14 Sept 2016

Rackham Merit Fellowship Programme for International Students 2017

Application Deadline: 15th April, 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): USA
Eligible Field of Study: Various
About the Award: The Rackham Merit Fellowship (RMF) Program helps sustain the academic excellence and inclusiveness of the Michigan graduate community, one that embraces students with diverse experiences and goals, and who come from many educational, cultural, geographic, and familial backgrounds. By offering financial assistance to those students who might not otherwise have access, we aim to reduce disparities in graduate education. We also aim to promote the values of diversity and inclusion by encouraging the admission and funding of students who represent a broad array of life experiences and perspectives, because this enhances the quality of the intellectual environment for all students.
Type:  PhD and Master’s fellowship
Eligibility: The Rackham Merit Fellowship is open to newly admitted students in a Rackham graduate degree program who:
  • Have a record of superior academic achievement (e.g., grade point average, honors, or other designation);
  • Are U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or undocumented students with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA)
And meet one or more of the following criteria:
  • Come from an educational, cultural or geographic background that is underrepresented in graduate study in their discipline in the United States or at the University of Michigan;
  • Have demonstrated a sustained commitment to diversity in the academic, professional, or civic realm through their work experience, volunteer engagement, or leadership of student or community organizations. By diversity, we mean in the U.S. to reduce social, educational or economic disparities based on race, ethnicity or gender, or to improve race relations in the U.S.;
  • Have experienced financial hardship as a result of family economic circumstances;
  • Are first-generation U.S. citizens or are the first generation in their families to graduate from a four-year college.
Selection Criteria: Students who have outstanding academic qualifications, show exceptional potential for scholarly success in their graduate program, and demonstrate promise for contributing to wider academic, professional, or civic communities.
Graduate students do not apply directly for the RMF, but are nominated by faculty in their graduate program.
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Tuition, stipend, health and dental coverage, during each fall and winter semester, with select summer stipend and benefits.
  • The stipend level is currently $9,869 per semester as at previous academic year.
  • Appointments are also usually given (typically in the form of a fellowship, traineeship, GSRA or GSI)
Duration of Scholarship: For Ph.D. students, the RMF is typically 5 years of funding. For Masters, 2 semesters.
How to Apply: 
Award Provider: The Rackham graduate school

In Sickness and in Health: Illness in the White House

Binoy Kampmark

Exciting times, indeed. The latest bustling instalment in the Clinton-Trump saga of “produce your documents” now goes to the issue of health. The Democratic contender for the White House found herself feeling rather off, which made doctors order that Hillary Clinton take proper “rest”.
It then transpired, according to sources (who is to really know about the Clintons?) that she had been slow off the mark in revealing the diagnosis of pneumonia, a condition that nearly precipitated a fainting spell at a New York memorial ceremony for the September 11, 2001 attacks. On that occasion, Clinton excused herself for feeling “overheated and dehydrated” and required obvious assistance to her van.
“I’m feeling so much better,” she cheerily told CNN on Monday night, “and obviously I should have gotten some rest sooner.” Over the next few days, those medical directives from Dr. Lisa Bardack are set to kick in. Donald Trump, in the meantime, is bound to behave like a merry pig in electoral mud, though he is missing a sparring buddy. “I hope she gets well and gets back on the trail and we’ll be seeing her at the debate.”
The immediate sense about the Clinton campaign was that the veil of secrecy had again been given a few more layers. Rather than releasing material on the subject with speedy resolve, Team Clinton closed ranks, hoping that the press would not feast on an impeding medical bonanza.
Reuters noted that this “health scare revived concerns about a tendency toward secrecy that has dogged her campaign, and underscored the perennial worries about the medical fitness of candidates for one of the world’s most demanding jobs.”
Those running for the White House – and those in it – tend towards hiding the assortment of ailments that could, technically, make them either unelectable or deficient. What had sprung out, notably in this election, is some unwritten obligation to, as one NBC News report put it, “inform the public about her health.”
President Bill Clinton certainly thought so, telling the New York Times in a 1996 interview that the public was entitled “to know the condition of the president’s health.” That particular piece disclosed the president’s battle “with desensitization shots” taken weekly to combat Washington’s notorious tendency to tickle and tease allergies.
The interview may well have been precipitated by the fact that Bill, when a candidate in 1992, had troubles with his voice. Medical opinions started to swarm; speculation about fitness was duly triggered, and has become something of a greater curiosity in recent years. (Witness, for instance, discussion about John Kerry’s triumph against prostate cancer; or Dick Cheney’s heart problems, revealing that even such a dark force can have a troubling ticker.)
That same NBC report digs a bit deeper, asking questions about why hiding such a pneumonia diagnosis was necessary to begin with. Did Clinton, for instance, contract it in the past? The coughing attack last week at an appearance in Cleveland, for instance, was dismissed as a matter of “seasonal allergies”. Did the candidate “lose consciousness at all?”
In all seriousness, the maladies of the White House occupant have been many and fundamental. Healthy, sturdy figures seem oddities. Prior to the First World War, William Taft laboured under morbid obesity, a condition which made him nap during meetings. His successor, the supposedly high-minded visionary, Woodrow Wilson, suffered a series of strokes that left him blind in his left eye and wheelchair bound.
A suitably doped up President John F. Kennedy remained at death’s door for much of his time in office till assassination opened it; Franklin Delano Roosevelt sneakily crafted an image of good, mobile health in the face of polio; and Grover Cleveland took a good four days off to have a tumour removed on a yacht.
Secrecy has become a dull, continuous feature of this presidential battle. Neither candidate has been entirely open to continuous press scrutiny on the trail, or supplying the tips, and trimmings as the important dates are ticked off the calendar.
The idea of “protective pool” coverage is something both find troubling, with Clinton and Trump preferring greater management and staging, with protective guardians. Trump, for instance, has no reporters to accompany him on his plane; Clinton has tended towards a drier pool of correspondents.
Neither candidate seems particularly fit in several ways for the White House, though these have little to do with matters of physique and stamina. Boiling matters down to misogyny and greater scrutiny of Clinton for her supposedly vulnerable sex hardly gets away from the central matter at hand: her unquestionable sense of being unreliable. Only the Clintons could have converted something in the realm of health into a spectacle of secret ponderings and conspiratorial wonder. The crooked timber of humanity continues to creak.

