

The brief warming of US-Turkish relations that followed the gruesome state murder on October 2 of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul appears to have quickly ended. Ankara clearly saw the investigation of the Khashoggi assassination as a means of promoting Turkish interests in relation to Riyadh and Washington. It had shared tense relations with both the Saudi regime and US imperialism, including over the Saudi blockade of Qatar, a key Turkish ally, and the US alliance with the YPG in Syria.

Erdogan sought to improve relations with Washington by investigating the killing of Khashoggi, who worked extensively for US publications, including the Washington Post. Ankara also released US pastor Andrew Brunson, whom it had accused of helping prepare the 2016 coup. But Washington soon dropped the Khashoggi murder, focusing instead on strategies for intensifying the war in Syria.

Ankara is responding by moving closer to the European powers and seeking to exploit their growing differences with Washington. It joined a new mechanism with Germany, France and Russia to work out a peace deal in Syria acceptable to the European imperialist powers. An inconclusive October 27 Istanbul summit on Syria, hosted by Erdogan, was attended by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and Russia President Vladimir Putin.

After the summit, they called for a new Syrian constitution to be drafted before the end of this year, “paving the way for free and fair elections,” according to a joint statement.

Visiting Tokyo on Tuesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu also criticized US sanctions against Iran, which have been the subject of escalating conflict between Washington and the European powers. “While we were asking (for) an exemption from the United States, we have also been very frank with them that cornering Iran is not wise,” he said. “Turkey is against sanctions, we don’t believe any results can be achieved through the sanctions.”

Sri Lankan political coup: Rajapakse makes bogus promises to ease social crisis

Saman Gunadasa

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse, installed in a political coup on October 26, has also appropriated the post of finance and economic affairs minister. Last week, in a bid to deflect the opposition of working people, he announced cosmetic measures to ease the economic and social crisis facing workers, peasants and the poor.

Rajapakse is trying to paint himself as “people-friendly” in contrast to Ranil Wickremesinghe who was unconstitutionally sacked as prime minister by President Maithripala Sirisena. In fact, whichever faction of the Sri Lankan ruling class finally consolidates power in the ongoing bitter political struggle, it will certainly deliver further blows to the living conditions of working people.

On Monday, Mangala Samaraweera, former finance minister, responded to Rajapakse’s announcement by warning that the measures would “put the economy in peril” and expressed concern that they would undermine the austerity program dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Rajapakse’s announcements included small reductions in the prices of petrol, diesel, dhal, chickpeas, wheat grain and sugar. Other measures reduced the telecom levy on phone charges from 25 to 15 percent; increased the value added tax (VAT) threshold from 12 million to 24 million rupees; waived interest on farmer’s loans below 50 million rupees for the past three years; and reduced fertiliser prices for crops other than paddy rice by a third.

At the same time, however, Rajapakse claimed that his government was “confident” of achieving the target for 2018 of limiting the budget deficit to around 4.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), so as to support “further fiscal consolidation to provide economic stability.” This figure had been announced previously by the Central Bank and approved by the IMF.

Rajapakse’s remarks are a signal that he will abide by the IMF’s demands, even if it means ditching his latest price and tax reductions. When Wickremesinghe’s government obtained a $US1.5 billion bailout in June 2016, the IMF insisted that the budget deficit be reduced to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2020.

A senior finance ministry official yesterday told the media that several of Rajapakse’s measures could not be implemented immediately, including the reduction of VAT and telephone charges and a proposal to simplify the nation building tax. He said such reductions could be made only next January because cabinet approval was necessary, followed by parliamentary approval of amended regulations.

The Wickremesinghe-Sirisena government ruthlessly attacked living and social conditions as demanded by the IMF. However, Rajapakse’s attempt to pose as people-friendly is utterly false. Between 2005 and January 2015, when he was ousted, Rajapakse’s policies were devastating for working people.

The Rajapakse government resumed the communal war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in mid-2006 and exploited it to divide and suppress the working class. The burden of the huge loans to finance the war was imposed on workers and the poor through increased taxes and the freezing of wages.

