Climate change “spin” as Davos gathering confronts mounting environmental and economic crisis

Nick Beams

The World Economic Forum (WEF), which holds its annual meeting this week in Davos, Switzerland, has tried in recent years to feign concern about the welfare of society as it brings together the ultra-wealthy, government and media representatives and the heads of major corporations to defend the profit system. This year’s gathering is no exception.

It will focus on the issue of climate change under the headline “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World” with one session entitled “Averting a climate apocalypse.”

In an endeavour to promote the organisation’s “progressive” credentials, WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab has called on corporate chiefs to “show leadership” and commit to achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner. The WEF has lined up a group of climate change activists, including the Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, to address the participants on the need for urgent action.

As a pointed comment by a Financial Times columnist put it: “The hills are alive with the sound of environmental spin.”

The WEF’s own assessments make clear, however, that nothing can or will be done to halt the mounting climate disaster within the framework of the capitalist, nation-state system that the forum defends in the face of rising global social opposition.

In a briefing paper on the zero emissions challenge, the WEF cited a November 2019 report from the United Nations which showed that four years since the Paris Agreement, global emissions had risen by 1.5 percent per year over the past decade, with no signs of peaking. This occurred under conditions where a reduction of 5 percent per year is needed just to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C. If the present trajectory continues, it noted, the world is projected to warm by 3–5 degrees C by the end of the century “with catastrophic effects on human civilization.”

But as the WEF report acknowledged, the deadline is much closer. It stated: “The coming decade will decide whether humanity can achieve the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C. Without a meaningful reduction in emissions in the next five years, the ability to act will increasingly be lost, resulting in damage that could become irreversible.”

The world, it said, needed “cohesive and swift international action.” But this remained “wishful thinking” and so individual governments and corporations “can and should move ahead with unilateral initiatives.” Such a prospect remains as far-fetched as international collaboration.

As the report noted, so far only 67 countries, none of them among the top five emitters, have committed to the goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions. It acknowledged that “most countries with this commitment have not enacted sufficiently robust policies to attain the emissions reductions required.”

There is even less prospect of this reduction being achieved through the actions of individual corporations. Of the millions of corporations worldwide, only 7,000 disclose their emissions to CDP, a global monitoring organisation. Of those that do report, only a third provide full disclosure, only a quarter set any kind of emission reduction target, and just one in eight reduce their emissions year-on-year.

Even when companies do report on targets, there is no common measure. The report stated: “As a result, to date no robust way of benchmarking corporate global climate action exists even among industry peers. This lack of transparency suggest that companies may be providing window dressing and doing very little to reduce emissions in reality.”

The WEF’s call for “stakeholder capitalism” in which corporations, according to Schwab, should act not just as profit-seeking entities but as “trustees of society,” is a pipe dream.

As the WEF report admits, there is little or no pressure from investor finance, the chief driver of corporate decision-making, for action on emissions. It states: “In one-on-one interviews, CEOs say the pressure to deliver short-term returns by far exceeds any demands for long-term decarbonization.”

The mounting social and protest movements over global warming are not the only concern of the WEF. Its Global Risks Report points to the downward pressure on the global economy from “macroeconomic fragilities and financial inequality” that continued to intensify throughout 2019, increasing the risk of economic stagnation as “rising trade barriers, lower investment and high debt are straining economies around the world.”

It noted in its assessment of global risks that compounding the economic factors is “widespread discontent with current economic systems, perceived to be rigged and unfair.”

The WEF commented that “Profound citizen discontent—born of disapproval of the way governments are addressing economic and social challenges—has sparked protests throughout the world, potentially weakening the ability of governments to take decisive action should a downturn occur.”

The conclusions are not specifically drawn. But what is being pointed to here is that the kind of “decisive action” taken in 2008–2009, when governments and central banks handed out trillions of dollars to finance capital and imposed austerity conditions on the mass of the population, may provoke mass social opposition and social revolution if repeated in response to another economic and financial collapse. And the signs of such a collapse are becoming ever more apparent.

Among other things, the report points to the replacement of “moderate but stable growth” with what the International Monetary Fund has called a “synchronized slowdown.” This includes a decline in investment, a contraction in international trade, rising corporate debt as a “key vulnerability” in the international financial system and the “economic confrontations between major powers.”

The continuation of interest rates at historically low levels and their further reduction in 2019 has increased the risk that “the tools available to brake economic slides may no longer be available” while also raising concerns “about the soundness of banking systems.” Interest rate cuts have helped economic growth but “they have also fostered higher debt and riskier rent-seeking which affect financial market stability.”

The picture presented by the WEF’s own analysis is of a socio-economic system heading for catastrophe on every front for which the ruling elites gathered at Davos have no answer and which their policies will exacerbate. It will not be prevented by the fiction of “stakeholder capitalism” but through the enactment of the only realistic agenda: the conscious political struggle of the working class for a higher social order, that is, international socialism.

Nuclear Energy: Is it In or Out?

Manpreet Sethi

Two contrasting news on nuclear energy from two different parts of the world greeted the dawn of the new year. Germany announced the decommissioning of another of its nuclear power plants in keeping with its plan to phase out nuclear energy by 2020. India, on the other hand, announced that its decision to commission a nuclear reactor every year for the next three years. So, is nuclear energy in or out of fashion in current times? The answer to this question lies in understanding the unique energy circumstances of each country, and the choices it can afford to make. There cannot be, and should not be, a one-size-fits-all approach to this subject.

Let us first understand why Germany is phasing out nuclear energy. This is a decision that was taken by the country two months after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan, which severely shook public confidence in nuclear safety. Succumbing to the pressure from Green parties, the government announced that all of the 17 nuclear power plants in Germany which were then producing about 22 per cent of the country’s electricity would be phased out by 2022. Over the last nine years, 11 of the 17 plants have been shut down, and Germany is today producing only 13 per cent of its electricity from nuclear energy. 30 per cent is being generated from coal-fired plants, and 47 per cent from renewables. To its credit, the country has emerged, over the last decade, as a front runner in the use of renewables for electricity generation. However, several German business and industry leaders continue to argue in favour of nuclear energy for the sake of having a reliable baseload source of electricity. Many are concerned that the loss of nuclear electricity could end up pushing the country towards greater use of coal, thereby increasing its environmental emissions.

