Nigeria election commission abruptly postpones presidential poll

Eddie Haywood

In the early morning Saturday just hours before the polls were set to open, Nigeria’s Independent National Election Commission (INEC) abruptly postponed the presidential election, claiming that it lacked the proper election materials and equipment at various polling locations around the country. In its announcement of the delay, INEC declared that the election has been rescheduled for Saturday, February 23.

In addition to postponing the presidential poll by a week, INEC also rescheduled the polls for the National Assembly to February 23, and the gubernatorial and House of Assembly elections to March 9.

INEC chairman Mahmood Yakubu gave reporters in capital city Abuja little explanation for the sudden delay, assering, “This was a difficult decision to take but necessary for successful delivery of the elections and the consolidation of our democracy.”

The presidential contest, taking place between incumbent president Muhammadu Buhari and chief rival and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, is in a virtual dead heat, with each candidate expected to take an even number of votes.

After the announcement of the election’s postponement, Buhari and Abubakar traded accusations against the other of improperly influencing INEC, with each candidate calling the delay an attempt by the other camp to get breathing room in the hotly contested poll.

President Buhari’s All Progressives Congress Party called the delay “a huge disappointment” and told the media, “We do hope that INEC will remain neutral and impartial in this process as the rumor mill is agog with the suggestion that this postponement has been orchestrated in collusion with the main opposition, the PDP [People’s Democratic Party], that was never ready for this election.”

Uche Secondus, the chairman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to which rival candidate Atiku Abubakar belongs, blasted the postponement, calling it “dangerous to our democracy and unacceptable.” He accused President Buhari of influencing INEC’s ruling as an attempt to cling to power amid a stiff challenge.

The postponement was immediately met with an outcry of anger by voters across the country, who were prepared to cast their ballots on Saturday. Having no absentee voting system, voters in Nigeria must travel to their home province in order to participate in elections. Many voters traveled from other areas of Nigeria at significant personal expense in anticipation of voting.

INEC’s Twitter account was inundated with tweets by angry voters, who excoriated the electoral body for the delay.

Summing up the general outrage, one voter wrote: “I am in my villa with friends who traveled 7 hours for this election. So we will just travel back to come back on Saturday. What a waste! For me, postpone 3 times, I must vote and nobody can stop that which its time has come!”

The fundamental issue of the election, a contest between two multimillionaires, essentially boils down to deciding which candidate can best represent the economic interests of the wealthy Nigerian elite, and takes place in a country blighted by the extreme poverty experienced by the majority of Nigerians.

With a population of 190 million and home to vast oil and gas wealth, Nigeria is one of the most socially unequal countries on earth, with just 10 individuals controlling a total net worth in excess of $26 billion.

In contrast, over 50 percent of the population subsist on less than two dollars a day, according to figures published by the World Bank, and more than 23 per cent of Nigerians are unemployed. Amid this social devastation experienced by the Nigerian population, Buhari and Abubakar have poured over $2.7 million into their respective campaigns.

Buhari first rose to power in 1983 after the former student of the US Army War College became military dictator of the country in a violent coup. His rule was characterized by immense brutality and cronyism, with his regime carrying out the detention, torture, and killing of political opponents. Buhari and his ruling clique became immensely wealthy from looting Nigeria’s vast oil and gas resources.

Holding power for two years, he was routed in 1985 by a subsequent military putsch. Buhari subsequently returned to power when he was elected president in 2015, defeating incumbent Goodluck Johnathan.

Buhari’s current administration is beset by similar brutality, corruption, and cronyism. Last year, the United Nations Human Rights Commission released a 49-page report which extensively documented the Buhari government’s crimes, including extra-judicial killings, arbitrary detention, torture, rape, and the sexual mutilation of political opponents, including children. The report additionally condemned the Buhari regime’s rampant corruption and looting of the Nigerian economy.

As for Atiku Abubakar, he served as Vice President for the years of 1999 to 2007 in the government of Olusegun Obasanjo and was employed as a customs officer from 1969 to 1989, eventually becoming Deputy Director of the Nigerian Customs Service.

As Deputy Director, Abubakar leveraged his position to set up Nigeria Container Services (NICOTES), a shipping company, partnering with Gabriele Volpi, an Italian-born Nigerian businessman in 1982. NICOTES, now known as Intels, became the largest logistics company in Nigeria, netting Abubakar a significant fortune.

Coinciding with the election and its postponement are the ongoing paramilitary skirmishes in the north, with the Nigerian army engaged in an intractable fight with the Boko Haram Islamist militia.

Over the last week, at least 70 people have been killed in the northern part of the country, an area wracked by years of paramilitary conflict and overrun by criminal gangs engaging in kidnappings, extortion, and assassinations.

There is little doubt Washington is closely monitoring the election and its outcome, as evidenced by its vast military presence in the region, with more than 1,000 military personnel, including special forces troops, deployed in the neighboring countries of Cameroon, Niger, and Mali.

Key to American economic and geopolitical interests in Western Africa is the growing economic influence of China in Nigeria, and the Buhari government’s close relations with Beijing. Washington views China as the chief threat to American dominance of the African continent and is keen to neutralize Beijing’s encroaching influence.

Over the last decade, Chinese companies have invested heavily in Nigeria, bankrolling projects totaling in the billions of dollars, including in the oil and gas sectors, as well as construction, electricity, transportation, and manufacturing industries.

