Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowships in Public Health and Tropical Medicine 2018

Application Deadline: 30th November 2017. Full Application Deadline: 12th February 2018

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 Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Dem. Rep., Congo, Rep., Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Arab Rep., El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia,  Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Rep., Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Dem Rep., Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya,Lithuania, Macedonia, FYR, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mexico, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, 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, Somalia, South 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

START YOUR APPLICATION

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Wellcome Trust

Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowships in Public Health and Tropical Medicine 2018

Application Deadline: 

• Full application deadline: 27th November 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Low- and middle-income countries. See list below

To be taken at (country): United Kingdom

Eligible Field of Study: Public health

About the Award: This scheme enables researchers from low- and middle-income countries to establish themselves as leading investigators in their scientific field. The scheme aims to support research that will improve public health and tropical medicine at a local, national and global level.

Type: Post-Doctoral Research

Eligibility: To be eligible for a Senior Research Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine, candidate must:

• be a national of a low- or middle-income country
• have a PhD or a degree in medicine and are qualified to enter higher specialist clinical training
• have five to twelve years of postdoctoral research experience.
• have made significant progress towards establishing yourself as an independent investigator
• have a strong track record in your area of research
• have sponsorship from an eligible host organisation in a low- or middle-income country
• have a research proposal that is within our public health and tropical medicine remit.

Selection Criteria: Candidate’s application must show:

• good track record
• the quality and importance of the research question(s)
• good approach to solving these questions
• the suitability of candidate’s research environment.

Number of Awardees: Not stated

Value of Scholarship: Salary and research expenses covered

Duration of Scholarship: 5 years (candidate can apply for renewal after this time)

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: Candidate must submit their application through the Wellcome Trust Grant Tracker

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Wellcome Trust, UK

Important Notes: Candidates who don’t have PhD or a degree in medicine may still be considered you if they have a first or a Master’s degree and can show substantial research experience. The scheme mmay be very important if candidate is an intermediate career fellow.

Enter for the LEAP Africa International Youth Day Challenge 2017

Application Deadline: 12th August 2017

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: : LEAP Africa, in partnership with African Artists’ Foundation, is calling upon young people (ages 15-30) to submit a creative and inspiring picture or a video that promotes peace by posting it on their Instagram page in the areas of:

• Spoken word or Poetry.
• Art works (photography, artistic drawing, painting or graphic design).

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Candidates must be aged  15-30 years

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• An internship or mentorship opportunity at the African Artist’s Foundation.
• The prizes will include a position as LEAP Africa’s Youth Ambassador for a year and many more.

How to Apply: 

• Contestants must follow LEAP Africa on their social media pages and post their submissions using the hashtags #LEAPIYD2017 and #Youth4Peace.
• It is also important to tag @LEAPAfrica on your post submission.
• Winners will be selected and unveiled a week after the competition.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: LEAP Africa, African Artists’ Foundation

KIIT University Half-fee Scholarships for International Students 2017 – India

Application Deadline: 10th August, 2017.

• Notification on the final list of selected students will be sent 15thAugust, 2017.
• Date of final admission is 18thAugust, 2017
• Reporting of students and starting of classes on 1st September, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) University Odisha, India

Eligible Fields of Study: Applicants are eligible to apply for all courses (see link below) except MBBS, Dental, Nursing and Architecture courses.

About the Award: Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) University is a premier University in India, accorded Category “A” by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. As a centre of Excellence in various streams of Engineering, Bio-Technology, Business Management, Law, Languages, Medical Sciences, Dental Science & Nursing, Fashion Technology, Films, Sculpture, Buddhism etc to more than 27000 students from India and 27 different countries. KIIT continues to forge ahead in Academic excellence and research. With the membership in Association of Commonwealth Universities, Association of International Universities, University Mobility in Asia & the Pacific, (UMAP), International Accreditation Organisation, International partnership with more than 100 Universities across Asia, Europe, America, Africa and Australia. National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) , Ministry of Human Resource Department (MHRD), Government of India has ranked KIIT School of Management as the 22nd best Management School of India & has awarded 47th ranking to KIIT School of Engineering. KIIT’s All India University Ranking by NIRF, MHRD is 49.

