14 Nov 2018

Chinese regime cracks down on student labour activists

Robert Campion

At least 12 workers and student activists have been detained in police raids in China since last Friday in a desperate attempt to suppress growing labour unrest. The crackdown is another sign of growing unrest in the Chinese working class and fear in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime that the involvement of students will politicise the strikes and protests.
Initial media coverage on Sunday reported that dark-clothed men had been beating and kidnapping activists into black cars in the cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou on Friday. According to friends of the activists, many of them were recent graduates of elite universities prominent in campaigns to defend the rights of workers.
According to the New York Times, unidentified men descended on the campus of Peking University in Beijing around 10 p.m. Friday searching for Zhang Shengye, a recent graduate. An eyewitness called Yu Tianfu reported that Zhang was beaten and dragged into a car.
“Who are you? Why are you doing this?” Mr. Yu said he asked the men. “I’ll beat you more if you dare shout again,” one of the men responded, according to Mr. Yu.
Four other students and alumni were arrested, according to Reuters, who also cited a video posted by a university student who said that he and other nearby students were pushed to the ground and prevented from leaving until they deleted evidence of the incident from their phones.
In a social media post on Sunday, Yu said, “What kind of privilege do they have to completely disregard the law and civil rights? How dare they unscrupulously and arrogantly beat up students and kidnap one at Peking University.”
Yu is now missing, according to his fellow classmates, and his social media account has been deactivated. A collection of posts on the university’s internal messaging board with screenshots of the event has also been taken down.
A spokesman from the university said simply, “Public security organs in accordance with law seized non-campus affiliated persons suspected of committing a crime.”
Zhang’s associates denounced the university as complicit in the seizure, claiming that they “acquiesced to the kidnapping.”
Three more people were violently arrested in the city of Wuhan on Sunday. They were members of the Jasic Workers Support group, which also identified the abductors as police. The group said that one of their members in Wuhan had been pinned to the ground by three officers.
It also reported that two members of their staff were seized in Shenzhen and three in Guangdong Province, along with an unspecified number of other activists. Five of the activists detained in Guangzhou last Friday were released on Tuesday.
The repression by CCP authorities is an attempt to muzzle a long running dispute that began in July, when factory workers at Jasic Technology in Shenzhen went on strike against gruelling work conditions, underpayments of social insurance and excessive workplace fines.
Workers declared that were being treated “like slaves” and demanded the right to establish a trade union. In the course of the struggle, the state-run All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) worked hand-in-glove with management to scuttle the campaign. Thirty workers were beaten and arrested in July. According to the China Labor Bulletin, four of them are still detained, under charges of “gathering a crowd to disrupt public order.”
In response to the crackdown, dozens of students converged from across the country to support the workers. Before they could organise a demonstration, riot police stormed the apartment block in Huizhou where they were staying, detaining forty of them.
Eleven are still in police custody or under some form of house arrest, and the whereabouts of some are unknown. Zhang, who was detained last Friday, was leading the search for some of the activists, according to the Guardian newspaper.
While the media has identified students as Marxists or Maoists, the movement is politically heterogeneous. In interviews in August, they expressed displeasure with the naked self-interest of many of their peers at China’s elite universities and felt the need to tackle the social crisis facing working people.
Zhang told reporters, “We aren’t solely focused on one particular issue. We’re interested in improving society in all kinds of ways, whether it is improving the lives of factory workers, fighting for gender equality or advocating for environmental sustainability.”
Yue described herself as part of a broad, left-wing organisation, “Student activists have been fighting on a wide range of issues—including against sexual harassment and in support of democracy on campus … not everyone in this movement would identify as Marxist, Leninist or Maoist but they are certainly all influenced by Marxism.”
Some of the activists emphasised that they were not calling for a revolutionary change to the government and viewed President Xi Jinping favourably.
The CCP, however, is terrified of a movement of the working class. It recalls the social upheaval that was triggered in 1989 when student protests in Tiananmen Square led to strikes and protests by workers voicing their own class interest that threatened the existence of the regime.
The brutal crackdown in 1989 set the stage for an acceleration of the processes of capitalist restoration, which both greatly expanding the size of the working class and enormously widened the social gulf between the super-wealthy oligarchs that the CCP represents and the vast majority of working people.
The CCP is well aware that it is sitting atop a social powder keg. According to the China Labour Bulletin, 1,332 strikes and collective protests by workers took place in the first nine months of this year, compared to last year’s total of 1,257. These figures, which rely on media reports and contacts in China, greatly underestimate the extent of strikes as many either go unreported or the reports are censored.
The critical issue for students is the political perspective on which to base a political struggle against the CCP apparatus and its police state methods. No amount of pressure will compel it to grant significant concessions.
Moreover, Maoism, or Stalinism with Chinese characteristics, and its program of national autarchy was what opened the door for capitalist restoration and the gross exploitation of the working class. The Trotskyist movement, based on socialist internationalism, has waged a decades-long struggle against Stalinism and provides the revolutionary alternative needed to politically fight the CCP regime.

