15 Dec 2016

Canada’s top spy “watchdog” says Edward Snowden should be shot

Roger Jordan

Michael Doucet—the director of the government “watchdog” agency tasked with ensuring the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) doesn’t violate Canadians’ rights—has publicly declared that US National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden should be shot.
Far from being an individual outburst, Doucet’s remarks exemplify broad sentiments within establishment circles. More than three years after Snowden lifted the veil on the NSA’s illegal activities, including the major role that Canada plays in the NSA-led “Five Eyes” global spy network, the Canadian ruling elite remains outraged at his exposures.
The head of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), Doucet responded to a question at a recent talk he gave at Toronto’s Ryerson University on what Snowden’s fate would have been had he been Canadian by saying, “Do you want my opinion on that? Do you really want it? I’ll give it to you. If Edward Snowden had worked for CSIS and did what he did, he should be shot.”
Doucet’s outburst underscores the fraudulent character of the SIRC and like government “oversight” bodies charged with ensuring CSIS, Canada’s premier intelligence agency, and other parts of the national-security apparatus don’t violate Canadians’ civil liberties. Such “watchdogs” are in fact lapdogs—state bodies committed to defending, and covering up for, the police and intelligence agencies and upholding the capitalist social order.
The Liberal government response to Doucet’s inflammatory comments is no less revealing. Asked about them, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale noted blandly, “That remark strikes me as highly inappropriate.”
Beyond this, there has been no official government response, let alone any suggestion that Doucet should be removed or otherwise sanctioned. Nor have the opposition parties seen fit to raise the issue. As for the corporate media, only the Globe and Mail reported Doucet’s remarks and Goodale’s tepid criticism of them.
The indifference among ruling circles to Doucet’s effective call for Snowden’s execution reflects the ruling elite’s general contempt for basic democratic rights. In the name of the “war on terror,” successive Liberal and Conservative governments have erected the framework of a police state over the past 15 years, including sanctioning the intelligence agencies to systematically spy on Canadians. They would rather see figures like Snowden, whose courageous actions brought some of the state’s illegal practices to public attention, silenced, or even eliminated, than lift a finger in defence of democratic rights.
No country’s national security apparatus is more closely integrated with that of the US than Canada’s. As a key Washington ally for over three quarters of a century, Ottawa is deeply implicated in US imperialism’s aggressive pursuit of its geostrategic interests around the world. Canada has participated in virtually every US-led war over the past two decades, is playing a major role in the US military-strategic offensives against Russia and China, and through the “Five Eyes” surveillance network both assists the Pentagon in its wars and helps monitor the political beliefs and activities of the world’s population.
In 2013, Snowden revealed that the Canadian Security Establishment (CSE), Ottawa’s signals intelligence agency, functions as a veritable arm of the NSA. This includes: assisting the NSA in developing surveillance programs; carrying out operations, especially in countries where US citizens have limited access; and training personnel. It also conducts economic spying to benefit Canadian corporate interests, as shown by Snowden’s revelation that CSE eavesdropped on mining companies active in Brazil.
Other documents revealed by Snowden provided evidence that the CSE systematically collects the metadata of Canadians’ electronic communications, a blatant violation of their constitutional rights, not to mention the mandate of CSE, which is authorized to spy only on foreign targets.
CSIS has been no less aggressive in its law-breaking activities. The domestic spy agency has been combing Canadians’ metadata since 2004 and has lied to the courts about its actions. Federal court judges have repeatedly chastised CSIS and CSE for deliberately withholding information from them.
Doucet, who is ostensibly the top watchdog tasked with holding CSIS to account, was himself deeply implicated in the CSE-NSA partnership and as such, no doubt, in the development of the mass surveillance of North Americans’ electronic communications and internet use. He told his student audience that in the mid-2000s, when he worked for CSE, he served as the embedded liaison officer at NSA headquarters.
From the outset, Canada’s ruling elite made no secret of its hostility to Snowden. Like all other Western governments, Canada refused to grant Snowden asylum, despite the fact that he faces almost certain execution or incarceration for life should he return to the United States. He currently resides in Moscow, where he was stranded in 2013 after the US made clear that it was determined to seize him. This included forcing down the Bolivian president’s plane, because they believed it might be carrying Snowden to asylum in South America.
Canada’s then foreign minister, John Baird, declared his full support for the US efforts to bring Snowden to “justice,” publicly demanding Snowden surrender to US authorities. For his part, Jean-Pierre Plouffe, the government-appointed commissioner tasked with overseeing CSE’s activities, denounced Snowden’s exposures of the illegal activities of the NSA and CSE, saying they had led “to a lot of misinformation.”
In his Ryerson appearance, Doucet continued in this vein, asserting that Snowden’s actions had damaged “national security.” Immediately following his declaration that Snowden deserves to be shot, Docuet claimed that if Snowden had concerns about the scope and legality of the NSA’s spying he should have raised them with his superiors.
“(I)f he worked for CSIS, there are all the mechanisms there, as there were in the States, to raise the issues that he felt needed to be raised,” claimed Doucet. “If he really cared about the US, the US system, he would have exhausted every avenue … he would not have released so much information that would have placed Americans, allies and others in risk of harm.”
This is a pack of lies. In the first place, the spying operations of the NSA, CSE and the “Five Eyes” alliance are not directed at safeguarding the population, but at upholding the predatory interests of US and Canadian imperialism and their British, Australian and New Zealand allies. Not Snowden, but the national security apparatus, which functions as a state within the state to spy on and suppress political opposition, constitutes the real threat to the population, as demonstrated by their systematic violation of basic democratic rights.
Second, bodies like SIRC and their counterparts in other countries have proven worse than useless at preventing the erection of a police state apparatus and the embrace of illegal surveillance methods by the agencies that they are supposed to oversee.
While Doucet boasts that in Canada “there are all the mechanisms” for would-be whistle-blowers to come forward, his call for Snowden’s death (subsequently qualified to include his criminal prosecution) constitutes—to say the least—a chilling warning as to how the SIRC and Canadian elite would receive any internal complaints of illegal activities by the national security apparatus.
Since Snowden’s revelations were made public, the Canadian ruling class has further strengthened the repressive powers of its state. In 2015 the Conservatives and Liberals collaborated to ram through parliament legislation (Bill C-51) that guts privacy protections, creates a new “speech crime” of “promoting terrorism,” and empowers CSIS to break virtually any law when “disrupting” vaguely-defined threats to national security.
Although they ensured Bill C-51’s speedy passage, the Liberals, recognizing it was highly unpopular, promised during last fall’s election campaign that they would amend it. Predictably, this promise has proven to be a fraud. To date, the only amendment they have introduced is to create a parliamentary oversight committee, a move, which as the populations of Britain and the United States can testify, will do nothing to hinder the intelligence agencies’ illegal mass surveillance.
The silence of the smaller opposition parties, the New Democrats, Bloc Quebecois, and Greens, on Doucet’s call for Snowden’s execution should come as no surprise. All of the established parties accept the “war on terror” narrative as good coin and refuse to challenge the intelligence agencies’ practices.
The muted reaction to Doucet’s comments underscore that as the deepening capitalist crisis heightens already explosive social tensions, the ruling elite is preparing to use the most ruthless measures to suppress opposition to its program of austerity and imperialist war. Earlier this month, Liberal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr revealed the government is ready to use the military to suppress “non-peaceful” anti-pipeline protests.