The EU-Jordan Experiment: Towards Easing the Refugee Issue

Roshan Iyer


On 20 July 2016, the EU and the Kingdom of Jordan entered into a free trade deal, the first of its kind in the region. If optimally utilised, the deal opens doors for significant investment into Jordan and promises to create a large number of jobs. However, the most salient feature of these jobs will be that a certain percentage of them will be set aside for Syrian refugees. Could this deal mark the first step towards integrating the Syrian refugee population in Jordan?

The Deal: A Brief OverviewThe deal reduced restrictions on 52 product groups, including all types of textiles, clothing, fabric and yarns, which Jordan exports. The agreement specifically simplified ‘rules of origin’, the technical criteria that determine whether a specific product qualifies for preferential access under a given trade agreement, if certain conditions are met. Under this 10 year agreement, in order to qualify, producers must be located in specified industrial areas and development zones in Jordan and at least 15 per cent (to increase to 25 per cent in the third year of the agreement) of their employees must be from the 650,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan. This agreement currently applies to 18 Special Economic Zones (SEZ). In conjunction with the deal, the EU pledged 100 million Euros in humanitarian aid to be distributed by international organisations and 200 million Euros to support refugees and finance water, education and energy infrastructure.

Syrian Refugees in Jordan
This is significant as the influx of Syrian refugees to Jordan has increased the rate of youth unemployment in the country by 10 per cent and has exacerbated latent social tensions in the country. This deal attempts to solve some of those problems in a unique way. It not only benefits the Jordanian economy by opening up the massive EU markets but also creates employment for approximately 200,000 Syrian refugees in the region. Initial action on the deal has included Jordan's investment of $140 million into the infrastructure development of the largest SEZ, the King Hussein Bin Talal Development Area (KHBTDA). This particular investment can easily accommodate the nearly 80,000 refugees in the nearby Za'atari refugee camp. The Jordanian authorities must enforce both workers and human rights in these SEZs, as refugee populations are often exploited as a pool of low-cost disposable labour by profit seeking factory managers.

Implementation
A summer pilot project that was meant to cover 150,000 refugees working in Jordan produced little interest from the Syrians themselves and uncovered flaws in the initiative. Apparently the employment provided is simple repetitive work and that pays correspondingly low wages. Most Syrians tend to gravitate towards informal work that pays higher wages, makes better use of their skills, and does not require costly and complicated paperwork associated with work visas and permits. Jordan could try to reorient these SEZs to attract higher end manufacturing that sees significant value addition of the labour force. Firms in the SEZs benefit from less red-tape and 5 per cent lower income tax. Unlike in the rest of Jordan, in these SEZs, foreign entities enjoy 100 per cent ownership of their firms. These steps provide investors with marginal but significant cost saving in the region and would be optimal for increasing profit margins. 

Jordan is currently seeking and encouraging investment in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals and food and beverage production. It is hoped that this would succeed in attracting higher value investments from the rest of West Asia, and particularly from the Gulf countries, which are looking to diversify their investment portfolios. However the KHBTDA is a mere 30 kilometres from the Syrian border, and additional security will be essential to securing high value investments.

Big Picture
The EU-Jordan free trade deal should be viewed as a pilot programme with potential to stabilise the refugee situation in West Asia as well as the social dynamics arising due to it. While the experience of the Palestinian population in Jordan gives a much more sobering lesson on the limits of integration, the deal has the potential to stem many of the negative consequences of population migration.

This is in sharp contrast to the experience of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, who, until recently, did not have the right to work and produced a large body of heavily radicalised youth. If successful, teh EU-Jordan deal could provide significant impetus to a Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area connecting the EU with the Levant and the Maghreb. The EU's trade with countries from these two regions comprise 8.6 per cent of EU's total external trade. This deal has the potential to create a win-win situation. On one hand, it adds new jobs in Jordan for Jordanians while buttressing the government’s plans to move the country up the value chain in terms of manufacturing. On the other, it also seems to provide a relatively more sustainable stop gap measure for dealing with the consequences of the ongoing civil war in Syria.

Oceans of (Dis)trust

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera


“No cause justifies the deaths of innocent people” 
Albert Camus

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon delivered a lecture at the Kadirgamar Institute, Colombo, on ‘Sus-tainable Peace and Achieving Sustainable Development Goals’.  Referring to the lack  of UN intervention in Sri Lanka, the Secretary General said, “Had we been more actively engaged, we could have saved much more, many more human lives.”

