German Constitutional Court rejects ban on fascist NPD

Peter Schwarz

On Tuesday the German Federal Constitutional Court rejected a ban on the fascist National Democratic Party (NPD). The verdict was unanimous. The court justified its decision by arguing that while the far-right party was anti-constitutional and shared an ideological kinship with National Socialism (Nazism), it was not significant enough to seriously jeopardize democracy.

“There is currently no concrete indication of any possibility that its activities could be successful,” the president of the court, Andreas Vosskuhle, explained.

This was the second lawsuit against the NPD rejected by the Constitutional Court. The first case collapsed in 2003 because the court arrived at the conclusion that the large number of undercover agents inside the leadership bodies of the party made it impossible to arrive at a proper legal judgment. According to the judges, the NPD was “a state-run affair.”

At that time, both houses of parliament and the government had submitted a joint motion calling for a ban on the NPD. In December 2013, the upper house of parliament, the Federal Council, representing Germany’s states, lodged a new case calling for the prohibition of the NPD. Following reassurances from German interior ministers that undercover agents had been pulled out of the party’s executive committees, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court opened main proceedings two years later, which have now ended with the rejection of the lawsuit.

The decision did not come as a surprise, it had been on the cards for some time. Nevertheless, it was keenly awaited because the constitutional court redefined the criteria for a party’s ban.

In the history of postwar Germany there have been only two bans imposed on political parties, and these date back more than 60 years. In 1952, the relatively insignificant, fascist Sozialistische Reichspartei was banned, and in 1956 the government outlawed the German Communist Party (KPD).

The trial against the KPD was a legal assault on political convictions. Marxist writings were cited in detail in the courtroom. The judiciary not only banned the organization, many members were condemned to long prison sentences, had their personal assets seized, or were forced out of their jobs and found no new work. Among the victims were many who had been persecuted formerly for their resistance to the Nazis.

In rejecting the prohibition of the NDP, the Constitutional Court has now ruled that a party cannot be banned because of its convictions alone. The NPD’s beliefs, the court stated, are inhumane, racist and share kinship to the ideology of National Socialism. But the fact that a party aims at eliminating the basic democratic order was not sufficient for a ban. It must have the “potential” to achieve this goal and systematically work towards it.

The court concluded that this did not apply to the NPD. The party has lost considerable influence since the move to ban it. Its membership has fallen from 28,000 to the current level of 6,000, it receives barely more than one percent of the vote in federal elections and is no longer represented in any state parliament—the court argued. Many former supporters of the NPD now support other right-wing parties and organizations such as Pegida and the Alternative for Germany (AfD). The NPD itself has called for a first preference vote for the AfD in several state elections.

In its judgment, the Constitutional Court based itself on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In the event of a ban, the NPD could have filed an appeal at the Strasbourg court, which the German court in Karlsruhe wanted to avoid. Strasbourg sets stricter standards for a party ban than Karlsruhe.

According to the case-law of the ECHR, it is not sufficient for a party to pursue anti-constitutional objectives as a ground to ban it. It must also have a realistic chance of realizing its objectives. It must have the resources and the influence to achieve its goals with a certain probability.

While the ECHR excludes a judgment based only on political convictions, based on its reasoning, a party can be banned when it gains influence and thus becomes a danger to the prevailing order.

The ECHR’s precedent-setting verdict on this issue concerned the prohibition of the Turkish Welfare Party (Refah) in 1998. The Refah Party had filled the post of premier up to 1997, but was then ousted in a “soft” military coup and banned the following year. Its deputy chairman at that time was the current Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The ECHR dismissed a complaint from the Refah Party appealing against the ban. It supported the ban on the grounds that the party represented a threat to “democratic society” in Turkey, because it had received 21.4 percent of the vote in the last parliamentary elections.

The Constitutional Court’s judgment on the NPD ban tends in the same direction. In essence, it means that the right of free expression and assembly for a party only applies as long as it has no significant influence and does not endanger the existing order.

The judgment has been criticised broadly in the German media, and by practically all of the country’s political parties. They are all of the opinion that the NPD should have been banned solely on the basis of its views.

Heribert Prantl wrote in the Süddeutsche Zeitung: “The NPD should have been banned—not despite the fact that it is very small at the moment and insignificant in elections, but precisely because of this.” According to Prantl, a ban would be a signal against “aggressive right-wing populism” and “an act of prevention.”

Christian Social Union politician Thomas Kreuzer commented: “I think it is completely wrong to say we tolerate and allow radicals to work in parties until they have a certain relevance and could possibly achieve their goals.”

The Social Democrat Eva Högl spoke of a “very disappointing” judgment: “A positive decision would have been helpful for our commitment to oppose the right-wing.”

The Left Party politician Petra Pau also regretted the failure to ban the NPD. The majority of the Left Party, as well as many initiatives for democracy and tolerance, wanted an NPD ban, she explained.