The German decision of a nuclear phase-out was, in part, triggered by the anti-nuclear inclinations of the political firmament of the time. But it was also facilitated by several national socio-economic realities. These included a stable population with high per capita energy availability of above 7000 kWh; the country’s surplus electricity market that had been exporting electricity to the tune of about 15 billion kWh; a forecast of as low as 1.1 per cent per annum growth of electricity; the option of making up for the loss of electricity caused by the shutdown of nuclear plants by importing more coal from Poland, more gas from Russia, and even electricity from France and Czechoslovakia. Germany, therefore, has had the luxury of removing the option of nuclear electricity from its energy basket.

Meanwhile, India has indicated its plans to move ahead with its nuclear energy ambitions. The DAE has set a target of 63 GW of installed nuclear power capacity by 2032. In order to meet this objective, the government had approved the indigenous construction of ten new nuclear reactors a couple of years ago. As a part of this continuing effort, three of the new fleet of 700 MWe reactors are to be commissioned; one every year, starting this year. As these become operational, there will be a steady increase in the country’s nuclear power capacity from where it stands at 6780 MWe today. Apart from this indigenous fleet, hopes are also pinned on reactors that are to be built with international cooperation and are at various stages of negotiations. Kudankulam 3 and 4, which are being built with Russian help, will perhaps be the first among the foreign ones to become operational. Negotiations with France and the US have not yet reached the stage of start of construction.

Given that the Indian nuclear reactors have now graduated to 700 MW, is there a need for foreign reactors at all? The answer to this should be yes for two reasons. One, imported nuclear power plants of a capacity higher than 700 MW would help India rapidly meet its electricity requirements. It must be remembered that India still only provides for a per capita electricity consumption of less than 1000kWh (even China is above 4000kWh today), and many areas are still electricity-deficient. Secondly, rapid induction of nuclear energy would help wean India away from coal-fired plants, which still cater for 60 per cent of the country’s electricity, and contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. If the country has to meet its international environment commitments, then the use of coal must reduce. While India is progressing well on the use of renewables, their share having shot up to 16 per cent of the sector. However, it is not enough, by itself, to either meet climate change goals or provide reliable baseload electricity.

Nuclear energy, therefore, will have to remain a part of the country’s electricity mix. Fortunately for India, its nuclear programme is mature and the industry well geared to perform this role. For the future, a three-pronged approach is recommended to move India up the nuclear ladder: the government's steadfast commitment and support; continued safe operations and rapid induction of reactors by the nuclear operator; and proactive public outreach by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to help understand the focus on nuclear safety, and to ensure that nuclear energy can play a safe role along with, and not versus, other sources of electricity.

India needs every watt it can get from all safe, secure, and sustainable sources.

Dismantling the Indian Republic

Satya Sagar 

On 26 January 2020, as India marks 70 years of becoming a modern Republic, it also faces its biggest crisis as a democratic federation of religious, linguistic, ethnic and regional groups.

Not only is the soul of India – its traditions of secularism, tolerance and respect for diversity – under threat, even the very flesh and bones of the nation are being torn apart today. And, as the people of India openly revolt against the Narendra Modi regime’s attempts to create a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ – the country seems to be headed towards the emergence of not a consolidated, homogenous ONE, but dozens of little ‘Rashtras’.

Since mid-December, millions of Indian citizens across the country have been out on the streets,almost on a daily basis, in anti-government demonstrations reminiscent of the Arab Spring a decade ago.  The focus of the protests, which started in Assam and spread to rest of the country, is on demanding the rollback of the Citizenship Amendment Act, a controversial law that redefines Indian citizenship on religious grounds and is openly discriminatory against Muslims.

What makes the CAA particularly threatening to India’s 200 million plus Muslims is its link to the National Register of Citizens, an exercise planned by the current government to verify citizenship of the entire Indian population. It is argued that the combination of CAA and NRC will be used to harass, isolate and even disenfranchise Muslims.

In Assam itself the opposition to CAA is on the grounds that it will invite a flood of refugees from neighboring Bangladesh.  Assam is the only Indian state where an NRC has been carried out till date, on the orders of the Indian Supreme Court, to identify illegal migrants allegedly living there.

Will these public protests be enough to save Indian democracy or the Republic? What are the deeper structural and long-term historical issues that are promoting the rise of authoritarianism or fascism in India? And how is all this connected to the spread of similar forces globally or even in the South Asian region?

To begin with, it should be noted that the protests have already achieved much – especially the rejection by large sections of the population of the poisonous attempt of Hindu chauvinists to divide Indians on grounds of religion. The ruling BJP has also been shaken up severely despite its brute majority in parliament and signaled that, while it will not withdraw the Citizenship Amendment Act itself, it may not carry out a nationwide NRC exercise.

Opposition political parties, floundering after their severe defeat in the 2019 polls, also seem to have found their mojo again thanks to the public outpouring against the Modi government. Many state governments, run by opposition parties, have refused to implement the CAA or carry out an NRC, in an unprecedented sign of open revolt within the Indian federation.

And yet, the current upsurge – inspiring as it is- also faces the danger of meeting the fate of the Arab Spring – of raising much hope without enabling any deeper transformation.  In the absence of clear political leadership, organization, vision or even participation from rural and other marginalized Indian populations, the current upsurge could dissipate easily – once a few demands are conceded in a token manner. For what the protestors are up against in the form of the Narendra Modi regime, is not merely one law or policy of a corrupt government – but a concerted, long-term movement to convert the Indian Republic into a theological state.

The key objective of both the ruling BJP and the RSS, its mentor organization, is to turn India into a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, where Hindus will have hegemony over national affairs while other religious groups will have to be content living as second class citizens. The social roots of the ‘Hindutva’ movement, lies among  India’s numerically small but powerful upper caste Hindus or savarnas, who have never accepted the Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950.

While the Constitution calls for social justice, equality of all Indian citizens and institutional checks and balances against monopoly over power, what the upper caste want is absolute control. More precisely they seek to impose values and principles based on traditional, regressive Hindu texts such as the Manusmriti, which justifies the rigid hierarchy of the caste system.

Over the last seven decades they have worked slowly but steadily to claw their way to power and shape the country according to their vision of a nuclear-armed India, operating along the lines of a mythical ‘Ram Rajya’ of the past.  Since the early nineties, using a mix of aggressive nationalist and anti-Muslim rhetoric they have managed to come to power all over the country.

There is a global dimension to all that is happening in India too. For example, the demonization of Islam over the last two decades by Western powers – seeking new ‘enemies’ to feed their war industry after the collapse of the Soviet Union – has emboldened Hindu chauvinists. It is not a coincidence that Hindu extremists and White supremacists seem to share much love for each other – with the public display of affection between Donald Trump and Narendra Modi often reaching orgasmic proportions.

