26 Oct 2019

Reports highlight rising methamphetamine health crisis across US Midwest

Jacob Crosse

Data compiled by the Wisconsin State Crime Lab highlights the staggering rise in the use of methamphetamine across the state. Over a 10 year period the agency recorded over a 450 percent increase in meth related cases, from 314 in 2008 to 1,452 in 2018. This follows an earlier report that revealed that 3,800 people died in Wisconsin from 2014-2018 due to meth related overdoses.
This is a region-wide issue, with the Missouri State Highway Patrol reporting a similar spike in drug seizures over the same period. Iowa and Illinois have also seen a surge in meth related cases. Morbidly dubbed the “meth capital of the Midwest,” Michigan saw 220 meth seizures by police in 2018. The increase in drug seizures has lead to more meth related arrests and fueled higher rates of incarceration.
To the west of Wisconsin, the Drug Enforcement Agencies’ Omaha Division, which oversees Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota has seen a similar jump in meth cases or seizures. According to the DEA, more meth-related drug seizures have occurred in the region in the first half of 2019 than in all of 2018.
A “seizure incident” includes scenarios in which state or federal authorities discover drug paraphernalia or equipment used to make illicit substances, including chemical tubing, glassware, beakers, or dumpsites.
The introduction of methamphetamine into the general population began in World War II with the War Department issuing amphetamine and methamphetamine to US bomber pilots on long flight missions to keep them alert before they dropped their deadly payload. Meanwhile, US infantrymen were issued the drugs, less for any actual combat effectiveness, but instead to boost “morale” while also increasing “confidence and aggression.”
Following the war, and throughout the 1950s, doctors heavily prescribed amphetamines under the name Benzedrine. Colloquially known at the time as “bennies” or “pep pills,” Benzedrine was used to primarily treat sinus-related issues. In 1960 the FDA approved a new “diet pill” known as Obetrol, manufactured by American pharmaceutical company Obetrol Pharmaceuticals, a mix of amphetamine salts, including methamphetamine, that made up the chemical compound of the drug.
While marketed as treatment for obesity, the drug was used most notably by artist Andy Warhol, but also extensively by long-haul truck drivers, forced to stay awake an unhealthy amount of hours in order to meet their delivery schedules. After widespread abuse throughout the 1960s the drug was eventually pulled from the market in 1973.
After a reworking of the formula and the elimination of methamphetamine the drug was rebranded as Adderal and introduced onto the market by pharmaceutical giant Richwood-Shire, following their 1995 acquisition of the Rexar Pharmacal Corporation, which had slowly absorbed Obetrol Pharmaceuticals throughout the 1980s and 90s. It was given FDA approval in 1996 to treat “hyperactivity.”
While recent media attention has shone a much needed spotlight on the opioid crisis, meth use among Americans has become more prevalent in recent years as opioids have become harder to obtain and more expensive. As more people turn to meth, possibly as they are experiencing heroin or opioid withdrawals or just to stay awake while working multiple jobs to survive, a corresponding increase in the amount of meth related deaths has also occurred.
Nearly 60 percent of meth users relapse within the first year while going through rehabilitation treatment. This relapse is a particularly deadly period for older meth users, as the strong chemical effects of the drug can have a deadly effect on an aging user’s heart and brain. Unlike opioids, there is no medical treatment for meth addiction.
According to national government statistics compiled by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, among all ages, 10,333 people died in 2017 due to methamphetamine overdose. This is out of 70,237 total drug overdose deaths in 2017, accounting for nearly 14 percent of all overdose deaths that occurred in the United States.
While a rise in cases and seizures doesn’t necessarily correspond to a rise in usage, statistics compiled from various state and federal agencies confirm that meth use has not subsided from its alleged highpoint in the mid-2000’s, which saw the passage of the 2005 Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act.
The 2005 bill, signed by George W. Bush and passed with bipartisan support, sought to criminalize over-the-counter medications such as Sudafed that were used in the manufacture of methamphetamine as well as for treating common allergies. The legislation, while funneling money to police departments and federal drug and immigration agencies, did little to actually stop meth production and use.
While the bill did force out and shut down many smaller local labs, while also incarcerating thousands of people across the country for a medical problem, large scale production continued in the US southwest and across the border in Mexico. Powerful drug cartels took over production, and using industrial methods, began producing more potent and pure methamphetamine that was trafficked into large cities and then distributed throughout rural communities.
This shift in production is expressed in the arrest reports of the various state agencies. There were only eight “seizures” of 11 pounds of meth or more throughout all of 2005. The largest of these raids occurred in Omaha, Nebraska which netted 29 pounds of the drug. This amount is dwarfed by raids completed in the beginning of 2019 in Minnesota and Iowa, which have seized 250 and 119 pounds of the drug respectively.
This hasn’t stopped politicians and law enforcement officials from loudly proclaiming the need for more money to be poured into state police forces and federal drug and immigration agencies, while also blaming the legalization of recreational marijuana in a number of states for an increase in alternative drug production and use.
While police departments and federal agencies such as the DEA and ICE have been flooded with billions of dollars in funding for drones, urban assault vehicles and military weaponry, funding for treating substance abuse as a public health issue has been relatively sparse and surrounded by layers of bureaucratic red tape, making it nearly impossible for those seeking treatment to get the help and resources they need.
The federal government did recently make $6 billion available for opioid treatment throughout the United States, however, this money is limited to opioid related treatment only. This means that many users who might have previously used opioids but recently switched to the more available and cheaper meth, are no longer eligible for opioid specific treatment options and funding.
In an article published by Urban Milwaukee, Jess Przybylski, a Wisconsin mother of two, related that it was easier for her to get treatment for her addiction after she was arrested for meth related charges as opposed to before. In a testament to the backwardness and illogical character of capitalism, Przybylski was forced to sit in a jail cell for four months, waiting for a bed to open up at a local treatment facility before she could begin her recovery process.
While Przybylski says she is thankful that after getting out of jail she had access to the longer care treatment program she needed, she recognizes that many don’t, and without will likely fall back into old patterns. “If you get out and you don’t have anywhere to go, where are you going to go? Back to what you’re comfortable with and back to where you were using,” she noted.
In states such as Wisconsin, where $63 million was made available to combat opiod addiction, very little of it will actually get spent on those who need it the most. According to the latest survey by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, of the 397,000 people in the state with addictions related to substance abuse, less than 10 percent actually received any medical treatment.
This red tape has resulted in treatment homes being forced to turn away those looking for help lest they lose their funding. Nearly 40 percent of all substance abuse treatment funds in the state come from the federal government, and without those funds a majority of them would cease to operate.
After decades of the drug war, which has torn apart millions of homes, and incarcerated millions of people, the solution to the continued epidemic of drug abuse and death is not in more policing, jailing or profit-driven “addiction centers.” The root cause of drug abuse lies in the capitalist system. The continued existence of the profit motive has incentivized global corporations to continue to manufacture and profit off of deadly drugs, overseen by a bought and paid for government of the oligarchy willing to turn a blind eye as entire communities are destroyed by their “medicine.”

