Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu faces possible indictment for corruption

Jean Shaoul 

Israel’s Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit has given the go ahead for police to carry out two separate investigations into allegations of corruption against Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. The investigations follow months of delay, during which some 50 witnesses have been questioned.

At least one of the cases has the potential to lead to a formal indictment.

This is only the latest in a series of scandals surrounding Israel’s political establishment that reflect the putrefaction of Israeli democracy. Netanyahu’s immediate predecessor, Ehud Olmert, received a jail term for bribery offences when he was mayor of Jerusalem prior to becoming prime minister. Netanyahu and his family have for years faced numerous allegations of corruption and even preliminary investigations.

This is the first time, however, that allegations have led to a full-scale criminal investigation of Netanyahu’s financial relationships. Police questioned him at his official residence for three hours on Monday in relation to the first case. Apparently the smaller of the two, this case involves substantial gifts and benefits from several wealthy businesspeople. These include Ronald Lauder, whose family founded the US cosmetics giant Estee Lauder and who has himself been questioned by the police.

Netanyahu has already admitted to receiving $40,000 in 2001 from Arnaud Mimran, a French businessman currently serving an eight-year jail sentence for fraud. Netanyahu was out of office at the time. Mimran testified that he gave one million euros to Netanyahu during his 2009 election campaign. If true, this would violate Israeli law that bans the foreign funding of elections.

The second case is apparently more serious, although no details have been released to the press. Police will question Netanyahu about it on Friday. It follows Mendelblit’s announcement last July that he had ordered a preliminary investigation into a potentially corrupt relationship, with specific accusation emerging three months ago. He said that the allegations were new and did not relate to any previous rumours or investigations.

The daily Ha’aretz says that the case is being described as a “‘bombshell,’ an ‘earthquake’ and other such explosive adjectives” and relates to a well-known Israeli business figure who would benefit commercially from Netanyahu’s support. Unlike other allegations, this case seems to have accelerated quite rapidly.

Being the subject of a criminal investigation does not require Netanyahu to resign. However, an indictment, which could take months if it happens at all, would put him under enormous pressure to step down. That in turn could trigger early elections, which are not due until late 2019, if the ruling coalition cannot agree on a successor.

Mandelblit, a former cabinet secretary and military advocate general, is a close associate of Netanyahu who has sought to protect the prime minister and his wife Sara from other allegations, dismissing some and postponing the current probe for as long as possible. To the extent that he has approved the two current investigations, it may indicate that the evidence is too strong to simply ignore.

Netanyahu has responded in a predictably belligerent manner, listing on his Facebook page each accusation with “Nothing” and “I repeat and say there will not be anything because there is nothing.”

He told members of his Likud Party, “We hear the celebratory spirit and winds blowing through the television studios and in the corridors of the opposition.” He added, “Hold off the celebrations; don’t rush. I’ve told you before and will tell you again--this will come to nothing, because there is nothing.”

Corruption scandals are often the mechanism through which vicious political battles within ruling elites are fought out. In this case, the lack of information makes it difficult to ascertain what precisely is at issue. Nevertheless, it takes place in the immediate aftermath of the UN Security Council’s toothless resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, President Barack Obama’s support for the resolution and Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech affirming support for the “two state solution.”

Netanyahu, as soon as he heard that the Obama administration was proposing to abstain rather than veto the resolution, contacted President–elect Donald Trump to lobby for a veto. Emboldened by the prospect of an openly pro-settlement supporter in the White House, and fearful of being outflanked by his right-wing coalition partners, Netanyahu launched a vitriolic attack on the Obama administration, provoking uproar in Israel among those who fear that the unanimous vote of the Security Council has left Israel dangerously isolated.

Former Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who quit the coalition government last May over policy disagreements over Iran and the West Bank, speaks for this layer. He opposed the resolution but criticized Netanyahu, saying that Israel had to maintain a dialogue with its friends around the world despite disagreements, not punish or boycott them. He added, “More responsible leadership could have prevented the resolution.”

Ya’alon and others are concerned that Trump’s repudiation of the two state solution and support for Israel’s ultra-nationalist politicians and settler movement will pave the way for the outright annexation of much of the West Bank, ethnic cleansing and the destabilisation of the entire region. It would also further weaken the Arab states that play the Palestinian card for their own domestic purposes and with whom Israel is working covertly in Syria and against Iran.

This conflict over the two state solution was one of the factors underlying the prosecution of Olmert. He became become increasingly isolated after his attempts to impose a deal on the Palestinians on Israel’s terms, and to reach some accommodation with Syria in a bid to secure an end to Syria’s close relationship with Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. His attempts to overcome this impasse via murderous wars against Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and then against Gaza in 2008-09 were political disasters that sealed his fate.

Netanyahu has called on the media to apologise for its campaign against him. His office claimed that his opponents were mounting a witch-hunt, issuing a statement lambasting the media for “premature and politically motivated reports.”

It said, “Try replacing the Prime Minister at the ballot box—as is customary in a democracy.”

Netanyahu’s supporters are seeking to introduce a bill that would make it impossible to investigate a sitting prime minister for fraud, bribery and breach of trust, although it is difficult to see how this could be applied retrospectively even if passed.

Israel’s bourgeois “left” and “centrist” parties have responded decidedly timorously. Isaac Herzog, the leader of the Zionist Union, formerly the Labour Party, said merely that it was “a tough day for Israel when a prime minister is under investigation” and “We are not expressing satisfaction at another’s misfortune.”

