Government of Hungary (Stipendium Hungaricum) Scholarship Program 2019/2020 for International Students

Application Deadline: 15th January 2019 (23:59 Central European Time)

Eligible Countries: International. See list of countries below

To be taken at (country): Hungary

Field of Study: Applicants are encouraged to apply for study fields that are in the educational cooperation programmes between Hungary and the specific Sending Partner

About the Award: Thousands of students from all around the world apply for higher educational studies in Hungary each year. The number of Stipendium Hungaricum applicants is continuously increasing as well as the number of available scholarship places.
The programme is based on bilateral educational cooperation agreements signed between the Ministries responsible for education in the sending countries/territories and Hungary or between institutions. Currently more than 50 Sending Partners are engaged in the programme throughout 4 different continents.

Offered Since: 2013

Type: Stipendium Hungaricum scholarships are available for bachelor, master, one-tier master, doctoral and non-degree programmes (preparatory and specialisation courses).
In the Hungarian education system, one-tier master programmes cover both the bachelor and the master level of studies; therefore it is an undivided master programme that results in a master degree. These one-tier programmes are offered in specific study fields such as general medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, architecture, law, veterinary surgery, forestry engineering, etc.

Eligibility: Applications will not be considered in the following cases:

• Hungarian citizens (including those with dual citizenships)
• former Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship Holders, who are re-applying for studies in the same cycle of education (non-degree studies, bachelor, master, doctoral level) including both full time and partial study programmes

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 

• Tuition-free education
  • exemption from the payment of tuition fee

• Monthly stipend
  • non-degree, bachelor, master and one-tier master level: monthly amount of HUF 40 460 (cca EUR 130) contribution to the living expenses in Hungary, for 12 months a year, until the completion of studies
  • doctoral level: according to the current Hungarian legislation, the monthly amount of scholarship is HUF 140 000 (cca EUR 450) for the first phase of education (4 semesters) and HUF 180 000 (cca EUR 580) for the second phase (4 semesters) – for 12 months a year, until completion of studies.

• Accommodation
  • dormitory place or a contribution of HUF 40 000 to accommodation costs for the whole duration of the scholarship period

• Medical insurance
  • health care services according to the relevant Hungarian legislation (Act No. 80 of 1997, national health insurance card) and supplementary medical insurance for up to HUF 65 000 (cca EUR 205) a year/person

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of candidate’s chosen program:

• Bachelor programmes: Fulltime: 2-4 years. Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
• Master programmes:  Fulltime: 1.5-2 years. Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
• One-tier master programmes: Fulltime: 5-6 years Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
• Doctoral programmes:  Fulltime: 2+2 years Partial: 1 or 2 semesters
• Non-degree programmes:
  • Preparatory course in Hungarian language: 1 year
  • Other preparatory and specialisation courses: up to 1 year

List of Eligible Countries: For full time programmes, students can apply from the following Sending Partners: Arab Republic of Egypt, Argentine Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Japan, Kingdom of Cambodia, Kingdom of Morocco, Kurdistan Regional Government/Iraq, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanese Republic, Mongolia, Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Palestine, People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, People’s Republic of China (including the Hudec scholarships), Republic of Albania, Republic of Angola, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Belarus, Republic of Colombia, Republic of Ecuador, Republic of Ghana, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iraq, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Korea, Republic of Kosovo, Republic of Macedonia (FYROM is used at OSCE, UN, CoE, EU and NATO fora), Republic of Moldova, Republic of Namibia, Republic of Paraguay, Republic of Serbia, Republic of South Africa, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Yemen, Russian Federation, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, State of Israel, Syrian Arab Republic, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Tunisian Republic, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Mexican States.

For partial study programmes, students can apply from the following Sending Partners: Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Kingdom of Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanese Republic, Mongolia, People’s Republic of China (only Hudec applicants), Republic of Albania, Republic of Belarus, Republic of India, Republic of Korea, Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Republic of Turkey, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, United Mexican States.

How to Apply: 

• New online application surface of Tempus Public Foundation: here
• Applications shall also be submitted to the responsible authority of the Sending Partner

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

2019/2020 Federal Government Scholarship for Nigerian Undergraduate, Masters and PhD for Study Overseas (Bilateral Educational Agreement)

Application Deadline: The BEA interviews are between 15th January – 19th January 2019 across the six geopolitical zones. Candidates are advised to apply online before these dates.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

About the Federal Scholarship: The Honourable Minister of Education, is hereby inviting interested and qualified Nigerians to participate in the 2019/2020 Nomination Interview for Bilateral Education Agreement (BEA) Scholarship Awards for:
BILATERAL EDUCATION AGREEMENT (BEA)

• Undergraduate (UG) studies tenable in Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Serbia, Hungary, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Cuba, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, Macedonia; and
• Postgraduate (PG) studies tenable in Russia (for those whose first degrees were obtained from Russia), China, Hungary, Serbia, Turkey, Japan, Mexico, South Korea.

NIGERIA AWARD SCHOLARSHIP (NA) 2019/2020 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS TENABLE IN NIGERIA TERTIARY INSTITUIONS FOR NA, SDG (SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS) FOR GIRLS ONLY

Type: The Awards are for Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) studies.

Eligibility Criteria
FOR BILATERAL EDUCATION AGREEMENT (BEA)
• Undergraduate Scholarship:

• All applicants for undergraduate degree courses must possess a minimum qualification of Five (5) Distinctions (As & Bs) in the Senior Secoundary School Certificate, WAEC (May/June) only in the subjects relevant to their fields of study including English Language and Mathematics.
• Certificates should not be more than Two (2) years old (2017 & 2018).
• Age limit is from 18 to 20 years.