On a recent visit to Singapore, Harvard University scholar Dr NeelanTiruchelvam’s son spoke about the death of his parents by the LTTE over false promises on unattainable goals.  Dr N Tiruchelvam was a peace loving man who wanted nothing more than a political settlement, but he was assassinated by the LTTE leader Prabhakaran,like late Hon Lakshman Kadirgamar, Tamil lawyer and former Foreign Affairs Minister. The institute where Ban Ki-moon delivered his lecture was named after Kadirgamar and the irony of his statement, under the late statesman’s photograph, was not to be missed. The Sri Lankan situation was clearly different to Rwanda or Serbanica or another place - and this has to be established and understood. 

“Sri Lankan Army lost 5600 officers and soldiers with over 25000 battle field casualties during the last two years of the battle, thousands of soldiers are still lying on beds like vegetable. All Sri Lankans are happily and peacefully living today because of the sacrifices that they made to bring about a future with no bombs and blood” says Maj Gen Kamal Gunaratne, who fought the 45-minute final battle that killed LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, in an interview for his latest book titled “Road to Nandikadal.” He further says, “I wrote this book for the poor parents who sent their sons to fight with the ruthless LTTE, the elite people in Colombo and abroad and the human rights activists who were misled by a wrong pic-ture.”

On 4 September, 2016 a few LTTE sympathisers and supporters attacked the Sri Lankan High Commis-sioner to Malaysia, Ibrahim Sahib Ansar, at the Kuala Lampur Airport. This clearly demonstrates how cer-tain LTTE sympathisers have forgotten the struggle that they subscribed to in past. The disgraceful act of attacking Sri Lankans, including the Buddhist priest in South India, cannot be ignored. 

2 September 2016 concluded the two day conference organised by the SriLankan army. The central theme for this Colombo Defence Conference was the importance of using soft power as a powerful tool in post-war Sri Lanka. To combat this rise in radical elements, soft power strategies need to be implemented on a urgent basis. Soft power as a tool has been used extensively in Sri Lanka and has been an inherent part of Asian culture for many years. Prof Joseph Nye famously said, “I understand that as a nation we have used soft power positively and there are times we have failed to use it.” Kadirgamar used soft power to ban the LTTE, and to promote art and culture, he commissioned the book The World of Stanley Kirinde, however he was killed a few days before the book launch. Soft power was used by Sirimavo Bandaranayake to position Sri Lanka in the global sphere. Another example of a different use of soft power is when Michael J Delaney, Assistant US Trade Representative for South Asia, at the last minute, turned down the lecture at the Kadirgamar Institute. These small waves of displeasure and disappointment ended up creating a narrative surrounding the negative image of Sri Lanka.

During the Indian Ocean Conference in Singapore, 1-2 September 2016, with 250 delegates from 21 na-tions, US Assistant Secretary of State, Nisha Biswal explained the importance of soft architecture for the Indian Ocean nations and referred to Sri Lanka’s ports with their impressive performance as an example. Prime Minister Wickramasinghe who made the keynote speech made some important points starting from a geopolitical view: “Single power and duopoly appears to be a thing of the past and for the first time in five centuries economic power in the world is moving again towards Asia” to the “US is proposing the furtherance of a single combined security strategy for the two Asian oceans - the Indian and Pacific,” warning of implications for Asian security. For the Indian Ocean countries, many scholars highlighted  past heritage and unique contributions owing to the geographical locations. Asian soft power and our Asian foreign policy did exist in the past and rediscovering the same is essential. It also brought forth cooperation is essential to bring human capital together to develop the Indian Ocean agenda. 

In understanding a polycentric Asia with no uniformity in terms of geopolitics and culture, each country is a separate world to itself, according to Fukuyama. It is important to understand the multiple layers of dispute, historical backgrounds and strategic mistrust before commenting and drawing parallels with other nations. 