Israeli terror raid provokes new clashes in Gaza

Bill Van Auken 

Israel and the impoverished Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory of Gaza have teetered on the brink of another all-out war this week. This follows in the wake of a botched terror raid Sunday by Israeli special forces commandos who were sent deep into Gazan territory, provoking an armed clash that left seven Palestinians and an Israeli lieutenant colonel dead.
At least 15 Palestinians have been killed since Sunday, seven of them in the clash with the Israeli commando squad and eight others in air strikes carried out by Israeli F-16 fighter jets and armed drones. Hamas, the bourgeois Islamist party that controls Gaza’s government, responded to the Israeli attack with a barrage of hundreds of rockets and mortar shells against Israel, killing one person, identified as a Palestinian.
Hamas and other Palestinian factions reported on Tuesday that Egypt had brokered a new cease-fire with Israel.
“Egypt’s efforts have been able to achieve a ceasefire between the resistance and the Zionist enemy,” a statement issued by Hamas and the other Palestinian groups said. “The resistance will respect this declaration as long as the Zionist enemy respects it.”
For its part, Israel refused to acknowledge the existence of any such agreement. After a six-hour meeting of Israel’s security cabinet on Tuesday, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement declaring that it had directed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to continue its military operations against Gaza “as necessary.”
The Israeli strikes launched on Monday imposed a reign of terror on the Gazan population, with seemingly every area of the strip a target. Among the structures demolished was the building housing the Hamas-affiliated Al Aqsa TV station.
Another six-story building was reduced to rubble. Located in the city center, it held apartments, a kindergarten, offices and a language training center.
The Israeli military boasted that it had carried out strikes against 160 separate targets. In the densely populated Gaza Strip, these strikes, in blatant violation of international law, have demolished civilian structures and forced hundreds of families from their homes.
On the eve of Sunday’s special forces raid, Netanyahu had made a statement at a press conference that an effort should be made to avoid another major war against Gaza. Israel, the most powerful military force in the Middle East, has repeatedly bombed and invaded the territory since unilaterally withdrawing its troops and settlers in 2005—most recently in its 2014 “Operation Protective Edge,” which killed 2,251 Palestinians.
Just before the raid, Netanyahu had also told his cabinet that he was doing “everything I can in order to avoid an unnecessary war” and that a previous cease-fire brokered by Egypt appeared to be holding.
The provocative special forces raid, however, appeared designed to blow up any such truce. The commando squad, some of them dressed up as Palestinian women, penetrated deep into Gazan territory before it was discovered by a Hamas security team. Hamas has charged that the team’s aim was to assassinate or abduct a Hamas military commander. Nour el-Deen Baraka, a battalion commander in Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, was shot dead in the raid.
The Israeli military, which has long pursued a campaign of “targeted assassinations,” denied that the squad was sent in to kill or abduct a Hamas commander. It claimed that the elite troops were conducting an “intelligence” operation.
The Hamas leadership has been attempting to calm the seething anger of Gaza’s population, which has found expression in the wave of “March of Return” protests which saw hundreds of thousands of Palestinians marching on the heavily fortified border between the occupied territory and Israel, demanding an end to the Israeli siege and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the lands from which they were driven by force with the creation of Israel in 1948. Of Gaza’s population of 2 million, at least 1.4 million are either refugees from the 1948 Israeli terror campaign against the Palestinians or their descendants.
The “March of Return” protests, in which at least 233 unarmed demonstrators have been shot dead by Israeli snipers and more than 20,000 have been wounded, have continued despite the attempt by the Hamas leadership to wind them up on May 15, the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel, marked by Palestinians as Nakba (Catastrophe) Day.
The protests express popular outrage over the intolerable conditions of life imposed by Israel’s siege and occupation, with infrastructure devastated by repeated Israeli bombardments, a lack of water and fuel, an unemployment rate of 53 percent—70 percent for young workers—and more than two-thirds of the population dependent on aid, which the administration of Donald Trump has slashed.
Last Friday, Rami Wael Ishaq Qahman, 28, died after being shot through the neck with a live round while protesting at the border. Another 37 Palestinians, including six children and 10 women, were wounded. The international media has long since stopped paying any attention to this bloodletting by the Israeli military, treating it as a matter of course.
The latest cease-fire has provoked a furious wave of recriminations within Netanyahu’s right-wing Zionist government.
Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s office released a statement denying media reports that he had supported an end to Israeli strikes on Gaza. It read: “The defense minister’s stance is consistent and hasn’t changed. [News reports of] Lieberman’s support of halting attacks are fake.”
Education Minister Naftali Bennett released a similar statement denying he supported any kind of cease-fire.
The two right-wing Zionist politicians have been vying with each other over who has a tougher policy against the Palestinians amid criticisms of Netanyahu for being too “soft” on Gaza. The bellicose rhetoric is part of the preparations for an anticipated early general election in Israel next year.
Joining in this ugly contest was the leader of the supposed opposition, the Israeli Labor Party, Ehud Barak, who as defense minister presided over the 2008-2009 “Operation Cast Lead,” which killed at least 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza. He bragged last month, “When I was defense minister, more than 300 Hamas members were killed in three and a half minutes in an air force attack,” referring to a strike that killed defenseless police recruits and civilians. In a recent television interview, he described Netanyahu as “weak” and “afraid,” charging that he had “surrendered” to Hamas.
Fueling and abetting this right-wing rampage is the policy of Washington, which has provided its unconditional support to every act of brutality and aggression carried out by the Israeli regime against the Palestinian people. The Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and its cutoff of $364 million to the Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA—30 percent of its funding—are part of a broader strategy aimed at building up an anti-Iranian axis in the Middle East, based upon Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Millions of Palestinians, together with tens of millions in Yemen, are collateral damage in this imperialist drive to assert unchallenged US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East, a crusade that threatens to ignite a wider war with potentially catastrophic implications for the entire region, including Israel.