• Postgraduate Scholarship:

• All applicants must hold a First Degree with at least 2nd Class Upper Division.
• The applicants who are previous recipients of Foreign Awards must have completed at least two (2) years post qualification or employment practice in Nigeria.
• All applicants must have completed N.Y.S.C.
• Age limit is 35 years for Masters and 40 years for Ph.D.
• Evidence of readiness to be released by employer.

• Since the BEA countries are non-English speaking, applicants should be prepared to undertake a mandatory one year foreign languare of the country of choice which will be the standard medium of instruction; and
• All applicants for Hungarian Scholarship must visit the website before 15th January, 2019.
• Complete the application form online
• Print the completed form and bring to the interview venue in addition to 2.0 above.
FOR NIGERIA AWARD SCHOLARSHIP (NA) 2019/2020 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS TENABLE IN NIGERIA TERTIARY INSTITUIONS FOR NA, SDG (SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS) FOR GIRLS ONLY

• Applicants for Postgraduate studies should possess a minimum of first degree with Second Class Honours Upper Division. Applicant must be registered FullTime students of Federal or State Universities.
• All other applicants (UG, HND &NCE) must be registered full-time students in their second year or above in Federal or State Universities, Polytechnics, Monotechnics and Colleges of Education. All undergraduate Scholarship
  applicants (Physically challenged inclusive) must have at least 4.0 Cumulative Grade Points Aggregate (CGPA) on a five (5) point scale or its equivalents or 5.0 on a 7 point scale.

Number of Scholarships: Several


What are the benefits? 

• The participating countries are responsible for the tuition and accommodation, while Nigeria government takes care of supplement, warm clothing, health insurance, research grant where applicable and take off.
• The Nigeria Award (NA) SDG Scholarship award is to assist the scholar in the payment of:
  • Institutional charges and fees and
  • For Personal maintenance;
  • SDGs Scholarship is for female only.

How long will sponsorship last? The duration of the scholarship offer ranges from 4- 9 years depending on the level of study and the country.

Interview Dates and Zones (Venues): 2019/2020 FSB COMPTER BASED TEST VENUES AND DATES FROM 15TH TO 19TH JANUARY 2019 ARE IN THE Scholarship Webpage Links below

What to bring to Interview: All eligible applicants are to report for interview at the venues scheduled for their respective Zones of origin for proper identification. Two sets of the Printed, Completed application forms are usually submitted at the various interview centres with the following attachments:

• Two sets of Photocopies of Educational Certificates and Testimonials of previous schools attended with the originals for sighting;
• Only ONE certificate is accepted i.e WAEC of May/June only for undergraduate applicants;
• Two copies of Birth certificate  from National Population Commission;
• State of Origin/LGA certificate duly signed, stamped and dated;
• Four (4) passport sized coloured photographs on white background;
• Academic transcripts and NYSC discharge or Exemption certificates will be required from applicants for Postgraduate Studies.

How to Apply: Candidates nominated and finally selected by:
A. The awarding BEA countries will be required to submit to Federal Scholarship Board the following:

• Authenticated copies of academic certificates;
• Data page of current International passport, and
• Specified Medical Reports &
• Police clearance certificate where necessary.

B: THE NA/SDG AWARD:
Application forms are completed online as follows:
Complete form online
Submit and Print a copy
Attach Photocopy of the following documents to the Printed Copy

• Letter of Admission to the Institution
• Current Course Registration Form
• CGPA results of year 1, 2, 3, etc.
• Current School’s Identity Card
• Letter of Identification from your State/Local Government
• Two (2) passport size photographs with your name written at the back and duly signed by you.

GENERAL NOTICE: During the application candidates are expected to indicate the following:

1. Centre of choice for the Computer Based Test (CBT); and
2. Choice of programme preferred in order of priority (i.e. Bilateral Education Agreement (BEA), Nigerian Award (N/A), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) scholarship for girls only).
3. Warning : Double Entries will be disqualified

OFFICIAL PHONE NUMBERS:
i) Bilateral Education Agreement (BEA): 08077884417/09094268637
ii) Nigerian Award/SDGs: 08077884418/08091155229
iv) fsb@education.gov.ng/fsbbea@education.gov.ng/fsbna@education.gov.ng
For further Technical/Apps inquires please call: 08055581004
TIME : 9.00 A.M DAILY
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION DOES NOT ATTRACT ANY PROCESSING FEE. THEREFORE, BEWARE OF FRAUDSTERS!
SIGNED:
ARC SONNY T. ECHONO, fnia
PERMANENT SECRETARY
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Visit the scholarship webpage for details  

The Security Derangement Complex: Technology Companies and Australia’s Anti-Encryption Law

Binoy Kampmark

Australia is being seen as a test case. How does a liberal democracy affirm the destruction of private, encrypted communications? In 2015, China demonstrated what could be done to technology companies, equipping other states with an inspiration: encryption keys, when required, could be surrendered to the authorities.

It is worth remembering the feeble justification then, as now.  As Li Shouwei, deputy head of the Chinese parliament’s criminal law division explained to the press at the time, “This rule accords with the actual work need of fighting terrorism and is basically the same as what other major countries in the world do”.  Birds of a feather, indeed.

