9 Feb 2017

Trudeau and Trump: An alliance of aggression and war

Roger Jordan

With the full support of Canada’s ruling elite, the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau has responded to the coming to power of Donald Trump, at the helm of the most right-wing administration in US history, by signaling its eagerness to maintain and deepen Ottawa’s military-strategic partnership with Washington.
Two events over the past week have underscored the reactionary character of the Trudeau-Trump alliance—an alliance which will be founded on an aggressive assertion of the predatory interests of Canadian and US imperialism through trade war, militarism, and war.
Last week, Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, delivered a speech to a meeting in Vancouver in which he enthused over the future of the Canada-US relationship. “We are on the verge, I think, of great things together with the new administration,” he boasted.
Then on Monday, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan travelled to Washington. There he met with Secretary of Defence James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who led US forces in invading Afghanistan, then oversaw the US military’s scorched-earth assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004.
The mutual backslapping and compliments exchanged by the two former military officers (Sajjan served as an intelligence operative in the Canadian army in Afghanistan) was all the more ominous in that it took place immediately after Mattis’ return from a trip to South Korea and Japan, where he continued the Trump administration’s bellicose denunciations of China. As part of the Obama administration’s anti- China “pivot to Asia,” Ottawa and Washington concluded a secret military agreement in 2013 governing joint operations in the Asia-Pacific region
Mattis applauded the role played by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, where they spearheaded the neo-colonial counter-insurgency war in the country’s south for more than five years (2005-11). “The Princess Patricia’s Light Infantry were the first troops that came in to reinforce us at Kandahar, and they were a welcome sight,” said Mattis. “There was ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ in those days, but I was hugging and kissing every one of your guys coming out of the plane.”
Sajjan responded by emphasizing Ottawa’s ongoing commitment to its joint missions with the US military in Iraq and Ukraine. He also stressed the importance of the North American Aerospace Defence (NORAD) alliance, a Cold War partnership which was expanded in 2006 to incorporate joint maritime defence.
That Sajjan made a point of praising NORAD is significant. Canada’s defence policy review, which is soon to issue its conclusions, is expected to recommend Ottawa join the US ballistic missile defence shield. This would take place under the auspices of NORAD and would be aimed, its name notwithstanding, at giving Washington the capability to fight and win a nuclear conflict with Russia and other great-power rivals of the Canadian and US bourgeoisies.
In contrast to the ruling elites of Europe, whose main reaction to Trump has been consternation and a push to assert their interests more independently of and even in opposition to the United States, Canada’s is clinging ever more tenaciously to the coat-tails of US imperialism. This is because Canadian big business is determined to retain privileged access to the US market and its role as Washington’s closest ally.
The Canada-US partnership has served, since the Second World War, as the cornerstone of the Canadian elite’s foreign policy—the foundation from which it has asserted its imperialist ambitions around the globe. To secure and strengthen that partnership, Canadian governments have deployed troops in virtually every US-led war and major military intervention over the past quarter century, including the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 NATO war on Yugoslavia, the 2004 “regime change” operation in Haiti, the Afghan War, and the 2011 war on Libya.
Canada is also deeply involved in the Washington’s major military-strategic offensives in the oil-rich Middle East and against Russia and China. Canadian troops are in the process of deploying to lead one of four, new “forward-deployed” NATO battalions in Eastern Europe that are aimed at menacing Russia. Canadian Special Forces are training Kurdish forces in Iraq in a so-called “advise and assist” role that has repeatedly seen them active on the front line. Ottawa has also deployed 200 military trainers to the Ukraine, where they are preparing troops loyal to the ultra-right wing government in Kiev to, in the words of Trudeau, “liberate” eastern portions of the country from pro-Russian separatists.
So as to underscore the importance it attaches to coordinating Canada’s military-security initiatives with Washington, the Trudeau government has delayed a planned deployment of 600 troops to Africa to wage counter-insurgency war under the United Nations’ blue. “peacekeeping” banner. This decision has reportedly angered Germany and France, which have been looking for Canadian help in pacifying West and Central Africa. But as Trudeau government officials have bluntly explained to the media, before proceeding they want to make sure they have the necessary military resources to meet any “asks” from the Trump administration.
Senior figures in the Liberal government have emphasized that war is an enduring bond between Washington and Ottawa. Following his meeting with Mattis, Sajjan remarked that the Canada-US alliance had been “forged on the battlefield.” Voicing confidence that the Trudeau government will be able to establish a productive relationship with a Trump-led America, Andrew Leslie, the parliamentary secretary to Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, declared, “We’ve established a reputation earned in blood of being there when the chips are down, and being tough and determined, and getting the job done.”
A retired lieutenant-general and ex-commander of Canada’s forces in Afghanistan, Leslie has been given a point-man role in managing Canada-US relations, because of his close ties to Mattis, Trump’s National Security Adviser, General Michael Flynn, and other militarists in key administration positions.
The Trump administration’s unprecedented reliance on ex-military officers and promotion of the military, as exemplified by the unexplained appearance of ten senior military officers behind the President during his inaugural address, has provoked little, if any concern, in Canada’s ruling elite. Nor is it put off by Trump’s patently anti-democratic actions, such as his ban on all entries to the US of people from seven Muslim countries. An anonymous senior government source told the Globe and Mail, “Actually, we’re getting along quite well with these guys,” before adding, “They are saying very nice things to us. They are saying they love Canada.”
Canada’s corporate media and military-strategic think-tanks have seized on Trump’s pledges to strengthen the US military and his criticisms of NATO states for not “carrying their weight” to step up their longstanding campaign for Canada to rapidly move toward meeting the NATO target of spending 2 percent of GDP on Defence. This would require doubling Canada’s military spending to $40 billion per year.
On his return from Washington, Sajjan indicated that the Liberal government will be hiking Canada’s defence budget beyond the ten-year schedule of increases announced in the Conservatives’ 2015 budget. “We are committed to investing in our defence,” he told a press conference Tuesday.
Any increase in military spending will be paid for through new austerity measures directed against the working class. With Canada expected to run a budget deficit of $25 billion this year, the National Post ’s John Ivison recently noted that Ottawa has already cut all the “low-hanging fruit” and any savings will require taking unpopular decisions. He cited Brian Lee Crowley, head of the right-wing McDonald Laurier Institute, who remarked, “Pretty much all the choices available are politically hard and/or economically damaging.”

