British parliament passes “Snoopers’ Charter,” expanding spying powers

Trevor Johnson

The Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) has been passed by Britain’s Parliament and is due to become law early next year, requiring only Royal Assent from the queen.

On November 16, the House of Lords approved the final version of the Investigatory Powers Bill—widely known as the Snoopers’ Charter. The Bill was already passed in the House of Commons by 444 to 69 last June on a third reading, with no opposition from the Labour Party. The Lords proposed some minor amendments, most of which were rejected.

Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs opposed the bill, safe in the knowledge that this would make no difference to the outcome.

So thorough was Labour’s support for the bill, under its nominally “left” leader Jeremy Corbyn, that the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill felt obliged to note that it gives “the UK intelligence agencies and police the most sweeping surveillance powers in the western world has passed into law with barely a whimper, meeting only token resistance over the past 12 months”.

The IPB was the flagship policy of Prime Minister Theresa May, who put it forward when she was Home Secretary under the previous prime minister, David Cameron. With the expiry, due to a “sunset clause”, of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) in December of this year, the even-more-authoritarian IPB was advanced as its necessary replacement.

With the IPB, May brought together the current diverse rules governing state surveillance into a single piece of legislation. The new laws are an unprecedented attack on the rights and privacy of every UK citizen. It gives the security services the power to gather information on millions, and to process, profile and store the results. This will be achieved by compelling Internet Service Providers to keep Internet connection records for a period of 12 months for access by the police and state security services.

The state is now legally able to monitor every Web site a person has visited, every comment made and every search term used. Companies will be forced by the spying agencies to hack into their customers’ devices and override their security. The electronic devices of millions of people will be hacked in bulk, with the agreement of the home secretary as the only prerequisite.

The vast state spying operation that was carried out illegally for years—before being revealed by US whistleblower Edward Snowden—is now being legalised.

After the IPB was passed, Snowden tweeted, “The UK has just legalised the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy. It goes further than many autocracies”.

Describing the chilling implications of the IPB, Independent columnist Mike Harris wrote, “The bill will allow the Government to hand UK tech firms top-secret notices to hack their customers; the police will be able to look at your internet browsing history, and your personal data will be tied together so the state can find out if you’ve attended a protest, who your friends are, and where you live. The most authoritarian piece of spying legislation any democratic government has ever proposed has sped through Parliament with only a whimper of opposition”.

Newsweek headlined its article on the new laws, “IP Bill Is Most Extreme Surveillance Law Ever Passed in a Democracy”. The article, written by Jim Killock—the director of civil liberties organisation, the Open Rights Group—described the IPB as an “extraordinary document”, which “grants the state the ability to harvest information in bulk and to process and profile it without suspicion”. What was under way was the “sheer revocation of democracy”, warns Killock.

In the Guardian, Killock said, “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy”.

From the outset, Labour’s then-Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham solidarised with the Conservatives’ demand that new powers were needed, saying they “must give them [the police and security services] the tools to do their job”. Burnham made clear that Labour would put forward a few meaningless amendments, but not oppose the substance of the government’s proposals.

Labour acted not as an opposition but as advisors on how best to bring in the new law. The government made a few “concessions” and amended the IPB as a result of criticism from parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs and backbench critics within the Conservative Party itself. None of this made a jot of difference to the overall aim of the bill. The amendments included protections for MPs and journalists, and the addition of a privacy clause that advises the use of new mass surveillance powers should not be authorised in situations “where less intrusive means could be used”.

Most Labour MPs voted in favour of the law in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, the 64 Labour Lords who voted to support the government line included frontbench spokesmen Lady Hayter and Lord Rosser and the party’s chief whip, Lord Bassam. The former director of Liberty, now Lady Chakrabarti and a Labour peer, was conveniently absent at the time of the vote.

The vote in the Lords was taken only hours after a ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal that the GCHQ spy centre and MI5 illegally collected vast amounts of personal and confidential information between 1998 and 2015. The tribunal said that during this period, the security services had collected personal data without adequate safeguards or supervision. This included records of individual phone and Web use and other confidential information.

When the IPB returned to the House of Commons for consideration of amendments proposed in the House of Lords, Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, a senior “left” ally of Corbyn, spoke in favour of a Lords amendment calling for sections of the Leveson Inquiry proposals on curtailing press freedom to be tacked onto the IPB. Abbott did not make a single point of substance in opposition to the most repressive bill ever presented to Parliament, with dire consequences for the democratic rights of 60 million people.

Abbott’s pathetic amendment was opposed by Conservative MPs, determined to force the bill through without any further delay. The government moved a motion opposing the amendment that was carried by 298 votes to 261.