An Weixing, head of the Public Security Ministry’s Counter-Terrorism division, furnishes us with the striking example of a generic state official who sees malefactors coming out of the woodwork of the nation. “Terrorism,” he somberly stated, reflecting on Islamic separatists from East Turkestan, “is the public enemy of mankind, and the Chinese government will oppose all forms of terrorism.”  Given that such elastic definitions are in the eye of the paranoid beholder, the scope for indefinite spread is ever present.

The Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, must be consulting the same oracles as those earning their keep in the PRC.  The first rule of modern governance: frighten the public in order to protect them.  Look behind deceptive facades to find the devil lurking in his trench coat.  Morrison’s rationale is childishly simple: the security derangement complex must, at all times, win over.  The world is a dark place, a jungle rife with, as Morrisons insists upon with an advertiser’s amorality, paedophile rings, terrorist cells, and naysayers.

One of his solutions?  The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, otherwise known by its more accurate title of the Anti-Encryption Bill. This poorly conceived and insufferably vague Bill, soon to escape its chrysalis to become law, shows the government playbook in action: tamper with society’s sanity; draft a ponderous bit of text; and treat, importantly, the voter as a creature mushrooming in self-loathing insecurity in the dark.

The Bill, in dreary but dangerous terms, establishes “voluntary and mandatory industry assistance to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in relation to encryption technologies via the issuing of technical assistance requests, technical assistance notices and technical capability notices”.  Technology companies are to become the bullied handmaidens, or “assistants”, of the Australian police state.

The Pentecostal Prime Minister has been able to count on supporters who see privacy as dispensable and security needs as unimpeachable.  Those who get giddy from security derangement syndrome don the academic gown of scorn, lecturing privacy advocates as ignorant idealists in a terrible world.  “I know it is a sensitive issue,” claims Rodger Shananan of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, “but the people arguing privacy just don’t have a handle on how widespread it’s used by the bad people.”  The problem with such ill-considered dross is that such technology is also used by “good” or “indifferent” people.

Precisely in being universal, inserting such anti-encryption backdoors insists on a mutual presumption of guilt, that no one can, or should be trusted.  It is in such environments that well versed cyber criminals thrive, sniffing out vulnerabilities and exploiting them.  Computing security academic Ahmed Ibrahim states the point unreservedly. “If we leave an intentional backdoor they will find it.  Once it is discovered it is usually not easy to fix.”

The extent of such government invasiveness was such as to trouble certain traditional conservative voices.  Alan Jones, who rules from the shock jock roost of radio station 2GB, asked Morrison about whether this obsession with back door access to communications might be going too far.  Quoting Angelo M. Codevilla of Boston University, a veteran critic of government incursions into private, encrypted communications, Jones suggested that the anti-encryption bill “allows police and intelligence agencies access to everyone’s messages, demanding that we believe that any amongst us is as likely or not to be a terrorist.”  Morrison, unmoved, mounted the high horse of necessity.  Like Shanahan, he was only interested in the “bad” people.

To that end, public consultation has been kept to a minimum.  In the words of human rights lawyer, Lizzie O’Shea, it was “a terrible truncation of the process”, one evidently designed to make Australia a shining light for others within the Five Eyes Alliance to follow.  “Once you’ve built the tools, it becomes very hard to argue that you can’t hand them over to the US government, the UK – it becomes something they can all use.”

There had been some hope that the opposition parties would stymy the process and postpone consideration of the bill till next year.  It could thereby be tied up, bound and sunk by various amendments.  But in the last, sagging sessions of Australia’s parliament, a compliant opposition party was keen to remain in the elector’s good books ahead of Christmas.  Bill Shorten’s Labor Party took of the root of unreason, calculating that saying yes to the contents of the bill might also secure the transfer of desperate and mentally ailing refugees on Nauru and Manus Island to the Australian mainland.

Instead, in what became a farcical bungle of miscalculating indulgence, the government got what it wanted.  The medical transfer bill on Nauru and Manus Island failed to pass in the lower house after a filibuster in the Senate by the Coalition and Senators Cory Bernardi and Pauline Hanson.  The Anti-Encryption Bill, having made is way to the lower house, did.

Shorten’s deputy, Tanya Plibersek, was keen to lay the ground for Thursday’s capitulation to the government earlier in the week.  A range of “protections” had been inserted into the legislation at the behest of the Labor Party. (Such brimming pride!)  The Attorney-General Christian Porter was praised – unbelievably – for having accepted their sagacious suggestions.  The point was elementary: Labor, not wanting to be seen as weak on law enforcement, had to be seen as accommodating.

Porter found himself crowing. “This ensures that our national security and law enforcement agencies have the modern tools they need, the appropriate authority and oversight, to access the encrypted conversations of those who seek to do us harm.”

International authorities versed in the area are looking at the Australian example with jaw dropping concern.  EU officials will find the measure repugnant on various levels, given the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) laws in place.  Australian technology companies are set to be designated appropriate pariahs, as are other technology companies willing to conduct transactions in Australia.  All consumers are being treated as potential criminals, an attitude that does not sit well with entities attempting to make a buck or two.

Swift On Security, an often canonical source on cyber security matters, is baffled. “Over in Australia they’re shooting themselves in the face with a shockingly technical nonsensical encryption backdoor law.”  Not only does the law fail to serve any useful protections; it “poison-pills their entire domestic tech industry, breaks imports.”

Li’s point, again something which the Australian government insists upon, was that the Chinese law did not constitute a “backdoor” through encryption protections.  Every state official merely wanted to get those “bad people” while sparing the “good”.  The Tor Project is far more enlightening: “There are no safe backdoors.”  An open declaration on the abolition of privacy in Australia has been made; a wonderfully noxious Christmas present for the Australian electorate.

