14 Dec 2018

“Five Eyes” intelligence agencies behind drive against Chinese telecom giant Huawei

Nick Beams

Evidence has come to light that US operations against the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei and the arrest and detention of one of its top executives, Meng Wanzhou, to face criminal charges of fraud brought by the US Justice Department are the outcome of a coordinated campaign by the intelligence agencies of the so-called “Five Eyes” network.
According to a major report published in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) yesterday, the annual meeting of top intelligence officials from countries in the network—the US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada—held last July decided to “co-ordinate banning” Huawei from 5G mobile phone networks.
The two-day meeting, held in the Canadian capital, Ottawa, decided that the intelligence chiefs should spend time publicly explaining “their concerns” about China.
In the months that followed “an unprecedented campaign” has been waged by the five members of the network “to block the tech giant Huawei from supplying equipment for their next-generation wireless networks” which has now led to the arrest of Meng in Canada.
On August 23, in one of his last acts as Australian prime minister before being deposed in an inner-party leadership coup, Malcolm Turnbull rang US President Trump to tell him that Huawei and another Chinese firm, ZTE, had been banned from the country’s 5G rollout. The basis of the decision was to exclude “vendors who are likely to be subject of extrajudicial directions from a foreign government.”
This was followed on October 29 by a speech by the director-general of the Australian Signals Directorate, Mike Burgess, in which, while not directly naming Huawei, he said the “stakes with 5G” could not be higher. It was the first public speech by the head of the organisation in its 70-year history.
The speech was followed seven days later by a decision of the New Zealand Labour government to ban Huawei from supplying 5G equipment to the phone company Spark.
The article then noted that on December 6, the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), David Vigneault, who had hosted the Five Eyes meeting, delivered his first public speech warning of a security threat.
“CSIS has seen a trend of state-sponsored espionage in fields that are crucial to Canada’s ability to build and sustain a prosperous, knowledge-based economy,” he said, referencing artificial intelligence, quantum technology and 5G. China was not mentioned specifically but there was no doubt it was the target and Canada is expected to shortly announce a ban on Huawei and ZTE.
The day after the speech by his Canadian counterpart, the head of Britain’s MI6 addressed a meeting at St Andrews University in Scotland in which he warned that “much of the evolving state threat is about our opponents’ innovative exploitation of modern technology.”
The British situation is more complex than that of the other Five Eyes members because of the agreement reached by British Telecom (BT) to partner with Huawei in the 3G and 4G networks 15 years ago. But that is changing as BT has said it will strip out Huawei equipment from its networks and will not use its technology in 5G.
The key attendee at the meeting was CIA director Gina Haspel. The US has been leading the push against China, has already banned Huawei and has been waging an international campaign to have its equipment banned by other strategic allies beyond the Five Eyes group.
The AFR article noted that the sharp focus of Washington on Beijing “plays into Trump’s obsession with trade war but it would be wrong to think it’s solely driven by the president. Over the last two years Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the departments of Defence, State and the security agencies have come to the conclusion China is a strategic threat.”
Other evidence of the way in which the US intelligence and military apparatus is driving the attack on Huawei and Chinese technology companies more broadly has been revealed in an article published in the Financial Times yesterday.
It cited a leaked memo, “apparently written by a senior National Security Council official” warning about the implications of the rise of Huawei to become the world’s biggest supplier of telecommunications equipment and that it was leading the field in the development of 5G.
“We are losing it,” the memo said. “Whoever leads in technology and market share for 5G deployment will have a tremendous advantage towards … commanding the heights of the information domain.”
The memo said 5G was “by no means simply a ‘faster 4G’” but was “a change more like the invention of the Gutenberg press” as it would bring faster speeds, lower lead times between the network and the device and had a much larger capacity to transfer data.
These developments, the article said, will underpin self-driving cars, artificial intelligence and machine-to-machine communications, and will “transform the way everything from hospitals to factories operate.”
China was far ahead in preparing for 5G which requires more base stations than existing networks and had almost 2 million cell sites in early 2018, ten times the number in the US. According to the Deloitte consultancy there are 5.3 sites for every 10 square miles in China compared to 0.4 in the US.
These figures make clear the reason for the ferocity of the US economic war against China. It fears that its economic and military supremacy is under direct threat and is determined to take all measures considered necessary to counter China’s rise.
The objective logic of this development was underlined in an article, also published in the AFR yesterday, by Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs.
The arrest of Meng Wanzhou, he wrote, “is a dangerous move by US President Donald Trump’s administration in its intensifying conflict with China. If, as Mark Twain reputedly said, history often rhymes, our era increasingly recalls the period preceding 1914. As with Europe’s great powers back then, the United States, led by an administration intent on asserting America’s dominance over China, is pushing the world towards disaster.”
Sachs drew attention to the hypocrisy surrounding the detention of Meng on charges of committing fraud in breach of US-imposed bans on dealing with Iran. He noted that in 2011 JP Morgan Chase paid $88.3 million in fines for violating US sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan. “Yet [CEO] Jamie Dimon wasn’t grabbed off a plane and whisked into custody.”
None of the heads of banks or their financial officers was “held accountable for the pervasive law-breaking in the lead-up to or aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis” for which the banks paid $243 billion in fines.
The US actions against Huawei were part of an “economic war on China, and a reckless one.”
He noted that when global trade rules obstruct the “gangster tactics” of the Trump administration then it deems the rules have to go, citing a comment by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Brussels last week in which he admitted as much.
“Our administration,” Pompeo said, “is lawfully exiting or renegotiating outdated or harmful treaties, trade agreements and other international arrangements that don’t serve our sovereign interests, or the interests of our allies.”
Pointing to the unilateral decision of the US to reject the decision of the UN Security Council to lift all bans on Iran as part of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, Sachs concluded: “The Trump administration, not Huawei or China is the greatest threat to the international rule of law, and therefore to global peace.”