Under the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis, Rajapakse’s government deepened its attacks on the working class. In June 2009, it was forced to take a bailout loan and implement the IMF’s austerity demands. In 2011, Katunayake Free Trade Zone workers who protested against changes to the pension fund were violently suppressed by police, who killed one worker. In 2012, police attacked fishermen protesting against increased fuel prices and killed one fisherman.

The economy is now in acute crisis, leaving the Sirisena-Rajapakse government with no room to manoeuvre.

Increased US interest rates have triggered an outflow of more than 85 billion rupees ($US494 million) from the Colombo stock market up to the end of October. The current political impasse since the ousting of Wickremesinghe has resulted in the outflow of another 11 billion rupees.

As a result, there is a balance of payments crunch looming. Over the first seven months of the year, the trade deficit rose to $6.4 billion. Huge debts mean that the servicing bill for 2019 has risen to more than $4 billion. At the same time, the Sri Lankan rupee has depreciated by about 14 percent compared to the US dollar this year, fuelling skyrocketing prices for imports.

Commenting on the country’s political standoff, the Fitch rating agency warned last week that “policy decisions that derail the IMF program or lead to a loss of investor confidence could increase external financing challenges.” Referring to the country’s worsening debt situation, Fitch effectively signalled a possible downgrading of the country’s rating.

IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice told the media this week that the IMF had taken note “of recent developments.” While he said it was “premature” to assess the implications for the IMF’s program for the country, some economists have expressed doubts that the IMF will deliver the final $250 million installment of its bailout loan.

The US and its allies have already expressed concern about Wickremesinghe’s removal as prime minister and backed his call for the immediate reconvening of parliament as a means of demonstrating his majority. Washington is opposed to a government led by Rajapakse as it considers him pro-China. The US could well try to push the IMF to withhold its final installation as a means of putting pressure to reinstall Wickremesinghe.

Facebook and Twitter intensify censorship in 2018 elections

Kevin Reed 

Stepping up its online censorship less than a day before polls opened for the 2018 mid-term elections, Facebook announced on Monday the shutdown of 115 social media accounts on its Facebook and Instagram platforms. Nathanial Gleicher, Head of Cybersecurity Policy at Facebook wrote in a newsroom blog post that US law enforcement had “contacted us about online activity that they recently discovered and which they believe may be linked to foreign entities.”

The 30 Facebook and 85 Instagram accounts were blocked, according to Gleicher, because they “may be engaged in coordinated inauthentic behavior” and some of the accounts “appear to be in the French or Russian languages.” Acknowledging the threadbare character of the assertions, Gleicher also wrote that Facebook had not even completed an investigation before shutting down the accounts. He added, “Once we know more—including whether these accounts are linked to the Russia-based Internet Research Agency or other foreign entities—we will update this post.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reported on November 2 that Twitter had deleted 10,000 “automated accounts” in September and October that “wrongly appeared to be from Democrats” and “discouraged people from voting” on election day. Admitting the political motivation behind the censorship, the report said that Twitter took that action “after the party flagged the misleading tweets to the social media company.”

Reuters additionally reported that three sources “familiar with the Democrats’ effort” confirmed that the request to shut down the accounts came from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), an organization that is devoted to the election of Democrats to the House of Representatives. The DCCC was launched after the 2016 presidential elections in response to the barrage of social media posts indicting presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as a stooge of Wall Street, among other things.

Twitter has acknowledged working closely with federal law enforcement, ruling governments around the world and the political parties of the US ruling elite. Del Harvey, Twitter’s head of Trust and Security, told the New York Times that the company began asking for help in 2016. It began coordinating with Homeland Security and is now in regular contact with the FBI and secretaries of state for various states, as well as Democratic and Republican campaign committees and nonprofits that track misinformation, Ms. Harvey said.

The latest censorship measures have been taken for two reasons: (1) to prove to the two-party political establishment that Facebook and Twitter are willing and active participants in the stifling of online speech; and (2) to perfect anti-democratic methods in the era of mass online communications, in cooperation with state institutions, against the growing struggles of the working class and young people.

The pre-election day censorship comes on the heels of the October 26 announcement by Facebook that it had removed 82 pages, accounts and groups “that originated in Iran” for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior on its Facebook and Instagram social media platforms. No evidence was presented to substantiate this claim of Iranian influence other than “some overlap with the Iranian accounts and Pages we removed in August.”

