10 Sept 2020

UK government blames young people as COVID-19 surges

Thomas Scripps

Late Tuesday night, as has become standard for coronavirus statements, the UK government announced that social gatherings, indoors or outdoors, would be limited to six people from next Monday, September 14.
Down from 30 previously, the measure is designed to disguise the fact that the government’s reopening policy proceeds unchanged even as infections rise exponentially, and to provide it with an opportunity to shift responsibility for its crimes onto young people.
The six-person rule does not apply to workplaces or schools, and groups of six can continue to visit pubs, bars, and restaurants. As if to underscore the tokenistic character of the measure, organised sporting fixtures are also exempt. Wherever there are profits to be made, or children who need minding so their parents can return to work, public health concerns disappear.
The six-person limit will be accompanied by a new asinine government health slogan, “Hands-Face-Space,” supposedly encouraging hand-washing, the wearing of face masks and social distancing. This comes on the heels of the infamous “Stay Alert-Control the Virus-Save Lives” message.
The real political intentions behind these new interventions were summed up by Conservative government Health Secretary Matt Hancock, who noted in an interview on Monday that cases were rising fastest among young people, before saying, “The question is, how much are you willing to risk the lives of yourself and others by breaking the social distancing rules?” and, “Don’t kill your gran by catching coronavirus and then passing it on.”
The outrageous misrepresentation perpetrated by this callous statement is that the renewed spread of the virus is down to failings of individual responsibility. Limiting gatherings to six has been justified with reference to incidents of illegal raves and house parties—given pages and pages of coverage in the press.
At best, it is only mentioned in passing that although the highest levels of infection are in people in their 20s, the rise in cases is spread across the working-age population. Or that young people are more likely to work in public-facing roles like hospitality—the front lines of the government’s own “Eat Out to Help Out” scheme—more likely to work in insecure employment, where taking precautions against the virus is frequently impossible, and more likely to be forced to live in shared accommodation.
In a circle that cannot be squared, the government simultaneously expresses “concern” over the “sharp rise” in cases amongst young people, while pushing forward its drive to reopen schools that have already become a breeding ground for the virus. Just one week after the reopening of schools, England has seen 223 COVID-19 infections, with 28 in Wales, 64 in Northern Ireland and 103 in Scotland (with a much smaller population than England, which opened schools earlier), taking the UK total to over 400.
The exponential spread of the virus will escalate dramatically this month, with the return of students and staff to universities—the very demographic now being demonised for its supposed poor behaviour.
All of which is to say nothing of the fact that by far the worst killers of grandparents in the UK are Matt Hancock and his boss, Boris Johnson! They not only presided over the transformation of care homes into killing fields this spring, as hospitals were emptied into unprepared facilities and the resulting infections claimed tens of thousands of lives but have now turned back to the “herd immunity” strategy they were forced to reluctantly and temporarily abandon in March.
The government’s public health announcements are made to distract from these crimes and from the fact that it is their reopening of the economy which is producing the conditions for a second surge in infections. Official figures are already beginning to reflect the consequences. In the past three days, the UK has recorded daily new infection totals of 2,988, 2,958 and 2,460. The seven-day average now stands at 2,198, up from around 500 in late June. This spread also underscores the fraud of “local lockdowns,” now covering millions, but which do little or nothing to contain the virus.
The duplicitous character of media commentary is underscored by their downplaying of this very real threat, even as they castigate young people. The BBC, in what reads like a government press statement, published Wednesday morning, “Five reasons why rise in cases is not all it seems.” These reasons are: “1. The ‘peak’ [in recorded daily infections] was a massive underestimate, 2. Extra testing is a factor, 3. Testing is targeted at hotspots, 4. Hospital admissions aren’t rising with cases,” and “5. Young people are testing positive at higher rates.”
Indeed, a direct comparison with the figures recorded during the first peak is distorted by the fact that the government’s woeful testing capacity at the time means those figures are likely underestimates of the real number of infections per day. But this is hardly a cause for comfort. Virus cases are rapidly increasing and are not confined to the young. They will reach the catastrophic levels seen earlier this year. At which point, hospital admission will rise rapidly as winter approaches, with a hundred National Health Service trusts at or above capacity and six overwhelmed completely, according to the Guardian, “even if COVID pressures are closer to May’s lower levels.”
Moreover, this increase takes place under conditions where the test-and-trace system is failing, with people unable to access the test-booking website and being sent to testing centres hundreds of miles from their home to receive one. In the seven days ending August 26, just 69.4 percent of close contacts of infected people were reached by contact tracers—the lowest weekly percentage since test-and-trace began.
As for testing being targeted at “hotspots,” these are now appearing all over the country. Seventy-nine local authorities have rates of infection higher than 20 per 100,000, the level at which an official “concern” is registered. The idea that extra testing is wholly responsible for the present increase, or that it is nothing to worry about because it is concentrated among young people, is a lie. The team behind the Covid Symptom Study App, with over a million participants, issued a report this week saying, “We are now confident that this rise is statistically significant and that we are definitely seeing a rise in COVID cases in the UK. This is backed up by our R [Reproduction] value, which is currently 1.2 for England, Scotland and Wales and 1.3 for Northern Ireland.”
In an interview with ITV on Monday, Professor John Edmunds—a member of the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)—said that the reproduction rate (R rate) for the country was “already above 1 and we’ve opened schools. So this is a risky period.”
He added that he was “quite worried that schools have just returned, cases are increasing now exponentially. They are increasing exponentially now, from a relatively low level. But they are increasing.”
“The epidemic continues to increase and then we have Christmas. And that is very difficult. What is Christmas? Well, it’s meeting with your family very close. Restaurants and pubs and stuff like that. And it’s all high risk. And it’s all indoors. Indoors makes a difference.”
“Schools have gone back. Universities are high risk. They are going back in the next couple of weeks. And the government is trying to get us back into work and back on the tube and buying our sandwich from Pret-a-Manger, and things like that. That will have an epidemiological effect.”
BBC coverage could have been authored by the government’s press spokesperson. Health correspondent Nick Triggle wrote on Monday, “New figures show the UK faces an ‘impossible balancing act’.” Echoing Boris Johnson’s statement in March that “families are going to lose loved ones,” the BBC journalist wrote, “Keeping the death toll anywhere near zero is, sadly, going to be impossible.” Success, in his view, meant keeping the death toll below the appalling 41,500 fatalities officially recorded this spring. In fact, the government’s own “reasonable worst-case scenario” predicts 85,000 additional deaths.