WeWork CEO walks away with $1.7 billion as mass layoffs planned at failing office rental company

Harvey Simpkins

Adam Neumann, the former CEO and co-founder of WeWork, has agreed to accept an outrageous $1.7 billion severance package to walk away from the company after the collapse of a highly anticipated initial public offering last month. While the former CEO receives his billion dollar “golden parachute,” mass layoffs are expected, with at least 2,000 of the company’s 15,000 employees to be let go as the company seeks to avoid complete financial collapse.
WeWork, widely heralded as a “unicorn startup” along the lines of Uber, Lyft and similar tech-based companies, is an office rental company—in essence, a very large landlord renting from other landlords. The company rents buildings on long-term leases, remodels the layout to provide communal spaces and tiny workplaces and then rents out the workspaces on a short-term basis.
The company has grown at a breakneck pace, expanding particularly fast in the lead up to the expected stock offering. According to an August filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, WeWork went from two locations in New York City and 450 tenants in 2010 to 528 locations in 111 cities across 29 countries, with 527,000 tenants by the second quarter of 2019. The workforce nearly quadrupled from 4,000 employees at the end of 2017 to the current 15,000.
However, new leases have nearly stopped in the company’s two largest markets, New York and London. According to the Financial Times, two large London landlords will not sign new leases with WeWork for the foreseeable future. WeWork had leased about 3.7 million square feet from these landlords since 2014. In addition, WeWork employees reported to the Guardian that little or no work is now being done.
The company is also set to run out of cash by the second quarter of next year. It is currently losing about $700 million a quarter and, as of June 30, had $2.5 billion remaining. Last year, it lost $1.6 billion. From 2016-2018, it lost $2.9 billion.
The $1.7 billion in stock, cash and credit received by Neumann amounts to $850,000 per employee to be laid off, if the 2,000-layoff figure holds true. However, this is likely only the beginning of a jobs massacre: the technology-industry publication the Information, reports that as many as 5,000 layoffs could be forthcoming.
Neumann’s payout includes about a billion dollars toward buying out his share of the company, a $185 million “consulting” fee, and a $500 million credit line to help him repay debts he owes to JPMorgan Chase, UBS and Credit Suisse.
Even by the standards of modern CEOs, Neumann’s buyout stands out for its grotesqueness. According to Equilar, Inc., an executive compensation analysis firm, the 200 highest-paid CEOs at public companies had a median salary of $18.6 million in 2018. Neuman’s consulting fee alone is about ten times that amount.
While lavishing riches on Neumann, the company nonetheless required a takeover from SoftBank, a Japan-based conglomerate and WeWork’s largest investor, to afford to pay severance packages for those employees to be laid off.
On the company’s Slack network, workers noted the irony that WeWork could not afford severance payments for the planned job cuts but could give the disgraced CEO such a huge payout. One employee posted a photo of the orphan from “Oliver Twist” with the caption: “Please, Masayoshi Son, can I have some severance?” Son is the founder of SoftBank.
On Wednesday, SoftBank took control of WeWork, with SoftBank’s chief operating officer, Marcelp Claure, appointed as executive chair. At a staff meeting Wednesday, Claure confirmed that more layoffs would be coming but declined to say how many, stating in corporate-speak that the layoffs will “right-size the business to achieve positive free cash flow and profitability.” He also did not elaborate on the amount of any severance, telling anxious employees only that “I will guarantee you that whoever leaves is going to leave with dignity.” No doubt those to be laid off will receive, all combined, only a tiny fraction of what Neumann will get.
An anonymous employee told Vox that at the meeting, “Very little additional information was given about the things that employees care about: layoffs, severance, retention, and equity packages. It was a lot of the same ‘trust us, wait and see’ responses we’ve been getting the last month.”
The company, valued at $47 billion in January 2019, was valued at only $8 billion under the terms of SoftBank’s takeover. As a result, employee stock in the company is now worth very little. Over the last two years, Softbank poured more than $11 billion into the company, more than its current value.
Compounding WeWork’s dubious financial position, last week the company shut down 2,300 “phone booths,” used as private rooms in the company’s open-plan offices, due to concerns about elevated levels of formaldehyde, a potential carcinogen.