Chinese foreign minister warns against war with the US

Peter Symonds

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi declared on Tuesday in Canberra that a war between the United States and China was unthinkable because of the disastrous losses that conflict would bring to both sides. However, the very fact that Wang was questioned about the Trump administration’s belligerent stance toward Beijing is another indication of the growing fears of conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.
Speaking at a joint press conference with his Australian counterpart Julie Bishop, Wang was asked by an Australian journalist for his reaction to statements by the new US administration signalling “a stronger and even more aggressive posture towards China on a range of issues… How concerned are you really by the possibility of war between the US and China?”
The journalist specifically highlighted the comments of Trump’s top adviser Steve Bannon, predicting war between the US and China in five to ten years over the South China Sea. Bannon, who was speaking last March on the extreme right-wing web site Breibart, said: “There is no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those.”
Wang was at pains to play down the danger of war, declaring that despite “tough or sometimes even irrational failings on China-US relations” over the past four decades, the relationship had “defied all kinds of difficulties and has been moving forward continuously.”
Taking a shot at Bannon, Wang declared: “Any sober-minded politician, they clearly recognise that there cannot be conflict between China and the United States because both will lose, and both sides cannot afford that.”
However, while continuing the confrontational stance of the previous Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” against China, the Trump administration represents a fundamental shift toward a no-holds barred assertion of the interests of American imperialism. Trump’s “America First” demagogy, which has been directed in particular against China, signifies a ruthless determination to halt the historic decline of the US in a struggle against rivals and allies alike through all, including military, means.
Moreover, while Yang is dismissive of Bannon, Trump has placed the fascistic, former editor of Breitbart News on the top tier of his National Security Council—that is, the body tasked with responding to emergencies and crises, as well as preparing and overseeing provocations, military interventions and wars.
It is no accident that Bannon focused on the South China Sea, which the Obama administration transformed into a dangerous international flash point through its destabilising interventions into China’s territorial disputes with its neighbours. Using China’s land reclamation activities on a handful of islets, Obama gave the green light for three “freedom of navigation” operations—that is, the dispatch of US navy destroyers within territorial waters claimed by China.
Trump and his advisers have been critical of the Obama administration’s actions for not being forceful enough in confronting Beijing over the South China Sea. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson, now US Secretary of State, said the Trump administration would “send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”
Sending US destroyers within the 12-nautical-mile limits around Chinese islets was a reckless and provocative course that risked a military clash. Tillerson’s threat to block Chinese access in its South China Sea could be implemented only by imposing a naval blockade in the disputed waters—a flagrant act of war.
Foreign Minister Wang suggested that the Trump administration in office was already moderating its hard-line, anti-China stance. He pointed out that James Mattis, the new US Defence Secretary, stressed the importance of diplomacy in relation to the South China Sea disputes.
Mattis, who visited South Korea and Japan in his first overseas trip, had already raised tensions with China by concluding an agreement with Seoul to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea and threatening North Korea with “overwhelming” force if it attacked the US and its allies. In Japan, Mattis affirmed that the US would back Japan in any war with China over disputed islets in the East China Sea.
Having provoked angry reactions from Beijing on these two volatile flash-points, Mattiss’s comments on the South China Sea were relatively low-key. He declared that China’s land reclamation activities had “shredded the trust of nations in the region” but the US would exhaust diplomatic efforts to resolve the issues. “At this time, we do not see any need for dramatic military moves,” he added.
While publicly calling “at this time” for diplomacy before conflict, privately, according to several news sources, Mattis spoke of far more aggressive military measures to top Japanese officials.
The Nikkei Asian Review reported: “Mattis said America would no longer be that tolerant of China’s behaviour in the South China Sea. He pledged to take an active role in protecting freedom of navigation… Specifically, the US is set to increase the frequency of patrols within 12 nautical miles of man-made islands China has constructed in the sea.”
The newspaper also noted comments by the US defence secretary “likening China’s expansion today to an effort to re-create the tributary system of the Ming Dynasty… In Mattis’s telling, Beijing could be trying to use its military and economic might to re-create a similar set-up today, though such efforts will not be tolerated in the modern world.”
Confronted with a bellicose US administration and the threat of war, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) veers between trying to appease Washington and engaging in an arms race that only heightens the danger of conflict. A senior official with China’s Central Military Commission, Liu Guoshun, warned last month that “a war within the [US] president’s term, war breaking out tonight, are not just slogans but the reality.”
The Chinese regime, which represents the interests of a tiny ultra-rich elite, is organically incapable of making any appeal to the only social force capable of halting the drive to war—the working class in China, the United States and internationally.
The threats by the Trump administration to implement trade war measures against China, to tear up alliances and multilateral arrangements if they are not in the immediate interests of American imperialism and, above all, to expand and use the US military to enforce American dominance are destabilising the entire region. The disputes in the South China Sea are just one of the triggers that could precipitate a catastrophic war.