Over the next several years, Beijing plans a vast increase in its trade with Nigeria, and Nigeria figures prominently as part of Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative. Plans are underway for a transcontinental railway, already begun in 2017 in Kenya, to be built across the continent through to Nigeria, connecting Western Africa to Chinese trade routes.

New attacks on pensions imposed by UK Tory government

Dennis Moore

Analysis compiled for the BBC has found that millions of workers in Britain will see pay cuts in the coming weeks, as the amount they have to pay in pension contributions increases. Twelve million workers who, since 2012, have automatically been signed up for workplace pensions, will see their contributions increase from 3 percent to 5 percent.

A study of the figures for the BBC by investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown found that someone on a salary as low as £15,000 a year will be down by £49, if they pay contributions on their entire salary. A worker on £30,000 will take home £253 less, it is estimated.

These attacks on living standards are on top of even more draconian pensions cuts rolled out last month by the Conservative government. Even as the first vote in Parliament took place to reject Prime Minister Theresa’s May Brexit EU deal—followed by a failed vote of no confidence in her government—the Tories still found time to sneak out pension cuts under which many of the poorest people will lose thousands of pounds.

The cuts were announced by Guy Opperman, parliamentary undersecretary of state for pensions and financial inclusion, on the evening on January 14, just a day before Parliament’s Brexit vote.

Under a provision of the hated Universal Credit (UC) welfare system, thousands of the poorest pensioners will lose to up £7,000 annually. The key change will affect many couples defined as mixed age, where one partner is of state pension age and one is of a younger working age.

The state pension age for both men and women is currently 65 and is set to rise to 68 in stages in coming years for both men and women.

Following the new changes that come into force on May 15, couples that wish to make a claim to benefits will have to make a claim via the UC system—rather than the previous Pension Credits system. The means-tested Pension Credit was a safety net introduced by the Blair Labour government in 2003, as a way of topping up the income of those receiving the meagre state pension.

Prior to this change, if one person in a couple was under pensionable age, the other person of pensionable age was able to make a claim as a couple and receive more money. Previously there would be no job-seeking requirement on the younger member of the couple.

These cuts are significant as they introduce conditionality and directly affect someone of pension age, bearing in mind that benefits for pensioners are generally higher, relatively, in comparison to those of working age claimants. Under the old rules, there was no form of conditionality requiring someone within a couple to have to look for work.

The money claimants will lose is huge, when examining the difference between current rates of payment and what a new claimant receives under the new system. This will prove a catastrophe for many couples who will face a massive drop in expected income in older age.

A couple of working age on UC can receive as little as under £500 a month, less than £6,000 a year. Even a single person on Pension Credit can receive around £8,700 a year, and a couple, more than £13,000.

The average age gap for mixed age couples is 2.6 years. That would equate to a potential loss of income of £19,000, until the younger partner becomes old enough to qualify to claim Pension Credit.

Speaking about the cuts, Caroline Abrahams, Age UK’s charity director, said; “[M]ake no mistake, this is very bad news for everyone affected. It’s a substantial stealth cut—a couple claiming in the future could receive £140 less per week than an older couple claiming before the changes come in.”

Sir Steve Webb, a former Liberal Democrat pensions minister in the 2010-15 Tory/Lib Dem coalition—who is now profiting from his government role as the director of policy at mutual life, pensions and investment company Royal London—calculated that a couple who were to receive £13,273 in the 2019-20 financial year from pension credit would see that figure collapse to just £5,986.68 under UC.

The changes will affect those who make a new claim to benefit after May 2019, and those who may come off Pension Credit, because there has been an increase in their income. This is decisive, as Pension Credit is means tested, so if a claimant’s income were to increase, they would no longer be eligible to claim Pension Credit.

In the past, if their income was to go back down, the claimant would be able to claim Pension Credit again. But under the new rules a person cannot go back onto Pension Credit. Instead, they have to make a new claim to UC, with the financial implication that they will be worse off.

Another problem that could lead to delay and loss of benefit—given the enormous problems that many have already suffered in trying to access UC—is the scenario that if the pensioner partner goes out of the country for over four weeks, to visit relatives, when returning they may have to make a new claim to benefit via UC. This is because their Pension Credit could have ended in the meantime.

These attacks have their origins in the 2012 Welfare Reform Act, which imposed the condition that those claiming Universal Credit would be expected to look for work. This includes couples where one is of working age.

Since its introduction, the human cost of UC has been devastating and unrelenting, with claimants not being paid, and in some cases people losing their homes because they have accrued rent arrears. Many of those impacted, as well as welfare rights organisations, have called for UC implementation to be halted, and to be axed all together.

Amid this enormous assault on the remains of the welfare state, the Labour Party under nominally “left” leader Jeremy Corbyn opposes UC’s repeal.

Last October, Shami Chakrabarti, Labour’s shadow attorney general for England and Wales, was asked in a Sky News interview if Universal Credit would survive under Labour. She replied, “I don’t think universal credit in its current form is sustainable and that’s why we’re urging the government to stop the rollout now” (emphasis added).

Last October, Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, interviewed by Sky News, branded Universal Credit a “shambles” and “iniquitous,: saying: “It will have to go.” But a week later, Labour briefed journalists for a disability website, saying that it merely wants “a root-and-branch review of the social security system.”

What is there to review? The introduction of Universal Credit is one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in the post-war period. If Labour had any serious intention of addressing the rocketing levels of austerity, they would be calling for UC’s immediate scrapping.