Still no justice as phase one of Grenfell Tower fire inquiry closes

Paul Bond

Almost 18 months after the Grenfell Tower fire of June 14, 2017, which resulted in the deaths of 72 people, the warnings of the Socialist Equality Party and the Grenfell Fire Forum that the official inquiry would be a whitewash have been confirmed.

Phase one of the inquiry, taking witness and expert testimony regarding the night of the fire, will complete within days, more than a year after its first hearing in September 2017. It has been a harrowing experience for those who gave evidence and anyone following proceedings—except for the guilty who should have been forced to hear this testimony before a judge and jury.

Since the fire, there have been 13 convictions for fraudulent appropriation of funds, with an additional six people arrested and charged on suspicion of a public order offence in relation to a vile video in which an effigy of the Tower was set alight on Bonfire Night. In relation to the fire itself, however, not a single person has been charged or even arrested.

In July, it was reported that the police had interviewed under caution a grand total of three people. This is despite the fact everyone knows that the fire was accelerated by the flammable cladding on the building, commissioned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) to cut costs. The resulting rapid spread of the fire meant that standard firefighting operational procedures for tower blocks, including the “stay put” policy advising residents to remain in their apartments, were fatally undermined.

It has subsequently emerged that the safety certificates issued for the building were factually incorrect. Evidence continues to mount of corporate criminality and culpability, with accusations that insulation manufacturer Celotex “knowingly misled buyers” about the safety certification of its products.

Robert Black, head of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO)—that managed Grenfell on behalf of RBKC—sent a memo to his colleagues at 6 a.m. on June 14, 2017, as the Tower was still burning, saying, “We need to pull some of this together pretty fast in terms of health and safety compliance. We need all the information about the refurbishment as this will be a primary focus.”

The Conservative government promised after the fire that it would do whatever was necessary to make the UK’s tower blocks safe. Last month, it finally announced regulations banning the use of combustible materials on new buildings over 18 metres high and powers for local authorities to remove aluminium composite (ACM) cladding from private high-rise buildings, the cost to be reclaimed ultimately from building owners. However, this regulation does not cover existing buildings or new hotels and hostels meaning that the fixtures, fittings, sealants and glues used on Grenfell Tower can continue to be used.

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) has made recommendations on sprinklers, alarms and escape routes for all residential high-rise buildings that have also not yet been considered. This follows considerable evidence to the inquiry pointing to major health and safety shortcomings of the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, which contributed enormously to the disaster.

No funds have been made available to councils to install sprinkler systems, and many councils have not been provided with funding to remove and replace highly flammable cladding from tower blocks. Instead, the government is calling on councils already facing devastating budget cuts to spend millions on remedial works to private buildings. It has promised to meet the costs if private developers will not, but no funding has been allocated and there are no timeframes in place. No penalties have been introduced to ensure the action is taken seriously.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has committed to financial support for councils acting against private owners to remove ACM cladding. But freeholders look likely to challenge legally new costs for removing cladding because the previous building guidance was unclear.

The majority of councils across London and in urbanised areas nationally are Labour Party-run, and evidence of Labour’s complicity in implementing unsafe building regulations and use of dangerous materials continues to emerge. Labour-run Salford City Council in the north of England oversees the highest concentration of towers covered with ACM cladding (29) in the country.

In June, the government announced a joint expert inspection team to assist councils because of the slow progress of repairs of towers in the private sector. This week, Housing Secretary James Brokenshire admitted that taskforce has not started work yet and will not begin until next year. Of 183 private high-rise blocks found to have unsafe cladding, only five have so far been repaired. There are still no clear plans for 50 buildings considered unsafe. All 27 hotel towers with ACM cladding remain untouched.

This has all taken place as the “full, independent public inquiry” promised by Prime Minister Theresa May, that “needs to produce an interim report by the end of this summer [2017] at the latest,” has been in session.

The inquiry was never intended to bring the guilty to justice. It is a fraud because it was convened, and is being overseen and directed, by the very capitalist state apparatus and its political representatives that are responsible for turning Grenfell Tower into a death trap. The inquiry was called under the 2005 Inquiries Act, which stipulates, “An inquiry panel is not to rule on, and has no power to determine, any person’s civil or criminal liability.”

Its chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, stated that it would be “limited to the cause, how it spread, and preventing a future blaze”—providing “a small measure of solace.” He recommended excluding issues of a “social, economic and political nature” and May was only too happy to accept. Phony “consultation” meetings were held in advance to legitimise the inquiry. Asked about prosecuting the guilty, Moore-Bick said “An inquiry is designed to find out what happened. I have no power to do anything in relation to criminal responsibility.”

There was initially huge scepticism among the families of victims, survivors and local residents about the inquiry. The efforts of the trade unions and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn were directed towards legitimising May’s cover-up. Corbyn backed May’s initial proposal, but when popular hostility made this problematic he wrote to her suggesting a two-stage inquiry—the first along Moore-Bick’s lines, the second to cover national issues. The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) also overcame its stated concerns about not discussing broader political issues so it could “participate as fully as possible.” When the inquiry began, the unions and Labour argued for full support, claiming that such appeals to the capitalist state were the way to achieve justice.