Austria: No protection for population despite rising coronavirus infections

Markus Salzmann

Austria has played a leading role in Europe’s lifting of protective measures against the coronavirus pandemic. As a consequence, the number of new infections in the country is once again rising sharply. The government headed by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (Austrian People’s Party, ÖVP) has responded to the crisis by continuing to place business interests above the lives and health of citizens.
On September 9, Austria recorded over 500 new infections during the previous 24 hours, approaching the highest increase since April. According to official figures, more than 30,500 people throughout Austria are now infected with the coronavirus, and 747 have died.
In relation to its population, Austria is thus in the upper range of daily new infections in Europe. In Germany, with nine times as many inhabitants, the daily number of new infections is currently around 1,500.
A dramatic increase in infection rates can be observed throughout Europe. In Germany, the highest number of new infections since the spring was reported in August. In France, more than 6,000 new infections per day have been registered in the past week.
Croatia and other Balkan countries are becoming hotspots, while Hungary has closed its borders to neighbouring countries due to the rapidly increasing infection rates. The extreme right-wing government led by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is using these measures to further enflame nationalism in the midst of the pandemic. The Orban government accuses foreigners and refugees of spreading the virus. At the same time, schools in the country opened on September 1 without any special safety measures.
At the end of August, Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz reacted to the drastic increase in infections with a “statement on the current situation.” He hardly mentioned the increase in coronavirus cases and the precarious situation of many Austrians who have lost their jobs or suffered wage losses as a result of the pandemic and can barely make ends meet. Instead, he promised more money and relief for Austrian businesses and the wealthy.
He declared that Austria would lose around 7 percent of economic output this year, but that a “comeback” would take place next year. He said that for this to succeed, in addition to the existing €50 billion in rescue and aid measures, Austria must improve its competitiveness. The country’s economy would receive multiple forms of fresh assistance, including tax relief for companies. Further aid packages could also not be ruled out.
On the other hand, the government is not prepared to support the rising number of unemployed and those who have gotten into financial difficulties due to short-time working benefits.
Business representatives praised Kurz’s speech. The Chamber of Commerce commented that he presented “a sustainable location strategy at the right time.” The Federation of Austrian Industry expressed a similar opinion. For his part, Kurz acknowledged that he had held intensive talks with numerous business representatives over the past few months.
As reported by the press, Infineon CEO Sabine Herlitschka, Voestalpine CEO Herbert Eibensteiner, Andritz CEO Wolfgang Leitner, Boehringer Ingelheim CEO Philipp Lattorff, Deutsche Bank Supervisory Board Chairman Paul Achleitner and the Austrian heads of Google, Microsoft and Apple, as well as representatives of the energy and telecommunications industries, were all guests in the Chancellor’s Office. Although nothing was revealed about the content of the talks, it is clear that the main aim was to shift the burden of the pandemic onto the backs of ordinary citizens.
The President of the Austrian Federation of Trade Unions, Wolfgang Katzian, also held talks with Kurz. The trade unions have avoided any criticism of the government since the beginning of the coronavirus crisis.
At the same time, Kurz made clear that there would be no new tranche of protective measures for the population. In response to specific questions, the Chancellor replied that a decision on “further measures” would be taken next week. The clear goal was “to prevent a lockdown.”
The Austrian government had already lifted almost all restrictions imposed to contain the coronavirus at the beginning of May. Despite the rapid spread of the pandemic throughout Europe, the Kurz government was considered a pioneer with its “opening up policy,” which now has deadly consequences for more and more people.
Since January, Kurz has been ruling in a coalition with the Greens, after his coalition with the extreme right-wing Freedom Party (FPÖ) collapsed last year. The change of coalition partner, however, has not changed the anti-working-class course of the government. The Greens have essentially continued the right-wing policies of the FPÖ.
Rudolf Anschober, the Green Minister of Health, whose ministry bears primary responsibility for the massive spread of the infections, vilely blamed young people for their lack of “risk awareness.” In fact, it is the government that rejects any sort of effective protective measures.
According to the news magazine Profil, the Austrian Ministry of Education insists that there should be no compulsory wearing of masks in classes, despite the risk of infection. When the polytechnic in Vienna Währing sought to circumvent the minister’s decree and introduce compulsory masks during lessons via its own house rules, a spokeswoman for the Minister of Education Heinz Faßmann (ÖVP) promptly responded that this was “not an option.”
The school responded by declaring that the required social distancing between students could not be guaranteed and that the obligation to wear masks should be only lifted during breaks or if there was a maximum of 15 students in the class room. The ministry, on the other hand, referred to its decree that does not provide for masks in classes, knowing full well that the schools would thus become hotspots for infections.
It is not only the ÖVP and the Greens, however, which categorically reject the protection of workers and young people. All the other parties agree on this issue. The Social Democratic SPÖ, which governs in the capital city of Vienna along with the Greens, is publicly calling for help for the city’s ailing health system, while playing down the rising infection rate and agreeing with the business-friendly measures of the federal government.
Regarding the rising infection figures in Vienna, vice mayor Birgit Heiben (Greens) explained that Vienna is a city of millions and is testing widely, which was the reason for the high numbers of infected.
More and more studies show that the protective measures taken at an earlier stage could prevent the virus from spreading. “As soon as protective measures are withdrawn, cases start to rise again,” virologist Judith Aberle told the Standard.
A study commissioned by Philips Austria has also revealed the massive shortage of nursing staff in Austria. With 713 nurses per 100,000 inhabitants in 2018, there were significantly fewer staff than in comparable European countries. In Germany the corresponding figure was 1,351 nurses and in Denmark 1,046.
In addition, there has been barely any increase in personnel since 2008, and all non-medical health staff are inadequately deployed, according to the portal boerse-express. A further increase in hospital admissions due to new coronavirus infections, will quickly exhaust the capacities of the country’s health care system, making it impossible to guarantee adequate care.