As was the case in August, the latest Facebook censorship moves are specifically directed against left-wing and oppositional content on Facebook that is critical of government policies in the US and UK. Under the cover of unprovable claims of inauthentic behavior—an Orwellian phrase that purports to identify people and organizations who misrepresent themselves on social media—Facebook has dropped any reference to “fake news” and is engaging in outright censorship of free speech.

In a Facebook Newsroom post, Gleicher wrote that the shuttered accounts, groups and pages “posted about politically charged topics such as race relations, opposition to the President, and immigration.” Exposing the preposterous and unsubstantiated claims of Iranian influence, Gleicher added, “It’s still early days and while we have found no ties to the Iranian government, we can’t say for sure who is responsible.”

Gleicher shared examples of several posts taken down by Facebook. Among them was a meme of Donald Trump that stated a well-known fact: “The Worst and Most Hated President in American History!” Another contained a widely reported quote by British Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn from December 2015 regarding Trump’s anti-Muslim travel ban: “The idea that somehow or other you can deal with all the problems in the world by banning a particular religious group from entering the USA is offensive and absurd.”

As further justification for shutting down the 30 pages, 33 accounts and three groups on Facebook as well as 16 accounts on Instagram, Gleicher incredibly pointed to $100 in social media advertising and seven events which 110 people expressed interest in attending. He added, “We cannot confirm whether any of these events actually occurred.”

The pre-election censorship moves are the result of a collaboration between members of Facebook’s election “war room,” US and UK government officials and law enforcement, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Lab and other unnamed technology companies. Facebook now has more than 20,000 people on its staff working on “safety and security” issues and has also engaged a frantic implementation of artificial intelligence technologies aimed at scanning and moderating the social media activity of its nearly two billion users.

According to a report in the New York Times, Facebook launched an election “war room” at its Menlo Park, California campus in mid-September supported by 300 employees. The ostensible purpose of the initiative was to root out “foreign meddling” on its platform in the run up to the midterm US elections. Monitoring political activity on Facebook has become a top priority according to Samidh Chakrabarti, who leads Facebook’s elections and civic engagement team. He said, “We see this as probably the biggest company-wide reorientation since our shift from desktops to mobile phones.”

The open censorship of “divisive” content on Facebook is part of the adoption by the Silicon Valley tech monopolies of a strategic shift away from “unmediated free speech” on the Internet. As explained in a recently leaked internal Google briefing called “The Good Censor,” the “early utopian period of the Internet has collapsed under the weight of bad behavior” and the tech companies are moving away from a commitment to “the American tradition that prioritizes free speech for democracy over civility” in favor of “civility over freedom.”

This policy shift mirrors the demands by US Congressional figures that the social media monopolies must be placed under government regulation. It also corresponds to the completely false assertion in the capitalist media that the Internet—a technology that heralds an era of unprecedented democratic potential and the unification of people around the world—is responsible for the growth of extreme right-wing and fascistic political tendencies worldwide.

Meanwhile, the mainstream corporate media has mobilized behind censorship by the social media monopolies. Readers will search in vain for a news report or analysis that does not accept without a shred of criticism the unproven assertions about Iran-backed “bad behavior” on Facebook and “automated accounts” on Twitter.

This is true of the New York Times as well as major tech publications such as Wired magazine along with the online journals of the pseudo-left such as Jacobin and Socialist Worker. Their complicity and silence on these questions has allowed the far right such as Breitbart and InfoWars to posture as opponents of online censorship and defenders of free speech.

The World Socialist Web Site has been in the forefront of the fight against Internet censorship since the summer of 2017 following Google’s suppression of results on its search engine directed to our site. We have consistently explained that the fight to defend democratic rights and free speech is bound up with the struggle of the working class against the capitalist system and for socialism.

