A Breakdown of Order: Politico-Military Dynamics in the South China Sea

Vijay Shankar

Geopolitical trends are not ‘pop-up’ events. They represent an evolved aggregation of policies that manifest as direction in a state’s world view. The present politico-military dynamics in the South China Sea (SCS) are no different. They have been shaped by several global and regional disruptions over the past few decades. This commentary focuses on three important long-term trends in the SCS region.

· The disintegration of Cold War alliances and the consequent breakdown of leadership and balance of power that used to provide both context and substance to international relations
· Condition of state sovereignty in the face of altering flows of capital, people, and technology
· The diminishing prospects of ‘order’ as states adopt aggressive military postures and doctrines with a view to change geography and existent political norms.

Structural Changes      

The disintegration of Cold War alliances has led to a breakdown in the balance of power, which was earlier able to strengthen mutual forces such that no one state was able to absolutely dominate and prescribe laws to the rest. Since all were equally interested in this condition, it was held to be the common interest, the right, and the duty of every power to interfere—even by force of arms—when any of this settlement was infringed by any other member of the community. It was premised on two realities of the existent international system. First, the system was anarchic with no hegemon to dominate. Second, that states are principal actors in the international system, as they ‘set the terms of collaboration’ and devise balancing alliances. This theory with all its abstractions and many flaws lay at the heart of the system up to and beyond the Cold War.

The world, from an era of unipolarity and then multipolar uncertainty, which dominated the last three decades between the breakdown of the Soviet Union and Russia’s annexation of Crimea, has moved to what may be termed as ‘penumbric competition’. These are conflicts where lack of definition masks the nature of engagement, which is rivalry between major powers over mercantile domination and the ability to tweak the ‘rule book’. China particularly has made palpably clear that the instruments of influence to further its aspirations are financial involvement, military coercion, and leveraging instabilities.

State Sovereignty

Globalisation of capital, labour, and technology has redefined the very concept of a sovereign state, besides a surge of migrations turning existing socio-economic conditions topsy-turvy. The economic benefits of this ‘new world’ are there for those willing to embrace the change. States that have retreated within are left in a world of denial that fails to recognise what has structurally redefined the modern successor to the overwhelmingly antiquated Westphalian system. But what of states such as China that have selectively endorsed and embraced attributes of the globalised world without the ‘messiness’ of socio-economic changes?

The principal motive force underlying globalisation is the progressive integration of economies and societies. Driven by new technologies, new economic and financial relationships, international policies, and the urge for wealth creation, globalisation provides the ultimate amalgamation that can potentially free societies from the constraints of autocratic control. These exchanges have led to interdependencies at all levels. It has also precipitated a conflict between markets and governments that tends to weaken and tear the very fabric that binds nations together.

But is this a condition that China’s authoritarian system can tolerate? And if it cannot, it runs the risk of unendurable stresses within its society that may eventually challenge the foundations of the regime itself.  

Diminishing Prospects of ‘Order’

It is not simply the rise of China’s comprehensive power that has given notice to status-quoists, but also its determination to re-write the ‘rule book’ on its terms as apparent from its claims in the SCS and its flouting of international norms. The loss of confidence that the US has been confronted with by the stalemate in Iraq, the Levant, and Afghanistan, and past inability to come to grips with the financial crisis of 2008 can hardly have helped to steel its geopolitical poise.

Even if China’s efforts to gain strategic dominance in the region does not achieve the desired results, clearly, their efforts are symptomatic of a defiance of the existing international order. Beijing’s vision of domination leans heavily on its grandiose ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative and the financial clout of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) created in 2016 as a counter to the US-dominated World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The growing apprehension is that in the absence of a set of conditionalities, and a consensus that underwrites fiscal discipline, tax reform, deregulation of market dynamics and secure property rights, debt will be increasingly transformed into territorial lease or trade concessions—as the Chinese have done in Sri Lanka, Djibouti, Pakistan or in Kenya. Meanwhile, in the SCS, claims defined by China’s ‘nine-dash line’ line were judicially debunked by an International Tribunal at The Hague in 2016. Yet, Beijing’s decision to unabashedly reject the verdict has raised the anxieties about what China’s rise really entails for the region.

An Improbable Prognosis

These three trends have seemingly opened the SCS to the arrival of a new hegemon. The apparent imbalance caused by the US’ receding influence and the absence of an alternative would appear to throw an invitation to China to fill the vacuum. Yet, there remains a body of distrust. If regional domination remains the aim, then what becomes of the slackening terms of sovereignty? There is discernible movement against such an autocratic regime, its imperial methods, and territorial ambitions—whether in Taiwan, Ladakh, the SCS, or elsewhere.

On the security front, the Australia-India-Japan-US Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) aims to balance China’s revisionist ambitions. The opportunity must be seized lest globalism be held to ransom by Chinese nationalism. While it has not announced itself as a military alliance, it will need to define purpose. The next step would be to enhance military cooperation to signal intent and deter future Chinese attempts to alter the status quo. This would take the form of improvements in interoperability, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, and access to logistics and infrastructure for power projection. A charter and a fund to define mandates and develop strategic Indo-Pacific infrastructure are subsequent logical steps.

The WTO and the Future of Multilateralism

Daniel Warner

The new head of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has gotten off to a promising start. In her initial public declarations, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the first woman and first African to lead the WTO, has said that the organization must “deal with people in their everyday lives.” For an organization that has been mired in a deadlock over members of the appellate body and who, after 14 years of negotiation, was unable to finish the Doha Development Round to facilitate global trade in 2015, her election and comments were a breath of fresh air.