Australian intelligence agencies raided Chinese journalists in June

Oscar Grenfell

The Chinese government and press revealed yesterday that four journalists employed by the country’s state media outlets were subjected to police raids and interrogation by Australian intelligence agencies in late June.
They also exposed the fact that two Chinese nationals, who are well-known academics, had their visas cancelled at the recommendation of the Australian Intelligence and Security Organisation (ASIO), the domestic spy agency, and that several journalists left the country after ASIO interrogations.
Taken together, the revelations underscore a dramatic deterioration of relations between Australia and China. This has taken place in the context of the Australian political and media establishment’s fulsome support for a major escalation of US diplomatic, economic and military provocations against Beijing this year.
The Trump administration has intensified the anti-China campaign initiated under Democratic Party President Barack Obama, aimed at ensuring US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific. Its Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made bellicose statements, indicating that the US position on China amounts to regime-change, and has encouraged further moves against supposed “Chinese influence” abroad, including in Australia.
The ASIO raids have underscored the anti-democratic and repressive character of Australia’s “foreign interference” laws, passed in 2018 by the Liberal-National government and the Labor Party and hailed by the Trump administration as a model to be emulated internationally. The legislation, particularly directed against China, creates the conditions for criminal prosecutions of individuals and groups connected to any “foreign principal.”
It was introduced amid a frenzied campaign from the political and media establishment, along with the US-connected intelligence agencies, alleging without any evidence pervasive “Chinese interference” in Australian politics, and virtually every aspect of society. The raids on the Chinese nationals were only made public by Chinese media, in response to reports this week that two Australian journalists hastily departed Beijing on the advice of the Australian government.
Media reports, and a government statement, initially suggested that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Bill Birtles and the Australian Financial Review’s Mike Smith had been in imminent danger of detention and even prosecution by Chinese authorities.
Comments by Birtles since he arrived back in Australia have painted a more complicated picture. He wrote that last week he had been told by the Australian embassy that he should leave China post haste. At the time, Birtles “didn’t want to leave. I felt safe and things seemed normal.”
It was only on Wednesday night last week, hours before Birtles was to leave China that police officers knocked on his door and requested an interview. The next morning, he went to the Australian embassy, at his own initiative, to seek advice. Only then did Australian officials instruct him not to leave the embassy grounds. Smith also stayed in the building for several days. According to the reports, the only condition placed on the two journalists by China was that they consent to an interview before leaving the country.
From Birtles’ statements, a murky picture emerges, with a distinct hint that what could have been a relatively minor, but unpleasant matter for the journalists involved, was deliberately transformed into a major international incident by the Australian authorities. When Birtles and Smith left China this week, they had not been detained or arrested by the police at any point. Birtles wrote that he “had become a pawn in a much bigger diplomatic stoush.”
Birtles and Smith were reportedly questioned by Chinese police about Cheng Lei, a news anchor for Chinese state media’s CGTN network. She was detained in mid-August, in an investigation into unspecified “criminal activities endangering China’s national security.” Cheng is an Australian citizen. For whatever reason, though, the response to her imprisonment by the Australian government and corporate press has been decidedly muted.
The reports by Chinese state media yesterday, revealing the raids against some of their representatives in Australia, were clearly aimed at pointing to the hypocrisy of the Australian government and media statements of outrage over the questioning of Birtles and Smith.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian provided details of the Australian police operations. The four Chinese journalists had been raided on June 26. Their laptops had been seized “and even children’s tablets and electronic toys for their kids.” They were employed by Xinhua News Agency, China Media Group and China News Service.
Zhao added: “As we understand, the Australian side hasn’t provided any reasonable explanation so far for searching and hasn’t returned all the seized items to our journalists.” He demanded that the Australian government end “such blatant irrational behaviours, stop harassing and oppressing Chinese personnel in Australia under whatever pretext.”
The June 26 police action took place the same day as ASIO agents and federal police officers raided the Sydney home and office of Shaoquett Moselmane, a little-known Labor Party backbencher in the upper house of the New South Wales state parliament. Details of the raid were leaked to the press, who duly camped outside Moselmane’s house before it occurred and then wrote lurid articles presenting him as a patsy, or worse, of the “Chinese Communist Party.”
Moselmane, who was immediately suspended from the party by Labor’s leadership and forced to seek indefinite leave from parliament, later spoke out against the witch-hunt he was subjected to. He revealed what the media must have known, but concealed, at the time—that he was not the target of a “foreign interference” investigation.
Instead, it was his part-time parliamentary staffer John Zhang who was in the crosshairs.
Aside from the fact that Zhang is Chinese, and has been involved in Chinese community organisations, the publicly-released “case” against him, at least as presented in the media, appears to hinge on the fact that Moselmane has made favourable comments about China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and has warned of the US campaign against Beijing while Zhang has worked in his office.
Zhang has initiated a Supreme Court challenge to the allegation that he engaged in “reckless foreign interference” and that he acted “on behalf of, or in collaboration with” the “Chinese state and party apparatus.”
At least part of the case against Zhang is based on his and Moselmane’s participation in a private chat group. According to a report in the Australian, some of the Chinese journalists who were raided were also reportedly in the chat group.
In an apparently related development, Chinese scholar and media commentator Chen Hong and Australian studies scholar Li Jianjun, recently had their visas cancelled at ASIO’s recommendation and were denied re-entry to Australia. The Australia bureau chief of China News Service, Tao Shelan, and China Radio International’s Sydney bureau chief, Li Dayong left Australia after ASIO questioning. Two others reportedly departed in similar circumstances.
The academics appear unlikely agents of Chinese “interference.” Li Jianjun had received grants from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to undertake a Ph.D at Western Sydney University in Australian literature. Chen Hong has been visiting Australia for decades and has met with multiple prime ministers. In 1994, for instance, former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke asked Hong to serve as his translator in China. In other words, he is well known to Australia’s political and media establishment.
Chen told the Australian that he received a notification from Australia’s Home Affair’s department early last month, informing him that his visa had been cancelled because ASIO had “assessed you to be directly or indirectly a risk to security.” There was no elaboration or evidence and Chen strongly rejected the imputations.
The only “evidence” against Chen appears to be that he has criticised the US-Australian anti-China campaign and was a member of the private chat group with Zhang and Moselmane. Li was also reportedly a participant.
A chilling portrait emerges, of academics and journalists being targeted by intelligence operatives, solely because of their political views and their connections to Chinese academic institutions. Chen said that the chat group had been used to arrange dinner parties and other social gatherings.
Of the journalists who were raided, the Australian, clearly basing itself on material from official sources, stated: “It is understood the four journalists were not spies inserted into Australia, posing as reporters, but journalists who had become engaged in espionage or foreign interference.”
Put into plain English, they were not spies. But they were treated as though they were, likely because they had made statements challenging the war drive against China, and were thus considered fair game in the “foreign interference” witch hunt.
The revelations are a warning that the Australian ruling elite has placed the population on the frontlines of an aggressive US confrontation with China that could rapidly spiral out of control and lead to war. The world wars of the last century were preceded by the same sort of diplomatic incidents, murky allegations and escalating retaliations between states that are being witnessed now.
They also demonstrate that the drive to military conflict is incompatible with democratic norms, and is being accompanied by attacks on democratic rights that will increasingly target, not only Chinese academics and journalists, but domestic social and political opposition.