Masters in Research and Innovation in Higher Education (MARIHE) Scholarships 2019/2020 for International Students – Erasmus Mundus

Application Deadline: 5th December 2018, 11:00 p.m., central European time

Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at (country): 

• Danube University Krems, Austria
• Beijing Normal University, China
• University of Applied Sciences Osnabrueck, Germany
• University of Tampere, Finland
• Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest / HUNGARY
• Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (deemed to be University) Punjab, INDIA

Field of Study: View all eligible programs via the Universities’ links in the webpage (link below)

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Applicants to the MARIHE programme must:

• hold a first university degree
• show a strong motivation and interest
• have sufficient knowledge of English for academic purposes

Other acceptable ways of indicating English language proficiency are:

• proof of a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree delivered in English from a university in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom or United States, excluding MBA degrees and online degrees, with the applicant having stayed in the respective country when studying for the degree.
• proof of secondary education conducted in English language in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom or United States.

In addition to submitting proof of an adequate degree or secondary education as described, applicants may also be interviewed before being exempted.

Selection Criteria: All eligible applications to MARIHE will be reviewed by members of the MARIHE Consortium partners. The reviewers will assess:

• the applicant’s academic quality, judged primarily from the results of prior university studies.
• the applicant’s motivation and justification of the application in relation to prior studies, work experience (if applicable) and future career plans towards the aims of MARIHE, judged from the letter of motivation in combination with CV and the two letters of recommendation.
• the applicant’s personal skills, judged from the results of prior studies and the letters of recommendation.
• the applicant’s English language skills, judged from the certificate provided.

The scores from the review will form a ranked list of applications which will be used for student selection by the MARIHE Admission Board. In the event that two or more applications on this ranked list show the same score the Admission Board will decide on their ranking.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded. The Erasmus Mundus scholarship covers tuition fees and allows to cover all expenses that non-EU students normally face during their studies.

Duration of Scholarship: Two years. September 2019 – August 2020

How to Apply: MARIHE only accepts electronic applications submitted through the MARIHE application Database.
It is important to go through the Application requirements and before applying.


Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

100 Jim Ovia Scholars Program 2019 for Nigerian Students

Application Deadline: 26th December 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (university): Nigerian universities

Eligible Field of Study: All courses offered at Nigerian universities

About Scholarship: The Jim Ovia Scholarships was founded since 1998. It is fully funded by Mr. Jim Ovia to provide financial aid to outstanding Nigeria youths. The scholarship was previously known as the MUSTE scholarship. Since October 2010, Mr. Ovia has invested over 100 Million Naira in the program to support 1500 beneficiaries and counting.
In establishing the Jim Ovia Scholarships, Mr. Ovia hoped to create a network of future leaders within Nigeria who can compete globally with their peers, bring new ideas, creativity and are committed to improving the lives and circumstances of people in their respective communities.
Over time it is expected that the Jim Ovia Scholarship beneficiaries will become leaders in helping to address challenges related to health, technology, and finance, all areas in which the foundation is deeply engaged.

Offered Since: 1998

Type: undergraduate and graduate degrees

Eligibility: The scholarship is open to all potential students of Nigerian citizenship. One hundred (100) awardees are selected each year from a pool of eligible applicants.

Selection Criteria: Scholarships are awarded on the basis of personal intellectual ability, leadership capability and a desire to use their knowledge to contribute to society throughout Nigeria by providing service to their community and applying their talent and knowledge to improve the lives of others.

Number of Awards: The scheme offers an average of 100 opportunities each year for new applicants while renewing applicants are supported annually, conditional on meeting all eligible requirements of the scholarship

Value of Program: Scholarship covers tuition fee and maintenance allowances up to 150,000.

Duration of Program: for the period of the program

How to Apply: Apply here
It is important for interested applicants to visit the Application Guide and read the FAQs for information on how to apply.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Scholarship Provider: Jim Ovia Foundation

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Scholarships 2019/2020 for Study in Europe

Application Deadline: Most consortia will require applications to be submitted between October and January, for courses starting the following academic year.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: EU and Non-EU Countries

To be taken at (country): European Universities/Institutions participating under approved Erasmus Mundus Action Joint Programmes.

Eligible Fields of Study: See links below

About the Award: About 116 Masters courses are supported by the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMDs) scholarships. The field(s) of study covered are usually: Agriculture and Veterinary, Engineering, Manufacture and Construction, Health and Welfare, Humanities and Arts, Science, Mathematics and Computing, Social Sciences, Business and Law.