Sri Lanka crisis escalates as Supreme Court overturns Sirisena’s dissolution of parliament

K. Ratnayake

In a dramatic intensification of the factional conflict raging inside Sri Lanka’s ruling elite, the Supreme Court yesterday issued an interim order overturning President Maithripala Sirisena’s dissolving of the national parliament. The court will issue its final verdict on December 7.
The Supreme Court made its ruling after hearing 12 fundamental rights petitions challenging Sirisena’s dissolution of parliament on November 9. Petitioners included several political parties—the United National Party (UNP), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Tamil National Alliance (TNA)—as well as “civil society” groups and individuals. Five petitions were submitted in support of Sirisena’s proclamation.
The court decision elevates the brawling inside the ruling elite into a major constitutional crisis with a stand-off between Sirisena and the Supreme Court, and also between his recently appointed prime minister, Mahinda Rajapakse and Ranil Wickremesinghe, the previous PM. Wickremesinghe is likely to win a vote of confidence in parliament which is being reconvened today.
Sirisena dissolved parliament late last Friday in violation of the constitution and declared that a general election would be held on January 5 and a new parliament convened on January 17. Yesterday’s Supreme Court interim blocking order also applies to the election date announcement and nominations that were to be lodged between November 19 and November 26.
While lawyers for those opposing Sirisena’s dissolution of parliament argued that it violated the constitution, Attorney-General Jayantha Jayasuriya insisted that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the fundamental rights petitions opposing the dissolution of parliament. The president’s powers in this regard, he declared, are “unambiguous.” The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Nalin Perera, however, decided to hear the petitions.
Dissolution of parliament is one of a series of anti-democratic actions by the Sri Lankan president over the past two weeks. On October 26, in a political coup, he sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, replacing him with the former President Mahinda Rajapakse, and prorogued the parliament until November 16. Facing local and international criticism, Sirisena changed the date to November 14.
The president’s prorogation was a manoeuvre to allow Rajapakse to secure majority support in the parliament. Despite intense horse trading, Rajapakse declared last week that he had been unable to garner the required numbers, prompting Sirisena to dissolve the parliament.
Following yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, the UNP and other opposition parties and groups enthusiastically proclaimed the interim order as a “victory” for democracy and the people.
Workers and youth must reject these claims. The interim order is a manifestation, on a higher and more explosive level, of the deep divisions gripping the Sri Lankan political elite. Workers and the poor cannot defend their social and democratic rights through the political representatives of the bourgeoisie or the judiciary which is another repressive instrument of capitalist state.
The interim order reflects fears in ruling circles that Sirisena’s blatant breaches of the constitution could add further fuel to a growing movement of protests and strikes by workers and the rural masses. If a means of defusing the acute political crisis is not found in the next three weeks, the court could still rule in favour of Sirisena.
Following the court order, UNP leader Wickremesinghe declared in a tweet: “Let’s go forward and re-establish the sovereignty of the people in our beloved country.” He told the media that his party would ‘fight to the last’ to save democracy, the supremacy of parliament, and in defence of the constitution.
Wickremesinghe’s pompous rhetoric echoes the ridiculous claims by Sirisena that his authoritarian actions are to “defend democracy.”
Every faction of the ruling elite has been thrown into crisis about what to do about the mounting economic problems and global geopolitical tensions confronting Sri Lankan capitalism, as well as the deepening social opposition of workers and the poor against the government attacks on their social rights. Sri Lanka’s rival bourgeois parties have never defended the democratic or social rights of the people; their record is one of systematic repression against the masses.
Yesterday, a jubilant JVP general secretary Tilwin Silva interrupted his speech to a public gathering to announce the Supreme Court order. The “conspiracy” of Sirisena and Rajapakse had been defeated, he declared, adding that there would be “more conspiracies” and his party was ready to defeat them.
In fact, the JVP has cynically embraced the UNP’s bogus “defence of democracy” campaign against the machinations of Sirisena and Rajapakse. In January 2015, however, it lined up with Sirisena and Wickremesinghe in a US-backed regime change operation to oust Rajapakse, claiming to be defending democracy from dictatorship.
While the Speaker told MPs that parliament will be convened today, the agenda is not clear. Wickremesinghe told the media that the parliament would demonstrate he has the majority. “We will show that we are the legitimate government,” he said and called on “government servants to follow the Constitution.” He also declared that the police “should adhere” to his instructions.
At a press conference held last night, several ministers from the new so-called Rajapakse government claimed the Speaker had no authority to reconvene the parliament.
More significantly, Sirisena responded to the court order by convening a special meeting last night with Sri Lanka’s national security council and military commanders. No details have been revealed about what instructions he issued but the media has reported that he asked commanders to tighten security across the country. Inspector General of Police Pujitha Jayasundara has also instructed police to curb any violence that may occur.
The US and other major international powers have intensified their pressure on Sirisena following his dissolution of parliament. Sirisena and Rajapakse have both tried to appease international concerns.
Foreign minister Sarath Amunugama called a meeting of all foreign diplomats in Colombo, but according to Reuters, ambassadors from Britain, Netherlands, Norway, France, Australia, South Africa, Italy and Canada did not attend. The European Union, the US and Germany sent representatives and India a junior official.
A US statement criticising the dissolution declared, “President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dissolve Parliament poses a vital threat to Sri Lanka's democratic institutions” and an EU statement said, “A fully functioning Parliament is an essential pillar of democracy.”
Japan yesterday expressed its concerns about the political crisis and “the dissolution of the parliament.” The major powers are not concerned about democracy or social rights of the working class in Sri Lanka or anywhere else.
Washington backed the regime-change operation that brought Sirisena into the presidency in January 2015 and strengthened its military and political relations with Sri Lanka. Its current interventions in the escalating crisis in Colombo are in order to maintain those relations.
While the US and other major powers are currently backing Wickremesinghe, Washington is not averse to working with Rajapakse if he is willing to serve American interests.