US triples special operations deployment to Latin America

Neil Hardt

From 2007 to 2014, the United States tripled the deployment of special operations forces to Latin America, according to documents obtained via FOIA request by the non-profit Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).
The deployment of Green Berets, Navy Seals and other elite units to Latin America is bound up with American imperialism’s preparations to suppress the outbreak of social struggle in Central and South America and is also aimed at countering the growing influence of China in the region.
The August 30 WOLA report notes that US special operations training is aimed at improving “technical skills like pistol and rifle marksmanship, urban combat, intelligence gathering, or riot control” among the Latin America security forces. Government documents show that the training programs are aimed at “building partner capacity, countering transnational threats, and ensuring domain awareness,” which allows the US to gain “regional access with a minimal footprint.” The number of training events increased 29 percent from 2013 to 2014.
Joint training exercises also support the military’s “National Security Strategy” at a “relatively low-risk, low-cost, and low-signature.” In other words, the presence of American troops in nearly two dozen countries allows US imperialism to exercise an enormous amount of coercion on the political life of these countries without the cost and political fallout of open military occupation. In this vein, government documents also highlight how training “activities often enhance US influence in host countries.”
The report notes that the increased presence of special forces in Latin America lays the basis for an expanded US presence in the region. Special Operations Liaison Officers are currently positioned in 14 US embassies, including four in Latin America (Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador and Peru). By 2019, the report notes, US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) will have funding to place liaison officers in 40 countries, presumably including a number of new ones in Latin America.
The United States government treats the entire Latin American region as its imperial staging ground, asserting its ability to station troops and operate bases. The WOLA report notes that the US conducted 21 training exercises in Honduras from 2007 to 2014, 19 in Colombia and El Salvador, 18 in the Dominican Republic, 16 in Belize, 15 in Panama, 13 in Brazil and 11 in Guyana, Peru and Jamaica. US elite units also trained soldiers in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guatemala, Paraguay, Suriname, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, the Bahamas and Uruguay.
The elite units of many of these governments effectively serve as extra-judicial death squads, giving the lie to claims that the US military is engaged in “humanitarian” or “democratic” intervention abroad. The presence of the US military in countries like El Salvador, Colombia, Honduras, Jamaica, Guatemala and Mexico has coincided with drastic increases in state repression and violence, in some cases creating civil war-like death rates for the civilian population.
For example, a US State Department report from 2015 notes that in Honduras, “three soldiers were arrested and their unit commander temporarily suspended in connection with an investigation of alleged torture of artisanal miners working in a mine that had been closed for safety reasons.” Though the soldiers were captured on video torturing the workers, “an appeals court provisionally dismissed charges against the three soldiers.”
In El Salvador, the country’s human rights investigator “stated that between June 2014 and May 2015” there were “2,202 complaints of human rights violations, 92 percent of which alleged human rights violations committed by the National Civilian Police and the military.” These violations included “arbitrary deaths, situations that verge on torture, and possible executions between police and supposed criminals.”
These are mere snapshots of the crimes committed by the armed forces trained by US military advisers, many of whom learned the trade in the criminal wars waged by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, where torture, execution and mass murder were the standard operating procedure of the occupying armies.
The true purpose of the increasing US role in Latin America is to assert hegemony over the region’s resources and cheap labor on behalf of American banks and corporations. The presence of US military forces is required to keep the region under US control and to ensure that the US is well-positioned militarily in case of war with China.
A 2015 US Army War College article by Professor R. Evan Ellis, titled “The Strategic relevance of Latin America for the United States” puts the matter clearly:
“To view the matter through a military analogy, Latin America is the unoccupied high-ground overseeing the US position. A responsible commander would recognize that the occupation of that high ground by an adversary poses an unacceptable threat to his force, and thus would dedicate resources to block the adversary from doing so. By this analogy, it would be a grave error for the United States to conclude that, in the absence of serious threats to the United States from Latin America, it is okay to merely watch as potential future adversaries such as Russia and China expand their positions in the region. While such neglect, in the short term, may ‘free up resources’ to continue other engagements abroad, over the long term, willing cessation of its own neighborhood by the U.S. is the single factor most likely to force the United States into a chaotic retreat from its external engagements.”
There is another important reason for the increased US troop presence in the region. The US fears the outbreak of social opposition in Latin America and is prepared to crush it through invasion and the establishment of right-wing military and paramilitary units trained to kill workers, students and peasants who oppose the demands of Wall Street and US imperialism. Aware that Latin America is the most socially polarized region of the world, the architects of US imperialist geostrategy fear the outbreak of mass social upheavals in Latin America. The groundwork for cracking down on such a revolutionary upsurge of the impoverished Latin American masses is being prepared by the US military through the expansion of military training programs.

Despite increase in 2015, US household income still lags behind pre-recession levels

Kate Randall

Household incomes for Americans rose in 2015, the US Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income was $56,516 in 2015, an increase of 5.2 percent over the previous year.
While this was the largest one-year rise since at least 1967, median household income—the level with equal numbers of households above and below it—is still 1.6 percent below the previous peak of $57,423 in 2007, before the economy sank into recession. It also remains 2.4 percent lower than its peak in 1999, before the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
The census data also reveals that income inequality in America remained virtually unchanged from 2014, with the wealthy in the top fifth of the population taking in about half of all household income, while the bottom fifth earned only 3.4 percent.
The official poverty rate in 2015 was 13.5 percent, down 1.2 percentage points from 14.8 percent in 2014. The census used the abysmally low figure of $24,847 as the poverty threshold for a family with two adults and two children in 2015. The poverty rate fell by 3.5 million from 2014, meaning that 43.1 million Americans continued to live in poverty. The poverty rate has still not dipped below pre-recession levels.
The census report followed a US Department of Agriculture report last week showing that 12.7 percent of US households were food insecure in 2015, meaning they had difficulty at some time during the year providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of resources.
Predictably, President Obama praised the modest household income gains, posting on his White House blog, “Today’s report from the Census Bureau shows the remarkable progress that American families have made as the recovery continues to strengthen,” and pointing to the figures in a stump speech he gave for Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia Tuesday afternoon.
While Obama touted the household income gains as evidence that the economy is on the upswing, analysts question why seven years after the proclaimed “recovery” in 2009, household incomes have still not returned to pre-recession levels, while poverty and hunger remain extraordinarily high for the richest country in the world
Or, as Arloc Sherman of the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities told the New York Times, “The next question is why did it take such a long time for things to look good?”
The number of full-time, year-round workers increased by 2.4 million in 2015—1.4 million men and 1 million women. Between 2014 and 2015, the real median earnings of men and women who worked full time, year round in both years increased by 1.5 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively.
This is far lower than the reported 5.2 percent increase in median income for all households. This suggests that the largest source of these gains is increased working hours for part-time workers rather than any rise in hourly pay. As workers moved from unemployment or part-time work to full-time jobs, many of these jobs are likely in the low-wage retail and other sectors.
And while men’s earnings from work in 2015 rose by 1.5 percent from 2014, to $51,212, they still lag behind men’s earnings from the 1970s when calculated in 2015 dollars. Women’s earnings rose by about 25 percent, to $40,742, during this same period.
Real median incomes in 2015—$72,165 for family households and $33,805 for non-family households—increased 5.3 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively, from their 2014 medians.
While all family households saw median income increases in 2015, married couple households had the highest median income, at $84,626. This was followed by households maintained by men with no woman present, $55,861 median, and those maintained by women with no man present, $37,797 median.
Hispanic households saw the greatest rise in median income (6.1 percent), followed by white households (5.6 percent), black households (4.1 percent), and Asian households (3.7 percent).
Although all regions of the country saw median household income increases, the South’s was the smallest, rising by 2.9 percent. Rural areas were the only demographic to see a decrease in median household income, dropping by 2 percent, compared to metropolitan areas.
The census’s comparison of household incomes distributed across all quintiles of the population showed virtually no change from 2014 to 2015, indicating that extreme income inequality persists despite the modest increases in household median income.
While the bottom and second lowest fifths of households saw modest increases in income, 1.9 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively, the highest fifth still takes 49.8 percent of all income. The top 5 percent takes in 21.8 percent, statistically equal to 2014.