US Exit from the TPP: Opportunities and Alternatives for Japan

Chandrali Sarkar


US President Donald Trump sounded the death knell for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by signing an executive order withdrawing the country from the Partnership. This scenario is viewed as a setback not just for the TPP but also as preventing the Japanese economy from accomplishing the targets set as per the 'third arrow' of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s 'Abenomics'. Given the turn of circumstances, what alternatives does Japan have? Could Abe turn the situation around to Japan's benefit?
Significance of the TPP for JapanThe TPP has been significant for Japan for three key reasons: enhancing the Japanese economy; promoting Japan-US understanding over the reduction of import tariffs; and balancing China’s economic expansion in the Asia-Pacific region.
Japan has had the misfortune of a deflationary crisis for the past two decades. 'Abenomics', the economic policy announced by Abe in December 2012 in the hope of restoring inflation within the Japanese economy, entails ‘three arrows': fiscal stimulus; monetary easing; and structural reforms. Opening up the Japanese market for free trade and structural reforms within the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors seems to be the plausible solution towards achieving Abe’s target of two per cent inflation of the GDP from its current deflationary trend. The US' participation in the TPP would have not only enhanced Japan-US economic relations but would have also provided Japan with a larger market base for increasing its exports. With the US' withdrawal from the TPP, this is no-longer a credible prospect, compelling Japan to explore ways to salvage the intended benefits of the TPP.
The TPP, which was originally a trade negotiation between 12 signatories, accounts for almost 40 per cent of the global trade. Japan and the US would have collectively enjoyed 60 per cent of the total benefits arising from this deal. However, without the US, the TPP is likely to lose approximately 250 million consumers. This creates an irreplaceable vacuum of consumer base that neither Japan nor the other signatories of the TPP can fill. Moreover, the fall of the TPP makes way for the ASEAN led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The RCEP has the potential to become a significant trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region. The US' withdrawal from the TPP robs the Partnership of its strategic significance, i.e. balancing China’s ascendency in the Asia- Pacific region. In the absence of the US, China becomes a powerful economy in the Asia-Pacific region, occupying a position that calls the shots.
Alternatives to the TPPAlthough Abe would prefer a US presence within the TPP, it will not cause much harm if he chooses to speculate the feasibility of the TPP without the US and deal with Washington separately; and more so now that deal is dead and the US seems more inclined to develop bilateral ties. Recently, Abe embarked on a four-nation trip to Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam to secure participation within the TPP. However, to Abe’s dismay, Trump has said "I see Abe’s visit being more about finding a follow-through, a replacement for TPP."
Under such circumstances, Abe feels compelled to make statements in favour of establishing bilateral deals with the US. Abe and Trump are scheduled to meet in the US in February 2017, and both seek progress on bilateral trade negotiations. However, under a bilateral treaty, Japan is likely to lose out on the equal foothold that it would have otherwise enjoyed in the TPP framework.
Therefore, Japan is now warming up to the RCEP. Alternatively, it might choose to invest in developing its EPAs or bilateral trade negotiations with countries like Singapore, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Chile, Thailand, Switzerland, and India, and with groupings like the ASEAN. It could be highly advantageous for Japan to expand the EPAs into multilateral trade agreements. An EPA can have a very broad scope and can also include most of the TPP signatories, thereby giving Japan the required platform to begin its own version of trans-pacific trade negotiations; and also giving the country access to vital markets across the world.
Looking AheadWorking via a pre-existing negotiation framework - like the EPAs - would not only save time but also result in an active shift of the Japanese foreign policy. This means Japan would get the chance to ‘initiate’ multilateral trade talks instead of participating in just one. A separate US-Japan bilateral treaty might give Japan the required room to develop its own economic strategy within the Asia- Pacific, which it may use as leverage to create a balance of power situation vis-à-vis a rising China as well as develop the domestic economy.
Although the US withdrawal drastically changes Japan’s circumstances in the Asia-Pacific region, this could also herald new opportunities that Japan could exploit to its advantage. Significantly, dealing with the eastern block and the western block separately could be beneficial because Japan might get the opportunity to actively construct it foreign policy without being directed by the vision of any foreign power. Finally, if Japan could devise its own version of trade agreements, it could shift from a reactive foreign policy approach to a proactive one.