Thirty-nine migrants found dead in lorry trailer in UK

Laura Tiernan

The bodies of 39 migrants were found yesterday in the back of a freight lorry parked in Grays, Essex, in the United Kingdom. The deaths have evoked public outrage and revulsion toward the British government’s brutal “deterrence” regime against migrants and refugees.
Police were called to the Waterglade Industrial Park in Essex by East of England Ambulance Service at 1.40am. All 39 people—adults and a teenager—were pronounced dead at the scene.
The victims’ identities are not known. Police forensic teams last night transported the truck’s cabin and trailer to Tilbury Docks to begin the process of formal identification. Deputy Chief Constable Pippa Mills told reporters this would be “a lengthy process”.
Police escort the truck, that was found to contain a large number of dead bodies, as they move it from an industrial estate in Thurrock, south England, Wednesday Oct. 23, 2019. Police in southeastern England said that 39 people were found dead Wednesday inside a truck container believed to have come from Bulgaria. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
Details of the truck’s movements remain unclear. Police have confirmed only that the trailer arrived via ferry from Zeebrugge, Belgium, docking at Purfleet on the River Thames at 12.30am. The truck cabin and trailer left the port shortly after 1.05am.
It is not known where or at what time the 39 victims entered the truck’s freight container. Richard Burnett, chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, told the BBC the container appeared to be a refrigerated unit and that temperatures could reach as low as -25C. Conditions for anyone inside would be "absolutely horrendous". Even if the container was not refrigerated, trucking experts explained that such cabins are sealed tight and lengthy confinement can lead to suffocation.
The truck’s cabin is registered in Northern Ireland. The driver, 25-year-old Mo Robinson from a village in County Armagh, was immediately arrested on suspicion of murder.
But the real authors of this immense crime reside in 10 Downing Street, along with the government and opposition parties in Westminster Palace and their accomplices in every European capital.
Their statements of condolence and crocodile tears are rank hypocrisy. Conservative Party Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s statement was issued via Twitter: “I’m appalled by this tragic incident in Essex… My thoughts are with all those who lost their lives & their loved ones.”
Home Secretary Priti Patel, whose entire career is built on anti-immigrant xenophobia, told parliament, “I’m shocked and saddened by this utterly tragic incident in Grays. My heart goes out to all those affected.”
Only last month, a smirking Patel told the Tory Party conference she was proud to be part of a Brexit government that was “taking back control of our borders” and “ending the free movement of people once and for all.” Johnson has described veiled Muslim women as “bank robbers” and “letter boxes”, deliberately stoking anti-immigrant racism.
The latest horrifying deaths are the direct outcome of a regime of deterrence that has involved a police-military operation on the English Channel and at key ports including Dover.
The truck allegedly driven by Robinson is believed to have arrived at Purfleet to avoid increased police checks and anti-migrant measures put in place at Dover in the leadup to Brexit. Five people have drowned in the English Channel this year.
Seamus Leheny, Northern Ireland policy manager for the Freight Transport Association, told the press, “People have been saying that security and checks have been increased at places like Dover and Calais, so it might be seen as an easier way to get in by going from Cherbourg or Roscoff, over to Rosslare, then up the road to Dublin. It’s a long way around and it’ll add an extra day to the journey.”
In recent months, migrant rights organisations have warned that the British government’s harsh deterrence regime is forcing refugees to resort to riskier methods of entry to the UK, including lorries. In December 2017, a 15-year-old Afghani boy was crushed by a truck he tried to jump on board at Calais, while an Iraqi man’s legs were severed by a train near Dunkirk. In June this year, the frozen body of a stowaway from Kenya fell from a plane onto a London garden. An investigation last November by BBC South East found there was a “pre-Brexit rush”, with people-smugglers warning migrants to enter now before “the borders shut properly.”
In January, former Tory Home Secretary Sajid Javid met with his French counterpart to agree new anti-migrant measures along the English Channel including £3.2 million for drones, radar, night goggles and number plate recognition along with additional border patrol boats.
One year earlier, the Sandhurst Treaty was negotiated by then Prime Minister Theresa May with French President Emmanuel Macron. Signed at Britain’s premier military academy, the treaty saw the UK commit an extra £44.5 million for fencing, CCTV and detection technology in Calais and other Channel ports.
The police measures agreed by the French and British governments were aimed at bolstering the European Union’s “Fortress Europe” policy against desperate migrants and refugees fleeing wars in the Middle East and North Africa and economic deprivation across large parts of Eastern Europe.
Yesterday’s atrocity was the worst in Britain since 2000, when the bodies of 58 Chinese people were found in a sealed airless container at Dover, Kent. An inquest was told the migrants banged frantically on the inside of the container as they suffocated.
More recently, in August 2015, 71 bodies were found decomposing in an abandoned lorry on the A4 motorway in Austria, near Parndorf. This produced a mass outpouring of sympathy for refugees across Europe. Overnight, thousands of ordinary people organised accommodation, transport, food, clothing and medical supplies, turning out to greet and welcome the convoys of refugees arriving from across the Mediterranean, from Turkey and North Africa.
It was this public sentiment which forced Angela Merkel’s government to open Germany’s borders and allow refugees right of entry. But the sympathy for refugees cut across the plans of the German ruling class for remilitarisation and for deepening austerity. Powerful forces in the government and intelligence services set about smothering and reversing this social opposition through the promotion of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and manufactured scares such as the Cologne New Year’s Eve “sex attacks”.
Yesterday’s events in Britain are not only a tragedy for the family and loved ones of the 39 people who have perished. They are a crime perpetrated by the capitalist governments of Britain and Europe against the international working class. Over 19,000 people died or went missing in the Mediterranean between 2014 and October this year. A total of 92 migrant deaths were recorded on land in Europe in 2018. The 39 people murdered yesterday brings this year’s total to 91.

