30 Jan 2021

Shut down schools and businesses to stop the spread of new COVID-19 strains!

Bryan Dyne


More than 3,000 people died in the United States each day from the coronavirus this month, amounting to 93,000 human lives. Internationally, the figure stands at 386,000 dead in January, an average daily rate of 12,800 and climbing.

This mass death will likely accelerate in the coming days and weeks. On Friday, Johnson & Johnson published a study confirming what many have feared as the coronavirus pandemic continues to rage out of control—that mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that cause the disease COVID-19 has the potential to undermine the efficacy of vaccines.

A person is taken on a stretcher into the United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, Texas after going through testing for COVID-19 [Credit: AP Photo/David J. Phillip]

Scientists have warned for months that the more the coronavirus spreads, the more it changes. And the more it changes, the greater the possibility that it evolves as less susceptible to vaccines and thus more dangerous. The new strain from South Africa confirms this warning: Johnson & Johnson’s single dose vaccine was only 57 percent effective at preventing moderate and severe cases of the disease in South Africa, as compared to being 72 percent in effective in the United States.

Similar data was presented on Thursday by Novavax, which reported that its vaccine is 90 percent effective in the United Kingdom and only 49 percent effective in South Africa.

The findings make all the more urgent far-reaching measures to contain the pandemic. Mass vaccination campaigns must be combined with non-pharmaceutical interventions, including the full shutdown of schools and nonessential businesses.

But throughout the world, the exact opposite is taking place. California on Tuesday began allowing in-person dining and gyms to resume operations. New York City plans to reopen restaurants by mid-February. In Brazil, restaurants, bars, gyms, beauty salons, movie theaters and concert halls have been open for months. Masks are no longer mandatory in supermarkets and shopping centers in Sydney, Australia.

The spearhead of the campaign to reopen businesses and get workers back on the job is the demand to reopen schools, championed by the new Biden administration in the US.

The reopening plans are the most advanced in Chicago, under the auspices of Democratic Mayor Lori Lightfoot. The city is trying to fully open schools on February 1, pitching the educators of the Chicago Public Schools system directly against the state apparatus, the corporate media and the unions. The struggle of teachers and staff to oppose the resumption of in-person learning has become a focal point of the fight against unsafe reopenings across the country and internationally.

The situation in Chicago is being repeated across the country. In Alabama, Montgomery Public Schools has announced that it will not be going to all-virtual learning next week, which the administration had pledged to do in the wake of the deaths of four teachers from COVID-19. Staff at Toronto’s Beverly Public School walked off the job on January 25, refusing to work in unsafe conditions.

In Germany, where there have been 20,000 deaths since the beginning of the year, schools are set to reopen February 1. In Britain, where deaths have topped 100,000, Boris Johnson’s government plans to reopen schools by March 8.

These reopening campaigns have been facilitated by a massive media campaign. Every news outlet has seized on a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which claims, “There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission.”

Some examples of headlines include “In-person school can be safe” from USA Today, “CDC makes the case for schools reopening” from NPR, “CDC finds scant spread of coronavirus in schools” from the Washington Post, and “CDC officials say evidence indicates schools can reopen if precautions are taken,” from the New York Times.

As under the Trump administration, the claim that schools are safe to reopen are bald-faced lies. Numerous studies published both in JAMA and elsewhere show that the school closings last March and April saved tens of thousands of lives. Peer-reviewed research in Science from December showed that, across 41 countries, school and university closures were among the necessary measures to reduce the number of infections in a community, and that school closures had the highest impact in mitigating the pandemic.

This mass of data forced White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain on Tuesday to backtrack the administration’s position slightly, noting that many schools do not have “the investments to keep the students safe” and thus may not reopen on schedule. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted on Thursday that the CDC study was based on data from an area “more rural in Wisconsin,” and that “for areas that are more populated … there are going to need to be a lot of steps put in place in order to make the schools reopening safe.”

The reality is that reopening schools during an ongoing pandemic is not safe. Even with less than 40 percent of schools doing full in-person learning, there have already been 511,000 cases reported in K-12 schools and hundreds of deaths. In some areas of the country, the daily case counts grew ten-fold after schools and universities reopened last fall.

Despite such clear and present dangers, Biden continues to champion the reopenings. He outright rejects lockdowns and claimed that “there is nothing we can do” to halt the oncoming mass death. His pandemic plan mentions reopening 130 times, which is in line with his executive order from January 21 entitled, “Executive Order on Supporting the Reopening and Continuing Operation of Schools and Early Childhood Education Providers.”

This is setting up the United States, and the world along with it, for another major resurgence. Dr. Michael Osterholm, a member of Biden’s COVID-19 advisory board, told CNN Thursday, “I worry the next 6-14 weeks could be the darkest weeks of the pandemic.” He has also warned that because reopenings are continuing, whatever dips there currently are in the case numbers will be overshadowed as they have been before by more devastating surges.

This cannot be allowed to happen! There is evidence that dangers raised by the South African strain are just the beginning of a whole series of new, potentially vaccine-resistant strains of the pandemic. There are already several new variants of the virus, including those that were first detected in the United Kingdom, Brazil, Nigeria and the United States, some of which have already spread to dozens of countries. While initial research into these variants has found that the vaccines are effective against these new strains of the virus, data is so far inconclusive.

At the same time, the main characteristic of the new variants is that they are generally more infectious, thus more easily overwhelming health care systems, and possibly more deadly even when hospitals are not overrun.