Federal Reserve hikes key rate, signals faster monetary tightening

Barry Grey

The US Federal Reserve on Wednesday announced a widely anticipated quarter-percentage-point hike in its benchmark short-term interest rate, the first increase since last December and only the second since 2006. While the financial markets had expected the rise in the federal funds rate from 0.25–0.50 percent to 0.50–0.75 percent, they were surprised by the Fed’s projection of three further quarter-percentage-point increases in 2017.
The previous Fed outlook, released after the September meeting of the central bank’s policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), had predicted only two increases in 2017. The projection issued Wednesday similarly increased the number of rate hikes to three a year in 2018 and 2019.
As a result, the median projection made by Fed governors and Fed bank presidents for the federal funds rate—the overnight lending rate between banks—rose from 1.1 percent to 1.4 percent for 2017 and from 2.6 percent to 2.9 percent for 2019.
The response of the financial markets to this indication of a faster-than-expected tightening of the Fed’s monetary policy was a significant sell-off on the stock market and a sharp rise in bond yields and the dollar. US stocks have risen explosively since the election of Donald Trump on November 8, repeatedly setting new record highs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was surging earlier in the week toward the giddy plateau of 20,000.
On Wednesday, however, the Dow fell 118 points to close at 19,792, a decline of 0.60 percent. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500 index dropped 18 points, or 0.81 percent, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq shed 27 points, a fall of 0.50 percent.
The Dow has shot up since Election Day on the basis of President-elect Trump’s pledges to slash tax rates for corporations and the wealthy, lift regulations on banks and corporations, sharply increase military spending, and provide tax incentives for companies to invest in infrastructure. His appointment of a cabinet of ultra-right billionaires, CEOs, generals and opponents of social spending and government regulations has further fueled a mood of euphoria within the financial and corporate elite.
Even with the losses registered Wednesday, the Dow has gained 1,459 points in the five weeks since the November 8 vote. This amounts to an increase of 7.96 percent, or 83 percent on an annual basis.
However, the rise in inflation and debt implicit in Trump’s policy has driven up government bond yields, which move inversely to price, and sent the dollar to new highs against the euro, the British pound, the Japanese yen and other world currencies. Bond prices have fallen by more than two percent since Election Day.
On Wednesday, the yield on 2-year Treasury notes, the government bonds most sensitive to Fed moves, shot up to a seven-year high of 1.27 percent. The 10-year Treasury yield, which was 1.867 percent on November 8, rose to 2.54 percent Wednesday afternoon. The dollar index also surged, jumping 1.2 percent to 102.24.
In its statement on Wednesday, the Fed’s FOMC repeated its previous language promising to raise rates only gradually and maintain them “for some time below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run.”
Until the Fed’s quarter-point rate increase last December, the US central bank had kept its benchmark rate at near-zero since the height of the Wall Street crash in December of 2008. It had supplemented this flood of virtually free credit to the banks and financial markets with trillions of dollars in bank bailouts and “quantitative easing” bond purchases.
The Fed was then joined by all of the major central banks—the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the People’s Bank of China—in providing unlimited cash to prop up the financial system and prevent the world economy from descending into a full-scale depression. They are continuing to hold rates at record lows and pump funds into the markets via bond purchases, even as the Fed moves in the opposite direction.
The policy of virtually limitless monetary stimulus has failed to restore economic growth to anything close to the pace of previous recoveries from recessions, and instead fueled increasing trade conflicts and social tensions. The banks, particularly in Europe, remain financially unstable, with hundreds of billions of worthless assets on their books. The International Monetary Fund has warned of record debt levels that threaten to trigger a new and even more disastrous financial crisis.
World trade is growing more slowly, and productive investment and productivity are down in most major industrialized countries, including the US.
Recent developments—the British Brexit vote, the election of Trump, the referendum defeat and resignation of Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi—reflect a growth of economic nationalism and the breakup of the post-World War II economic order.
Despite the Fed’s pledge on Wednesday to keep interest rates well below previous norms, there were indications that, in the face of Trump’s inflationary policies, it could move quickly in the opposite direction. The FOMC statement pointedly referred to “solid” job gains and rising wages, declaring that “Market-based measures of inflation compensation have moved up considerably…”
In a press conference following the FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Janet Yellen showed little enthusiasm for Trump’s talk of a $1 trillion infrastructure program. Asked about her views on fiscal stimulus, she said that “the degree of slack [in the labor market] has diminished,” and “fiscal policy is not obviously needed to provide stimulus to get us back to full employment.” She also warned of a rise in the ratio of US debt to gross domestic product.
A number of financial analysts pointed to the signs of concern at the Fed over the prospect of a sharp rise in inflation. Luke Bartholomew, investment manager at Abderdeen Asset Management, told the Financial Times: “If there is a large fiscal stimulus then this will almost certainly create inflation pressure that the Fed will have to fight by raising rates.”
Steven Ricchiuto, chief US economist at Mizuho, told the Wall Street Journal, “The tone of the statement was also a bit hawkish, with the emphasis on the tightening labor market and inflation being highlighted.”
The Journal quoted Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, speaking of the increased pace of monetary tightening. “We’re slightly surprised to see it,” he said, “but it is a welcome development, in our view. We remain very worried that the Fed and markets do not fully appreciate the extent of upside inflation risk for next year via the labor market, where wage growth is on the verge of a rapid acceleration.”
In other words, interest rates must be raised to undercut a possible push by workers for higher wages.