23 Oct 2019

Professional Fellows Program (PFP) for Economic Empowerment, Middle East and North Africa – Fall 2020

Application Deadlines:
Deadline for Morocco & Tunisia: 30th November, 2019
Deadline for Algeria, Egypt, Libya & Lebanon: To come up in January 2020


Eligible Countries: Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: The Professional Fellows Program (PFP) for Economic Empowerment, Middle East and North Africa is a two-way exchange program sponsored by the U.S. Department of State and designed to promote mutual understanding, enhance leadership and professional skills, and build lasting, sustainable partnerships between mid-level emerging leaders committed to strengthening their communities through social entrepreneurship and workforce development.
PFP Fellows are placed in intensive fellowships in non-profit organizations, private sector businesses, and government offices for an individually tailored professional development experience.  They build a broad network with American and other program participant colleagues as they develop a deeper understanding of U.S. society, enhance their professional skills.  American participants who have hosted foreign fellows travel overseas for participant-driven reciprocal programs.

Type: Fellowship, Short course

Eligibility: Who Should Apply?
  • Entrepreneurs, and Social Innovators.
  • Small & medium business Owners and Managers who are investing in innovative socially conscious products and programs.
  • Individuals working in Civil Society/NGOs working on youth workforce training and development, increasing the role of marginalized populations in the economy, building financial literacy, training in technology use and IT development, and other efforts around economic empowerment.
  • Individuals working in  University incubators, accelerators, and job-readiness programs, and programs focusing on business development, financial literacy, sustainable tourism, or economic development.
  • Individuals working in Government Agencies/Ministries, national policy offices, think-tanks, and offices working to increase the presence of underrepresented citizens in the economy.
Eligible candidates must be:
  • 25-40 years old
  • A current citizen and resident of: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, or Lebanon
  • Speak fluent to English (enough to work full-time in a US fellowship)
  • Have at least two years‘ work experience in their field 
  • Currently employed
  • Interest in hosting reciprocal program for Americans in your country
  • Able to convene 25 or more colleagues for post-trip briefings
  • Have demonstrated strong leadership skills and commitment to community
  • Demonstrates initiative, teamwork, and openness 
  • Preference will be given to those who have not previously traveled on a U.S. government funded program.
Number of Awards: 38 

Duration and Value of Programme: 
  • Spring Program: 18 April  – 29 May, 2020.  Open to applicants from Morocco & Tunisia. 
  • Fall Program: 10 October – 19 November, 2020.  Open to applicants from Algeria, Egypt & Lebanon.
Fellows will participate in a 6-week program, (Spring and Fall, 2020) each with:
  • A one-week host family stay
  • A one-week business development and social entrepreneurship intensive with University Partner
  • A one-month fellowship placement in individual businesses and/or offices in Washington, D.C.
  • 4- days Participation in the Professional Fellows Congress
  • Design and development of a complete proposal for a follow-on projects to be carried out by PFP fellows, supported by mini-grants
How to Apply:  Apply Here
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Swedish Institute Scholarships 2020 for Global Professionals (SISGP) from Developing Countries

Application Deadlines:
  1. To begin with, apply for a master’s programme at universityadmissions.se, between 16 October 2019 – 15 January 2020.
  2. Apply for an SI scholarship between 10-20 February 2020, follow the instructions below.
Offered annually? Yes

Eligible countries: International students (especially from developing countries)

To be taken in (country): Sweden

Accepted Subject Areas: SISGP offers scholarships to a large number of master’s programmes starting in the autumn semester 2020. Check the list of master’s programmes that are eligible for SISGP.

About Scholarship: The Swedish Institute Scholarships for Global Professionals (SISGP) programme is part of the Swedish government’s international awards scheme aimed at developing global leaders who will contribute to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is funded by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden and administered by the Swedish Institute (SI).
The programme offers a unique opportunity for global professionals to develop professionally and academically, to experience Swedish society and culture, and to build a long-lasting relationship with Sweden and with each other.
The goal is to enable the scholarship holders to play an active role in the positive development of the societies in which they live. Ideal candidates are ambitious young professionals with academic qualifications, demonstrated work and leadership experience, ambition to make a difference by working with issues which contribute to a just and sustainable development in their country in a long term perspective, and a clear idea of how a study programme in Sweden would benefit their country.
Priority will be given to applicants with a strong and relevant professional background and demonstrated leadership experience.

Eligibility/Criteria: Applicants must
  • have minimum of 3,000 hours of demonstrated full-time or part-time employment, voluntary work, paid/unpaid internship, and/or position of trust.
  • be from an eligible country
  • display academic qualifications and leadership experience.
  • be required to pay tuition fees to the universities, have followed the steps of university admission, and will be admitted to one of the eligible master’s programmes..
  • have demonstrated leadership experience from employment, voluntary work, and/or internship after high school studies.
  • Read more about the selection criteria, target countries, and eligible master programmes (in link below) before applying.
Number of Scholarships: Approximately 300 scholarships will be awarded

Scholarship Value: 
  • Tuition fees: directly paid to the Swedish university by us
  • Living expenses of SEK 10,000/month
  • Travel grant of SEK 15,000 *
  • Insurance against illness and accident
  • Membership of the SI Network for Future Global Leaders(NFGL) – a platform to grow professionally and build your network while in Sweden
  • Membership of the SI Alumni Network after your scholarship period – a platform for continued networking and further professional development
* The travel grant is a one-time payment for the entire study period. The grant is not applicable to students already living in Sweden.

The scholarship does not cover:

  • Additional grants for family members
  • Application fee to University Admissions
Duration of Scholarships: The Swedish Institute Study Scholarships is intended for full-time master’s level studies of one or two years, and is only awarded for programmes starting in the autumn semester. The scholarship is granted for one academic year (two semesters) at a time. It will be extended for programmes longer than two semesters, provided that the student has passed his/her courses/credits.