The Social Equality Party, in contrast, has always opposed banning parties as a means of fighting the right-wing. When the Federal Council launched its case to ban the NPD four years ago, we wrote, under the heading “Why the SEP (Germany) rejects a state ban of the neo-fascist NPD”:

“The banning of a political party represents a serious breach of the democratic rights of the working class. As masses of people turn their back on official politics because they feel they are not represented by any of the parties in the Bundestag, the ruling elite is reacting by attacking the right of assembly and setting itself up as arbiter of which parties people may or may not support.

“History has repeatedly shown that, in the final analysis, such curbs of democratic rights only strengthen and encourage the most right-wing and reactionary sections of society. At the same time, the workers movement is denied basic forms of free and democratic expression.”

And nine months ago, we wrote in a WSWS article on the most recent prohibition procedure: “A ban of the NPD would be reactionary in every sense: it would not weaken right-wing extremist tendencies in society, but strengthen them; it would set a precedent for the suppression of all, especially left-wing, opposition; and it would strengthen the state’s repressive apparatus, a key source of right-wing, authoritarian developments.”

The outcome of the trial has confirmed this warning. The Constitutional Court has issued a ruling that can easily be directed against a revolutionary socialist party when it gains influence and support.

Immigrant rights protests held across the United States

Clodomiro Puentes

Protests in defense of immigrant rights were held in 50 cities across the United States on Saturday, days before the inauguration of president-elect Donald Trump and leading up to Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday, during which other anti-Trump protests were held.

The demonstrations on Saturday were called in opposition to Trump’s stated immigration policy aims, including threats to deport some two to three million undocumented immigrants, slashing of federal funding of all so-called “sanctuary cities” that don’t comply rigorously with federal immigration policy, and a crackdown on Muslims entering the country.

The protests were generally led by an array of civil rights, immigrant advocacy, religious and other groups, many with close ties to the Democratic Party. One of the rallies convened in Washington DC, titled “We Shall Not Move” by the National Action Network, was led by Democratic Party operative and multimillionaire Al Sharpton.

Figures like Sharpton and his ilk continue their efforts to keep the anger at the forthcoming Trump presidency expressed in these protests firmly within the two-party system, sowing illusions that the Democrats and “moderate” Republicans could be pressured to fight. Sharpton declared, “We come not to appeal to Donald Trump, because he’s made it clear what his policies are and what his nominations are. We come to say to the Democrats in the Senate and in the House and to the moderate Republicans to get some backbone. Get some guts. We didn’t send you down here to be weak-kneed.”

There were undoubtedly broad layers in attendance at the dozens of protests throughout the country, motivated by compassion for one of the more vulnerable segments of the population and repelled by the xenophobic sentiments whipped up by the Trump administration. However, so long as the basic political perspective remains one of pressuring the two parties of big business for more “humane” immigration reform, opposition to the exploitation of immigrants will continue to be funneled into a dead end.

The recent demonstrations recall, albeit on a smaller scale, the massive immigration reform protests of 2006, which involved millions of demonstrators across the country, including over half a million in Los Angeles alone. Those protests were sparked by proposed legislation which would have made felony crimes of undocumented immigration, as well as providing aid to undocumented immigrants, including charities, clinics and other services offered.

While the bill did not pass in Congress in 2006, the protests prompted the Bush administration to vindictively escalate the scale of ICE raids with the express aim of intimidating the immigrant population and curbing further attempts at organization efforts. Furthermore, the Senate failed to work out even the most modest of reforms to the overall framework of US immigration policy.

That the 2006 mass demonstrations fell under the sway of politicians and figureheads of the Democratic establishment also proved to be a decisive political obstacle. Some leaders of the protests even suggested that native-born workers “have it too good.”

The heavily militarized ICE raids continued under the administration of Barack Obama, with the Democratic president overseeing the deportation of more than 2.5 million people, more than any of his predecessors. The incoming Trump administration’s targeting two to three million immigrants for rapid deportation would represent a dismal continuity with the outgoing administration.

Amidst the calls at the protests for vigilance against ICE under a Trump administration, there was a glaring incongruity when it came to the silence on the content of Obama’s own draconian deportation policies. No serious effort was made to take into account the record of the Democrats, who falsely pose as friends of the foreign-born.

There was also no mention from protest organizers of the fact that the massive database collected on those immigrant youth who had been registered in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program under the Obama administration could now potentially be used to expedite the deportation schemes of a Trump government.

From the outset, in 2012, the WSWS had warned of the potentially draconian use of the DACA program, stating that, “To receive the two-year relief from the threat of deportation, young undocumented immigrants must register with the Department of Homeland Security, effectively declaring themselves to be 'illegal’ and making them easier targets if and when a new directive comes from the White House, either from Obama himself or from his Republican opponent Mitt Romney, should Romney win the November election. Once registered, immigrants still have no path to citizenship and their legal status is only temporary. Even if there is no immediate double-cross, the condition of the newly registered would represent only the regularization of their status as an exploited underclass.”