President Trump's Prospects for the Middle East

Derek Verbakel



Predicting the implications of Donald Trump’s presidency for the Middle East requires informed guesswork in drawing links from campaign rhetoric to a more coherent approach or ensuing foreign policy. Trump, who apparently favours ‘isolationism’, seems averse to the United States’ longstanding bipartisan pursuit of overambitious policies in the region. His discourse reflects a shallow and myopic worldview privileging winner/loser binaries over interdependency, and he identifies little to gain from a Middle East wracked by complex and chaotic conflicts. His administration appears poised to shift the methods of US military interventions in the region and recalibrate relations with several regional actors. Such an approach could further churn an already unstable Middle East. 

Trump's foreign policy direction will be heavily influenced by the advisors and officials surrounding him. The current roster portends an inflow of deeply ideological thinking ill-suited to apprehending the complexities of regional politics. National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn sees an existential threat posed by so-called ‘Islamic terrorism’, which he conflates with ‘Islam’ and ‘Islamism’. Walid Phares, a key Trump advisor and former ideologue of a sectarian Christian militia during Lebanon’s civil war, also propounds a variant of long-discredited ‘Clash of Civilizations’ theory. The incoming Secretary of State can be expected to hold similar views. 

Such an outlook will guide US policy in Iraq and Syria, where Trump appears committed to reducing the presence of American ground personnel while sustaining military pressure to combat designated terrorist groups. Trump suggests he will coordinate – if not collaborate – with Russia, Syrian President Assad's main backer beside Iran, which would be interpreted by the pro-Assad coalition as a green light to intensify their brutal campaign to recapture territory from rebels. But untold consequences could emerge from resulting growth of Russian influence in the Middle East.

Also likely will be a withdrawal of US support to more ‘moderate’ opposition forces in Syria, who will continue to dwindle while targeted alongside extremist al-Qaeda-affiliates and IS by Assad-aligned forces. This would advance the narratives and leading position of extremists within the opposition, who will never disappear while Assad remains in power. Absent a widely accepted political ‘solution’, this would prolong the conflict and increase displacement of Syrians inside and outside the country. Trump advisors have also called for more US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria with less emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths, and this too would fuel radicalism in these countries and worldwide. 

Trump may also seek closer relations with regional leaders more sympathetic to his stance on Syria and whose authoritarian leanings elicit his admiration. Alongside Assad and others, Egypt’s Sisi and Turkey’s Erdoğan could reinforce a decades-old US policy of prioritising ‘stability’ under repressive leaders over the pursuit of democratic transformations and human rights in the region.