Yair Lapid, the leader of Yesh Atid, which is ahead of the Likud Party in opinion polls, said, “The presumption of innocence applies to every Israeli, including the prime minister.” He called for a speedy investigation, saying, “A person who is being investigated is a person under pressure.”

Impeachment trial of South Korean president begins

Ben McGrath

The first public hearing in the impeachment trial of South Korean President Park Geun-hye took place Tuesday, but with the defendant a no-show, the proceedings lasted only nine minutes. Oral arguments are set to begin at another hearing Thursday, but Park is again likely to not attend. The Constitutional Court, which oversees impeachment proceedings, has narrowed down the charges against the president from 13 to five.

Park has been accused of allowing her friend and confidante Choi Soon-sil to take part in deciding policy matters despite holding no formal position in government, using Choi and presidential aides to pressure large companies like Samsung to offer bribes, infringing on the media’s free speech, abusing power, and neglecting her duties in relation to the sinking of the Sewol ferry in April 2014, which killed 304 people, mostly high school students.

The Constitutional Court is composed of nine judges led by Park Han-cheol, who stated on Tuesday, “We will do our best to conduct a strict and fair review of the impeachment case.” On Thursday, the Court is expected to hear testimony from key witnesses such as former presidential secretaries An Bong-geun and Lee Jae-man, although there is speculation that they may not attend the hearing. Next Tuesday, Choi and others are scheduled to testify.

While the court has 180 days to make a decision, it has signaled that it will accelerate proceedings citing the gravity of the situation. In fact, Han’s term as chief justice is scheduled to end on January 31 with some speculation that a ruling could be handed down before then. At least six of nine justices must approve Park’s removal. If Park is forced from office, a new presidential election must be held within 60 days.

Park currently retains the presidency in name only with power having been transferred to Prime Minister Hwang Gyo-an. She continues to maintain her innocence, going so far as to claim she was framed. Referring to the independent counsel investigating the president, she stated during a press conference on January 1, “[The counsel] completely set me up. I wasn’t thinking of giving favors to anybody at all.” It was her first public appearance since the National Assembly approved the impeachment motion on December 9.

The protracted political crisis in Seoul reflects widespread popular alienation from the entire political establishment that has been fuelled by the Park administration’s austerity measures. Millions of people have protested in the streets to demand Park’s removal. Large crowds have gathered in central Seoul for the past 10 Saturdays and small groups of anti-Park protesters gathered outside the Constitutional Court this Tuesday.

At the same time, Park’s impeachment reflects deep divisions in ruling circles over the dilemma posed by South Korea’s longstanding military ties to the US and its economic dependence on China, its largest trading partner. Park’s efforts to establish closer ties with Beijing were undermined by pressure from Washington to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in the country, nominally directed against North Korea.

All the major parties are now jockeying for position in the event that Park is removed from office and new presidential elections are called.

The Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK or Democrats), the leading opposition party, is seizing the opportunity to repair relations with China. There is fear in Seoul that the incoming Trump administration’s plans in the United States to pursue trade protectionism will harm the already fragile South Korean economy.

The state-run Korea Institute for International Economic Policy released a report Thursday raising the possibility that South Korea alongside China could be labeled currency manipulators. “If China is labeled as a manipulator, intensifying Washington-Beijing tensions, widespread protectionism will drag down global trade and spark dispute over foreign exchange and trade across the world,” it said. “Such global turmoil would spread to the South Korean economy.”

Seven MPK lawmakers visited China on Wednesday, meeting with Beijing’s foreign minister Wang Yi who called on South Korea to stop the planned deployment of the THAAD battery. China fears that the anti-ballistic missile system is aimed at undermining its own nuclear weapons capacity and is part of US preparations for war against China.

The THAAD battery is currently scheduled to be deployed this year at Seongju, North Gyeongsang Province. Lotte, one of South Korea’s family-owned conglomerates, provided a golf course for the system’s use. Beijing has in fact retaliated against South Korean businesses in China, including revoking subsidies for products made by Samsung and LG. Lotte’s businesses have faced in-depth tax audits and safety inspections.

The MPK has called on the current government to “toss the ball to its successor,” on THAAD but acting-president Hwang is pushing for a quick deployment of the system, citing the supposed threat from North Korea. If Park is removed as president, the MPK anticipates an electoral victory with former Democrat leader Moon Jae-in, who lost to President Park in the last election, currently one of the front-runners for the presidency.

A group of conservatives, who recently broke from the ruling Saenuri Party, also hope to distance themselves from Park, but have maintained a pro-US, anti-China line. Twenty-nine lawmakers from the anti-Park faction of the ruling party formed the tentatively named New Conservative Party for Reform, which is scheduled to be launched on January 24.

They denounced the MPK lawmakers’ trip to China as “kowtowing” to Beijing. Yu Seung-min, another presidential hopeful, stated, “If we take such a step [to negotiate the THAAD deployment], China will continue to infringe upon our sovereignty in other cases.”

The political crisis in Seoul will be intensified by Trump’s inauguration later this month. He has already indicated that he will place dealing with North Korea’s supposed missile threat high on his list of priorities as part of a broader agenda of confronting China that will raise tensions throughout the region.