That more lethal strains of the virus already exist or are on the horizon raises all the more urgently the need to implement every possible measure to contain the pandemic. Schools, businesses and nonessential production must be shut down, with full compensation for those impacted. Workers must not be forced to choose between sacrificing their livelihoods and the lives of themselves and their loved ones.

Lockdowns and vaccinations must be combined with the implementation of a mass testing program to detect the virus and serious contact tracing to track down cases.

The Chicago teachers are showing the way forward. The social force that will end the pandemic is not the Biden administration, which is totally subservient to the drive for Wall Street profits, but the working class, which is dedicated to saving lives. The struggle of teachers in Chicago and elsewhere must be expanded to all educators and sections of the working class in every country as part of a broader fight for the revolutionary socialist transformation of society.

New revelations on role of Republican lawmakers in fascist assault on US Capitol

Jacob Crosse


One day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned of the “enemy within,” more revelations emerged about the direct connections between Republican House members and fascist militia leaders who staged the January 6 attack on the Capitol aimed at reversing the election victory of President Joe Biden.

In her weekly press conference on Thursday, Pelosi warned of threats to Democratic House numbers from far-right Republicans, focusing on Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. Pelosi denounced the Republican House leadership for her appointment to the Education and Labor Committee.

Screenshot of Marjorie Taylor Green Campaign ad [Source: Marjorie Taylor Greene via Facebook]

Greene is an adherent of the fascist QAnon conspiracy, which is centered on the belief that Donald Trump will usher in an apocalyptic cleansing of Satan-worshiping, child-sacrificing Democratic politicians in an event called “the Storm.”

Greene has advocated the execution of Democratic politicians, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Pelosi. She has also characterized the mass shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, as well as the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, as “false flag” events. Her anti-Semitic rants include smearing Holocaust survivor George Soros as a Nazi.

Trump’s conspiracy to overturn the results of the election, which culminated in the violent assault on Congress on January 6, was facilitated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership in the House, who refused to acknowledge the Biden victory for weeks. A substantial majority of Republican House members and seven Republican senators voted against certification of the Electoral College vote in the hours following the removal of the fascist insurrectionists from the Capitol.

A lengthy article in the New York Times published Friday details the links between far-right Republican House members Greene, Lauren Boebert (Colorado), Matt Gaetz (Florida), Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar (Arizona) and several far-right militia groups, including the Oath Keepers, III Percenters and the Proud Boys.

The Times writes that Greene “has also displayed a fondness for some of the militia groups whose members were caught on video attacking the Capitol, including the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters.” It notes that Greene spoke at a pro-Trump rally in 2018, dubbed the Mother of All Rallies, where she praised militia groups as protectors against “a tyrannical government.”

On the same day the Times article was published, St. Louis Democratic Representative Cori Bush announced that she had moved her congressional office away from Greene’s “for the safety of my team.” She made the move after “Marjorie Taylor Greene came up from behind me, ranting loudly into her phone while not wearing a mask.”

Bush has called for the expulsion of Republican House members who were directly complicit in the coup attempt, something none of the Democratic leadership, including Biden, has supported.

Responding on Twitter, Greene attacked Bush as “the leader of the St. Louis Black Lives Matter terrorist mob who trespassed into a gated neighborhood to threaten the lives of the McCloskey’s.” Mark and Patricia McCloskey are notorious for pointing weapons at anti-police violence demonstrators who walked past their mansion in St. Louis last June.

The couple became Republican heroes and were invited by Trump to speak at the Republican convention, where they were presented as representatives of American suburbanites under threat from low-income minorities.

The response of the Biden White House to threats against Bush and other Democratic House members has been to remain silent, downplay the significance of the coup attempt, and oppose any measures against Republicans who worked with fascist militias.

In addition to Greene, the Times article cites four other Republican House members with ties to far-right militias and coup organizers:

Matt Gaetz (Florida)

Gaetz has endorsed the fascist vigilante group Proud Boys, using them as security for a “pro-American” rally held in Milton, Florida on October 23, 2020. He traveled to Wyoming on Thursday to speak at a rally demanding the removal of the third-ranking Republican in the House, Liz Cheney, for voting to impeach Trump.

Andy Biggs (Arizona)

Biggs, a lead organizer of the “Stop the Steal movement,” was a featured speaker at a 2019 event supported by the Patriot Movement AZ, AZ Patriots, and the American Guard. All three militias have been identified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Paul Gosar (Arizona)

The Times reports that Jim Arroyo, a chapter leader of the Oath Keepers in Arizona, said Gosar attended at least two Oath Keepers meetings about a year apart and visited another chapter “a few years earlier.” Arroyo recounts to the Times that when he asked Gosar if the United States was headed for a civil war, Gosar replied, “We’re in it. We just haven’t started shooting at each other yet.”

Lauren Boebert (Colorado)

Screenshot of Lauren Boebert Facebook post posing with III Percenters [Source: Lauren Boebert via Facebook]

Boebert has been frequently photographed with members of the far-right III Percenters, including a video where she is shown accepting a Glock 22 pistol from Cory Anderson, leader of “Colorado Boots on the Ground: Bikers for Trump,” and an avowed III Percenter.

Boebert was also photographed last year in front of the Denver Capitol with Robert Gieswein, another member of the III Percenters. Gieswein is facing charges for his role in the Capitol attack. He was photographed storming the Capitol on January 6 with Dominic Pessola, a former Marine and member of the Proud Boys.

The response of the Republican Party to the coup and its complicity in it has been to double down in defense of the fascists within its ranks and reaffirm its support for former President Trump.