The fact is that Labour has played a crucial role in attacks on the welfare system over the last decade. In 2008, the Gordon Brown Labour government introduced the draconian work capability assessments (medicals) for Employment and Support Allowance. Notorious for their high level of inaccuracy in decision making, they often found claimants “fit for work,” who were clearly ill.

In 2015, during the leadership election that Corbyn won, acting leader Harriet Harman insisted that Labour MPs abstain on the Conservative government’s Welfare Bill, which would further impoverish millions. All three of Corbyn’s Blairite opponents—Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall—refused to oppose the Bill. This was at the same time as former Tory chancellor George Osborne was rolling out a further £12 billion in welfare cuts.

The new cuts will pauperise many more people, confirming that whatever side of the Remain/Leave Brexit divide the political representatives of the ruling elite are on, they are agreed that austerity will continue and must worsen as British imperialism enters uncharted territory.

Signs of rising levels of workers’ struggles in China

Peter Symonds

Amid a slowing Chinese economy and the US imposition of trade war measures on Chinese goods, there are signs of growing working-class unrest with strikes and protests over unpaid wages, factory closures and oppressive working conditions.

The Beijing regime, which is deeply fearful of opposition by workers, maintains heavy press censorship of any struggles. Estimates of so-called “mass incidents,” which include rural protests and environmental demonstrations, are limited.

The Hong-Kong based China Labour Bulletin (CLB) keeps a record of protests and strikes by Chinese workers derived from the press reports and its own contacts within China. Last year CLB recorded more than 1,700 incidents, up by 36 percent from 1,250 in 2017.

These figures are only indicative. The CLB estimates that its records account for only between 5 to 10 percent of the actual number of industrial actions by workers—in other words, the number of strikes and protests is 10 to 20 times greater than the CLB figures.

The South China Morning Post last year cited the comments of the spokesman for the state-run All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), Wang Xiaofeng, who declared in October that its arbitration panels had dealt with about 2 million general labour disputes over the previous five years—or an average of around 400,000 a year. The ACFTU functions as an industrial police force to suppress strikes and is widely despised by workers.

In its report on the state of labour relations in China in 2018, the CLB noted that the vast majority of collective labour disputes, or 73.3 percent, occurred at domestically-owned private enterprises, 11.6 percent in state-owned enterprises and just 2.9 percent in Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan foreign-funded enterprises and joint ventures. Most were relatively small and lasted for only a few days.

CLB figures for strikes in manufacturing as a proportion of the total have declined from 41 percent in 2014 to 16 percent last year. The largest proportion was in the construction industry, which accounted for 45 percent of the total in 2018 with the overwhelming majority concerned with the late- or non-payment of wages.

An Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) report last week on increasing strike levels cited the case of a group of construction workers in southern Dongguan City who on Christmas Eve threatened to jump off the roof of the tall building they had constructed to demand nearly $20,000 in unpaid wages.

Their former employer disappeared without paying the wages owed. One of the workers posted an appeal on the Chinese social media platform Weibo declaring that they had exhausted every avenue to track him down. “It [hasn’t worked] at all after more than two weeks of efforts… Please give us migrant workers a way to survive.”

The New York Times earlier this month cited a worker, Zong Liang, who had taken part in a protest in January outside an electronics factory in Shenzhen over unpaid wages. “Nobody cares about us anymore,” he said. “I sacrificed my health for the company and now I can’t afford to buy even a bag of rice.”

The CLB estimates that non-payment of wages is a component of 80 percent of all strikes and protests. Non-payment of social insurance contributions and redundancy pay-outs, arbitrary pay reductions and the imposition of onerous working conditions are among the other issues provoking industrial action.

Strikes in the transport sector by truck and van drivers, taxi and ride-hailing drivers, couriers and food delivery workers were another major component of the overall strike figures. The CLB noted that one of the largest, coordinated strikes occurred in June last year when tens of thousands of truck drivers across the country refused to work in protest over low haulage rates, high fuel costs and arbitrary fines.

The New York Times article also pointed out that labour activists had in some cases used social media to organise wider protests across provincial lines. Last year tens of thousands of crane operators were involved in a one-day strike in at least 10 of China’s provinces.

Last October Chinese President Xi Jinping and six other top officials met with leaders of the official All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) to urge them to be more pro-active in suppressing discontent and opposition. Xi declared that the union should “focus on the most pressing, most immediate issues that concern employees, and fulfil the obligation of safeguarding workers’ rights and interests” so as to “consolidate the class foundation and public support for the party’s governance.”

Xi’s remarks are cynical window-dressing. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not represent the working class but defends the interests of the capitalist class, especially the super-wealthy oligarchs who grown rich through the gross exploitation of workers and the plunder of state-owned property through processes of capitalist restoration over the past three decades.

The CCP’s response to rising levels of strikes and protests is to crack down on workers using police state measures. The New York Times reported: “The authorities have detained more than 150 people since August, a sharp increase from previous years, including teachers, taxi drivers, construction workers, and leftist students leading a campaign against factory abuses.”

What terrifies the CCP apparatus, however, is the prospect of a political movement of the working class that links separate struggles under an anti-capitalist banner directed against the regime in Beijing. It has cracked down with particular ferocity against students from elite universities who participated last year in the fight by workers at the Jasic Technology plant for an independent union and improved wages and conditions.