Type: Masters (Degree)

Eligibility: Erasmus Mundus Joint Programme defines its own selection criteria and admission procedures. Students or scholars should contact the Consortium offering the Masters Programmes for more information.

Number of Awardees: Not specified.

Value of Scholarship: The programme offers full-time scholarships and/or fellowships that cover monthly allowance, participation costs, travelling and insurance costs of the students.  Scholarship amounts can vary according to the level of studies, the duration of studies, and the scholar’s nationality (scholarships for non-EU students are higher than for EU students).

Duration of Scholarship: EMJMDs last between 12 and 24 months.

How to Apply: Students, doctoral candidates, teachers, researchers and other academic staff should address their applications directly to the selected Erasmus Mundus masters and doctoral programmes (Action 1) and to the selected Erasmus Mundus partnerships (Action 2), in accordance with the application conditions defined by the selected consortium/partnership

You are advised to consult in advance the websites of each of the Erasmus Mundus Joint Programmes that interest you. There you will find all necessary information concerning the content of the course, its structure, the scholarship amounts as well as the application and selection procedures. Deadline varies depending on the programme but falls around December to January.
It is important to visit the official website (link below) and an EMJMD site for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Award Provider: European Commission

Erasmus Mundus Scholarships in Journalism, Media and Globalization 2018/2020

Application Deadline: 10th January, 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: international

To be taken at (country): A consortium of eight universities from Europe, North and South America, and Australia run the Erasmus Mundus Journalism Master’s.

Eligible Field of Study: Journalism, Media and Globalisation

About Scholarship: As the Mundus Journalism programme is selected by the EU to receive Mundus scholarships (€34.000/€47.000) for EU/non-EU nationals respectively), the Mundus Journalism Consortium is able to offer a number of scholarships for the programmes running in 2017-2020. All Mundus Journalism students, who do not receive an Erasmus Mundus scholarship, can apply for an Erasmus+ stipend for the second year of the Mundus Journalism studies.

Type: Masters degree

Eligibility: 

• Students fulfilling the eligibility criteria for both Category A and B (students with a double nationality) must select the Category of their choice. As a result, they are only entitled to apply to one of the two categories of scholarships.
• Students must have obtained a first higher education degree before the course start of the Mundus Journalism
• Individuals who have already benefited from an Erasmus Mundus scholarship for a Master’s programme are not eligible for a second scholarship for another Erasmus Mundus Master’s programme
• Students benefiting from an Erasmus Mundus scholarship cannot benefit from another European Commission grant while pursuing their Erasmus Mundus Master’s studies.

Selection Criteria: During the admission process, all applications are assessed and graded in each of the categories below:

• Academic background
  The applicant’s academic ability, previous academic record and academic references.
• Journalism experience
  Based on the applicant’s examples of journalistic work and references.
• Motivation
  Based on the applicant’s personal statement – strong, clear statement that demonstrates the applicant’s motivation, commitment and relevant skills.
• Life experience
  Based on the applicant’s personal statement, CV and reference letters – cultural awareness, organisational skills, language ability, international experience, etc.
• Language skills
  In addition, applicants are expected to have a minimum Academic IELTS band score of 7.0 if they are not native English speakers (we only accept IELTS tests). Applicants who want to study at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chili are expected to submit a certified copy of their DELE results or other documentation of their Spanish skills if they are not native Spanish speakers.

Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:

• Category A scholarships (for international students) are expected to be worth €47,000.
• Category B scholarships (for European students) are expected to be worth €34,000.

Duration of Scholarship: for the duration of the program

How to Apply: To apply for the Mundus Journalism programme you will have to fill in an online application form as well as sending an email with a PDF-version of the required documents.
It is important to go through the Application requirements and admission process on the Program Webpage (see link below) before applying.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Sponsors: European Commission

Important Notes: Please note that both the application form and ALL supporting documents must be sent in before the deadline – 10 January: otherwise your application cannot be considered.

Is Peace at Hand in Afghanistan?

Conn Hallinan

The news that the Americans recently held face-to-face talks with the Taliban suggests that longest war in U.S. history may have reached a turning point. But the road to such a peace is long, rocky, and plagued with as many improvised explosive devices as the highway from Kandahar to Kabul.