On Tuesday, the Republican caucus in the Senate voted 45–5 to quash the impeachment trial of Trump. The following day, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy traveled to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to apologize for mildly critical statements he made regarding the coup. McCarthy sought Trump’s blessing to continue as House Leader, after which he released a statement denouncing the impeachment trial and praising Trump’s commitment to help elect Republicans in 2022.

The brazen defense by the Republican Party of outright fascists is possible only because of the spineless refusal of Biden and the Democratic Party to demand any accounting by or reprisal against the Republican Party and its leadership for their complicity in Trump’s attempted coup.

Despite having won control of the White House and both houses of Congress, the Biden administration and the Democratic Party have, through their endless appeals for “unity” and explicit defense of the Republican Party as an institution, handed the initiative over to the Republicans. The Democratic leadership is downplaying the coup and covering up ongoing conspiracies by fascist forces supported by Republican office-holders.

In a revealing exchange Friday with a reporter, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to back Pelosi’s warnings or comment on Greene’s threats. Only one member of the White House press corps even raised the issue at Psaki’s daily press briefing. She asked first if the White House agreed with Pelosi’s assessment that Congress faced “an enemy within.” Psaki dodged the question.

Later in the press conference, the reporter raised the issue again, saying: “I want to ask again about Marjorie Taylor Greene. I know you said earlier you would not like to comment on her, but it is a major story. Should a QAnon supporter, someone with a history of racist and anti-Semitic comments, harassing school shooting survivor families, be serving on a House committee?”

Psaki responded: “The reason I conveyed that is because we don’t want to elevate conspiracy theories further in the briefing room. So I’m going to speak to—I’m going to leave it at that.” As the reporter attempted to follow up, Psaki cut her off and added, “We’ll leave decisions about committees to leaders of Congress and we’ve certainly seen Speaker Pelosi speak to that.”

The exchange made clear that the Biden White House will not even defend members of its own party against violent threats from Republican House members. This will only further embolden the Republican Party which has become an incubator for the development of a fascist movement and its integration into the political establishment.

The FATF ‘Grey List’ and Pakistan’s Prospects

Katyayinee Richhariya


On 8 January 2021, a Pakistani court 
sentenced senior Lashkar-e-Taiba leader, Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi, the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, to a five-year imprisonment on terror financing charges. This came weeks ahead of the February 2021 Financial Action Task Force (FATF) plenary meeting that will decide on Pakistan’s listing. Pakistan’s retention in the FATF ‘grey’ list thus far, despite serious shortcomings in its compliance, suggest that the country might be retained in the grey list in the upcoming meeting as well.

Recent Developments
On 26 July 2020, Pakistan announced a set of eight legislations to implement the eight-point to do list, following the country’s retention on the FATF’s February 2020 ‘grey list’, and in light of the then upcoming FATF meeting (October 2020). Apart from a formulating a variety of measures that were largely superficial, the administration also portrayed the opposition’s ‘attitude as being a hinderance to the country’s efforts aimed at curbing terror financing.

Of the eight legislations, the Anti-Money Laundering (Second Amendment) Bill and the Islamabad Capital Territory Waqf Properties Bill, are of particular interest. They were passed through a Joint Assembly in September 2020. The Anti-Money Laundering (Second Amendment) Bill is aimed at expand the National Accountability Bureau’s jurisdiction by including transactions classified as money laundering in it and by regulating jewelers, lawyers, real estate agents, chartered accountants and people involved in businesses related to precious stones. The Waqf Properties Bill broadens the definition of Waqf Properties to include any property used for any religious purposes and enables government regulation of these in the capital area of Islamabad.

However, this is not the first time Pakistan has formulated laws on money laundering or to counter terrorism, only to be rendered ineffectual due to lack of genuine political will for enforcement. For example, despite instituting National Counter Terrorism Authority in 2009 and the parliament having outlined its mandate in 2013, 1500 of the 12000 candidates in the 2018 general elections were directly or indirectly affiliated with extremist groups.

Meanwhile, in August 2020, Pakistan sanctioned around 88 individuals affiliated with various terrorist outfits, including the Afghan Taliban, in a bid to project compliance with FATF recommendations. A month earlier, the UN Security Council Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team had found 6500 “Pakistani foreign terrorist fighters” currently active in Afghanistan—a significant increase from the estimate of 400-600 al Qaeda fighters in Team’s January 2020 report. Many of these terrorists are actively recruited/inducted by Pakistan-based terror outfits like Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba.

However, Pakistan has tended to enforce its anti-terror laws selectively, and countering of terror groups is also often an exercise in cherry picking. For instance, Islamabad/Rawalpindi differentiates between terrorists it considers to be its ‘assets’ (such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Afghan Taliban etc), other terror and violent extremist outfits targeting Pakistan such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, and Baloch separatist groups; it views even peaceful dissent by aggrieved citizens as a threat to peace—a pattern which was also noted in the 2019 US Country Report on Terrorism. Additionally, just days before the October 2020 FATF meeting convened, the Australia-based Asia-Pacific Group’s review report identified Pakistan as having complied with 11 of the FATF’s 40 recommendations, with complete compliance in only two.

Further, those terrorists sanctioned by Pakistan in August 2020 include key leaders of the Afghan Taliban, including its co-founder and deputy political head, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, and the head of the Haqqani Network, Sirajuddin Haqqani, among others; and they are subject to travel bans and asset freezes. However, given how the negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government have commenced following the signing of the February 2020 US-Taliban agreement, key Afghan Taliban leaders, including Baradar, have continued to be able to travel freely between Doha, Pakistan, Iran etc; and Taliban offensives in Afghanistan have only skyrocketed. Moreover, given the extensive linkages between the terrorist outfits operating in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, these sanctions are unlikely to bear meaningful results.