Also necessary will be to account for the wishes of regional allies, particularly among the Gulf Arab states, to see Assad unseated and Iran’s growing regional power thereby diminished. Indeed, Trump’s supposed Syria policy would spare Iran a huge geopolitical blow, as the Assad regime’s survival anchors Iran’s spheres of influence extending through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut. 

Trump has stated the 2015 Iran nuclear deal will be renegotiated. Yet there would be no appetite for this from Iran or the remaining P5+1, who derive economic and security benefits from the agreement. Unilaterally dismantling the agreement would be infeasible, and given Iran's significant role in Iraq and Syria, he will be restrained by the need to maintain a working relationship with Tehran to fight IS. 

Trump could attempt to subvert the deal in various ways. However, widespread perception in Iran of Washington’s treacherousness could vindicate and benefit rivals of President Rouhani. Seeking re-election in May 2017 and to further ‘normalise’ Iran’s international relations, Rouhani touts the deal as a huge triumph. But with an electoral victory, hardliners could pursue an agenda to resume Iran’s nuclear program without international monitoring. A new phase of conflict drawing in the US, Israel, and the Gulf sheikhdoms could result from steps in this direction. 

Also of interest to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is that unlike previous US presidents from both parties, Trump claims Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank is not an obstacle to reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. While Trump is unlikely to pronounce dead the 'two-state solution' which all interested parties purportedly desire, there will be no significant pressure on Israel to halt construction of settlements deemed illegal under international law. 

Trump has claimed he will resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But due not only to alienation from much of the Republican foreign policy establishment, he lacks capable and inclined diplomats and a plan for them to carry out. A substantial diplomatic initiative from Washington is at best a distant prospect, and absent any progress towards curbing systemic violence against Palestinians or their accession to statehood, chances of another Palestinian uprising and more attacks inside Israel will increase. 

Of little concern to Trump will be the consequences of his policies for the welfare of the Middle East’s peoples. They, like regional leaders, hold mixed opinions on the promise his presidency brings. But widely anticipated is that as the Trump administration and its foreign policy trajectories take shape, so too will ramifications for stability in the Middle East.

Xi as "Core Leader", Re-emergence of Strongman Politics?

Tapan Bharadwaj



The sixth plenary session of the 18th Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee was held in Beijing on 24-27 October  2016. Plenary sessions are important in understanding the opaque political functioning of the Chinese government. The Central Committee decided to officially recognize President Xi Jingping as the “core leader”. With this Xi joins the league of leaders such as Deng Xiaoping, who had coined the word ‘core leader’. Deng called Mao Zedong and himself core leaders of their generations, and Jiang Zemin of the third generation of the CPC leadership. However, Hu Jintao, Jiang's successor, was never given this recognition.

Deng Xiaoping’s retirement from politics had brought an end to the era of strongman politics, centred around one man. For the past two decades, collective leadership of political bureau members of the Central Committee is the governing principal of the CPC. The convention of general secretary of CPC as first among equals in the political bureau emerged with Jiang Zemin’s succession to power. Will Xi’s recognition as core leader change or challenge this convention? This question needs to be assessed within the broader context of Xi’s presidency over the past three years and four documents issued by CPC. 

This article will highlight the important aspects of four documents issued after the plenary session, which includes the party communiqué. It will look at the importance of Xi becoming 'Core leader' and address the question whether collective leadership will remain the guiding principle for governance within the party?

Disciplining the party

The Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee announced the agenda on 27 September itself, a month before the actual gathering.
 
The plenary session passed two related documents on the subject of discipline in the party. The first document titled “Some Norms Regarding Intra-party Political Life under New Circumstances” asks party members to act according to the CPC’s basic line by safeguarding the authority of the Central Committee and maintaining close ties with the people. The second document “Regulations Regarding Intra-party Supervision” asks to uphold the CPC’s leadership, strengthen party building, promote the comprehensive and strict governance of the party, and maintain the party’s status and purity. Both documents stress upon strict governance and centrality of the Central Committee in the CPC’s decision making. The objectives are to prevent old problems like corruption from recurring and new ones like income and regional inequality from spreading. The strict party governance will increase the CPC's capability to solve its internal problems and defuse the challenges of party governance at various levels.

The third document issued was Xi’s interpretation of the first two documents. Xi said that the documents were introduced to supplement the layout of the CPC’s four comprehensives, a strategy to promote reform and opening up, refine the socialist modernization drive, as well as to adhere to and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics. The four comprehensives stand for all-round moderately prosperous society, deepening of reform, advancement of the rule of law and strict governing of the CPC. According to Xi, the sixth session addresses the fourth comprehensive while the remaining three have already been addressed by the third, fourth and fifth plenary sessions.

Revisiting the idea of collective leadership in the present context

The major transition in leadership and governance has been witnessed in the past two decades with the emergence of the collective leadership principle. The 2007 Party congress communiqué defines collective leadership as “a system with a division of responsibilities among individual leaders in an effort to prevent arbitrary decision making by a single top leader.” The aim was to ensure that no individual dominated the party leadership.
 