Lies in the Navalny case

Peter Schwarz

The relationship between Germany and Russia has reached its lowest point since Berlin supported the pro-Western coup in Ukraine six years ago and Russia subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula.
The German government is openly accusing the Russian state of poisoning opposition politician Alexei Navalny, who is currently in Berlin’s Charité Clinic. He reportedly awoke from a coma on Monday.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel personally announced at a press conference last week that a chemical weapons laboratory of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) had proved “beyond doubt” that Navalny was the victim of an attack using the Novichok nerve agent. She called on the Russian government to answer “very serious questions.”
At a special session of the Parliamentary Control Committee, which meets in secret, representatives of the German government and the secret services left no doubt, according to media reports, that the poisoning of Navalny had been carried out by Russian state authorities, with the approval of the Russian leadership. The poison was said to be a variant of the warfare agent—one even more dangerous than that used in the Skripal case in Britain. It purportedly could enter the body simply through inhalation, and its production and use required skills possessed only by a state actor.
Germany and the European Union are threatening Russia with sanctions. The German government has even questioned the completion of the almost finished Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which it had categorically defended against pressure from the US and several Eastern European states.
The German media has gone into propaganda mode, repeating the accusations against Russian President Vladimir Putin with a thousand variations. Seventy-nine years after Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union, which claimed more than 25 million lives, German journalists and politicians, in editorials, commentaries and on talk shows, speak with the arrogance of people who are already planning the next military campaign against Moscow.
Anyone who expresses doubts or contradicts the official narrative is branded a “conspiracy theorist.” This is what happened to Left Party parliamentarian Sevim Dagdelen, among others, on Sunday evening’s “Anne Will” talk show. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) foreign policy expert Norbert Röttgen, the head of the Munich Security Conference Wolfang Ischinger and former Green Party Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin sought to outstrip one another in their accusations against the Russian government. When Dagdelen gently pointed out that, so far, no evidence whatsoever has been presented identifying the perpetrators, she was accused of “playing games of confusion” and “encouraging unspeakable conspiracy theories.”
The Russian government denies any responsibility in the Navalny case. It questions whether Navalny was poisoned at all and has called on the German government to “show its cards” and present evidence. Berlin, according to Moscow, is bluffing for dirty political reasons.

Contradictory and implausible

Evidence of the involvement of the Russian state is as contradictory as it is implausible.
For example, the German authorities have so far published no information or handed evidence to Russian investigators identifying the chemical with which Navalny was poisoned. Novichok is merely a generic term for several families of warfare agents.
No explanation has been given as to why no one else showed signs of poisoning from a nerve agent that is fatal even in the tiniest amounts, if touched or inhaled. Navalny had had contact with numerous people between the time he boarded the airplane on which he fainted, his entering the clinic in Omsk where he was first treated, and his transfer to the Charité hospital in Berlin.
This is only one of many unexplained anomalies in the German government’s official story. Career diplomat Frank Elbe, who headed the office of German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher for five years and negotiated the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as head of the German delegation in Geneva from 1983 to 1986, wrote on Facebook on Friday: “I am surprised that the Federal Ministry of Defence concludes that the nerve agent Novichok was used against Navalny.”
Novichok, he wrote, belongs “to the group of super-toxic lethal substances that cause immediate death.” It made no sense, he argued, to modify a nerve poison that was supposed to kill instantly in such a way that it did not kill, but left traces behind allowing its identification as a nerve agent.
There was something strange about this case, Elbe said. “Either the perpetrators—whoever they might be—had a political interest in pointing to the use of nerve gas, or foreign laboratories were jumping to conclusions that are in line with the current general negative attitude towards Russia.”
The assertion that only state actors can handle Novichok is also demonstrably false. The poison was sold in the 1990s for small sums of money to Western secret services and economic criminals, and the latter made use of it. For example, in 1995, the Russian banker Ivan Kiwelidi and his secretary were poisoned with it. The chemist Leonid Rink confessed at the time in court that he had sold quantities to criminals sufficient to kill hundreds of people. Since the binary poisons are very stable, they can last for decades.
The Navalny case is not the reason, but the pretext for a new stage in the escalation of German great power politics and militarism. The media hysteria over Navalny is reminiscent of the Ukrainian crisis of 2014, when the German press glorified a coup d’état carried out by armed fascist militias as a “democratic revolution.”
Social Democrat Frank-Walter Steinmeier, then foreign minister and now German president, personally travelled to Kiev to persuade the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to resign.
He also met with the fascist politician Oleh Tyahnybok, whose Swoboda Party glorifies Nazi collaborators from World War II. Yanukovych’s successor, Petro Poroshenko, one of the country’s richest oligarchs, was even more corrupt than his predecessor. He terrorised his opponents with fascist militias, such as the infamous Azov regiment. But he brought Ukraine into NATO’s sphere of influence, which was the real purpose of the coup.
In the weeks before the Ukrainian coup, leading German politicians (including then-President Joachim Gauck and Steinmeier) had announced a far-reaching reorientation of German foreign policy. The country was too big “to comment on world politics from the sidelines,” they declared. Germany had to defend its global interests, including by military means.
NATO marched steadily eastward into Eastern Europe, breaking the agreements made at the time of German reunification in 1990. For the first time since 1945, German soldiers today patrol the border with Russia. With Ukraine’s shift into the Western camp, Belarus is the only remaining buffer country between Russia and NATO.
Berlin now sees the protests against the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko as an opportunity to remove this hurdle as well. Unlike in Ukraine, where anti-Russian nationalists exerted considerable influence, especially in the west of the country, such forces are weaker in Belarus, where the majority speaks Russian. The working class is playing a greater role in the resistance to the Lukashenko regime than it did in Ukraine. But Berlin is making targeted efforts to steer the movement in a pro-Western direction. Forces that appeal for Western support, such as the presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, are being promoted.