A lengthy article in the Financial Times last week featuring interviews with some of the students who pointed to the growth of social inequality as the principal reason for their radicalisation and turn to workers. The Gini coefficient, which is designed to measure social polarization, has increased sharply over the past three decades—from 0.30 in 1980 to 0.47 in 2017. A coefficient of 0 represents absolute equality, while a value of 1 represents absolute inequality.

This year marks three significant anniversaries—100 years since the May 4 movement, an outburst of anti-imperialist protests begun by university students; the 70th anniversary of the 1949 Chinese Revolution in October; and the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests begun by students but which led to a widespread uprising by workers. The CCP regime is undoubtedly concerned that any or all of these dates could become the focus of mass political opposition.

Imperialist conflicts dominate Munich Security Conference

Peter Schwarz

The Munich Security Conference, which ended yesterday, laid bare a capitalist world order rapidly breaking apart and heading for disaster.

As the motto of the conference, the organizers chose the image of a fragmented puzzle and posed the question: Who would pick up the pieces. The course of the meeting made clear that the struggle over the pieces of the puzzle will prove to be no less violent and bloody than the two world wars of the twentieth century. Those attending the conference and the media made little attempt to disguise this.

In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the general secretary of the Christian Social Union (CSU), Markus Blume, recalled the end of the Cold War 30 years ago, when “many expected a new epoch of perpetual stability” and Francis Fukuyama spoke of the “end of history.” “Today, in 2019, it all sounds like a report from another era,” Blume said. “We are experiencing dramatic changes worldwide of unprecedented scale, speed and radicalness.” Our world order was “unprepared for these fundamental changes.”

The Süddeutsche Zeitung commented: “It is symptomatic of the times that problems can be largely analysed correctly, but that any intelligent formula for their solution is lacking. The vultures are circling—ready to swoop down on the remnants of the system.”

Besides NATO’s confrontation with Russia and the trade war between the US and China, conflicts within NATO itself dominated the three-day meeting, which was attended by several hundred heads of government, ministers, military experts and politicians. The intervention by US Vice President Mike Pence revealed the sharp differences between the US on one side and Germany and other European powers on the other.

Pence came directly from Warsaw, where he had forged an alliance with Israel, Poland and a number of Arab states to wage war against Iran. In Warsaw, Pence had ordered the United States’ European allies to “stand by our side” and threatened them indirectly with the breakup of the NATO alliance if they refused. “If you stand with us in this noble cause, we will stand with you,” he declared.

Pence spoke in the same arrogant, commanding tone in Munich. He accused Iran of planning a new holocaust and seeking to obliterate Israel. He hinted that the US was preparing regime-change in Tehran and demanded that Europe ditch its nuclear agreement with Iran and support American sanctions instead.

Pence also vehemently attacked the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is already under construction and connects Germany directly with Russia via the Baltic Sea. “We cannot ensure the defence of the West if our allies grow dependent on the East,” he threatened.

In the course of the Munich conference, the Handelsblatt newspaper, citing government circles, announced that the Trump administration is planning to classify German auto imports as a threat to US national security and levy customs duties—a new stage of trade war with grave implications for Germany’s export industry.

Pence also reiterated the demand for European NATO members to increase their military spending to two percent of GDP. He issued an ultimatum, demanding “credible plans” on how to achieve this goal by 2024. After his speech, the US vice president disappeared from the stage, without—as is usual in Munich—answering questions or listening to the speeches of other conference participants.

Representatives of Germany and other European countries reacted with outrage. Chancellor Angela Merkel gave what the press called an “unusually passionate speech,” which was met with a standing ovation. She opposed the accusations made by the American delegation and pleaded for a multilateral policy. She said she was convinced that “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes and seeing if you can achieve common win-win solutions” was better than solving everything on one’s own.

Merkel’s call for multilateralism cannot hide the fact that Germany and Europe are also intent on ruthlessly pursuing their own economic and geo-strategic interests. In her opening speech, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said that “the return of competition between the major powers” is “the most prominent characteristic of the new security landscape.” She stated that “whether we like it or not, Germany and Europe are part of this competitive struggle. We are not neutral.”

Like von der Leyen, Merkel devoted large parts of her speech to listing what Germany and the EU have already done and still want to do in order to prepare a new round of military confrontations.

She expressly acknowledged NATO’s two-percent military spending target and praised German military operations alongside the US in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. She laid great stress on the fact that Germany is now also active outside of NATO, particularly in Mali and other African countries. She advocated not only a European army and common arms policy, but also a common European armaments export policy, which amounts to loosening existing export restrictions on weaponry.

Heiko Maas, Germany's Social Democratic foreign minister, summed up the German-European drive for world power with the formula: “Subject or object of world politics—this is the crucial issue of the future confronting Europe.” One newspaper commented: “The desire for European self-assertion is the leitmotif of this conference.”

While some conference attendees blamed US President Donald Trump individually for the sharp transatlantic tensions, others addressed more fundamental causes. Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the German parliament’s foreign relations committee, declared that Trump was not the cause, but rather a symptom of the tectonic shifts in geopolitics that have led to the return of great power rivalry and the centrifugal forces that are shattering multilateralism. “In the post-Trump era, there is no return to the pre-Trump era,” Röttgen said. “The status quo was that Europe’s security was guaranteed by the United States. That won’t happen again.”

The eruption of sharp conflicts between the US and Germany, which fought two world wars against one another, is accompanied by fierce conflicts between the European powers themselves. The relationship between France and Italy has hit a new low, and relations between Germany and France are also noticeably cooler.