Meanwhile, several armed groups have also continued to receive foreign funds and assistance due to the lackadaisical asset freezing and due to them operating under more than one name. For instance, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Islamic Circle of North America, groups affiliated to Jamaat-e-Islami, have been endorsed by the US federal agencies, even though the FBI had ended ties with them over terror funding charges in 2009. Such gaps result in these terror groups ultimately becoming the beneficiaries.

Looking Ahead
While indeed Pakistan too has suffered from terrorism, the Pakistani state has also been an enabler of terrorism; and these two circumstances are not mutually exclusive. An FATF blacklisting of Pakistan may be needed to ensure that Islamabad takes concrete action to combat terror financing in earnest. However, Pakistan’s role in the effort to reach a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan has provided Islamabad/Rawalpindi with room to manoeuvre. These factors combined with past trends and emerging regional geopolitical developments suggest there is a possibility that both blacklisting, and concrete action by Pakistan against terror financing, might be a distant prospect at this juncture.

29 Jan 2021

Taiwan Higher Education Scholarships 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 15th March, 2021

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: The students of eligible countries of the region of Asia Pacific, West Asia, Africa (Burkina Faso, Republic of Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, South Africa, Swaziland), Caribbean, Central America, South America, Europe can apply for this scholarship.

To be taken at (country): Universities in Taiwan

Accepted Subject Areas: For undergraduate, masters and PhD courses offered at any of the participating University in Taiwan

About Scholarship: International education and training has long been one of the TaiwanICDF’s core operations, among many others. Human resources development programs play a vital role in assisting partner countries achieve sustainable development, and education is a crucial mechanism for training workforces in developing countries.

The TaiwanICDF provides scholarships for higher education and has developed undergraduate, graduate and Ph.D. programs in cooperation with renowned partner universities in Taiwan.

The scholarship recipients gets a full scholarship, including return airfare, housing, tuition and credit fees, insurance, textbook costs and a monthly allowance.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters and PhD Scholarship

Who is eligible to apply? An applicant must:

  • -Be a citizen of List of Countries Eligible (including select African countries) for TaiwanICDF Scholarship, and satisfy any specific criteria established by his or her country and/or government of citizenship.
  • -Neither be a national of the Republic of China (Taiwan) nor an overseas compatriot student.
  • -Satisfy the admission requirements of the partner university to which he or she has applied to study under a TaiwanICDF scholarship.
  • -Be able to satisfy all requirements for a Resident Visa (Code: FS) set by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and an Alien Resident Certificate (ARC) set by the Ministry of the Interior, of the ROC (Taiwan) government (this means that the TaiwanICDF has the right to revoke a scholarship offered if an applicant cannot satisfy the visa requirements).
  • -Upon accepting a TaiwanICDF scholarship, not hold any other ROC(Taiwan) government-sponsored scholarship (such as the Taiwan Scholarship) in the same academic year in which the TaiwanICDF scholarship would be due to commence.
  • -Not be applying for a further TaiwanICDF scholarship in unbroken succession — applicants who have already held a TaiwanICDF scholarship must have returned to their home country for more than one year before re-applying.
  • -Have never had any scholarship revoked by any ROC (Taiwan) government agency or related institution, nor been expelled from any Taiwanese university.

Number of Scholarships: Not Specified

Scholarship Benefits and Duration: The TaiwanICDF provides each scholarship recipient with a full scholarship, including return airfare, housing, tuition and credit fees, insurance, textbook costs and a monthly allowance.

  • Undergraduate Program (maximum four years): Each student receives NT$12,000 per month (NT$144,000 per year) as an allowance for food and miscellaneous living expenses.
  • Master’s Program (maximum two years): Each student receives NT$15,000 per month (NT$180,000 per year) as an allowance for food and miscellaneous living expenses.
  • PhD Program (maximum four years; four-year PhD programs start from 2012): Each students receives NT$17,000 per month (NT$204,000 per year) as an allowance for food and miscellaneous living expenses.

How to Apply: 

  • Applicants must complete an online application (found in Program Webpage link below). Then submit a signed, printed copy along with all other application documents to the ROC (Taiwan) Embassy/ Consulate (General)/ Representative Office/ Taiwan Technical Mission or project representative in their country.
  • Please note that each applicant can only apply for one program at a time. The applicant also needs to submit a separate program application to his/her chosen universities.
  • GOODLUCK!

Visit Program Webpage for the Online Application System and more details about this scholarship.

Government of Flanders Mastermind Scholarships 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 30th April 2021 GMT+1

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Various universities in Belgium

  • KU Leuven / University of Leuven
  • University of Antwerp
  • Ghent University
  • Hasselt University
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel

University colleges (Arts and Nautical Sciences)

  • Antwerp Maritime Academy
  • Artesis Plantijn University College Antwerp
  • Erasmus University College Brussels
  • Karel de Grote University College
  • LUCA School of Arts
  • PXL University College
  • University College Ghent

Eligible Field of Study: The program holds for all study areas.

About the Award: The programme aims to promote the internationalization of the Flemish Higher Education, as stated in the Action Plan for Student Mobility, Brains on the Move (September 2013).

Students cannot apply directly. Applications need to be submitted by the Flemish host institution.