As Trump takes office, the confirmation of this warning points to the increasingly authoritarian character of American politics. To the extent that Trump intends to make good on his plans for mass deportation, there would be no way to realize it except through the erection of what would amount to an immense infrastructure of detention camps.

A check to Trump’s anti-immigrant policies will not come through appeals to the Democratic Party, which has proven itself time and again to differ only tactically from the Republicans on the question of immigration.

The Trump presidency and the coming conflict between Europe and America

Chris Marsden

Donald Trump’s inauguration as president of the United States heralds an unprecedented deterioration in post-war relations between the US and Europe, above all between the US and Germany.

The January 20 ceremony was preceded by an interview with Trump in Britain’s Sunday Times and Germany’s Bild newspaper. His remarks were a broadside against the institutions that have constituted the basis of the post-World War II European order.

Trump praised Britain’s exit from the European Union, describing the EU as a vehicle for German domination and predicting that “others will leave.” He added, “Look, the EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States on trade, OK? So, I don’t really care whether it’s separate or together, to me it doesn’t matter.”

Trump threatened Germany’s auto industry with sanctions and attacked Chancellor Angela Merkel, blaming her refugee policy for destabilising Europe. He also opposed sanctions against Russia, while declaring that he believed the NATO alliance was “obsolete.”

Never before has a US president set as his explicit goal the breakup of the EU. Trump made clear in his interview that he was seeking to pit the UK against Germany and he solidarised himself with the UK Independence Party and other right-wing anti-EU parties.

The response from Europe’s political elite was uniformly hostile. In Germany, Merkel replied, “I think we Europeans hold our fate in our own hands.” Sigmar Gabriel of Merkel’s coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party, insisted, “We must not adopt a servile attitude now… In dealing with Trump, we need German self-confidence and a clear stance.”

French President Francois Hollande said that “transatlantic cooperation” will from now on be based on Europe’s own “interests and values.”

Europe’s think tanks and media predicted escalating militarism and an eruption of nationalist tensions. “EU member states will have to consider increasing strategic autonomy by reinforcing collective defence inside the EU,” said Felix Arteaga of the Elcano Royal Institute in Madrid.

Judy Dempsey of Carnegie Europe wrote that Trump “might rekindle old fears of German encirclement” by encouraging a “gang-up on Germany.” She added, “Since that is the new political outlook, Europe and Germany have to respond.”

In the Guardian, Natalie Nougayrède suggested, “Europe may witness a return to spheres of influence... with governments rushing to try to secure their own interests whatever the cost to neighbours and the continent’s future.”

Trump’s “America First” positions represent a seismic shift in US political relations with Europe. The Christian Science Monitor cited John Hulsman, a transatlantic affairs specialist, berating the “European elites” for having “grown accustomed to ‘Wilsonian’ American leaders who left unquestioned America’s leadership of the postwar internationalist system,” and not adjusting quickly enough to “a ‘Jacksonian’ and more nationalist US worldview promoted by Trump.”

Until now, however, such unilateralist tendencies were generally in abeyance. The American ruling class recognised that their unrestrained application would undermine its ability to exercise effective global hegemony. One of the issues animating hostility toward Trump within the US intelligence agencies in connection with his relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin is their belief that a Russian “bogeyman” is essential to preserve the framework through which the US has long exercised its dominance within Europe, via NATO and the EU.

The last time tensions emerged sharply between the US and Europe was in 2003, during the run-up to the Iraq War, when US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denounced France and Germany for failing to support the US in Iraq. Rumsfeld called the two countries “old Europe” and counterposed to them the states of Eastern Europe.

On January 26 that year, the World Socialist Web Site published a perspective comment by David North titled “How to deal with America? The European dilemma,” which addressed the historic significance of that conflict.

North explained that America’s postwar relationship with Europe between 1945 and 1991 “was determined fundamentally by its appraisal of its own essential economic and geopolitical interests within the specific context of the Cold War.” He continued: “America’s attitude toward Europe was determined by the overriding need to (1) enforce the isolation of the Soviet Union and minimize its influence in Western Europe (“containment”) and (2) prevent social revolution at a time when the European working class was extremely militant and highly politicized.

“The United States’ emphasis during that period on its alliance with Western Europe was, in fact, a departure from the historical norm. The more basic tendency of American capitalism, rooted in its somewhat belated emergence as a major imperialist power, had been to augment its world position at the expense of Europe.”