Germany: Ford announces massive job cuts at its Saarlouis plant

Ulrich Rippert 

The offensive against autoworkers across the globe is intensifying. Hardly a week goes by without a new round of job cutting. Following General Motors’ announcement of the closure of five plants in the US and Canada and the elimination of nearly 15,000 hourly and salaried workers, Ford has announced its own plans for huge job cutbacks.
At a factory meeting last Monday in Saarlouis in the German state of Saarland, the local Ford management announced that production of the company’s C-Max model is to be discontinued. A quarter of the 6,300 jobs at Ford-Saarlouis, or about 1,600, are to go with the reduction of shifts from three to two. It is still uncertain how many jobs would be lost, a company spokeswoman said, implying that the total could be even higher.
The company works council representative immediately sought to mollify the anger of the workforce. Nothing had been finally decided, he said, pointing out that 400 workers were due to leave the company at the end of this year due to retirement. In addition, 500 temporary employment contracts were due to expire in mid-2019 and would not be extended, he said with contempt for these workers. In addition, several hundred employees could accept an early retirement deal.
The works council rep stressed several times he was keen to arrive at a “socially responsible solution” for those losing their jobs. The phrase “socially acceptable job reduction,” constantly used by works councils and union officials, is in fact a threat. It means that the so-called employee representatives will work closely together with company management, conduct secret negotiations behind the backs of staff, and agree to worsened conditions while suppressing any serious fight to defend jobs.
Despite the reassurances of the works council it is clear that the Ford-Saarlouis announcements are the opening shot in a massive cost-cutting program that will cost many more jobs at Ford.
At a factory meeting in the main plant in Cologne on Tuesday, the mood was very tense. The workers present expected concrete information about the future of their jobs, but neither management nor the works council made any clear statements. Both pointed out that negotiations on a cost-cutting program had not yet been completed.
Gunnar Herrmann, the CEO of Ford Germany, who was also present in Saarlouis, spoke at the Cologne headquarters in a general fashion about “inevitable adjustment measures” resulting from the “strict austerity measures” laid down by the company’s headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan.
Herrmann gave a detailed report on the poor earnings situation at Ford Europe. The numbers are alarming, he said. In the second quarter of this year, the company had already lost $73 million in Europe. The situation deteriorated again significantly in the summer and Ford reported a loss of 245 million euros for the third quarter.
The Handelsblatt newspaper reported that US corporate management has stipulated a minimum profit rate of six percent, which is now considered indispensable throughout the auto industry. At Ford in Cologne where the European and German businesses are headquartered no one believes that a turnaround will be possible by the end of the year: “The US group will finish deep in the red in Europe in 2018,” a statement read.
The austerity program already in place for the plant in Saarlouis has already had drastic consequences and the effects will soon be felt at the company’s Cologne headquarters with its 18,500 employees.
When contacted by the WSWS editorial board after the meeting in Cologne, the chairman of the works council, Martin Hennig, said he could provide no further information. Asked whether there were negotiations in the company’s Economic Committee or in other committees, Hennig said, “Of course there are discussions and negotiations, but no results as yet.” He could only say that the plant in Cologne is one of the most efficient factories with an employment security protection agreement until 2021. The works council recognises the difficult situation of the company, he said, but would demand that Ford comply with its job security promises.
Such assurances are worthless. The works council and the IG Metall union are intent on keeping workers in the dark for as long as possible to prevent any resistance to the foreseeable job losses.
At the end of September, a similar factory meeting took place to supposedly reassure the workforce. There were rumors then that the entire Ford production in Germany was in danger after the company announced, “tough cuts.” The British newspaper Sunday Times reported that more than 20,000 jobs were in acute danger.
A worker on the way to factory meeting at the time said: “We saw what happened at the Belgian Mondeo plant in Genk four years ago. That’s an example how quickly those at the top can close down a work. This still sits in our bones.”
Ford has already announced cuts in France and the UK. The headquarters of the British Ford plants in Brentwood is due to be shut down and its 1,700 jobs lost. All of the company’s operations in the UK are to be concentrated at the Ford Dagenham plant and Ford Dunton in Basildon. In France, Ford plans to close its plant in Blanquefort near Bordeaux at the end of next year. The factory employs about 900 workers.
At the same time, Ford is investing 200 million euros in Craiova, Romania, for the production of another model. The number of Ford workers in Romania is to be increased by 1,500 to 6,000. The Romanian Ford employees work under slave-like conditions with some workers earning as little as 300 euros per month. At the beginning of 2018, 4,000 workers in Craiova took strike action to prevent the imposition of a new, extortionate contract. Since then their overtime allowances have been cut and they have been forced to accept new “flexible” shift schedules.
The latest job losses at Ford are part of a massive assault on workers, auto plants and suppliers around the world. At Opel, formerly owned by GM, new cuts and attacks have been taking place step by step since the company’s takeover by the French based PSA. The German company Volkswagen is also gearing up for new attacks on its workforce. VW management has just agreed to build more cars in the US to avoid US customs barriers. Currently, the VW Group is considering a partnership with Ford to use the latter’s American manufacturing facilities. VW is also stepping up its development of electric motors which will invariably lead to new attacks on auto workers.
Across the globe the unions and local works councils are working closely with senior management to enforce job cuts in such a manner as to suppress all resistance. The turn to electric motors, the corrupt company practices revealed in the Diesel-gate scandal, Brexit, growing trade war and a general economic crisis make abundantly clear that autoworkers around the world face the same problems and attacks. At the same time the unions are adamantly opposed to any struggle to defend all jobs, wages and social standards.
It is therefore necessary for workers to take the defence of jobs and conditions into their own hands and organise independently of the unions.
In this context, the meeting held by the World Socialist Web Site Autoworker Newsletter last Sunday in Detroit, Michigan, is of great importance. Participants decided to organize rank-and-file committees, independently of the unions, to oppose GM’s plant closings and mass layoffs.
At the meeting, a Ford worker from Dearborn described her experiences with the United Auto Workers union (UAW), which imposed a pro-company contract in 2015 by resorting to lies, intimidation and vote-rigging. This had “shown that our union is not on our side. It does not act in our interests,” she said. From that point onwards, the workers met outside the factory and union meetings to discuss how to defend their own interests, she said.
The participants at the Detroit meeting passed a resolution calling for the building of “rank-and-file committees, independent of the UAW, Unifor [in Canada] and other unions, in all the affected workplaces and neighbourhoods, to organise opposition to the plant closures.”
These committees would “Establish lines of communication and collaboration with all workers—including auto parts workers, teachers, Amazon workers, service workers and others—and fight for the unity of American workers with our class brothers and sisters in Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world.”