Anti-Russia “fake news” campaign rolled out across Europe

Julie Hyland

In the aftermath of the November 8 US presidential election, sections of the Democratic Party, the intelligence services and the media have intensified unsubstantiated pre-election claims that the Russian government hacked into Democratic Party email servers to undermine the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

The immediate purpose was to distract from the content of the leaked emails, which exposed a conspiracy by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to undermine her challenger in the primaries, Bernie Sanders.

With Trump’s victory, it has become the focus for a ferocious struggle within the ruling elite over foreign policy centred on the issue of what order the US should first aggressively escalate its diplomatic, economic and military offensive—against Russia or China. More fundamentally, its aim is to brand anyone raising questions about foreign policy as the “dupe” of a foreign power and to justify further sweeping censorship, above all against social media.

The same applies to the manufacturing of the fake news scandal in Europe. The divisions within the US over foreign policy are mirrored within and between national ruling elites across the continent. What all agree on, however, is that, whatever side eventually wins out, the agenda of militarism and war requires police-state methods.

This is the content of the resolution passed by the European Parliament on November 23, on “EU strategic communication to counteract propaganda against it by third parties.” The declared aim of the extensive resolution is to combat “third-party actors aiming to discredit” the European Union (EU) that “do not share the same [European] values.”

The resolution then defines as the main “actors” Russia and Daesh (or ISIL) and it is Russia that occupies most of the resolution.

It equates Russia with “transnational terrorist and criminal organisations…” that have “repeatedly engaged in a strategy of deliberate deception and disinformation, especially in the ‘new media’, social networks and the digital sphere…”

Accusing Russia of “information warfare”, the resolution asserts that it “is employing a wide range of tools and instruments” to “challenge democratic values, divide Europe, gather domestic support and create the perception of failed states in the EU’s eastern neighbourhood…”

The resolution specifically cites think tanks such as Russkiy Mir, the RT channel, Sputnik, alongside “internet trolls” and “cross-border social and religious groups…”

No evidence is presented to back up these claims. Nor is the content of the “disinformation” that it alleges ever specified. Rather “information warfare” is presented as any reportage, regardless of whether it is true or false, that undermines the interests of the European bourgeoisie.

While “not all criticism of the EU or its policies necessarily constitutes propaganda or disinformation”, the resolution states, “instances of manipulation or support linked to third countries and intended to fuel or exacerbate this criticism provide grounds to question the reliability of these messages…”

It is on the basis of such spurious equations that Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have been forced into hiding and exile, accused of treason and threatened with imprisonment and worse.

Just as sinisterly, the EU resolution decrees “information warfare” to be an undeclared act of war. Such methods form an “integral part of modern hybrid warfare, which is a combination of military and non-military measures of a covert and overt nature, deployed to destabilise the political, economic and social situation of a country under attack, without a formal declaration of war,” the resolution states, “targeting not only partners of the EU, but also the EU itself, its institutions and all Member States and citizens irrespective of their nationality and religion…”

The claim that Russia is engaged in a de facto war against the EU stands reality on its head. There is no doubt that Moscow engages in propaganda against aspects of EU policy, but its actions are only a pale reflection of the unending campaign conducted by the US and the EU over the last period.

Washington, in particular, serves as the largest manufacturer of fake news in the world, as evidenced by the criminal lying claims that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” to justify pre-emptive war in 2003. But not far behind it are the major European powers, who are supporting US disinformation regarding the Syrian civil war, which they helped to ignite, with the same aim.

The “fake news” scandal is part of active and far-advanced efforts, led by the US, to destabilise Russia and encircle it militarily. It was US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland who admitted, in 2014, that Washington had spent $5 billion to secure regime change in Ukraine, just after the so-called Euromaidan protests succeeded in forcing the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych out of office. Representatives from Germany, Poland and France performed the official benediction on his overthrow on behalf of the EU.

The resolution was passed just two weeks after the announcement of NATO’s largest troop deployment against Russia since the Cold War. Its “incumbent response force” is being tripled to 40,000 and hundreds of thousands of troops have been placed on higher alert levels. This month, an additional 4,000 NATO forces are being deployed along Russia’s border in breach of the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act.

Poland has been the most aggressive in demanding such deployments. It is no coincidence that the resolution to the European Parliament was prepared by Polish Deputy, Anna Fotyga, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and a member of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Security and Defense (SEDE), aligned with NATO.

By declaring Russia to be engaged in a de facto war against the EU, the resolution’s supporters are seeking to politically legitimise this massive escalation in NATO’s provocations against Moscow. Any criticism or campaign against European support for NATO’s warmongering is to be deemed the work of “Russian trolls” or terrorists.

The motion describes as “hostile propaganda” anything that has the effect of “provoking doubt, dividing Member States, engineering a strategic split between the European Union and its North American partners and paralysing the decision-making process, discrediting the EU institutions and transatlantic partnerships…”

The text indicates the social and political factors driving the resort to authoritarianism. It complains that the “financial crisis and the advance of new forms of digital media have posed serious challenges for quality journalism, leading to a decrease in critical thinking among audiences, thus making them more susceptible to disinformation and manipulation..”

In other words, the huge social gulf that exists between working people in Europe and the ruling elite as a result of the 2008 financial crisis and the EU’s unending policy of austerity means the overwhelming majority of people are hostile to the political establishment and its official media, which they correctly regard as nothing more than propaganda outlets for the interests of the super-rich. This insight, which the resolution slanders as a “decrease in critical thinking,” makes the population far less susceptible to the efforts to dragoon them behind militarism and war.