Moore-Bick then rejected submissions to appoint a local resident as assessor to the inquiry on the grounds that it would undermine his impartiality! In contrast, KPMG, one of the world’s biggest business restructuring and advisory firms, was forced to step down a month into the inquiry from its role as the inquiry’s project management adviser. KPMG had previously acted as auditor to three of the bodies under investigation, RBKC, Rydon, the main contractor on the refurbishment of the Tower in 2015/2016, and Celotex.

The SEP described the Grenfell Tower fire as an act of “social murder.” We repeat our insistence that those guilty of social murder at Grenfell Tower must be arrested and charged. Those instrumental in the decision to add the cladding to Grenfell must also be arrested and charged. We demand:

• Justice for Grenfell means no cover-up and no inquiry whitewash!

• Arrest the political and corporate criminals responsible!

• Stop the scapegoating of firefighters!

• Quality public housing is a social right!

• For an emergency multibillion-pound programme of public works to build schools, hospitals, public housing and all the infrastructure required in the 21st century!

Sudden closure of for-profit Education Corporation of America leaves 20,000 students without an education

Adam Mclean

The Education Corporation of America, (ECA) one of the largest for-profit colleges in the United States which operated across over 70 campuses and managed an online school, abruptly announced this week that they would shut down operations at almost all locations, following their disaccreditation on Tuesday. Several thousand staff and the 20,000 students who attended their schools have been left to an uncertain future.

No real provisions were made for the students who were suddenly left without an education for the next year. Students were sent an email on Tuesday telling them that their school would close after finals ended on Friday and were simply told “we encourage you to continue your career training by requesting your transcript and contacting local schools to determine transferability." They were linked a webpage that is still in development to access unofficial transcripts. Whether or not other schools will give credit for class taken at ECA schools is also an open question, since the ECA is no longer accredited.

Following the closure of the majority of their campuses, the ECA will, in all likelihood, begin laying off a significant number of its employees. It has said that intends to keep only a bare-bones workforce until the summer of next year, when it says it will shut down permanently.

High tuition and burdensome student loans are a reality for those in the US seeking an education beyond high school. This is even true for most students at public universities. There are 44.5 million Americans saddled with student load debt, totaling about $1.5 trillion. It is consequently one of the most lucrative businesses to be in.

While the ECA has told students that they can apply for debt forgiveness, it is likely that the company will only make token concessions, if they are themselves even in a position to make those decisions in the coming years.

This is not the first time a large private for profit education company has faced financial trouble and left its students to fend for themselves. Some recent history reveals how the student loan debt of former ECA students will be treated by the corporations and by the government.

In 2014, Corinthian Colleges Inc, a publicly traded company that then had 72,000 students across the US, was unable to demonstrate that its graduates had attained “gainful employment”—that is, that graduates have found jobs that allow them to repay accrued student debt—and was subsequently cut off from federal funding. Despite a bailout from the Obama administration, it was ultimately forced into shutting down 12 of its schools and was later bought by the ECMC (Educational Credit Management Corporation) Group, one of the largest and most notoriously usurious student loan collection agencies in the country. The ECMC Group was also the go-to group for the Department of Education (DOE) to contest petitions for loan forgiveness.

Then in 2016, ITT Technical Institute shut down after being denied Title IV student aid following an investigation by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS)—the same group that disaccredited the ECA this week. In this case, the DOE repaid any students who successfully won loan forgiveness out of government funds, ensuring that the loans were still repaid at public expense.

The ACICS was itself rejected by the DOE in 2016 for its lax oversight that was in part responsible for the collapse of both Corinthian Colleges and ITT, but Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has moved to reinstate them.

DeVos is very much personally involved in the student loan racket and has been working since her confirmation to further dismantle public education.

Listed by Forbes in 2016 as the 88th richest American, the billionaire DeVos has interests in Performant Recovery, a debt collection company; Apollo Global Management, which owns the University of Phoenix; as well as a number of international education investments in New Zealand and Brazil. Her immediate family are extremely wealthy as well, with her husband being the former CEO of the Amway corporation, and her brother, Erik Prince, the founder of the notorious Blackwater mercenary company.

Politically, she has also championed a number of related reactionary causes, including boosting the charter school movement and attacks on the separation of church and state.

DeVos moved to remove the “gainful employment” regulation under which for-profit schools have previously lost lucrative government funding in August. This gives for-profit colleges much more financial stability, and following this decision, the ACICS is again in the good graces of the Department of Education.

The kidnapping of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou

Andre Damon

On Wednesday, the world was shocked to learn that Canadian authorities had arrested and confined without bail Meng Wanzhou, the deputy chairperson of the Chinese smart phone giant Huawei, on charges brought by US prosecutors of violating American sanctions against Iran. Washington is calling for her extradition to the US.

The claims by US officials that the move has “nothing to do with a trade war” are transparent lies, dismissed even by the media defenders of the action. Meng’s arrest on December 1 and confinement on tendentious and opaque charges potentially carrying a sentence of 60 years amount to little more than a kidnapping.

The British Financial Times, obviously unnerved by its ally’s action, called the move “provocative,” describing it as “the use of American power to pursue political and economic ends rather than straightforward law enforcement.”

It is, in other words, an act of gangsterism, intended to send a message to “allies” and “enemies” alike: do the United States’ bidding or you will end up like Meng, or worse. In pursuit of its geopolitical aims, the United States functions as a rogue state, violating international law with wanton abandon.

It is the chief protagonist in an international decent into lawlessness that recalls the conditions of great power conflict and criminality that led to World War II. The US imposes unilateral and illegal sanctions on any country it deems an obstacle to its hegemonic agenda, and then employs the methods of terror to punish those who defy its dictates.

