4 Aug 2017

Labour Party leader resigns ahead of New Zealand election

Tom Peters 

New Zealand Labour Party leader Andrew Little announced his resignation on August 1, and the party caucus unanimously endorsed his deputy Jacinda Ardern to replace him.
Little’s decision to step down less than two months before the September 23 election is the latest sign of the crisis wracking the capitalist political establishment. It followed three separate polls on July 30 and 31 placing Labour’s support at between 23 and 24 percent. This was below the party’s 24.7 percent result in the 2014 election, its worst defeat in 92 years.
Labour’s support has collapsed because it is widely and correctly seen as a party of big business and militarism just like the National Party government. National is also deeply unpopular and does not have enough support to govern alone. Last December, Prime Minister John Key suddenly resigned and was replaced by Bill English, revealing tensions within the party.
Labour’s main election pledges include cutting immigration by almost half and recruiting more police officers. Labour will not reverse National’s austerity measures, including the partial privatisation of power companies, the increase in the Goods and Services Tax, and thousands of public sector job cuts. It also agrees with $20 billion in military spending planned over the next 15 years, aimed at preparing the country to join US-led wars.
Internationally, the working class is increasingly hostile to all established political parties. Labour’s equivalent in France, the Socialist Party, was all-but wiped out in this year’s elections in response to the party’s imposition of draconian austerity measures, its militarism and attacks on democratic rights.
In New Zealand there is growing anger over the social crisis, including deepening homelessness, the soaring cost of living, and a severely underfunded health system. In the last two elections more than a quarter of eligible voters abstained. Among those aged under 29, turnout in 2014 was just 49 percent. A poll released last month by Ipsos found that 64 percent believe the economy is “rigged to advantage the rich and powerful” and 56 percent “say traditional parties and politicians don’t care about people like them.”
The replacement of Little with Ardern is the latest desperate attempt to revive illusions in the Labour Party and stave off a complete collapse. For more than 100 years Labour has served as the most important prop for the bourgeoisie, preventing the working class from turning toward a socialist alternative.
Ardern is the fifth leader of the party since 2008. A similar attempt to portray Labour as shifting to the “left,” with the installation of David Cunliffe in 2013, was a dismal failure.
Like Cunliffe, Little has proven incapable of making any popular appeal. Before becoming Labour leader Little already had a long record of collaboration with big business as leader of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), the country’s largest private sector union (now called E Tu), from 2000 to 2011. The union enforced thousands of job cuts and pro-corporate restructuring, including at Air New Zealand, NZ Post and mining company Solid Energy.
Little demonstrated his personal usefulness to the corporate elite following the 2010 Pike River mine explosion, which killed 29 men. He defended the company’s safety practices, telling the media there was “nothing unusual” about the mine. It later became clear that there had been multiple warnings about life-threatening conditions in the mine, but the EPMU had said nothing and refused to take any action to prevent the disaster.
Ardern, 37, entered parliament in 2008. She became deputy leader earlier this year. She has been chosen to replace Little because, unlike every senior politician, she does not yet have a decades-long record of attacks on the working class. Before becoming an MP she worked in the offices of former Labour leader Phil Goff and former Prime Minister Helen Clark, who have both contributed to entrenched social inequality and strengthened ties with the US military.
Corporate media commentators, liberal pundits and middle-class pseudo-left organisations have swung behind Ardern, hailing her elevation as an opportunity for the Labour Party to revive its support. TV3 political commentator Patrick Gower described Ardern as “powerful, composed, eloquent,” adding, “National should be frightened.”
Martyn Bradbury, editor of the trade union-funded Daily Blog, declared that “everything has changed for this election.” He described Ardern as “part of a generation that was taught empathy and compassion and consideration for others.”
James Shaw, co-leader of Labour’s main ally the Green Party, declared to the media: “Jacinda turns this election into a real competition... she’s got the skills, she’s got the leadership capability, she’s got the connection with the public.”
The pseudo-left groups hope Ardern’s installation will help them promote Labour as a “lesser evil” to National. In a statement entitled “Labour must change course,” the International Socialist Organisation said Ardern was “no left-winger,” but added: “Labour’s popularity with the electorate matters... If Ardern’s leadership helps get some momentum—any momentum—into Labour kicking National out then so much the better.”
In reality, Ardern has not proposed any substantial change and has praised Little and the Labour Party’s policy platform. She told Radio NZ she would place “extra emphasis” on some policies focused on housing, health and inequality, adding “I believe in free education.”
The party is currently promising three years of free tertiary education, but this would not be fully implemented until 2025, i.e. after three elections, making the pledge worthless. Labour and the Greens, which are campaigning as a coalition-in-waiting, have agreed on strict “fiscal responsibility rules,” including a pledge to pay down government debt and cap spending at 30 percent of gross domestic product.
Ardern told Radio NZ she considered herself a “democratic socialist” like US Democrat Bernie Sanders but quickly added: “I don’t think that’s a meaningful term in New Zealand.” Sanders gained support from workers and youth in the presidential primaries by portraying himself as a socialist, only to then line up behind Hillary Clinton, the preferred candidate of the military and the Wall Street banks.
The elevation of Ardern, Labour’s second female leader, alongside Kelvin Davis, the party’s first Maori deputy leader, is an attempt to appeal to layers of the upper middle class on the basis of gender and racial identity politics. The media widely reported Ardern’s exchange with a newsreader who questioned whether she planned to have children. The Guardian said the exchange “sparked debate within New Zealand and accusations of sexism.” As in the US election, the purpose of the obsessive focus on gender is to divert attention from the fundamental issue of deepening social inequality.
Similarly, much has been made about Davis’ ethnicity. His installation, however, has nothing to do with helping the oppressed Maori working class, but is a clear pitch to the indigenous corporate elite. As the party’s corrections spokesman, Davis has called for greater involvement by Maori tribal businesses in running prisons. He also supports Maori-run, for-profit charter schools established under the current government.
In her first press conference as leader Ardern pledged to continue working with the Greens and the right-wing, anti-immigrant New Zealand First Party. On current polling, the three parties could have enough support to form a government after the election. NZ First leader Winston Peters is running a campaign similar to that of Trump; he has called for discrimination against Muslims and repeatedly scapegoated immigrants, particularly Chinese, Indians and Pacific Islanders, for the social crisis.
Labour and its allies are preparing to lead a government committed to deeper austerity cuts in response to the economic crisis, along with anti-immigrant measures, further strengthening the intelligence agencies and ramping up military spending to prepare for war.