Sri Lankan Supreme Court rules against President Sirisena’s decision to dissolve parliament

Deepal Jayasekera

Yesterday evening, the Sri Lankan Supreme Court (SC) ruled that President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dissolve parliament was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Nalin Perera delivered the unanimous verdict by seven judges of the country’s highest court.
The ruling is another blow to Sirisena. He had aimed to hold general elections next month after his October 26 parliamentary coup to replace Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe with former President Mahinda Rajapakse.
The court decision, far from resolving the intensifying political crisis of capitalist rule in the island, will aggravate it further.
The ruling did not annul the illegal appointment of Rajapakse and his cabinet of ministers. Moreover, Rajapakse has appealed to the Supreme Court against an earlier Appeals Court verdict suspending his government, and that case is listed for hearing today.
In yesterday’s ruling, the court said that if Sirisena wanted to dissolve the parliament early, within four-and-a-half years of its inauguration, a resolution must be passed by a two-thirds majority in parliament.
The 19th amendment to country’s constitution, passed in parliament after the former Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government took office following the January 2015 presidential elections, introduced that limit to the president’s power to dissolve parliament.
Following the October 26 political coup, Sirisena initially prorogued parliament to give Rajapakse enough time to engage in horse-trading. Rajapakse tried to concoct a majority in parliament through various means, including offering MPs ministerial portfolios and financial bribes. When that attempt failed, Sirisena dissolved parliament and called for new elections.
Sirisena calculated that holding elections under Rajapakse’s caretaker government would give Rajapakse the advantage of using state resources. Moreover, since Rajapakse’s camp had made considerable gains at local government elections held in February, voters might provide him a majority in parliament too.
However, several rival political parties, including Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP), the Sinhala extremist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), and several “civil” organisations filed a fundamental right petition challenging Sirisena’s decision to dissolve parliament.
The Supreme Court initially issued an interim order suspending Sirisena’s dissolution of the parliament, leading to the resumption of parliament’s proceedings but without Wickremesinghe’s cabinet.
Yesterday’s unanimous verdict is a clear indication of growing concerns within the ruling elite that the continuing factional conflict will further discredit capitalist rule as a whole. Broad sections of working people, youth and rural toilers of all communities already are being drawn into struggles against the austerity measures implemented by successive governments.
The political crisis erupted in the context of the growing geo-political tensions engulfing the island and all of South Asia, involving the US, the Western powers and India on the one side, and China on the other side. The global economic crisis has also intensified since the 2008 financial crash.
Sirisena’s anti-democratic moves reflect a further shift by the entire ruling class toward dictatorial forms of rule to crush the mounting social opposition. Neither faction of the elite—the Sirisena-Rajapakse wing or Wickremesinghe’s UNP—defends basic democratic rights, contrary to their claims. The UNP and Wickremesinghe have been brutal in cracking down on the struggles of workers, youths, students and farmers.
The Supreme Court verdict also is a clear response to escalating pressure by the US and its allies on Sirisena against his installation of Rajapakse. These powers have no concern either about defending democratic norms.
Washington sponsored a regime-change operation in 2015 to oust Rajapakse and install Sirisena in order to integrate Sri Lanka into the US-led military-strategic offensive against China. Rajapakse had forged close ties with Beijing. The US-led powers, including India, are concerned that Rajapakse’s return would undermine the military ties developed under Wickremesinghe.
Hailing the Supreme Court verdict, Wickremesinghe said his “party trusts that the president will promptly respect the judgment.” He tweeted: “The legislature, judiciary and the executive are equally important pillars of a democracy and the checks and balances that they provide are crucial to ensuring the sovereignty of its citizens.”
JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake also praised the court decision, attempting to spread dangerous illusions in the judges as defenders of democracy. At the same time, he attempted to distance the JVP from the UNP, with which it has been in effect closely aligned.
Disanayake said: “It is clear that both Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapakse have acted unconstitutionally and undemocratically. Let’s not forget the undemocratic tactics of Ranil Wickremesinghe.”
The JVP is well aware of the widespread public hostility to both camps of the ruling class and is attempting to exploit this disaffection to leverage a bigger political role for itself.
Yesterday’s court decision in no way lessens the dangers confronting the working class, youth and oppressed masses produced by the shift toward authoritarian forms of rule, as expressed through Sirisena’s unconstitutional moves.
Since the interim appeals court order to suspend Rajapakse and his cabinet ministers, Sirisena has concentrated the powers of all ministries in his hands, working directly with top state bureaucrats and military leaders, bypassing any parliamentary oversight.
These developments have powerfully vindicated what the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) has warned from the beginning of the political turmoil. The working class must not support any of the warring factions of the elite. It must make its own political intervention into the crisis, rallying the oppressed masses through the program and perspective of international socialism.
The SEP is intensifying its political fight to mobilise the working class on that independent political line, stressing the need to struggle for a workers’ and peasants’ government, as a part of a Union of Socialist Republics in South Asia and the broader struggle for socialism internationally.