North then wrote: “The collapse of the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the international framework upon which postwar diplomatic relations were based. There was no longer any need for the United States to prop up the Western European bourgeoisie as a line of defense against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the demise of the USSR created a vacuum of power that the United States was determined to exploit to its own advantage.”

In this context, he cited the prophetic warning made by Leon Trotsky in 1928:

“In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war.”

The dilemma anticipated in 2003 now assumes its full significance. Sections of the US bourgeoisie continue to be deeply opposed to Trump’s attacks on the EU and Germany, with outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry describing Merkel as “courageous” and Trump’s remarks as “inappropriate.” But regardless of such disagreements, the US is being objectively driven on a steep trajectory toward trade war and protectionism to counter the threat to its global hegemony due to economic decline, the challenge posed by the rise of China and other rival powers, and a series of military debacles suffered since 2003. This must inevitably provoke conflict with Europe.

No one can predict in detail the consequences of this geostrategic shift by the US—including what alliances Germany, France, the UK and Russia might eventually forge. To this must be added the precise role that may be played by China as a potential counterweight to America.

However, underlying all such developments will be an explosion of national antagonisms in which the corollary of Trump’s “America First” agenda will be demands to put “Germany First,” “Britain First” and “France First,” which can lead only to the fracturing of Europe into competing power blocs.

The project of European integration under capitalism is coming to an end, unleashing all of the political demons it was meant to have contained.

Nothing is left of the promise that closer political union and the Single Market would bring prosperity and peace. Instead, right-wing reaction and the growth of fascistic parties are taking place in every country. The European powers speak constantly of the need to militarise, even as NATO troops mass on Russia’s border, while austerity is the only issue on which they all agree.

The assault on the working class will worsen, as Berlin, Paris and London demand yet greater “national sacrifice” to compete against their rivals and pay the vast sums needed to rearm the continent.

The bourgeoisie has proved incapable of overcoming the fundamental contradiction between the integrated character of the global economy and the division of the world into antagonistic nation states based on private ownership of the means of production, which is once again driving them to a war for the redivision of the world.

The working class of Europe must proceed from an understanding that the post-war period, in which, since 1945, several generations have lived their lives, is over, and a new pre-war period has begun. It must assume responsibility for opposing the drive to austerity, militarism and war by all the imperialist powers.

Above all, it must seek the conscious unification of its struggles with those of workers in the United States and internationally. The explosion of working class opposition that Trump’s government of oligarchs and warmongers must inevitably provoke will provide the most powerful accelerant for the struggles of the European working class.

Six Years Post the ‘Arab Spring’: Prognosis for 2017

Ranjit Gupta

The net result has been that instead of the passionately hoped for new political and economic dawn, the people of Syria and Yemen are going through the darkest ever period in their modern history. West Asia has become deeply polarised due to a particularly noxious sectarian feud and a power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is being chillingly exhibited in the blood soaked, exceedingly destructive developments in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. A vicious war has broken out within Islam. Muslims are killing other Muslims in an orgy of fanaticism with unprecedented ferocity. Radical Islam and terrorism in the name of Islam have become rampant and are creating mayhem even beyond the region.

All this was epitomised in the emergence of the Islamic State (IS) and its

"Caliphate" in Iraq and Syria in June 2014 with its capital at Raqqa, Syria. Actions and policies of Turkey (which has been proactive); Saudi Arabia; the brazenly sectarian (mis)governance of Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq; policy omissions and commissions of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the US have been the main contributors to the advent and rise of this anachronistic phenomenon. At the peak of its power, the Islamic State controlled 40 per cent of Iraq and over 50 per cent of Syria; it is now less than 10 per cent in Iraq and less than 25 per cent in Syria.

To a very considerable extent, this success is due to the US led coalition conducting almost 10,500 air attacks against it from August 2014 till the end of 2016 in Iraq and just over 6000 from September 2014 in Syria. Russia too has carried out a large number of air attacks against the IS in Syria since October 2015. A full-scale assault to recapture Mosul, the last significant city that the IS controls in Iraq is currently underway as also efforts to recapture the IS capital, Raqqa.

But the third outcome is perhaps the most startling. The US, the world's most powerful country after World War II, has been the architect and guarantor of security and stability in West Asia since then. Despite continuing to be the world’s leading economic and military power, continuing to have a strong military presence in the region, with its regional allies armed to the teeth with the latest state-of-the-art US equipment, the end of 2016 finds Washington in the rather bizarre and completely unfamiliar and unimaginable situation of being virtually marginalised in meaningfully influencing the shape of the emerging strategic landscape of the strategically vital West Asian region. This is not because other players have edged the US out but an almost inevitable consequence of outgoing US President Barack Obama's very deliberately adopted (and trenchantly criticised both within and outside the US; but this author views it as statesmanlike for the longer term) retrenchment approach and refusal to get militarily involved in new conflicts in West Asia. The vacuum has been filled by Russia, which has emerged as the new power broker in West Asia with Iran becoming the most influential regional power.