Today, Xi is the most powerful leader in the party. His tough national anti-corruption campaign has achieved significant success. The CPC’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the nodal agency on anti-corruption, has stated that 1.01 million officials have been investigated for corruption since Xi took charges. 

It has created an opposition of unknown nature within the party, where party loyalists are difficult to identify. Five out of seven Politburo members of the standing committee are retiring next year. A strong leader is needed to restore the collective leadership system in the party. Hence, CPC’s decision to recognize Xi as the core leader is a calculated move to avoid the emergence of any crisis in the party. This will help in continuing the policies without delay and disturbances. Xi’s national anti-corruption campaign, which has delivered its promise to target tigers and flies equally has had significant outcomes. 34 ministerial-level officials have reportedly been sentenced under this campaign, which will strengthen further in the future.

It is wrong to expect that Xi will become a figure like Mao only by being elevated to the title of "core leader". He has been central to the party since he took charge. Both the Communiqué and Xi highlighted the importance of collective leadership system as the core. Xi by the virtue of his personality has managed to become, what his predecessor failed to achieve, the core in the Politburo. This will maintain the system of the political bureau’s leadership under a strong leader without undermining the collective leadership principle.

14 Dec 2016

Fox International Fellowships for Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral Students 2017/2018 – Yale University

Application Deadline: Application deadlines are in January/February each year: specific dates will be announced by each Fox partner university.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Institutions: Yale University, United States  | University of São Paulo, Brazil  |  Fudan University, China | University of Cambridge, England  |  Institut d’Études de Politiques de Paris, France  |  Freie University of Berlin, Germany  |  University of Ghana, Ghana |  Jawaharlal Nehru University, India  | Tel Aviv University, Israel  |  The University of Tokyo, Japan  |  El Colegio de México, México  |  Moscow State University, Russia  | University of Cape Town, South Africa  |  Boğaziçi University, Turkey | University of British Columbia, Canada  | The Australian National University &  The University of Melbourne, Australia  |   The University of Copenhagen & The Copenhagen Business School, Denmark | National University of Singapore
To be taken at (country): Yale University, USA
Fields of Study: Fox International Fellowships seek applicants whose work has the potential to offer practical solutions to the problems which stand in the way of the world`s peace and prosperity. The fellowship focuses on such critical fields as: international relations and global affairs, law, environmental policy, public health, social sciences, economics, political science, business and finance, management, and contemporary history.
About the Award: The Fox International Fellowship is a graduate student exchange program between Yale and 19 world-renowned partner universities. Fox International Fellows are selected for their potential to become leaders in fields that are policy significant, historically informed, and socially meaningful. Such work is increasingly conditioned by the interdisciplinary and transnational character of knowledge and practice in the twenty-first century. Fellows’ research projects and academic interests reflect the areas toward which many of the world’s major decision-makers have gravitated, as well as those that have the potential to open new channels of debate.
The Fox Fellowship, through scholarship and civic engagement, aims to enhance “mutual understanding” between the United States and the home countries of our partner universities in order to provoke and contribute to productive dialogue around complex challenges and to offer current and enduring solutions. Initiated at the end of the Cold War, the focus on peace and conflict in general and U.S./Soviet interaction has expanded to include a host of twenty-first century challenges in every world region such as prosperity and development, poverty alleviation, environmental degradation, resource stewardship, and human rights.
Type: Fellowship, Doctoral, Masters.
The Fox Fellowship is NOT open to postdoctoral applicants. International student proposing projects in their home country are NOT eligible.
Eligibility: Graduate level students pursuing Doctoral or Masters level degrees and graduating master’s level students are eligible. Graduating bachelors’ level students of unusual merit and distinction may be considered but advanced, graduate level students are preferred. The Fox Fellowship is NOT open to postdoctoral applicants and international student proposing projects in their home country are NOT eligible.
Personal characteristics: The candidate must demonstrate commitment to serious research and also capacity for leadership and civic engagement in the larger community. The candidate clearly understands and has demonstrated commitment to being a “citizen ambassador.”
Strength of academic achievement: The candidate must demonstrate both excellence in relevant coursework as well as strong evidence of research ability in the field of endeavor they are proposing as their Fox Fellowship project.
Field of focus: A strong and specific research project with a focus in international relations and global affairs, environmental policy, public health, business and finance, social sciences, economics, political science, law, and contemporary history, with preference for topics of contemporary, applied and/or institutional relevance to enhancing the world’s peace and prosperity. The candidate’s overall program of studies or degree may come from different disciplines and departments as long as their project focuses on one or more of these fields.
Language skills: The candidate’s language skills must be sufficient both to succeed in their research project and to engage in the intellectual and social community of the host university and their colleagues in the Fox International Fellowship at Yale. Candidates for Fox Fellowships at Yale University have to provide recent TOEFL or IELTS scores demonstrating proficiency in English conversation, reading and writing. This requirement is waived only for applicants from partner institutions where English is the primary language of instruction.
Selection Criteria: The Yale Fox Fellowship selection committee makes the final decision based on the following criteria:
●    Quality of research proposal
●    Strength of academic achievement
●    Character and demonstrated leadership potential
●    Demonstrated personal commitment to being a “citizen ambassador”
Number of Awardees: Annually at least one student from each Fox exchange partner takes up residency at Yale, and at least one Yale student goes to each partner.
Value of Fellowship: All Fellows at Yale receive the same award, which is commensurate to the level of funding received by doctoral students in the graduate school.  Awards include round-trip travel, accommodations in rental housing provided by the Fox Fellowship and a generous living stipend to cover expenses not already provided for by existing funds that you may have at your disposal. The Fellowship will also cover health insurance. All fellows are also able to apply for grants from a research travel fund up to U.S.D $2000.
Duration of Fellowship: 10 months
How to Apply: All applicants are encouraged to read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section before applying. For students at Fox Fellowship exchange partner institutions, click here.
Award Provider: Yale University