On this basis, the resolution calls for an intensification of EU and NATO efforts to combine forces, in particular to step up “counterintelligence efforts aimed at countering” so-called “fake news” operations. Daesh/ISIL is also introduced here from the standpoint of justifying a clampdown on social media and new measures against “hate speech”, which is never defined.

The resolution was passed by 304 to 179, with 208 abstentions. However, a minority opinion tabled against the resolution made no mention of the threat to democratic rights through the escalation of state censorship. Its objections centred on complaints that Russia should be regarded by the EU as an ally in the Middle East.

As the resolution was being debated, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the Bundestag that public opinion was being “manipulated” on the internet and that it would be necessary to “regulate it.” Simultaneously it was announced that Helsinki is to be the “hub” for a NATO/EU research centre into “hybrid warfare” directed against Russia and ISIL, while in the Czech Republic a new interior ministry department began operations January 1, known as the Centre Against Terrorism and Hybrid Threats. State Secretary for European affairs, Tomáš Prouza, said it was directed against “Russian propaganda” aimed at building “negative images of the European Union and NATO…”

Protests against gas price hikes spread across Mexico

Eric London

Tens of thousands of Mexicans have taken to the streets in opposition to President Enrique Pena Nieto’s January 1 decision to slash gasoline subsidies, an action that will increase consumer prices by 14 to 20 percent in the coming year. Demonstrations against el Gasolinazo have grown with each passing day, spreading to every part of the country.

The protests have provoked a political crisis within the Mexican ruling class. “With the Gasolinazos, social irritation is growing to the point of converting itself into a general discontent that could overflow and become uncontainable,” reads an editorial in Tuesday’s Excelsior.

The demonstrations involve largely spontaneous actions by workers and youth as well as sections of the middle class. As of Wednesday night, truckers, taxi drivers and other protesters were once again blocking many of the major highways between cities after police had cleared them the day before.

Police have made several dozen arrests. On Wednesday, they confronted demonstrators in Mexico City.

The state-owned energy conglomerate Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) announced yesterday that truckers and protesters had blocked eleven of its processing and distribution centers, creating what the company called a “critical situation” in Chihuahua, Durango, Morelos and Baja California. The company warned of possible airport closures if protests continued and reported incidents of pipeline sabotage.

Bus drivers in Guadalajara, Jalisco called the first Gasolinazo-related strike on Wednesday, shutting down most transit service in the city. Demonstrations in other cities were joined by delegations of teachers and doctors.

Protesters currently occupy dozens of gas stations across the country, while gas station companies have shut hundreds more. Demonstrations have been particularly large in Mexico City, the heavily populated State of Mexico, the oil-producing state of Veracruz and the manufacturing hub of Puebla. Protestors in Ciudad Juarez blocked one of the border crossings to the United States.

A series of demonstrations have been called for the coming weekend, largely by trade unions and peasant groups. These protests come at a pivotal moment for the Mexican economy.

On Tuesday, Ford Motor Company announced that it was canceling plans to build a $1.6 billion auto plant in Mexico and would instead invest in an existing factory outside of Detroit, Michigan. Ford CEO Mark Shields said the move was because of “a more positive US manufacturing business environment under President-elect Trump.” On the same day, Trump denounced General Motors for shifting car production to Mexico.

News of Ford’s decision dominated the headlines of the Mexican press and boosted fears that the Trump administration will impose tariffs on imports from Mexico and drastically reduce Mexico’s importance in US-based manufacturing supply chains. Eighty-one percent of Mexican manufacturing and service exports go to the US.

Ford’s move and growing fears of a trade war further weakened the peso, which hit a new low yesterday, closing at 21.40 to the dollar. The weakening peso and mounting inflationary pressures increase the serious economic risks associated with the gas subsidy reduction. Already, finance houses have responded to the cut by revising inflation estimates upwards to nearly 5 percent. Already in 2016, Mexico’s central bank raised interest rates several times, bringing them to their highest level since 2009.

This has created an unbearable situation for the deeply impoverished Mexican working class, with inflation outpacing wages while consumer prices skyrocket. A recent study by the Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) reported that the purchasing power of the average Mexican had shrunk by 11.1 percent since President Pena Nieto took office in 2012. The price index for the basic food basket required to feed a family of four has increased to 218.06 pesos ($10.19) per day, nearly three times the daily minimum wage.

Although Mexico is one of the world’s leading producers of oil, a worker earning the minimum wage must work twelve days to earn the price of a tank of gas. The increase in fuel prices will, moreover, result in a sharp rise in the prices of other basic staples. The firm Brokerage Finamex announced in December that the proposed gas hike would increase the consumer price index by 0.8 percent in just the first two weeks of 2017.

Over the last decade, the Mexican ruling class has carried out a ruthless drive to intensify the exploitation of its labor and natural resources, mainly by American banks and corporations. Protestors are demanding an end to the government’s moves to privatize Pemex, which was nationalized in 1938 after a massive strike by oil workers. In 2013, the government formally ended the state monopoly in oil.

Pena Nieto’s administration has violently repressed demonstrations and strikes against his pro-corporate education “reforms.” In 2014, local and federal police and troops abducted and murdered 43 student teachers in Ayotzinapa. Last year, police killed dozens of villagers and teachers in Noxichtlan during a months-long strike by Oaxacan teachers. Pena Nieto is the most unpopular president in modern Mexican history, with an approval rating of 25 percent.