On November 15, the Lords amendments were debated and voted on a second time in the House of Commons. Labour again only focused on adding part of the Leveson proposals. SNP Justice spokeswoman Joanna Cherry also supported the amendments. MPs again voted to reject the Lords amendments by 295 votes to 245, with Labour and the SNP voting for them.

Labour’s ensuring the passage of the IPB must serve as a salutary warning to workers and young people as to its fundamental character as a tried and tested party of the bourgeois state. The election of Corbyn as leader more than a year ago has changed nothing. Despite his “left” pretensions, he has backed the demands of the ruling elite on every critical issue.

On Labour’s role, Killock wrote, “Labour did not table any serious amendments to this draconian legislation in the House of Lords. Labour is simply failing to hold the government to account”.

The reason Labour didn’t oppose the bill is because the party fully supports it. Labour agrees with the Conservatives that under conditions of mounting social and political crisis, the state must be strengthened in order to defend capitalist rule.

Fighting intensifies in Mosul and northern Iraq

James Cogan

The US-directed offensive to recapture the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and surrounding towns and villages from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has entered its fifth week.

The assault involves an increasingly antagonistic collection of armed forces, including some 30,000 Iraqi Army troops, 15,000 peshmerga soldiers of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), thousands of anti-ISIS Sunni Arab and Christian fighters, Turkish Army-backed Turkomen militias, and as many as 20,000 to 30,000 Shiite militia members loyal to the fundamentalist political parties that dominate the US-backed government in Baghdad.

The Shiite militias, known as the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), are seeking to capture the predominantly ethnic Turkomen city of Tal Afar, 60 kilometres to the west of Mosul, near the border with Syria, and cut off escape routes for ISIS forces to its Syrian capital of Raqqa. The PMF captured Tal Afar airport on November 16. In the past 24 hours, it has claimed that its fighters are on the verge of fully surrounding the city.

The Turkish government, which proclaims itself the defender of Turkomen Iraqis, has repeated its threats to invade Iraq and attack the largely Arab Shiite militias if they “cause terror” in Tal Afar. In operations against ISIS in the western Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, the PMF were accused of sectarian killings and abuses against Sunni civilians. To try to placate Turkey, Iraqi Army units have been dispatched to ostensibly lead any assault on Tal Afar.

In Mosul, Iraqi government special forces claim they are slowly “clearing” ISIS fighters from the eastern suburbs, in the face of fierce resistance, and are eight kilometres from the city centre. Northern Mosul is sealed off by Kurdish pershmerga. To the south, the Iraqi Army has advanced to within 20 kilometres. The vast bulk of the city, however, is still firmly under ISIS control.

The US military has admitted that hundreds of American personnel are on the ground and involved in the combat. British and Australian troops are also reported to be fighting alongside Iraqi units.

US Army spokesperson Colonel John Dorrian told journalists last week that US Green Berets and other special forces personnel were “in the thick of a very tough battle.” Dorrian stated: “There’s no question that US advisors are in harms’ way... It’s not our role to take terrain or close with the enemy, but as the Iraqis move, if they need us, we’ll go where they need us.”

ISIS, which seized Mosul in June 2014, is relying on a range of defensive measures to slow the assault and inflict casualties. It has constructed a network of tunnels under the city, rigged buildings and vehicles with explosives and laid mine fields. ISIS claimed in a propaganda bulletin that it had carried out 124 suicide bomb attacks on Army tanks, armoured vehicles and positions. The same bulletin claimed that ISIS fighters had killed some 2,700 Army and Kurdish troops.

US, British, French, Australian, Canadian and Iraqi aircraft are conducting continuous air strikes on alleged ISIS fighting positions, command and control sites and supply depots. With anywhere between one million and 1.5 million civilians trapped in Mosul, including up to 600,000 children, large-scale casualties are inevitable.

The US military and the Iraqi government continue to accuse ISIS of using civilians as “human shields” and murdering hundreds of its own fighters and numbers of civilians for opposing its orders.

The various factions of the anti-ISIS coalition have not released any casualty estimates, either for their own forces or for civilians. The only estimate has been given by ISIS, which made the unverified claim that at least 340 non-combatants have been killed by air strikes and another 1,190 wounded.

The latest UN estimate is that barely 60,000 civilians have escaped from the combat zones so far, mainly from communities on the outskirts of the city. Adrian Edwards, a UNHCR refugee relief agency representative, told a press briefing on November 18: “There has been a marked increase over the past week in the number of people fleeing after fighting intensified in the more densely-populated urban areas of Mosul.”

Commenting on the conditions inside the city, Edwards stated: “In some areas, civilian infrastructure like water, power, schools and hospitals is damaged and medical services are often unavailable. Many people are going hungry due to lost livelihoods, curtailed food production and increased prices. Supplies of water for drinking and agriculture have been disrupted.”