This confirms the perspective of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), which had already predicted in the late 1980s that the contradiction between world economy and the framework of nation-states, which undermined the Stalinist regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, would also lead to new conflicts between the major capitalist powers and a resurgence of the class struggle.

While the defenders of capitalism and their pseudo-left apologists claimed that the epoch of world socialist revolution had ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the International Committee maintained that the 20th century remained "unfinished."

“[T]he central economic, social and political contradictions that confront mankind at the start of the twenty-first century are, in the main, the same as those it confronted at the beginning of the twentieth,” wrote David North, the chairman of the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Siteand the national chairman of the Socialist Equality Party in the US, in the foreword to his book The Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century. “None of the great social, economic and political issues that underlay the struggles of the century had been conclusively settled.”

The emergence of sharp conflicts between the NATO “partners” confirms this assessment. It is at the same time a sharp warning of the threat of a third, nuclear world war if the working class does not challenge the imperialist warmongers in time.

All over the world, the working class has entered into social struggles, including teachers in the United States, auto parts workers in Mexico and plantation workers in Sri Lanka. The ruling elites are responding to this upsurge of the class struggle by resorting to police state forms of rule, together with the promotion of nationalism and militarism.

At the same time, the intensification of the class struggle creates the objective conditions for the building of a new anti-war movement. As the ICFI explained in its 2016 statement “Socialism and the fight against war,” this movement must be based on the working class, which is the only truly revolutionary social force capable of uniting all progressive sections of the population. It must be “anti-capitalist and socialist, since there can be no serious struggle against war except in the fight to end the dictatorship of finance capital and the economic system that is the fundamental cause of militarism and war.”

Therefore, “the new anti-war movement must, of necessity, be completely and unequivocally independent of, and hostile to, all political parties and organizations of the capitalist class.” Above all, it must be “international, mobilizing the vast power of the working class in a unified global struggle against imperialism.”

JR Biotek Molecular Biology Training & Open Labware Building Workshop 2019 for African Scientists

Application Deadline: 18th February 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries


To Be Taken At (Country): University of Abomey-Calavi, Benin Republic, West Africa

About the Award: The workshop is part of JR Biotek Foundation’s new initiative called ‘Reach & Teach Science in Africa’, which was developed with support from the University of Cambridge to strengthen research and innovation in African countries, especially sub-Saharan Africa. It involves mobilising researchers from the University of Cambridge and other UK universities to teach, mentor and provide appropriate training/educational resources to advance research and teaching of applied biosciences in Africa.
The theme for the workshop to be held at the University of Abomey-Calavi, Benin Republic from 1st-5th April 2019 is ‘Training African agricultural researchers to solve food and nutrition insecurity through research and innovation’. It aims to equip 100 agricultural researchers, lecturers and postgraduate students from universities and national research institutes in sub-Saharan Africa with knowledge and hands-on experience in core molecular biology principles, laboratory techniques and applications in agricultural research with particular interest in crop breeding. The Workshop will be taught by research experts from the University of Cambridge and other universities around the world.

Type: Workshop/Conference

Eligibility: Applications are encouraged from postgraduate students (PhD students mainly), lecturers and researches involved in agricultural research at an African university.

Selection Criteria: 

1. Strong intellectual ability and relevance of current research to the training course.
2. Demonstrated need to acquire new scientific knowledge and skills to improve their research and teaching.
3. Involved in teaching or training others at an African university (this is optional for PhD students).
4. English proficiency

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: There is no fee to participate in the workshop, however, selected candidates will need to pay for their travel (return) to Benin Republic. Meals (breakfast and lunch) will be provided.

Duration of Program: 1st-5th April 2019

How to Apply: APPLY NOW

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Anzisha Prize $100,000 Entrepreneurs Awards 2019 for Young African Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 31st March 2019

About the Award: 12 finalists from across Africa will win an all-expenses paid trip to South Africa to be a part of a week-long entrepreneurship workshop and conference at the African Leadership Academy campus on the outskirts of Johannesburg.  The grand prize winners, selected from these finalists, will share prizes worth $100,000 USD
The Anzisha Prize is funded by a generous grant from the MasterCard Foundation.

Africa needs strong, innovative entrepreneurial young leaders to create jobs, solve problems and drive our economies. Our continent’s future will be determined by entrepreneurial leaders across all sectors. We believe fundamentally in the power of youth-led change.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Number of Awards: 12 young entrepreneurs will be selected

Eligibility: As you prepare to apply, make sure you are eligible to enter:

1. You must be between 15 and 22 years old with an ID document or Passport to present as evidence. Anyone born before April 16, 1995 or after April 16, 2002 will not be considered.
2. You must be a national of an African country with a business based in Africa for African customers/ beneficiaries.
3. Your business must be up and running. The Anzisha Prize is not for great ideas or business plans – you must have already started, and be able to prove it! You have time to get started now and have tangible results to share before applications open.
4. Your business, invention or social project can be in any field or industry (science and technology, civil society, arts and culture, sports, etc.). Any kind of venture is welcome to apply.
5. Individuals who apply must be one of the founding members of a business (for example, 2 or 3 co-founders who started a business together). One person can apply for the Prize, on behalf of the team.