13 Nov 2018

African Changemakers Fellowship 2019 (Cohort 3) for African Visionaries

Application Deadline: 30th December 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: African Changemakers Fellowship Program continues to develop African leadership and entrepreneurial skills through training, mentorship, collaboration and a connected network to a global changemakers. You will learn a lot from us and we will learn a lot from you, African Changemakers Fellowship is through a selection application process; selected applicants are enrolled in FREE intensive 5 weeks online training to share, collaborate and learn everything on civic engagement, entrepreneurship, leadership, project management, social enterprise and mentorship.

Type: Fellowship (Professional/Career)

Eligibility: 
  • 25-40 years old
  • A citizen from any of the 54 African countries.
  • Fluent in English – can read and speak in English.
  • Have access to internet, computer, laptop or mobile device to connect to online program.
  • Able to commit a full 5 hours a week to the program.
  • Passionate about using their skills to make positive impact in their community and businesses.
  • Interested in leadership and social enterprise for Africa sustainable development.
  • Can demonstrate leadership and collaborative skills with people.
  • Can demonstrate initiative, self-direction, and a “can-do” attitude
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: African Changemakers Fellowship Program continues to develop African leadership and entrepreneurial skills through training, mentorship, collaboration and a connected network to a global changemakers.

Duration of Program: September – October 2019.

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Commonwealth Professional Fellowships 2019 for Mid-career Professionals in Developing Countries – UK

Application Deadline: 3rd December 2018 4pm (GMT).

Eligible Countries: Developing Commonwealth country

To be taken at: UK Universities

About Scholarship: The Commonwealth  Professional  Fellowships  support  mid-career  professionals  from  developing  Commonwealth countries  to  spend  a  period  of  time  with  a  UK  host organisation  working  in  their  field  for  a  programme  of professional development.

Type: Research, Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible for these fellowship, candidate must:
  • Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
  • Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
  • Have normally at least five years’ relevant work experience in a profession related to the subject of the application, by the proposed start of the fellowship
  • Be available to start your fellowship within prescribed dates as stated on the CSC website
  • Not have undertaken a Commonwealth Professional Fellowship in the last five years
  • Not be seeking to undertake an academic programme of research or study in the UK. Academics are eligible to apply for the scheme, but only to undertake programmes of academic management, not research or courses relevant to their research subject
  • You must be available to undertake the Fellowship during the dates set out by the Host organisation. All Fellowships must start between 15 April 2019 and 17 June 2019.  You should check exact dates with the prospective Host.
Selection Criteria: 2019 applications for Commonwealth Professional Fellowships will be judged on the following criteria:
  • The extent to which the proposed Fellowship will ensure the transfer of skills relevant to the needs of a Commonwealth developing country
  • The extent to which those skills will lead to practical benefits for the developing country following the Fellowship
  • The extent to which the Fellowship will have a catalytic effect, either within the developing country concerned, or in establishing new relationships with the UK
Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: A commonwealth Fellowship covers the living expenses for the Fellow as well as a return airfare to the UK. It also provides funding support to the host organisation, with a budget of up to £3,000 available for attendance at conferences, on short courses, and other eligible costs.

Duration of scholarship: Typically 3-months but could be extended to 6-months

How to Apply: 
  • Once the closing date for Fellows’ applications and references has passed your application will be shared with the Host organisation you have applied to in order for them to review all applications and select the candidates they wish to put forward to the Commission. The Commission will make the final selections of Host organisation programmes and individual Fellows.
  • Access to the Online Application System will be available soon.
Visit the Scholarship Webpage details on how to apply

Flour Mills of Nigeria Plc Graduate Trainee Scheme 2018 for Young Nigerians

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

About the Award: The role belongs to Manufacturing & Operations Job Family.  Successful candidates can over time progress within Power Plant operations, Production and Technical (Engineering) services across the Group.

Type: Job

Eligibility:
  • Not be more than 28 years old and must have completed NYSC by 31st December 2018.
  • Be result oriented and a good team player, with great appetite for fast-paced challenging assignments.
  • Possess good communication, organization skills and display initiative.
  • Be willing and able to move around Nigeria.
QUALIFICATION
  • First degree in Mechanical/Electrical/Production/Chemical Engineering and related courses.
  • Minimum of Second Class Honours (Upper Division)
EXPERIENCE
  • No experience required
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: This is a Paid Job

Duration of Programme: 2 years

How to Apply: Apply in link below

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

AOSpine Middle East and Northern Africa Research Grant Award 2019 for spinal or spinal cord research

Application Deadline: 31st December, 2018
Award winners will be announced in February 2019.

Eligible Countries: Countries in Middle East and Northern Africa

To be taken at (country): Research must be done within the AOSMENA area.

About the Award: AOSpine Middle East and Northern Africa (AOSMENA) established research funding that is available to investigators who have a desire to perform high-quality, clinically relevant spinal or spinal cord research in basic or clinical science.  The purpose of these grants is to encourage new investigators by providing start-up funding of up to 10,000.00 Swiss Francs for one year.  Consideration is given to two-year applications, however, the 2nd year of the grant will require a separate application and peer review.