Wage crisis for youth in US labor market

Kathleen Martin

report released in July 2016 by Indeed Hiring Lab, “The State of Opportunity: Overcoming the wage crisis in today’s labor market,” reveals the terrible situation facing young workers looking for jobs in the US. It is a far cry from the proclamation of the Obama administration that everything is “pretty darn great” and that now is the “best time to be alive.” Only 16 percent of jobs available in the US labor market today are beating what is termed as the “wage crisis.”
The report states, “Today, many people feel that the labor market is polarizing, with high-paying opportunities going to a select few, middle-wage jobs disappearing, and low-wage jobs proliferating.”
It appears that these feelings correspond to a real stagnation and overall decline in wages and opportunity for the majority of people searching for employment.
First, the report defines (economic) “opportunity” for job-seekers as “the ability to comfortably support themselves and their families,” meaning a job that not only pays a living wage, but also keeps up with the ever-rising cost of living. It analyzed 2014 data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has jobs broken down into 800 categories. Each category is then characterized according to two factors: “high pay,” or a salary of $57,700 or more; and “purchasing power,” meaning an “opportunity job” that has shown salary growth in the last decade, even after adjustment for inflation.
The report states, “After applying those two salary filters, we found that only 170 occupations out of a total of 800 met the criteria of a stagnation-defying opportunity job. That amounts to a mere 16 percent of 2014 total employment…”
Of these opportunity jobs, 92 percent are concentrated in the following five categories: health care practitioners and technical; management; computer and mathematical; business and financial operations; and architecture and engineering.
Over the course of an entire decade, the proportion of opportunity jobs has increased only from 13 percent in 2004 to 16 percent in 2014. The report goes on to state: “[S]uch gains are modest. This is an average measure, and while there are certainly exceptions, the results suggest the global wage crisis will likely continue throughout 2016 and beyond.”
The report itself declares that the “economic crisis is over,” but the figures themselves suggest something different. Every statistic shows poverty-level and stagnating wages for the vast majority of job openings. At the same time, nearly half of the extremely scarce opportunity jobs are concentrated in only 10 states.
As for the remaining 84 percent of jobs in the US labor market, further examination proves that most do not come close to meeting the overall modest standards of the opportunity jobs. They do not offer a sustainable wage to begin with, nor do they beat inflation and the rising cost of living. Another striking difference between the two categories is that the opportunity jobs are at a much lower risk of automation than the non-opportunity jobs—8.8 percent for the former, compared to 45.7 percent for the latter.
The greatest common factor underlying each category of opportunity jobs is the education needed in order to attain such a position. According to the report, “Our analysis of opportunity jobs quickly revealed the crucial importance of education. A look at job advertisements showed 75 percent of opportunity job postings are in categories typically requiring a college education, compared with 14 percent of ‘other’ job postings.”
Obtaining a college degree or certificate has become more important than ever, in fact nearly indispensable, to compete in today’s job market—or what should be called the race to the bottom. However, the report also indicates what most young people know all too well to be true: “Even so, a degree alone does not guarantee membership in the fortunate minority at the top of the polarized labor market. Far from it … [I]t is feasible to emerge from college with a degree and find a job that will lock you into a career with underperforming wages. Gone are the days when a college degree could guarantee financial security.”
The number-one job listing for people entering the workforce with a college degree is particularly revealing: miscellaneous sales representatives and services. These kinds of jobs do not provide health care, pensions, livable wages or even job security. A few listed among the top 10 job openings include clinical and school counseling; social and human service assistants; and insurance sales agents. Each job falls short, anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000 per year, of the $57,700 annual salary needed to keep up in today’s economy.
These numbers fly directly in the face of the assertion that there has been some sort of recovery from the crash and recession. Paired with crippling student loan debt, now at an average of $26,600 per student, the likelihood that a young member of the working class will be able to purchase a home, save for retirement, or even simply dig themselves out of debt, is very slim.