But after news of Meng’s arrest stunned the world, the New York Times dropped another bombshell the next morning. As Donald Trump was sitting down to dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping last Saturday to arrange a “truce” in the US-China trade war, the US president was unaware that the unprecedented arrest was about to take place.

This was despite the fact that figures such as Democratic Senator Mark Warner and Republican Senator Richard Burr, as well as National Security Adviser John R. Bolton, were alerted to the arrest. Asked why he did not tell the president, Bolton, who was with Trump at the meeting with Xi, declared inexplicably, “we certainly don’t inform the president on every” notification from the Justice Department.

Meng’s arrest has upended any prospect of a truce in the trade war between the United States and China. The Financial Times warned that “That entente already looked likely to come unstuck. After Ms. Meng’s arrest, the deadline for progress looks like a time bomb.”

The fact that such a provocative action could take place, according to the semi-official narrative, without the knowledge of the American president, makes one thing abundantly clear: The US conflict with China is not the product of Trump’s personality or his particular brand of “America First” populism. Rather, a substantial section of not only Trump’s administration, but of the permanent or “deep” state of the intelligence bureaucracy, as well as leading lawmakers, have signed on to Trump’s aggressive anti-China policy.

Responding to news of the arrest, Senator Warner, a leading proponent of internet censorship by US technology companies, praised the action, declaring: “It has been clear for some time that Huawei… poses a threat to our national security.” He added, “It’s my hope that the Trump administration will hold Huawei fully accountable for breaking sanctions law.”

Other figures close to the Democrats were quick to praise the move, even going so far as to condemn Trump for not being hard enough on China. “For too long, American leaders have failed to respond adequately to China’s increasing assertiveness,” wrote New York Times columnist David Leonhardt. “A more hawkish policy toward China makes sense.”

None of the three leading American newspapers—the Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal —published a single commentary in the least bit critical of the White House’s criminal action.

This points to the bipartisan acceptance of the principles spelled out by Vice President Mike Pence in a major policy speech on China on October 4, which commentators have called the dawn of a new “cold war” with China. In that speech, Pence demanded that Beijing abandon its “Made in China 2025” plan, which Pence claimed was an effort to control “90 percent of the world’s most advanced industries, including robotics, biotechnology and artificial intelligence.”

Just days after Pence’s speech, the Pentagon published a study on the US defence industrial base, arguing that the United States needed a “whole-of-society” approach to prepare for military conflict with China.

Former Trump political adviser and neo-fascist Steve Bannon praised Meng’s arrest as part of a “whole of government” approach to countering China. “Under Trump,” he told the Financial Times, “you’re seeing for the first time all forces of US state power finally come together to confront China.”

The American political establishment’s more aggressive stance toward China in no sense means a retreat from the conflict with Russia or Iran. In fact, in the two months since Pence announced his new “cold war” with China, Washington has taken some of its most aggressive anti-Russian measures yet, including provoking its ally Ukraine to sail warships into Russian-claimed waters, prompting an exchange of fire, and the announcement that it will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear forces (INF) treaty.

In their preparation for war against China, a nuclear-armed power, the American ruling class and its military-intelligence apparatus see blocking Beijing’s development as a high-tech rival as critical to not only the economic interests of the corporate oligarchy, but also to the maintenance of US military supremacy.

The world is on the brink of a generational change in wireless technology, known as 5G, which, according to its proponents, will lead to a massive expansion of the so-called “internet of things,” which will be cheaper and vastly more capable than today’s “smart” devices. Among the “things” connected over 5G will be not only home appliances and factory robots, but the weapons of war, which can use the communications network for an edge in precision and speed.

Huawei is the world’s leading provider of 5G infrastructure, and the United States is seeking to use all the instruments of its economic, military, and geopolitical power to squeeze China out of the sector in pursuit of its global economic and military dominance.

The second, no less important, factor is the growth of internal social tensions and political opposition. Under conditions of what the Atlantic Council has called a “crisis of legitimacy” for the state amid growing working class opposition, the ruling class sees in the creation of an external enemy, whether Russia or China, a means to divert explosive class tensions outwards. China, as Times columnist Leonhardt recently put it, can serve to create a “clear antagonist” for the American public.

Finally, the protection of the American technology sector, and the extension of its global monopolies, no doubt plays a major role in deepening its integration into the US intelligence apparatus. The American technology giants, at the behest of figures like Warner, have implemented mass censorship of oppositional viewpoints and dragnet surveillance of the American population over the past two years. In exchange, they have received fat military, police, and intelligence contracts, while their rivals, like Huawei, have been targeted by the American state.

Washington’s actions threaten the most disastrous consequences. In its offensive against China, the United States is stoking conditions that twice in the past century led to world war.

African Biomedical Engineering Mobility (ABEM) 2019/2020 for African Postgraduate Students & Academics

Application Deadline: 29th January 2019 11:59pm East African Time.

Eligible Countries: African countries under this program

About the Award: The scheme is modelled on Europe’s well-established and successful Erasmus-Mundus programme. As part of the Roadmap 2014-2017 of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, the Intra-Africa Mobility Scheme underlines the contribution of higher education towards economic and social development and the potential of academic mobility to improve the quality of higher education.
ABEM will build human and institutional capacity in Africa for needs-­based health technology research and development. The project will train postgraduate students with skills and specialisations not offered at their home institutions. Furthermore, it will support the development of biomedical engineering programmes that are being established, or have recently been established, at partner institutions and contribute toward harmonising biomedical engineering curricula across the continent.