Type: Undergraduate and Graduate Taught

Eligibility: Candidates should fulfill the following criteria in order to be eligible to apply for the program:

• KIIT University India Scholarship Program (KUISP) is applicable only for international applicants.
  (Except SAARC Countries)
• Applicants should fulfill the following criteria in order to be eligible to apply for the program:
• Applicants with good academic standing in their home institutions are encouraged to apply.
• Applicants should have a valid passport.
• Preference will be given to applicants from financially challenged background.

Number of Awardees: Not stated

Value of Scholarship: Applicants qualifying for the KUISP Half Scholarship program would be paying 50% of the total fee for international students which includes accommodation and food.

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of Course

How to Apply: Documents that have to be provided in order to apply are as follows:
✓ Copies of academic transcripts/mark sheets
✓ Copy of School leaving Certificate
✓ Copy of Degree Certificate (if applying for Master Programs)
✓ Recommendation Letter.
✓ Proof of English proficiency (if available).
✓ Copies of certificates of academic honours or awards received (if available).

Please mail in your applications to alka.misra@kiit.ac.in

Application Form

Half Scholarship Fees

KUISP Information Extension

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Access KIIT University websites www.kiit.ac.in and www.kiss.ac.in

Award Provider: KIIT University, India

A Global Movement to Confront Drone Warfare

Medea Benjamin

The $600 billion annual cost of the US military budget eats up 54% of all federal discretionary funds. It’s no wonder we don’t have money to address the crisis of global warming, build effective public transportation systems, institute a Medicare-for-All health system, or provide the free college education that all our youth deserve.

You would think it would be easy to form a united front with activists from different movements who want to redirect our tax dollars. Students fighting for free education should understand that stopping just one weapons system, the expensive and unnecessary Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, would fund the education of all college students for the next two decades. Nurses fighting for universal health care should understand that if we cut the bloated military budget, we’d have plenty of money for a national healthcare system like the Europeans have. Environmentalists paddling their kayaks to block oil-digging ships should understand that if we dramatically cut our military spending, we’d have hundreds of billions of dollars to propel us into the era of green, sustainable energy. Unions should recognize that the military is one of the worst creators of jobs in relation to money spent.

It was easier to connect with other movements when the peace movement was strong while trying to stop George W. Bush’s Iraq war. Students came to anti-war rallies calling for “Books not Bombs,” nurses called for “Healthcare not Warfare,” union leaders formed U.S. Labor Against the War. Globally, we universalized our protests, organizing a global day of action on February 15, 2003, a day that made the Guinness World Records as the largest demonstration in world history. So strong was our movement that The New York Times called global public opinion the “second superpower.”

When Barack Obama was elected, the first casualty of his Presidency was the anti-war movement. People dropped out of the movement for a variety of reasons, but mainly because many people thought that Obama would end US military adventurism.

President Obama did achieve a few critical wins for diplomacy, but he invaded Libya, and he also championed a dangerous, new kind of remote controlled killing: drone warfare.

Drones were designed as a way to kill enemies with great precision without putting American troops at risk. But they kill many innocent people—and they stir up anti-American sentiment that fuels an endless cycle of violence.

Drones allowed the US military and CIA to intervene militarily with ease, even in places where we were not at war. These institutions operated secretly, without Congressional approval, and they lied to the public about the accuracy and effectiveness of drone strikes. We were appalled when a 2012 poll revealed that a whopping 83% of Americans supported the killing of “terrorist suspects” with drones. How could so many Americans think we had the right to murder people thousands of miles away who were never charged, tried, or convicted of anything? Our first reaction was, “How are we going to change public opinion so that we can change policy?” We never thought we could build a mass movement against drone warfare as we had built a movement against the Iraq war, but we did think that a small group of committed activists could help move public opinion and then influence government policy.

CODEPINK, along with groups like Veterans for Peace and Voices for Creative Nonviolence, set about educating the public on the horrors of drone warfare. We organized two Global Drone Summits in Washington DC; we wrote books, articles, and op eds; we traveled around the country giving talks at universities, churches, and community centers. We protested at dozens of private and government entities connected with killer drones: the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, Congress, factories and homes of drone manufacturers. We engaged the public by getting tens of thousands of people to sign petitions, and call the President and their Congressional representatives. We encouraged drone pilots to quit and become whistleblowers, and amplified the voices of those who did.