Dispute over Nord Stream 2

The dispute over the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, whose discontinuation is being demanded by more and more German politicians, must also be seen in this context. It was a strategic project from the very beginning.
The natural gas pipeline, which will double the capacity of Nord Stream 1, which began operations in 2011, will make Germany independent of the pipelines that run through Ukraine, Poland and Belarus. These countries not only earn transit fees from the pipelines but have also used then as a political lever.
With a total capacity of 110 billion cubic metres per year, Nord Stream 1 and 2 together would carry almost all of Germany’s annual gas imports. However, the gas is also to be transported from the German Baltic Sea coast to other countries.
In addition to Russia’s Gazprom, German, Austrian, French and Dutch energy companies are participating in the financing of the project, which will cost almost €10 billion. The chairman of the board of directors is former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (Social Democratic Party), who is a friend of President Putin.
Nord Stream 2 is meeting with fierce opposition in Eastern Europe and the US. These countries fear a strategic alliance between Berlin and Moscow. In December of last year, the US Congress passed a law imposing severe sanctions on companies involved in the construction of the pipeline—an unprecedented move against nominal allies. The nearly completed construction came to a standstill because the company operating the special ship for laying the pipes withdrew. Berlin and Moscow protested vehemently against the US sanctions and agreed to continue construction with Russian ships, which, however, will not be available until next year at the earliest.
If more and more German politicians are now demanding that the project be cancelled, this does not signify a fundamental change of course. In Berlin’s relationship with Moscow, what British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston said in the 19th century applies: Great powers have neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies, they have only permanent interests.
German imperialism has always looked upon Eastern Europe and Russia as preferred targets for expansion. In the First World War, under the rubric of “Central Europe,” it sought to subjugate large parts of Eastern Europe. In the Second World War, it waged a war of annihilation against the Soviet Union under the slogan “Lebensraum im Osten” (living space in the East). In both conflicts, it faced Russia (and later the Soviet Union) as an enemy of war.
In the 1970s, West Germany resumed its orientation toward the East on an economic level. The supply of Russian natural gas to Germany was one of the first results of the Ostpolitik of the time. As late as 2001, the Bundestag (parliament) celebrated the newly elected Russian president, Vladimir Putin, with a standing ovation when he offered a “full partnership” in a speech delivered in German.
But Germany’s return to a global great power policy has intensified conflicts with Russia. They are on opposite sides in the Syrian war and other conflicts. With the accusation of having poisoned Navalny, the threat to shut down Nord Stream 2, and the fomenting of pro-Western forces in Belarus, Berlin is increasing pressure on Russia to force political concessions or bring about regime-change.
At the same time, the German government is preparing for fierce conflicts with the United States and China. Last week, it published official “Guidelines on the Indo-Pacific,” which state, “The Himalayas and the Strait of Malacca may seem far away. But our prosperity and our geopolitical influence in the decades to come are based precisely on how we work with the states of the Indo-Pacific.” As a globally active trading nation, Germany, it said, “should not be content with a spectator role there.”
Germany is confronted with both the US and China, which are bitterly fighting for dominance in the Indo-Pacific region. It wants to expand its own influence against both—if possible, supported by the European Union.
The campaign regarding Navalny must be seen in this context. It has nothing to do with the defence of human rights or democracy, but rather with the preparation of war.

Scottish Crown Office blocks release of documents vital for Craig Murray’s defence