Type: Masters, PhD, Training.

Eligibility: Applications for the following mobility types will be considered:

Master’s degree-seeking mobility for women only:
Host universities: Kenyatta University and Addis Ababa University
Home universities: any of the partner universities (i.e. Target Group 1 only)

Master’s credit-seeking mobility for women only:
Host universities: Kenyatta University and Addis Ababa University
Home universities: any African university (i.e. Target Group 1 and Target Group 2)

PhD credit-seeking mobility for women and men:
Host universities: Kenyatta University and Cairo University
Home universities: any African university (i.e. Target Group 1 and Target Group 2)

Staff mobility for women and men:
Host universities: Partner universities excluding the University of Cape Town
Home universities: All partner universities

Student mobility – eligibility criteria
To be eligible for a scholarship, master’s and doctoral students must comply with the following criteria:

1. Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries covered by the Programme
2. At the time of the application for a scholarship, be registered/admitted in their final year or have obtained their most recent degree (or equivalent) from:
   1. one of the higher education institutions included in the partnership (Target Group 1); or
   2. a higher education institution not included in the partnership but established in an eligible country (Target Group 2)
3. Have sufficient knowledge of the language of instruction in the host institution.
4. Meet the specific requirements of the host institution.

Students can only benefit from one scholarship under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.
Students having benefited from scholarship(s) under the previous Intra-ACP Academic Mobility Scheme cannot receive scholarships under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.

Academic and administrative staff mobility
Staff may undertake mobility visits for 1-6 months, at any of the African partner institutions.

• Areas of activity
  Staff mobility should contribute to strengthening the academic, management and co-operation capacity of partner institutions, through participation in research projects, teaching, production of new teaching material, development of teaching methods, harmonisation of curricula, development of joint curricula, development of administrative tools and sharing of management approaches. The mobility is also expected to be an integral part of the institutional staff development plan and recognised as such upon return of the staff member.
• Eligibility criteriaIn order to be eligible for a scholarship, staff must comply with ALL the following criteria:
  
  • Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries (see Section 2.1)
  • Work in or be associated with a partner higher education institution.

Number of Awards: Up to 32

Value of Award: The scholarship will cover:

• roundtrip flight ticket and visa costs;
• participation costs such as tuition fees, registration fees and service fees where applicable
• insurance (health, accident, travel);
• a settling-in allowance;
• a monthly subsistence allowance;
• a contribution towards the research costs associated with student mobility of 10 months or longer.

Duration of Program: Master’s and doctoral students may undertake:

• Credit-seeking mobility of 6 to 12 months at a partner institution, leading to academic recognition of the study period towards a degree programme at the home institution,
• Degree-seeking mobility to complete a full degree at a partner institution.The project aims for 50% of students and at least 30% of staff who participate in mobility visits to be women.
• Academic and administrative staff mobility: Staff may undertake mobility visits for 1-6 months, at any of the African partner institutions.

How to Apply: Interested applicants should go through the Application requirements and Guidelines before applying.


Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Geneva Academy 2019/2020 LLM in International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Scholarships Program – Switzerland

Application Deadline: 1st February 2019

Eligible Countries: Non-western countries. Applicants from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and Western Europe cannot be considered for a full scholarship.

To be taken at (country): Switzerland

About the Award: This one-year postgraduate degree course provides advanced, comprehensive and practical training in IHL, international human rights law, international refugee law, international criminal law, as well as the interplay between them.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Candidates must have:

• A full degree in law (received by June at the latest) enabling the applicant to sit the bar exam in the relevant country; or another degree if the applicant has a significant amount of training in public international law and courses related to our programme (e.g. international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law)
• A strong academic record
• A demonstrable interest in the subject matter of the programme (e.g. professional experience, internships, summer school, conferences attended, publications, etc.)
• A sound command of English. You must be able to show, via a recognized test, that your English is of a high enough standard to successfully engage with and complete your course at the Geneva Academy. This requirement does not apply if (1) your mother tongue is English; (2) you have taken an English-taught bachelor’s or master’s degree; (3) you have at least two years’ professional or academic experience in an English-speaking environment
• A passive knowledge of French is an asset as students might have to attend conferences and class presentations in French

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: We offer partial and full scholarships for our LLM. Partial scholarships cover tuition fees. Full scholarships cover tuition fees and living expenses in Geneva for 10 months.

Duration of Programme: 10 months

How to Apply: 

• Scholarship requests must be submitted with the candidate’s application. When applying, you must choose between two tracks: application with scholarship (partial or full) or application without scholarship. If you apply to both tracks, your application will be considered under the non-scholarship track.
• It is important to go through admission application requirements before applying.
• GOODLUCK!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

The Deathly Insect Dilemma

Robert Hunziker

Insect abundance is plummeting with wild abandon, worldwide! Species evolve and go extinct as part of nature’s normal course over thousands and millions of years, but the current rate of devastation is off the charts and downright scary.

Moreover, there is no quick and easy explanation for this sudden emergence of massive loss around the globe. Yet, something is dreadfully horribly wrong. Beyond doubt, it is not normal for 50%-to-90% of a species to drop dead, but that is happening right now from Germany to Australia to Puerto Rico’s tropical rainforest.

Scientists are rattled. The world is largely unaware of the implications because it is all so new. It goes without saying that the risk of loss of insects spells loss of ecosystems necessary for very important stuff, like food production.