Beyond such ideological affinity though, the larger reason why Western powers do not object to any atrocities India commits in Kashmir or against its Muslim community is they hope to rope it in as a ‘junior partner’ in their global imperialist adventures.  India was historically an important source of support for the British Empire and supplied millions of troops plus raw materials and Indian foreign policy is pointed in a similar direction today.

India’s ruling Hindu elites are eager to be recognized as a ‘superpower’- even if their real status will be that of being the only ‘coolies’ in the club.  In return for club membership India is supposed to become a major supplier of troops as cannon-fodder to the war efforts of Western powers in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran or Africa. And at some point of time in future, also perhaps against China – which has emerged as the biggest challenge to Western global domination in recent decades.

All these grandiose global plans however may be upended by the fact that the Hindu chauvinists seem to have learnt nothing from the modern history of their neighbors in South Asia itself. The quest by conservative elites to capture the modern Indian state apparatus, under the cover of religion and narrow nationalism, mirrors similar attempts in the past by the Punjabi elite in undivided Pakistan and the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists in Sri Lanka.

While Pakistan broke into two with the emergence of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka went through one of the most brutal civil wars for over four decades. Both countries witnessed genocides by their armed forces against their own populations, for which no one has been punished to this day.

The liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 in response to cultural and political oppression of the Bengali-speaking Muslims by Punjabi-speaking Muslims, in particular, was a seminal moment in the sub-continent’s modern history. It  not only showed clearly why a common religion alone could not hold a modern nation-state together, it also proved that culture is a far more emotive and binding factor, especially when it comes under threat from other more aggressive or insensitive rivals.

If one examines Hindutva closely, it is not really a pan-Indian phenomenon but the projection of power by the ‘Hindi’ speaking elites of cow-belt India, who have thrust their cult of “Lord Ram’, vegetarianism and cow worship on the rest of the country. Couched in the garb of religious nationalism, they project a uniform vision that threatens the autonomy, identity and even dignity of many regions and cultures of the diverse Indian Republic. (It is not a coincidence the most vicious state violence against anti-CAA/NRC protestors has been in Uttar Pradesh)

In other words, the Indian cow-belt is to the rest of India what West Pakistan was to East Pakistan a few decades ago. The net result is also going to be the same – a backlash against the hegemony of both Hindi-speakers and upper caste Hindus in various ways – and this battle is likely to intensify in the days ahead.

The current phase of the Modi regime’s attempt to consolidate its grip over Indian society started out under the pretext of ‘weeding out’ illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Very ironically it is today accelerating the process of creating many Bangladesh-like liberation movements across the country.

Painful as the process is going to be, that perhaps may be the only path towards a truly federal and democratic Indian Republic of the future. Tighten your ‘cow-belt’ for a very turbulent journey ahead.

German government to continue military operations in the Middle East

Johannes Stern

The German grand coalition government, consisting of the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, intends to continue its military operations and participation in the US offensive in the Middle East in the aftermath of Washington’s January 3 drone missile assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani, a clear violation of international law.

Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer and Foreign Minister Heiko Maas made this clear in the course of visits to Jordan and Iraq over the past several days. Speaking Wednesday in Erbil in northern Iraq, Kramp-Karrenbauer said, “The men and women here are full of passion. They are doing a great job. They are highly thought of and want to continue this work, particularly the training of Iraqi forces.” The German army (Bundeswehr) has been arming and training Kurdish Peshmerga units in Erbil for the past six years.

This engagement, which was extended to the whole of Iraq in 2018, is expected to continue despite the recent vote by the Iraqi Parliament to expel all foreign troops. “To this end, I had political talks in Iraq today,” the defence minister said.

One day earlier, Maas visited the al-Azraq military base in Jordan and declared: “The German soldiers who are currently in Erbil, Jordan and Kuwait will remain.”

According to the Bundeswehr Operations Command, German Tornado fighter squadrons stationed in al-Azraq resumed operations as part of the US-led “Inherent Resolve” campaign last Saturday. Tornado flights had been suspended for three days after the killing of Suleimani and the Iranian counterattack on military bases in Iraq.

On Wednesday, a debate “on the current situation in the Middle East” was held in the parliament (Bundestag). It confirmed that all of the parties in the German parliament basically agree with the government’s military course. In order to assert the economic and geo-strategic interests of German imperialism against all rivals, they are pressing for an even more aggressive military policy.

According to Henning Otte, defence spokesman for the “Union” faction in the Bundestag (the Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union), “One thing is clear: where a vacuum appears, others go in.” He continued: “Russia in particular is taking the initiative... to increase its influence, not only in North Africa and Libya, but also in this region.”

Therefore, it is “only appropriate that our defence minister is currently in Iraq to make our own assessment there, to hold talks and make it clear in Erbil and Baghdad: We stand by our commitments.”

Both government and opposition politicians defended Suleimani’s murder and threatened Iran. “The general who was killed wasn’t just some sort of Iranian military attaché in Baghdad,” thundered CDU politician Johann David Wadephul. “He was one Iran’s most brutal military leaders. Ladies and gentlemen, we must counter this Iranian hegemonic policy, which is being enforced through military power.”

Wadephul was applauded for his words by Armin-Paulus Hampel, the foreign policy spokesman of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which vehemently advocates a more aggressive and independent German military policy. His proposal to withdraw German troops from Iraq, which was rejected by all of the other parties, had nothing to do with pacifism. On the contrary. According to Rüdiger Lucassen, the defence policy spokesman for the AfD and a former Bundeswehr general, the German government was “unable to draw up a strategic plan based on national interests.”

Lucassen added: “The slowdown in German foreign and security policy is harming our country. The good thing is: it is self-inflicted and can therefore be changed.”

Ultimately, all of the parties represented in the Bundestag agree with such a policy. Under conditions of increasingly criminal behaviour by the United States and growing conflicts between the major world powers, the German political elite is convinced that Germany and Europe must pursue their interests more independently and eventually establish themselves as an armed military force capable of waging war and overtaking the United States as the world’s leading imperialist power.

Combining arrogance and hubris, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Bundestag, Norbert Röttgen (CDU), explained: “The actions and decisions taken by the United States probably mean that the US has less political leeway. There may be less acceptance of the US when it comes to diplomacy in the region. Who, if not us, should compensate and replace the diminishing political possibilities? We have assumed more responsibility following the recent events.”