SYRIA
Credible estimates suggest almost 500,000 people have died in the many wars raging in Syria since March 2011; approximately 5 million people have fled the country and over 6.5 million people are internally displaced, cumulatively comprising over half the total Syrian population in 2011. The utterly devastating destruction of housing and infrastructure in its cities has left Syria a completely broken country where normalcy will not return, if ever, for decades.

Robust Russian military intervention since September 2015 in favour of Assad, and Iran’s consistently growing support and commitment to Assad – compelled by evolving circumstances; the steadily dwindling support for rebels from Turkey; Gulf Sunni States and the West; Assad’s finally taking full control over the psychologically and strategically vital Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and erstwhile commercial and financial centre, enabled by a ceasefire and evacuation of rebels brokered by Turkey and Russia; the focus of all major players increasingly shifting towards defeating the Islamic State – are all factors that have ensured that Assad can no longer be overthrown by military means.

In August 2016, Turkey launched operation Euphrates Shield, which envisages the creation of a Turkish military controlled ‘safe haven’ of over 5000 square kilometres of territory inside Syria to prevent any possibility of the Kurds creating an unbroken corridor under their control extending across the entire Syrian-Turkish border. In the closing weeks of 2016, a rather improbable and opportunistic alliance emerged consisting of Iran, Russia and Turkey, which has taken control of efforts to bring about peace in Syria, with the US and European countries being deliberately excluded from its meetings.

Prognosis:The multiple ongoing wars in Syria between Assad and Salafi/Jihadi/al Qaeda affiliated rebels; between Assad and other ‘moderate’ rebels; between Assad and the IS; between the IS and other rebels; between the al Qaeda affiliated rebels and other rebels; between various foreign countries and the IS; Turkey’s war against the Kurds scaled up by operation Euphrates Shield, etc., will continue but the intensity of these different wars will diminish significantly except for the war against the IS, which will be ratcheted up, as well as the Turkish war against the Kurds. Assad will remain in power.

There will be serious and sincere Russia driven efforts for ceasefires and peace talks. Given US President-elect Donald Trump’s warm feelings for Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a strategic partnership between the two in Syria is likely to fructify. This will boost the possibilities of moving forward towards ending the mayhem in Syria though collaterally working to Assad’s advantage. Russia and Iran will continue to be the dominant political foreign influence in Syria. 

Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been a particularly destabilising element in West Asia since the advent of the so-called Arab spring; and his frequent policy flip-flops suggest that Turkey will remain a spoiler rather than a constructive factor. Operation Euphrates Shield could cause new complications in Syria.

YEMEN

The inability of the former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a Shia but a protégé of the Sunni Saudi Arabia since 1991, to control the Arab Spring related unrest led to his ouster in the Saudi manipulated Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) “mediation” in November 2011. In February 2012, he was replaced by Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, a Sunni, from Yemen's south. Hadi’s inept and ineffective governance and his equally incompetent leadership of the military enabled the Houthis to take control of Sana’a in September 2014. Saleh opportunistically announced an alliance with the Houthis in March 2015 after his residence was attacked by Saudi planes. Despite eviction from office, given Saleh’s still enormous influence over the army, a significant part of the country (including Aden, albeit briefly) came under Houthi/Saleh control. Despite the relentless Saudi offensive, Houthis and their allies continue to maintain their hold over Sana’a, a significant part of the northern highlands, much of the coastal areas, and the important city of Taiz.

Justifying these developments as Iran posing an existential threat, Saudi Arabia, without any credible basis whatsoever, launched operation Decisive Storm on 15 March 2015, in alliance with a few GCC and other Sunni Arab countries. In the complete reversal of the traditional under the radar foreign policy, this new muscular approach was initiated by the extremely ambitious, brash and completely inexperienced new Saudi Defence Minister, Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, the favourite son of new Saudi King, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. Heavy and indiscriminate aerial bombing has devastated Yemen, the poorest Arab country, causing approximately 10,000 deaths; displacement of 1.5 million people; and unimaginable destruction in its cities and infrastructure, leaving 86 per cent of its population in need of urgent and sustained humanitarian assistance.

Two side-effects of all these developments have been the very considerable enhancement of the influence and power of al Qaeda in Yemen and the ingress of the IS.

Prognosis:Saudi Arabia cannot win this war and this realisation will finally sink in. The drain on Saudi resources will pinch ever more. The international community will finally be compelled to start pressurising Saudi Arabia to end this war. The unnatural and opportunistic alliance between Saleh and the Houthis will begin to crumble. Multi-pronged efforts will be initiated to organise ceasefires to enable humanitarian aid for the Yemeni people. As a result of all this, the intensity of the Saudi assault and internal civil war are likely to abate, setting the stage hopefully for a stop to all hostilities in 2018.