The official multilateral system is stagnant. If it hopes to remain relevant, it needs such blunt talk, a complete new mindset and a renewed pushed for transparency and accountability

Admittedly, China’s rise, Russia nihilistic posture and the U.S’s loss of moral standing have brought a new level of complexity and uncertainty to the geopolitical landscape. Yet the fact remains that the UN has done little to ensure peace and security in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere, and was on the sidelines in stopping a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno Kharabak.

The UN has been unable to be the leading voice in the distribution of vaccines, cannot deal with a military coup d’etat in Myanmar, and appears as a band-aid institution when faced with global poverty and inequality. While the UN may still be relevant on technical issues, it has lost its momentum on major issues of war and peace and its moral authority in speaking for and defending the planet’s most vulnerable.

It would be simple to blame the above on the lack of American leadership during the four years of Donald Trump’s “America First” policies. There may be more systemic problems behind the stagnation. For example, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres is up for re-election in 2021. When he was elected in 2016, there was an open, transparent process that included public presentations and debates among all the candidates. Guterres, the former Portuguese Prime Minister and head of the UN’s refugee agency, was far and away the most impressive.

What has he done since? His timidity in denouncing gross violations of human rights and lack of moral leadership may be directly tied to his wish to be re-elected. One of the most promising reforms of the UN system was to be guaranteeing one extended term for the Secretary-General, allowing him or her to be more independent. Many remember how Boutros-Ghali was punished for speaking out by his non re-election in 2001. He had criticized the United States for not paying its dues on time as well as criticizing Israel. Only one permanent member of the Security Council voted against him, the United States. “How can I fight Goliath?” he asked.

The return of the United States to the multilateral system through re-engagement with the Paris Agreement on the climate, the World Health Organization, and the Human Rights Council gives reason for optimism. As the leading force behind the creation of the UN and the multilateral system after World War II, the United States is central to the success of the UN.

But, and this is a big but, the United States cannot have its way now as it has done in the past. Other countries have moved forward during the U.S.’ retreat, especially China. While confrontations between the United States and China within the multilateral system are not as spectacular as confrontations between battleships on the South China Sea, they are worth watching. Negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will never make front pages. They are very technical and are dominated by lawyers and experts. Nonetheless, they have become an integral part of the remaking of global politics.

And, most importantly, they are being conducted in multilateral settings where other actors are involved. Multilateralism is not bilateralism. Trying to win votes in an international organization is not the same as seeking allies to bolster troops on the battlefield. While the language of reporting on votes in these institutions may be similar to sports reporting, they are not the same as just who won or who lost. And we should be thankful for that.

To return to the World Trade Organization and Dr. Okonjo-Iweala. This is important because in many ways she represents the hopes and future of multilateralism. When she speaks of dealing with people “in their everyday lives,” we must remember she has an undergraduate degree in economics from Harvard, a PhD from MIT, was twice finance minister of Nigeria under different governments, and had a managerial post for 25 years at the World Bank. All her academic and professional work has dealt with development, inequality and the so called developing world.

Despite her impressive academic and professional background, Okonjo-Iweala understands that behind complex multilateral meetings are consequences for you and me. The word populism has gotten a bad name. Today, it refers to Donald Trump and his followers in the United States or people like Viktor Orban in Hungary and his Fidesz Party. I would prefer to think of Ms. Okonjo-Iweala as a true populist.

Will it work? Can she make the WTO relevant and inject a breath of fresh air in the multilateral system? The system has been more than stagnant, it has been moribund. It will take a lot of oxygen to get it restarted; something that has been in very short supply during the pandemic and the last decade.

“We have to be more accountable to the people we came here to serve – the ordinary women and men, our children who hope that our work here to support the multilateral trading system will result in meaningful change in their lives…” Okonjo-Iweala declared in her first official speech. That’s not just true for the WTO, but also for the entire multilateral system.

Americans are Suffering: Looking Beyond Covid-19

David Rosen

Nearly one year ago, in April 2020, Dr. Lorna Breen, the ER medical director at New York Presbyterian Allen Hospital, committed suicide. She had earlier contracted Covid-19 while treating patient.  According to her father, “She was — in every way — in the trenches of this war, fighting the effects of this COVID virus that she contracted herself,” he said. “She went home and stayed for a week-and-a-half before she felt obligated to go back to the trenches and help, so that’s what she did.”  She committed suicide shortly thereafter. 

Dr. Breen is but one of the more then half-million — 514,000 as of March 1^st! — people was have died from Covid-19; little data is available about those who have taken their own life.  As with Dr. Breen, the stresses associated being an ER doctor likely contributed to her fateful decision.  Such stresses are shared by many “essential” workers.  As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports, millions of other Americans are enduring all manner of stresses, including the loss of a jobs; eviction for failing to pay back rent or foreclosure for failing to pay their mortgage; burdened by debt; feeling locked in by stay-at-home requirements, leading to increased domestic violence, including child abuse; and still others.

Understandably, the media and public attention has been focused on the deaths caused by the pandemic and the vaccines that might bring an end to it.  It has extended and deepened the recession, exposing the profound racial and class disparities in society.  The former U.S. Surgeon General, Jerome Adams, admitted, “I and many black Americans are at higher risk for COVID. That’s why we need everyone to do their part to slow the spread.”  He identified a host of factors contributing to this situation including preexisting conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease as well as the lack of access to health care.