Online Course: Learn to Create 3D Graphics for Web Developers

Enrolment: 2 January 2017 / Self paced
Timeline: 5 weeks @ 6 hours per week
Skill Level: Intermediate
Course of Study: 3D Graphics | Course Platform: FutureLearn
Created by: Pompeu Fabra University Barcelona
Cost: Free
About the Course
With the advent of WebGL, it is now possible to develop high-quality, interactive 3D graphics applications, which run natively in web browsers. However, to do this, you need to be proficient in both web development and 3D programming.
This free online course will provide web developers, who have existing knowledge of JavaScript, with the theoretical and practical knowledge to start programming 3D graphics applications for the web.
Learn to use WebGLStudio and Three.JS to create WebGL applications
The course is split into five weeks. In the first two weeks, Javi Agenjo will teach you the basics of 3D graphics from a non-programmer’s point of view, explaining concepts such as transformations and materials using a state-of-the-art web tool, WebGLStudio. There will be no programming in these two weeks.
Weeks 3, 4 and 5, however, are 100% programming-based. After showing you how to set up your computer for local development of WebGL applications, Alun Evans will lead you through the process of creating a series of simple scenes using the most common and popular library for creating WebGL applications, Three.JS.
In the final week, you will be able to load in meshes and textures from external sources, place lights and objects within a scene, and move the camera interactively.
Eligibility requirement
This course is designed for existing web developers who have little or no previous experience in creating 3D graphics applications. You should be capable of manipulating the DOM using JavaScript or JQuery, and familiar with the concepts of AJAX. You should also have at least intermediate-level programming skills and be comfortable manipulating arrays and objects.
Certificate offered? Yes
How to Enrol

University of Manchester Law Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 10th March 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International, home/EU countries
To be taken at (country): UK
Field of Study: The scholarships are open to all new students both overseas and home/EU students in all research areas within the School.

Type: PhD/MPhil
Eligibility: Competition is intense, but we welcome applications from well-qualified graduates.
  • You must hold an offer for one of our PhD/MPhil programmes
  • You should have accepted your offer by 10 March 2017
  • You must hold a First Class Honours/ High 2.1 or equivalent in your undergraduate degree/ and a distinction/ high merit or equivalent in your postgraduate degree
  • You must be a self-funding student, e.g. you are not sponsored
Successful candidates who have a suitable postgraduate qualification will register onto the PhD Law/Criminology programme and the Scholarship will continue for three years, on condition that they continue to reach the milestones required for progression to the following year.
Successful candidates who do not possess a suitable postgraduate qualification but wish to undertake postgraduate research in law/criminology/bioethics will register in the first instance for the MPhil and are expected to upgrade to PhD for two further years.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship:  These awards cover tuition fees at EU/Home student rate and provide a maintenance stipend equivalent to that of the RCUK studentships £14,296 for 2017/18.
How to Apply: The application form is available for download via the link below:
E-mail your completed funding application form to:
In order to ensure that you hold an offer for a place on the programme by the funding deadline, you must submit your PhD application by 10 February 2017. If you are not in receipt of an offer you will not be included in the competition.
Award Provider: University of Manchester

Innovation in the Food Industry & How it’s Affecting Our Society – Take Online Course by University of Leeds

Enrolment: Self paced
Timeline: 2 weeks @ 2 hours per week
Skill Level: Beginner
Course of Study: Food Innovation| Course Platform: FutureLearn
Created by: University of Leeds
Cost: Free
About the Course
This course considers the ways in which the food industry has evolved over the past 70 years and has created the industry of convenience we have today. Introduced though a case study from Marks and Spencer, you will see how new innovations have changed the way we shop. You will also consider the issue of food waste; in a world where thousands suffer from malnutrition and starvation you’ll consider the attitudes in your own society to this global problem.
Eligibility requirement
No previous knowledge or experience of business or innovation is required, just an interest in innovations and the food industry.
Certificate offered? Yes
How to Enrol

Civil Society Academy in Morocco Free Workshop for Activists and Journalists in the MENA Region 2017