8 Feb 2017

Dag Hammarskjöld Journalism Fellowships at United Nations Assembly 2017 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 20th March, 2017. 
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing nations of Africa, Asia (including Pacific Island nations), Latin America and the Caribbean
To be taken at (country): New York, USA
Area of Interest: Journalism
About Fellowship: The Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists accepts applications from journalists of the developing nations of Africa, Asia (including Pacific Island nations), Latin America and the Caribbean to cover the United Nations General Assembly beginning in September each year. The fellowships offer a unique opportunity for promising young journalists from developing countries to see the United Nations at work and to report on its proceedings for news media in their home countries.
These awards require the presence of the selected journalist in New York during the first few months of the General Assembly session and should be regarded as an opportunity for news organizations and journalists to provide their audiences with special assignment news coverage from U.N. headquarters.
Offered Since: 1961
Fellowship Type: For journalists employed by a recognized print, radio, television, or internet media organization
Eligibility: The Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists fellowships are open to individuals who:
  • Are natives of one of the developing countries of Africa, Asia (including Pacific Island nations), Latin America and the Caribbean. For 2015 only, the Fund will not accept applications from the countries of the 2015 Fellows – Brazil, Ghana, India, and Kenya — in an effort to rotate recipient countries.
  • Currently live in and write for media in a developing country.
  • Are between the ages of 25 and 35.
  • Have a very good command of the English language since United Nations press conferences and many documents are in English only.
  • Are currently employed full-time as professional journalists for print, television, radio or internet media organizations.
  • Have approval from their media organizations to spend up to three months in New York reporting from the United Nations.
  • Receive a commitment from their media organizations that the reports they file during the term of the Fellowship will be used and that they will continue to be paid as employees.
Selection Criteria
  • Successful applicants must obtain a leave of absence from their employers.
  • By endorsing the application of a staff journalist for a fellowship, the editor undertakes to meet all telephone or other transmission charges and to publish or broadcast copy filed by the reporter.
  • Applicants must be full-time, professional journalists between 25 and 35 years old, be employed by a recognized print, radio, television, or internet media organization, and have a good working knowledge of English.
Number of Fellowships: not specified
Value of Fellowship: The Fund will provide: round-trip airfare to New York; accommodations; health insurance for the duration of the fellowship, and a daily allowance to cover food and other necessities. The Fund will not be responsible for other expenses of a personal nature, such as telephone calls.
Duration of Fellowship: first three months of the General Assembly session
How to Apply
CLICK HERE for the application in Word format
CLICK HERE for the application in PDF format (requires Adobe Reader, free download)
An originally completed AND signed application, along with all six (6) of the Documentation Requirements, should be sent by postal or courier service (such as DHL, FedEx, Airborne) to:
Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists
512 Northampton Street, No. 124A
Edwardsville, PA 18704 USA
Fellowship Provider: Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists

KNUST/MasterCard Foundation Scholarship for Ghanaian & African Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 17:00GMT, 12th May, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Ghanaian and other African countries
To be taken at: The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) Ghana
Eligible Field of Study: A preference for Science students; however, all subjects are considered
About Scholarship: The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program at KNUST provides academically talented yet economically disadvantaged young people in Ghana and Africa with access to quality and relevant university education.  It embodies an array of mentoring and cultural transition services to ensure student academic success, community engagement and transition to employment opportunities which will further social and economic change for Africa.
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)
Offered Since: 2013
Type: undergraduate
Selection Criteria and Eligibility: For the 2017/2018 Academic year, the opportunity is open to;
  • All Applicants with WASSCE or GBCE or ABCE or GCE O’Level or their equivalent Results from an accredited/recognised institution and Certificate Ready and Satisfies KNUST’s Admission Requirements. NO AWAITING RESULTS candidate will be accepted.
  • The Applicant must have Critical Economic Needs.
  • The Applicant must have Proven Records of Leadership and Community Engagement (s).
  • Females and Physically Challenged Applicants shall be given top priority.
  • All Subjects are considered; however, there is Preference for Science Students.
  • The Applicant must be prepared to Go-Back And Give-Back to his or her Community.
Number of Scholarships: several
Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship includes;
  • Comprehensive financial support (full tuition, fully paid accommodation, learning materials and uniforms, transportation and stipend
  • Regular group meetings with other scholars that focus on personal and professional development opportunities and activities tailored to build relationships and scholar capacity.
  • Continued academic support through academic mentoring, virtual learning, life and career coaching and tutoring.
  • Opportunities to participate in leadership congresses, community service and mentoring (Go-back Give- Back) and uniquely sourced internship.
  • An academic environment where faculty and students engage with global issues.
  • The prestige of becoming part of the growing family of MasterCard Foundation Scholars Alumni
  • The opportunity to be enrolled on an accelerated Master’s Degree after undergraduate studies with an MCF Partner institution in the USA.
Duration of Scholarship: full period of study

How to Apply
Download a copy of the application form from www.mcf.knust.edu.gh
  • Submit the completed application form THROUGH EMS/ any other courier mail to:
The Program Manager, 
MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program at KNUST, 
Office of the Dean of Students, KNUST
Private Mail Bag
Kumasi, Ghana
  • Only shortlisted applicants will be called for interviews to be held at the KNUST Secretariat of MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program, Office of the Dean of Students
  • Final Selection will be done by an independent panel constituted by the Vice Chancellor of KNUST.
  • Verification of ALL examination results and door to door visits of SUCCESSFUL candidates will be conducted.
  • Award of the Scholarship will be published on the Program’s website
Sponsors: MasterCard Foundation
Important Notes: There are absolutely no charges/ fees/ facilitation/ agents or intermediaries required at any stage of this process

Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowships in Public Health and Tropical Medicine 2017

Application Deadline: 8th May 2017
Eligible Countries: Low- and middle-income countries
To be taken at (country): Fellowships can be taken in Low- and middle-income countries (See list of countries below)
Eligible Field of Study: Fellowships are awarded in the field of Public Health and Tropical Medicine
About the Award: This scheme helps mid-career researchers from low- and middle-income countries establish independent research programmes in those countries. The scheme aims to support research that will improve public health and tropical medicine at a local, national and global level.
Type: Research (Intermediate career stage)
Eligibility: Students can apply for an Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine if they:
  • Are a national of a low- or middle-income country
  • Have a PhD or a degree in medicine and are qualified to enter higher specialist training
  • Have three to six years postdoctoral experience.
  • Students that do not have a PhD or degree in medicine, Welcome Trust may still be considered if they have a first or Master’s degree and can show substantial research experience.
Students must also:
  • Have a strong track record in your area of research and show the potential to become a scientific leader
  • Have sponsorship from an eligible host organisation in a low- or middle-income country
  • Have a research proposal that is within the public health and tropical medicine remit.
Selection Criteria: 
  • your track record
  • the quality and importance of your research question(s)
  • your approach to solving these questions
  • the suitability of your research environment.
This scheme may be of particular interest if you’re an early career fellow (such as a Training Fellow in Public Health and Tropical Medicine) and this fellowship is the next step in your career as a research scientist.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: Support includes:
  • A basic salary (determined by your host organisation)
  • Personal removal expenses
  • Research expenses, directly related to your proposal
Scholarship can be taken in Low- and middle-income countries
Duration of Fellowship: An Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine is for up to five years and cannot be renewed. An Intermediate Fellowship can be held on a part-time basis.
List of Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina FasoBurundi, Cambodia, CameroonCape Verde, Central African RepublicChad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, CongoDemRep., Congo, Rep., Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Arab Rep., El Salvador, EritreaEthiopia, Fiji, GabonGambia,  Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, GuineaGuinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Rep., Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Dem Rep., Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Lebanon, LesothoLiberiaLibya, Lithuania, Macedonia, FYR, MadagascarMalawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, MauritaniaMauritius, Mayotte, Mexico, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, NigerNigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, SomaliaSouth Africa, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, RB, Vietnam, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen, Rep., Zambia and Zimbabwe
How to Apply: Applicants must submit their application through the Wellcome Trust Grant Tracker (WTGT). Stages of application
  • Submit preliminary application
  • Submit full application
  • External peer review
  • Shortlisting
  • Interview
Award Provider:  Wellcome Trust