Sadly, today’s appropriate focus on coronavirus casualties and vaccines has led many to overlook the deepening social crisis the nation has been enduring for more than a decade.  A growing proportion of Americans are enduring the painful decline in their quality of life.  One example of the crisis is startling: During the half-century between 1959 and 2016, Americans’ life expectancies increased by nearly 10 years.  However, the Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to an expected drop of 1.13 years, bringing life expectancy to 77.48 years.

Sadly, in the years before Covid the death rate grew significantly. Between 2010 and 2017, the death rate increased from 328.5 to 348.2 per 100,000 people.  “There has been an increase in death rates among working age Americans,” said Dr. Steven Woolf, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University. “This is an emergent crisis. And it is a uniquely American problem since it is not seen in other countries. Something about life in America is responsible.”

Woolf notes, “while it’s a little difficult to place the blame on despair directly, the living conditions causing despair are leading to other problems.”  He adds, “for example if you live in an economically distressed community where income is flat and it’s hard to find jobs, that can lead to chronic stress, which is harmful to health.”

Before Covid hit, the principle causes for this increase in the death rate was due to what Woolf and others identify as “diseases of despair.”  They include drug overdoses, suicides, alcohol abuse and a “diverse list of organ system disease.” Three examples illuminate the nature of despair:

+ Between 1999 and 2017, fatal overdoses increased by 386.5 percent; in 2017, more than 70,000 deaths occurred because of drug overdoses and opioids accounted for more than 47,000 of those.

+ During the same period, deaths due to alcohol abuse conditions – e.g., chronic liver disease and cirrhosis of the liver — rose by 40.6 percent.

+ Between 2000 and 2016, death rates among three involving unintentional injuries, Alzheimer’s disease and septicemia increased.

Much of this suffering is rooted in a person’s stagnate or declining wages or earnings. The Hill reported, “The coronavirus has revealed the vulnerability of millions of American workers, leaving them without that much-needed next paycheck, and with no guarantees of a future gig.”

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) confirmed this assessment in its analysis of the wage crisis in America: “From 1979 to 2018, net productivity rose 108.1 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated — increasing only 11.6 percent over 39 years (after adjusting for inflation).” The EPI adds, quite pessimistically: “This means that although Americans are working more productively than ever, the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits, especially in recent years.”

To compensate for flattening of wages and earning, Americans have become addicted to debt.  The New York Federal Reserve estimated that, in mid-2019, consumer debt approached $14 trillion.  The four major categories of debt and their amount are: (i) mortgages at $9.4 trillion; (ii) student Loans at $1.48 trillion; (iii) auto debt at $1.3 trillion; and credit-card loans at $1.08 trillion.  As everyone knows, debt carries more than a monetary burden.

These developments fueled growing inequality, a situation compounded by the unchecked pandemic and its economic and social consequences.  In the pre-pandemic era, inequality was felt most acutely among the poor and working classes, especially children.  Harvard’s Raj Chetty, of the Opportunities Insights group, wrote, “our research shows that children’s chances of earning more than their parents have been declining. 90% of children born in 1940 grew up to earn more than their parents.”  He concluded, pessimistically, “Today, only half of all children earn more than their parents did.”

Their assessment is confirmed by a JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) published study, “Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017.”  It warned, “life expectancy at birth, a common measure of a population’s health, has decreased in the United States for 3 consecutive years.”  It adds:

The recent decrease in US life expectancy culminated a period of increasing cause-specific mortality among adults aged 25 to 64 years that began in the 1990s, ultimately producing an increase in all-cause mortality that began in 2010. … By 2014, midlife mortality was increasing across all racial groups, caused by drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, suicides, and a diverse list of organ system diseases.

The study’s data came from the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Mortality Database for 1959 to 2017. Americans are dying at an ever-growing rate and this many one of Trump’s unspoken legacies.

JAMA pessimistic assessment is compounded by the findings of a May 2019 study of the American Journal of Public Health, “The Depths of Despair Among US Adults Entering Midlife,” by Lauren Gaydosh, et. al.  Drawing on a sample of 18,446 “self-identified as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, or Hispanic” Americans, it assesses “change in indicators of despair from adolescence to adulthood using multilevel regression analysis, testing for differences by race/ethnicity, education, and rurality.”

Most surprising, Gaydosh’s study found a rise in despair among “the young adult cohort now reaching midlife that cuts across racial/ethnic, educational, and geographic groups may presage rising midlife mortality for these subgroups in the next decade.”  It notes, “The factors underlying these patterns remain unknown.”  But adds most provocatively:

However, current explanations point to labor market changes driven by globalization and technological change, leading to deteriorating job opportunities, wage stagnation, and declining rates of upward mobility for low-educated individuals.  These economic factors undermined social support by eroding traditional family structures and religious participation, resulting in despair.

It adds: “Although these trends affected all racial/ethnic groups, scholars suggest that historical advantages lead to greater feelings of relative subordination among low-educated Whites compared with low-educated racial/ethnic minorities and that Blacks may be ‘inured to insults of the market” and insulated by strong support networks of kin and religion.’”

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) reported that “an estimated 17.3 million adults in the United States had at least one major depressive episode. This number represented 7.1% of all U.S. adults.”  The American Psychological Association claims that “approximately 40 million American adults ages 18 and older, or about 18.1 percent of people in this age group in a given year, have an anxiety disorder.”  It adds, “major depressive disorder affects approximately 14.8 million American adults, or about 6.7 percent of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year.”