With temperatures plummeting as winter sets in, relief agencies are continuing to appeal for greater resources to cope with the expected flood of displaced persons if and when the offensive pushes deep into Mosul. According to the UNHCR briefing, if all available capacity was utilised, 700,000 people could be provided with short-term emergency shelter and assistance. A humanitarian disaster will result if far more than those numbers are forced to leave the city.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, in Berlin for talks with the German government, told journalists yesterday that Iraq “expected” a US administration headed by Donald Trump to continue the same level of support for the offensive once it takes office. Jaafari stated: “These strategies don’t change with the presidents. Agreements are signed and then they are binding for all involved.” Once Mosul was recaptured, he declared, Iraq would expect a Trump presidency to provide substantial financial assistance for “reconstruction.” Most of the city is likely to be reduced to rubble.

Among its first foreign policy issues, the Trump administration will also confront the rising tensions between the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government in Baghdad and the Kurdish autonomous region, over the fate of northern Iraq.

Last week, KRG president Massoud Barzani asserted that his Kurdish administration had “US support” not to give back a swathe of territory that its military forces have occupied during the fighting against ISIS. Among the most significant areas that the KRG controls, and claims should be brought under its permanent rule, are dozens of villages to the west and north of Mosul and the entire oil-rich province and city of Kirkuk. A Human Rights Watch report this month alleges that over the past two years, Kurdish peshmerga fighters have destroyed hundreds of homes and even entire villages in order to force the ethnic Arab population to leave.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi flatly rejected Barzani’s assertion of jurisdiction over territory outside the official borders of the KRG. Abadi declared that the agreement on military cooperation against ISIS stipulated “the withdrawal of the peshmerga from the liberated areas after the liberation of Mosul.”

Baqir Jabir Solaq, a leader of the Iranian-backed Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, one of the largest Shiite political parties, responded to Barzani yesterday. Underscoring the potential for open conflict and armed clashes, Solaq made social media threats that the Shiite militias would drive the Kurdish forces out of the territory they were occupying.

Popular vote margin against Trump hits 1.7 million

Patrick Martin

Donald Trump is losing the popular vote in the US presidential election by the widest margin ever recorded for a victor in the Electoral College. While Trump leads Democrat Hillary Clinton by 302 to 236 in electoral votes—awarded to the winner of each state based on a formula that favors smaller and more rural states—Clinton’s margin in the ballots cast by actual voters now exceeds 1.7 million.

The Associated Press first reported Clinton’s lead passing the 1.5 million mark on Saturday, as vote counting continued mainly in the states of California and Washington, which Clinton carried by wide margins. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report released an updated tabulation Sunday night, showing Clinton’s lead at more than 1.72 million votes, with millions of ballots still being counted.

Clinton leads in the percentage of the popular vote by a margin of 1.3 percent, 48 percent to 46.7 percent. The balance, 5.3 percent of the vote, went to the Libertarian, Green and other third-party candidates, who were supported by more than 7 million voters but did not win a single electoral vote. Out of 132.7 million people whose votes have been tabulated so far, a sizeable majority, some 70.7 million, did not vote for Trump.

It is quite likely, based on these trends, that Clinton’s lead over Trump in the popular vote will eventually pass the two million mark—a greater margin than in election victories for such 20th century presidents as John F. Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon in 1968 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Trump will become the 45th president of the United States.

There is no historical precedent for such a large gap between the Electoral College and the popular vote. Yet neither the Democratic Party nor the corporate-controlled media have made this an issue.

Quite the contrary. Leaders of the Democratic Party, including President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Clinton herself, and her chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders, as well as congressional Democratic leaders, have declared Trump to be the unchallengeable winner of the 2016 election.

Far from challenging Trump’s supposed “mandate,” they are seeking to curry favor with the right-wing billionaire and his fascistic aides, declaring their willingness to support him on issues where their policies overlap with his.

If the positions were reversed, there is no doubt what attitude the Republican Party would be adopting towards a President-elect Hillary Clinton who won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by a margin of two million.

The Republicans would be howling that Clinton was illegitimate, that “the people” had chosen Trump, that her policies had been rejected, and that even if she were permitted to enter the White House, she would have to make major concessions, appoint a virtual coalition cabinet, and embrace significant portions of the Republican program. And Clinton would agree.

The historical parallels are instructive. In only five of the 57 presidential elections since George Washington has a candidate won the White House despite losing the popular vote. In 1824, John Quincy Adams trailed Andrew Jackson by 40,000 votes in a four-way election in which no candidate came close to a majority in either the popular or electoral vote. (At the time, many states still awarded electoral votes without a popular election, by decision of the state legislature). The Quincy Adams administration was crippled from its inception, and Jackson won the White House in a landslide in 1828.