Type: Grants, Entrepreneurship

Eligibility:
  • The primary applicant must be an active member of AOSMENA.
  • The applicant must be a physician, surgeon, or scientist with focused interest in disorders of the spine/spinal cord and with an appointment at a university or hospital-based research institution.
  • The applicant must not have received this grant in the preceding year.
  • Location: research must be done within the AOSMENA area.
  • · Cost-sharing of projects can only be allowed with local hospitals or societies but not with industry sponsors.
  • · The grant application requires evidence that the investigator has the experience and resources to complete the proposed research.
  • · AOSMENA must be cited as the source of funding in any publication, presentation or in any publicity resulting from the award or its results.
Number of Awards: The number and amount of research grants awarded each year are at the discretion of AOSMENA.

Value of Award: Each award will be in the amount of 10,000.00 Swiss Francs.
Funds will be distributed in the following manner:
  • 5000 Swiss Francs – distributed at the beginning of the 1-year award cycle
  • 5000 Swiss Francs – distributed at 6-month interval.  Subject to the other requirements of these General Guidelines, funds will not be distributed until the 6-month Progress Report (and other Progress Reports as deemed required) has been filed with AOSMENA.
Duration of Programme: 12 months

How to Apply: Applicant must present the following documents:
  • o  Application form: filled and signed
  • o  Letter of intent by primary investigator to AOSMENA.
  • o  CVs of primary, and co-investigators.
  • o  Projected budget.
All applications should be e-mailed to:
Mary Anne Smith
Senior Project Manager​
AOSpine Middle East and Northern Africa


Visit Programme Webpage for Details

SUSDEV Masters Scholarships (VLIR-UOS) 2019/2020 for Students from Developing Countries – K U Leuven

Application Deadline: 1st February 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Belgium

About the Award: This programme trains future sustainability leaders acquainted with the necessary interdisciplinary knowledge, skills and methodologies to address and solve intertwined socio-ecological challenges hindering the construction of more sustainable paths of development.

Type: Masters

Eligibility:
  1. The applicant must be a national and resident of one of the 31 scholarship countries (not necessarily the same country) at the time of application:
    • Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, DR Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Cameroon, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Niger
    • Asia: Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia, Palestinian Territories, Vietnam
    • Latin America: Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Peru
  2. The applicant must be eligible for admittance to the selected Master programme at KU Leuven.
  3. The maximum age for a Master programme candidate is 35 years for an initial masters and 40 years for an advanced masters. The maximum age for a training candidate is 45 years. The candidate cannot succeed this age on January 1 of the intake year.
  4. Application for admission in one of the VLIR ICP programmes listed below leads automatically to a VLIR UOS scholarship application. No further action is needed if you meet all the prerequisites.
Number of Awards: 12

Value of Award: Scholarships are provided for the full duration of the master programme. It is not possible to apply for a partial scholarship.

Duration of Programme: 2 years

How to Apply: Applicants are encouraged to follow the application instructions before applying here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Nuclear Treaties: Unwrapping Armageddon