Depression and despair are often manifest in the growing condition of obesity.  According to the CDC, from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018, the prevalence of obesity increased from 30.5 percent to 42.4 percent of the population; the prevalence of severe obesity increased from 4.7 percent to 9.2 percent.

Among the most extreme symptoms of despair and depression are increases in the murder rate and suicides.  The New York Times reported that “the average murder rate across 20 major cities averaged 37% higher at the end of June than at the end of May” – a 6 percent increase over 2019.  The Times report was based on the finding by Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist University of Missouri-St. Louis.  In a separate study, Rosenfeld notes, “compared with the previous three-year average, homicide rates decreased during April and May of 2020.”  As the economy “opened” and a version of pre-Covid-19 “normal life” returned, the murder rate rose dramatically.

The CDC reports that suicide “was responsible for more than 47,000 deaths in 2017, resulting in about one death every 11 minutes.”  Going further, it adds, “Every year, many more people think about or attempt suicide than die by suicide. In 2017, 10.6 million American adults seriously thought about suicide, 3.2 million made a plan, and 1.4 million attempted suicide.”

Americans are suffering and this suffering is compounded by a host of determining factors, including Covid-19 and recession.  Together, they’ve contributed to a significant increase in unemployment, debt, homelessness and despair.  They have only compounded the growing inequality between the superrich and the rest of Americans, especially the working classes and the poor.  The deepening socio-economic crises are mediated by age, race, gender and where one lives — and these factors will define what “recovery” means.   Nevertheless, the suffering will continue and, sadly, only get worse.

McKinsey & Company Next Generation Women Leaders Event 2021

Application Deadline: 23rd March 2021

Eligible Countries: Countries in Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA)

To Be Taken At (Country): Online

About the Award: The Next Generation Women Leaders EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) program kicks off with a three-day virtual event on May 6 – 8 where attendees will explore the importance of women in leadership, develop a sense of connection, and create a long-lasting community. The program will continue with weekly workshops and informative virtual sessions throughout May and June.

Type: Conference

Eligibility: To be considered for NGWL EMEA, you must be currently based in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa (or have strong ties with Europe, the Middle East, or Africa). You must also be:

• a Bachelor’s, Master’s, PhD, or MBA student graduating no later than 2022
  or
• a professional with up to eight years of work experience

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Funding is available for successful candidates

Duration of Program: May 6-8, 2021

How to Apply: To apply, please submit the following by March 23:

• Your resume in English, which should include details of your education and grades, work experience, and extracurricular activities and achievements
• Office location (based on geographic or industry ties) OR business function (based on industry experience)—this is necessary so that our colleagues from those offices or business functions can objectively review your application

Cover letter (maximum of 250 words), where you can tell us about your motivation to join the event, any leadership experience, or simply add anything to support your application, beyond the information included in your CV, e.g., your personal achievements or circumstances to select a specific office Transcripts (only required by some locations – please see details below)

Digital Assessment
As part of your application, you will be asked to complete an online assessment (~60 minutes). This does not require any preparation or prior business knowledge. More details will be shared within a few weeks after submitting your application.

Your office/business function (practice) preference
Our participating offices are listed below. When you apply, you will choose up to three office locations or industry practices to review your application and consider selecting you. We advise you to make your choices based on geographic or industry ties (e.g., you have studied or lived in the country or you have work experience in the industry). You should be fluent in the local language.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

BMZ African German Leadership Academy 2021

Application Deadline: 12th March 2021

About the Award: Between 26 April and 7 May 2021, the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwick-lungspolitik offers a two weeks innovative digital training and dialogue programme for up to 25 young professionals from Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Morocco, Senegal, Togo and Tunisia, who work in the area of sustainable development in government institutions, think tanks and research institutions, civil society and the private sector. The programme especially targets Germany’s reform partner countries in Africa, with which Germany cooperates in depth regarding the structural conditions for economic activity and job creation. The programme aims to provide leadership skills and knowledge needed for sustainable development, in accordance with the objectives of Africa’s Agenda 2063 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The programme also offers networking opportunities with German and European stakeholders from various sectors and with representatives from African Institutions.

The Spring Academy 2021 takes place as a full-time digital programme. The programme is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

With the Spring Academy 2021, we want to lay the foundation for long-term institutional cooperation and partnership, as well as provide opportunity for a personal network of change makers in various fields contributing to sustainable development in their regions.

The Spring Academy 2021 will be the kick-off of the new Leadership Programme. A 3-months version of the BMZ African Leadership Academy
is planned from 2022 onwards.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Participants should

• work for policy relevant institutions, e.g. ministries or government agencies; research institutions or think tanks, business associations, civil society organisations or media outlets
• have a passion for sustainable development and global cooperation
• have a good command of English
• be between 25 and 40 years old
• have at least three years of work experience in a relevant field of sustainable development
• be sensitive to other cultures and open to digital team work
• have access to a laptop/computer and internet
• be available for a full-time schedule between 26 April and 07 May 2021

Eligible Countries: Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Morocco, Senegal, Togo and Tunisia

To be Taken at (Country): Online

Number of Awards: 25

Value of Award:

• A high-quality digital programme, combining, academic insights and hands-on training, including insights in the practice of German political, economic and social system
• Innovative training and exchanges on leadership skills crucial for sustainable development in different contexts
• Strengthening digital collaboration skills by working online in highly diverse teams
• Shaping a network of organisations and individuals dedicated to sustainable development from seven African countries and Germany

Duration of Award: 26 April – 7 May 2021

How to Apply: Please send an email with a brief (around 200 words) statement of your motivation, your CV, and the confirmation of your employer (see last page of this text) until 12 March 2021 to Malika Yunussova (malika.yunussova@die-gdi.de). Kindly indicate in your email how/through whom you learnt about the Spring Academy 2021. Selected candidates will be contacted directly via e-mail until latest 31 March
2021.