He continued: “I think there is a large majority here in the house prepared to sign up to these goals, but they also have to answer the question: What is our proposal, how are we to achieve the goals? Ladies and gentlemen, the goals alone are not enough. We now need instruments and means. My second thesis is that the new situation has increased our responsibility to achieve these goals. We may not like that, but part of the new reality is that we have assumed more responsibility.”

Behind the propaganda mantra of “more responsibility,” the ruling elite is forging ahead with a return to German militarism, as laid down in the new foreign policy announced in 2013-2014. In the Middle East, this means the subjugation of Iran and, ultimately, the political and military recolonisation of the entire region.

“We will be able to fulfill our responsibility only through a comprehensive deployment that includes civilian construction... diplomatic work, a nuclear agreement, and a military presence on the ground,” Röttgen stressed.

This policy has been basically embraced by the nominally “left” opposition parties in the Bundestag. The Green Party, as part of a coalition government with the Social Democrats, organised the first post-World War II German combat operations abroad—in Kosovo (1998) and Afghanistan (2001). Now it, along with the Left Party, is amongst the fiercest advocates of an independent European foreign policy led by Germany.

“Stop being just a spectator!” Agnieszka Brugger, a leading Green and member of the Bundestag Defense Committee, told the government. “Don’t be afraid to face up to the US on this issue. Keep your promises and allow INSTEX [founded by Germany, Great Britain and France in 2019 to promote trade between the EU and Iran without using US finance] to finally prove effective!”

What was needed, she continued, was “a strong, common, preferably European response that would regain trust in the region and make possible a solution ensuring security and conflict resolution for the people of Iraq.” Since Kramp-Karrenbauer and Maas had “failed to deliver in the past few months,” she continued, the chancellor had to take up this issue, make it a priority, and offer Germany as an offensive mediator, as was the case in Ukraine and Libya.”

The “offensive mediator” role of the German government in Ukraine since the extreme right-wing coup orchestrated by Berlin and Washington in February 2014 has been to assist NATO’s military offensive against Russia, a nuclear power.

Germany’s imperialist engagement in North Africa is no less aggressive. The so-called Libya conference, due to take place in Berlin on Sunday, recalls the notorious Congo conference, which began on November 15, 1884 in Berlin at the invitation of German Chancellor Bismarck. Today, as then, under the guise of “diplomacy” and “peace,” the main subject on the agenda is the enforcement of imperialist interests and the exploitation and division of the resource-rich African continent.

Despite this fact, the Libya conference, attended by the country’s warring parties as well as the leading imperialist powers, plus Russia and China and the most important regional powers, has the support of the Left Party.

“The federal government must do everything it can to make the conference in Berlin a success,” stated a press release issued by Left Party deputy group leader Sevim Dagdelen.” Although it is late, it is only right that German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas is doing everything possible to convince the conflict parties within Libya to attend the conference in Berlin.”

The only demand in Dagdelen’s text was that Greece, Cyprus and Tunisia also be invited.

US and UK clash over Huawei involvement in 5G rollout

Robert Stevens

The Trump administration is stepping up its threats against Boris Johnson’s Conservative government ahead of a decision by the UK on whether to involve China’s Huawei in Britain’s next generation 5G broadband wireless networks.

The Tory government is pledged to rollout 5G nationally in order to boost the UK’s competitiveness. The technology can enable wi-fi speeds 100-times faster than current 4G networks and is crucial to the operation and development of new technologies, including automated factories.

The US is vociferously opposed to allowing Huawei access and is threatened to cut off intelligence sharing with the UK. The US and Britain are the leading countries in the “Five Eyes” global intelligence and surveillance operation, along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The US has secured agreement from Australia to ban Huawei and Canada and New Zealand are under heavy pressure to follow suit.

According to several pro-Tory newspapers, Johnson will allow Huawei a limited role in building Britain’s 5G network infrastructure—following approval by an upcoming meeting of the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC includes cabinet ministers and senior officials involved in foreign and defence policy, as well as representatives from the intelligence agencies and the armed forces.

According to the Daily Mail Wednesday, “the National Security Council is set to give the green light to Huawei when it meets at the end of this month.” The Daily Telegraph wrote, “Despite ferocious US lobbying efforts and warnings over the threat of Chinese espionage, Huawei will probably be allowed in, albeit with caps on how much of its gear may be used, especially in the most sensitive ‘core’ parts of the UK network.”

The decision over Huawei access has wracked successive Tory governments. Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, was forced to sack her defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, after he leaked the deliberations of an NSC meeting last April. The NSC had agreed to provide Huawei access in principle while barring it from core infrastructure. This was also opposed by then Home Secretary Sajid Javid, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt and Trade Secretary Liam Fox. The policy was only passed with the casting vote of May.

Williamson is a hawk, who advocated a defence policy of confronting China and particularly Russia. Such was the pressure being exerted by Washington that his leaks to the Daily Telegraph were the first deliberations of an NSC meeting ever made public.

Since then, US tensions with China have escalated, with the Trump administration leveling a raft of “America First” trade-war measures. Despite this week’s US-China trade deal, most of the punitive measures against Beijing remain in place.

Huawei has been operating in the UK market for 17 years under a government-approved partnership with British Telecom. All four of Britain’s mobile phone providers have already launched 5G and are using Huawei technology at the non-core level.

On Friday, Sky News reported that the two biggest UK phone networks, BT and Vodaphone, are preparing to write a joint letter to Johnson next week stating that they back Huawei access. A letter from CEOs Philip Jansen and Nick Read will “offer qualified endorsement of any decision to allow Huawei to participate in the UK’s 5G network” with a reporter saying they will argue “that Britain’s digital economy risks being stunted if Huawei is banned.”

Their intervention came after the Trump administration sent a delegation Monday of six senior officials to Downing Street to lay down the hard line. They included Matt Pottinger, deputy national security adviser, Christopher Ford, assistant secretary of state for international security and non-proliferation, and Robert Blair, special representative for international telecommunications policy.

The delegation presented what they claimed was “new technical information” about security risks posed by Huawei and reiterated their demand that the UK ban Huawei entirely from its 5G rollout. One delegation member said it was “nothing short of madness” to allow Huawei in, with the Financial Times citing an official present at the meeting who said, “It’s the strong view and assessment by the US by a broad range of officials both political and professionals that any amount of equipment from untrusted Chinese vendors is too much.”