How to apply: The application process consists of these steps.
  1. Apply for a master’s programme at universityadmissions.se
  2. Apply for a SISGP scholarship
  3. Notifications from University Admissions
  4. Announcement of 300 successful SI scholarship recipients
It is important to go through ALL Application requirements before applying for this scholarship

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

French Government Eiffel Excellence Masters and PhD Scholarships 2020/2021 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 9th January 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Emerging economies

To be taken at: France

Accepted Subject Areas: Eiffel scholarships are available in three main fields:
  • engineering science at master’s level,
  • science in the broadest sense at PhD level (engineering science; exact sciences: mathematics, physics, chemistry and life sciences, nano- and biotechnology, earth sciences, sciences of the universe, environmental sciences, information and communication science and technology);
  • economics and management;
  • law and political sciences.
About the Award: The Eiffel Excellence Scholarship Programme was established by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development to enable French higher education establishments to attract top foreign students to enrol in their master’s and PhD courses.
It helps to shape the future foreign decision-makers of the private and public sectors, in priority areas of study, and encourages applications from emerging countries at master’s level, and from emerging and industrialized countries at PhD level.

Offered Since: 1999

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility
  • Only foreign nationals are eligible to apply for a scholarship from the French Government.
  • In the case of dual nationality applicants, those with French nationality are ineligible.
  • for master’s courses, candidates must be no older than 30 on the date of the selection committee meeting,March 2020; at PhD level, candidates must be no older than 35 on the date of the selection committee meeting, March 2020.
  • only applications submitted by French educational establishments are accepted. These establishments undertake to enrol scholarship holders on the course for which they have been selected. Applications submitted by any other means shall not be considered. Furthermore, any candidate nominated by more than one establishment shall be disqualified.
  • scholarships are for students wishing to enrol on a master’s course, including at an engineering school, and for PhD students. The Eiffel Programme does not apply to French-run master’s courses abroad, as non-PhD scholarship holders must complete at least 75% of their course in France. It does not apply to training under an apprenticeship contract or a professional training contract either.
  • Educational establishments that shortlist non-French speaking applicants must ensure that their level of French is sufficient to enable them to integrate satisfactorily into the anticipated course
  • Combination with other scholarships: foreign students who, at the time of application, have already been awarded a French government scholarship under another programme are not eligible, even if the scholarship in question does not include social security cover.
  • Eiffel PhD scholarships: Establishments may nominate a candidate who was previously awarded an Eiffel scholarship at master’s level for a scholarship at PhD level. Candidates who have already been awarded an Eiffel scholarship once during their PhD cannot be awarded it for a second time. No application will be accepted for any student who applied previously but was rejected, even if the application is submitted by a different establishment or in another field of study.
  • Eiffel master’s scholarships: no application will be accepted for any student who applied previously but was rejected, even if the application is submitted by a different establishment or in another field of study. Students who have already been awarded an Eiffel scholarship at master’s level are not eligible to re-apply at master’s level.
  • Language skills: when pre-selecting non-French-speaking candidates, establishments must make sure that their language skills meet the requirements of the relevant course of study.
Number of Scholarships: Not Specified

Selection Criteria: The selection criteria are as follows:
  • the excellence of the candidate, as demonstrated by his or her university career so far and the originality of his or her research subject;
  • the international policy of the establishment nominating the candidate, its action in the geographical area in question, the excellence of the host department, the establishment’s compatibility with the candidate being nominated, its efforts to publicise the Eiffel Programme and its continued support of scholarship holders, especially through a partnership with France Alumni (https://www.francealumni.fr/en);
  • the cooperation and partnership policy of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, and in particular, the priority given to certain countries for this Programme.
The committee marks each candidate for these three criteria and calculates a total score out of 50. It sets a minimum threshold for admissibility and distributes the scholarships as follows, depending on the number available:
  • at least 70% of the scholarships are awarded to the highest-scoring candidates;
  • the remaining scholarships are distributed among the establishments that have not received one, for candidates who achieved scores above the minimum threshold.
These selected applications represent the definitive list of successful candidates.

Scholarship Amount:
Master’s level:
  • The Eiffel scholarship includes a monthly allowance of €1,181 (a maintenance allowance of €1,031 and a monthly stipend of €150).
  • In addition, the following expenses are directly covered: – one international return journey; Page 3 of 6 – social security cover; – cultural activities. Scholarship holders may also receive an additional housing allowance, under certain conditions.
PhD level:
  • The Eiffel scholarship includes a monthly allowance of €1,400.
  • In addition, the following expenses are directly covered: – one international return journey (for students in law or political sciences who may make several trips, only one return journey shall be covered); – social security cover; – cultural activities. Scholarship holders may also receive an additional housing allowance, under certain conditions.
Duration: The scholarship is awarded for:
  • a maximum of 12 months for entry at M2 level,
  • a maximum of 24 months for entry at M1 level,
  • a maximum of 36 months for an engineering degree.
A 2-month preliminary intensive language training course. The total duration of the course undertaken (including compulsory work experience or internships in France or abroad) must be clearly indicated by the educational establishment in the application form. Optional placements are not covered by the grant.
For PhD: The Eiffel scholarship is awarded for a maximum of ten months. For scientific and economic disciplines, no language course is provided for and the scholarship duration cannot be divided up. For law students, the ten-month scholarship can, with the consent of the selection committee, be split into two or three stays in France, of three or four months each. These stays must take place over a maximum of three calendar years. Only law students have the option of taking French lessons alongside their studies. This must be clearly requested in the application.