Offered Since: 2015

Type: Masters

Eligibility: The Flemish host institution applies on behalf of the student.

General eligibility requirements

  • The applicant applies to take up a Master degree programme at a higher education institution in Flanders (hereafter ‘Flemish host institution’).
  • The applicant should have a high standard of academic performance and/or potential. He/she meets all academic entrance criteria, including relevant language requirements, for entering the Master programme in question offered by the Flemish host institution.
  • All nationalities can apply. The previous degree obtained should be from a higher education institution located outside Flanders.
  • Students who are already enrolled in a Flemish higher education institution cannot apply.

Selection: A Flemish selection committee awards the scholarships, in cooperation with the Flemish Department of Education and Training.

Number of Awardees: 20 per university

Value of Scholarship: The incoming student is awarded a scholarship of maximum €8000,- per academic year.

Duration of Scholarship: The duration of mobility is minimum 1 academic year and maximum the full duration of the master programme. If the student obtains less than 45 ECTS in the first year, then he/she loses the scholarship in the second year.

How to Apply: 

  • You can find more information in the guidelines for application in the Scholarship Webpage link.
  • You need to contact the Flemish higher education institution to inquire about their internal selection procedures and deadline for submitting the application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Fulbright Foreign Scholarships 2021/2022

Application Deadline: varies per country, however on a general note, it usually ends in May annually of the preceding year you wish to study.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Citizens of more than 155 countries worldwide, including countries in Africa, East Asia and Pacific, Europe and Eurasia, Middle East and North Africa, The Americas, and South and Central Asia.

To be taken at (country): All accredited USA Universities and Academic Institutions.

Eligible Field of Study: The Fulbright program encourages applications from all fields, including interdisciplinary ones except medical degree program or clinical medical research.

About Scholarship: The Fulbright Foreign Student Program enables graduate students, young professionals and artists from abroad to study and conduct research in the United States. The scholarships are for study towards a Master’s or PhD degree, and can also be awarded for non-degree postgraduate studies. Study and research under this program is for one or more years at U.S. universities or other appropriate institutions.

The Fulbright Foreign Student Program is administered by binational Fulbright Commissions/Foundations or U.S. Embassies. All Foreign Student Program applications are processed by these offices.

Offered Since: 1946

Type: Masters and PhD degree (also non-degree postgraduate studies)

Selection Criteria and Eligibility

  • To participate in the Fulbright Foreign Student Program, the applicant must have completed undergraduate education and hold a degree equivalent to a bachelor’s degree.
  • Program eligibility and selection procedures vary widely by country. Please use the drop-down menu located on the country specific websites to find information about the Fulbright Program in your home country, including eligibility requirements and application guidelines. See link below
  • If your country is not listed there, you are not eligible to apply.

Number of Scholarships: The number of awards varies per country, but approximately 4,000 foreign students receive Fulbright scholarships each year.

Value of Scholarship: The Fulbright program provides funding for the duration of the study. The grant funds tuition, textbooks, airfare, a living stipend, and health insurance. See the official website for the exact scholarship benefits.

Duration of Scholarship: The whole duration of the study, research or non-degree program – usually one year or more

How to Apply: All applications to the Foreign Student Program are processed by bi-national Fulbright Commissions/Foundations or U.S. Embassies. Therefore, foreign students must apply through the Fulbright Commission/Foundation or U.S. Embassy in their home countries.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: USA Government

Important Notes: Note that the Institute of International Education (IIE) arranges academic placement for most Fulbright nominees and supervises participants during their stay in the United States.

All inquiries should be made to your local embassy or Fulbright Commission. For more information, see your country-specific website.

The Dragon Has Woken and Washington Should Engage With It

Brian Cloughley


On January 26 the Washington Post noted that “President Biden hasn’t been office a full week but already faces questions about one of his most solemn duties: When, why and under what circumstances he might send Americans into combat.”

We don’t know the answer, but he is certainly prepared to send his military into situations in which there is a high probability of combat, as in the South China Sea where at the moment an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Theodore Roosevelt is doing its best to provoke China to take action against it.  If this happens, stand by for major conflict.

It’s the same with the island of Taiwan, taken over by dissidents who fled from the victorious military of the Chinese Communist Party, seventy years ago. Obviously, the government in Beijing continues to assert that the island is part of the People’s Republic, just like Hainan and a host of other islands off its shores, but Washington doesn’t agree and for many years has gone out of its way to support the breakaway state.  There are no formal ties to or treaties with Taiwan, but the Biden State Department lost no time in announcing on January 23 that “Our commitment to Taiwan is rock-solid and contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and within the region” which inflammatory avowal annoyed Beijing just as much as was intended and raised tensions and diminished stability in the region.

The story is told that when the Emperor Napoleon was in his final exile he was asked what he thought would be the development to have most impact on the future and replied with words to the effect “Let the Dragon China sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world.” Although it’s a compelling and generally popular phrase it was entirely fabricated, for Napoleon never said anything of the sort. But the fact remains that whoever made up that non-quotation was absolutely spot on, because after millennia of chaotic evolution the dragon has indeed woken, and the world is being stirred, if not shaken.

In December Science Magazine recorded that “China’s Chang’e-5 mission made a triumphant return around 1 p.m. EST today, landing in the middle of the night on the dark frozen plains of Inner Mongolia . . . The capsule’s return marks the first time China has collected rocks from the Moon — and the first time any nation has accomplished the feat since 1976.”  The mainstream media of the west acknowledged the accomplishment, albeit in line with the New York Times report that “Space now is fast becoming one more arena where the two countries might clash. Although China’s military and civilian space programs are still catching up with those in the United States, the country’s ambitions were part of the Trump administration’s motivation to set up a Space Force.”