Civil disobedience was a key component of our campaign. We disrupted Congressional testimonies by drone czar John Brennan and Secretary of State John Kerry. We organized die-ins at the CIA. The most creative resistance happened at US military bases where drones were piloted. Hundreds of people were arrested at the bases. Some went to jail for just a day and others for as long as 6 months.

One way this campaign universalized resistance was by connecting with the families of drone victims. We took delegations to Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In Yemen, among the family members we met was Mohammad Al-Qawli, whose innocent brother had been killed by a drone while driving his taxi, leaving behind a young wife and three children. Visibly angry, Al-Qawli told us the Americans refused even to explain why his brother was killed. “In our culture when someone commits a crime or a terrible mistake, they have to acknowledge what they did, apologize, and compensate the family,” he said. “Could it be that my tribal culture is more evolved when it comes to justice than the USA?”

In Pakistan, we learned that drones had attacked weddings, funerals, markets, and schools, terrorizing entire communities. “To Americans, we are disposable people; our lives are worth nothing,” an irate young man told us.

We were so moved by hearing directly from these families that we brought some of them to the United States to hold press conferences and speak before Congress. In 2013, the Rehman family—a father with his two children—traveled from the Pakistani tribal territory to the U.S. Capitol to tell the heart wrenching story of the death of their 67-year-old grandmother. Listening to 9-year-old Nabila relate how her grandmother was blown to bits while picking okra softened the hearts of even the most hardened DC politicos. From the Congressmen to the translator to the media, tears flowed, and dozens of sympathetic stories appeared in the media.

With the globalization of the sale of drones, we also connected with groups in Europe, holding an international gathering that led to the formation of a European network to stop proliferation in their countries.

Our education campaigns, actions, and protests, while never constituting a mass movement and not successful in ending drone warfare, have had a major impact on both public opinion and policy. Public opinion in favor of drone warfare shifted from 83% in 2012 to 60% by 2014. President Obama was pressured to acknowledge and discuss the US drone program, promising that his Administration would reduce drone strikes and minimize civilian casualties. In Pakistan, strikes fell dramatically from a high of 128 in 2010 to 13 strikes in 2015.

In June 2016, the Administration released its first statistics on civilians killed by drones between 2009 and 2015 in areas “outside of active hostilities”: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. The figures of between 64 and 116 casualties were far below calculations of nearly 1,000 made by reputable organizations like the UK’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Yet the fact that the Administration released any figures at all was the result of public pressure.

We were also successful in pushing for compensation for some of the families of innocent victims, which was especially critical for widows with no means to support their children.

As drones for other purposes proliferated at home, activists universalized resistance by making common cause with groups working on domestic issues. One connection was with people on the Left and Right concerned about privacy issues, as drones in the hands of anyone—from the FBI to neighbors to corporations—could be used to spy on people without their knowledge or consent. Another connection was with groups fighting the militarization of police forces, many of them activists related to the Black Lives Matter movement who worried about the police getting drones equipped with military styled weapons. In dozens of states, they formed coalitions that passed laws restricting the use of drones for surveillance and the weaponization of drones.

One other key connection emerged: people who went to prison for their anti-drone actions got a chance to see, firsthand, the similarities between the military–industrial complex and the prison–industrial complex, including how both profit from human suffering. On their release, many peace activists linked with groups fighting mass incarceration that supported former prisoners.

The peace movement has had many ebbs and flows since the 9/11 attacks. Resisting the Iraq war was so clear and urgent that it was possible to build universal resistance. Although we didn’t stop the war, we did speed up public opposition, which helped to reduce military involvement and pave the way for the Iran nuclear deal.

At other times, as with Obama’s secret drone killings, wars have been more covert, making it harder to build strong opposition. Yet making connections with other movements have been critical in counteracting the behemoth military–industrial complex. Moving forward, finding more effective ways of universalizing resistance to militarism across issues and continents, is key to building a more peaceful world.

Venezuela on the Edge of Civil War

DAVID W. PEAR

Venezuela is a step closer to civil war after July 20^th‘s “fake referendum ” held by the government opposition. Corporate Fake News (i.e. mainstream corporate media) haled the fake referendum as a vote of “no confidence” for President Nicolas Maduro.

The vote count of the fake referendum has not been released and likely never will be. Only the number of the turnout was reported as being over 7 million, but who needs to count votes when the referendum was only a symbolic protest?