Turkey launches mass trial of officers charged in July 2016 coup attempt

Halil Celik 

On Tuesday, August 1, Ankara’s Fourth Criminal Court launched a trial of 486 defendants accused of complicity in the attempted coup in Turkey on July 15 of last year. They are formally charged with “violating the Constitution, attempting to assassinate the President, attempting to abolish the government of Turkey, managing an armed terrorist organization, seizing military bases, manslaughter, attempting manslaughter, and deprivation of liberty.”
Prosecutors are demanding 330 life imprisonments for the 45 suspects accused of being leaders of the coup attempt. Of the defendants, 416 are jailed pending trial and 18 are not under arrest; 7 others are fugitives.
They are facing charges over events at the Akinci Air Base, the command center of the coup attempt, from which fighters took off to bomb the Turkish parliament and other key targets, killing 80 people. Akinci Air Base, near Ankara, was also where the putschists held the chief of general staff and other army commanders captive for hours, before they were freed by pro-government forces.
The explosive character of the trial and the deep political conflicts inside the Turkish state machine and armed forces were underscored by the announcement yesterday that the government had suddenly fired the officers leading the Turkish army, navy, and air force. A crisis in which this trial or related legal actions led to a renewed attempt by factions of the armed services to topple Erdogan cannot be ruled out.
Amongst the suspects are generals and civilians considered to be leading figures of the so-called Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (FETO). Fethullah Gulen, the US-based preacher Ankara blames for having orchestrated the coup attempt, is being tried in absentia, as the leading suspect. Gulen denies involvement, but evidence revealed since the July 15 coup indicates that he at least gave his approval for the scheme to topple Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan through a coup, as did the US government.
The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) declared they would apply to be admitted as co-plaintiffs in the trial. Erdogan, ministers and lawmakers are also among the plaintiffs in the indictment.
The first trial on the failed coup attempt started in December 2016 and was followed by dozens of trials across Turkey. Since July 15 of last year, more than 50,000 people have been detained or arrested for suspected links to FETO, and Turkish security forces have launched operations against those suspected of working for FETO almost every day.
Following the defeat of the coup attempt, thanks to a mass mobilization primarily of workers and youth, the AKP government declared a state of emergency and launched a wide-scale crackdown against not only the putschists, but all expressions of political opposition. Erdogan is using this crackdown to further his bid to secure dictatorial powers.
US imperialism’s war drive in the Middle East has provoked conflicts between Ankara and its NATO allies. As US imperialism moved to back Kurdish forces as proxies in Syria, Ankara, fearing the emergence of a broader ethnic Kurdish movement including inside Turkey’s borders, moved away from Washington and its traditional European imperialist allies. As Erdogan sought to improve relations with Moscow, US and European officials became ever more determined to get rid of him.
Having backed the coup, they are now also hosting military and civilian officers who fled Turkey to Europe or the United States and appealed for political asylum after the abortive July 15 coup attempt.
Erdogan has long feared that he could share the fate of Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi, who was toppled by a US-backed coup in July 2013. The July 15 coup demonstrated that the danger of the overthrow of the Turkish regime by a NATO-backed military dictatorship is very real.
Erdogan is reacting with a crackdown on all opposition, presenting his assault on democratic rights as a nationalist campaign of “fighting external powers”—that is, primarily Washington and Berlin, and their co-conspirators—whose aims are “subjugating and dividing Turkey.”
Recently, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel signaled that Berlin would review its policies toward Ankara and stated that he could not advise companies to invest in the country. This came only weeks after Turkish authorities handed Berlin a list of some 700 companies supposedly linked to the Gulen movement, and after Berlin decided to redeploy its troops from Turkey to Jordan.
In response to Gabriel’s remarks, Erdogan slammed Berlin over its barely veiled threats to impose economic sanctions, saying, “You have to take into account a bigger price [that you will have to pay], if you think you can frighten Turkey with your threats of embargo.”
The already frayed relations between Turkey and its NATO/European Union (EU) partners have further worsened. Ankara recently purchased an S-400 missile defense system from Russia, is seeking closer ties with China and is threatening the EU with the release of a new flow of Syrian immigrants to Europe.
The EU’s pretense that its growing pressure on Ankara is about “bringing democracy to Turkey,” like Erdogan’s claim he is pursuing an anti-imperialist policy, are political frauds. NATO and the EU are waging a ruthless struggle to maintain Turkey in their geo-strategic orbit, while the US government escalates its war drive against Russia and China.
The movement led by Fethullah Gulen, the US-based preacher who until 2013 was the closest political partner of Erdogan and his henchmen, is a strategic asset of US imperialism in its confrontation with China and Russia. Having moved to the United States in 1999, he rapidly developed his movement, particularly in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and in Africa. Gulen controls a wide network of schools and foundations under CIA patronage. His movement’s aim is to train a layer of the ruling elite in these countries aligned with Washington’s interests.
While Erdogan and his AKP pursue a reactionary and militarist agenda, the US and European powers are in fact ready to work with him, as they did during his first two decades in power, if they reach an agreement on what all sides consider to be the vital issues. The same imperialist powers that lecture the AKP government on democracy are the main supporters and partners of the arch-reactionary absolutist regimes such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil sheikdoms.
Since November 2015, France has stood under a state of emergency, with the basic rights of the population suspended, while Paris continues its military operations in Africa. Having already declared its aim of becoming a major military power, corresponding to its economic might, Berlin revealed its disregard for fundamental rights in the recent police crackdown against protesters at the recent G20 summit in Hamburg.