The government has thus far refrained from ordering a violent crackdown on the movement against Gasolinazo out of fear that such a move would provoke an immediate social eruption. Morelos Governor Graco Ramirez, warning of a potential social explosion, proposed that the government respond to the protests with an emergency salary hike for low-paid workers.

On Wednesday, President Pena Nieto was forced to cut short his vacation in order to address the escalating crisis. In a nationally televised speech, he insisted that the subsidy reduction would not be repealed because it was necessary “to preserve the stability of our economy.”

In the same speech, Pena Nieto announced that ex-Finance Minister Luis Videgaray would return as foreign minister in a major cabinet shakeup aimed at boosting relations with the incoming Trump administration. Pena Nieto said the appointment signaled that there would be “dialogue and contact from the first day of the [Trump] administration, so we can establish the basis of a constructive working relationship.”

The president’s groveling comments will provoke further opposition in the Mexican working class. Tens of millions of Mexican workers have close family members living in the United States who may face deportation under Trump. Videgaray is broadly disliked for arranging the meeting between Trump and Pena Nieto in Mexico City during the US election campaign. He resigned as finance minister in early September, one week after that meeting.

It remains unclear whether the demonstrations will continue to grow or whether they will, as with previous social movements, be suffocated by the trade unions with the help of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and his Morena party.

The militant protests against the cut in gas subsidies are indicative of a revival of class struggle around the world, including in the United States. The brutal attacks on social programs and working class living standards being prepared by Trump and his cabal of billionaires, ex-generals and quasi-fascist politicians will provoke a rising tide of struggle by workers across the border from Mexico, creating the conditions for the forging of a united struggle of American and Mexican workers.

The only way for Mexican workers to oppose the social counterrevolution underway in their country is to unite with their class brothers and sisters around the world, first and foremost in the United States and Canada. Workers across North America labor in the same supply chains, often producing different parts of the same products that the corporations sell for immense profits.

Mexican workers need to recognize that their own bourgeoisie promotes Mexican nationalism while working with US imperialism to enrich itself at the expense of working people. So long as workers are forced to fight against one another for jobs and compete for wages, whether through the provisions of NAFTA or through trade wars, living standards across the region will continue to fall.

American workers must reject the racist and xenophobic lies of Donald Trump, the US trade unions and figures like Bernie Sanders who combine nationalist poison with “left” verbiage. Uniting the working class of the “New World”—from North through Central to South America—is a key strategic task of the world revolution. It requires the building of sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International across Latin America.

Education for Sustainable Energy Development [ESED] Scholarship for Developing Countries 2017/2018 (US$ 23,000/year)

Application Deadline: 10th March, 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible African/Other Countries: Developing countries and territories identified for OECD official development aid in the DAC List of ODA Recipients are eligible to apply.

To be taken at (country): All universities are eligible for the ESED scholarship. It is preferable that the candidate pursues her/his studies in a university outside his home country.

Accepted Subject Areas: Programs eligible for this scholarship must show a 75% focus on renewable energy and/or the power sector in general.

About Scholarship: The purpose of the Education for Sustainable Energy Development [ESED] scholarship is to support outstanding students from developing countries pursuing advanced studies in sustainable energy development and to encourage meaningful contributions to the collective body of knowledge about this subject. These scholarships are available to up to 10 outstanding students from developing countries and economies in transition, for a period of up to two years for Masters Degree, awarded annually.

Type: Masters

Offered Since:  2001

Selection Criteria: The Global Sustainable Electricity Partnership considers an outstanding student to be one who:

• graduates with excellent grades in the top 20% of her/his class
• is determined to advance her/his knowledge and understanding
• has a history of community involvement
• is committed to sustainable energy
• is committed to return and contribute to her/his home country

Who is qualified to apply? To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, students must

• plan to undertake studies at the Masters level in areas directly related to sustainable energy development
• be citizens of the developing countries and territories identified for OECD official development aid in the DAC List of ODA Recipients

Number of scholarships: Up to ten (10) Masters scholarships will be awarded annually.

Value of Scholarship: Scholarships of US$ 23,000 per year.

Duration: Scholarship will last for a period of up to two years for Masters Degree

How to Apply:Applications should be submitted using our Online ESED Scholarship Application Submission and uploading the requested documents. As the volume of incoming applications is extremely heavy around the deadline, we strongly urge you to submit your file as early as possible.

Visit Scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: Education for Sustainable Energy Development [ESED]

MIT- Zaragoza Scholarships for Promising Professionals in Logistics and Supply Chain Management 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st March, 2017

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Spain

About the Award: Zaragoza Logistics Center and the MIT-Zaragoza International Logistics Program will award scholarships in the academic year 2017 – 2018 for candidates who can show an extraordinary potential for leadership and professional success within the area of Logistics and Supply Chain Management.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Scholarships are awarded only to students who have been admitted to the MIT-Zaragoza Master of Engineering in Logistics and Supply Chain Management (ZLOG) program through ZLC‘s regular admissions procedure.

Candidates will be expected to show extraordinary potential for leadership and professional success, bringing new vision and commitment to the area of Logistics and Supply Chain Management.

Furthermore, to be eligible candidates must comply with the following criteria:

• Granted admission to the MIT-Zaragoza Master of Engineering in Logistics and Supply Chain Management (ZLOG) program.
• Completion of a four year undergraduate program equivalent to a Bachelor’s Degree.
• Professional excellence with a background or experience in Logistics and Supply Chain Management, or exceptional academic achievement.
• Competitive GRE or GMAT score. Exceptions may be granted to individuals who have demonstrated strong professional and/or academic achievement in completing a college degree – including some quantitative training and evidence of advanced verbal and written proficiency in the English language.
• Fluency in English, competitive IELTS or TOEFL score. Exceptions may be granted to individuals who have demonstrated evidence of advanced verbal and written proficiency in the English language.