In 1876, Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by 250,000, but not the Electoral College, where the votes of several states were contested. Republican Rutherford Hayes was eventually installed as president in a backroom deal in which the Democrats extracted an immense price: withdrawal of federal troops from the South and an end to Reconstruction, opening the door to a wave of Ku Klux Klan violence and the eventual imposition of Jim Crow segregation throughout the region.

The 1888 election ended with Republican Benjamin Harrison winning the Electoral College but trailing incumbent Democrat Grover Cleveland by 89,000 in the popular vote. The North-South split mirrored the Civil War battles lines, with Cleveland winning the former Confederate states, the four former slave states that did not secede—Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware—and adding New Jersey and West Virginia. Harrison’s was a weak administration and he was routed by Cleveland in 1892 when the former president sought reelection.

More than a century passed before another president would be elected despite losing the popular vote. But in contrast to the outcomes in the 19th century, when the electoral vote winner was crippled by the lack of a popular mandate, there have been two such results in the 21st century, both of them culminating in Republican victors being treated as unquestionably legitimate by the Democrats and the media, despite their lack of support from the American people.

George W. Bush was installed as president in 2000 by the Supreme Court, despite losing the popular vote by 540,000—a deficit twice as large as any previous minority “winner.” Democrat Al Gore capitulated ignominiously, and congressional Democrats proceeded to enact Bush’s tax cuts for the rich and rubber-stamp his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now Donald Trump is to enter the White House despite a popular vote deficit that may be four times as large as the previous record, set by Bush only 16 years ago. Not one prominent Democrat questions his right to the presidency or suggests that, given the vast disparity in the popular vote, Trump should proceed more cautiously in his right-wing rampage.

The reason is to be found in the fact that the Democrats, in addition to their congenital spinelessness, agree with the basic elements of Trump’s policies.

With the election decided, the ruling class is shifting in the direction of economic nationalism, with substantial sections of the Democratic Party supporting the aggressive trade war measures proposed by Trump. At the same time, Trump’s agenda of war, the destruction of democratic rights, sweeping corporate tax cuts and an immense escalation of the assault on the working class has the backing of dominant sections of the ruling class and both of its political parties.

A New Era for US Foreign Policy?

Lars Brozus

After 1945, Washington’s approach to international politics was by and large based on ideas linked to the notion of “liberal internationalism.” A bipartisan consensus existed postulating that a liberal international order – defined by norms and institutions in support of open societies and markets – was in the US’s core interest. Included in that consensus was support for a generous immigration policy as well as liberalised trade and financial relations. International institutions and alliances were created to protect this order. Hence Washington’s support for the UN system, the international financial institutions (World Bank, IWF) and NATO, among many others.

There also was a shared understanding in US politics that Washington’s leadership was essential to preserve the liberal international order. Therefore, disproportionally high contributions from the US budget to maintain this order were reasonable: Washington’s benefit from a more-or-less stable and predictable international environment that was governed by rules manufactured “at home” outweighed any over-investment. Even more so as these investments enabled the US to project both hard and soft power globally.

In contrast to this bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, the incoming US President Donald Trump perceives international politics as a zero sum-game: one side wins what the other side loses. Washington’s commitments to defend Japan and South Korea or to deter Russia from invading Europe come at the expense of American citizens (aka taxpayers). The creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and China’s accession to the WTO contributed to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the homeland. In this view, establishing and maintaining the liberal international order has contributed to the decline of US industry and the American working class.

Accordingly, “America first” is the key phrase of Trump’s foreign policy agenda. He intends to push for better international deals: fair trade instead of free trade. The European and Asian allies should pay more for their security, and the US should no longer be disadvantaged by international pacts such as the 2015 Paris climate accord or international trade agreements such as the TPP and TTIP.

However, it would be wrong to portray Trump as an isolationist. Quite to the contrary: he has announced that his administration will rebuild America’s military force, and promised to take extreme measures against the “Islamic State,” even – and this is revealing of his anti-multilateralist position – including actions that violate international law. Trump’s agenda should not be equated with a renouncement of global leadership. What changes is rather the interpretation of this role: less so in terms of a benign hegemon in favour of a rule-bound multilateralism, and more in terms of a self-interested highly selective bilateral approach to international politics.