ISLAMIC STATE 

Prognosis:

The IS as a territorial entity will almost certainly be militarily defeated before 2017 ends though small isolated pockets controlled by IS fighters will remain. The new IS tactics of carrying out high visibility high casualty attacks in Europe, Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., would likely escalate. However, the ideology that inspired and underpinned the IS will remain to trouble West Asia and the world for a considerable time to come.

Masters Fellowships in Public Health and Tropical Medicine for Low and Middle Income Countries 2017/2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 29th March 2017

To be taken at (country): UK

About Scholarship: This scheme strengthens scientific research capacity in low- and middle-income countries, by providing support for junior researchers to gain research experience and high-quality research training at Masters Degree level.

Research projects should be aimed at understanding and controlling diseases (either human or animal) of relevance to local, national or global health. This can include laboratory based molecular analysis of field or clinical samples, but projects focused solely on studies in vitro or using animal models will not normally be considered under this scheme.

Type: Masters, Fellowship

Eligibility: You should be:

• A national or legal resident of a low- and middle-income country, and hold a first degree in subject relevant to tropical medicine or public health (clinical or non-clinical). See list of countries below.
• At an early stage in your career, with limited research experience, but have a demonstrated interest in or aptitude for research.

Benefits

• Fellows will receive a stipend in accordance with the cost of living in the country in which he/she will be studying; travel costs and support for approved tuition fees. Masters training by distance learning is acceptable.
• Research-dedicated costs (excluding salary/stipend costs) should not exceed £20 000 per annum.

Duration: This fellowship normally provides up to 30 months’ support. A period of 12 months should normally be dedicated to undertaking a taught Masters course at a recognized centre of excellence, combined with up to 18 months to undertake a research project.

Eligible African Countries: Algeria, Angola,  Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep. , Congo, Rep., Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Federation Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey , Uganda, Ukraine,  Rep. Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Other Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, American Samoa, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,  Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Arab Rep., El Salvador, Fiji, The Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Rep. Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Korea, Dem Rep., Kosovo, Kyrgyz, Republic Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mayotte, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea,  Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Serbia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. ,Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Syrian, Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, RB Vietnam,  West Bank and Gaza Yemen,

How to Apply

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details

Bank of England Undergraduate Scholarships+Internships for African or Carribbean Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 26th February 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Candidates: African, African American or Caribbean

To be taken at (country): UK

Field of Study: There are no specific degree courses that candidates need to be following. However, successful candidates will need to demonstrate an interest in the areas of the Bank’s work.

Type: Undergraduate, Internship

Eligibility: The programme is open to:

• students who are eligible to work and study in the UK
• at least 260 UCAS points – please visit the UCAS website for more information
• household income below £50,000
• You must be planning to start a full-time undergraduate degree in Autumn 2017

Selection: 

• Those who are successful at this stage will be invited to an Assessment and Development Centre Interview with Windsor Fellowship during the period March – April 2017
• The final stage assessment, with the Bank of England during the last two weeks of April 2017
• Awards made in May 2017

Number of Awardees: 3

Value of Scholarship: The programme will provide successful candidates with:

•  Up to £30,000 to support living costs during your undergraduate degree.
•  Paid summer internships.
•  Mentoring, coaching and support from a member of our team.

Successful scholars do not need to be British Citizens but must be free from any time restrictions on their stay in the United Kingdom. The Bank is not able to apply for visas or work permits for successful candidates.

Duration of Scholarship: 3 years

Apply now

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Bank of England, Windsor Fellowship

Important Notes: If you have a situation that you believe you would like to be considered for more than one programme in any given year, please email BankofEngland@penna.com for further discussion about your circumstances.

Ghanaian Engineers & Architects Association of America (GEAAA) Scholarships for African Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st January, 2017

Eligible Countries: African countries

Type: Undergraduate, Graduate

About the Award: The scholarship awards are given by GEAAA annually to individuals who undertake innovations that provide practical solutions to technological problems pertaining to Africa, as well as contribute to its economic growth & quality of life. For non-student recipients the awards are given as grants. There are two categories of this scholarship:

• 2017 GEAAA Dr.  Osei Kwabena Gyebi Scholarship Fund
• 2017 GEAAA Prof. Nicholas Kumapley Scholarship Fund

2017 GEAAA Dr.  Osei Kwabena Gyebi Scholarship Fund

Eligibility: To be eligible for this scholarship, candidate must:

• Be of African Descent (Higher priority is given to applicants of Ghanaian descent)
• Be a University or Polytechnic Student (enrolled or admitted), Researcher, Artisan
• Have current or prospective career or research interest in science and/or technology including, but not limited to, any of the following areas: Agriculture – mass & year round production techniques including irrigation, rain harvesting or cloud seeding to augment precipitation Mechanical Engineering – equipment, machinery, tools Energy, including renewable energy Electrical Engineering Civil Engineering – clean water supply, sanitary / wastewater treatment, transportation, infrastructure Information Technology and Communication Bio Engineering Chemical Engineering Architecture&/City/Town Planning – affordable housing techniques Sciences & other Allied Professions
• Other Technological Contributions