Steve James

The Scottish Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) are blocking efforts by journalist Craig Murray to access documents necessary for his legal defence against charges of contempt of court. Murray faces up to two years in jail and/or an unlimited fine for his reporting activities during the trial, earlier this year, of former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, on sex offence charges.
Murray is accused of having “impeded or prejudiced” the former Scottish National Party (SNP) leader’s trial by his reporting and analysis of events leading up to the hearing. His popular blog offered insight into the vicious faction fight within the Scottish National Party and ruling establishment that set current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon against Salmond, her predecessor, and which culminated in the trial.
Craig Murray
Murray is also accused of publishing material which could have led to the identification of one of the complainants in the case against Salmond. Yet Murray identified no-one, nor did he publish material which could allow identification. Any reports he published were less explicit than many published in the mainstream press, none of whose reporters face comparable proceedings against them.
Murray is known internationally for his work in defence of Julian Assange and commentary on the techniques deployed by the British state, judiciary and media against the world’s most famous political prisoner and founder of Wikileaks. He has decided to set aside work on his own defence to travel to London’s Old Bailey to report on the ongoing hearings in the Assange case, which resumed this Monday for three-four weeks. The hearing is the product of years of efforts to dispatch Assange to the United States, where he faces up to 175 years in jail. Murray was recently inexplicably denied the renewal of his membership of the National Union of Journalists, meaning he has had to report proceedings from one of the few seats available in the public gallery.
In his reporting on the Salmond case, Murray, a former diplomat, has exposed the machinations of the powerful forces seeking to silence and jail the former SNP leader. But Murray’s own views—he is a Scottish nationalist, an SNP member, and an advocate of a nationalist uprising for Scottish independence—are themselves dangerous and hopelessly reactionary. He takes a clearly partisan stance in an internecine conflict between two bourgeois factions equally hostile to the working class.
Salmond resigned as SNP leader and first minister following the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, which voted “No” by 55 to 45 percent. In 2016, Salmond began to drop hints of disagreement with Sturgeon for not forcefully demanding a swift second referendum on independence.
Sturgeon has stated that a new independence poll would have to be approved by the British government and should only take place if there was a sustained majority for it. In the meantime, she sought coalition alliances with the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats and positioned the SNP as a leading force advocating for both Scotland and the UK remaining in the European Union—with the aim of cultivating support domestically and in Europe’s capitals. During the pandemic, Sturgeon’s government has implemented measures every bit as catastrophic as those of Boris Johnson, differing generally only in presentation and timing.
The SNP is far ahead of all its rivals in the opinion polls, despite the party’s ever more open assault on workers’ living standards in the interests of finance capital. The Labour Party, once dominant in Scotland, is in a state of freefall, third in polls, and barely ahead of the Liberal Democrats.
This has emboldened the most hard-line nationalist supporters, associated with the All Under One Banner umbrella group and including the entire Scottish pseudo-left, to demand a new independence referendum, legally recognised by Westminster or not. Many of these forces, including Murray, view Salmond as their leader in waiting.
Scottish independence offers nothing to the working class other than to sow dangerous divisions that undermine a unified struggle against the capitalist enemy on both sides of the border. Whether attached to Britain, Scotland’s biggest market, or seeking re-admittance to the EU post-Brexit, the Scottish bourgeoisie will aim to ramp up exploitation, lower corporate taxes, and slash spending on essential services and welfare to compete for inward investment by the transnational corporations and banks and to secure a greater international market share.
In conditions of pandemic and the greatest world crisis of the capitalist system at least since World War Two, the “success” of independence for the capitalists will be conditional on imposing wage cuts, productivity hikes and an accelerating collapse of already poor living standards for workers.
In 2017, Salmond pitched both the SNP leadership and the British authorities into apoplexy when he struck a lucrative high-profile deal with the Russian state-backed broadcaster RT. His actions flew in the face of British efforts to demonise Russia as part of its foreign policy manoeuvres with the US.
Legal moves to entangle Salmond in sexual harassment cases emerged in this context. In 2019, he won a judicial review against the Scottish government acknowledging that processes utilised to investigate sexual harassment claims against him were unlawful. Salmond won £500,000 in compensation. The matter was expected to be dropped.
Instead, a criminal case was launched against Salmond which went to trial earlier this year. Salmond, however, was acquitted of charges of sexual harassment and attempted rape levelled against him by 14 complainants, most of whom were either civil servants in the upper echelons of the Scottish government or prominent within the SNP.
Salmond, during the trial, had hinted at the operation against him and on his acquittal stated, “There is certain evidence that I would have liked to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we were not able to do so. Those facts will see the light…”
To date, Salmond has kept silent. But whether he is seeking an opportune moment to attack his enemies in the SNP leadership or secure a favourable compromise with them, his threat is significant. Salmond has been around the SNP a long time and knows where all the skeletons are buried.
While this skulduggery continues behind the scenes, Murray has been left to fight his own corner by those he would have considered to be allies—such as former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill. Murray’s legal team has requested access to the following material from Salmond’s trial:
  • a text exchange between two of the complainants containing the phrase “I have a plan...” which may have been part of a “wider orchestration of the criminal proceedings against Salmond.”
  • a Whatsapp exchange from the day of the judicial review verdict stating, “We have lost the battle but we will win the war.” The exchange was widely reported as being from the head of the Scottish Civil Service, Leslie Evans, to a colleague.
  • Scottish government documents and “One Notes” from the judicial review supporting Salmond’s contention that the Scottish government’s actions “bordered on encouragement” in setting legal action in motion.
  • documents on the circumstances of leaks from the Scottish government to the Daily Record and the Sunday Post in August 2018 including information that proceedings against Salmond had been passed to the police.
  • “All other documents in the possession of the Crown which disclose or tend to suggest the existence of the conspiracy referred to in the articles published by our client [Murray] and proffered by the Lord Advocate as instances of contempt of court.”
  • Whatsapp or similar messages from Peter Murrell (Nicola Sturgeon’s husband) or Sue Ruddick, leading SNP officials, referring to Salmond or to Police Scotland.
Murray explained on his blog that he was not “fishing” and was certain that all the requested documentation existed.
In response to the request, Procurator Fiscal Kenny Donnelly wrote that the requested materials were “not relevant” and “the Crown will not be providing any of the items listed.”
Craig Murray should be defended, and all charges against him dropped. He should be allowed to continue his work as a journalist. This does not imply any support for the vicious contending factions within Scottish nationalism. Rather, the anti-democratic and right-wing machinations exposed by Murray confirm that democratic rights, including press freedoms, can only be defended by a unified movement of the working class across Britain and internationally, seeking the broadest expansion of democratic rights through the fight for socialism.