It is not clear yet what the effects on Europe and the EU will be. On the one hand, many governments fear that a self-interested and more inward-looking US might provoke Russia into testing the strength of the NATO and European solidarity. Trump’s triumph has been welcomed by right-wing populists all over Europe such as Marine Le Pen who is a contender in the French presidential elections scheduled for 2017. Nigel Farage, the former head of UK’s Independence Party, has close contacts to Trump. It is a worrying perspective that right-wing populists could become the US’ favourite partners in Europe. On the other hand, and in view of the changing nature of the transatlantic alliance, the EU needs to be clear about its interests. Berlin and Brussels will, most likely, face growing pressure to do more for Europe’s defence. This opens an opportunity for increased cooperation.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Trump will actually be able to implement his foreign policy agenda. His critics on both sides of the Atlantic point to restrictions that are inherent in the system of checks and balances that characterises the US’ political system. In the US, constitutionally, authority over foreign policy is divided between the president and Congress. The Congress has three major options to influence foreign policy: via budget legislation; the confirmation of high-ranking government officials; and its approval of internationally binding treaties. Additionally, the US Congress may also articulate foreign policy positions of its own. Take Russia for example: in the Kremlin’s view, Trump’s election presents a window of opportunity for the normalisation of diplomatic relations. A new Yalta (where in 1945 the victorious Allied powers met to divide the world amongst them) with bilaterally recognised and respected “zones of influence” would be the result. However, Trump’s administration might be limited by the anti-Russian positions within the Republican Party, which holds the majority in Congress.

However, make no mistake, because whether and to what extent President Trump could be reined in by the US Congress depends on the thematic issues in question. The latter tends to play a more significant role in areas including trade, migration and development cooperation, than in issues of national security. The concentration of foreign policy authority in the executive branch of government, namely the White House, should also be taken into account.

Countering China: India's uncertain response

Harry Roberts

China’s rise, and especially, its growing strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean region has provoked policymakers India  to come up with appropriate policy approaches to counter its northern neighbour. However, India’s policy towards China so far can be best described as a somewhat confused and uncertain one.  India in recent years has shown signs of cultivating closer ties with the US, moving away from its tradition of seeking strategic autonomy, it continues to remain cautious in potentially alienating China due to the importance of its bilateral economic relations with China. Some analysts have made much of India’s strengthened ties with the US, dominating the security architecture in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific regions. The US designated India as a “major defence partner” in June 2016 in the hope that India will play a key role in complementing its own strategic shift towards the region.   A senior Obama administration official has said that this partnership will mean that India will be the only country outside Washington's formal treaty allies that will gain access to almost 99 per cent of the latest American defence technologies. 

 

Furthermore, there are trends that point towards growing US-India military cooperation. The signing of the Logistics and Supply Memorandum of Agreement with the USA in August 2016 is one such indicator. India now also carries out more joint exercises with the US than with any other nation, including the annual Malabar maritime exercise that in 2007 was broadened to include Japan, Australia and Singapore. 

 

However, such developments can equally be viewed as a sign of India’s relative weakness vis-à-vis China rather than a pronounced long-term shift towards the US. While there are ambitious plans to enlarge the Indian Navy, including the building of three Aircraft Carriers fielding a combined 120-130 aircrafts, these will not be ready until at least 2030. Until then, an alliance with the US can amplify India’s strategic impact in the region. 

 

Interestingly, much of the hubbub over this bilateral defence cooperation has been coming from the US itself as part of its long-term effort at wooing India to align with the US ‘Pivot to Asia’. The US Department of Defense’s strategic guidance released in 2012, which set out its expected shift towards the Asia-Pacific, highlighted the importance of a strategic partnership with India to “support its ability to serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region.” 

 

With the US “Pivot” aimed at curtailing a rising China, India faces a conundrum as it has been forced to pick sides. By hitching its wagon to the US, India is aware of the possibility of provoking an adverse Chinese reaction. 

 

India’s hesitant policy towards China is evident from its approach towards the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). While some commentators have attempted to depict India as hostile to the project, there is little actual evidence to support this. India’s development of the Chahbahar Port in Iran, located just 72 kilometres from the Gwadar Port in Pakistan, is perhaps the only direct response and challenge to the Chinese project. However, while India may not be comfortable with the project, outright hostility would be anti-intuitive due to the tacit understanding that if CPEC turns out to be a true ‘game changer’ for Pakistan’s troubled economy it would bolster the civilian government in Islamabad thereby opening up possibilities of greater engagement with India. Improved economic regional integration would, in turn, benefit India’s national security as well.

 

It would then be wrong to view these developments as a ‘zero-sum’ game. Despite, at times, a jingoistic tabloid press in India, there are many influential people who advocate for deeper engagement with China. India’s former Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, suggested that an envisaged gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan should be extended to India and then onto China, thereby creating further interdependencies and avoiding competition. India’s former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and UAE, Talmiz Ahmed, has also said that “there is no need to fear the OBOR – both the OBOR and China need India as a partner”.

 

Indeed, Narendra Modi’s government has shown a commitment to deeper engagement with China. During Modi's visit to China in May 2015 trade agreements worth $22 billion were signed. Such deals indicate the confidence with which both party’s view the future of this relationship. 