China carried out a most demanding scientific operation that brought some 4 pounds of rocks to earth for analysis, and Space magazine noted that Li Chunlai, deputy chief of the project, was understandably upbeat about the mission’s success, observing that the “Chinese government is ready to share the lunar samples including relevant data with all like-minded institutions from other countries”, which is a responsible and laudable attitude.  But the problem is that Washington doesn’t want to cooperate with China and the moon rocks are unlikely to be shared.

As observed by Wu Yanhua of China’s National Space Administration, “It has been unfortunate [that] after a Congressional act [the Wolf Act] adopted in 2011 U.S. space institutions have been blocked from cooperating with China . . . On the basis of equality, mutual benefit and win-win cooperation we are willing to conduct sincere and friendly cooperation with U.S. institutions.”

The Wolf Act epitomizes the attitude of successive US administrations concerning China, and this over-assertive and even hostile approach has gathered impetus in recent years.  Its peak was signposted by the now mercifully departed Secretary of State Pompeo in July 2020 when he delivered a diatribe titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future” in which, as reported by the Council on Foreign Relations he declared “that the era of engagement with the Chinese Communist Party is over [and] calls on Chinese citizens and democracies worldwide to press Beijing to change its behavior and respect the rules-based international order.”

In December, intending to set the scene for a post-Trump administration, Pompeo’s colleague John Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal (owned by the Murdoch empire, which has no ties with China) headlined “China Is National Security Threat No. 1” in which he declared that the People’s Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today, and the greatest threat to democracy and freedom world-wide since World War II.”

To be sure, the PRC is far from being a democracy, being run by the Communist Party with no alternative political organization being permitted, but this does not make it, by definition, a threat to America or anywhere else.  It is an autocracy in some ways similar to Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally in which, as the State Department records “Significant human rights issues include: unlawful killings; executions for nonviolent offenses; forced disappearances; torture of prisoners and detainees by government agents; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners; arbitrary interference with privacy; criminalization of libel, censorship, and site blocking; restrictions on freedoms of peaceful assembly, association, and movement; severe restrictions of religious freedom; citizens’ lack of ability and legal means to choose their government through free and fair elections . . .”

The undemocratic antics of the Saudi’s absolute monarchy do not prevent the US having a “strong economic relationship” with the regime, and it is notable that “The U.S.-Saudi partnership is rooted in more than seven decades of close friendship and cooperation.”

China is an authoritarian state of 1.3 billion people whose leaders are intent on keeping the country together and improving the living standards of its citizens.  The methods whereby its economic advances are being effected have attracted massive criticism and strong reaction by the United States, but so far as fourteen Asia-Pacific countries are concerned, it seems that negotiation, mediation and cooperation are deemed preferable to confrontation, provocation and insults.

The Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN, comprises Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, with a total population of some 650 million.  It held its 37th Summit meeting in Hanoi in November 2020 and, along with five other countries, signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership which “is an agreement to broaden and deepen ASEAN’s engagement with Australia, China, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. Together, these RCEP participating countries account for about 30% of the global GDP and 30% of the world population. The objective of the Agreement is to establish a . . . mutually beneficial economic partnership that will facilitate the expansion of regional trade and investment and contribute to global economic growth and development . . . ”

Note that China is a partner in this international accord.  It’s not the leader, and has not attempted to impose any sort of controls, curbs or limitations on its commercial associates.  The Communist government in Beijing is pleased to be in an economic partnership with fourteen other countries having varying forms of government and in many cases very different approaches to world affairs.  In turn, these nations realize that China is a great power and wish to expand their ties to their common benefit without in any way endorsing — or condemning — the political leaning of Beijing’s government.

But the United States steered clear of the Regional Economic Partnership, and unfortunately it seems that the new Biden administration is likely to continue confrontation with China rather than engaging in dialogue.  Biden’s picks for senior appointments in his executive departments are not expected to agree with China’s statement that “Despite our differences, China and the United States share a wide range of mutual interests and there is room for cooperation,” with, for example, his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, telling the Senate that “President Trump was right in taking a tougher approach to China” and his pick for Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, declaring “China is a challenge to our security, to our prosperity, to our values across a range of issues and I do support an aggressive stance, in a sense, to deal with the challenge that we’re facing.”

These people are intent on being “tough” and “aggressive” and cannot accept that consultation, negotiation and compromise are not signs of weakness.  Rather they are a sign of maturity and willingness to come to terms with the new global development.  The Dragon has woken, and Washington would be well advised to engage with it.  There is no need for cringing appeasement, but aggressive toughness will lead only to disaster.

How Washington Rules the World

Eve Ottenberg


So far, Biden’s foreign policy does not differ seismically from Trump’s. Indeed Biden’s first move – recognizing the unelected pretender to the Venezuelan presidency, Juan Guaido – was as lousy as anything Trump did. It raises the specter of CIA coups, assassinations, regime changes and Washington-orchestrated color revolutions, which Biden’s two dreadful foreign policy appointees, Victoria Nuland and Samantha Power, embraced ardently in the past. Of course, those coups the U.S. sponsors are the antithesis of democracy and have the utterly predictable result of destroying entire countries – but this has been how the U.S. has exercised power in the world (mostly the Global South) since at least the dawn of the twentieth century.