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

WASCAL Master Scholarships 2021

Application Deadline: 30^th April 2021

About the Award: The 24-months’ programme, to be run in partnership with Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH and RWTH Aachen University, Germany, with funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (BMBF) seeks to prepare and train a new generation of interdisciplinary professionals capable of proposing adapted solutions to the ongoing energy crisis in West Africa.

The programme  consists of four specializations  and would be run in  lead universities in Togo, where University of Lomé will run Bioenergy/biofuels and Green Hydrogen Technology; University of Felix Houphouet Boigny, Ivory Coast will host Green Hydrogen Production and Technology/Georesources (Wind/Water) and Hydrogen Technology; University of Abdou Moumouni, Niger will hostPhotovoltaic and System Analysis for Green Hydrogen Technologies, and University of Cheikh Anta Diop, Senegal, will host Economics/policies/Infrastructures and Green Hydrogen Technology.

Eligible Fields: The novel programme is designed for students with background in Physics, Biochemistry, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Statistics, or related areas.

Type: Master

Eligibility: Students from ALL West African countries with Bsc in Physics, Chemistry and Bio-Chemistry, Engineering, Statistics or related fields.

Eligible Countries: West African countries

To be Taken at (Country): Selected West African countries as well as to Germany.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• The programme will also provide training on state-of-the-art tools used in renewable energy, green hydrogen technology and policy with the view of training adequate human resources to boost the sector of energy technology and guide policy formulation across West Africa with special focus on green hydrogen technology.
• The scholarship package includes full funding, roundtrip tickets and accommodation, allowances, and travel to selected West African countries as well as to Germany.

Duration of Award: 24 months

How to Apply: Click on the field of study for details

• Green Hydrogen Production and Technology / Georesources (Wind/Water) and GREEN Hydrogen Technology – Université Felix Houphouet Boigny, Cote d’Ivoire
• Bioenergy / Biofuels and Green Hydrogen Technology – Université de Lomé, Togo
• Economics / policies/Infrastructures and Green hydrogen technology – Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal
• Photovoltaic and System Analysis for Green Hydrogen Technologies – Université Abdou Moumouni, Niger

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Google.org Impact Challenge for Women and Girls 2021

Application Deadline: 9th April 2021 at 23:59 GMT

About the Award: The Google.org Impact Challenge for Women and Girls commits $25 million to fund organizations creating pathways to prosperity for women and girls. This is an open call for applications, and selected charitable initiatives will receive up to $2 million, as well as opportunities for mentorship and additional support from Google.

Type: Grant

Eligibility:

• ImpactHow will the proposed project create pathways to prosperity for women and girls or empower them to reach their full economic potential, and to what extent? Is the application grounded in research and data about the problem and the solution? How many people will be affected if successful and to what extent?
• Innovation: What is the core insight or innovation that differentiates this project from others, in philosophy or execution? What makes the proposed project unique?
• Feasibility: Does your team have a well-developed, realistic plan, along with the right expertise and skills, to execute on the proposal? Has your team identified the right partners and domain experts for implementation? To best understand the needs of those you’re serving, does your team have women in positions of leadership?
• Scalability: If successful, how can this project scale beyond the initial proposal? Can it scale directly, serve as a model for other efforts, or advance the field?

Eligible Countries: International

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Each selected organization will receive between $300,000 and $2 million in funding and other support from Google. The selected organizations will be announced in late 2021.

How to Apply: Apply now

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Google Women Tech Founders Program in Middle East and North Africa 2021

Application Deadline: 31st March 2021 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. 

About the Award: This program will provide women tech entrepreneurs from across the Middle East and North Africa region technical skills training from Google’s tech and start up experts, and help build a network of future tech changemakers in the region.

The program will be facilitated in English and will draw applicants mainly from Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE.

In addition, a select number of applicants from the region, outside of Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE, will also be selected as Women Tech Founders ambassadors to participate in the program and serve as tech changemakers in expanding the program to the Middle East and North Africa region.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Women tech entrepreneurs from across the Middle East and North Africa region

Eligible Countries: Egypt, Bahrain, UAE as well as participants from the MENA Region.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• Equity-free support
• Exclusive invitations to technical bootcamps hosted by Google
• Personalized mentorship and technical support from Google experts
• The opportunity to provide feedback to Google product teams

Duration of Award:

• Launch Event: May 17th, 2021 (Open to the public)
• Session 1: May 18th, 2021 (Finalists Only)
• Session 2: May 24th, 2021 (Finalists Only)
• Session 3: June 1st, 2021 (Finalists Only)
• Session 4: June 8th, 2021 (Finalists Only)

How to Apply: APPLY HERE 

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

One World Media Fellowship 2021

Application Deadline: 7th April 2021 (11:59PM)

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: Working in film, print, audio or multimedia, our Fellows’ projects bring together integrity and creativity to present underreported stories that break down stereotypes and build cross-cultural connections.

We guide filmmakers and journalists on a single project, and provide a supportive network of mentors and peers through the production and completion of their project.

We seek to champion diverse emerging talent, and particularly encourage submissions from BAME applicants as well as from people from and based in developing countries.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

• We are open to applications from all around the world.
• One World Media Fellows are aspiring filmmakers and journalists ready to take the next leap in their career reporting from developing countries. Looking for their first director role or solo investigation, our Fellows experiment and learn in a supportive environment.