The UK Department for International Development (DFID) Internship for Tanzanian Students 2017

Application Deadline:  12 noon on 13th February, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Tanzania
To be taken at (country): Tanzania
About the Award: DFID is a UK government department which leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty. We’re ending the need for aid by creating jobs, unlocking the potential of girls and women and helping to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit.
The internship placement will include supporting your colleagues to deliver their day-to-day work, as well as leading a project or initiative of your own choosing, in agreement with your line manager. The purpose of the internship is to develop skills and experience that you can use in the wide variety of fields in their future career, including gaining a better understanding of working in an international environment. The position also offers the opportunity to develop skills in communication, participating in projects and working with others.
The successful candidates will support DFID Tanzania in delivering development activities across an exciting and diverse portfolio, delivered by four teams:
  • Human Investment Team: including education, health, water, family planning, nutrition and social protection
  • Sustainable Growth Team: including agriculture, infrastructure, job creation, access to finance and trade
  • Governance team: including civil society, anti-corruption, elections and human rights  Strategy, Delivery and Results: including public financial management, tax and statistics

Type: Internship
Eligibility: This opportunity is only open to Tanzanian nationals or applicants who are currently residing in Tanzania and have the legal right to work and live in Tanzania for the duration of this contract.
  • Fluency in English and Swahili (reading, writing and speaking)
  • Passion for development
  • Good IT skills, in particular the MS Office package
  • Motivated, pro-active, willing to learn and develop
Value of Internship: The successful intern will receive a monthly allowance of TZS 1,000,000.
Duration of Internship: 6 months
How to Apply: Applicants should submit a one page CV, latest academic results and a one page statement outlining why you are interested in the position and how you are a suitable candidate for the internship by email to AfricaHrHubRecruit@dfid.gov.uk with the subject line “Internship Opportunity – Tanzania”. Failure to comply with this procedure might lead to your application not being viewed.
Award Provider: UK Department for International Development (DFID)

Morgan Stanley Worldwide University Photo Competition 2017

Application Deadline: 19th February  2017
Eligible Countries: Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East & Africa and North American countries
Type: Contest
Eligibility and Selection Criteria: From January 18 to February 19, we encourage you to submit up to two photographs that illustrate Places and Spaces that you have encountered. After all photos are submitted, our panel of judges will narrow-down all submissions to five entries from each region – Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East & Africa and North America – based on the following criteria:
  • Theme: does the photo accurately reflect the theme Places and Spaces?
  • Creativity: has the entrant used their imagination to create something original?
  • Style: does the photograph hold a distinctive appearance in its technique and form?
  • Impact: does the photograph influence or have a strong effect on its audience?
In order to be eligible, all entrants must be studying at a university in Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East & Africa and North America and the photo must come from a university email address. Students should be willing to provide evidence of their enrolment if short-listed.
Selection:
  • The short-listed photos will be published here by March 17 at which point we would ask you return to the site to cast your vote! Chose the one photo you like most! Or the one that represents your campus! Whatever takes your fancy!
  • Voting period will close on April 23 and the winners will be announced during the week of May 1, 2017.
  • All winners will be informed during the week of May 1, 2017 and announced on this site.
Number of Awards: The three entries with the most votes from each region will win one of the prizes listed below.
Value of Contest: There will be a global winner chosen from across all regions.
First Prize: Apple Watch Sport
Second Prize: FitBit Activity Tracker
Third Prize: US $100 or equivalent local currency in Amazon vouchers
How to Apply: You can submit your photo by emailing photocompetition@morganstanley.com, attaching your photo and specifying the following:
  • Your Name
  • Region
  • University/School where you study
  • A short description (maximum 100 words) of how the photo conveys the theme “Places and Spaces”
Award Provider: Morgan Stanley

Scuola Normale Superiore PhD Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018 – Italy