Selection Criteria: To be selected as one of our 12 Anzisha Fellows, your business or project will be judged on the following 5 criteria:

• Already Running Venture: Is the venture established with customers and beneficiaries? Does the venture deliver value to said beneficiaries and customers?
• Founder-led: Is the venture led and managed by the founder?
• Impact: Has the venture demonstrated some impact already?
• Scalability: If the venture is a for-profit business, does it already earn revenues and does it have potential increase revenues with the support of Anzisha? If the venture is a not-for-profit enterprise, does it already reach beneficiaries and does it have the potential to reach many more beneficiaries with support from Anzisha?
• Job Creation: Has the venture created some jobs and has the potential to create more high quality jobs?

To be selected as one of our Anzisha Fellows, you must demonstrate the two following qualities:

• Venture leader: Are you the leader of your venture and do you drive both venture strategy and operations?
• Commitment: Do you spend at least 20 hours a week or more on your business and will you continue to do so after selection?

Value of Award: Additional investment of $8,000/ $10,000 in each Fellow

1. Monetary Reward of a shared amount of $100,000
2. $2,000 access to a world- renowned Entrepreneurial Leadership curriculum and training with the potential for further investment based on engagement and performance
3. $2,500 worth of rewards from consulting and mentorship services
4. $2,000 worth of rewards from Global speaking events or Experts in Residence support
5. $1,000 worth of rewards from Regional Indabas across the continent

Each fellow also gains access to the African Leadership Academy network.

How to Apply:

1. • Click here to apply for the Anzisha Prize in English

• • Click here to apply for the Anzisha Prize in French

• Click here to apply for the Anzisha Prize in Arabic
• Click here to apply for the Anzisha Prize in Portuguese

Visit competition webpage for details

Obama Foundation Leaders: African Program (Fully-funded to South Africa) 2019

Application Deadline: 28th February 2019 at 6:00 PM Eastern Time

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Johannesburg, South Africa


About the Award: The objective of the program is to build a growing network of innovative and ethical changemakers, who seek to drive positive change in their communities. Successful candidates will have a demonstrated potential for impact, a clear commitment to integrity, and a commitment to stay engaged with the Obama Foundation throughout the year and beyond.  We are interested in talented individuals who are on the right trajectory at earlier stages of their journey, as well as those who have already attained success.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 

1. Citizen of an African country
2. Fluent in English (verbal and written)
3. Emerging leaders from all sectors approximately between 24-40 years of age
4. Available to travel to Johannesburg, South Africa from July 10 through July 15, 2019
5. Civically minded with a track record of impact
6. A clear commitment to integrity
7. A commitment to stay engaged with the Obama Foundation throughout the year and beyond
8. Ability and inclination to positively transform the future of Africa or their community.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Obama Foundation will cover costs related to economy class travel, lodging, and meals throughout the July 10-15 portion of the program.

Duration of Program: The inaugural class of the Leaders Africa Program will convene in Johannesburg, South Africa from July 10 through July 15, 2019, as well as participate in robust online activities throughout the year.

How to Apply: Applications should be submitted via the Program Webpage.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

IvyPanda $1,500 Video Contest Scholarship 2019 for Students

Application Deadline: 7th April 2019

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Online

About the Award: Tons of work, misunderstandings with teachers, zero time for yourself… Students experience these and many other issues every day. Are there any tips to help young scholars handle these challenges?
The IvyPanda team wants to hear your opinions and advice, so we decided to establish the $1,500 Semi-Annual Video Contest Scholarship for Students.
You don’t even need to have any distinguished achievements to qualify. All you need is a little bit of creativity!
Are you ready to compete for the prize?
Then keep reading!

Type: Contest

Eligibility: IvyPanda will accept videos from current high school, college, or university students from any country. The winners will be required to send proof of their academic status or enrollment.

Selection Criteria: Before your video is published on the IvyPanda YouTube channel, the editorial team will evaluate your submission based on the following criteria:

1. Content Usefulness
2. Engagement
3. Creativity
4. Production

Number of Awards: 2

Value of Award:

1. The winner will receive a $1,000 scholarship. The runner-up prize is $500.
2. The best videos will be published on our YouTube channel.
3. Winners will receive individual certificates from IvyPanda.com.

How to Apply: 

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Marijuana Can Help Fight Opioid Abuse

Paul Armentano

In the struggle to address rising levels of opioid misuse and mortality, an unlikely ally has emerged: marijuana.

The relationship between cannabis and opioid use is among of the best-documented aspects of marijuana policy. In short, the science demonstrates that marijuana is a relatively safe and effective pain reliever — and that patients with legal access to it often reduce their use of conventional opiates.

Over 35 controlled clinical trials, involving over 2,000 subjects, have been conducted to assess the safety and usefulness of cannabis or its components for the treatment of chronic pain. Many of these trials specifically evaluate the plant’s ability to target hard-to-treat neuropathic pain.

An exhaustive literature review of over 10,000 scientific abstracts by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine determined: “There is conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis is effective for the treatment of chronic pain in adults.”

In clinical trial settings, pain patients provided with cannabis as part of their treatment typically reduce their use of opioids.

It’s worth looking at in some detail.

For instance, in one recent study — which assessed cannabis use among the elderly — investigators reported that over 18 percent of the study’s participants “stopped using opioid analgesics or reduced their dose.” They concluded: “Cannabis can decrease the use of other prescription medicines, including opioids.”

Another clinical trial, which looked at cohort of over 1,200 cancer patients over a six-month period, concluded that nearly half of respondents reported either decreasing or eliminating their use of opioids when given access to cannabis during their treatment.

In yet another recent trial, Columbia University scientists documented that using cannabis along with “sub-therapeutic” — that is, lower than usual — doses of opioids resulted in pain relief at a level “comparable to an effective opioid analgesic dose.” These findings point to the “opioid-sparing effects of cannabis,” investigators concluded.