Symbolic or not, the U.S. Empire propaganda mill is already churning out that President Nicolas Maduro is no longer the legitimate president of Venezuela. As in Syria, when the Empire labels a president illegitimate it uses it as a fig leaf for illegal aggression against a sovereign country.

The fake referendum now opens the door for more U.S. meddling, both covert and overt. The Empire has had its foot firmly inside the door for 17 years.  Reports going back to 2007 document hundreds of millions of dollars funded by the U.S. State Department to instigate an insurgency in Venezuela.  A few hundred million dollars to overthrow President Nicolas Maduro is peanuts for the U.S., compared to the $5 billion that was “invested” in Ukraine’s color revolution.

The U.S. started gunning for Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution from the moment that he was democratically elected in 1998, according to award winning journalist Eva Golinger (Mike Whitney interview, Counter Punch).  Chavez’s election and his Bolivarian Revolutionary challenged the ideology of neoliberalism, pushed by the Empire to exploit developing countries and their resources.

Zealots of neoliberalism, led by the high priests of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, preach that privatization of state owned enterprises, devaluation of the currency, cutting social services for the poor, exploitation of natural resources by international corporations, consolidation of agricultural land into large private holdings, importing cheap subsidized U.S. agriculture, forcing small farmers into city sweatshops, and opening markets to foreign imports will create economic prosperity. It does not. It is Voodoo Economics and the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund know it. What neoliberalism does is guarantee that international bankers will be repaid their crippling loans.

The Bolivarian Revolution rejected neoliberalism and enacted a new socialist constitution in 1999, which lead the way for President Hugo Chavez to nationalize Venezuela’s oil wealth, so its revenues could be used to provide essential services and anti-poverty programs. Chavez used Venezuela’s natural resources for Venezuelans, which is heresy to neoliberals. Chavez’s charismatic personality, commitment to the poor and concern for social justice made him a hero loved by the people.  His legacy and “Chavismo” revolutionary socialism lives on.

Chavismo that denies international corporations profits are fighting words to the U.S. Empire. In 2002 President George W. Bush was caught red handed as the instigator of a plot that kidnapped Chavez and tried to overthrow him in a coup d’etat. The coup failed because the people turned out in the streets demanding Chavez’s return and reinstatement. Bush was left with egg on his face, the blood of dozens murdered in the coup attempt and a smoking gun in his hand (The Guardian).

In 2009 there was initially hope that the newly elected President Barack Obama might change the Empire’s aggressive foreign policy to one of accommodation. But while presidents come and go, the U.S. foreign policy objectives do not change. Obama turned out to be a willing neocon and neoliberal, and he went along with the deep state of the military-industrial complex, Wall Street bankers, big oil, big pharma, mainstream corporate media, oligarchs, spy agencies, political hacks, bureaucrats, and the 1% that really run the Empire.

In 2015 President Obama turned up the heat on Venezuela by imposing economic sanctions. To make the sanctions legal Obama had to declare that Venezuela is a national security threat to the U.S. Even Obama could not keep a straight face with that whopper. Unusually embarrassed, Obama mumbled that the U.S. was not really worried about an invasion from Venezuela, admitting that it was all a hoax to follow the letter of U.S. law, even though it violated the spirit of the law.

Venezuela was already suffering economically from the collapse of oil prices. Imposing economic sanctions was like kicking a person when down. That was exactly the idea. When the Empire wants to engineer a regime change, a cruel way is to make the people suffer so that they take out their frustration on the established government.

After Hugo Chavez died in office in 2013, his vice president Nicolas Maduro was democratically elected president. Maduro’s election was a squeaker with him getting just a small majority of 50.6% of the vote. Former President and international election observer Jimmy Charter certified Maduro’s victory as fair, but that did not stop the opposition and the U.S. for screaming election fraud.

The U.S. thinks that its exceptionalism gives it the right to meddle in every other country’s elections and undermine their democracies. It hurts too much to laugh at the hypocrisy of the Empire’s faux outrage about Russia’s Putin allegedly meddling in the U.S. 2016 election. Irony goes over the heads of the corporate Fake News.