Conn Hallinan

The decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Force Agreement (INF) appears to be part of a broader strategy aimed at unwinding over 50 years of agreements to control and limit nuclear weapons, returning to an era characterized by the unbridled development weapons of mass destruction.
Terminating the INF treaty—which bans land-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of between 300 and 3400 miles— is not, in and of itself, a fatal blow to the network of treaties and agreements dating back to the 1963 treaty that ended atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. But coupled with other actions—George W. Bush’s decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002 and the Obama administration’s program to upgrade the nuclear weapons infrastructure— the tapestry of agreements that has, at least in part, limited these terrifying creations, is looking increasingly frayed.
“Leaving the INF,” says Sergey Rogov of the Institute of U.S. and Canadian Studies, “could bring the whole structure of arms control crashing down.”
Lynn Rusten, the former senior director for arms control in the National Security Agency Council warns, “This is opening the door to an all-out arms race.”
Washington’s rationale for exiting the INF Treaty is that the Russians deployed the 9M729 cruise missile that the US claims violates the agreement, although Moscow denies it and the evidence has not been made public. Russia countercharges that the US ABM system—Aegis Ashore—deployed in Romania and planned for Poland could be used to launch similar medium range missiles.
If this were a disagreement over weapon capability, inspections would settle the matter. But the White House—in particular National Security Advisor John Bolton—is less concerned with inspections than extracting the US from agreements that in any way restrain the use of American power, be it military or economic. Thus, Trump dumped the Iran nuclear agreement, not because Iran is building nuclear weapons or violating the agreement, but because the administration wants to use economic sanctions to pursue regime change in Teheran.
In some ways, the INF agreement is low hanging fruit. The 1987 treaty banned only land-based medium range missiles, not those launched by sea or air —where the Americans hold a strong edge—and it only covered the U.S. and Russia. Other nuclear-armed countries, particularly China, India, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have deployed a number of medium range nuclear-armed missiles. One of the arguments Bolton makes for exiting the INF is that it would allow the US to counter China’s medium range missiles.
But if the concern was controlling intermediate range missiles, the obvious path would be to expand the treaty to other nations and include air and sea launched weapons. Not that that would be easy. China has lots of intermediate range missiles, because most its potential antagonists, like Japan or US bases in Asia, are within the range of such missiles. The same goes for Pakistan, India, and Israel.
Intermediate range weapons—sometimes called “theater” missiles—do not threaten the US mainland the way that similar US missiles threaten China and Russia. Beijing and Moscow can be destroyed by long-range intercontinental missiles, but also by theater missiles launched from ships or aircraft. One of the reasons that Europeans are so opposed to withdrawing from the INF is that, in the advent of nuclear war, medium-range missiles on their soil will make them a target.
But supposed violations of the treaty is not why Bolton and the people around him oppose the agreement. Bolton called for withdrawing from the INF Treaty three years before the Obama administration charged the Russians with cheating. Indeed, Bolton has opposed every effort to constrain nuclear weapons and has already announced that the Trump administration will not extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) when it expires in 2021.
START caps the number of US and Russian deployed nuclear weapons at 1550, no small number.
The Bush administration’s withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty in 2002 was the first major blow to the treaty framework. Anti-ballistic missiles are inherently destabilizing, because the easiest way to defeat such systems is to overwhelm them by expanding the number of launchers and warheads. Bolton—a longtime foe of the ABM agreement—recently bragged that dumping the treaty had no effect on arms control.
But the treaty’s demise has shelved START talks, and it was the ABM’s deployment in Eastern Europe—along with NATO’s expansion up to the Russian borders—that led to Moscow deploying the cruise missile now in dispute.
While Bolton and Trump are more aggressive about terminating agreements, it was the Obama administration’s decision to spend $1.6 trillion to upgrade and modernize US nuclear weapons that now endangers one of the central pillars of the nuclear treaty framework, the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
That agreement ended the testing of nuclear weapons, slowing the development of new weapons, particularly miniaturization and warheads with minimal yields. The former would allow more warheads on each missile, the latter could increase the possibility of using nuclear weapons without setting off a full-scale nuclear exchange.
Nukes are tricky to design, so you don’t want to deploy one without testing it. The Americans have bypassed some of the obstacles created by the CTBT by using computers like the National Ignition Facility. The B-61 Mod 11 warhead, soon-to-be-deployed in Europe, was originally a city killer, but labs at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos and Sandia, NM turned it into a bunker buster, capable of taking out command and control centers buried deep in the ground.
Nevertheless, the military and the nuclear establishment—ranging from companies such as Lockheed Martin and Honeywell International to university research centers—have long felt hindered by the CTBT. Add the Trump administration’s hostility to anything that constrains US power and the CTBT may be next on the list.
Restarting nuclear testing will end any controls on weapons of mass destruction. And since Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires nuclear-armed powers to eventually disarm their weapons of mass destruction, that agreement may go as well. In a very short time countries like South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia will join the nuclear club, with South Africa and Brazil in the wings. The latter two countries researched producing nuclear weapons in the 1980s, and South Africa actually tested one.
The demise of the INF agreement will edge the world closer to nuclear war. Since medium range missiles shorten the warning time for a nuclear attack from 30 minutes to 10 minutes or less, countries will keep their weapons on a hair trigger. “Use them or lose them” is the philosophy that impels the tactics of nuclear war.
In the past year, Russia and NATO held very large military exercises on one another’s borders. Russian, US and Chinese fighter planes routinely play games of chicken. What happens when one of those “games” goes wrong?
The US and the Soviet Union came within minutes of an accidental war on at least two occasions, and, with so many actors and so many weapons, it will be only a matter of time before some country interprets a radar image incorrectly and goes to DEFCON 1—imminent nuclear war.
The INF Treaty came about because of strong opposition and huge demonstrations in Europe and the United States. That kind of pressure, coupled with a pledge by countries not to deploy such weapons, will be required again, lest the entire tapestry of agreements that kept the horror of nuclear war at bay vanish.

Who is Afraid of American Sanctions?