US has spent nearly $5 trillion on wars since 9/11

Bill Van Auken

In another indication of the terrible price paid by working people in the United States and all over the globe for the crimes of US imperialism, a new report from Brown University estimates that Washington has squandered nearly $5 trillion since September 11, 2001 on the wars launched under the pretext of fighting terrorism.
The report coincides with the 15th anniversary of 9/11, with 10,000 US troops still in Afghanistan, 15 years after the US invasion of that country, and an estimated 6,000 in Iraq. Hundreds more special operations forces have been deployed to Syria, where the US is fighting for regime change in a de facto alliance with that country’s affiliates of Al Qaeda—which was supposedly the principal target of the last decade and a half of war.
While the financial costs of these wars are staggering, bordering on the unfathomable, the author of the report, Boston University professor Neta Crawford, correctly places them in their far broader, and more horrifying, context of the trail of blood and destruction that US military operations have left in their wake:
“...a full accounting of any war’s burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger. From the civilians harmed or displaced by violence, to the soldiers killed and wounded, to the children who play years later on roads and fields sown with improvised explosive devices and cluster bombs, no set of numbers can convey the human toll of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how they have spilled into the neighboring states of Syria and Pakistan, and come home to the US and its allies in the form of wounded veterans and contractors.”
Some of these numbers are also quantifiable, and appalling, from the over one million Iraqi lives lost to the US invasion of 2003 to the more than 12 million refugees driven from just the four countries laid waste by US wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Syria. In addition, there are the nearly 7,000 US troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with roughly an equal number of private contractors, as well as the 52,000 officially listed as wounded in combat and the untold hundreds of thousands more suffering from traumatic brain injuries, PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and other mental health problems resulting from multiple deployments in dirty colonial-style wars.
Nonetheless, the report argues persuasively that it is also vital to make a serious and comprehensive evaluation of the real financial costs of these wars.
The overall cost of US imperialism’s wars includes the $1.7 trillion directly appropriated by Congress to wage them as so-called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). This is above and beyond the Pentagon’s base budget, which totals some $6.8 trillion from FY2001-2016.
By defining these wars as OCOs, Congress, together with both the Bush and Obama administrations, has acted as if they are some kind of unforeseeable emergencies that could not be planned for within the government’s normal budgetary process, even as they dragged out for a decade and a half. As a result, they were freed from any kind of normal fiscal accountability, with no taxes or other revenues allotted to pay for them.
In addition to this direct war funding, the report includes the costs of veterans’ medical and disability care, allocations for Homeland Security, interest on Pentagon war appropriations and future costs for veterans’ care.
This last cost is estimated at amounting to at least $1 trillion between now and 2053. The basis for such an estimate is made clear by the presentation of some alarming statistics.
By the end of 2015, more than 1,600 soldiers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan had undergone major limb amputations as a result of wounds suffered in combat. A total of 327,000 veterans of these wars had been diagnosed with Traumatic Brain Injury as of 2014 and by the same year fully 700,000 out of the 2.7 million people deployed to the war zones had been classified as 30 percent or more disabled.
The report points out that Veterans Affairs is the fastest growing department in the US government, with its staffing levels having nearly doubled since 2001 to 350,000 workers. Yet, according to another recent report, it “still lacks sufficient funding to fill thousands of vacancies for doctors and nurses and to finance badly needed repairs to its hospitals and clinics.”
In addition to these costs, the report estimates that, unless Congress changes the way that it is paying for the wars, even without their continuation, cumulative interest on war appropriations made just through FY2013 will amount to a staggering $7.9 trillion by 2053.
The report recalls that as the Bush administration was preparing to launch the war of aggression against Iraq, the administration’s chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey came under intense fire for estimating that the “upper bound” costs of the war reached between $100 and $200 billion. This estimate was roundly rejected by everyone from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to House Democrats, who put the figure at roughly $50 billion, which it is now clear underestimated the real cost by a factor of 100.
Reflected in these wars, both in the criminality with which they were initiated and fought, and in the way they were funded, are the financial parasitism and socially destructive forms of speculation that pervade the workings of American capitalism as a whole.
By keeping the wars’ costs “off the books” and relying on an “all-volunteer” military to fight them, the US ruling class also hoped to dampen the popular hostility to militarism.
The new report does not attempt to estimate the wars’ broader impact on the economy and the living standards of broad masses of American working people. Another report issued two years ago by Harvard University conservatively estimated that the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars amounted to $75,000 for every American household.
The report points to previous studies indicating that the wars cost tens of thousands of jobs and significantly reduced investment in infrastructure. The vast amount of resources diverted into slaughter and destruction in the Middle East and Central Asia could have funded the $3.32 trillion that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) says must be spent over the next decade to fix America’s crumbling ports, highways, bridges, trains, water and electric facilities and paid off the entire $1.26 trillion in student debt, with money left over.
Instead, the elected officials of both major capitalist parties have continuously insisted that there is no money for jobs, decent wages, education, health care and other basic necessities, while spending unlimited money on militarism and war, leaving the bill to be paid for through the intensification of austerity measures directed against the working class.
The human and fiscal toll wrought by the wars of the last 15 years are only a foretaste of the global catastrophe that is threatened as US imperialism prepares for far larger wars, with its military escalation focused ever more directly against the world’s second and third largest nuclear powers, Russia and China.