Application Deadline: 1st January, 2017
Eligible Countries: MENA Region
To be taken at (country): Morocco or Tunisia
About the Award: Academic program for capacity building and leadership skills to thirty young men and women between 20 and 30 years of age, and give them the opportunity to learn about the experience of civil society in Morocco or Tunisia and exchange of experiences with the leaders and civil society activists through the internship program has been designed.
Academy of Civil Society will host the Academy 30 activist of the civil society, 15 per academy, from the Arab world for a week of theoretical training followed by two weeks of practical training in organizations with expertise in different areas of the work of civil society in Morocco or Tunisia. Participants will take part in a week of training workshops and workshop , followed by an internship two weeks duration in civil society organizations in Morocco or Tunisia.
Type: Training
Eligibility: While participants are accepted in the first phase of the selection of participants will be asked to submit a project idea that want to implement it in their own communities after participating in the academy.
Number of Awardees: 30
Value of Scholarship: The following will be provided to participants during the academic:
travel round-trip ticket.
accommodation, meals and transfers through the academy
Duration of Scholarship: 3 weeks
How to Apply: Apply via the Scholarship Webpage link below
Award Provider: Civil society Academy

University of Helsinki Fully-funded Masters Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st July, 2017
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Finland
Field of Study: Citizens of non-EU/EEA countries, who do not have a permanent residence status in the EU/EEA area, are liable for these fees.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: All candidates must meet the following requirements:
  • You are eligible for the Master’s programme at the University of Helsinki
  • The country of your nationality is outside the EU/EEA and you meet the requirements for obtaining an entry visa and residence permit for Finland. More information at the Studyinfo.
  • You have obtained excellent results in your previous studies and can prove this in your application.
Selection Criteria: The Master’s Programme will make the academic assessment of your degree application simultaneously with your scholarship application. At this stage the scholarship criteria is the same as the programme specific selection criteria.
After the Master’s Programme proposal the Scholarship Committee will make the final decisions. In addition to the academic criteria the committee will also consider the variety and diversity of the applicants and grant the scholarships to those coming from different backgrounds and fields of studies. The aim is to create a rich and diverse learning environment at the University of Helsinki.
If you are awarded a scholarship, you will receive an official acceptance letter with the information of scholarship status.
Value and Number of Scholarships: 
Tuition fee + The Living Costs Grant (13,000 / 15,000 / 18,000 + 10,000 EUR)
Number of scholarships available: ca 2
Tuition fee (13,000 / 15,000 / 18,000 EUR)
Number of scholarships available: ca 8
Half of the tuition fee (6,500 / 7,500 / 9,000 EUR)
Number of scholarships available: ca 10
The Living Costs Grant (10,000 EUR)
Number of scholarships available: ca 10
All the scholarships include:
The Student Union ((HYY) membership fee (paid by the University of Helsinki) will provide you substantial benefits of a lively student organization as well as free health care and reductions in public transportation, student lunch in the Student Restaurants and sport facilities at the UniSport.
Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship will be granted for two years. All the scholarship students are required to study full time (earn at least 55 ECTS / year) to fulfill the requirements of the scholarship. After the first study year, your studies will be evaluated and, depending on your progress, the scholarship will be continued.
How to Apply: The scholarship application will be filled out in the same application system and simultaneously with your online application to the University of Helsinki English language Master’s programmes. The possible scholarship-related documents should be delivered with the other enclosed documents of your degree application.
Award Provider:  University of Helsinki

The US Mustn’t Turn Its Back on China

Tom Clifford

Beijing.
Ah, finally, we get it now. The Trump doctrine. Separate China from Russia circa 1972, except this time build bridges with Moscow, call Beijing’s bluff on Taiwan, sit back and wait for China to implode. That beautiful American word, cockamamie, barely does justice to such visionary, strategic thinking. A few small points to consider…The relationship between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin is a great deal closer than that between Leonid Brezhnev and Mao Zedong.
There may come a time when Moscow wakes up to Chinese expansion in its own backyard of central Asia with the Belt and Road Initiative but that is some way in the distance. Right now, both countries are enjoying a convenient infatuation with each other.
Taiwan?  It is difficult to call a bluff when there is no bluff. There is nothing to suggest that China sees Taiwan as anything other than an integral part of its territory.  No art of the deal approach will change that fundamental viewpoint.
The China implode theory? Ah, yes, we have heard this before. The theory goes that with rampant corruption and ever increasing debt, the Chinese economy will slow down to such an extent that outbreaks of social unrest will occur which will spread like wildfire and hey presto, a new China.
First of all, China does have a debt problem, not to overseas creditors but to itself. It is trying to tackle it, has some way to go to get it under control, but it is not, at least not yet, a major issue heralding imminent collapse. From China’s point of view it is the UK and the EU that seem far more likely to collapse than the People’s Republic.
For the first time in 300 years, a generation of Chinese have passed on increasing wealth to another generation who in turn hope to do the same. For all the problems China faces, there is a tangible sense here that life will get better.  It may not be as fast as they want, nor as widespread, but change is in the air. Thirty years ago, they wanted bicycles, now they want cars (preferably German ones). I know Chinese people who as children never thought they would ever ride in a vehicle, not even a bus. Yes, the Chinese would like more democracy but they crave greater justice, healthcare and education and an end to corruption. The Communist Party has no divine right to rule, as atheists they could not believe in a divine right anyway, and they realize it. When Xi came to office he instructed the leading party members to read Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old regime and the Revolution, a book that examines French society before the events of 1789.
Nothing is sacred under heaven, the Chinese more than any other people realize that.
There are rust belts in China too. Hundreds of thousands of workers in steel mills and smoke-stack industries have been made redundant this year in Hebei province, next to Beijing, where the rusting hulks of factories dot the landscape. There is still a huge imbalance between the prosperous coastal areas and the inland ones.  More than 7 million graduates will emerge next year from Chinese colleges. Even with a growing economy, finding these graduates jobs is not easy. The country is building the equivalent of a university every week as it tries to create an educated workforce to boost the transformation of the economy from low-skilled production-based to high-skilled services.
Foreign firms still face huge obstacles in China which is not as welcoming to foreign investment as it once was and debt-heavy state-owned companies are still shielded from rivals. Still, foreign direct investment in 2016 up to October grew 4.2 percent ($96.8 billion) compared to 2015. Negotiations over an investment treaty between the US and China, which began in 2008, have yet to be finalized after more than 24 sittings but an agreement does seem possible.
There may be much that has to be improved in the China-US relationship, but it is one worth nurturing.
It may be that we are on the verge of a different era, one more fraught and tense. But there is one beautiful American word to describe the US turning its back on China at this juncture.