Selection Criteria: Competition for the ZLOG scholarships is intense and highly competitive. The candidate will be chosen on the basis of the following criteria:

• Preference will be given to candidates with background or work experience in Logistics and Supply Chain Management (25%)
• Financial need (20%)
• Academic merit as according to academic records (20%)
• Essay explaining why the candidate should be awarded with the scholarship (to be filled out in the Application Form) (20%)
• Demonstrated initiative and search for external funding opportunities (contacted the ZLC Financial Aid Office, individual search, other applications for scholarships and/or bank loans, etc) (10%)
• Quality of the proposal: presentation, writing, punctuality in the application, etc. (5%)

Applicants will be notified by e-mail of the outcome. The scholarship holder will receive an award letter.

Value of Scholarship: ZLC will award a number of scholarships consisting of reduction in tuition for the MIT-Zaragoza Master of Engineering in Logistics and Supply Chain Management (ZLOG) program, which currently amounts to €24,000.

The reduction will depend on the applicant’s academic achievements and distinctive personal accomplishment in addition to an interest in pursuing a career in Logistics and Supply Chain Management. The available scholarships are:

Average evaluation grade of 6 – 7.9 Coverage: 25 % (€6,000) reduction in tuition
Average evaluation grade of 8 – 8.9 Coverage: 50 % (€12,000) reduction in tuition
Average evaluation grade of 9 – 10 Coverage: 100 % (€24,000) reduction in tuition
The scholarship will not include other costs such as the administrative fees, living or travel expenses to Zaragoza or to Boston for the international exchange.

How to Apply: Candidates must fulfil all of the above-mentioned requirements and submit by e-mail one copy of the following documents to the ZLC Financial Aid Office:

1. Application Form: Each scholarship applicant will fill out the scholarship application form, including the following: a statement describing their economical situation, an essay explaining their reasons for applying for the scholarship, their interests, aptitudes, career plans, etc.
2. Income Statement Copy of the current employment contract, the most recent pay slip or other official document that can account for the last salary received. (Not applicable for applicants who are currently full-time students).
3. Copy of Passport
4. Résumé
5. Acceptance Letter Copy of the acceptance letter to the MIT-Zaragoza Master of Engineering in Logistics and Supply Chain Management (ZLOG) program.

All interested applicants should apply directly through the ZLC Financial Aid Office: E-mail: financialaid@zlc.edu.es · Contact person: Virginia Acosta · Phone: (+34) 976 077 609 · Edificio Náyade, 5 · C/ Bari 55, PLAZA · 50197 Zaragoza · Spain

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Zaragoza Logistics Center (ZLC)

300 Sir Richard Stapley Educational Trust Scholarships for Second Degree in Medicine Fields & Postgraduate Studies in all Fields 2017/2018

Application Deadline: The deadline for submissions is either 31st March 2017, or the first 300 completed applications received, whichever comes first.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: Founded in 1919 by the businessman and philanthropist Sir Richard Stapley (1843-1920), the Sir Richard Stapley Educational Trust supports the work of mature students of proven academic merit, and in financial need, who are pursuing further degree qualifications at an institution in the UK. Open to students from all countries, applicants must be resident in the UK at the time of applying, as well as during their course of study.

The Trust funds students pursuing degrees in medicine, dentistry and veterinary studies and postgraduate degree students from all fields of study. Applications are welcome from students beginning their first year of study, as well as from those already embarked on their degree course.

Type: Undergraduate, Postgraduate

Eligibility: In order to be eligible to apply for a grant, you must be:

a) over the age of 24 on 01 October of the proposed year of study
b) either accepted on, or applying for a place on a degree course in medicine, dentistry or veterinary studies taken as a second degree, or accepted on, or applying for a full- or part-time place on a Masters or Doctoral degree programme in any discipline, at a UK university
c) already resident in the UK at the time of application, and resident in the UK during the course of study.
d) be facing demonstrable financial need in the academic year for which funding is applied (details about how this is calculated are in the application pack).

NB: if you are a postgraduate student, or applying for a place on a postgraduate degree course, you must hold a first- or strong 2.1 honours degree (at least 65%) from a UK institution (or its equivalent from a non-UK institution) or hold a Masters degree from a UK institution, or its overseas equivalent.

We do accept applications from final year BA/BSc students, but the awarding of any grant is contingent upon the outcome of their first degree.

Selection Criteria: Awards are competitive and made on the basis of academic merit and financial need.

Number of Awardees: 300

Value of Scholarship: Grants are normally from £400 to £1,200 in value. They are intended to cover the shortfall incurred by educational and subsistence expenses upon payment of tuition fees.

Duration of Scholarship: All grants are awarded for a full year of academic study and for one year only.  Applicants for full time postgraduate degree courses may be supported for up to a maximum of three years, but new applications must be submitted each year. Part-time postgraduate courses can be funded for a maximum of six years, but new applications have to be submitted each year.