 

India response to China’s rise has so far been muddled and somewhat contradictory. While partnering with the US more closely is seen by some as a clear evidence of India picking sides, this seems more of a case of US courtship than the other way round. India, to a certain extent is free-riding on the US security architecture until it has augmented its own military strength. Currently, it is not in India’s interests to compete with China. Despite Indian economic growth and a Chinese slowdown, India is still far behind in terms of its ability to challenge China. Economic interdependence -trade between the two is valued at $70 billion - perhaps further explains India’s muted reactions regarding regional and international disputes involving China. Given Modi’s history of close interactions with the Chinese during his tenure as Gujarat’s Chief Minister, further engagement, barring any unexpected negative developments, can be expected.

Austrian Government ITH Fully-funded Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 

• Deadline for  Scholarship Application – 1st May, 2017
• Deadline for other Applications –  15th June, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Scholarships are offered to i) ADC Priority countries (See list below) and ii) Other Developing countries

To be taken at (country): The Institute of Tourism and Hotel Management in Salzburg Klessheim, Austria

About the Award:  The Austrian Development Cooperation through the Institute of Tourism and Hotel Management offers about 30 scholarships to applicants from priority countries as well as other developing countries. The Tourism School in Salzburg has an outstanding international reputation and a long tradition. They train future entrepreneurs and employees according to the needs of the international tourism and leisure industry.

Type: Postgraduate

Eligibility: To apply for this programme at ITH, candidate must meet the following criteria:

• Be between 18 – 35 years of age
• Have a secondary school leaving certificate (high school diploma)
• Have a minimum of one year‘s experience within the tourism and hospitality industry
• Non-native English speakers must have an English qualification e.g. TOEFL, Cambridge 1st Certificate, IELTS or equivalent

Successful candidates should be ambitious and open-minded with good organisational and time management skills

Number of Awardees: up to 30

Value of Scholarships: Scholarship for Priority countries include:

• tuition fee
• accommodation
• flight tickets (from home country to Salzburg and back)
• health insurance
• food from Monday – Sunday
• excursions (except field trip to ITB Berlin)
• € 205.- pocket money per month

Not included in this scholarship are:

• transfer from the Airport to the hostel and back to the Airport when leaving
• visa fee: the visa fees have to be paid by the applicants. The entry visa is approximately $ 110, – and the 8 months residence permit, which will be issued in Salzburg, costs approximately € 120.

Scholarship for Developing countries include:

• tuition fee
• health insurance
• food from Monday – Friday
• excursions (except field trip to ITB Berlin)
• € 205.- pocket money per month

Not included in the Scholarship are:

• accommodation: accommodation costs have to be covered by students who are awarded this scholarship. It is € 247, – per month. (€ 1976, – in total). The total accommodation fee of € 1.976, – has to be remitted in advance before admission letter can be issued.
• flight ticket: Students who are on this scholarship have to cover their own travel expenses from their countries to Salzburg and back.
• visa fee: the visa fees have to be paid by the applicants. The entry visa is approximately $ 110, – and the 8 months residence permit, which will be issued in Salzburg, costs approximately € 120.

Eligible Countries: 

ADC Priority countries include: Ethiopia, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Bhutan, Palestinian Territories, Georgia, Armenia

Other Developing countries include: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dem. Rep., Eritrea, Gambia, The, Guinea, Guinea-Bisau, Haiti, Kenya, Korea, Dem Rep., Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Rep., Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Arab Rep., El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kiribati, Kosovo, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Mauritania, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen, Rep., Zambia, Albania, Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Hungry, Iran, Islamic Rep., Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, FYR, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia, Palau, Panama, Peru, Romania, Serbia,  Seychelles, South Africa, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Thailand, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu and Venezuela

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Austrian Development Cooperation, Institute of Tourism and Hotel Management

Abel Visiting Scholar Program 2017 for Mathematics PhD Scholars in Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 

• 8th January 2017 for research visits between April 1 and August 31, 2017. Results will be announced by February 15th on this website.
• 30th April 2017 for research visits between September 1 and December 31, 2017
• 31st August 2017 for research visits between January 1 and April 30, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

About the Award: The program is designed for post doctoral mathematicians in the early stages of their professional careers.   It is designed to offer the opportunity for a ‘research sabbatical,’ a necessary complement to teaching and other academic duties for mathematicians desiring to also sustain a viable research program.

Type: PhD/Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants must

     1.   hold at the time of application a PhD in Mathematics,

     2.   be based in a developing country at the time of application

     3.   hold a position in a university/ research institution

     4.   be in the early stages of their professional careers, more precisely: the applicants  should

            4. 1) not yet be of full professorial rank but have a working contract in a university/ college

            4. 2) be under 40 years of age at the day of the application deadline.

Therefore for the application deadline of April 30, 2017, applicants should be born ON or AFTER April 30, 1977.