13 Dec 2018

Westerwelle Young Founders Program 2019 for Young Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Germany)

Application Deadline: 8th January 2019 1pm CET

Eligible Countries: All African and Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany/Applicant’s Home Country

About the Award: The Westerwelle Young Founders Programme is a fully funded six-month programme for 25 exceptional entrepreneurs from developing and emerging economies. The programme kicks-off with the Westerwelle Young Founders Conference in Berlin taking place from 2 to 6 April 2019. Its focus is to connect young founders from developing and emerging economies with each other and the German startup scene.
The participants of the Young Founders Conference will have the unique opportunity to meet and interact with successful entrepreneurs, investors and political decision makers. They will also join a network of like-minded outstanding young founders from developing and emerging economies.

Type: Entrepreneurship; Career Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants should:
  • Have recently (in the last 5 years) started a for-profit company with a scalable business model
  • Be based in a developing or emerging country or have a strong business focus on developing and emerging economies
  • Possess a good working knowledge of English
  • Foreign applicants must possess valid travel documents (including a visa, if necessary) to enter Germany, and valid travel medical insurance.
Selection: Applicants will first be shortlisted according to their written application. The shortlisted candidates will then be invited for a Skype interview. Results of written application and Skype interview will be discussed by a jury and the selected candidates will be invited to participate at the Young Founders Programme.

Value of Program: During the year-long programme, all fellows will get access to:
  • Westerwelle Young Founders Conference in Berlin taking place from 2 to 6 April 2019.
  • A mentoring programme: monthly mentoring calls with an experienced entrepreneur and with the group of Westerwelle Young Founders
  • Invitations and scholarships for entrepreneurship conferences
  • An international alumni network
Travel and accommodation for the Young Founders Conference will be covered by the Westerwelle Foundation. All fellows are expected to actively participate in the Young Founders Conference as well as in the scheduled mentoring calls.

Duration of Programme: 1 year.
  • Westerwelle Young Founders Conference in Berlin taking place from 2 to 6 April 2019.
  • April 2019 – March 2020: Personal mentoring, peer mentoring (remotely)
How to Apply: Applications are open until January 8, 2019 1PM CET via the online form.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Queen Elizabeth Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme 2019 for Masters Students in Commonwealth Countries

Application Deadline: 6th February 2019 by 4pm (GMT)

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: Queen Elizabeth Commonwealth Scholarships give talented students from anywhere in the Commonwealth the opportunity to gain a Master’s degree, while developing new skills, experiencing life in another country, and building their global networks.
Scholarships are for students committed to creating change in their communities and contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The scholarships are named in honour of Her Majesty The Queen, Head of the Commonwealth and ACU Patron, and are fully funded and supported by numerous Commonwealth governments

Type: Master’s Degrees

Eligibility: Citizens (or those who hold refugee status) in a Commonwealth country are welcome to apply.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Queen Elizabeth Commonwealth Scholarships offer a life-changing opportunity for cultural exchange and academic collaboration in unique environments across the globe
  • Awards are fully funded, providing tuition fees, a return economy flight, an arrival allowance, and a regular stipend (living allowance)
  • Awards are for Master’s degrees and are not applicable to distance learning courses
  • Awards are open to citizens of all Commonwealth countries, other than the host country
  • Award holders will build deeper and stronger links across the Commonwealth network, acting as ambassadors between home and host countries
Duration of Programme: Duration of candidate’s choice

How to Apply: Click on your preferred subject area below to apply:
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Austrian Government OeAD Ernst Mach Follow-up Grants for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadlines: 
  • 1st February 2019
  • 1st November, 2019
Eligible Field of Study: Natural Sciences, Technical Sciences, Human Medicine, Health Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts.

About the Award: Applications are open to postdocs who are pursuing research or teaching at a higher education institution/university in a Non-European developing country and who were in receipt of a grant in Austria which was administered by the OeAD-GmbH (formerly ÖAD).
At the time of taking up the grant at least 5 years must have passed since the last scholarship-supported study or research stay in Austria.
Targets
• to promote scientific secondary growth
• to promote scientific cooperation
• to build a sustainable network of academics with relation to Austria


Eligible Countries: See list below

To be taken at (country): Austria

Type: Research Grants PhD

Eligibility:
  • Maximum age: 50 years
  • For the application deadline February 1, 2019: Born on or after February 1, 1969
  • For the application deadline November 1, 2019: Born on or after November 1, 1969
  • Applicants must not have studied/pursued research/pursued academic work in Austria in the last six months before taking up the grant.
  • Grants in this programme can only be applied for every 5 years
Selecion Criteria: During the selection process the following criteria are examined and assessed:
• Purpose of your stay
• Why did you choose the specific target institution in Austria?
• Added value of the stay for the partner countries concerned (establishment and/or continuation of institutional cooperation)
• Prior teaching and research activities


Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Grant: 
  • Monthly grant
  • Accident and health insurance If necessary.
  • Accommodation
  • Scholarship holders will receive a travel costs subsidy
Duration of Grant: 1 to 3 months

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan; Algeria; American Samoa; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Azerbaijan; Bangladesh; Belize; Benin; Bhutan; Bolivia; Botswana; Brazil; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; Congo; Congo – Democratic Republic of the; Cook Islands; Costa Rica; Cote D’Ivoire; Cuba; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Fiji; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Ghana; Grenada; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Iran – Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Jamaica; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Korea – Democratic People’s Republic of; Kyrgyzstan; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Libya; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Mali; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Micronesia – Federated States of; Mongolia; Montserrat; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nauru; Nepal; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Niue; Pakistan; Palau; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Rwanda; Saint Helena; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Sao Tome and Principe; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Solomon Islands; Somalia; South Africa; South Sudan; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Suriname; Swaziland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Tanzania – United Rebublic of; Thailand; Timor-Leste; Togo; Tokelau; Tonga; Tunisia; Turkmenistan; Tuvalu; Uganda; Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Vanuatu; Venezuela; Viet Nam; Wallis and Futuna; West Bank and Gaza Strip; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe.

How to Apply: Applications must be submitted at “www.scholarships.at“. Only online at www.scholarships.at. A hardcopy application is NOT possible.
The following documents have to be uploaded together with the online application at www.scholarships.at:
• Consent of the academic partner in Austria
• Scan of your passport (page with the name and photo)
• Proof of employment by the home institution
• Curriculum Vitae
• Scan of university graduation certificate of PhD or doctoral studies


Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economics – BMWFW


Important Notes: The recipients of grants will get the grant contract (Letter of Award and Letter of Acceptance) from the OeAD-GmbH/ICM. The contract covers the following aspects: Start and end dates of the grant; monthly grant rate; grant payment modalities (including a possible travel cost subsidy); compulsory presence at the place of study; performance record; data protection; repayment requirements.

Microsoft Imagine Cup Global Student Contest (USD$100,000 prize money) 2019 for Entrepreneurs in EMEA countries

Application Deadline: 16th January 2019 before 02:59:59 GMT+0

Eligible Countries: Countries in Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA)

About the Award: Incredible, world-changing software innovations often come from students. Social networks, music services, photo apps, games, gadgets and robotics – the list goes on. We’re looking for the next big thing and we know students like you are going to make it. Imagine Cup, Microsoft’s premier international competition for young developers, is your chance to show off your biggest, boldest software solution. Code with purpose and show the world what you’ve got.
Whatever your innovation, you can make an impact and win big – like, $100,000 big – with Imagine Cup. With prizing that includes mentorship opportunities with industry leaders, an Azure grant and cash, Imagine Cup can help you take your project to the next level.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: You’re encouraged to submit an original application/solution that you and your team of up to three (3) have built (either on your own time, through your coursework, as a participant in a student hackathon, etc.). For your submission to qualify for the 2019 Imagine Cup, your application must utilize Microsoft Azure. For more details, see the Contest Rules.

Selection: Organized by Microsoft subsidiaries in those countries, the National Finals select the best teams from each participating country as they pitch and demo their ideas to experts to vie for a coveted spot at the Imagine Cup World Finals.

Number of Awards:  These are the awards to be received by participants:
  • First Place:
    • $85,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
    • Remote mentoring session with Satya Nadella
  • Second Place:
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Big Data Award
    • Required use of Azure Data + Analytics or IoT
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Artificial Intelligence Award
    • Required use of Azure Artificial Intelligence + Cognitive Services
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Mixed Reality Award
    • Required use of HoloLens, Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
Value of Award: 
Round 1: Each Local Event may offer prizes at the discretion of the local Microsoft representatives representing that competition. The existence, nature, and conditions of such prizes are subject to the rules of each Local Event. Every team who advances to round 2 will receive a trip to an Imagine Cup Regional Final event. Trip includes round trip coach airfare from a major airport closest to each competitor’s home, standard hotel accommodations, ground
transportation, and select meals during the Regional Final. Mentors to the team are not eligible for this travel prize.
Round 2: At each Regional Final, there will be three winning teams selected. At least one member of the team must be present to win. (Mentors and associates will not be awarded any portion of the monetary prize winnings.)

• First Place:
o $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
o Microsoft Azure Grant
o First place teams will advance to Round 3 and receive a trip to the Imagine Cup World Championship

• Second Place:
o $5,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
o Microsoft Azure Grant

• Third Place:
o $1,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
o Microsoft Azure Grant
Round 3: At the World Championship one winning team will be selected. At least one member
of the team must be present to win. (Mentors and associates will not be awarded any portion of
the monetary prize winnings.)

• World Champion:
o $100,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of
the Team
o Microsoft Azure Grant


How to Apply: Register now!

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Johnson & Johnson Global Mental Health Scholarships 2019/2020 for Developing Countries – UK

Application Deadline: 24th March 2019 (midnight (GMT).

Eligible Countries: Rwanda; Ghana; Kenya; Nigeria; South Africa; Thailand; Indonesia; Philippines; Vietnam; Peru; Nicaragua.