The Guardian reported that the delegation “spoke to ministers on their visit as well as security officials. They also lobbied Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, when he was in Washington last week at the height of the Iran crisis.”

The newspaper was told by one delegate that “Donald Trump is watching closely.” The delegation, according to the Guardian, said it had even investigated the CVs of Huawei employees posted online and “concluded that about 100 Huawei staff had connections to the Chinese military or intelligence agencies.”

How far the US has been prepared to go was summed up in an interview of Defence Minister Ben Wallace with the Sunday Times ahead of the US visit. The Times noted that Wallace was “surprisingly outspoken about how aggressive the Trump administration has been about Huawei…” as “Trump, his national security adviser and his defence secretary have all threatened to cut off some intelligence to the UK if the National Security Council gives Huawei a green light.”

Wallace states, “They have repeatedly said that. They have been clear about that: President Trump, the national security adviser. The defence secretary said it personally to me directly when we met at NATO. It’s not a secret. They have been consistent. Those things will be taken into account when the government collectively decides to make a decision on it… Friends and enemies that are independent make you choose.”

Despite the threats, Johnson’s government is set to approve Huawei access to non-core parts of the network, meaning it would be allowed to install antennas, etc. Regarding the intelligence supplied by the US delegation, a UK government source issued a terse statement that “We’d already anticipated the kind of threat that the US material demonstrates and factored that into our planning.”

Sir Andrew Parker, the head of the UK’s domestic intelligence agency, MI5, backed up those advocating allowing access. The Financial Times stated, “Sir Andrew acknowledged that security concerns alone should not always ‘dominate and dictate’ a decision…” Parker told the FT he had “no reason to think” that London’s intelligence-sharing relationship with the US would be jeopardized by adopting Huawei’s technology.

Culture Secretary Nicky Morgan told Bloomberg Television that “5G is very important—and the roll-out of 5G—in terms of encouraging tech companies to be based here, so there are a number of different factors in making that decision.”

From among the ministers in May’s Cabinet who opposed China’s access, only Javid remains a minister under Johnson. According to reports, only two ministers in Johnson’s cabinet, Priti Patel and Wallace, are opposed to Huawei access. They are backed by senior Tory figures with connections to the military, including Tom Tugendhat, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the last parliament, and Bob Seely.

This week Tugendhat told Sky News, “Of course you can individually guard every chicken, but isn’t it better not to let the fox into the hen house in the first place?”

In a posting on the influential Conservative Home web site Seely warned that the UK was in danger of “sleepwalking into a decision we will regret in the years and decades to come.” He demanded, “Whoever becomes chair of the foreign or intelligence and security select committees needs to pledge to open immediate investigations into the suitability of Huawei.”

Johnson has been forced to walk a tightrope, given that his entire post-Brexit strategy is based around securing a free trade deal with the US and an ever-closer alliance with Washington.

Speaking to the BBC this week, he said, “We want to put in gigabit broadband for everybody.” In a pointed reference to the US he said, “Now if people oppose one brand or another then they have to tell us what’s the alternative.”

To this Johnson was sure to add, “On the other hand, let’s be clear, I don’t want, as the UK prime minister, to put in any infrastructure that is going to prejudice our national security or our ability to cooperate with Five Eyes intelligence partners [the UK, Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia].”

Economically there is no alternative to Huawei, which recently became the top global supplier of mobile radio equipment. It is not only a leading developer of telecommunication technology, but is able to supply services far cheaper than rivals, including its main 5G rivals, Nokia and Ericsson. It is estimated that banning Huawei from access could cost the UK economy £6.8 billion.

While the US is publicly making security issues the centre of its objection to Huawei accessing its ally’s communications infrastructure, the US is primarily concerned with China’s rise as an economic competitor. This week, two US senators, Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Mark Warner, put forward a bill aimed at pushing back against China’s 5G dominance by offering to subsidise US companies working on the technology to the tune of $750 million. At least $500 million would also be on offer to companies that use “trusted and secure” equipment worldwide. But comparatively this is chicken feed.

The rollout of 5G globally is becoming an arena for the eruption of geopolitical tensions. Germany, with deep economic ties to Beijing—China is now the biggest source of growth for Germany’s carmakers—is currently deciding on whether to allow Huawei access. Chancellor Angela Merkel backs working with Huawei but is opposed by significant political figures in her ruling coalition. Last month, China’s ambassador to Germany warned, “If Germany were to make a decision that led to Huawei’s exclusion from the German market, there will be consequences… The Chinese government will not stand idly by.”

Rich in US and UK live nearly ten more healthy years than the poor

Kate Randall

Data has proven that the rich have a longer life expectancy than the poor in the US and UK. Now a new study shows that wealthy men and women generally have eight to nine more years of “disability free” life after age 50 than the poorest American and English adults.

The findings were published Wednesday in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A. Researchers sought answers to two main questions: What role do sociological factors play in how long people live healthy lives? And do English adults remain disability-free longer than American adults?

Disability-free life expectancy estimates according to social class and age, men and women in England and the United States (2002–2013). Credit: The Journals of Gerontology: Series A

Researchers from University College London, Harvard University and institutions in three other countries utilized two already existing data sets—one in the US, one in the UK—of more than 25,000 people over age 50. While life expectancy is a useful tool for measuring health, health experts increasingly recognize that the quality of life of later years is equally crucial.

The two sets of data on aging were from the Gateway to Global Aging Data, which included 14,803 men and women aged 50-plus from the US Health and Retirement Study (HRS), and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), which including 10,754 English individuals aged 50-plus. HRS began in 1991; ELSA began in 2002/2003.

To maximize comparability of the two studies, other data was used from the Gateway to Global Aging Data from 2002/2003 to 2012/2013. Due to the makeup of the data sets, the findings apply only to individuals who identify as white, although the study authors estimate that the outcomes would be similar for non-white ethnicities as a sample that included these groups showed.

The new research divided individuals into three equal groups according to household wealth: poorest, middle and richest—household wealth was defined as the sum of net financial wealth and net housing wealth, less all debts.

They were also assigned one of three levels in the following categories:

* Educational attainment: (low) less than high school; (medium) high school graduate and some college; (high) college degree or more

* Occupational social class: (low) routine, manual, elementary occupations; (intermediate) administrative, secretarial, personal services, sales; (high) managers, professionals, technical

Health expectancy, or quality of life, was measured according to the presence of disability. These disabilities include difficulty in performing daily personal care, preparing a hot meal, shopping for groceries, making phone calls, taking medications, managing money, and other routine tasks.