Elias Akleh

The American administration under Trump has become so addicted to waging economic sanctions; a new form of war, against other countries to a point where it does not hesitate to break international laws, to impose sanctions against its strategic allies, and to face the risk of international condemnation and isolation as a result.
Since his election (selection) as president, Trump has imposed economic sanctions and waged tariff wars against Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Turkey, Sudan, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and many European corporations. All have been added to the still going on 58 years old sanctions against the small island of Cuba; an indication that most sanctions fail to achieve planned results.
In May 2018 Trump announced that the US will withdraw from Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and will re-impose sanctions against Iran claiming the deal was bad for the US and needs to be replaced with another that includes a ban on Iran’s ballistic missiles. On November 5th, Trump has re-instated economic sanctions against Iran aiming to drive Iranian oil exports to zero.
The JCPOA was signed by Iran, US, Germany, England, France, Russia and China, and was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231. It must be emphasized that although Iran has been complying with its commitment to the JPCOA as has been confirmed by Director General of the International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano in September 10th2018, the sanctions against Iran have never been lifted. The JCPOA had resolved only Iran’s nuclear program and its oil trade. Iran restricted its nuclear activities and allowed inspections of its nuclear facilities in exchange for the release of its oil money that was held by international banks.
Re-imposing the sanctions was condemned by the whole international community except, of course, by Israel, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE). The European Union issued a statement regretting the US new sanctions against Iran. It states the following:
“Our aim is to protect European economic actors, who have legitimate commercial exchange with Iran in line with European legislation and the United Nations’ Security Council resolution 2231 … the 2015 agreement is crucial for the security of Europe, the region and the entire world.”
Russia rejected the sanctions and declared them illegal. China declared that it will continue its trade with Iran in confirmation to its commitment to the nuclear deal. South Korean and Indian industries depend greatly on Iranian oil. Iran’s neighbors; Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, consider Iran their major trade partner and their economies would be devastated without such trade.
These particular unilateral American sanctions against Iran are unprecedented illegal and most dangerous events in the American history. For the first time in world history, the US; the host of the United Nations and the Security Council, is violating UNSC resolution 2231. Worst than that, Trump’s administration is threatening to punish other nations; the whole world in fact, who would abide by this particular legal resolution. This constitutes a mockery of international decisions and a criminal blackmail of responsible nations, who seek to uphold international laws and agreements. This American violation of UNSC resolution will marginalize and weaken international organizations such as the UN, SC, ICC, IAEA and others. The present international legal world order would be rendered irrelevant and could be gradually dissolved leading to international chaos.
For the first time in American history, its close allies such as EU, Japan, South Korea, India and even Turkey, firmly opposed the American policies, decided to create new financial and trade mechanism; Special Purpose Vehicle, based on barter system to circumvent American sanctions, and to continue doing business with Iran. Furthermore, the EU declared that its 1969 law would protect all and any European corporation, who wants to do business with Iran, from any lawsuit by non-European courts.
States and corporations started abandoning the use of Petro dollar and American banking systems and are using instead local currencies and local banks to pay for Iranian oil. India and Iran are using Indian currency; the rupees, to trade oil. South Korea is paying for Iranian oil via the Central Bank of Iran’s accounts at Woori Bank and the Industrial Bank of Korea.
All this could usher a new international economic and trade system independent from the hegemonic American financial system. This will gradually isolate the US further and will render its Dollar and its financial banking weaker.
Trump’s “America first” motto is perceived, although not openly expressed, by European leaders as similar to Hitler’s “Deutschland über alles”; “Germany over all” motto, and even more dangerously threatening world peace. Trump called to build the US/Mexico separation wall against “illegal criminal” Hispanic immigrants, imposed unfair trade tariffs against other nations, demanded EU to contribute more money to NATO, withdrew from climate agreement, recognized Jerusalem as capital of Israel in violation of all international agreements,  demanded UN member countries to blindly and automatically adopt American policies because the US is the largest financial contributor to the UN, cut American contributions to world organizations such as UNRWA, threatened to withdraw US from World Trade Organization, sold weapons to Saudi Arabia to continue its terrorist inhumane war against Yemen, is working to cover up the Saudi terrorist support in Syria and its local crimes against its own dissenters and journalists such as Khashoggi’s murder, is imposing unilateral illegal sanctions against other states, and lately but not lastly is withdrawing from nuclear INF treaty to allow the US to deploy advanced nuclear weapons into Europe.
Such policies had caused Donald Tusk; the President of the European Council, to warn of the emergence of “… a new phenomenon; the capricious assertiveness of the American administration … with friends like that who needs enemies… Trump’s doctrine is dangerous for Europe”
In his interview in French with Europe 1 radio Mr. Macron; the French President, criticizing Trump’s move to scrap the INF treaty with Russia that eliminated a whole class of missiles stationed in Europe, had suggested that Europe needs to form its own true European army to defend itself against Russia, China and even the US: “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America.” Macron’s sentiment was endorsed by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. Macron has also rebuked Trump’s nationalist policies in his speech during the WWI armistice centenary ceremony this Sunday Nov. 11th.
These strong oppositions from America’s European allies and the international condemnations of the sanctions against Iran had forced Trump’s administration to ease its sanctions by granting oil waivers to eight countries; Japan, South Korea, India, China, Taiwan, Turkey, Greece and Italy, for a period of six months. European Union did not receive such a waiver, which led Bruno Le Maire; the French economy minister, to complain to The Financial Times about Trump’s bullying stating that “Europe refuses to allow the US to be the trade policeman of the world.”
Trump’s administration is under the illusion that what they call “toughest sanctions” would bring Iran to its knees, and they are trying to sell this illusion to the public as John Bolton; the National Security Advisor, was trying to do on fox news. Bolton asserted that:
“sanctions are having enormous economic consequences … Iran is in a depression … the rial currency declined about 70% … inflation had quadrupled … the country is in recession … riots and demonstrations all around the country.”
The facts show that 40 years of real international toughest sanctions against Iran had failed to even weaken Iran’s economy and resolve. On the contrary, after all the devastation Iran had suffered during the eight years Iraq/Iran war, Iran had successfully flourished back to become one of the strongest economic and military country in the Middle East. During the last decade Iran had adopted what was described as a resistant economical plan that had modernized all Iranian industrial and technological avenues leading to self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Finally, the world was convinced that they could not accomplish any results except through negotiations that led to the 2015 JCPOA.
The American unilateral on-going 58 years long economic sanctions against the small island of Cuba had failed to bring Cuba to its knees, yet, Trump’s administration believes that its own unilateral sanctions against large powerful Iran would yield some results!
One may question what made the Trump’s administration risk losing its international political credibility, lose its closest allies, face isolation, and suffer probable economic and financial losses by imposing doomed to failure sanctions. To find the answer one must consider these sanctions as only one small piece in the puzzle of the New Middle East Project.
It is a very well-known fact by now that a Zionist Jewish elite owns and controls the Federal Reserve and almost most of the western banking systems, which fund Jewish lobbies to influence the foreign policies of most of the Western world for Israel’s benefit. It is also a well-known fact that the latest few American presidents, few of whom were not qualified for the position like Trump, would not have attained the presidency except through Jewish money. For such money and prestigious office, the selected president has to follow the dictates of the Jewish lobby, otherwise he would meet a fate similar to that of assassinated president Kennedy.
The Greater Israel Project was planned for the Middle East. The state of Israel was illegally and forcefully established on occupied Palestinian land. Yet, after three successive generations of Zionist Jewish Israeli soldiers got psychologically and emotionally exhausted by continuous wars, terrorist groups were brought into the region to destroy any Arab resistance axis to the project. Syria was the latest victim.
A military coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah was able to defeat the terrorist groups. This coalition forms an obstacle to the expansionist Greater Israel Project, and might become the seed of a new world order competing with the old American unilateral world order. Trump exposed this fear when he answered reporters who asked him about the effectiveness of the sanctions. He stated:
“when I came in office it looked like Iran would take over the Middle East, it was a question of literally less than years, very quickly, and now nobody is talking about that.”
Trump’s administration seems to have received Zionist orders to destroy this dangerous seed no matter what the cost is, including the use of economic sanctions and MESA; Arab NATO-like alliance.
The establishment of the illegal expansionist terrorist state of Israel in the heart of the Arab World has been the root of all evil in the region for the last hundred years. Unfortunately, as long as Israel exists more devastating wars are in the future of the Middle East, and the whole world will not be spared of its evil effects.