For 19 years the groundwork has been laid for the U.S. public to believe that Venezuela is a dictatorship. The corporate Fake News shouts the propaganda that “dictator” Maduro has destroyed his country with socialism and mismanagement. With the government opposition rioting in the streets and murdering security personnel, pro-government demonstrators and bystanders, Maduro is the one that gets accused of murdering peaceful protesters. The corporate Fake News has razed the public anxiety level so that they will consent to the U.S.’s “we-must-do-something” to restore order in Venezuela.

All the public knows is what it is told, over and over again, by the corporate Fake News. Here is Bret Baier of Fox News breathlessly reading from his teleprompter a “Special Report” on Venezuela’s fake referendum:

“A 61 year old woman was killed, 4 people wounded by gunfire at a polling site at a Caracas Church in Venezuela—more than 7 million Venezuelans over the weekend—in their referendum on their president’s plan to rewrite the constitution and consolidate dictatorial power—today opposition leaders are calling for more street protests, and a strike later this week—almost 100 people have died in demonstrations over the last 3 months—“

Baier then interviewed a glowing Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican Congresswoman from Miami Florida, who just cannot hide her exuberance over the turnout at the polls—“the people said no to Maduro and communism stuffed down their throats, and yes to democracy”, she said.

Ros-Lehtinen is a Cuban-American from Miami Florida, who is anti-Castro, and a strong supporter of Israel. Her major campaign contributor was Irving Moskowitz, a founder of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine, where the body count of peaceful Palestinian protesters keep mounting up.  After a junket to Guantanamo Bay she gave a glowing endorsement for keeping  GITMO torture facility open.  Hypocrisy never shames them.

As I wrote in a previous article, the Empire and its servants are not motivated by democracy and human rights; that is a ruse.  They want the oil.

Even if all of the propaganda about Venezuela was true (which it is not) why is it the business of the U.S.? The Venezuelan’s are capable of solving their own problems. The U.S. Department of State says it is because Venezuela needs to “return to full respect for the rule of law, full respect for freedoms of political expression and participation“—

Surely, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson is not concerned for the people of Venezuela. He knows all about Venezuela, having been the Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil, until President Donald Trump tapped him for his cabinet.

Tillerson was with ExxonMobil for over 40 years. He has no love for Bolivarian Socialism, Chavismo, or President Nicolas Maduro. Tillerson had the unpleasant duty of watching Chavez and Maduro nationalize $10 billion worth of ExxonMobil’s operations. Tillerson is sharpening his ax to get even.

Shortly after Tillerson resigned from ExxonMobil, wouldn’t you know it, ExxonMobil hit one of the biggest offshore oil and natural gas fields in the world. It so happens that the water it is in is claimed by Venezuela. ExxonMobil says that the water belongs to Venezuela’s neighbor Guyana.

Tillerson had his ExxonMobil bags all packed and ready to go visit  Guyana’s president David Granger, when Trump called.  During his confirmation hearing he assured Congress that he would have no conflict of interests (New York Times).  As General Motors CEO said about GM, what is good for ExxonMobil is good for the U.S.A., but is it good for the people. Pssst—they don’t care about people.  U.S. foreign policy objectives are not concerned with people.  Ignore all the cheap talk about democracy and human rights.

Trump is already using the fake referendum to push Venezuela over the edge into a civil war, a coup, or even a U.S. invasion. A civil war in Venezuela would be a tragedy like Syria, where the body count is still mounting, with millions of people killed, widowed, orphaned, maimed and driven into refugee camps.

The possibility of civil war in Venezuela is real and growing every day. The country is badly divided between the wealthy haves and the millions of poor have-nots. The U.S. is egging on the conflict. Hugo Chavez brought social services, healthcare, education and housing to the poor. The U.S. Empire and ExxonMobil have declared war on democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro.  He is in the Empire’s crosshairs. Trump has said that all options are on the table.  Time is short.

Trump is turning up the heat. He announced “swift and strong actions” if Venezuela proceeds with the already planned elections for a National Constituent Assembly, scheduled for a vote on July 30^th. Maduro’s response to Trump is that he is being “vulgar” because “the process of the constituent assembly is already in the hands of the people who will exercise their right to vote.”

To digress, Maduro called for a Constituent Assembly to revise Venezuela’s 1999 constitution in order to deal with the current economic crisis, U.S. sanctions and the chaos in the street. Venezuela’s oil wealth provides approximately 95% of Venezuela’s revenues to pay for imports. Low oil prices are hurting every oil producer. For Venezuela it has resulted in shortages of imports, such as food, medicine, and other consumer items. The shortages have caused hyperinflation and devaluation of the currency.  Venezuela is not broke but it has very serious financial and economic problems.