Number of Awards: We select 12 Fellows each year, and we reserve at least 3 spots for international Fellows from and based in developing countries.

Value of Award:

• £1,000 production grant
• Executive Producer for your project
• Career mentorship
• Workshops and webinars by industry experts
• Fair Reporting and Security Guidance
• Introductions to commissioners
• Network of like-minded Fellows and Alumni

How to Apply: How To Apply

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

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Elections under Fire: Palestine’s Impossible Democracy Dilemma

Ramzy Baroud

Many Palestinian intellectuals and political analysts find themselves in the unenviable position of having to declare a stance on whether they support or reject upcoming Palestinian elections which are scheduled for May 22 and July 30. But there are no easy answers.

The long-awaited decree by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last January to hold legislative and presidential elections in the coming months was widely welcomed,  not as a triumph for democracy but as the first tangible positive outcome of dialogue between rival Palestinian factions, mainly Abbas’ Fatah party and Hamas.

As far as inner Palestinian dialogue is concerned, the elections, if held unobstructed, could present a ray of hope that, finally, Palestinians in the Occupied Territories will enjoy a degree of democratic representation, a first step towards a more comprehensive representation that could include millions of Palestinians outside the Occupied Territories.

But even such humble expectations are conditioned on many “ifs”: only if Palestinian factions honor their commitments to the Istanbul Agreement of September 24; only if Israel allows Palestinians, including Jerusalemites, to vote unhindered and refrains from arresting Palestinian candidates; only if the US-led international community accepts the outcome of the democratic elections without punishing victorious parties and candidates; only if the legislative and presidential elections are followed by the more consequential and substantive elections in the Palestinian National Council (PNC) – the Palestinian Parliament in exile – and so on.

If any of these conditions is unsatisfactory, the May elections are likely to serve no practical purpose, aside from giving Abbas and his rivals the veneer of legitimacy, thus allowing them to buy yet more time and acquire yet more funds from their financial benefactors.

All of this compels us to consider the following question: is democracy possible under military occupation?

Almost immediately following the last democratic Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, the outcome of which displeased Israel, 62 Palestinian ministers and members of the new parliament were thrown into prison, with many still imprisoned.

History is repeating itself as Israel has already begun its arrest campaigns of Hamas leaders and members in the West Bank. On February 22, over 20 Palestinian activists, including Hamas officials, were detained as a clear message from the Israeli occupation to Palestinians that Israel does not recognize their dialogue, their unity agreements or their democracy.

Two days later, 67-year-old Hamas leader, Omar Barghouti, was summoned by the Israeli military intelligence in the occupied West Bank and warned against running in the upcoming May elections. “The Israeli officer warned me not to run in the upcoming elections and threatened me with imprisonment if I did,” Barghouti was quoted by Al-Monitor.

The Palestinian Basic Law allows prisoners to run for elections, whether legislative or presidential, simply because the most popular among Palestinian leaders are often behind bars. Marwan Barghouti is one.

Imprisoned since 2002, Barghouti remains Fatah’s most popular leader, though appreciated more by the movement’s young cadre, as opposed to Abbas’ old guard. The latter group has immensely benefited from the corrupt system of political patronage upon which the 85-year-old president has constructed his Authority.

To sustain this corrupt system, Abbas and his clique labored to marginalize Barghouti, leading to the suggestion that Israel’s imprisonment of Fatah’s vibrant leader serves the interests of the current Palestinian President.

This claim has much substance, not only because Abbas has done little to pressure Israel to release Barghouti but also because all credible public opinion polls suggest that Barghouti is far more popular among Fatah’s supporters – in fact all Palestinians – than Abbas.

On February 11, Abbas dispatched Hussein al-Sheikh, the Minister of Civilian Affairs and a member of Fatah’s Central Committee, to dissuade Barghouti from running in the upcoming presidential elections. An ideal scenario for the Palestinian President would be to take advantage of Barghouti’s popularity by having him lead the Fatah list in the contest for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). Hence, Abbas could ensure a strong turnout by Fatah supporters, while securing the chair of presidency for himself.

Barghouti vehemently rejected Abbas’ request, thus raising an unexpected challenge to Abbas, who now risks dividing the Fatah vote, losing the PLC elections, again, to Hamas and losing the presidential elections to Barghouti.

Between the nightly raids and crackdowns by the Israeli military and the political intrigues within the divided Fatah movement, one wonders if the elections, if they take place, will finally allow Palestinians to mount a united front in the struggle against Israeli occupation and for Palestinian freedom.

Then, there is the issue of the possible position of the ‘international community’ regarding the outcome of the elections. News reports speak of efforts made by Hamas to seek guarantees from Qatar and Egypt “to ensure Israel will not pursue its representatives and candidates in the upcoming elections,” Al-Monitor also reported.

But what kind of guarantees can Arab countries obtain from Tel Aviv, and what kind of leverage can Doha and Cairo have when Israel continues to disregard the United Nations, international law, the International Criminal Court, and so on?

Nevertheless, can Palestinian democracy afford to subsist in its state of inertia? Abbas’ mandate as president expired in 2009, the PLC’s mandate expired in 2010 and, in fact, the Palestinian Authority was set up as an interim political body, whose function should have ceased in 1999. Since then, the ‘Palestinian leadership’ has not enjoyed legitimacy among Palestinians, deriving its relevance, instead, from the support of its benefactors, who are rarely interested in supporting democracy in Palestine.