Research showed that the absolute difference in disability life expectancy—healthy living vs. poor quality of life—was largest for wealth in England and for wealth and education in the United States. In other words, in both countries the most economically advantaged groups could expect to live longer without disability than the most disadvantaged groups (see graphs).

The delivery of health care is different in the United States and England. In England, healthcare is publicly funded through the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), although there have been deep attacks on the health system through privatization. Service through the NHS has been plagued by budget cuts, under-staffing and privatization. There have been numerous cases of patients dying while waiting for emergency care.

According to NHS England, the health service recently missed all targets for Accident and Emergency (A&E) care, operations and cancer treatment. Cuts, under funding and under-staffing are reaping a terrible human cost, with many needlessly dying or suffering life-threatening diseases and illnesses that could have been contained if acted upon earlier. The Conservative government of prime minister Boris Johnson threatens even bigger attacks on the NHS, with the ultimate aim of complete privatization. Labour has done nothing to fight this assault.

In the US, health coverage is provided through private health insurance for many working-age adults and their families, and through publicly funded health care for the poor (Medicaid) and for those 65 and older and the disabled (Medicare). Currently an estimated 13.7 percent of the US population is uninsured.

The Affordable Care Act, signed into law by Democratic President Obama in 2010, lowered the uninsured rate somewhat. However, the legislation known as Obamacare was not a public program. It required individuals without insurance to purchase health coverage from private insurers under threat of a tax penalty.

Those buying in were subject to skyrocketing premiums and deductibles. Under the Trump administration, the uninsured rate has begun to rise. It is now clear that Obamacare was part of a deliberate drive by the ruling class to lower the life expectancy of working people.

The “Medicare for All” plans advanced by Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are not the solution to this healthcare and quality of life crisis. They constitute a fraud which the two senators know will never be implemented because the private insurance companies and pharmaceutical industry will not allow their own expropriation.

The bottom line is that despite the differences between the US and UK in health care delivery, it is the working class that is subject to inadequate medical care. In many cases this care is either substandard and of poor quality or nonexistent altogether. On the other hand, the rich in both countries are able obtain the finest-quality private medical care that money can buy.

This stark disparity is shown in the current study findings. At the age of 50, men and women in the lowest social class group compared to those in the highest group could expect to live five fewer years free from disability in both the US and England. These disparities between rich and poor lead not only to added years of disability and suffering, but to premature deaths.

Overall life expectancy in the US fell from 2014 to 2017, a streak unprecedented among advanced economies in the modern era. US life expectancy peaked in 2014 at 78.9 years; by 2017, life expectancy had fallen to 78.6 years. In the UK, life expectancy has leveled off during this same period, and stands at about 80.9 years. The drop in life expectancy in the US and the stagnation in the UK are indicative of societies in deep distress.

High-quality, free medical care is a fundamental social right, but genuinely socialized medicine does not currently exist in any country on the planet. The fight for socialized medicine stands at the center of a socialist program, which must be fought for by the international working class armed with an internationalist and socialist perspective.

JPMorgan Chase records the biggest profit of any bank in US history

Gabriel Black

JPMorgan Chase, the most valuable private bank in the world, made $36.4 billion in 2019, the biggest annual profit of any bank in American history. The news, reported Tuesday, sent the company’s stock up by 2 percent. In the fourth quarter of 2019, the company took in $8.5 billion, also a record, making it the tenth largest publicly traded company in the world, with a market cap of $437 billion.

JPMorgan Chase’s record profits were joined by Morgan Stanley, which also reported both record profits and record revenues for 2019, sending its stock price surging 6.6 percent on Thursday.

News of these record gains came as the six largest US banks revealed that they saved a combined $32 billion last year from President Donald Trump’s 2017 corporate tax cut. The tax windfall was up from 2018 for all but one of the banks. JPMorgan’s tax cut went from $3.7 billion in 2018 to $5 billion last year.

At Wednesday’s signing ceremony for the phase one trade deal with China, attended by an array of corporate executives, Trump turned to Mary Erdoes, a top executive at JPMorgan Chase. Calling the bank’s earnings report “incredible,” he joked, “Will you say, ‘Thank you, Mr. President,’ at least?”

The tax cuts for the corporations and the rich, enacted with only token opposition from the Democrats, are only one factor in the surge in profits over the past year. When stocks plunged at the end of 2018, Trump stepped up his demand that the Federal Reserve reverse its policy of gradually raising interest rates to more normal levels, following years of near-zero rates in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Acting as the mouthpiece of Wall Street, he demanded that the Fed begin cutting rates once again in order to pump more cash into the financial markets.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell dutifully complied, cutting interest rates three times in 2018 and assuring the markets that he had no intention of raising them again any time soon. Then, beginning in the late fall, the Fed began pumping tens of billions of dollars a week into the so-called “repo” overnight loan market, resuming the money-printing operation known as “quantitative easing.”

This de facto guarantee of unlimited public funds to backstop stock prices has produced record highs on all of the major US indexes, sending billions more into the private coffers of the rich and the super-rich.

These measures are a continuation and intensification of policies carried out on a bipartisan basis for four decades to redistribute wealth from the working class to the corporations and the financial elite. They have effected a fundamental restructuring of class relations in America, drastically lowering the social position of the working class. Decent-paying, secure jobs have been wiped out and largely replaced by poverty-wage, part-time, temporary and contingent employment—the so-called “gig” economy exemplified by corporations such as Amazon and Uber.

This decades-long ruling class offensive was accelerated in response to the 2008 financial crisis. President Barack Obama oversaw the channeling of trillions of dollars to the banks and financial markets in order to pay off the debts of the bankers and speculators, whose reckless and criminal activities had led to the crisis, and make them richer than ever. At the same time, he imposed a restructuring of the auto industry based on a 50 percent across-the-board pay cut for new-hires and an expansion of temporary and part-time labor.

The United Auto Workers (UAW) has actively participated in this process, enshrining the new “flexible” labor system in sellout contracts in 2015 and 2019. This template of expendable, benefits-free labor has become the new norm for labor relations across the country and throughout the world.

Meanwhile, state, local and federal government programs have been dramatically slashed. Education, housing, Medicaid and food stamps have been particularly hard hit. This process has been accelerated under Trump, along with the removal of occupational safety and environmental regulations, with no opposition from the Democrats, who represent sections of the financial elite and wealthy upper-middle class.