Given this reality, it should hardly come as a surprise that in states where cannabis is legal, rates of opioid-specific abuse, hospitalizations, and mortality fall. One particularly notable study reported a 20 percent decrease in opioid-related deaths one year following the enactment of medical marijuana legislation — and a 33 percent reduction in mortality by year six.

Assessments of pain patient cohorts in medical cannabis access states affirm this observational data. For example, the Minnesota Department of Health in 2017 reported that over 60 percent of state-registered patients using cannabis for chronic pain “were able to reduce or eliminate opioid usage after six months.”

Minnesota’s findings are hardly unique. 2016 data gathered from patients enrolled in Michigan’s cannabis access program reported that marijuana treatment “was associated with a 64 percent decrease in opioid use, decreased number and side effects of medications, and an improved quality of life.”

A 2017 assessment of medical cannabis patients in Illinois revealed that participants in the state-run program frequently reported using marijuana “as an alternative to other medications — most commonly opioids, but also anticonvulsants, anti-inflammatories, and over-the-counter analgesics.”

New Mexico patient data reports: Compared to non-users, medical cannabis enrollees “were more likely either to reduce daily opioid prescription dosages between the beginning and end of the sample period (83.8 percent versus 44.8 percent) or to cease filling opioid prescriptions altogether (40.5 percent versus 3.4 percent).”

The available scientific data to date is consistent and persuasive: For many patients, cannabis offers a viable alternative to opioids.

It’s time for lawmakers and health officials to recognize the well-established power of medical marijuana to treat chronic pain — and to acknowledge its emerging role in combating the opioid abuse crisis.

Using Students, Teachers, Journalists and other Professionals as Spies Puts Everyone in Jeopardy

Dave Lindorff

The US is accusing China of using college students studying in the US to spy for China, but that, even if true (there hasn’t been a trial yet), would be only half the story. The US, at great risk to those of us who work and travel abroad, also tries to enlist seemingly innocent Americans going abroad to spy for it.

I learned this first hand back in the early 1990s when I spent a year in China teaching journalism at Shanghai’s prestigious Fudan University as a Fulbright Program scholar. During that period there was a conference organized by the Fulbright program for us Fulbright professors then in China. It was held in Kunming, a city in the far south of China and a popular tourist designation. The embassy official who was the US press and cultural affairs officer in Beijing, who also oversaw the US Fulbright Program in China, shocked us all by telling us at that gathering that we should see ourselves as “behind-the-lines paratroopers” in the People’s Republic of China. I can tell you that was certainly not how any of us saw ourselves!

It turned out that he, like many US officials in China, had been a US Special Forces officer (in Vietnam) prior to his working for the US State Department. I should note here that US Special Forces troops, while technically part of the US military, are intimately connected to and often operate under the direction of the CIA, not the Pentagon. The lines between military and spook can get pretty blurry, especially when it comes to secret ops.

I was never approached to be a spy by anyone in the Fulbright program, nor were any of my colleagues in the program that year. In fact, most of us, having come of age during the 1960s during the US anti-movement, we were all pretty angry at the guy both for that comment. We were also angry at him for not backing one of our bunch who had stood up to Chinese government pressure to turn over his students’ assignments for inspection, destroying the papers instead which had let to his being threatened with being sent home.

But that wasn’t the end of it for me.

A year later, when I had finished my Fulbright year teaching in China and was working as a journalist in Hong Kong for Business Week magazine, I got a phone call from a man claiming to be a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, a widely read US journal of academic issues confronting professors and teachers. This guy said he was interested in learning about teaching in China and about teaching Chinese students, so I agreed to have him over to my flat for a meeting. When he came for the visit, our conversation started out tamely enough, but as his questions probed more deeply into Chinese student thinking and also into my own political views, I found myself thinking it was a peculiar interview for the journal in question, and for a journalist in general. I ended the session quickly, saying I was busy and needed to get back to work, and he left, leaving a business card at my request.

At that point I started looking into him. I found, on calling the Chronicle, that they knew nothing about him. Nor had anyone been assigned such any article by them. I mentioned him to a few US journalists working in Hong Kong and one of them, on hearing his name, said, “Oh him. He’s CIA. He works out of the US Consulate in Hong Kong.”

Who knows if he was just pumping me for information or was working up to try and recruit me, knowing that as a Chinese-speaking journalist who, having lived in Shanghai for a year, had good contacts with Chinese people in the country, and who because of being a Business Week correspondent, was also traveling into China fairly regularly, I’d be a good contact.

That is to say, either he was deceptively trying to use me as a source of information about China, jeopardizing me, my family and my friends and acquaintances in China, or he was hoping to recruit me as a CIA “asset” or maybe even spy, violating a post-Church Committee rule banning the CIA from using journalists as spies, in which case he was putting everyone teaching abroad, or working in the Fulbright Program, in jeopardy.

Clearly, from these experiences during the early 1990s, the Fulbright Program and US journalists were being illegally and improperly sought out for use as spies by the CIA in violation of a 1977 policy barring such efforts. And since there has been no real effort to challenge that kind of activity by Congress since then, it’s a safe bet that it’s still the case.

It’s laughable to see the US media get all worked up about concerns about China trying get its overseas students to become spies for the mother country when they know it’s more than likely that some of their own reporters and editors are working for the CIA and in the process putting all of the rest of us at risk.