How to Apply: Only applications submitted by French higher education institutions are accepted.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details to apply

How the Tax System Rewards Polluters

Charlie Simmons

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist who sparked student protests across the globe, had this to tell the UN General Assembly in New York: “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.”
As a retired businessman and engineer, I can’t help but look at Greta with admiration. Yet I shudder to think that my generation has abdicated our duties to such an extent that we are leaving the mess of climate change on the shoulders of high schoolers.
Lawmakers and business leaders in my generation have a responsibility to act today to mend our planet before these young people have to inherit it. Some of the most straightforward, yet least discussed solutions, lie in our tax system.
Unfortunately, the man-made crisis of climate change is made worse by our man-made tax system. In 2018, many of the biggest fossil fuel companies paid zero dollars in taxes — and actually received billions in rebates. 
These shocking facts, uncovered by the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policy, flew under the radar of mainstream media.
In total, ITEP found that at least 60 of the biggest American corporations didn’t pay a cent in federal taxes in 2018. Of those, 22 are power utilities and oil and gas corporations, including famous names such as Chevron, Halliburton, and Occidental Petroleum — and that was only in 2018.
How is this possible?
In part, it’s because there are a mind-boggling number of tax incentives offered to fossil fuel companies. There are deductions for domestic fossil fuel production, tax credits for vague “intangible drilling costs,” and deferred federal tax payments.
In 2016, the Wall Street Journal estimated that these provisions amounted to $4.76 billion per year given out to fossil fuel companies from the federal government.
That was before GOP corporate tax cuts worsened the problem in 2017 by slashing the industry’s already low tax rate and offering a new deduction for capital expenditures — while simultaneously opening up half a million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to new drilling.
Companies like Chevron will tell you they’re committed to preventing climate change, pointing to their $100 million pledge to the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, an industry-led organization allegedly dedicated to fighting climate change.
This is a paltry amount compared to the $4.5 billion in profit they made in 2018 — or even to the $955 million they avoided in taxes thanks to the Republican tax cuts. Chevron received a $181 million rebate on Tax Day.
Essentially, American taxpayers lost $955 million, funded a $100 million PR stunt, and paid $81 million directly to the corporation to fund more drilling and exploration our planet literally cannot afford. Chevron’s not unique, either — Occidental did the same thing.
While the current administration lets fossil fuel companies raid America’s natural resources and its coffers, the rest of us can’t sit back and wait for change. Greta certainly isn’t, and she’s only 16.
Tax incentives should encourage better behavior from corporations, not pay polluters to profit from environmental degradation.
Forcing our elected officials and 2020 candidates to introduce incentives for fixing climate change — and remove those that accelerate it — should be on the top of the agenda. our economy and the health of our environment ultimately go hand-in-hand, and it’s long past time our tax system reflected that.

No Limits to Evil?

Walter Clemens

Not all world leaders are evil.  The Russians are bombing hospitals in Syria, but the president of Ethiopia has just won the Nobel Prize for fostering peace in the Horn of Africa.  Meanwhile, the presidents of China, Russia, India, Turkey, and  the United States are distinguished by their almost unimaginably evil actions.   
Claiming that he will restore China’s former glory, President Xi  Jinping is becoming the country’s most supreme bully since Mao Zedong.  Establishing a totalitarian dictatorship, he uses omnipresent surveillance cameras to grade everyone’s behavior. His Great Firewall filters information from outside. Human rights lawyers and dissidents languish in jail.  More than a million Uighurs endure concentration camps while their children learn Xi Jinping Thought in boarding schools.  Similar destinies are rolling out for Tibetans and other minorities. Defying an international court, China claims most of the South China Sea. What fate awaits the demands of Hong Kongers for freedom?
Post-Soviet Russia has combined the worst excesses of free enterprise with a police state and neo-imperialism.  Ex-Communists became billionaires while Boris Yeltsin waged two wars against Chechens and kept troops in Moldova. President Vladimir Putin has seized borderlands from Georgia, annexed Crimea, and occupied eastern Ukraine.  Having resumed the Soviet patronship of   the Assad dictatorship,  Putin’s forces now pulverize civilians in northern Syria. Even though the Russian economy goes nowhere, Putin invests in planes and missiles that menace most of NATO (except, for now, Turkey).  Putin’s hackers wreak havoc from Estonia to the United States.
New Delhi continues its holier-than-thou posturing while doing little  to improve the lot of most Indians still wallowing in poverty, ill health, and ignorance. Fanning widespread hostility to Muslims, President Narender Modi  locks down millions of Kashmiris and refuses to consider a plebiscite or mediation.  When Pakistan protests, Modi hints at nuclear war.
The Ottomans allowed some tolerance to minorities.  Modern Turkey, however, has sought to eliminate—physically and culturally—Kurds, Armenians, and its other non-Turkish inhabitants. Persecuted also in Iran, Iraq,  and Syria, many Kurds have sought their own independent state.  The United States and other outsiders have occasionally allied with Kurds as partners.  Now Donald Trump has deserted them again and opened the way for President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan to extend his  genocide across Turkey’s border.
President Trump is no better than the other potentates except that his evil is often mindless except to mollify his  base. Having pledged in 2016 to withdraw from the Middle East, Trump spoke with ErdoÄŸan and then redeployed U.S. troops away from northern Syria where Americans had backed Kurds in fighting the Islamic State.  Awakened to his own blunder, Trump immediately stated that “if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!).”  True to form, however, he has done almost nothing.  Forces from Russia, Iran, Syria, and Turkey have moved into the vacuum.  Trump’s mindless if not treasonous foreign policies parallel his rampages against air and water quality in the  fifty states.  Both at home and abroad he has catered to mafia-types while striving to enhance his own often ill-gained wealth.
Evil on the world stage is not new. The cruel policies of leaders in  Iran, Saudi Arabia,  Israel, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Brazil are also well known.  Power readily corrupts.  Even the richest and most powerful individuals often twist every rule to gain more wealth and power. Americans have often joined this wrong-doing. Since 1945, however, the United States and other democracies have done much to bolster human rights and  development. They have helped to realize Immanuel Kant’s vision of a democratic peace.  But something is new. “Once upon a time,” Michelle Goldberg writes, Americans “spread ideals of democracy and the rule of law” to places like Ukraine. “Now? We send Giuliani”—now being investigated by the FBI.
The United Nations cannot curtail the evils being inflicted  on humanity unless the democracies do more than decry bad behavior. Liberal forces in Russia are denied a place on the ballot. In India they are drowned out by fanatic Hindus. In Israel they are stymied by fear of terrorists. In Europe they are subdued by fears of immigrants and cracks in the European Union.  In the USA  Republicans backed by a third of the electorate do nothing to curtail the evils of their own leader. Can there be any prospect for a better world unless a farsighted administration wins power in Washington and pushes other  governments and global actors to do the right things?