Maduro’s opposition has labeled the planned Constituent Assembly a “coup” by Maduro. It was taken to Venezuela’s Supreme Court, which ruled in Maduro’s favor. Change happens and was foreseen by the 1999 constitution. A Constituent Assembly to revise the constriction is provided for in the 1999 constitution, which was democratically approved by the people.

The Supreme Court decision resulted in the disbanding of the current National Assembly until a new constitution is formed, and new elections are held. Maduro says that a revised constitution is necessary because the poor are badly under-represented in the current National Assembly.  The wealth do not agree.  Maduro’s plan is legal. It is democracy in action, and an improvement of the democratic representation of the people. The rich are revolting and waging class warfare.

After the Supreme Court ruled in Maduro’s favor, the U.S. Empire, which thinks it has the right to meddle in every democracy, reacted by imposing more economic sanctions, singling out individual Supreme Court judges. That is like Putin imposing sanctions on U.S. Supreme Court judges for the ruling on an upcoming case on partisan gerrymandering—the corporate Fake News would go nutz, and rightly so.

Economic sanctions are intended to make the economy scream, as President Richard Nixon put it when he ordered the CIA to prevent Chile’s democratically elected Salvador Allende from coming to power. The U.S. backed a coup d’etat that overthrow and assassinate Allende in one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history. The U.S. backed coup was followed by a 17 year U.S. backed military dictatorship, which was a blood-soaked reign of terror, torture, murder and disappearances by Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet. In 1998 Pinochet was convicted of crimes against humanity (See Britannica.com).

A screaming economy causes the people to suffer, as they did in Iraq, which resulted in half a million babies dying. Dead babies are “worth it” according to Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, as she spoke about the priority of U.S. foreign policy objectives.

The Trump reign has imposed more economic sanctions on Venezuela, he is trying to politically isolate Venezuela from other South American countries, and he is openly giving financial and political support to the disloyal opposition.

We have the 2002 smoking gun.  The Empire was caught plotting a violent coup d’etat against a democratic Venezuela. The Empire has a long record and modus operandi of covert coups, color revolutions and invasions to overthrow governments, democratically elected or not. We do not need any more smoking guns for proof.

The Trump reign and corporate Fake News are dumbing down the public. They are spreading lies and half-truths. Any inconvenient information that discredits the opposition goes unreported. For those that can see, they can see that the Empire is manufacturing consent for aggression.  Trump says all options are on the table.  That includes sending in gunboats and the Marines.

The Telegraph has the headline “US warns Venezuela that ‘no option is off the table’ if it goes ahead with the vote for the new assembly.” Trump is quoted as saying he is “very concerned about the well-being of the Venezuelan people, the incredible erosion of democracy right before our eyes.”

Maduro shot back, “The United States seems destined by providence to plague America with misery in the name of liberty”. Bolivian President Evo Morales, who is also in the Empires crosshairs, said that Trump is “shameful”. Actually, Trump has no shame.

Venezuela has been caught up in violent rioting backed by the right-wing wealthy class, and they have been responsible for most of the murdered and wounded, which the corporate Fake News ignores. Instead the corporate Fake News keeps repeating the numbers of those murdered as if all the deaths have been caused by the Venezuelan security forces, which is just not true. But when does the truth get in the way of the Empire’s propaganda? Corporate Fake News is the propaganda horn that makes sure that inconvenient truths do not get in the way of Empire Wars.

Time is short.

Shortcomings of the BJP’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules 2016

Anandi Sharan

The BJP’s new Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules 2016 in India bluntly provide that individuals with debts over Rupees one thousand will lose their assets to a resolution professional if declared bankrupt or insolvent. The only excluded assets under fresh start rules are tools, books, vehicles and other equipment as are necessary to the debtor or bankrupt for his personal use or for the purpose of his employment, business or vocation. But under an insolvency order even these are taken over by the resolution professional.

We cannot keep furniture, household equipment and provisions, personal ornaments, life insurance policy or pension plan, or anything not been mortgaged or otherwise given as security. We cannot exclude any liability to pay a fine imposed by a court or tribunal or to pay maintenance or a student loan. And again, under an insolvency order even assets not mortgaged or pawned are in the end taken over by the resolution professional.