How to Apply: The Trust encourages electronic application submissions, and an electronic pack can be requested from the administrator at mailto:admin@stapleytrust.org?subject=Query%20from%20Stapley%20Trust%20website. If you do not have regular access to the internet, you are still welcome to apply; please request a printed application pack from the following address:

The Stapley Trust
P. O. Box 839
Richmond
Surrey TW9 3AL

It is important to visit the Scholarship Webpage to go through requirements for application before applying for this scholarship.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Stapley Trust

Important Notes: Before award money can be released, applicants must confirm any other grants obtained, and their amounts. Should a successful applicant have received a major award, or additional money from other granting bodies equivalent to a major award, the grant awarded from the Stapley Trust may be reduced or withdrawn. Students already holding a major award cannot apply.

Atlantic Fellows Programme for African Students (Fully-funded Residential and Non-Residential) 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadlines:

• Atlantic Visiting Fellowship: 22nd January, 2017
• Atlantic Non-Residential Fellowship: 31st January, 2017
• Atlantic Residential Fellowship: 31st January, 2017

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: The Fellowships are available in three fully-funded tracks:

• Atlantic Visiting Fellowship: an opportunity for teams of three or four senior academics and practitioners to come together and undertake an intensive period of research that will create high profile advances in both academic understanding and in, developing practical responses to, the challenge of inequality.The teams will be fully-funded, including reasonable travel, accommodation in London where needed and office space within the International Inequalities Institute along with other reasonable research costs.
• Atlantic Residential Fellowship: supports applicants in taking the one year MSc Inequalities and Social Science (MISS), with dedicated mentorship, as well as engaging with the wider work of the Atlantic Fellows programme (such as the Annual conference and Non-Residential Fellows activities).The Fellowship will cover all of your fees, a stipend of £15,000 p/a and expenses for attendance at Atlantic Fellowship events.
• Atlantic Non-Residential Fellowship: a unique opportunity to study via a series of distinct, comprehensive short courses, with both academic and in-the-field work, comprising around seven weeks in total throughout the year. Elements of the course will be undertaken with our Node Partner, University of Cape Town. In addition the Non-Residential Fellows will undertake practical project work, and contribute to the Annual Conference and other activities as part of the Atlantic Fellows programme.The Non-Residential Fellowships are fully funded, with travel and accommodation costs covered where necessary, as well as reasonable daily expenses whilst taking part in the courses.

Type: Fellowship/Masters

Eligibility: 

• Applicants for the Non-Residential Atlantic Fellowship must meet the Standard English Language requirements for the LSE. Proof must be included with your final application documents.
• Applicants for the Atlantic Residential Fellowship must apply for the MSc Inequalities and Social Science. They must meet all the requirements as set out in the course page.
• Separate eligibilities can be read on the application forms of each fellowship.

How to Apply: Please download and fill the Application forms of the fellowship you are interested in (links are in the Scholarship Webpage)

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details and a full list of scholarships for African students at LSE

Award Provider: London School of Economics and Political Science

Onsi Sawiris Masters Scholarship Program for Egyptians to Study in USA 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th June, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Egypt

To be taken at (country): USA

Type: Masters

Fields of Study: Business Administration or Construction Management.

Eligibility: Candidates should:

• Possess GMAT score of 650 and above
• GRE score of 302 or above
• TOEFL iBT of 100 or above
• 3.5 minimum gpa or equivalent
• 3 years experience
• be Looking to earn master’s degree at one of the top universities in the US in the field of Business Administration or Construction Management
• be Involved in extracurricular activities (applicants should be able to provide proof of participation in extracurricular activities when required).
• Be Egyptian nationals, who are residents of Egypt (preference will not be given to dual nationality applicants)

Selection Criteria: : The Onsi Sawiris Scholarships will be awarded based on character and merit as demonstrated through academic excellence, extracurricular activities, and entrepreneurial initiative.

Selection Procedure: 

• Personal interviews at OC
• Notification of selected scholars
• Program orientation

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The scholarships include full tuition, a living allowance, travel, books, Computer, Health Insurance, and Other Benefits.

How to Apply: Submit the Following:

• Application Form
• GMAT/GRE and TOFEL exam scores
• Statement of Purpose
• Reference Letter

It is important to go through the application instructions on the Scholarship Webpage before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Orascom Construction (OC)

Important Notes: 

• The Onsi Sawiris Scholarship Program is only granted to the list of endorsed universities provided in the “Approved Universities” section of the application.
• Selection as a nominee for the Onsi Sawiris Scholarship Program does not guarantee university acceptance. Applicants will be supported in applying for these universities. If nominated for the scholarship; the Onsi Sawiris Scholarship Program award will be made once university acceptance is obtained.

Manchester Metropolitan University Vice-Chancellor Scholarships 2017/2018 for International Students

Application Deadlines: For courses starting in September 2017, the deadline for receipt of applications is 31st May 2017. For courses starting in January 2018, the deadline for receipt of applications is 31st October 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): United Kingdom

Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the University

About the Award: Manchester Met is making a number of Vice-Chancellor scholarships available, each to the value of £5,000. These scholarships are open to international students who enrol on a full-time undergraduate or postgraduate taught programme.

Type: full-time undergraduate or Postgraduate

Eligibility:

• If an application is successful, applicants must confirm that they accept the award within 14 days.
• In order to apply, applicants must have accepted an unconditional or a conditional firm offer for a course at Manchester Metropolitan University.
• If a student holds a conditional offer and applies for the Vice-Chancellor International Scholarship, the scholarship can only be awarded once the offer conditions have been met.
• Applicants who defer their studies will not be eligible for the 2016/2017 scholarship.
• The scholarship award is limited to Undergraduate and Postgraduate taught course applicants only.
• Scholarships are only available for new Manchester Metropolitan University students who are classed as overseas students and are required to pay full overseas tuition fees.
• Current students moving from one course to another are not eligible for the scholarship.