That the 17-year old war has reached a tipping point seems clear.

The Taliban now controls more territory than they have since the American invasion in 2001. Casualties among Afghan forces are at an all time high, while recruitment is rapidly drying up. In spite of last year’s mini-surge of U.S. troops and air power by the Trump administration, the situation on the ground is worse now than in was in 2017.

If any one statement sums up the hopelessness — and cluelessness — of the whole endeavor, it was former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s challenge to the Taliban: “You will not win a battlefield victory. We may not win one, but neither will you.”

Hearts and Minds

Of course, like any successful insurgency, the Taliban never intended to “win a battlefield victory” — only not to lose, thus forcing a stalemate that would eventually exhaust their opponents. Clearly the lessons of the Vietnam War are not part of the standard curriculum at Foggy Bottom.

Why things have gone from bad to worse for the U.S./NATO occupation and the Kabul government has less to do with the war itself than a sea change in strategy by the Taliban, a course shift that Washington has either missed or ignored. According to Ashley Jackson of the Overseas Development Institute, the Taliban shifted gears in 2015, instituting a program of winning hearts and minds.

The author of the new strategy was Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, who took over the organization following the death of founder Mullah Omar in 2013. Instead of burning schools, they staff them. Instead of attacking government soldiers and police, they strike up informal ceasefires, and even taking turns manning checkpoints. They set up courts that aren’t tainted by corruption, collect taxes, and provide health services.

Mansour also made efforts to expand the Taliban from its Pashtun base to include Tajiks and Uzbeks. According to Jackson, both ethnic groups — generally based in northern Afghanistan — have been appointed to the Taliban’s leadership council, the Rahbari Shura.

Afghanistan’s main ethnic divisions consists of 40 percent Pashtuns, 27 percent Tajiks, 10 percent Hazara, and 10 percent Uzbeks.

It’s not clear how much of the country the Taliban controls. NATO claims the group dominates only 14 percent of the country, while the Kabul government controls 56 percent. But other analysts say the figure for Taliban control is closer to 50 percent, and a BBC study found that the insurgents were active in 70 percent of the country.

Jackson says the “Taliban strategy defies zero-sum notions of control” in any case, with cities and district centers under government authority, surrounded by the Taliban. “An hour’s drive in any direction from Kabul will put you in Taliban territory.”

Taliban leaders tell Jackson that the group is looking for a peace deal, not a battlefield victory, and the new approach of governance seems to reflect that.

That’s not to suggest that the group has somehow gone pacifist, as a quick glance at newspaper headlines for October makes clear: “Taliban assassinate Afghan police chief,” “Taliban attack kills 17 soldiers,” “On 17th anniversary of U.S. invasion 54 are killed across Afghanistan.”

A Decentralized Taliban

The Taliban aren’t the centralized organization that they were during the 2001 U.S./NATO invasion. The U.S. targeted Taliban primary and secondary leaders — Mansour was killed by an American drone strike in 2016 — and the group’s policies may vary from place to place depending who’s in charge.

In Helmand in the south, where the Taliban control 85 percent of the province, the group cut a deal with the local government to open schools and protect the staff. Some 33 schools have been re-opened.

In many ways there’s an alignment of stars right now, because most of the major players inside and outside of Afghanistan have some common interests. The problem is that the Trump administration sees some of those players as competitors, if not outright opponents.

The Afghans are exhausted, and one sign of that is how easy it’s been for Taliban and local government officials to work together. While the Taliban can still overrun checkpoints and small bases, U.S. firepower makes taking cities prohibitively expensive. At the same time, the U.S. has dialed down its counterinsurgency strategy, and, along with government forces, redeployed to defend urban areas.

The Taliban and the Kabul government also have a common enemy: the Islamic State (IS), which, while not a major player yet, is expanding. The growth of the IS and other Islamic insurgent groups is a major concern for other countries in the region, in particular those that share a border with Afghanistan: Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan.

Regional Terrorism

But this is where things get tricky, and where no alignment of stars may be able to bring all these countries into convergence.