Lesbos refugee-camp blaze leaves 13,000 without shelter

Robert Stevens

A massive blaze has largely destroyed the Moria migrant camp. Located on the eastern Aegean island of Lesbos/Lesvos, the camp was the largest within the European Union. According to social media accounts, the fire broke out some time before midnight Tuesday.
Around 13,000 men, women and children have been left without accommodation, food, and drink. The detainees held there were forced to flee for their lives as multiple fires spread. No fatalities have been reported, but people are suffering from injuries due to smoke exposure.
Migrants flee from the Moria refugee camp during a second fire, on the northeastern Aegean island of Lesbos, Greece, on Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2020. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)
The “Moria Reception & Identification Centre” was established by the 2015-2019 pseudo-left Syriza government. Refugees and asylum seekers are held under intolerable conditions, pending deportation.
Twenty five firefighters with 10 engines arrived after some time, and spent hours trying to extinguish the fire. The Refugee aid group Stand By Me Lesvos reported that one of many calls from camp detainees to their partner groups included one terrified person asking, “Where is the police, where is the fire brigade, where is anyone? We are burning, our tents are burning. Everything is burning. We came here to burn to death. All is on fire.”
Lesbos is located just off the Turkish coast. In 2015-16, refugees arrived there in their thousands after fleeing warzones in Afghanistan, Syria in Iraq. InfoMigrants estimates that 70 percent of people in Moria are from Afghanistan, but migrants from more than 70 different countries live there.
The camp is a massively overcrowded. Moria detains 13,000 refugees in a camp built for 2,800 people. There are now more children held there—4,000—than the total number it was originally designed to hold.
Video footage showed terrified detainees fleeing for their lives. Many carried what possessions they had left in carrier bags and others in supermarket trolleys. Hundreds of refugees and migrants tried to sleep in the road and adjoining fields.
Migrants sleep outside the burned Moria refugee camp, on the northeastern Aegean island of Lesbos, Greece, on Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2020. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)
It is not clear how the blaze started. Last week the first case of COVID-19 was detected in the camp. This spread rapidly in a few days to 15 cases and was at 35 cases by the time the fire broke out. Stand By Me Lesvos wrote, “After Corona spread and no proper measures were taken, residents were not well informed [and] a kind of uprising broke out…” Under conditions where basic hygiene cannot be maintained and it was impossible to implement social distancing due to overcrowding, a devastating outbreak was only a matter of time.
Greek news agency ANA reported that the fires started after some of the 35 affected families refused to move into isolation with their families. Given the hellish conditions that exist in the camp, one can only imagine how terrible being left to “self-isolate” for weeks must be. Indeed, many forced to live on Moria were glad to see it burnt to the ground, with videos showing migrants singing “Bye, bye Moria.”
Other sources, including refugees, said that the blaze may have been started by fascist forces. BBC journalist Parham Ghobadi tweeted two images of canisters that “refugees claim were used by ‘far-right Greeks’ to set #MoriaCamp on fire.” Another tweet read, “Several refugees told me they believe ‘far-right Greeks’ have set Moria refugee camp on fire after the rumors of the coronavirus spreading throughout the overcrowded facility.” InfoMigrants reported the social media comment of one detainee: “Fascists have set fire to Moria.”
Another possible cause was a wildfire produced by strong winds fanning two separate wildfires elsewhere on the island.
The first response of the New Democracy conservative government, as residents fled in the direction of the port town of Mytilene, was to send in riot police to set up a blockade to stop them making the journey. Some migrants fled into the surrounding hillside.
The government set up a 3.5 mile cordon around the smoldering camp. This brutal response prevented aid organisations from gaining access. The Guardian reported Annie Petros, head coordinator of the charity Becky’s Bathhouse, saying she was “blocked by police from taking injured people to hospital as she drove them away from the fire.
“When we saw there was a fire we drove as fast as we could with water to the camp, intending to take sick people to hospital. I can’t describe properly the scene we saw. There were streams of people, thousands of them, walking away from the camp. They were totally silent, terrified and traumatised, walking through thick smoke and the awful smell of burning plastic.
“We picked up some pregnant women who needed urgent help and a teenage boy with a broken leg. When we neared the town of Mytilene there were riot police blocking the way to stop anyone reaching the town. I begged the police but their commander wouldn’t let us through. We called an ambulance and it refused to come to the roadblock.”
Refugees4Refugees told the Guardian it could not find 30 missing children.
The Moria inferno was a disaster waiting to happen. The camp is routinely described as “hell on earth.” In 2019, Jean Ziegler of the committee of experts advising the UN Human Rights Council described it as “the recreation of a concentration camp on European soil.”
Describing conditions he encountered on a visit to the camp in May last year, Ziegler told the Teller Report website “People live here like animals… Here 100 people have to share a shower and a toilet. It’s often clogged, filthy, faeces lying around. There is no hot water, no schools and just two doctors—for 5,000 people!”
While there were an estimated 13,000 in the camp as the blaze began, in January this year more than 20,000 people were being held there—six, rather than four-times its designated capacity. A junior doctor from the UK’s National Health Service, Henry de Berker, told the Financial Times at the time that there were “more than 1,000 unaccompanied minors living in the camp… Disease spreads rapidly in such miserable conditions. Diarrhoea and vomiting can have fatal consequences for the physically weak.”
Moria is the brutal symbol of the “Fortress Europe” policies enacted by the European Union to keep out migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. Tens of thousands have died attempting to cross the Mediterranean over the last decade. As a result of the dirty deal signed by the Syriza government with the EU and Turkey in 2015, the thousands who managed to make to make it to Greece have been forced into foul internment camps as the authorities prepare to deport them.
In 2016, Moria was set ablaze. The WSWS reported, “Around 60 percent of the camp was destroyed, including 50 large sleeping tents, three containers as well as clothing supplies. Two separate fires also broke out in the surrounding area, laying waste to nearly four acres of land containing olive trees adjacent to the camp.”
In September last year, the WSWS reported “after months of protests and repression by riot police, two fires broke out. One was contained but the other quickly spread, with large sections of the camp engulfed in flames.” The fire took the lives of a woman and a child. The previous month, the government stepped up its attack on migrants, with riot police brutally attacking a protest of around 50 child asylum seekers at Moria.
In March this year another fire broke out at Moria claiming the life of a six-year-old girl. The fire continuing to burn for an hour due to the closeness of the containers used as living quarters. The WSWS warned that the spread of the coronavirus on Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Kos, would mean Moria and other camps being quickly “transformed into death camps.”
The victims of the fire face only further misery. Instead of being provided with secure, safe, decent accommodation and treated humanely, Greek daily Kathemerini reported that they “will be temporarily housed in a ferry boat, two navy ships and tents, Migration Minister Notis Mitarakis told a press conference on Wednesday.”

9 Sept 2020

Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 1st December 2020 at Hong Kong Time 12:00:00

Offered Annually? Yes

About the Award: The Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme (HKPFS), established in 2009 by the Research Grants Council (RGC), aims at attracting the best and brightest students in the world to pursue their PhD programmes in Hong Kong’s institutions. About 300 PhD Fellowships will be awarded this academic year. For awardees who need more than three years to complete the PhD degree, additional support may be provided by the chosen institutions. The financial aid is available for any field of study.

Eligibility: Candidates who are seeking admission as new full time PhD students in the following eight institutions, irrespective of their country of origin, prior work experience, and ethnic background, should be eligible to apply.
  • City University of Hong Kong
  • Hong Kong Baptist University
  • Lingnan University
  • The Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • The Education University of Hong Kong
  • The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
  • The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
  • The University of Hong Kong
Applicants should demonstrate outstanding qualities of academic performance, research ability / potential, communication and interpersonal skills, and leadership abilities.

Selection Criteria: While candidates’ academic excellence is the primary consideration, the Selection Panels will take into account factors as follows:
  • Academic excellence;
  • Research ability and potential;
  • Communication and interpersonal skills; and
  • Leadership abilities.
Number of Awards: 300

Value of Award: The Fellowship provides an annual stipend of HK$319,200 (approximately US$40,900) and a conference and research-related travel allowance of HK$13,300 (approximately US$1,700) per year for each awardee for a period up to three years. 300 PhD Fellowships will be awarded in the 2021/22 academic year*. For awardees who need more than three years to complete the PhD degree, additional support may be provided by the chosen universities. For details, please contact the universities concerned directly.