Vijay Prashad documents this shameful U.S. history in his new book, Washington Bullets, whose litany of CIA depredations is enough to cause outright despair. The opportunities lost. Human history thwarted. Virtuous leaders cut down precisely because they were virtuous. Heroes murdered. Plans to improve millions of lives just shattered.  The cumulative portrait is beyond distressing. This portrait, this book is about how the U.S. rules the world, about raw power and how amoral, bloody and criminal such power is. As Evo Morales writes in the introduction, the U.S. has justified its assassinations, coups, and massacres as “the fight against communism, followed by the fight against drug trafficking and now, the fight against terrorism.” What will the next fight be? Doubtless something to do with Great Power Competition, something needless and nuclear.

An abbreviated list of U.S. coups and assassinations against assorted socialists and democrats includes the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, that of President Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 – for daring to  threaten the profits of a company, United Fruit, in which state department officials held shares; the ouster and subsequent execution of heroic Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of the Congo in 1961; the overthrow of Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim in Iraq in 1963; the 1964 removal of President Joao Goulart in Brazil and of President Kusno Sukarno of Indonesia in 1965; the ouster of President Juan Jose Torres of Bolivia in 1971; the 1973 overthrow of President Salvador Allende in Chile; and other violent and brutal regime changes.

There were also the murders of leftist leaders such as Mehdi Ben Barka of Morocco in 1965, Che Guevara in Bolivia in 1967 and President Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso in 1987; and this isn’t counting the string of coups instigated by the U.S. in Central and Latin America in the early part of the twentieth century. Much later toward the century’s end, came the U.S. overthrow of the socialist governments in Grenada and Haiti, the kidnapping of authoritarian Panamanian ruler Manuel Noriega, the invasion of Iraq and dissolution of its government, the destruction of Libya, the invasion of Afghanistan and more. This is merely a portion of U.S. and specifically CIA crimes against foreign governments and people.

“So in this prison house of psychological warfare,” Prashad writes, “it is perfectly acceptable for the Free World to claim resources from the colonized world, which should be forced to surrender its wealth for the sake of someone else’s freedom.” That sums up Western colonialism. And when Western profits are threatened, the CIA and US state department have regime change down to a science, whose nine steps Prashad lists: 1) lobby public opinion; 2) appoint the right man on the ground in country; 3) make sure the generals are ready; 4) make the economy scream; 5) diplomatic isolation; 6) organize mass protests; 7) greenlight the overthrow; 8) assassinate opponents; 9) deny U.S. involvement. Sound familiar? That’s because the U.S. currently engages in several of these activities vis a vis Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and other countries.

“The great decolonization process – whose highpoint was in the 1960s and 1970s – became the prelude to poverty and war that now wracks the Third World. Beneath the paving stones in these colonized lands…[lie] the corpses of freedom fighters,” writes Prashad. How many corpses? One estimate is seven to ten million dead worldwide from Washington’s aggressions since World War II. That includes millions in Southeast Asia, millions in Korea, the million leftists slaughtered with CIA assistance in Indonesia in the 1960s, a million in Iraq and many, many in Latin America and Africa.

One CIA effort alone, Operation Condor in Latin America, killed 100,000 people. In this, the U.S. “worked within the archipelago of military juntas from Argentina to Paraguay to abduct, torture and murder Communists in the continent.” The program ran from 1975 to 1989 and also imprisoned half a million people. The U.S. relied on men who can only be described as fascists. “A ruthlessness was let loose upon the earth,” Prashad writes, “as the most toxic political ideologies were given full license to kill.”

Those toxic ideologies were well summed up in Trump. So while Biden breaks with all things Trump, he has an opportunity to remake foreign policy as well. Wouldn’t it be terrific if Biden did not intervene militarily anywhere in the world? If he ended the sanctions that starve ordinary people in countries the U.S. has designated “adversaries,” but which really, in most cases, are just trying to remain independent of Washington? If he cut off weapons to dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, so it cannot continue to crush Yemen’s bloody corpse? If he left countries like Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela alone, instead of continuing to try to destabilize them for useless ideological reasons? A new presidency is a great time for a new beginning.

But many of Biden’s foreign policy appointments are inauspicious to say the least, and again, his first move on Venezuela is awful. Also, he has been ominously silent on Yemen, not uttering a peep about his campaign promise to end U.S. support for the morally disgusting assault on the poorest country in the Middle East. Still, it’s just the start of Biden’s presidency. He could yet mark out a different course, if he cared to. For the old ways are a failure, as the CIA and government officials who are Prashad’s sources readily admit.

Those sources, Prashad writes, are men “who did nasty things, hated talking about them but were honest enough to say toward the end of their lives that they had helped make a mess of the world.” Indeed they did. And there is little evidence that those who follow them have learned any lessons from their misbegotten crimes. Whole countries have been pulverized by the U.S., from Iraq to Haiti, whose liberation theologian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the U.S. helped depose TWICE. The second time, Aristide says he was kidnapped by the U.S. and shipped out of the country by plane. If he or someone else from his political party, which actually represents the interests of Haitians, came to power again, who’s to say the U.S. would now behave any differently, with any humanity or morality? For those are the two things lacking, for generations, in how the U.S. rules the world. It’s past time for a change. The whole world knows it. The gory U. S. assault on justice in the Global South is the scandal of the century – of two centuries. When will Washington stop it?

Will Biden End America’s Global War on Children?