The maximum age may be increased by up to three years in the case of an individual with a broken career pattern (applicants who wish to apply for the April 30, 2017 deadline should be born on or after August, 31, 1974). This should be noted in the application together with the reason for the broken career pattern.

 Applications from women mathematicians are strongly encouraged.

Selection Criteria: The selection criteria is based on the the quality of the project and the benefit/added value for the home institution/country.

Selection: A selection committee decides which applications are successful.

The Selection Committee consists of

a) a member chosen by the Abel board

b) a member chosen by CDC

c) a third member chosen by the IMU EC

The time of members of the committee is three years for the members b) and c) with a maximum of two periods. The Abel Board decides for a).

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The grant can cover for one month and only for the applicant:

1. travel cost to the host institution (economy flight or equivalent) 
2. food expenses (daily expenses should not exceed USD 30 per day)
3. accommodation expenses (monthly rent should not exceed USD 1200- in case you expect higher accommodation cost, please explain in your application the expected higher cost)
4. travel health insurance
5. visa cost
6. local public transport up to USD 100 (for one month)

The total maximum amount is USD 5,000 per grantee.

Family expenses and any other cost cannot be covered.  

Duration of Scholarship: 1 month. In case the length of the visit exceeds one month, the candidate should provide evidence of financial support from the host institution to cover the living expenses beyond the first month.

How to Apply: Each application must include:

1. A curriculum vitae including a list of recent publications
2. A research plan for the visit
3. An official invitation from the institution of the international research partner
4. One letter of recommendation If the letter of recommendation is not written by the international research partner (the host), the application should include a statement from the host approving the research plan.
5. A copy of the PhD certificate
6. A statement about the current employment status/ position in the home institution signed and stamped by your employer. The statement should include the duration of your employment
7. A budget estimation (see Financial Support)
8. In case you are planning to stay for more than one month you must attached a proof of the matching funds for your living costs from the host institution

The application form can be found here.

Please always send your application form cc to “cdc.grants@mathunion.org”.

Your application can only be considered if you sent by the date of the application deadline all required documents.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Abel Visiting Scholar Program is administered by the Commission for Developing Countries of the International Mathematical Union.

UCD Michael Smurfit Business School MBA Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st March 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries

To be taken at (country): Dublin, Ireland

About the Award: These merit based scholarships are open to all applicants scoring 700 or above on the GMAT. All scholarship applicants must already have been admitted to (have applied for, been interviewed and offered a place on) the full-time MBA Programme before they can be considered for any of the above scholarships. Open to exceptional Irish residents and international candidates who possess a GMAT of 700 or above. Applications are welcome and these scholarships will be allocated on a first come, first served basis.

Type: MBA

Selection Process: Decisions will be made by the Schools Scholarship Committee.  All decisions are final.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Up to 100% tuition waiver

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of course

How to Apply: 

• There is no separate application process for these Scholarships.  All successful applicants for the EMBA programme are automatically considered.  These scholarships are merit based.
• Applications are reviewed on a rolling basis. Scholarships may be awarded prior to the close date to exceptional candidates. Scholarship candidates are encouraged to apply early.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School, University College, Dublin

Important Notes: Successful candidates can be awarded one Scholarship only. No candidate will be awarded more than one Scholarship or Bursary. Candidates qualifying for more than one scholarship and successful can’t transfer or use one scholarship between or against another programme.

Undergraduate/Masters Excellence Scholarships at Swansea University UK for African Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 6th July 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the university

Type: Undergraduate and Masters Scholarships

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: You can apply for the International Excellence Scholarships for Undergraduates if you:

• are a national of (or permanently domiciled in) South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe
• are classed as an overseas student for fee purpose
• are enrolling on a course at Swansea University for the first time in September 2017. (Students applying for second year entry and foundation level students are not eligible to apply)
• have already submitted your application and hold an offer to study at Swansea University in September 2017

You can apply for the International Excellence Scholarships for Postgraduate if you:

• are a national of (or permanently domiciled in) South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
• are classed as an overseas student for fee purpose
• are enrolling on a postgraduate course at Swansea University for the first time in September 2017.
• have already submitted your application and hold an offer to study at Swansea University in September 2017

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The International Development Office is offering a number of International Excellence and Merit scholarships worth up to £6000.