Suicide attack in Iran frames visit to Pakistan by Saudi crown prince

James M. Dorsey

This week’s suicide attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran’s south-eastern province of Sistan and Baluchistan, the second in two months, could not have come at a more awkward moment for Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan.

The assault on a bus carrying the guards back from patrols on the province’s border with the troubled Pakistani region of Balochistan killed 27 people and wounded 13 others. It occurred days before Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman was scheduled to visit Pakistan as part of a tour of Asian countries.

While Baluchistan is set to figure prominently in Prince Mohammed’s talks with Mr. Khan, the attack also coincided with a US-sponsored conference in Warsaw, widely seen as an effort by the Trump administration to further isolate Iran economically and diplomatically.

Inside the conference, dubbed The Ministerial to Promote a Future of Peace and Security in the Middle East, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that US policy was designed to force Iran to alter its regional and defense policies and not geared towards regime change in Tehran.

Yet, US President Donald J. Trump appeared to be sending mixed messages to the Iranians as well as sceptical European governments with his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, addressing a rally outside the conference organized by the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a controversial Iranian exile group believed to enjoy Saudi backing.

Mr. Giuliani told the protesters who waved Iranian flags and giant yellow balloons emblazoned with the words, “Regime Change” that “we want to see a regime change in Iran.”

Mr. Trump appeared to fuel suspicion that Mr. Giuliani represented his true sentiment by tweeting on the eve of the Warsaw conference in a reference to the 40th anniversary of the Islamic revolution: “40 years of corruption. 40 years of repression. 40 years of terror. The regime in Iran has produced only #40YearsofFailure. The long-suffering Iranian people deserve a much brighter future.”

In a statement, the Revolutionary Guards blamed the attack on “mercenaries of intelligence agencies of world arrogance and domination,” a reference to Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel.

Jaish-al-Adl (the Army of Justice), a Pakistan-based splinter group that traces its roots to Saudi-backed anti-Shiite groups with a history of attacks on Iranian and Shiite targets, has claimed responsibility for the attack.

The group says it is not seeking Baloch secession from Iran. Instead, it wants to “force the regime of the guardianship of jurisconsult (Iran) to respect the demands of the Muslim Baloch and Sunni society alongside the other compatriots of our country.”

Militants targeted a Revolutionary Guards headquarters in December in a rare suicide bombing in Chabahar, home to Iran’s Indian-backed port on the Arabian Sea, a mere 70 kilometres from the Chinese supported port of Gwadar, a crown jewel in the Pakistani leg of the People’s Republic’s Belt and Road initiative.

The attacks coupled with indications that Saudi Arabia and the United States may be contemplating covert action against Iran using Pakistani Balochistan as a launching pad, and heightened Saudi economic and commercial interest in the province, frame Prince Mohammed’s upcoming talks in Islamabad.

During his visit, Prince Mohammed is expected to sign a memorandum of understanding on a framework for US$10 billion in Saudi investments.

The memorandum includes a plan by Saudi national oil company Aramco to build a refinery in Gwadar as well as Saudi investment in Baluchistan’s Reko Diq copper and gold mine.

The investments would further enhance Saudi influence in Pakistan as well as the kingdom’s foothold in Balochistan.

They would come on the back of significant Saudi aid to help Pakistan evade a financial crisis that included a US$3 billion deposit in Pakistan’s central bank to support the country’s balance of payments and another US$3 billion in deferred payments for oil imports.

Taken together, the refinery, a strategic oil reserve in Gwadar and the mine would also help Saudi Arabia in potential efforts to prevent Chabahar from emerging as a powerful Arabian Sea hub.

Saudi funds have been flowing for some time into the coffers of ultra-conservative anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian Sunni Muslim madrassahs or religious seminars in Balochistan. It remains unclear whether they originate with the Saudi government or Saudi nationals of Baloch descent and members of the two million-strong Pakistani Diaspora in the kingdom.

The funds help put in place potential building blocks for possible covert action should the kingdom and/or the United States decide to act on proposals to support irredentist activity.

The flow started at about the time that the Riyadh-based International Institute for Iranian Studies, formerly known as the Arabian Gulf Centre for Iranian Studies, an allegedly Saudi government-backed think tank, published a study that argued that Chabahar posed “a direct threat to the Arab Gulf states” that called for “immediate counter measures.”

If executed, covert action could jeopardize Indian hopes to use Chabahar to bypass Pakistan, significantly enhance its trade with Afghanistan and Central Asian nations and create an anti-dote to Gwadar.

Pakistani analysts expect an estimated US$ 5 billion in Afghan trade to flow through Chabahar after India in December started handling the port’s operations.

Iranian concerns that the attacks represent a US and/or Saudi covert effort are grounded not only in more recent US and Saudi policies, including Mr. Trump’s withdrawal last year from the 2015 international agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program despite confirmation of its adherence to the accord and re-imposition of harsh economic sanctions against the Islamic republic.

They are also rooted in US and Saudi backing of Iraq in the 1980s Gulf war, US overtures in the last year to Iranian Kurdish insurgents, the long-standing broad spectrum of support of former and serving US officials for the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and in recent years of Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence and ex-ambassador to the United States and Britain.

Said Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group’s Iran analyst: “The concern was never that the Trump admin would avert its eyes from Iran, but rather that is in inflicted by an unhealthy obsession with it. In hyping the threat emanating from Iran, Trump is more likely than not to mishandle it and thus further destabilize the Middle East.”