The fresh start envisaged under the section 80 of part III Chapter 1 of the Rules are applicable to those of us who have an annual income of less than Rupees sixty thousand per year and assets valued less than Rupees twenty thousand and debts less than Rupees thirty-five thousand. If we own a house we cannot use the Rules. Most poor women will come under this provision as practically none of us own houses.

If we file an application for a fresh start with the local Debt Recovery Tribunal we get an interim-moratorium in relation to all the debts and no debtor is allowed to pursue us until the application is accepted or rejected. If we don’t have the support of a resolution professional, the Adjudicating Authority has to nominate one for us within seven days. And the resolution professional has to examine the application and recommend acceptance or rejection within ten days of her appointment. The resolution professional is bound to presume that the debtor is unable to pay her debts at the date of the application unless the information is false. The order passed thereafter must state the amount which has been accepted as qualifying debts by the resolution professional and other amounts eligible for discharge under section 92 for the purposes of the fresh start order. The order generally must discharge us from all liabilities except qualifying debts. Once we default on the qualifying debts for which creditors have issued us notice and we have been unable to repay, we apply for an insolvency resolution and provide all the information needed to get the relevant order. All legal action or proceedings pending in respect of any debt are deemed to have been stayed till we get the order. The resolution professional then examines the application for insolvency and gives a recommendation within ten days of his appointment. Where the resolution professional finds that the debtor is eligible for a fresh start she can change the application by the debtor under section 94 for insolvency to an application under section 81 for a fresh start. If we are found insolvent then negotiations between the debtor and creditors start for arriving at a repayment plan under section 100. Thereafter the Adjudicating Authority issues a public notice within seven days of passing the order inviting claims from all creditors within twenty-one days of such issue. The repayment plan may authorise or require the resolution professional to carry on the debtor’s business or trade on his behalf or in his name; or realise the assets of the debtor; or administer or dispose of any funds of the debtor.

Basically these resolution professionals are like the lawyers during the British days. Everyone knows that most upper caste Indians got their land during British days by looking out for land being seized by the British for non-payment of taxes or some other reason. The lawyers and their relations then bought up that land at knock down rates and lived happily ever after. In the same way the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules 2016 allow resolution professionals to carry on the business or trade in the name of anyone with less than Rupees 60000 income per year and debts and assets worth less than Rupees 55’000; the resolution professional may sell off my assets to her relations, and dispose of any funds I may have as she thinks fit. I also have to pay her for this wonderful service she is providing to me. No wonder half of the 2016 Rules are devoted to dealing with replacing resolution professionals who are corrupt! The point is how can there be such a professional who is not corrupt? Inevitably the only castes and classes who can buy up my assets are those who are richer than me and who will have the wherewithal to become resolution professionals. The incredible thing is that the Rules provide that the one thing I want to avoid, which is losing my assets, is actually legally facilitated under the Rules and the transfer is done not only by but to the very person enforcing the Rules.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules for Individuals under Part III Chapter 1 of the Rules are nothing but legalised theft of the assets of the marginal poor who don’t even own a house, and are thus most likely to be the poorest of poor women; by the professional castes and classes who have the means to become resolution professionals.

The caring economy is mainly looked after by women. ‘Care’ is actually the basis of economics. It has nothing to do with supply and demand, profit and loss. It is about doing work to support humans and human relationships and the ecological regeneration on which we depend. Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh are seeking new money to monetise farm debts in their states. The Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, Narendra Modi the Prime Minister and Urjit Patel the reserve bank of India Governor are jumping up and down about the potential Rupees 250 lakh crore so called burden this will put on the Central and or State Government budgets across India as a whole. But from the point of view of the woman cultivator this is not a burden but an asset; it is our currency that we use to provide care. It is not a burden: it is our cash. But from the point of view of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules 2016 we are supposed to hand over all our assets to the upper caste and class resolution professional or her relatives who have the cash to buy up our assets. Why not just give it all to the creditors to begin with like in the good old days of unregulated money-lending, and be done with it?