To Be Taken At (Country): UK

About the Award: The MSc Global Mental Health course is a joint programme provided by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (KCL). The programme of study aims to provide students with the knowledge and skills to initiate, develop and oversee mental health programmes and/or policies in low-resource settings, as well as to conduct and critically evaluate research on global mental health. These skills and knowledge will make it possible for students to make valuable contributions in the domains of research, policy and practice as they relate to the discipline of global mental health.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 
  • Applicants must be nationals of, and ordinarily resident in, one of the following countries:
  • Rwanda; Ghana; Kenya; Nigeria; South Africa; Thailand; Indonesia; Philippines; Vietnam; Peru; Nicaragua. Applicants from other countries will not be considered for these scholarships.
  • Applicants for this funding must hold an offer of admission to the MSc Global Mental Health commencing in 2019-2020. To apply for the programme of study please follow the application instructions on the King’s College London MSc Global Mental Health programme website.
  • Applicants from non-English speaking countries (as specified by the Home Office – UKVI) must meet the minimum English Language Requirements if shortlisted for this funding. Applicants who have been short-listed for this funding will be required to provide proof of English language proficiency within 6 weeks of notification for their scholarship application to be considered any further. A copy of the relevant paperwork must be submitted to the Scholarships Team at LSHTM.
Number of Awards: Up to 4

Value of Award: Each scholarship will cover full tuition fees, a stipend (living allowance) of GBP 16,950.00 and an allowance of GBP 500.00 for MSc project expenses.

Duration of Program: 1 year.

How to Apply: To apply for this funding applicants must submit:
  • Step 1: an application for study for the MSc Global Mental Health programme through the King’s College London online application portal.
and
  • an online scholarships application, selecting this scholarship option from the drop-down menu. The scholarship application must include the following uploaded documents
    • A completed Supplementary Questions Form for this scholarship, and
    • Proof of your application submission, or Letter of Offer from KCL, for 2019-20 MSc Global Mental Health programme, and
    • English Proficiency score results (if you have these already).
by the scholarship deadline.
By submitting an application for this funding applicants agree to its Terms & Conditions (See in Program Webpage).
Please read through the Important Application Information before applying.


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Sustainable Tropical Forestry (SUTROFOR) Masters Scholarships 2019/2020 for International Students – Erasmus Mundus

Application Deadline:15th January 2019

Eligible Countries: Partner countries

To be taken at (country):The SUTROFOR MSc Course is organised by a Consortium which includes five of the best European universities within the field of forest and nature management:
  • University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Copenhagen (Denmark)
  • Bangor University, School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor (UK)
  • Dresden University of Technology, Institute of International Forestry and Forest Products, Tharandt (Germany)
  • AgroParisTech, Paris Institute of Technology for Life, Food and Environmental Sciences, Montpellier (France)
  • University of Padova, TESAF Department, School of Agriculture, Padova (Italy)
The SUTROFOR Consortium also includes the following non-European associate partners: Tribhuvan University in Nepal, Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza in Costa Rica and Makerere University, Uganda.

About the Award: SUTROFOR is part of the Erasmus+: Erasmus Mundus Programme initiated by the European Union. The Erasmus+: Erasmus Mundus Programme is a co-operation and mobility programme in the field of higher education that aims to enhance the quality of European higher education and promote intercultural understanding.
The SUTROFOR Erasmus scholarship Programme is divided into two:
  • Erasmus Mundus student scholarship: For eligible master students (degree).
  • Erasmus Mundus scholar scholarship: for visiting academics (short stay)
Type: Masters, Short course

Eligibility:

Erasmus Mundus student scholarship

These scholarships can be awarded to masters students from all countries other than the EU member states and EEA/EFTA states: Turkey, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. Furthermore, you must comply with a 12 months rule: i.e you must not be a resident nor have carried out your main activity (studies, work etc.) for more than a total of 12 months over the last five years in one of these countries.
To be eligible for evaluation your application for a student scholarship must include a certificate – i.e. an official document – verifying your place of residence.

Scholarships for Visiting Lecturers (scholars)

The SUTROFOR programme supports visiting scholars staying at one of the partner universities for a period of 1-3 weeks. The weekly living allowance including travel costs is 1.200 EUR.
Scholars must be established researchers and teachers. During their stay with one or more SUTROFOR partner universities they will carry out research and teaching activities, for example by contributing to established courses, temporary seminars/workshops or with supervision of students.

Number of Awards:Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Contribution to the travel and installation costs
  • Contribution to subsistence costs
Duration of Programme:
  • Degree Program: 2 years
  • Visiting Scholars: 1-3 months
How to Apply: 
  • Degree Program: It is important to go through the Admission requirements and Application procedure before applying
  • Visiting Scholars: Download the application form 

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Peruvian voters approve referendum proposals touted as answer to corruption