The only silver lining in the story is that Fatah and Hamas have also agreed on the restructuring of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now largely monopolized by Abbas’ Fatah movement. Whether the democratic revamping of the PLO takes place or not, largely depends on the outcome of the May and July elections.

Palestine, like other Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, does have a crisis of political legitimacy. Since Palestine is an occupied land with little or no freedom, one is justified to argue that true democracy under these horrific conditions cannot possibly be achieved.

Eyes on China: The Quad Takes Scattered Aim

Binoy Kampmark

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue has had its fits and starts, but nothing encourages such chats than threats, actual or perceived.  In 2017, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono felt that it was time that a strategic dialogue between Japan, the United States, Australia and India should be revived.  The Quad, as it was termed, was on the way to becoming a more serious forum, having had its tentative origins in the cooperative efforts of the four countries in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami.  Formally launched in 2007, the initiative petered out.

The evolution of such a forum typically begins at senior official level, followed by a ministerial upgrade. Levels of seniority get roped in until the leaders of the countries take the reins. But at its inception, brows creased in Beijing.  These were not, however, meant to reach the level of full blown frowns.

The prospect of this somewhat misnamed “Asian NATO” was not to be taken too seriously, though officials in the Trump administration did contemplate a collective with teeth and persuasiveness.  In October 2020, then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was all about using the grouping to combat China.  “This is for the soul of the world.  This is about whether this will be a world that operates … on a rules-based international order system, or one that’s dominated by a coercive totalitarian regime like the one in China.”  At the time, Pompeo had to settle for a more mild-mannered proposal – that of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific – an idea advanced by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2016.

Nonetheless, the four powers have been painting a picture that will not find cheer in President Xi Jinping’s quarters.  At a press conference in September last year, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin, when asked about the government’s views on the upcoming October Quad meeting, curtly spoke of being against the “forming of exclusive cliques”.  The “targeting of third parties or undermining third parties’ interests” was surely less preferable to conducive cooperation towards “mutual understanding and trust between regional countries.”

Last month, the Quad’s four foreign ministers met.  Japan’s Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi described “candid talks about cooperation toward the free and open Indo-Pacific and on regional and global issues.”  US State Department spokesperson Ned Price noted in a statement that discussion also included “the priority of strengthening democratic resilience in the broader region” and maintaining “support for freedom of navigation and territorial integrity.”

The Biden administration is also making an effort to elevate the status of the Quad.  The president intends holding a virtual meeting on March 12 with the prime ministers of Japan, Australia and India.  White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki rolled out the now frequent message that such meetings demonstrated Biden’s keenness to take allies and partnerships seriously.  According to the press secretary, topics to be discussed will include “the threat of COVID”, “economic cooperation” and the “climate crisis”.  Only the dimmest of dolts could avoid the prospect that China would not come up in the virtual chat feast.

A senior administration was more forthcoming in telling Reuters that, “This sends a very strong signal of common cause and purpose.  And the goal here is basically to introduce the Quad as a new feature of regular diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific.”  Similarly, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison spoke of the Quad becoming “a feature of Indo-Pacific engagement,” a gathering of “four leaders four countries” and not “a big bureaucracy with a big secretariats”.  And just to make the point of a counterweight to Chinese power clear, without naming Beijing, Morrison envisaged the arrangement as an “anchor of peace and stability in the region”.

Each of the nations, however, have their individual differences in how to deal with China.  Australia remains obsessed with foreign interference and Chinese moves into regional Pacific politics, piggy backing on US power in order to stem that influence.  Japan considers good relations with China important, while still happy to concede ground to the US as being the dominant Asian-Pacific power.

India remains the most cautious participant. Its foreign policy harks back to the days of non-alignment maintained during the Cold War.  Unlike Japan and Australia, there is no fondness for the idea of having one dominant bully in the playground, dressed up in the clothing of strategic primacy.  But its relationship with China remains fractious.  The border dispute in the Himalayan region, which also features a competition to build infrastructure, turned bloody in June 2020 in a Galwan Valley clash that left over 20 Indian soldiers dead.  Accusations about provocations by both sides have been traded with increasing frequency since last year, with a mutual disengagement between the Indian Army and the People’s Liberation Army from disputed points yet to take place.

In November 2020, New Delhi invited Australia to participate in the annually held Malabar naval exercises, frequented by US and Japan.  Prime Minister Narendra Modi seemed to be turning.  This week, India confirmed that he would be attending the virtual conference, with the Ministry of External Affairs revealing that discussions would cover the ground traversed by the foreign ministers in February.  “The leaders will discuss regional and global issues of shared interest, and exchange views on practical areas of cooperation towards maintaining a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific region.”

Despite much common ground, the prospects of the Quad flowering into a security arrangement that will ring-fence China seem unlikely.  Provocative as it may well be, the more measured sages in Beijing will consider the differences between the four powers and deal with each of them accordingly.  The cannier ones might even choose to manipulate them.

Tens of thousands of cancer sufferers denied treatment in UK during pandemic

Jean Gibney & Ben Trent

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the dire situation facing tens of thousands of UK cancer patients. At the end of December 2020—the worst month for medical backlogs since records began in 2007—almost 4.52 million patients in England were waiting to start hospital treatment. 224,205 people had been waiting more than a year.

Tens of thousands of cancer sufferers are among those waiting. Hundreds of them will die needlessly because of the Conservative government’s criminal response to the pandemic.