India-China border tensions continue unabated

K. Ratnayake

A tense stand-off between Indian and Chinese troops on the Doklam or Donglang Plateau—a ridge in the Himalayan foothills claimed by both China and Bhutan—continues.
Late last week, India’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, met China State Councillor Yang Jiechi on the sidelines of a BRICS security summit in Beijing. However, they failed to arrive at any agreement on defusing what is being described as the most serious Sino-Indian border dispute since the two countries fought a month-long border war in 1962.
Beijing is adamant India must withdraw its troops unconditionally before there can be any substantive talks on the Doklam issue and the related question of where the tri-junction between the borders of India, China, and Bhutan lies.
Beijing emphasizes that the intervention Indian troops made on June 18 to prevent Chinese construction workers from expanding a road on the disputed ridge is without precedent. Never before has the Indian Army confronted Chinese troops on territory to which New Delhi makes no claim, acting instead in the name of a third country.
Chinese officials and the country’s state-owned media have repeatedly indicated that Beijing’s patience is wearing thin. According to a report in yesterday’s Indian Express, the Chinese government is anxious to have the dispute settled by the time of a BRICS heads of government summit that is to be held in Xiamen, China at the beginning of next month.
India’s government, meanwhile, has signalled it is prepared for a long stand-off, lasting months, even years. While claiming it doesn’t want a military clash with Beijing, New Delhi insists that control over the remote ridge is vital to India’s national security, because it lies some 50 kilometres (31 miles) from the Siliguri Corridor—a narrow slice of territory that connects India’s seven northeastern states to the rest of the country.
The US and other great powers have thus far made only pro forma statements urging the two sides to pursue a diplomatic solution. But the principal factor driving the dispute is India’s emergence as a veritable “frontline state” in Washington’s military-strategic offensive against China. Indeed, on June 18, the very day that Indian troops interceded on the Doklam Plateau, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump vowed, following a White House meeting, to further expand the Indo-US “global strategic partnership.”
Last month India, the US, and Japan held what Trump boasted was the largest-ever Indian Ocean naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal. And speaking Monday at the inaugural session of an India-US Forum, Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj parroted the language that Washington uses to paint China as an aggressor in the South China Sea. A “strong India-US partnership,” declared Swaraj, is “critical” for “upholding an international rules-based system”—i.e. a US-led order—across the Indo-Pacific region.
On Wednesday, China’s foreign ministry issued a 15-page statement detailing its position on the Doklam dispute. It reiterated Beijing’s demand that India “pull back all its troops to end the military standoff,” while noting that “there were still over 40 Indian border troops and one bulldozer illegally staying in Chinese territory.” This, the statement said, was down from a high of 400 Indian troops.
The statement included a thinly-veiled threat of military action. “No country,” it warned, “should ever underestimate the resolve of the Chinese government” to defend China’s territorial sovereignty and integrity, adding Beijing would take “all necessary measures to safeguard its legitimate and lawful rights and interests.”
The statement said that as a sign of “goodwill” China had informed New Delhi of the road-building project in advance. “India’s intrusion into the Chinese territory under the pretext of Bhutan,” it continued, “has not only violated China’s territorial sovereignty but also challenged Bhutan’s sovereignty and independence.”
Since the eruption of the dispute, the Indian media has raised a hue and cry over China’s alleged bullying of Bhutan, a tiny Himalayan border kingdom.
But India has itself long treated Bhutan as a protectorate. Moreover, there is much evidence to suggest that New Delhi ordered its troops to intervene on the Doklam without even seeking Bhutan’s agreement, let alone in response to a “distress call” from Bhutan as New Delhi has implied.
Only on June 29, that is a week-and-a-half after the standoff began, did Bhutan’s government even issue a statement protesting the alleged Chinese incursion.