The devastating human cost of the plundering of society by the corporate-financial oligarchy is registered in declining life expectancy, rising mortality and record suicide and drug addiction rates. A recent study by the Brookings Institution found that 53 million people in the US—44 percent of all workers—“earn barely enough to live on.” The study found that the median pay of this group was $10.22 per hour, around $18,000 a year. Thirty seven percent of those making $10 an hour have children. More than half are the primary earners or “contribute substantially” to family income.

Similarly, a Reuters report from 2018 found that the average income of the bottom 40 percent of workers in the United States was $11,600.

A recent study by Trust for America’s Health found that in 2017 “more than 152,000 Americans died from alcohol- and drug-induced fatalities and suicide.” This was highest number ever recorded and more than double the figure for 1999. Among those in their 20s and early 30s, the prime working life age, drug deaths have increased more than 400 percent in the last 20 years.

At the other pole of society, the Dow Jones Industrial index is now double what it was at its peak in 2007, prior to the implosion of the financial system. Between March 2009 and today, the Dow has risen from 6,500 to over 29,000. The stock market, buttressed by central bank and government policy, has become the central instrument for funneling wealth from the bottom of society to the top. As a result, the top 10 percent of society now owns about 70 percent of all wealth, whereas the bottom 50 percent has, effectively, nothing.

In the midst of this orgy of wealth accumulation at the very top of society, every demand of workers for jobs, decent pay, education, housing, health care and pensions is met with the universal response: “There is no money.” Hundreds of thousands of teachers have struck over the past two years to demand the restoration of funds cut from the public schools and substantial increases in pay and benefits. None of their demands have been met. The same applies to auto workers who struck for 40 days last fall to demand an end to two-tier pay systems and the defense of jobs.

JPMorgan’s $36.4 billion profit in 2019 is more than half the education budget of the US federal government.

Meanwhile, Americans are deeper in debt to JPMorgan and the other banks than at any time in history. Collective consumer debt in the United States approached $14 trillion last year. Credit card debt has surpassed $1 trillion for the first time. Auto debt is at $1.3 trillion and mortgage debt is now $9.4 trillion. Student loan debt has increased the fastest, surging from $500 billion in 2006 to $1.6 trillion today.

These are the conditions, rooted in the historical bankruptcy and crisis of the capitalist system, that have sparked a global upsurge in the class struggle and the growth of anti-capitalist and pro-socialist sentiment. The past year has seen a dramatic expansion of working class struggle that is only a glimpse of what is to come. India, Hong Kong, Mexico, the United States, Puerto Rico, Lebanon, Iraq, France, Chile and Brazil are only some of the places where mass struggles have erupted.

What is becoming increasingly clear to hundreds of millions of people around the world is that the social problems confronting humanity in the 21st century—poverty, debt, disease, global warming, war, fascism, the assault on democratic rights—cannot be solved so long as this parasitic and oligarchical financial elite continues to rule. The turn is to the American and international working class—to unite, take power and seize control of the wealth which it produces to ensure peace, prosperity and equality for all people.

The Libya conference and the new scramble for Africa

Johannes Stern

A major international conference on Libya will convene in Berlin on Sunday. At the invitation of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, heads of state and top officials of the leading imperialist powers in Europe and the US will come together to determine the fate of the resource-rich country and ultimately the entire continent. Also in attendance will be representatives of Russia, China and the most important regional powers, including Egypt, Algeria and Turkey, together with the leaders of the opposing factions in Libya’s civil war, Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj and Gen. Khalifa Haftar, and representatives of the African Union.

In both its form and venue, the meeting is reminiscent of the infamous Congo Conference, which was also held in Berlin from November 15, 1884, to February 26, 1885, at the invitation of German Chancellor Bismarck. Its outcome was the “General Act of the Berlin Conference” adopted by representatives of the US, the Ottoman Empire, the European powers and Russia. This agreement accelerated the division of Africa into colonies and ultimately intensified the tensions between the imperialist powers, culminating in the mass slaughter of the First World War that began in August 1914.

Even before the Congo Conference, the scramble for Africa was already in full swing. France occupied Tunisia in 1881, and Guinea in 1884. In 1882, British troops invaded Egypt, which at that time was officially part of the Ottoman Empire. Italy subdued parts of Eritrea in 1870 and 1882. In April 1884, the German Reich annexed German Southwest Africa (today Namibia), moving into Togo and Cameroon in July of the same year.

With the Congo Conference, the colonial subjugation of Africa, accompanied by a previously unknown level of imperialist barbarism, gathered pace. Within a few years, the European powers had carved up virtually the entire continent. The Congo fell to Belgium, most of the Sahara and the Sahel to France, Berlin secured German East Africa (today’s Tanzania, Burundi and Rwanda, as well as part of Mozambique) and Britain conquered Sudan by finally crushing the Mahdist Revolt in 1899. This was followed by the subjugation of South Africa by Britain in the Second Boer War (1899 to 1902), the division of Morocco by France and Spain and Italy’s conquest of Libya in 1912.

As at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the major powers pursued their predatory imperialist interests under the guise of “diplomacy” and “peace.” Today, they act even more nakedly to achieve the same objectives.

In a commentary on the Libya conference, the daily Tagesspiegel states quite bluntly, “Libya’s strategic importance is the reason why so many people want to get involved there—although it is generally not attractive to invest soldiers or mercenaries and billions in a civil war with an uncertain outcome. Libya has oil. Whoever controls Libya controls what is currently the most important migration route to Europe—and thus becomes an indispensable partner of the EU”.

The author, Christoph von Marschall, whose aristocratic ancestors were high-ranking foreign policy-makers of the German Reich, openly expresses the traditions to which Berlin is returning. “Germany now needs the cool perspective of Otto von Bismarck on realpolitik. And it calls for his diplomatic skills as an ‘honest broker.’” But “the role of the honest broker does not mean that he has to be altruistic and cannot represent his own interests. Germany has these: stability in Libya, reducing pressure on Europe through uncontrolled migration.”

Then, as now, the “honest broker” is really an imperialist brigand, who is seeking a “place in the sun.” While the German government did not participate in the NATO bombing of Libya in 2011, it has been all the more aggressive in its involvement in Africa since its about-face in foreign policy in 2013–14. Now, Germany is engaged with more than 1,000 soldiers deployed in the French-led occupation of Mali, maintains a military camp in neighbouring Niger and advances its imperialist aims across the continent with increasing aggressiveness.