Application Deadline: 20th February 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International and Italian citizens
To be taken at (country):  Italy
Field of Study: PhD Program in the following fields: Cultures and societies of contemporary Europe, Literature, Art and History in Medieval and Modern Europe, Philosophy, Classics, Physics, Mathematics, Financial Mathematics, Methods and Models for Molecular Sciences, Nanosciences, Neurosciences, and Political Science and Sociology
Type: PhD
Eligibility: Applications for admission are invited from candidates who, irrespective of their citizenship, have an Italian laurea magistrale (MA/MS degree) or an equivalent degree from outside Italy, or who expect to have obtained the degree required for admission by 31 October 2017 – failure to obtain the degree by this date will disqualify the candidate for admission.
Admission to the call is restricted to candidates who:
  • • were born after 31 October 1987;
  • • have no past criminal charges against them resulting in a prison term of more than three years;
  • • have not been subject to the disciplinary measure of “expulsion” as specified in the didactic and internal regulations of the SNS;
  • • are not in possession of a research doctorate issued by an Italian university, and in any case have never benefitted from a scholarship to attend a research doctorate course in Italy.
Number of Awardees: 78
Value of Scholarship: All students admitted to the PhD program receive full financial support. This includes tuition, fees, and a cost-of living scholarship.  All students will be assigned further funding for their research activity and travel.
How to Apply: Applications for admission to the selection process must be registered online by 23:59 CET of 20 February 2017.
The online procedure will be activated at the section dedicated to the call on the SNS web site at the address http://phd.sns.it/
All applications received and registered online after the stipulated date and time will be rejected whatever the cause of delay. Applicants are strongly advised to go through the application procedure before applying.
Award Provider: Scuola Normale Superiore

Top Peruvian politicians implicated in Brazil’s “Lava Jato” corruption scandal

Armando Cruz


Revelations stemming from the investigation into Brazil’s “Lava Jato” bribes and kickbacks scandal centered at the state-run energy conglomerate Petrobras have exposed the use of these same methods abroad, with Brazilian corporations, particularly the construction giant Odebrecht, bribing high-ranking public officers in order to secure lucrative public contracts.

On December 21, the US Department of Justice made public that Odebrecht S.A. and Braskem S.A., a petrochemical company partly owned by Odebrecht, agreed to pay a stunning $3.5 billion in fines to Brazilian, US and Swiss authorities after pleading guilty to charges of bribing officials in 12 countries. The US took part in the prosecution basing itself on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which sanctions companies and individuals that directly or indirectly cause acts of corruption on US soil. (Odebrecht carried out infrastructure projects in Florida, Louisiana and Texas).

“Odebrecht and Braskem used a hidden but fully functioning Odebrecht business unit—a ‘Department of Bribery,’ so to speak—that systematically paid hundreds of millions of dollars to corrupt government officials in countries on three continents,” said US Deputy Assistant Attorney General Suh.

In the settlement, Odebrecht admitted having paid US$788 million in bribes to public officials in Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Angola, Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama and the Dominican Republic. 

In Peru, company executives revealed that US$29 million was paid between 2005 and 2014, a timespan that includes the administrations of Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006), Alan Garcia (2006-2011) and Ollanta Humala (2011-2016), all of them right-wing governments dedicated to the protection and expansion of free-market policies that were imposed in the country during the 1990s.

While Odebrecht was active since the late 1980s in Peru, and was one of the beneficiaries of the corrupt, autocratic government of Alberto Fujimori in the 90s, there has yet to emerge conclusive evidence of illegal practices during that time. Fuerza Popular, the party headed by Fujimori’s daughter Keiko, has made it clear that it will oppose any attempt to investigate Odebrecht-related corruption under the Fujimori government, using its control over the legislature. 

Among the major figures that may be targeted by prosecutors are the current Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, who was prime minister under the Toledo administration, current mayor of Lima Luis Castaneda, who held the same post from 2003 to 2010, and the former mayor of Lima Susana Villaran, who unexpectedly rose to office in 2010 with the support of the pseudo-left.

During each of the last three governments a major infrastructure bid was secured by Odebrecht. Under the Toledo administration, it was the Inter-oceanic Highway, a project that would link Brazil to Peruvian ports in order to facilitate the export of products to China. Under Garcia, it was the construction of a substantial part of the Lima Metro. And under the Humala administration, it was the Gasoducto Sur Peruano, a gas pipeline project that would supply the country’s south with natural gas.

The first major casualty in the Peruvian investigation is ex-president Alejandro Toledo who on the night of February 3 was accused by prosecutors of receiving $20 million in bribes for the construction of the Inter-oceanic Highway thanks to the revelations of a close collaborator, Jorge Barata, Odebrecht’s main man in Peru.

It is reported that this money ended up in a money-laundering case in which the former president and his Israeli wife, Eliane Karp, acquired a mansion in Lima valued at US$3.7 million. Peruvian justice eventually absolved both of them.

In an interview with the daily El Comercio, Toledo, who is currently in Paris attending an economic forum, denied taking the bribes and claimed a “political witch-hunt” by his enemies. He said that, while under his administration the price of the project was secured at US$850 million, it ended up rising to US$2.1 billion in the next administration of Alan Garcia.