Western China and the New Silk Road

Kenneth Surin

Coming to China every few months has almost become a regular occurrence for me, though this time I am in a part of China I have not been to before.
China’s developmental model has for decades been tilted towards export-based manufacturing. This model has brought immense benefits to China. Its eastern coastal regions, Guangdong and its hinterlands in particular, have flourished, while China inland and to the west has lagged behind this hectic developmental pace.
I spent a day in Beijing en route, and was struck by how much cleaner the air was. When last there 8 years ago the air I breathed seemed to have more sulphur than oxygen in it—this time my mask with a respiratory filter was not needed.
It was probably only a matter of time before Beijing’s air quality improved. The ruling elite is based here because it is the capital, and they were not going to want to keep a breathing apparatus next to them at all hours. Significant measures were bound to be taken, and they have been.
Delhi, where I’ll be early in the new year is another matter—I’ll definitely need my respiratory mask there.
I spent several days in Lanzhou, a city of 5 million people in western China’s Gansu province. Lanzhou shares an arid plateau with nearby Mongolia, and is 1525m/5003ft above sea level.
Lanzhou is a reflection of the government’s attempt to deal with the relative lack of development outside China’s eastern coastal areas.
Once ranked as one of China’s top-10 polluted cities, Lanzhou has been cleaned-up by reducing smoke-stack pollution and ridding the Yellow River of pollutants (though several smoke-stacks were still belching smoke as I was taken around the city).
The river, although 3400kms/2113m from its mouth in the China Sea, is wide and swift-moving. Factories are no longer allowed to dump pollutants in the river locals call Mother River, which was once likened to an open sewer.
Where there’s a political will, it’s really not impossible to get such things done.
Apart from pollution, desertification due to its proximity to the Gobi Desert has been a major problem for Lanzhou. A massive tree-planting scheme has been successful in halting the onward-march of the desert.
Once a stopping-off point on the ancient Silk Road, Lanzhou is close to some major historical sites. Tourism is already a big earner for the local economy, and infrastructure is being enhanced to make life more convenient and attractive for the growing number of tourists. Six-lane roads are being constructed all over the city, and Lanzhou’s two existing metro lines are being augmented by more lines that will cover the entire city when completed.
This focus on infrastructure is a key component of China’s Road and Belt initiative, whose official goals are “to construct a unified large market and make full use of both international and domestic markets, through cultural exchange and integration, to enhance mutual understanding and trust of member nations, ending up in an innovative pattern with capital inflows, talent pool, and technology database”.
In addition to infrastructure investment, the Road and Belt initiative will also emphasize education, construction projects, railway and highway expansion, enhancement of power grids, and iron and steel production.
The Initiative will cover more than 68 countries, encompassing 65% of the world’s population and 40% of global GDP (using 2017 figures).
This economically-driven cosmopolitanism matches that of the Old Silk Road, whose known travelers included (in addition to the Chinese) Koreans, Levantines, Armenians, Persians, Turks, Russians, Venetians (Niccolò, Maffeo, and Marco Polo, the first two being the father and uncle of the more famous Marco), Florentines, Spaniards, Portuguese, Frenchmen, Britons, Germans, Moroccans (Ibn Battuta), and the famous Franciscan monk William of Ruysbroeck from the Flanders, among others.
I spent a couple of days in Dun Huang, a historic town on the Old Silk Road, next to the Gobi desert, famous for its ancient Buddhist grottoes. There is also a substantial Muslim presence in this region— Lanzhou is 20% Muslim. It is evident that the Old Silk Road was a conduit for the transmission of religions and cultures, and not just commerce.
The Old Silk Road may have been cosmopolitan, but it did not partake of a globalized world in the way that its contemporary equivalent does.
China’s Road and Belt initiative will certainly represent an intensification of globalization, as it modernizes several less-developed regions in this display of Chinese “soft” power intended to counterbalance in a much needed way the US’s baneful world-wide hegemonic display of “hard” power and military muscle.
But there can be lags in this impressive modernization.
Accompanied by my Chinese guide, I went to the post office three times to mail touristy postcards to family and friends in the US and UK. I had to show my passport to the clerk before I was allowed to buy stamps, each postcard was then weighed, and the stamp-purchase for each postcard was finally entered manually into the clerk’s computer. A postcard cost 6 yuan to mail, but there were no stamps in exactly this denomination, so I had to buy 3 stamps– ¥4.20, ¥1 and ¥0.80– to get the requisite 6 yuan. The transaction took 15 minutes when it should have taken 2-3.
China is technologically more advanced than the US in many ways: a maglev train capable of reaching speeds of 373mph/600kph will go into production in 2021, also bridge design and construction, synchronized traffic-light systems, cell-phone technology, household electronics, alternatives to carbon-based energy), but I’ve been to Third World countries where scanners are used to expedite greatly such postal transactions, as well as not requiring ID in order to sell someone a few stamps for their postcards!
Another post office I went to had run out of all its stamps. Yet another post office told me, or rather my Chinese guide, that I only needed ¥5 for each of my postcards, which left me confused because I had paid ¥6 in the post office I’d been to previously. I hope those postcards with ¥5 stamps reach their destinations.
On the plus side, China’s post offices also serve as banks, a boon to the public many western countries– with their rip-off banking systems– should see the need to implement for themselves.
However, a country which has (for example) built the world’s longest bridge and its fastest trains deserves a better ground-level postal service.
As I was leaving the country, China reported its slowest economic growth in 26 years—its economy grew by 6% for the 3 months ending in September. A fall in domestic demand was partly responsible, but the main factor was the sharp fall in China’s exports to the US, its biggest foreign market, due to Trump’s trade war.
Exports to the US fell a remarkable 21.9% in September compared to a year ago, while imports of American goods dropped by 15.7%. The US economy is of course being hurt just as much, if not more, by the tariff war.
There is probably no serious cause for alarm here– 6% is more than twice the US growth rate and about 3 times that of the western European countries. Moreover, falling growth rates carry with them some benefits for the environment since the prevailing rate of resource depletion will also be slowed down.