The witch-hunt against Chinese influence in Australia

Peter Symonds

The eruption of a concerted anti-Chinese campaign in the Australian media and political establishment, particularly over the past fortnight, directed at vilifying anyone not fully supportive of Washington’s confrontational “pivot” against Beijing is a warning to workers, not only in Australia but internationally, of the advanced character of the US war drive in the Asia Pacific.
What began with the “exposure” of small payments by a Chinese businessman to opposition Labor Party frontbencher Sam Dastyari escalated last week into a full blown witch-hunt against any politician, business figure or organisation construed as questioning full support for the US military alliance or the increasingly shrill denunciations of Chinese “expansionism,” especially in the South China Sea.
The most explicit diatribe was written by the Sydney Morning Herald’s international editor, Peter Hartcher, who called for a “Four Pests Campaign,” akin to that conducted by Mao Zedong, to eradicate “rats, flies mosquitoes and sparrows” and “defend against agents of foreign influence.” In his sweeping vilification, Hartcher targeted “rats” such as Dastyari, “flies” or supposed unwitting dupes of Beijing, including former Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr, and “mosquitoes” or businessmen allegedly beholden to China, such as billionaires Kerry Stokes and James Packer.
Hartcher’s definition of “sparrows” or purveyors of Chinese influence encompassed not only Chinese-Australian organisations but placed a question mark over anyone of Chinese background—that is, the half million Australian residents born in China and 150,000 Chinese students in Australian universities, not to mention many more of Chinese descent. Such anti-Chinese hysteria serves to pave the way for extensive police raids and arrests in the event of war with China, as took place with the mass internment in Australia of “enemy aliens” during the two world wars.
Those named by Hartcher are by no means hostile to the US and the American alliance but rather are concerned that a confrontational stance toward China will damage relations with the country, which is Australia’s top trading partner and a source of significant investment.
The most sinister insinuation appeared in the Australian Financial Review last week, implying that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, because of his business interests in China, was not trusted by Australian intelligence agencies. When President Barack Obama announced the “pivot” in the Australian parliament in 2011, Turnbull was somewhat critical of it and suggested an accommodation with China. Since becoming prime minister last September, he has toed the US line verbally on the South China Sea but not authorised a so-called freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) within the 12-nautical-mile territorial limits around Chinese islets.
Pressure from Washington for Canberra to conduct a provocative FONOP in the South China Sea has intensified following the July 2 federal election that Turnbull’s Liberal-National Coalition won by the slenderest of margins. In its immediate aftermath, US Vice President Joe Biden visited Australia and stressed Washington’s determination to remain the dominant Pacific power.
In a pointed warning to any equivocators, Biden stressed: “If I had to bet on which country is going to lead economically in the 21st century... I’d bet on the United States. But I’d put it another way: It’s never a good bet to bet against the United States.” A long line of visiting US admirals and generals had already made it publicly clear that Washington expected Turnbull to send an Australian warship to challenge Chinese claims in the South China Sea.
Biden’s visit was the signal for the anti-China campaign now underway to create the poisonous climate for a FONOP provocation that has the potential to trigger Chinese retaliation and escalate into open conflict. A spate of lurid and unsubstantiated stories has appeared about Chinese hacking, the dangers to “national security” of Chinese investment and the network of Chinese influence in Australia. Even though a contrite Dastyari admitted his “error” and resigned as a Labor spokesman, government ministers on Monday lined up during question time to denounce “Shanghai Sam.”
“Chinese influence” pales into insignificance compared to the influence built up since World War II and wielded by the US throughout the Australian political establishment, the media, various think tanks, such as the US Studies Centre, and the state apparatus, especially the military and intelligence agencies. In 2010, a handful of Labor and union powerbrokers, later revealed as “protected sources” of the American embassy in Canberra, orchestrated an overnight inner party coup to oust Kevin Rudd as prime minister after he alienated the Obama administration by advocating a US accommodation to China.
It is this same pro-US apparatus that has sprung into action to brand as a Chinese fifth column those sections of the political and corporate elite who urge caution in becoming enmeshed in the American military build-up against China. The campaign, which also encourages anti-Chinese xenophobia, meets up with the needs of the ruling class to divert the huge social tensions generated by the widening gulf between rich and poor outward against a “foreign enemy.”
Whereas in the United States and Europe it is currently Russia that is the target for vilification, in Australia it is China and for definite reasons. The ramping up of anti-China propaganda in Australia takes place amid mounting concerns in Washington that Obama’s “pivot,” aimed at subordinating China to American interests, has stalled. On the economic front, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which seeks to undermine Chinese influence in Asia, is unlikely to be ratified by the US Congress. Diplomatically, Obama was unable to press the recent East Asian Summit in Laos to confront China over the South China Sea.
As Biden declared during his visit, the US has no intention of relinquishing its position as the dominant Pacific power. It is now looking to Australia to step in and militarily challenge Chinese maritime claims in the South China Sea. Such a move would dramatically ratchet up tensions in the region, provide Washington with much-needed international support and, should Beijing react militarily, provide the pretext for the US to intervene more forcefully. Australian imperialism, which relies on US backing to prosecute its own interests in Asia and internationally, has provided military forces and political support to the US in virtually every predatory conflict since World War II—from the Korean and Vietnam wars to the latest US-led operations in the Middle East.
The ferocity with which longstanding political figures and wealthy businessmen are being vilified is a sign of the extreme geo-political tensions embroiling the entire region as the US and its allies prepare for war with China. It is also a measure of the fear in ruling circles of the widespread anti-war sentiment among workers and youth that will be unleashed as the war danger becomes more imminent.
The Australian working class, like its counterparts in China, Japan, the United States and the rest of the world, has no interest in a conflict between nuclear-armed powers. Its answer to the threat of war lies in the political fight being waged by the Socialist Equality Party (Australia) and its sister parties of the International Committee of the Fourth International to build an international anti-war movement to put an end to capitalism and its outmoded nation-state system, which is the root cause of war.