India’s corporate media has for years been stoking animosity toward China and this has increased over the past two years as Beijing, in response to the burgeoning Indo-US alliance, has strengthened its longstanding strategic ties with Pakistan, India’s arch-enemy.
However, a handful of columnists have expressed concern about the brazenness with which India has treated Bhutan. Several have also suggested that New Delhi’s stance is being fueled at least in part by fears that Bhutan’s government may be preparing, in response to overtures from Beijing, to act more independently of India.
Reportedly, it is only at India’s insistence that Bhutan has spurned a Chinese proposal that it abandon its claim to the Doklam in exchange for China acknowledging Bhutan’s sovereignty over a large area further north.
In 2013, with the obvious aim of bringing about the defeat of the then-sitting Bhutan prime minster, who had defied New Delhi’s wishes by meeting with the Chinese premier, India withdrew energy subsidies to the country.
The Hindu ’s diplomatic editor, Suhashini Haidar, cautioned the Indian government not to overplay its hand in a column last week. Arguing that “the Indian government must see that Bhutan’s sovereignty is no trivial matter,” Haidar chastised a Foreign Ministry official for “likening the question of whether Bhutan had sought the help of Indian troops” or India had acted unilaterally to “whether the ball came first … or the batsman had taken a stand before the ball was bowled.”
India’s ruling elite has long viewed itself as the regional hegemon of South Asia. Emboldened by Washington’s support, the Modi government is intervening across the region and in the island states of the Indian Ocean to counter Beijing’s influence, which has grown in recent years thanks to burgeoning economic ties, including investments in infrastructure.
New Delhi is aggressively courting and seeking to forge anti-China factions within the local bourgeois elites. India worked with the US to carry out a “regime operation’ in Sri Lanka, helping orchestrate a “common opposition” candidate in the 2015 presidential election to unseat Mahindra Rajapkase who they deemed too close to Beijing.
China’s capitalist regime, for its part, has responded to Washington’s ever escalating threats and the forging of the Indo-US partnership by whipping up Chinese nationalism and oscillating between aggressive counter-threats and appeals for an accommodation with the US.
In the current dispute with India, Beijing has adopted a hardline and bellicose stance that contrasts markedly with the manner it dealt with previous disputes with New Delhi. Not only has the state-run media given the dispute great prominence, but papers like the Global Times have churned out article after article threatening and taunting India with a massive military defeat should it not back down.
In an interview with the Hindu, Joshua T. White, a former top diplomat in the Obama administration, made clear that Washington would not remain on the sidelines in the event of a clash between India and China.
“The US,” said White, “is largely sympathetic to the challenge that India faces in dealing with a territorially assertive China. Given the nature of Sino-Indian disputes, India technically does not ask for our help because it does not need it. But it knows that Washington presents a sympathetic ear and that if there were to be wider a Sino-Indian crisis, we will have a totally different conversation.”
Hidden in these diplomatic words is that a conflict between China and India, themselves both nuclear-armed powers, would rapidly draw in the US and potentially other great powers, threatening a global conflagration.
A recent article in Foreign Policy, a mouthpiece of the US establishment, warned of the danger of a Sino-Indian war. “Seven weeks into the crisis, the continued impasse—and increasingly caustic rhetoric—indicates the potential for escalation remains high … Aggressive signals of resolve like military exercises or mobilization or perceived windows of tactical opportunity in a different sector of the disputed India-China border could lead either side to miscalculate, resulting in accidental or inadvertent escalation. And any shooting that begins on the border could even expand into other domains like cyber- or naval warfare.”
Foreign Policy was studiously silent, however, on the role US imperialism’s drive to harness India to its reckless military-strategic offensive again China has played in dangerously destabilizing Sino-Indian relations and the entire Indo-Pacific region.