Value of Scholarship: £5,000. The scholarship will be deducted directly from tuition fees owed to the University. The scholarship is for the first year of academic study only.

How to Apply: If you meet the above criteria, you can download the Application Form. Please note, this scholarship cannot be combined with any other financial support from Manchester Met.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Manchester Metropolitan University

Important Notes: Students will be notified if their application has been successful in June 2017 or November 2017 for courses starting in September and January, respectively.

What Will Baghdad Face in 2017?

Cathy Breen

Being stuck in traffic is a daily fare in Baghdad. While checkpoints have been dramatically reduced in recent times, and the number of concrete walls appear markedly decreased, traffic jams still defy description. It doesn’t help in the least that everyone is leaning on their horns. A half-a-million taxis roam around Baghdad spewing pollution as they look for potential fares. Proposals to counter this problem have been put forth to authorities, for example, the creation of taxi stands throughout the city. All attempts to remedy this problem seem futile.

In my travels this trip to Najaf, Karbala, Babylon and Baghdad, the dilemma of widespread corruption is of predominant concern. Young and old, without exception, feel caught in and strangulated by this reality. One young person related how one of the bosses in their workplace substantially increased their salary by fudging figures. If someone were to speak up they would, at best, be let go.

This past Monday a woman journalist, Afrah Shawqu al Qaisi, was kidnapped from her home in the Saidiya district of Baghdad by men claiming to be security personnel. She had written an article expressing anger that armed groups could act with impunity (BBC news Dec. 27, 2016).

“How do you get up in the morning?” I gently asked a young woman from Baghdad. “How do you manage?”

“With no hope” she replied. “Each morning I get up with no hope.” Her mother is ill and worries each day that her daughter will not get home safely from work. “All Iraqis want hope,” she added, “but they are resigned to bad conditions.”

But a gentleman who was also part of this conversation responded “There is no future if we keep silent.” Although he himself lost his position for speaking out against the corruption, he fears for the future of his children if the problem is not addressed. He believes that an answer for corruption is to educate by setting an example.

I had the great joy of visiting a family we have not seen for over three years. Kathy Kelly first introduced me to this family in 2002, and we have tried to remain in contact throughout the years. As evening descended, some of us walked the streets of the old neighborhood where this family lives and where Voices rented an apartment, in 2003-2004.

We went to the site of the horrific suicide bombing of July 3, 2016, only two blocks away from the family’s apartment as well as where the Voices apartment was. The night of the bombings was on the eve of EID, ending the fasting month of Ramadan. Many people were out doing the final shopping for this celebration. Vendors with their wares on the sidewalks, children eating ice cream in the blistering heat of summer. It was about 10:00 p.m. The blasts took the lives of over 300 people, many of them children. Over 200 more wounded. In the apartment where some of this family lives, three families lost children, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers in this explosion. I passed two of the survivors on the stairs this night.

I had my young friend take a photo across the street from one of the sites. We became silent as we looked at this blackened mass towering over us. Months later the area is still blocked off by a corrugated fence as you can see in the picture. Across the street was a second bombed building. All around us were people visiting, walking, looking at wares, etc. “It is good to see life” said my young friend as we walked arm in arm. Armed vehicles and police were very present as well in this area.

A pain for me during my stay in Baghdad was not to be able to contact another family with whom we are also very close. I’ve written extensively about this family as the father and oldest son fled to Finland over a year ago. I had hoped to be able to meet up with the mother and at least some of the children at a place that would be safe for them. Sadly, this was not possible.

Baghdad cannot be compared to the relative quiet and safety of Karbala and Najaf. As I write, we just got the distressing news of a double suicide bomb in a Baghdad market this morning. At least 28 people were killed. Many of the victims were people who had gathered near a cart selling breakfast when the explosions went off.

“Torn clothes and mangled iron were strewn across the ground in pools of blood at the site of the wreckage near Rasheed Street, one of the main thoroughfares in Baghdad,” an AFP photographer reported. “The targeted area is packed with shops, workshops and wholesale markets and usually teeming with delivery trucks and daily laborers unloading vans or wheeling carts around…Hugh crowds were expected to gather on Saturday evening in the streets of Baghdad to celebrate the New Year for only the second time since the lifting in 2015 of a year-old curfew.” (The Telegraph News, UK, Dec. 31, 2016)

I was on Rasheed Street only yesterday.

While in Baghdad I stayed with a gracious couple who made the pilgrimage to Mecca, the Haj, this past year. In one of our many conversations, my host asked somewhat mischievously, “Which of the four do you think is the greatest sin in Islam? Theft, illicit sex, drinking or lying?” I mulled this over not really knowing, but enjoying the exercise. The answer turned out to be “lying” and, curiously, I got it right.

But then the 2003 U.S. led invasion of Iraq was based on lies and deceit. Many in the U.S. accepted, without adequate investigation or even curiosity, the notion that the U.S. would improve conditions ordinary Iraqis faced following the 2003 invasion. Tragically, almost fourteen years later, nothing could be further from the truth. Yet we should ask now, with genuine care, what Iraqis will face in 2017 and how we can make reparations for the suffering we’ve caused.