On Saturday, prosecutors gave the go-ahead for a raid on one of Toledo’s houses in Lima in the search of evidence linked to the Odebrecht bribes. They claim to have already found US$11 million in the offshore accounts of Israeli businessman Josef Maiman, one of Toledo’s allies.

If Peruvian and international prosecutors ask for his extradition and he is found guilty in a subsequent trial, Toledo would become the second ex-Peruvian president sitting behind bars: Alberto Fujimori was convicted in 2009 of human rights violations in the dirty war against the Sendero Luminoso guerrillas and subsequently against the resistance of the working class to the free market measures ordered by Washington.

Ironically, Toledo was catapulted to the national stage as the overblown symbol of the “democratic resistance” to the autocratic Fujimori regime during its last years, when it was collapsing amidst filthy corruption scandals. Once elected, he continued and deepened Fujimori’s submission to Washington and big business.

With Toledo in the crosshairs of the Lava Jato investigation, the position of the current president, Kuczynski, is becoming increasingly precarious. He was Toledo’s most powerful prime minister, and evidence may turn up that he also was involved in the corrupt deals with Odebrecht. The congressional “Lava Jato Commission” has declared that it is “almost inevitable” that the president will be called to testify.

This could not come at a worse time for Kuczynski. After landslides ravaging most of the Andean region of the country, violent protests in Lima against an excessive highway toll, and a humiliating conflict with the fujimorista-controlled congress over the removal of a minister of education, the president’s approval rating has fallen 11 points in one month.

Two public officers from the Ministry of Transportation and Telecommunications (MTT) under the APRA party government of Alan Garcia have already been detained in connection with Odebrecht’s Lima Metro project. Edwin Luyo, a member of the bidding committee for the Metro, admitted to receiving bribes from Odebrecht and said he could become a witness for the prosecution, while Jorge Cuba, the deputy minister of the MTT, disappeared for some weeks before returning to Lima to face charges.

The accusations of bribes and corruption in connection with the construction of the Metro—a project whose cost rose from US$583 million to US $900 million—have thrown the APRA party and its upper echelons into crisis. This party, the oldest one in Peru, was throughout the 20th century a political force that mobilized a substantial part of the Peruvian working class under a reformist bourgeois program. With its first and second periods in power (both under Alan Garcia,) it was transformed into a club of powerful lobbyists centered around the figure of Garcia, a reported multi-millionaire. Currently, it is completely discredited amongst the working class and youth, who view it as the symbol of corruption in the country.

The response to the prosecution of Luyo and Cuba from the party leadership around Garcia has been to shield the former president and place “political responsibility” for the corrupt deals on the minister of transportation at the time: Jorge Cornejo, who is seen by many as a rising star in the party after a relatively successful participation in the last elections for the mayor in Lima and a potential challenger to Garcia’s near-total domination of the party. Cornejo, who declared some weeks ago that APRA would “disappear if Alan Garcia keeps leading it,” has charged that the orders to scapegoat him come from Garcia himself. The party responded by stripping him of his rights inside APRA.

Meanwhile, in the camp of the pseudo-left, the former mayor of Lima, Susana Villaran, will be summoned to the congressional committee investigating the Odebrecht bribes in connection with the Vias Nuevas de Lima project awarded by the city to Odebrecht in 2012.

Elected in 2010, Villaran was a relative newcomer to Peruvian politics who benefited from popular disaffection from the traditional bourgeois parties. From the start, she came under the political influence of individuals linked to the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers Party) of former presidents Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva and the ousted Dilma Rousseff, such as the Argentinian-Brazilian political operator and former member of the French Lambertist OCI (International Communist Organization), Luis Favre.

The pro-capitalist record of the PT in Brazil did not stop the pseudo-left in Peru from hailing her election and working with her. By promoting her as a viable alternative to the discredited parties, they paved the way for the return of the right-wing populist Castaneda who easily won the last elections. Now these same elements are either distancing themselves from her former administration or defending her against the charges.

Also, there are indications that the main trade union federation, the CGTP, was working in support of Odebrecht. The online journal El Expreso Informativo de Moquegua reported that the CGTP had been promoting the demand that the state gave a US$5 billion credit for the construction of the Gasoducto Andino pipeline, the main project Odebrecht secured during the Humala administration—which the CGTP supported. At the end of January, the CGTP issued a statement lamenting the loss of 15,000 jobs due to the Odebrecht corruption investigations.

These developments have left the ruling class nervously contemplating the discrediting of every party and political institution in Peru. A column in El Comercio, the Peruvian bourgeoise’s main voice, explains that for the majority of the population, “the main discussion [about the politicians] is who got bribed less.” It concludes by warning that the spectacle of corruption tainting the entire political establishment is rich soil for “anti-system” and “anti-status quo” sentiments.