Pakistan, China, Iran, and Russia are already conferring on joint strategies to bring the Afghan war to a conclusion and deepen regional cooperation around confronting terrorism. China is concerned with separatists and Islamic insurgents in its western provinces. Russia is worried about the spread of the IS into the Caucasus region. Iran is fighting separatists on its southern border, and Pakistan is warring with the IS and its home-grown Taliban. And none of these countries are comfortable with the U.S. on their borders,

Russia, China, and Pakistan are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and Iran has applied to join. The SCO consults on issues around trade and energy, but also security. While India is also a member, its relationship to Afghanistan is colored by its competition with Pakistan and China. New Delhi has border issues with China and has fought three wars with Pakistan over Kashmir, but it too is worried about terrorism.

All of these countries have been discussing what to do about ending the war and getting a handle on regional terrorism.

A Way Out

A path to end the war might look like this:

First, a ceasefire in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the Kabul government and a pull back of American troops. The argument that if the U.S. withdrew, the Kabul government would collapse and the Taliban take over as they did during the civil war in 1998 is really no longer valid. Things are very different locally, regionally, and internationally than they were two decades ago.

The Taliban and the Kabul government know neither can defeat the other, and the regional players want an end to a war that fuels the kind of terrorism that keeps them all up at night.

The SCO could agree to guarantee the ceasefire, and, under the auspices of the United Nations, arrange for peace talks. In part this is already underway, since the Americans are talking to the Taliban, although Washington raised some hackles in Kabul by doing so in secret. Transparency in these negotiations is essential.

One incentive would be a hefty aid and reconstruction package.

There are a number of thorny issues. What about the constitution? The Taliban had no say in drawing it up and are unlikely to accept it as it is. What about women’s right to education and employment? The Taliban say they now support these, but that hasn’t always been the case in areas where the group dominates.

The Trump Factor

All this will require the cooperation of the Trump administration, and there’s the rub.

If one can believe Bob Woodward’s book Fear, Trump wants out and the U.S. military and the CIA are trying to cut their losses. As one CIA official told Woodward, Afghanistan isn’t just the grave of empires, it’s the grave of careers.

However, Washington has all but declared war on Iran, is in hostile standoffs with Russia and China, and recently cut military aid to Pakistan for being “soft of terrorism.” In short, landmines and ambushes riddle the political landscape.

But the stars are in alignment if each player acts in its own self-interest to bring an end to the bloodshed and horrors this war has visited on the Afghan people.

If all this falls apart, however, next year will have a grim marker: Some young Marine will step on a pressure plate in a tiny rural hamlet, or get ambushed in a rocky pass, and come home in an aluminum casket from a war that began before he or she was born.

Why Is Israel Afraid of Khalida Jarrar?

Ramzy Baroud

When Israeli troops stormed the house of Palestinian parliamentarian and lawyer, Khalida Jarrar, on April 2, 2015, she was engrossed in her research. For months, Jarrar had been leading a Palestinian effort to take Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Her research on that very evening was directly related to the kind of behavior that allows a group of soldiers to handcuff a respected Palestinian intellectual, throwing her in jail with no trial and with no accountability for their action.

Jarrar was released after spending over one year in jail in June 2016, only to be arrested once more, on July 2, 2017. She remains in an Israeli prison.

On October 28 of this year, her ‘administrative detention’ was renewed for the fourth time.

There are thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, most of them held outside the militarily Occupied Palestinian Territories, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

However, nearly 500 Palestinians fall into a different category, as they are held without trial, detained for six-month periods that are renewed, sometimes indefinitely, by Israeli military courts with no legal justification whatsoever. Jarrar is one of those detainees.

Jarrar is not beseeching her jailers for her freedom. Instead, she is keeping busy educating her fellow female prisoners on international law, offering classes and issuing statements to the outside world that reflect not only her refined intellect, but also her resolve and strength of character.

Jarrar is relentless. Despite her failing health – she suffers from multiple ischemic infarctions, hypercholesterolemia and was hospitalized due to severe bleeding resulting from epistaxis – her commitment to the cause of her people did not, in any way, weaken or falter.