3 Aug 2017

JMC Academy International Scholarship for Undergraduate Students 2018 – Australia

Application Deadline: 29th September, 2017.
Eligible Countries: Countries other than Australia or New Zealand
To Be Taken At (Country): Australia
About the Award: Scholarship recipients will become JMC Academy Student Ambassadors. More information about the Ambassador Program will be discussed during the application process.
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: 
  • Applications will be accepted from citizens of a country other than Australia or New Zealand (Australian and New Zealand citizens should apply for the Undergraduate Scholarships here).
  • Candidates must apply for a Bachelor Degree program at JMC Academy commencing in 2018. Applicants should meet the normal entry requirements for international students, including course specific requirements.
Selection Criteria: Interested candidates must display and satisfy:
  • A willingness and ability to undertake full-time study
  • An interest in pursuing a career in the creative industries
  • A willingness to represent and act as an ambassador for JMC Academy to the public as outlined in the JMC Academy’s International Student Ambassador Program information. (This will be discussed during the interview).
  • Maturity
  • Common sense and sound judgement
  • Clear and engaging personal presentation skills
  • All usual JMC Academy international entry requirements
Number of Awards: 3
Value of Award: Tuition. The award does not cover flights, accomodation, living expenses, books, software, consumables, stationery, accommodation, Overseas Student Health Cover, the student registration fee or visa application fees.
Duration of Program: Each scholarship covers two trimesters of study.
How to Apply: 
Download the Information Sheet (see in Program Webpage below) and check your eligibility.
Fill out the International Scholarship Application Form.
You will also need to submit a General International Application Form.
Submit completed application forms and supporting documentation by email to international@jmc.edu.au
Award Providers: JMC Academy
Important Notes: Notification of final outcomes will be delivered by Friday, 1 December, 2017.

AppsAfrica Innovation Awards for Innovative African Mobile and Tech Ventures 2017

Application Deadline: 8th September 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To Be Taken At (Country): Cape Town, South Africa
About the Award: The AppsAfrica.com Innovation Awards identify and celebrate the leading African innovations from across the continent, providing winners with global publicity across multiple channels, recognition and networking with 300+ industry peers and investors at the Awards party.
Type: Contest
Eligibility: 
  • The Appsafrica.com awards celebrate the positive impact in 12 categories from ventures who can clearly demonstrate innovation using mobile or technology to meet the needs of any African market.
  • The awards are open to all individuals or entities who can clearly demonstrate suitability for the categories entered.
Selection: Applications will be assessed by a team of expert judges who are selected based on their knowledge, influence and contribution to the improvement of technology and business in Africa.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: Award winners benefits include;
  • AppsAfrica.com Innovation Award
  • Global exposure across multiple media channels
  • Exhibition space at Africa Tech Summit London (ATSLDN) 2018
  • 2 x delegate passes to ATSLDN 2018
  • Global online publicity on AppsAfrica.com
  • One years MEF Membership (one overall winner selected by MEF)
  • Tickets to MEF Connects at MWC2018
  • Online publicity in MEF global newsletter
Timeline of Program: The winners of the Appsafrica.com Innovation Awards will be announced in Cape Town, November 6th, 2017.
How to Apply: Enter here
Award Providers: AppsAfrica
Important Notes: Appsafrica.com Innovation Awards shortlisted finalists will be announced in October 2017.