American Gun

David Sparenberg

Another mass shooting in America!  They are so frequent they are anticipated.  I favor stick gun control, and the application of the Second Amendment of the Constitution should be challenged as it now stands before weapons’ technology but continues to be interpreted along antiquated guidelines. How little is commonly known about the original purpose and history of the Second Amendment, founded, as it was, on the fear of slave revolt!   Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are weapons of mass destruction.  Their design is to serve one purpose alone, to kill as many people on the ground as possible, as rapidly as possible.
But gun control laws, which I support, will not change the climate of mass shootings on their own.  As a people, the American people crucially need to overcome the culture of violence and free ourselves from the pandemic fear at our throats—working to end the economics of violence and our being duped into complicity if not conspiracy by the politics of fear.  We fear ourselves, to the same measure as our popular ignorance and over-exposure to negative, shallowing and life demeaning influences.  We fear one another and “the other”—the newest arrival, the outsider, the stranger, our neighbors across the urban jungles, along the roaring, junky littered streets, our neighbor next door, edgily defined by boundaries of private property, fences and suspicion.  Too many here are possessed by the demons of worth contraworthlessness, distrust, hatred.  Demons lurking in the dark compounds of the collective psyche; the abyss of unhealed, unforgiven and unforgiving national history.
This United States of America was founded on shining ideals.  But the United States of America; increasingly with the resources to aspire to empire; became manifest through genocide against indigenous populations,rape and devastation of a continental environment; replacing pristine eco-systems with plots and plans of defoliation and toxicity for profit; and the perfidious, racist institution of slavery.  How much of our fear, our hatreds, our obsession with the American gun, is rooted in this dark history, the nightmare realities buried alive under the broken promises of the American dream?
We cannot discern a truthful answer to this important inquiry until we have more profoundly and integrally confronted and wholeheartedly worked through the unlearned heritage of these obscure and obscene realities. Until we come to terms with denial, deception and euphoric memory loss as the conditional, commodity-based thoughtlessness of American life.
The immediate question therefore is this: How many mass shootings until critical mass, how many more citizens gunned down, until we decide enough is truly enough or, full on, hell bent, we jump into a free-for-all shoot out?  Mass murder takes lives and it also destroys social fabric.  We could then ask the question again: How long before we, as a people, are moving toward a clear conscience and altered consciousness regarding shared life?  Indeed (literally, in-deed) before we make, as a touchstone of community, the process of change to be realized as solid, substantial and sustainable truth:  Guns are not required in the values of American identity, unless, under moral collapse, we accept deadly force as a first and final reaction.But nobody needs to be an outlaw or cowboy; nobody needs to be a gunslinger to be qualified to be an American.
In conversation with a co-worker and friend on the latest mass shootings, he gave voice to an ancient proverb, saying, “When you ride on the tiger’s back, you end up in the tiger’s mouth.”  America is in the tiger’s mouth.  Prying the jaws open again and again is expedient, but not a cure and not a solution.  We stop devouring and being devoured only when the tiger is tamed.  The raging man-eater in individual hearts and minds exorcised.  The raging man-eater in politics and practice—the self-absorbed thinness of alienated, isolated and festering life that prowls, ever present, behind masks and pretense; barely below the eroded surface of our shining ideals, defanged and pacified.
Consider:  Must we be utterly broken, popularly maimed, absolutely terrified for so long and at what loss and suffering before we attain the humility of acceptance and come together in true humanity?  Not as nationalists, to be sure, but as a nation-world of human diversity?  Great perhaps by virtue of affirmations and ethical responsibility, but definitely not subject to political propaganda and not abjectly waiting our turns to become victims or shooters.   On the other hand, what we keep evading under and within the status quo of the American gun is the call to action: Fear poisons decency,
envenoms democracy. On the loaded roulette table of nihilism and absurdity life is cheap and with each loss—the most recent and the upcoming mass shootings (already annually in the hundreds)—life gets cheaper.
Ludwig Binswanger, one of the founders of existential psychoanalysis, studying the rise of totalitarianism in Fascist Europe in the 1930s-40’s said that if we want to understand the future of a nation, we should study that nation’s present-day criminals.  Past is prelude to the present; present prelude to the future.  If this formula is correct and uncorrected, the prognosis for America’s future—under the dictatorshipof the American Gun—is bloody.