Farmland birds that depend upon a diet of insects in Europe have disappeared by >50% in just three decades. French farmland partridge flocks have crashed by 80%. Nightingale abundance is down by almost 80%. Turtledoves are down nearly 80%.

In Denmark (1) owls, (2) Eurasian hobbies, and (3) Bee-eaters, which subsist on large insects like beetles and dragonflies, have abruptly disappeared. Poof, gone!

Krefeld Entomological Society (est. 1905) in Germany trapped insect samples in 63 nature preserves in Europe representing nearly 17,000 sampling days (equivalent to 46.5 years). Krefeld consistently found massive declines in every kind of habitat they sampled. Up to 80% wipeouts.

As for one example, Krefeld data for hoverflies, a pollinator often mistaken for a bee, registered 17,291 hoverflies from 143 species trapped in a reserve in 1989. Twenty-five years later at the same location, 2,737 individuals from 104 species or down 84%. (Source: Gretchen Vogel, Where Have All The Insects Gone? Science Magazine, May 10, 2017)

A shortage of insect pollinators in the Maoxian Valley in China has forced farmers to hire human workers at $19 per worker/per day to replace bees. Each worker pollinates 5-to-10 apple trees by hand per day.

Jack Hasenpusch of Australian Insect Farms, which collects swarms of insects, says:  “I’ve been wondering for the last few years why some of the insects have been dropping off … This year has really taken the cake with the lack of insects, it’s left me dumbfounded, I can’t figure out what’s going on.” (Source: Mark Rigby, Insect Population Decline Leaves Australian Scientists Scratching For Solutions, ABC Far North, Feb. 23, 2018)

According to entomologist Dr. Cameron Webb / University of Sydney, researchers around the world widely acknowledge the problem of insect decline but are at a loss to explain the causes.

Functional Extinctions

Today’s Sixth Extinction is so prevalent that scientists prefer to designate species loss as “functional extinctions,” which means functionally extinct animals and plants are still present but no longer prevalent enough to affect an ecosystem. Not only, seed dispersal and predation and pollination and other ecological functions are also lost.

“More than three-quarters of the world’s food crops rely at least in part on pollination by insects and other animals,” (Source: Pollinators Vital to Our Food Supply Under Threat, FAO/UN).

But, already some insect populations have dropped by as much as 90%, e.g., (1) the Monarch butterfly in North America and (2) the great yellow bumblebee in Europe.

One of the biggest drivers of decline is loss of wild flowers. Here’s the problem: Low-intensity farming of small fields lined with weeds and flowers (think: “American Gothic” by Grant Wood circa 1930) have been overrun by vast industrial crop monocultures with fields stretching to the distant horizon with not a weed or a flower in sight, which paradoxically serves as evidence that the overused maxim “the good ole days” shows true grit.

Additionally, herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) allow industrial farming to grow perfect monocultures of crops, as everything else is wiped out. But, where does the glyphosate ultimately go? Breakfast anyone?

The world is rapidly filling up to its brim with insecticides that are toxic to pollinators. For example, neonicotinoids (agricultural insecticides) are meant to kill specific insect pests but invariably get into plant tissue and nectar and pollen and kills insects carte blanche, across the board. Thus, ironically, farmland ecosystems are poisoned by industrial farming practices.

Neonicotinoids are a divisive issue worldwide: “The European Union today expanded a controversial ban of neonicotinoid pesticides, based on the threat they pose to pollinators. The decision pleased environmental groups and was greeted with trepidation by farming associations, which fear economic harm.” (Source: European Union Expands Ban of Three Neonicotinoid Pesticides, Science Magazine, April 27, 2018)

As of August 2018, the EPA has scheduled “planned completion” of a “Review of Neonicotinoid Pesticides” for sometime in 2019. A coalition of food safety and environmental groups delivered 219,210 public comments to EPA earlier in the year, urging the agency ban neonicotinoid pesticides, which they view as a leading cause of pollinator decline. Additionally, more than 4.4 million Avaaz members have called for a ban on neonics (Avaaz, est. 2007, is one of the world’s largest most powerful online activist networks).

“People from around the country have made it clear: The EPA must act now to save our pollinators. No matter what Scott Pruitt’s industry friends say, this is a problem we can’t ignore. The health of our food system depends on it,” said U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). (Source: Environment America, News Release, 219,210 Americans Call on EPA to Ban Bee-Killing Pesticides, April 21, 2018).

“Neonics are 5,000 to 10,000 times more toxic than DDT,” according to Jean-Marc Bonmatinof of The National Centre for Scientific Research in France,” Ibid.

Rachel Carson (Silent Spring, 1962) would be horrified. As far back as the 60s she warned about indiscriminate use of pesticides and accused the chemical industry of disinformation, and she scolded public officials for accepting the chemical industry’s claims; ultimately, her efforts led to a nationwide ban on DDT and inspiration for creation of the EPA. (The ban on DDT saved America’s national bird since 1782, the bald eagle.)

Similar to concerns about use of synthetic pesticides, sensitivity of insects to global warming has only recently been exposed in new studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showing alarming losses of insects in pristine tropical rainforests over a multi-decade study that has rocked the science world.

Over that same 40-year time period, the average high temperature in the rainforest increased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit. Which negatively impacts insects because after a certain thermal threshold insects will no longer lay eggs, and their internal chemistry breaks down.

“Without insects and other land-based arthropods, EO Wilson, the renowned Harvard entomologist, and inventor of sociobiology, estimates that humanity would last all of a few months,” Ibid.

Well then, the number of insects still out there qualifies as one of the most puzzling questions of the 21st century.