Cesar Uco

In a national referendum held last Sunday, Peruvians overwhelmingly approved three out of four proposals that have been touted as the answer to the systematic corruption prevailing in every area of the ruling establishment from politicians, including former presidents and leaders of Congress, to leading business figures.
President Martin Vizcarra had promoted the referendum. He assumed the presidency on March 23, after his predecessor Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (PPK) was forced to resign over evidence linking him to the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht, which has been at the center of a continent-wide corruption scandal. A video emerged allegedly showing the president’s supporters attempting to buy political support to block his impeachment.
Over one year ago, it was revealed that Odebrecht had been winning state contracts to build roads and bridges by bribing officials. The total amount spent in kickbacks and other illegal payments in Peru was over US$40 million.
The referendum was first called by Vizcarra, a right-wing defender of Peruvian big business and foreign capital, in his speech to the nation on July 28. Peruvians were asked to answer yes or no to four constitutional reforms:
1) Replacing the corrupt and discredited National Council of the Judiciary with a new institution, the National Committee of Justice; 2) Regulating political campaign financing; 3) Prohibiting consecutive reelection to Congress; and 4) Establishing a bicameral congress.
The first three proposals were approved by roughly 85 percent of the voters, while the fourth was rejected by over 90 percent.
Peru has been rocked in recent years by a series of corruption scandals involving influence peddling, using bourgeois political parties for money laundering and government officials, heads of major political parties and businessmen receiving bribes and kickbacks.
The judiciary was controlled by an inner circle led by former Supreme Judge Walter Rios, known as the Band of White Collars of the Port. The police obtained audio recordings of judges trading lighter sentences for professional advancement.
Congress, controlled by the right-wing fujimorista Fuerza Popular (FP) party, was rife with similar scandals. As an example of the many cases of congressional corruption, in December 2017 Kenji Fujimori, together with a group of FP dissidents, voted against impeaching the then-president and former Wall Street investment banker Kuczynski in exchange for a presidential pardon for his father, former president Alberto Fujimori.
The elder Fujimori was serving a 25-year sentence for having ordered the paramilitary “Grupo Colina” to conduct massacres of students and professors at La Cantuta University, and an attack perpetrated in a working-class neighborhood, Barrios Altos, where 15 people, mistakenly linked to the Maoist Shining Path group, were murdered, including an eight-year-old boy.
Though not a member of Congress, the leader of FP, Keiko Fujimori, controlled it. She has not only lost political influence with the referendum results, but is currently being held in preventive detention for 40 days in connection with alleged illegal campaign contributions. The party itself is threatened with a major split .
In the executive branch, corruption reached the top, implicating five former presidents who have ruled Peru from 1985 to the present:
* Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000), sentenced to 25 years for crimes against humanity.
* Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006), who received a US$25 million kickback from Odebrecht in exchange for multibillion-dollar deals, is currently living in California under the protection of the US government.
* Alan Garcia (1985-1990 and 2006-2011), who, claiming political persecution, sought asylum in the Uruguayan Embassy, until he had to leave when that country denied his request, is accused of illicit enrichment and obstruction of justice related to the Odebrecht scandal.
* Ollanta Humala and his wife Nadine (2011-2016), accused of receiving money for their presidential campaign from Odebrecht and Venezuela, were subject to preventive incarceration until the Constitutional Tribunal declared this measure was illegal.
* Completing the list is the former Wall Street banker PPK (2016-2017) who was forced to resign last March to avoid charges that would have sent him to jail.
As expected, the media is portraying the referendum results as blow against corruption, a personal triumph of Vizcarra and a defeat for the fujimorista FP in Congress.
The real motives underlying the referendum, however, are quite different than those promoted by the media and the government.
One week ago, Peru’s annual Conference of Executives (CADE-Executives 2018) saw the government and top business figures agree to put up a common fight aimed at the destruction of living standards of the working class. The government claims that Peru’s labor costs are too high compared to its global competitors and need to be reduced significantly.
Vizcarra’s proposal is to cut or eliminate all benefits except salaries. This will not happen without fierce opposition by the millions that constitute the Peruvian working class.
The referendum and the supposed crusade against corruption are aimed at providing a cover for the coming offensive against the working class.
Even as the government tries to use the referendum results to line up the political parties behind this coming confrontation with the working class, new charges have been leveled by former president Garcia that Kuczynski’s second vice president, Mercedes Aráoz, and his campaign manager, today’s President Vizcarra, received 6 million soles that no one can account for. He is calling for an investigation into PPK and the current president himself.
Vizcarra is counting on crucial support from two bourgeois left parties in his government’s campaign against the Peruvian workers. Their ecstatic reaction to the referendum results has aligned them closely with the government. Indira Huilca from Frente Amplio declared that “the people had sanctioned fujimorismo,” while Veronika Mendoza from Nuevo Peru backed Vizcarra, calling for “a new Constitution for a new Peru.” She added that the referendum demonstrated “that in democracy it is the sovereign people who command.”
As Vizcarra seeks to refurbish the image of a bourgeois state that had lost all credibility in the eyes of the working class and the poor, Mendoza has taken upon herself the job of providing him with a left cover, concealing from the working class the sharp threats posed by the current government’s policies.