The 55-year-old Palestinian lawyer has championed a political discourse that is largely missing amid the ongoing feud between the Palestinian Authority’s largest faction, Fatah, in the Occupied West Bank and Hamas in besieged Gaza.

As a member of the Palestine Legislative Council (PLC) and an active member within the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Jarrar has advocated the kind of politics that is not disconnected from the people and, especially, from the women who she strongly and uncompromisingly represents.

According to Jarrar, no Palestinian official should engage in any form of dialogue with Israel, because such engagement helps legitimize a state that is founded on genocide and ethnic cleansing, and is currently carrying out various types of war crimes; the very crimes that Jarrar tried to expose before the ICC.

Expectedly, Jarrar rejects the so-called ‘peace process’, a futile exercise that has no intention or mechanism that is aimed at “implementing international resolutions related to the Palestinian cause and recognizing the fundamental rights of the Palestinians.”

It goes without saying that a woman with such an astute, strong position, vehemently rejects the ‘security coordination’ between the PA and Israel, seeing such action as a betrayal to the struggle and sacrifices of the Palestinian people.

While PA officials continue to enjoy the perks of ‘leadership’, desperately breathing life into a dead political discourse of a ‘peace process’ and a ‘two state solution’, Jarrar, a Palestinian female leader with a true vision, subsists in HaSharon Prison. There, along with dozens of Palestinian women, she experiences daily humiliation, denial of rights and various types of Israeli methods aimed at breaking her will.

But Jarrar is as experienced in resisting Israel as she is in her knowledge of law and human rights.

In August 2014, as Israel was carrying out one of its most heinous acts of genocide in Gaza – killing and wounding thousands in its so-called ‘Protective Edge’ war – Jarrar received an unwelcome visit by Israeli soldiers.

Fully aware of Jarrar’s work and credibility as a Palestinian lawyer with an international outreach – she is the Palestine representative in the Council of Europe – the Israeli government unleashed their campaign of harassment, which ended in her imprisonment. The soldiers delivered a military edict ordering her to leave her home in al-Bireh, near Ramallah, for Jericho.

Failing to silence her voice, she was arrested in April the following year, beginning an episode of suffering, but also resistance, which is yet to end.

When the Israeli army came for Jarrar, they surrounded her home with a massive number of soldiers, as if the well-spoken Palestinian activist was Israel’s greatest ‘security threat.’

The scene was quite surreal, and telling of Israel’s real fear – that of Palestinians, like Khalida Jarrar, who are able to communicate an articulate message that exposes Israel to the rest of the world.

It was reminiscent of the opening sentence of Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial: “Somebody must have made a false accusation against Joseph K., for he was arrested one morning without having done anything wrong.”

Administrative detention in Israel is the re-creation of that Kafkaesque scene over and over again. Joseph K. is Khalida Jarrar and thousands of other Palestinians, paying a price for merely calling for the rights and freedom of their people.

Under international pressure, Israel was forced to put Jarrar on trial, levying against her twelve charges that included visiting a released prisoner and participating in a book fair.

Her other arrest, and the four renewals of her detention, is a testament not just to Israel’s lack of any real evidence against Jarrar, but for its moral bankruptcy as well.

But why is Israel afraid of Khalida Jarrar?

The truth is, Jarrar, like many other Palestinian women, represents the antidote of the fabricated Israeli narrative, relentlessly promoting Israel as an oasis of freedom, democracy and human rights, juxtaposed with a Palestinian society that purportedly represents the opposite of what Israel stands for.

Jarrar, a lawyer, human rights activist, prominent politician and advocate for women, demolishes, in her eloquence, courage and deep understanding of her rights and the rights of her people, this Israeli house of lies.

Jarrar is the quintessential feminist; her feminism, however, is not mere identity politics, a surface ideology, evoking empty rights meant to strike a chord with western audiences.

Instead, Khalida Jarrar fights for Palestinian women, their freedom and their rights to receive proper education, to seek work opportunity and to better their lives, while facing tremendous obstacles of military occupation, prison and social pressure.

Khalida in Arabic means “immortal”, a most fitting designation for a true fighter who represents the legacy of generations of strong Palestinian women, whose ‘sumoud’ – steadfastness – shall always inspire an entire nation.