Ian Parry Photography Scholarship for Young Photographers Worldwide 2017

Application Deadline: 1st September 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All countries
To be taken at (country): London, UK
About the Award: The award is open to all full time students of any age including recently (within the last year) graduated students and BA, MA and MFA students. It is also open to photographers (not attending a course) who are 24 years old or younger.
Type: Contests
Eligibility: Entrants must submit a portfolio and a brief but clear proposal of a project they would undertake if they won the scholarship. The following eligibility must be met:
  • Send a 12 image portfolio, which can be a photographic essay or single images with clear captions for each image.
  • If sending a photographic essay, it does not have to be related to your project proposal.
  • A brief and clear proposal of a project you wish to undertake should you win, mapping out the scope and purpose of your project.
  • You should include your research and a basic budget with your proposal.
  • There is no fee for entry.
Selection Criteria: Judges will make their decisions based on the individual merits and appropriateness of the entries.
Number of Awardees: Two (2)
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Work from the winners will be added to their prestigious collection and will be invited to visit the collection for a private tour.
  • Each winner will receive $3,500 towards their chosen project
  • Canon provides equipment to the winners.
  • Year long Mentorship Programme for the winner of the Award for Potential.
  • The winner of the Achievement Award will automatically be accepted into its final list of nominees for the Joop Swart Masterclass in Amsterdam.
  • The winner of the Achievement Award will be added to Getty Images’ online Emerging Talent group.
How to Apply: Interested candidates should apply here
Award Provider: The Incite Project, Canon, World Press Photo, Getty Images, The Ian Perry Scholarship Foundation.
Important Notes: 
  • Winners will be announced at the annual Awards and Exhibition event in London in the Autumn, details to follow.
  • Winning entrants will be required and agree to donate three sets of prints from a selection of their entry.
  • The prints will be paid for by The Ian Parry Scholarship and The Incite Project, the third set will be for the winners.
  • Where possible, the winners will be invited to attend at our print sponsors, Touch Digital, during the printing and be given tuition on printing and archiving of their work.

DAAD/Goethe-Institut Science Journalism Workshop and Training (Fully-funded) for Journalists in Egypt 2017

Application Deadline: 25th August 2017
To Be Taken At (Country): Egypt
About the Award: The goal of the project is to foster the relationship between the sciences on the one side and journalism on the other in order to support the transfer of knowledge to a broader public and to enhance the general response to the achievements of researchers from all disciplines.
Therefore, trainings in specific skills needed to cover scientific issues for journalists as well as for scientists who aim to present their projects in non-academic media will be offered. Further on the idea of the project is to strengthen scientific journalism in Egypt in general and to raise awareness for its importance.
During the first two days of the workshop, the participants will learn more about the methods of science journalism as well as innovative methods in the field, about how to make science attractive to the greater public and how to interact and attract the younger generation in particular. At the same time, they will have the possibility to exchange experiences with science journalists from Germany. On the third day, the workshop will be held together ten scientists from different academic fields.
Type: Workshop
Eligibility: Science journalists or journalists interested in writing about scientific topics who fulfil the  following criteria:
– A minimum of 3 years of experience working as a journalist
– Currently working as a journalist
– Regularly publishing articles (online or in journals/newspapers)
– Very good English skills
– Strong interest in writing about scientific topics
Number of Awards: 10
Value and Duration of Award: The workshop will take place from September 30 – October 02, 2017 outside of Cairo with the last day in Cairo. Transport and accommodation will be provided by the Goethe-Institut. On the basis of the encounters with the scientists during the last day of the workshop, the journalists will produce a scientific article which they will publish. In a competition, the best article will be awarded during the final conference in November 2017.
For the participation in the workshop and the writing and publishing of a scientific article, each participant will receive a small allowance. The participant will receive the allowance  after the submission of the article.
How to Apply: Interested applicants are required to fill out this online application form completely.
Award Providers: The project “Schreiben über Wissenschaft” is a cooperation between the Goethe-Institut and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

AFRINIC Fellowship Program 2017. Fully-funded to attend AFRINIC-27 meeting in Lagos, Nigeria