Last March, Berlin updated its “Africa Policy Guidelines,” which were first adopted in May 2014. This revision evokes the “growing relevance of Africa for Germany and Europe,” which is due, among other things, to the continent’s increasingly dynamic economy and “rich natural resources.” The government therefore called for the strengthening of “Germany’s political, security and development policy commitment in Africa in a targeted manner,” to act “early, quickly, decisively and substantially” and to “deploy the entire spectrum of its available resources cross-departmentally.”

The other imperialist powers are pursuing similar objectives and have also increased their military and political intervention on the continent in recent years. France has massively expanded its engagement in the Sahel zone, and the US is also escalating its intervention in Africa, especially to curb Russian and Chinese influence. Nine years after the NATO bombing of Libya—which reduced much of the country’s infrastructure to rubble, left thousands of civilians dead and wounded and led to the lynch-mob murder of Colonel Gaddafi—the country is once again at the centre of imperialist intrigues. But now, the stakes are even greater, with all of the belligerents of the previous war arrayed against each other, fighting for control of the booty.

Last year, France, in alliance with Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, supported Haftar, at least unofficially, while Italy and Qatar worked closely with the internationally recognized transitional government (GNA) of al-Sarraj. Turkey began sending soldiers to Tripoli on January 5 of this year to strengthen the GNA against Haftar’s military offensive. The decision was criticized not only by the general’s open allies, but also by Trump and the German government.

Berlin, in particular, is trying to use its contacts with both of the opposing factions in the Libyan civil war to bring the belligerents together and increase its own influence.

There are many indications that, behind the scenes, Berlin and the European Union (EU) are preparing a comprehensive military intervention. On Friday, EU Foreign Affairs Commissioner Josep Borrell did not rule out a European Union military intervention in Libya. “It is crucial that we assert our interests more strongly and, if necessary, robustly,” he said in an interview with Der Spiegel. “If there is a ceasefire in Libya, then the EU must be prepared to help implement and monitor this ceasefire—possibly also with soldiers, for example as part of an EU mission.”

Borrell left no doubt that such a military operation could be quickly extended to large parts of North Africa and to more aggressively enforce European interests against Russia, China and the US. “The situation in the Sahel is no better—on the contrary. Last year, 1,500 soldiers were killed in the fight against terrorists in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger alone.” The entire region is “a powder keg,” he said.

But Europe has “many opportunities to exercise power. We just have to want it. I’m not talking about military power, at least not only. The New Year has hardly begun, and it almost seems as if there are only crises everywhere. So, we should know what our goals are. And we must be ready, if necessary, to defend these goals even if they run counter to those of our allies.”

This situation of growing conflict, paired with threatening gestures on the eve of the conference, confirm the analysis Lenin made in his classic work Imperialism: “…the only conceivable basis under capitalism for the division of spheres of influence, interests, colonies, etc., is a calculation of the strength of those participating, their general economic, financial, military strength, etc. And the strength of these participants in the division does not change to an equal degree, for the even development of different undertakings, trusts, branches of industry, or countries is impossible under capitalism.”

Alliances between imperialist powers, according to Lenin, are therefore “no matter what form they may assume, whether of one imperialist coalition against another, or of a general alliance embracing all the imperialist powers, are inevitably nothing more than a ‘truce’ in periods between wars. Peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars, and in their turn grow out of wars; the one conditions the other, producing alternating forms of peaceful and non-peaceful struggle on one and the same basis of imperialist connections and relations within world economics and world politics.”

As with the murder of Tehran’s Gen. Qassem Suleimani, in violation of international law, and US war preparations against Iran, workers and young people must understand that the Libya conference constitutes a warning. The profound crisis of the capitalist system is driving the great powers ever deeper into the abyss of imperialist war and barbarism. The preparation of new neocolonial wars of aggression in Africa and the Middle East, which pose the danger of a Third World War, can only be prevented through the mobilization of the international working class on the basis of a socialist and revolutionary program.

FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship 2020/2021 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 28th February 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Residents (who must be nationals) of the following countries are eligible to apply for the Scholarship Programme:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nigeria, North-Korea, Palestine, the Philippines, Serbia, Somalia, South-Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.

To be taken at (University): The following universities are participating:

• Szent István University, Faculty of Food Science
• Szent István University, Faculty of Horticultural Science
• Kaposvár University, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

Fields of Study: The following Master of Science degree courses are being offered in English for the 2020-21 Academic Year:

• MSc in Food Safety and Quality Engineering (Szent István University)
• MSc in Horticultural Engineering (Szent István University)
• MSc in Animal nutrition and feed safety (Kaposvár University)

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Candidates will be selected on the basis of the following criteria:

• Citizenship and residency of one of the eligible countries
• Excellent school achievements
• English language proficiency (for courses taught in English)
• Motivation
• Good health
• Age (candidates under 30 are preferred)

Selection Procedure: The selection process as described below applies to scholarships beginning in September 2020.
Student selection will take place in two phases:

• Phase 1: FAO will pre-screen candidates and submit applications to the Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary that will send them to the corresponding University as chosen by the 2 applicants. Students must submit only COMPLETED dossiers. Incomplete dossiers will not be considered. Files without names will not be processed.
• Phase 2: Selected candidates may be asked to take a written or oral English examination as part of the admission procedure. The participating Universities will run a further selection process and inform each of the successful candidates. Student selection will be made by the Universities only, without any involvement on the part of FAO. Selected students will also be notified by the Ministry.

Number of Awardees: Courses will be offered provided the minimum number of students is reached.

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship covers student costs only; family members are not supported within the frame of this programme.
The scholarship will cover:

• application and tuition fees throughout the study period with basic books and notes;
• dormitory accommodation;
• subsistence costs;
• health insurance.

How to Apply: Interested applicants should prepare a dossier to be sent by E-MAIL (to REU-Scholarship@fao.org) consisting of:

• Application form duly completed
• A recent curriculum vitae
• A copy of high school/college diploma and transcript/report of study or copy of the diploma attachment
• A copy of certificate of proficiency in English
• Copies of relevant pages of passport showing expiration date and passport number
• A letter of recommendation
• Statement of motivation
• Health Certificate issued by Medical Doctor
• Certificate of Good Conduct issued by local police authority.

All submitted documents must be in ENGLISH. Documents submitted in any other language will not be accepted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that documents are duly translated and certified by a competent office; and that each document is saved with a name that identifies what it is.


Visit Scholarship Webpage for details