An article by the Cancer Research UK charity highlights the increasing numbers of patients waiting for cancer referrals, diagnoses and treatments. The article notes that, since the onset of the pandemic, waiting times for screening, tests and treatment have been steadily increasing. Roughly 40,000 fewer people started treatment for cancer in 2020 compared with previous years. According to Jon Shelton, senior cancer intelligence manager at the charity, the drop in numbers of cancer patients is primarily driven by a lack of diagnoses.

Many cancer diagnosing tests cannot be carried out due to the sustained pressure on hospitals created by the pandemic. Around 600,000 fewer endoscopies were performed in England between March and November.

Dorset Breast Screening Service mobile centre station in Bournemouth, July 2018 (credit: WSWS Media)

Patients with operable cancers that can be removed by carrying out surgeries have also had to wait for months, often becoming unsuitable candidates for such procedures as their condition worsens.

In reference to a study from October 2020, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) noted that across the seven major cancer types each four-week delay between diagnosis and surgery was linked to a 6-8 percent increase in mortality rates. Four-week delays for radiotherapy and chemotherapy could see mortality rates increase by as much as 23 and 28 percent respectively.

An oncologist who works in a north west England National Health Service (NHS) hospital trust told the WSWS, “We see a large drop of patients coming for treatments. This is because hospitals are overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases. Cancer patients are struggling to get appointments for clinics. Even if they managed to have an appointment, most of the occasions, we currently have telephone consultations.”

He added, “It is very difficult for us to understand the severity of a patient condition without carrying out physical examinations. For instance, when we manage Lymphoma, patients have a lump or tumour somewhere in their bodies. We simply cannot understand the size of it without palpating [examine by touching] it. Patients with myeloma get bone pain and tenderness. How can we understand it without touching and seeing them? To check whether patients have got lymph node enlargement, splenomegaly and hepatomegaly we have to examine their bodies.

“Under the coronavirus situation there is an enormous crisis in diagnosing cancer and determining their severity. This delays cancer treatment. The outcomes of treatment and prognoses suffer as a result.”

“When we start treatment, the cancer patients can have very sinister bacterial, viral and fungal infections. These infections can be fatal for this group of patients who are immunocompromised. But because of the Covid situation, they cannot get admitted to our units quickly. If they need Intensive Care treatment they won’t have it because ICUs are overwhelmed. The kind of patients we used save before, die now, because of this situation,” he explained.

Describing the perilous situation in wards, the oncologist said, “We are forced to discharge patients before their treatments are completed. Bed managers are pressurising us to send the cancer patients home earlier than we used to do before. They say that the bed capacity is dire in the hospital.”

At the start of the pandemic, the WSWS warned: “Thousands of deaths are expected due to delays in referrals and treatment for cancer and other life-threatening illnesses in the UK, as the National Health Service is overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases.” We explained this would be the result of the “herd immunity” policy being nakedly pursued by the Johnson government.

The impact of the pandemic and the herd immunity agenda fell on a health service already being driven into the ground. Figures from the Nuffield Trust show that delays to diagnoses and treatments have been increasing year-on-year for the past six years—the 18-week target was missed for 48 percent of patients in June 2020. These delays stem from over a decade of savage austerity cuts, which have created a massive shortage of National Health Service (NHS) staff, beds and equipment.

According to NHS England data, bed capacity has been slashed by almost two thirds over last 34 years in England. In 1987, the average available daily number of beds for all specialties stood at 297,364. Bed capacity was down to 118,451 in 2020.

Staff shortages are also a hugely significant factor. The WSWS noted in 2019: “One of the main factors in treatment delay is staff shortages, especially of clinical oncologists—those who treat cancer patients with chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy.” Considering figures then available, we highlighted that “A census carried out by the Royal College of Radiologists in 62 major cancer centres in the UK found that more than 7.5 percent of consultant posts, which amount to 70 full-time posts, were vacant.”

The number of vacant nursing posts is over 40,000, accounting for 40 percent of NHS vacancies, which total a staggeringly high 100,000.

The human suffering caused by the destruction of the NHS is exemplified by patients like Adrian Rogers, whose cancer became inoperable due to delays in his surgery. Rogers was quoted by the BBC as saying, “People will have now died as a result of delays to treatment.” The article revealed Roger’s wife has been forced to start a GoFundMe page to pay for life-saving treatment for her husband as the care he requires is not available on the NHS.

The pandemic has vastly accelerated the premature deaths of workers from treatable cancers. Enormous leaps in technology and medical science have helped scientists better understand cancer, paving the way for earlier and more accurate diagnosis, as well as improving methods of treatment. The subordination of healthcare to the accumulation of private profit, however, keep these advances out of reach for the majority of the population.

Besides Tory and Labour governments, responsibility for the catastrophe in the NHS is shared with the trade unions. They have presided over the increasing rationing of treatments, the profiteering of medical services via privatisation, the loss of staff and decrease of beds.

The unions backed the 1997 Blair/Brown Labour government whose use of Private Finance Initiatives resulted in privatisations and a growing NHS debt burden and laid the foundations for the Tory 2012 Health and Social Care Act. They did nothing to oppose the 2012 Act, which accelerated the process of privatisation. They have not raised a peep over new privatisation plans contained in Hancock’s white paper, “Integration and Innovation: working together to improve health and social care for all”.

Throughout the pandemic, the unions have collaborated with the government to enforce its repeated premature reopenings, resulting in devastating waves of the disease which have crippled the NHS.