Application Deadline: 25th August 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): Lagos, Nigeria
About the Award: The fellowship is reserved for individuals representing small organisations, universities, and media who are actively involved in  Internet operations and development or ICT policies in their countries.
The fellow is expected to positively and actively contribute to IP address management awareness in the AFRINIC service region.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility and Selection: To qualify for the fellowship, you:
  1. Must be a resident of an African nation
  2. Don’t need to be an AFRINIC member
  3. Are involved in the Internet community.
  4. Are willing to report on how this fellowship has benefited you/your Organisation/country within an agreed time frame.
Upon selection, AFRINIC will notify the selected fellows directly and allow them seven (7) days to accept or reject the offer.
A public announcement of the fellowship awardees will be made after the acceptance by the selected candidates.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: The fellowship includes:
  1. Full assistance with round-trip airfare to the meeting venue
  2. Hotel accommodation for the AFRINIC event from the day before the beginning to the last day of the event
Duration of Fellowship: 27th November to 2nd December 2017
  • Notification to selected fellows: 11 September 2017
  • Deadline for acceptance by awarded fellow: 20 September 2017
  • Final announcement and publication of the fellowship list: 26 September 2017
How to Apply: If you think you meet the criteria above, please fill in the fellowship application form here and submit it with requested information before deadline.
Award Provider: AFRINIC

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation/IHE Delft Masters Fellowship in Sanitation 2018/2019 – The Netherlands

Application Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible Countries: All (with focus on professionals from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa)
To Be Taken At (Country): IHE Delft in the Netherlands
About the Award: This unique, internationally recognized programme is designed for completion in 12 months and there are fellowships available for top talents. The new programme will start on 23 April 2018 and is based at IHE Delft in the Netherlands, with thesis work abroad.
The programme with scholarships available for top talents, is based at IHE Delft in the Netherlands, with thesis work abroad, while, in the near future, the programme will also be available at universities in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The state-of-the-art content was developed and provided by the world’s top experts from both academia and practice. This demand-driven and practice orientated programme will yield graduates with fundamental understanding and knowledge as well as the skills necessary for creating impact. All graduates will benefit from a dedicated career development programme, supported by the BMGF and will become a member of the Global Faecal Sludge Management Learning Alliance and alumni community.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • The new MSc programme is dedicated to targeting needs and delivering specialists in a short time, with the necessary qualifications. It aims to attract talented and ambitious young and mid-career sanitation professionals, working in water supply and sewerage companies, municipal assemblies, government ministries, NGOs and consulting firms. Ideally these individuals are dealing with urban and peri-urban sanitation, especially in informal settlements. Participants should have a Bachelor’s or equivalent engineering degree (e.g. civil, sanitary, environmental etc.) or degree in other relevant fields (e.g. public health, medicine, urban planning, finances, administration, economics, etc.).
  • Given the global mission of IHE Delft, regional relevance of partner universities, and the close cooperation with the BMGF and its focus on professionals from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, the new programme encourages people from those regions to apply, without excluding applicants from Latin America, North America and Europe. Women, irrespective of their geographical location, are encouraged to apply.
Value and Number of Awards: Fifteen top talents will be admitted to the first edition of the MSc in Sanitation (academic cohort 2018-2019) and will receive a scholarship.
Duration of Program: 12 months; Starting from 23 April 2018.
How to Apply: Apply now.
Apply and read more about this new Master of Science Programme in Sanitation here.
Award Providers: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), IHE Delft Institute for Water Education (IHE Delft)

Hamburg University Fully funded PhD Scholarship for Nigerian Scholars (Project Benin Bronzes) 2017 – Germany

Application Deadline: Selection of candidates will commence on August 13th 2017 until the position is filled.
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To Be Taken At (Country): Germany, Nigeria
Type: PhD
Eligibility: 
  • Historian who is willing to undertake research for a Ph.D. in history, working on the occupation of Benin City by British forces in 1897 and the looting of the city as well as the ways in which the artefacts were distributed amongst the colonial forces and removed from the colony and brought to Europe.
  • Simultaneously, two German historians will engage in an in-depth study of the complex history of the Benin artworks. It is expected that the holder of the Nigerian scholarship will engage intensively both with the other two historians and the research group in general. For this purpose, an extended residence in Hamburg of 8-12 months is required.
Number of Awards: 1
Value of Award: The project comes with a monthly scholarship according to the qualification and standing of the candidate.
Duration of Program: 36 months
How to Apply: An application including a CV, a provisional proposal (5 pages max) with preliminary ideas about the individual research project, a sample of prior writing and two letters of reference (including the names and addresses -incl. email- of the referees), and a short statement explaining the motivation for this particular research project should be sent to the office of Prof. Dr. Jürgen Zimmerer: marianne.weis-elsner@uni-hamburg.de
Award Providers: The project is funded by the Gerda-Henkel-Foundation