Selection Panel: Shortlisted applications, subject to their areas of studies, will be reviewed by one of the following two Selection Panels comprising experts in the relevant board areas:
  • sciences, medicine, engineering and technology
  • humanities, social sciences and business studies
Application Process:
  • Eligible candidates should first make an Initial Application online through the Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme Electronic System (HKPFSES) to obtain an HKPFS Reference Number by 1 December 2020 at Hong Kong Time 12:00:00 before submitting applications for PhD admission to their desired universities.Applicants may choose up to two programmes / departments at one or two universities for PhD study under HKPFS 2019/20. They should comply with the admission requirements of their selected universities and programmes.
  • As the deadlines for applications to some of the universities may immediately follow that of the Initial Application, candidates should submit initial applications as early as possible to ensure that they have sufficient time to submit applications to universities.
Visit Scholarship webpage for more details

AKO Caine Prize for African Writing 2021

Application Deadline: 31st January 2021.
*Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, there may be alterations to the usual dates and process of submissions, please keep an eye on our website and social media channels for updates.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: The Caine Prize for African Writing is a literature prize awarded to an African writer of a short story published in English. The prize was launched in 2000 to encourage and highlight the richness and diversity of African writing by bringing it to a wider audience internationally. The focus on the short story reflects the contemporary development of the African story-telling tradition.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 
  • Unpublished work is not eligible for the Caine Prize.
  • Submissions should be made by publishers only.
  • Only fictional work is eligible.
  • Only one story per author will be considered in any one year.
  • Submissions should specify which African country the author comes from and the word count.
  • We require 6 copies of the work in its originally published version.
  • If the work is published in a book or journal, we would like to receive at least one copy of the book / journal and five photocopies; but particularly where several stories are submitted from one anthology we would like if possible to receive six copies of the book / journal itself.
  • If the work is published online, we would like to receive six photocopies.
Please note that works which do not conform to the criteria will not be considered for the prize. Please do not waste your own time and postage by sending in material which is unsuitable. Works not eligible for entry include stories for children, factual writing, plays, biography, works shorter than 3000 words and unpublished work. If you are not sure whether your work is eligible, please email us for advice.

Number of Awardees: 5

Value of Contest: Winning and short-listed authors will be invited to participate in writers’ workshops in Africa, London and elsewhere as resources permit. There is a cash prize of £10,000 for the winning author and a travel award for each of the short-listed candidates (up to five in all). The shortlisted candidates will also receive a Prize of £500. The winner is also invited to go to three literature festivals in Kenya, South Africa and Nigeria.

How to Apply: There is no application form. To apply please send six original published copies of the work for consideration to the Caine Prize office including a letter from the publisher. 
  • If the work is published in a book or journal, we would like to receive at least one copy of the book / journal and five photocopies; but particularly where several stories are submitted from one anthology we would like if possible to receive six copies of the book / journal itself.
  • If published in a magazine or journal we will accept one original copy plus five photocopies, but would prefer six original copies.
  • If the work is published online, we would like to receive six printed copies.
  • Address and post the eligible submission to:
The Caine Prize for African Writing
51 Southwark Street
London
SE1 1RU


Visit Contest Webpage for details

Radio France Internationale (RFI) Fellowship 2020

Application Deadline: 11th September 2020 at midnight.

About the Award: Created in homage to his two reporters murdered on November 2, 2013 in Kidal, in northern Mali, this scholarship rewards each year a young journalist and a young African technician. The scholarship will be awarded on November 2, the date declared by the United Nations “International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists” in memory of Ghislaine Dupont and Claude Verlon.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Because of the global health crisis, the 2020 edition is open to all young journalists and technicians with an experience in radio living in the following French-speaking countries

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso , Brundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Mauritius, Mauritania, Niger, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal, Seychelles, Chad, Togo, Tunisia, Rwanda.

Selection:
  • Ten candidate journalists and ten candidate technicians will be selected on the basis of their application and then invited to follow a distance training course from Monday 5 to Friday 24 October. These remote workshops will lead to the production of a report for journalists and an “all sound” element for technicians.
  • The jury made up of representatives from RFI, the Sciences Po School of Journalism and the INA will meet in Paris to designate the two winners at the end of this training period.
To be Taken at (Country): France

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The winners benefit from a one-month training course in Paris. The scholarship will be awarded on November 2 during a special broadcast on RFI. Applications are open from Monday August 17 to Friday September 11 inclusive.

Duration of Award: 1 month

How to Apply: Documents to be downloaded and / or returned by each candidate:
• detailed participation conditions: participation form and payment .
• cover letter form
• report or sound element for journalists, editing / mixing or on-air production for technicians. These sound elements should not exceed 2´30.

All these elements must be sent to bourseerfi2020@rfi.fr before Friday 11 September 2020 at midnight.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Schlumberger Foundation Faculty for the Future Fellowship 2021/2022

Application Timeline: Opening 9th September, 2020 and closing November 9th 2020 for the 2021 Fellowships (the deadline for reference letters is November 16th, 2020)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries and Emerging Economies

To be taken at: Top universities abroad

Accepted Subject Areas: Physical sciences and related disciplines

About Fellowship: Each year, The Faculty for the Future fellowships, Launched by the Schlumberger Foundation, are awarded to women from developing and emerging economies who are preparing for PhD or post-doctoral study in the physical sciences and related disciplines at top universities for their disciplines abroad. Grant recipients are selected for their leadership capabilities as for their scientific talents, and are expected to return to their home countries to continue their academic careers and inspire other young women.

Offered Since: 2004

Type: PhD/PostDoctoral, Fellowship

Selection Criteria: A successful application will have gone through four selection rounds, with the reviewers paying particular attention to the following criteria:
  • Academic performance;
  • Quality of references;
  • Quality of host country university;
  • Level of commitment to return to home country;
  • Commitment to teaching;
  • Relevance of research to home country;
  • Commitment to inspiring young women into the sciences.
Eligibility: Applicants must meet all the following criteria:
  • Be a woman;
  • Be a citizen of a developing country or emerging economy;
  • Wish to pursue a PhD degree or Post-doctoral research in the physical sciences or related disciplines;
  • Have applied to, have been admitted to, or are currently enrolled in a university/research institute abroad;
  • Wish to return to their home country to continue their academic career upon completion of their studies;
  • Be very committed to teaching and demonstrate active participation in faculty life and outreach work to encourage young women into the sciences;
  • Hold an excellent academic record.
Number of fellowships: Several

Value of Award: Faculty for the Future grants are awarded based on the actual costs of studying and living in the chosen location, and is worth USD 50,000 for PhDs and USD 40,000 for Post-doctoral study. Grants may be renewed through to completion of studies subject to performance, self-evaluation and recommendations from supervisors.

How to Apply: Interested candidates may Apply soon

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details