Colombia: Peace in the Shadow of Genocide

Daniel Kovalik

After the first Colombian peace agreement was narrowly voted down in a nation-wide referendum in October, the Colombian Congress approved a revised peace agreement between the Colombian government and FARC rebels.  While the extreme right-wing in Colombia has tried to stir up fear about the peace process, arguing that it gives too much amnesty to the left-wing FARC combatants, and while Human Rights Watch has amplified these concerns, it is indeed the left which is being threatened and attacked in Colombia.  Specifically, the left is being attacked by the right-wing paramilitaries who see the peace between the government and the FARC as both a threat to their alleged raison d-etrê of allegedly fighting the guerillas,as well as an opportunity – to wit, the opportunity to wipe out the left as the FARC disarms.
Anyone who knows about Colombia is painfully aware of the historical precedent for such attacks upon the left during the cessation of hostilities between the government and the FARC.  As The Miami Herald explains:
For many in Colombian politics, the recent spate of killings seem depressingly familiar. In the 1980s and 1990s, anywhere from 1,000 to 3,500 members of the Unión Patriótica party were assassinated.
That political group drew followers from across the left, but its primary purpose was to give the FARC, which had signed a ceasefire at the time, a vehicle to participate in politics. In the succeeding years, however, UP members were indiscriminately murdered, including presidential candidate Jaime Pardo in 1987. The ceasefire collapsed, the FARC resumed fighting, and most of those murders were eventually pinned on right-wing paramilitary groups.
Others put the death toll of the assault against the UP (Patriotic Union in English) at well above that estimated by The Miami Herald.  Thus, as Telesur recently reported,
[Aida] Avella is the president of the Patriotic Union, a party that saw no less than 5,000 of its supporters, including sitting politicians and presidential candidates, killed by the state and its paramilitary allies in what was deemed a political genocide.
“I don’t think another genocide is starting, rather it is a continuation of the genocide against opposition sectors. That’s because the paramilitary structures have not been dismantled, they are completely intact,” Avella told Contagio Radio.
Avella makes a good point about the persistence of the paramilitary assault on Colombia’s “opposition sectors.”  Just this year alone, 72 social activists have been murdered in Colombia.    And, in the four years of its existence, the peace movement known as the Marcha Patriotica has lost 125 members to assassination by the paramilitaries.
Such violence has only accelerated in recent months as the peace process has approached final agreement.   Thus, in November alone, at least 12 leaders from the peace, indigenous and labor movements have been murdered. And, a day doesn’t go by that I don’t hear of more death threats and attempts against leaders of organizations I work closely with in Colombia.  Meanwhile, as the Washington Office on Latin America has reported, “the neo-paramilitary group Autodefensas Gaitanistas de Colombia (AGC) circulated a flyer warning of a major ‘cleansing’ in December of the very leaders who will be key to achieving peace in Colombia.”
Colombia does not receive near enough attention in the press as it deserves, especially given its dire human rights situation and its being the recipient of nearly $10 billion in military assistance from the U.S. since 2000.
In terms of human rights, Colombia is now the Western Hemisphere’s leader in disappeared persons with well over 92,000 persons disappeared – this according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) back in 2014.    This is over three times the figure for Argentina – the country which usually comes to mind for most people when thinking about the phenomenon of disappearances in Latin America.  And yet, when did you last hear of the disappearances in Colombia?  It is the almost complete news blackout on Colombia which allows the unprecedented political violence there to continue.  Indeed, as the head of the ICRC himself decried, “[t]he problem of missing people in Colombia is as widespread as it is silent.”
Those of us who want peace for Colombia cannot remain silent as the number of victims continue to mount even as our tax dollars continue to support a military which is still entangled with the paramilitary death squads committing the lion’s share of that country’s violence.