Value of Scholarship:

• Students: US$ 500
• Non-Students : US$ 1,000

Application Procedure:

• Complete Application Form
• Narrative (Not more than 500 words) A description of research, career or other interest as it contributes to the goals of the Scholarship Fund.
• Resume /Curriculum Vitae
• Academic Transcripts or Proof of Admission, if a student
• A Letter of Recommendation from individual in supervisory position.
• For non-student applicants the Fund is given in a form of grant. Provide a proposed Budget and Justification

2017 GEAAA Prof. Nicholas Kumapley Scholarship Fund

Eligibility: 

• Be a University or Polytechnic Student (Undergraduate or Post-Graduate) with a major in Engineering, Architecture, Science or Mathematics
• Must demonstrate high academic achievement in Engineering, Architecture, or Mathematics/Science
• Be planning a career in Engineering, Architecture or Mathematics/Science
• Must demonstrate strong interest in developing concepts that contribute towards Solutions to technological challenges in Africa.

Value of Scholarship: US$ 200 to U$500

Application Procedure:

• Complete attached Application Form
• Narrative/Essay (350-400 words)
• Resume /Curriculum Vitae
• Academic Transcripts from a Tertiary Institution or Proof of Admission into a Tertiary Institution
• A letter of recommendation from individual in supervisory position

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Duration of Scholarships: One-time award

How to Apply: All applications and supporting documents must be submitted electronically to info@geaaa.us

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Ghanaian Engineers & Architects Association of America (GEAAA)

Important Notes: Awardees will be notified not later than March 31, 2017

$50,000 OPEC/OFID Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st May, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at (country): Any recognized University in the world

Accepted Subject Areas: The Scholarship is open to those students who wish to pursue studies in a relevant field of Development or Energy Studies such as: economics of development (poverty reduction, energy and sustainable development), environment (desertification), or other related science and technology fields.

About Scholarship

OFID (The OPEC Fund for International Development) is pleased to announce that qualified applicants who have obtained or are on the verge of completing their undergraduate degree and who wish to study for a Master’s degree are welcome to apply for the OFID Scholarship 2017/2018

OFID scholarships will be awarded to four students or candidates for master’s degree studies. Applicants must be from a developing country (except OFID Member Countries),  and he/she must first obtain admission to pursue a Master’s degree studies in a relevant field of development, from any recognized university/college in the world.

Through its scholarship scheme, OFID aims to help highly motivated, highly driven individuals overcome one of the biggest challenges to their careers – the cost of graduate studies. The winners of the OFID Scholarship Award will receive a scholarship of up to US$50,000. The funds will be spread over a maximum of two years, toward the completion of a Master’s degree, or its equivalent, at an accredited educational institution, starting in the autumn of the academic year 2017/2018.

Type: Full masters scholarship

Selection Criteria: Applicants are responsible for gathering and submitting all necessary information. Applications will be evaluated based on the information provided. Therefore, all questions should be answered as thoroughly as possible. Once an application has been submitted, no changes will be allowed on it.

Eligibility: To be eligible to apply for the OFID Masters Scholarship, applicants:

• Must be between the ages of 23-32 at the time of submitting his/her application.
• Must have obtained or be on the verge of completing their undergraduate degree with a Baccalaureate from an accredited college/university, or its equivalent.
• Must have a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher on a 4.0 rating system, or its equivalent.
• Must be matriculated at an accredited university for the upcoming academic year starting August/September 2015, and must maintain full-time status for the duration of the Master’s Degree.
• Must be a national of a developing country (except OFID Member Countries)
• Must select a subject of study that pertains to OFID’s core mission, such as: economics of development (poverty reduction, energy and sustainable development), environment (desertification), or other related science and technology fields.

Number of Scholarship: Four

Scholarship Benefits: The winners of the OFID Scholarship Award will receive a full tuition scholarship of up to US$50,000. The funds will be spread over a maximum of one year, toward the completion of a Master’s degree, or its equivalent, at an accredited educational institution.

Duration: one year masters degree programme

Eligible African Countries: See the list of eligible developing countries for OFID Masters scholarship from the link below

How to Apply: Applicants must complete the online application.

Within the on-line application, applicants must upload the required documents as listed below in Section III. All materials including the on-line application, recommendations, and other required information must be received no later than the deadline date.