Duration of Scholarship: Subject to performance

How to Apply: 

• Please attach a transcript detailing your courses and grades.
• Please read Regulations and conditions below.
• The Deadline for scholarship application is 6th July 2017.
  Please return the Application form to: ido@swansea.ac.uk
  Or mail: The International Development Office, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP

Visit Undergraduate Scholarship webpage for details

Visit Graduate Scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: International Development Office at Swansea University

Egypt: African Graduate Fellowships at American University Cairo for Masters Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th February, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries except Egypt

To be taken at (country): Egypt

Type: Masters Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Non-Egyptian African nationals
• Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree with a minimum overall rating of very good, an overall grade point average of 3.2 on a 4.0 scale, or the equivalent
• Satisfy AUC graduate admissions requirements, including submission of AUC graduate application, additional documents and any required test scores (GMAT for MBA applicants, GRE for economics, economics in international development, and journalism and mass communication applicants)
• Submit an International TOEFL iBT exam score or an IELTS exam score meeting the cut-off scores for AUC graduate admissions.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 

• Tuition fees coverage
• Monthly stipend
• Student services and activities fee
• Medical service and health insurance fees
• A monthly housing allowance for non-residents of Cairo or accommodation in University Residences at AUC New Cairo
• In support of their professional training, fellows are assigned 12 hours per week of related academic or administrative work

Duration of Scholarship: Fellowships are awarded for two academic years and the intervening summer session.

How to Apply: 

• Step 1: Check how to apply and submit the online application
• Step 2: Submit the online fellowship application form

• Applications and all supporting documents should be submitted by February 15.
• Selection is made in April, fellowships begin the following September.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: AUC Cairo

Income and racial segregation grows in Virginia public schools

Alex Gonzalez

Segregation in Virginia public schools has increased by 60 percent since 2003, according to a report by the Commonwealth Institute published this month. This follows a similar pattern across the nation as politicians slash social services to make working people bear the cost of the economic crisis.

Nearly 70 years after the historic Brown v. Board of Education ruling, in which formal segregation in schools was struck down, the capitalist system is incapable of providing an adequate education to students from all ethnic, racial, and social backgrounds.

Analyzing data from the Virginia Department of Education, the report found 136 schools in Virginia, covering around 75,000 students, are considered isolated by race and income. Schools are classified as “isolated” if 75 percent or more of their students receive free or reduced lunch and 75 percent or more are black or Hispanic.

From the school years 2003 to 2014 (the most recent data available), there were 38,500 more students attending such schools in the state of Virginia—about 1 in 5 black students and 1 in 10 of Hispanic students in the state. Compared to other schools, so-called isolated schools offer disproportionately fewer math and science courses and have higher rates of suspensions and expulsions of students, according to the Government Accountability Office.

If the opportunities afforded to its youngest generation are a measurement of a healthy society, this report is an indictment of the vast gulf in opportunities between rich and working class youth. While the largest number of segregated schools was found in the Richmond area, where nearly every child qualifies for free and reduced lunch, segregated schools were also found in some of the nation’s wealthiest districts. The northern Virginia region—which has four of the top 10 richest counties in the nation—had the third largest concentration of segregated schools.

Some of the increase in the number of schools isolated by poverty and race can be attributed to a growing enrollment of black and Hispanic students. However, the authors note a significant proportion is due to a shortage of resources for students who face significant challenges at home, including poverty and food insecurity. In Virginia, one in four people lives in a food desert, without access to affordable, healthy food, and about one in seven children lives in a household below the poverty line.

Lower resources in schools are intimately tied to education budgets being slashed under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Contrary to claims by the Obama administration, there has been no “recovery” in the quality of education experienced by the most vulnerable students in the state.

In the aftermath of the recession, Virginia faced a budget shortfall of more than $300 million. Lawmakers responded by tailoring the formula used to allot education funding in a way that disproportionately affected poorer school districts. As a result of this adjustment, a separate study by the Commonwealth Institute found, the poorest schools lost three times more in funding than wealthier schools.

Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe announced earlier this year that the state faced a budget deficit of $1.5 billon, declaring there were “tough decisions” ahead, including using $125 million that would have been allocated to give raises to teachers and state workers to pay for the budget shortfall. According to the Virginia Department of Education, over 5,000 teaching positions have been slashed at the state level since 2008, while the student population has grown by nearly 50,000.

Just one B-1 Spirit bomber, priced at $2.4 billion and manufactured in Virginia by defense contractor Northrop Grumman, would be more than enough to pay for the entire state’s funding deficit.

Rising school segregation in Virginia follows a national trend. During the same time period, the percentage of all K-12 public schools that were considered isolated climbed from 9 to 16 percent, according to a GAO report.

Due to a growth in the student population, the number of students attending isolated schools more than doubled, from 4.1 to 8.4 million students. Overall, one in every six schools in the US is considered isolated.

The response of the Obama administration to the crisis in public schools has been the implementation of programs such as “Race to the Top,” which incentivized states to adopt standardized tests and merit-based pay or face being replaced by for-profit charter schools.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of charter schools grew nationally by over 30 percent between 2009 and 2014. According to the San Jose Mercury News, K12, the largest for-profit charter operator in the nation, with headquarters in Virginia, has received more than $310 million in state funding over the past decade, despite a bleak record of academic achievement.