Hundreds of residential tower blocks around UK still clad in flammable material

Margot Miller 

Tens of thousands of UK residents are still living in high rise buildings covered with flammable cladding, 18 months after the horrific inferno that consumed Grenfell Tower, killing 72.
The deadly consequences of wrapping buildings in thermo-plastic materials was confirmed by experts recently at the government inquiry into the Grenfell fire. The cladding and its inept installation were identified as the main contributory factors in the fire spreading from a small fire in one flat to the whole building in half an hour.
It took almost a year after the Grenfell fire for Prime Minister Theresa May to announce that the government would provide a paltry £400 million to remove cladding composed of aluminium composite material (ACM) from publicly owned buildings, to be replaced with a safe alternative. ACM is in fact only one kind of cladding with incendiary properties.
“Councils and housing associations must remove dangerous cladding quickly,” May said in parliament as a means to diffuse public anger over the issue.
That no action has been taken by the government to enforce this is proved by the latest monthly Building Safety Programme report. The Building Safety Programme was set up following the fire “with the aim of ensuring that residents of high-rise residential buildings are safe, and feel safe from the risk of fire, now and in the future.”
But its October 25 report, published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, shows hardly any progress in removing the cladding. It identified that there are still “457 high-rise (over 18 metres) residential buildings and publicly-owned buildings in England [which have] Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding systems unlikely to meet current Building Regulations guidance.”
Of these, “157 are social sector residential buildings, managed by local authorities or housing associations; 291 are private sector buildings, of which 201 are private residential, 28 are hotels, and 62 are student accommodation. 9 are publicly-owned buildings, comprising hospitals and schools.”
Not all buildings with cladding have even been tested yet: “There are approximately 30 private sector residential buildings where the cladding status is still to be confirmed—this has fallen from approximately 170 buildings in June.”
The report lists the work to date: “22 of the 157 social sector buildings (14%) have finished remediation… and a further 98 buildings (62%) have started the process of remediation… Of the 291 private sector buildings 17 have finished remediation…; 21 have started remediation; remediation plans are in place for 92 buildings but remediation works haven’t started on these buildings yet; there are 40 buildings where building owners intend to remediate and plans are being developed; and remediation plans remain unclear for 121 buildings.”
Therefore, out of a total 457 buildings identified, work has been completed on just 43 (less than a tenth).
On October 17, six months after the cladding fund was announced, the government finally began to release the first tranches to Local Authorities to begin the remedial work on public buildings.
Work began on some high-rise blocks in the city of Salford, which has 29 flats encased with dangerous cladding—the highest concentration in the UK—daily threatening the safety and lives of residents.
Cladding has been removed from some of the nine local authority owned blocks—up to the fourth floor, and completely from Plane Court. Even before winter sets in, residents at Plane are complaining of freezing conditions in the flats, because the cladding has not been replaced and the outer walls provide no insulation.
One resident told the Salford Star, a local campaigning and investigative journal, “It’s really cold, absolutely freezing; it’s like being in the North Pole. We’re sat with heaters on, blankets and onesies and it’s still cold... They’ve [the local council] not done anything, apart from ask us to be patient.”
Another said, “We’ve got the heating on but it doesn’t make a difference. We’ve got the hot water on but it’s warm water; and when you run a bath you’ve got to boil the kettle and pour it into the bath.”
A couple said they have resorted to sleeping under “silver thermal blankets from one of the homeless organisations. That is how me and my partner sleep... in tin foil,” adding, “Pendleton Together are a joke.”
Pendleton Together Operating Limited (PTOL) is the private company that manages the flats on behalf of the Labour Party-run Salford City Council.
Funding the remedial work has proved a Kafkaesque nightmare. Labour Party-run Salford City Council originally borrowed £25 million to finance the work, which the government blocked. Pendleton Together does not qualify for the government cladding fund because it is a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contractor, which pays dividends to shareholders.
The Deputy City Mayor, Labour councillor John Merry, announced the “contractor, PTOL, have the means to pay for a detailed fire safety programme to keep homes safe and warm.”
What he failed to explain is that SCC is tied into a PFI agreement with PTOL until 2042 and each month must make a payment “Sufficient to pay bond debt, to include interest and amortisation, operational costs and to provide for shareholder return...”
Residents of Spruce Court spoke to WSWS reporters expressing their worry, and anger at being kept in the dark.
Bob, 62, who lives on the sixth floor, said, “All those people [in Grenfell Tower] died for nothing. They were doing cheap renovations. The council are supposed to be sorting it [remedial work] out, but it could take two years.”
“My 85-year-old relative lives on the tenth floor,” said Janice, “And I’m worried about him.”
Dany, 26, said, “The Council are doing nothing. People are in danger. We’re not animals. Capitalism needs to go otherwise there will be more dangers.”
Salim, 32, explained he got a flat in Plane Court because “I was homeless, I had no choice. It’s scary, I’m worried. I call it modern slavery. It’s about the rich people not the poor people.”
Residents in the Pendleton Together blocks were recently informed by letter that the company had “secured funding for the removal and replacement of cladding over nine blocks at Pendleton, along with other fire related works. Further details on the work will be available shortly...”
There was no information on the amount of funding, or whether work would proceed on other defects in the blocks, such as faulty wiring, windows and entrance gates.
Salford City Council are equally unforthcoming, refusing to reveal the contents of a safety report into their flats commissioned by PTOL, saying it was up to the company to do so.
As there was initially no commitment by the government to fund work to remove ACM cladding on privately owned blocks, a government spokeswoman indicated that the cost for remediation should be met by landlords: “This is money for social housing. We expect private building owners to take responsibility for removing and replacing and to not pass the cost on to leaseholders.”
A recent legal judgement, however, ruled in favour of freeholders, who own the land on which flats stand. It ruled that leaseholders (flat owners) can be charged for removing dangerous cladding from buildings.
The quagmire has not been resolved by the government’s recent about-face on the issue—more apparent than real—authorising Councils to do the necessary remedial work, for which they will be reimbursed from central government funds.
Given the dire state of Local Authority finances—depleted of funds by massive austerity cuts to their budgets by Labour and Conservative governments since 2008—and the stipulation by both parties for councils to balance the books, it can be expected that councils will continue to prevaricate.
At the end of November, James Brokenshire MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, banned all combustible cladding, including ACM, from new buildings taller than 18 metres. The ban will be effective from December 21.
Combustible doors, windows, seals and thermal break materials will be exempt, however—even though these were proved to have contributed to the rapacious fire spread at Grenfell tower. The government said only that this exemption will be “reviewed.”
Moreover, tower blocks built before 2013, wrapped in combustible cladding other than ACM, will not be covered by the ban. This means that approximately 160 high-rise flats, hotels and student blocks will remain wrapped in rainscreen cladding made from combustible materials—because the government in its indifference and criminality has only committed to fund the removal of buildings wrapped in ACM.