Required Documents

• A completed on-line application form.
• A scanned copy of the applicant’s passport.
• A scanned copy of the last university degree or certificate.
• A scanned letter of acceptance from chosen educational institution, confirming your admission, subject of study and duration of the Master’s degree program (must not exceed one year).
• A proof of meeting any prerequisites, including language proficiency.
• A short essay – of about 500 words in English – giving reasons for applying for the OFID scholarship, explaining your educational goals, and clearly describing how you will use the experience gained from your Master’s degree studies to help in the development of your home country.
• Two letters of recommendation from professors and/or lecturers at applicant’s present university.
• Curriculum Vitae (CV)..

Only the winner will be notified in June 2017 via OFID website at www.ofid.org.

Visit Scholarship Webpage  for more details

Sponsors: The OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID)

International Masters in Rural Development (IMRD) Scholarship 2017/2018 – Erasmus Mundus

Application Deadline: 1st March 2017

Eligible Countries: Countries labelled as Partner countries under the EMJMD Consortium agreement.

To be taken at (University): Through IMRD you can study at least one semester at the following universities:

within Europe

• Ghent University (Belgium)
• Humboldt University of Berlin (Germany)
• Agrocampus Ouest (France)
• University of Pisa (Italy)
• Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (Slovakia)

outside Europe

• ESPOL (Ecuador)
• China Agricultural University (China)
• Nanjing Agricultural University (China)
• University of Arkansas (USA)
• University of Pretoria (South Africa)
• University of Agricultural Sciences of Bangalore (India)

About the Award: Being an Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree, the IMRD programmes is entitled to – each academic year – award a limited number of Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree (EMJMD) Student scholarships to promising nationals of Erasmus+ Partner Countries. The aim of these scholarships is for these promising students to finance their participation to the IMRD programme.

The scholarship is administrated by the IMRD Consortium which disburses the scholarship awardee with the respective payments on a timely basis which is mutually agreed upon through the signing of a Student Agreement/Contract. Payment of the scholarship only occurs upon arrival in Ghent (Belgium) and after the signing of the Student Agreement.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Applicants which have the official nationality of an Erasmus+ Partner Country, and who meet the IMRD admission requirements and have been be academically admitted by the IMRD Management Board to participate the IMRD programme. Other eligibility requirements of the program include:

• Applicants must have at least a Bachelor’s degree of min. 3 years from a university or recognized equivalent in preferably bioscience engineering or agricultural sciences, (preferably agricultural economics) with good overall scores (at least a second class or equivalent, preferably higher).

• Applicants must be able to demonstrate through their transcripts basic science training in: (i) mathematics and/or statistics; (ii) agronomy and/or biology and/or environmental sciences; and (iii) social sciences/sociology and/or rural development and/or economics.

• Language requirements:
  The English language proficiency can be met by providing a certificate (validity of 5 years) of one of the following tests:
  –    TOEFL IBT 80
  –    TOEFL PBT 550
  –    ACADEMIC IELTS 6,5 overall score
  –    CEFR B2 Issued by a European university language centre
  –    ESOL CAMBRIDGE English CAE (Advanced)
  Language of instruction is not accepted anymore, except applicants who are nationals from or have obtained a bachelor and/or master degree in a higher education institute with English as mode of instruction in USA, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland or Canada, and in the latter case a certificate that the mode of instruction was English has to be submitted.

Selection Criteria: EMJDM Student Scholarships are awarded on the basis of merit. Notwithstanding, the Selection and Award Committee takes the following 3 points into consideration:

1. a fair gender balance amongst the scholarship awardees
2. a fair geographical balance (ideally max. 2 scholarships per nationality)
3. the choice for the Thesis Partner University in order for a fair balance amongst consortium partners (max. 1 EMJMD scholarship per Thesis Partner University per intake)

Selection: The selection of awardees of these scholarships, is conducted by the IMRD Management Board. They take their decision carefully after assessing all complete application files of the academically admitted candidates for the IMRD programme who applied correctly and timely for the EMJMD Scholarships.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:  

• 2 year Programme Costs for the IMRD programme (= 2 x 9,000 => 18,000 EUR)
• 2 year full worldwide insurance coverage
• contribution to travel and installation costs (either 5,000 or 7,000 EUR)
• 24 monthly subsistence allowances (= 24 x 1,000 => 24,000 EUR)

The EMJMD Student Scholarship does not include:

• visa costs
• study material
• transportation costs from one mobility to another

Duration of Scholarship: 2 years

How to Apply: Complete the IMRD-form before 1 March 2017 to be taken into account for a scholarship! In the application procedure, you first apply for academic admission. When you are academically admitted, you will be sent the links to the scholarship application forms.

Apply for admission to the consortium and a scholarship by registering here and completing the application form here. For all questions in relation to the scholarship procedure and other questions regarding tuition fee, accommodation, visa matters, etc. please contact applications.itc@ugent.be

Visit Scholarship Webpage   and  Program Webpage for details  

Award Provider: European Commission