Medea Benjamin & Nicolas J.S. Davies

The first day of the 2020 school year in Taiz, Yemen (Ahmad Al-Basha/AFP)

Most people regard Trump’s treatment of immigrant children as among his most shocking crimes as president. Images of hundreds of children stolen from their families and imprisoned in chain-link cages are an unforgettable disgrace that President Biden must move quickly to remedy with humane immigration policies and a program to quickly find the children’s families and reunite them, wherever they may be.

A less publicized Trump policy that actually killed children was the fulfilment of his campaign promises to “bomb the shit out of” America’s enemies and “take out their families.” Trump escalated Obama’s bombing campaigns against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and loosened U.S. rules of engagement regarding airstrikes that were predictably going to kill civilians.

After devastating U.S. bombardments that killed tens of thousands of civilians and left major cities in ruins, the United States’ Iraqi allies fulfilled the most shocking of Trump’s threats and massacred the survivors – men, women and children – in Mosul.

But the killing of civilians in America’s post-9/11 wars did not begin with Trump. And it will not end, or even diminish, under Biden, unless the public demands that America’s systematic slaughter of children and other civilians must end.

The Stop the War on Children campaign, run by the British charity Save the Children, publishes graphic reports on the harms that the United States and other warring parties inflict on children around the world.

Its 2020 reportKilled and Maimed: a generation of violations against children in conflict, reported 250,000 UN-documented human rights violations against children in war zones since 2005, including over 100,000 incidents in which children were killed or maimed. It found that a staggering 426,000,000 children now live in conflict zones, the second highest number ever, and that, “…the trends over recent years are of increasing violations, increasing numbers of children affected by conflict and increasingly protracted crises.”

Many of the injuries to children come from explosive weapons such as bombs, missiles, grenades, mortars and IEDs. In 2019, another Stop the War on Children study, on explosive blast injuries, found that these weapons that are designed to inflict maximum damage on military targets are especially destructive to the small bodies of children, and inflict more devastating injuries on children than on adults. Among pediatric blast patients, 80% suffer penetrating head injuries, compared with only 31% of adult blast patients, and wounded children are 10 times more likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries than adults.

In the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, U.S. and allied forces are armed with highly destructive explosive weapons and rely heavily on airstrikes, with the result that blast injuries account for nearly three-quarters of injuries to children, double the proportion found in other wars. The U.S. reliance on airstrikes also leads to widespread destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure, leaving children more exposed to all the humanitarian impacts of war, from hunger and starvation to otherwise preventable or curable diseases.

The immediate solution to this international crisis is for the United States to end its current wars and stop selling weapons to allies who wage war on their neighbors or kill civilians. Withdrawing U.S. occupation forces and ending U.S. airstrikes will allow the UN and the rest of the world to mobilize legitimate, impartial support programs to help America’s victims rebuild their lives and their societies. President Biden should offer generous U.S. war reparations to finance these programs, including the rebuilding of Mosul, Raqqa and other cities destroyed by American bombardment.

To prevent new U.S. wars, the Biden administration should commit to participate and comply with the rules of international law, which are supposed to be binding on all countries, even the most wealthy and powerful.

While paying lip service to the rule of law and a “rules-based international order”, the United States has in practice been recognizing only the law of the jungle and “might makes right,” as if the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of force did not exist and the protected status of civilians under the Geneva Conventions was subject to the discretion of unaccountable U.S. government lawyers. This murderous charade must end.

Despite U.S. non-participation and disdain, the rest of the world has continued to develop effective treaties to strengthen the rules of international law. For instance, treaties to ban land-mines and cluster munitions have successfully ended their use by the countries that have ratified them.

Banning land mines has saved tens of thousands of children’s lives, and no country that is a party to the cluster munitions treaty has used them since its adoption in 2008, reducing the number of unexploded bomblets lying in wait to kill and maim unsuspecting children. The Biden administration should sign, ratify and comply with these treaties, along with more than forty other multilateral treaties the U.S. has failed to ratify.

Americans should also support the International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW), which is calling for a UN declaration to outlaw the use of heavy explosive weapons in urban areas, where 90% of casualties are civilians and many are children. As Save the Children’s Blast Injuries report says, “Explosive weapons, including aircraft bombs, rockets and artillery, were designed for use in open battlefields, and are completely inappropriate for use in towns and cities and among the civilian population.”

A global initiative with tremendous grassroots support and potential to save the world from mass extinction is the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which just came into force on January 22 after Honduras became the 50th nation to ratify it. The growing international consensus that these suicide weapons must simply be abolished and prohibited will put pressure on the U.S. and other nuclear weapons states at the August 2021 Review Conference of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).

Since the United States and Russia still possess 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world, the main onus for their elimination lies on Presidents Biden and Putin. The five-year extension to the New START Treaty that Biden and Putin have agreed on is welcome news. The United States and Russia should use the treaty extension and the NPT Review as catalysts for further reductions in their stockpiles and real diplomacy to explicitly move forward on abolition.

The United States does not just wage war on children with bombs, missiles and bullets. It also wages economic war in ways that disproportionately affect children, preventing countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea from importing essential food and medicines or obtaining the resources they need to buy them.

These sanctions are a brutal form of economic warfare and collective punishment that leave children dying from hunger and preventable diseases, especially during this pandemic. UN officials have called for the International Criminal Court to investigate unilateral U.S. sanctions as crimes against humanity. The Biden administration should immediately lift all unilateral economic sanctions.

Will President Joe Biden act to protect the children of the world from America’s most tragic and indefensible war crimes? Nothing in his long record in public life suggests that he will, unless the American public and the rest of the world act collectively and effectively to insist that America must end its war on children and finally become a responsible, law-abiding member of the human family.