The only way we can get round all this is to get our own people appointed as resolution professionals so that our own families and friends can take advantage of the transfer of assets which is otherwise legalised theft of one class and caste by another under the Rules. Otherwise as usual the poor who are living most sustainably are expropriated by the state on behalf of capital for the sheer fun of it.

Evidence of early rice domestication found in southern China

Philip Guelpa

Recently reported research by a team of Chinese scientists, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrates the presence of rice undergoing domestication 9,400 years ago at an archaeological site known as Shangshan near the Yangtze River in southern China. This is the earliest evidence yet found of rice in transition from wild grass to cultivar.

Excavations at Shangshan by Chinese archaeologists, beginning in the early 2000s, uncovered evidence, such as impressions of rice husks in pottery and stone milling tools, that rice was being used by the inhabitants. However, these do not provide indication of whether the rice was wild or domesticated.

The data used to identify domestication come from the examination of microscopic silica crystals, known as phytoliths, which form in plants and survive even when all of the organic components have degraded and disappeared. These crystals not only are unique to each plant species, but bear distinctive patterns reflecting changes within the species which, among other things, can be used to track the difference between wild and domesticated varieties.

Phytoliths, as well as a variety of artifacts and other evidence of human activity, were recovered from a series of superimposed layers, or strata, at the Shangshan site; each higher strata representing successively younger time periods. These strata were dated using the carbon-14 radiometric method. The oldest layer was found to date back 9,400 years ago.

By comparing the rice phytoliths from successively younger strata, changes were observed indicating the gradual transition from wild to domestic forms. Rice phytoliths have characteristic features termed “fish scales” due to their appearance. While modern rice phytoliths have more than nine such fish scales, the number on ancient rice phytoliths varies. What the researchers found was that through time the proportion of phytoliths with more than nine scales increased, gradually approaching the modern condition. This greater uniformity indicates selection for consistency, presumably in other, more important characteristics that were useful to the inhabitants of the site.

In terms of human generations, this was a long, slow process, not a ‘eureka’ moment of instant invention. It involved not only the gradual genetic modification of the rice itself, but a whole range of social and technological adjustments associated with increasing investment and reliance on a particular food source. These changes, such as increased sedentism, territoriality, storage and distribution of food surpluses, and growing division of labor, eventually lead to fundamentally new cultural patterns. On the evolutionary time scale of human existence these changes resulted in a revolution.

Anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens, presumably with more or less the same mental and physical capabilities as we now have, evolved at least 200,000 years ago. Yet, until only about ten to twelve thousand years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age, known as the Pleistocene, there is no known evidence that humans subsisted on anything but naturally available wild plants and animals. What brought about this seemingly abrupt change?

The questions of where, when, how, and why the domestication of plants and animals by humans took place is of key importance in understanding the dynamics that lead to the many transitions from egalitarian hunter-gatherers to class society and civilization that took place in multiple regions of the world.

Rice, along with other cereal grains, such as wheat and maize, are among the principal plant foods on which early agricultural communities in the Near East, Asia, and the Americas depended. Thus, the study of rice domestication is of central importance in understanding what is known as the agricultural revolution.

Although Shangshan has yielded the earliest evidence of the process of rice domestication so far discovered, this does not necessarily mean that this was the sole location where this process originated. Indeed, genetic evidence points to at least three areas of early rice domestication. Aside from China, these include an area between India and Indochina and India and Bangladesh, each producing a different variety of domesticated rice.

Rice, wheat, and maize are not the only early plant domesticates. Many others, such as beans, squash, oats, barley, millet, sorghum, amaranth, and chenopod (the latter two in Precontact North America), to name but a few, were brought under cultivation with resulting genetic changes producing domesticated varieties. For some, at least, evidence exists of multiple, independent centers of domestication.

The widespread nature of this process, occurring independently across continents, and in the relative ‘blink of an eye’ compared to the span of Homo sapiens’ existence, strongly indicates that some common factor was at play, perhaps environmental changes occurring at the end of the Ice Age. However, there is evidence that at least some of wild progenitors of these future domesticates were already part of the diet of some human groups thousands of years earlier. These were not new foods, but rather the result of a new approach toward obtaining food.

Whatever the cause, and this is a subject of intense interest, it appears that beginning around ten to twelve thousand years ago, when modern humans inhabited areas with suitable potential domesticates the process was repeated time and time again, sometimes with the same species being domesticated independently at different locations.