13 Sept 2016

University of Newcastle Commonwealth Government Scholarships 2017/2018 for Masters & PhD – Australia

Application Deadline: 15 September 2016 (round 2) 31st January 2017 (round 1 2017)
Offered annually? Yes
Brief description: The University of Newcastle Australia is offering university and commonwealth government scholarships for Research Masters & PhD degree for international students
Eligible Field of Study: courses offered at the university
About Scholarship: Full-time research students are eligible to apply for University and Commonwealth Government scholarships, which are awarded during one main round offer. They provide a living allowance so you can commit to full-time study. Historically over 90% of international students hold a scholarship from UON or a sponsor.
Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified
Scholarship Type: Research Masters and PhD Scholarship
Selection Criteria: Scholarships are granted on the basis of academic merit, which includes your undergraduate grade point average and extra research attainments.
Eligibility
Eligibility criteria is set by the Commonwealth Government and candidates must:
  • have a current offer of admission into a research higher degree.
  • have completed at least four years of undergraduate study and have attained Honours Class 1 or equivalent and a high grade point average (GPA)
  • be no more than two full-time equivalent years into their PhD (or one year for Masters) at the end of the year.
Successful international scholarship candidates usually also have:
  • satisfied the English proficiency requirement (IELTS of at least 6.5)
  • A master degree with strong research component
  • International peer reviewed research publication or research experience
Scholarship conditions
  • Be enrolled full-time (part-time enrolment may be approved in exceptional circumstances. Part-time scholarships are taxable)
  • be enrolled on-campus (off-campus enrolment may be approved in exceptional circumstances)
  • scholars may only work a maximum of 8 hours per week (between Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm)
  • Scholarship offers must be taken-up in the year of the offer and cannot be deferred to the following year. A leave of absence may be taken after 1 year full-time enrolment.
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship: A scholarship funded by the University of Newcastle or the Commonwealth Government provides:
  • An annual living allowance $26, 288 per annum (2016 rate – indexed annually)
The scholarship may also include:
  • a relocation allowance (up to $2,020)
  • a thesis allowance (up to $500)
  • a full tuition fee scholarship (international students)
  • overseas student health cover (OSHC) (international students)
Duration of Scholarship: PhD scholarships are for three years and Masters scholarships are for two years, less any tenure already completed towards a research degree.
Eligible Countries: International students
To be taken at (country): The University of Newcastle, Australia
How to Apply
  • Currently enrolled candidates can apply for a scholarship by contacting researchscholarships[@]newcastle.edu.au
  • New applicants can apply for a scholarship at the same time as applying for admission.
Visit scholarship webpage for details
Your application for admission must include:
  • Copies of all academic transcripts
  • A research proposal
  • Evidence of extra academic attainments e.g. publications
  • If required, certified evidence of meeting the English proficiency requirement
What happens once you submit your application?
  • Applications are assessed and ranked according to merit
  • Attendance at an interview is not normally required
  • Scholarship outcomes are known from mid December each year
Sponsors: The University of Newcastle and Commonwealth Government
Important Notes: ensure you attach the following documents to support your scholarship application:
  • Copies of research publications, exhibitions or conference papers
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • Details of previous research experience e.g. research work experience / study
  • Any additional documents that may add to your scholarship application e.g. evidence of the award of a University Medal

Schlumberger Foundation Fellowship for Women from Developing countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 18th November, 2016 for the 2017 Fellowships (the deadline for reference letters is November 25th 2016).
Offered annually? Yes
Accepted Subject Areas: Physical sciences and related disciplines
About Fellowship: Each year, The Faculty for the Future fellowships, Launched by the Schlumberger Foundation, are awarded to women from developing and emerging economies who are preparing for PhD or post-doctoral study in the physical sciences and related disciplines at top universities for their disciplines abroad. Grant recipients are selected for their leadership capabilities as for their scientific talents, and are expected to return to their home countries to continue their academic careers and inspire other young women.
Launched by the Schlumberger Foundation in 2004, the Faculty for the Future community now stands at 257 women from 62 countries, and grows steadily each year.
Offered Since: 2004
Type: PhD and Post-doctoral Fellowship
Selection Criteria: A successful application will have gone through four selection rounds, with the reviewers paying particular attention to the following criteria:
  • Academic performance;
  • Quality of references;
  • Quality of host country university;
  • Level of commitment to return to home country;
  • Commitment to teaching;
  • Relevance of research to home country;
  • Commitment to inspiring young women into the sciences.
Eligibility: Applicants must meet all the following criteria:
  • Be a woman;
  • Be a citizen of a developing country;
  • Wish to pursue a PhD degree or Post-doctoral research in the physical sciences or related disciplines;
  • Have applied to, have been admitted to, or are currently enrolled in a university abroad;
  • Wish to return to their home country to continue their academic career upon completion of their studies;
  • Be very committed to teaching and demonstrate active participation in faculty life and outreach work to encourage young women into the sciences;
  • Hold an excellent academic record.
Number of fellowships: Several
Value of Award: Faculty for the Future grants are awarded based on the actual costs of studying and living in the chosen location, and is worth USD 50,000 for PhDs and USD 40,000 for Post-doctoral study. Grants may be renewed through to completion of studies subject to performance, self-evaluation and recommendations from supervisors.
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries and Emerging Economies
To be taken at: Top universities abroad
How to Apply
Sponsors: The Schlumberger Foundation Faculty for the Future
Important Notes: Final selection is based in part on the standard of your application and accompanying materials;
Your application should highlight aspects about you and your career that will give the reviewer a focused yet well-rounded view of your candidature. Read and follow the instructions from the link below carefully. The instructions are your guide to producing a comprehensive and competitive application;