A World Partnership for Ecopolitical Health and Security

Evaggelos Vallianatos

The world in 2019 is in deep trouble. States still act in their own interest, scarcely paying attention to the evolving horrors of climate change, war, hunger, ecological impoverishment of the planet and rapidly growing population.
In such a precarious ecopolitical environment, we have the United States run by a president acting like a two-year old, always putting his personal and family profits above national and international interests.
Ecopolitical governance
An alternative to this madness would be for the US (after Trump), the European Union, Russia and China to create a genuine partnership for human survival and security. This arrangement would eclipse the military project of NATO and guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.
Such a move would dramatically cut military spending, showing that civilisation still matters. What if those saved vast sums of money, currently put to planning slaughter and destruction, could be put to peaceful use? Like jointly addressing the existential threat of climate change and the social and ecological problems unsettling the US, EU, Russia and China?
Imagine an ecological and political alliance between North America, Europe, Russia and China that gives birth to a World Environment Organisation for addressing climate change and the protection of human and environmental health. Imagine that nothing in international relations, including world trade, could take place if it caused ecological harm.
People would learn to respect nature as the very foundation of life on Earth. Imagine, furthermore, such an organisation funding substantive programs aimed at reversing the environmental decline of the planet, banning plastics, cleaning the plastic pollution of the seas, and, particularly, slowing down climate change, which threatens all life on Earth.
Such a task would be both daring and demanding because, as in the golden age of Greece, the human effort of the twenty-first century must be to invent a new science and a new politics to solve human problems, but without destroying the world.
Twentieth-century science and economic development (in the unitary capitalist models in use in the twenty-first century) are obsolete and dangerous: they have been tainted and moulded by the violence and fear of the nuclear bomb.
Factory farming
Industrialised agriculture is a paradigm of  the application of bomb-inspired science. It is a gigantic mechanical enterprise contemptible of the natural world. It is fuelled by Earth-warming petroleum. It has brought into being systems of death rather than life.
The immense one-crop plantations of agribusiness are artificial deserts that devastate biological diversity. The poisons that farmers spray over them control insects, diseases and grasses only as an afterthought. This is because these toxins are primarily political. They enable landowners or states to be sole masters of huge territories while, at the same time, emptying rural areas of small family farmers, peasants and indigenous people. They are a form of toxic chemistry for the preservation of political power in the world’s countryside. They are deleterious to both nature and people.
Agriculture constructed and infected by poisons is factory agriculture, an industrialisation of the very face of the Earth.
Industrialised farming rivals climate change in its global deleterious effects. It is converting everything to a machine. In the US, for example, it has abolished rural America, turning it into a colossal mechanised hybrid of plantation and state.
About 98 per cent of America’s food contains some toxins. In the state of Georgia, for example, not one farmer grows peaches without poisons.
Domesticated animals exist in high-tech factory environments that resemble sterile concentration camps. They house thousands of pigs, chicken and cattle, which are no longer animals but units of machinery. Nevertheless, confined animals emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases.
Agribusiness is also undoing food itself, scrambling the genetic stuff of corn and soybeans to bring all food and crops under the dominion of a handful of global corporations.
That is why we need to invent a new science that is tainted not so much with power but with ethics, ecology and civilisation. Aristotle argued that cataclysms repeatedly reduce human societies to a point where it is necessary to search in the rubble to rediscover human culture.
We are not yet the refugees of a global catastrophe, but we are headed in that direction. Industrialised agriculture is the first step in that decline and fall.
Slow down climate change
The invisible toxins of our industrialised culture are warming the planet, making it, slowly and in the near future, unfit for life. Alaska’s permafrost is thawing and massive chunks of ice are disintegrating in the Arctic. Amazon is burning.
It is probably impossible to stop entirely the warming of the Earth. But we can slow it down, diminishing its chronic cataclysmic effects by steadfastly eliminating and ending the use of fossil fuels and our onslaught on the planet.
Are we clever enough, but not moral enough to avoid committing suicide?
Yet there’s a way out of our current killer policies: first of all, solar and other forms of renewable energy suffice in replacing oil, coal, petroleum and nuclear power.
Second, nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction are useless, unusable without provoking a holocaust. These are truly the ultimate biocides. They should be abolished.
Third, family farmers and peasants are willing to and capable of raising all the food we need, as long as we dismantle the monstrous agribusiness plantations and animal factories.
Expanding the variety of our food crops from the rich diversity of traditional agriculture will go a long way to improving our diet, and lessen the need to dam rivers for irrigation. Such a change of direction would give a new lease of life to millions of villages in the tropics while bringing back to rural Europe and America the culture, democracy and nutritious food of prosperous small family farmers and peasants.
If the US, EU, Russia and China sign on a version of this modest proposal, we boost ecopolitical civilization and human survival.
We need a World Environment Organization.