University of Cambridge Undergraduate and Graduate Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadlines: 
  • Undergraduate: The application deadline for the 2018 entry is 15th October 2017, 6.00 pm (UK time) However, there are some exceptions.  If you are applying for undergraduate study and wish to be interviewed in China, Malaysia or Singapore, the deadline is 20th September 2017.
  • Graduate: Some deadlines are as early as mid-November (LLM Law) and there will be two general course deadlines of 6th December 2017 and 4th January 2018.
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International 
To Be Taken At (Country): Cambridge, UK
Type: Undergraduate and Graduate
Eligibility: These are guidelines on eligibility for scholarships that are available from the Cambridge Commonwealth, European and International Trust:
  • All students, irrespective of nationality, are eligible to be considered for funding by the Trust.
  • The Trust does not accept applications from students who are part-way through a course at Cambridge, unless they are applying for funding towards a higher degree course following graduation.
  • To find out more about your fee status, see information on the University’s web pages for undergraduates and for postgraduates.
  • Applicants must be intending to start a course at the level of undergraduate (excluding UK/EU applicants), Masters (such as MPhil, MASt, LLM), or research postgraduate (such as PhD).
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: Full-funded
Duration of Program: Duration of candidates program
How to Apply: Please apply by the relevant deadline set for entry to your particular course and complete the ‘Funding’ section in the online Applicant Portal in order to be considered for funding.
Award Providers: University of Cambridge
Important Notes: 
  • Please note that the Trust does not offer many scholarships to students on undergraduate courses, and has many more scholarship programmes available to postgraduate students.  Approximately 85% of the scholarships awarded each year are to students taking Masters or PhD degrees.
  • The Trust will not normally support students at a degree level that is the same as, or lower than, a degree they already hold, with two exceptions – we will consider an application from a student who is required to take a second Masters degree at Cambridge in order to gain admission to the PhD here, or from an international (non-EU) student who is proposing to study as an affiliated student at Cambridge for a second BA degree.
  • The Trust does not have scholarships available for post-doctoral positions, or for visiting or exchange students.
  • The Trust does not have scholarships available for part-time postgraduate degrees, and part-time undergraduate study is not available at the University of Cambridge.

Insane Policy Towards North Korea

Ron Forthofer

This year we commemorate the 72nd anniversary of the unjustifiable US use of nuclear weapons against civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two attacks demonstrated the horrific power of the atomic bomb, a bomb that is tiny in comparison to the nuclear weapons available today.
Here are a few quotes that are worth pondering as we now face an avoidable crisis with North Korea, a nation with a few nuclear weapons.
After the initial use of atomic weapons, Admiral William Leahy, effectively Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, commented: “It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
In 1948 General Omar Bradley said: “Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.”
William Perry, former a Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, recently wrote: “I believe that the risk of a nuclear catastrophe today is greater than it was during the Cold War — and yet our public is blissfully unaware of the new nuclear dangers they face.”
Steven Starr with Physicians for Social Responsibility wrote in 2014: “These peer-reviewed studies – which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error – also predict that a war fought with less than half of US or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would destroy the human race.”
Given what we know, it is criminally irresponsible to continue tit-for-tat provocations with North Korea. Russia, China and North Korea have offered a solution that would freeze North Korea’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs in exchange for a freeze on joint war games by the US, South Korea and now Japan that alarm North Korea with the possibility of a nuclear attack.
For the US to continue with sanctions and war games instead of negotiating is insane as it is endangering the world. An attack by the US on North Korea would likely draw China and Russia into the fighting. Not to negotiate shows that General Bradley’s quote is still correct about our leaders. We must demand that the US negotiate to prevent perhaps the greatest catastrophe of all time.

The Brave Women Running Rural India

Moin Qazi 

Women are the mainstay of small-scale agriculture, the farm labour force and day-to-day family subsistence. The biggest myth is that the rural woman is part of her land’s wealth. Yes, but only to the extent of generating it. They don’t own land but produce secondary crops, gather food and firewood, process, store and prepare family food and fetch water for the family.
On average, women spend about twice as much time as men doing the unpaid work that makes life possible for everyone, like cooking, cleaning and caring. As a result, women have no time to finish their education, learn new skills. The fact that the potential of so many women is going unrealised is a tragedy – but it’s also an opportunity. Girls and women aren’t just the faces of the poverty; they’re also the key to overcoming it.
The Indian woman has moved out from the kitchen, only to be shackled by other obstructions such as inheritances laws for agricultural land in favour of men, preference for sons, patrilocal marriage, female seclusion from decision making et al. Few rural women own or control land and this handicaps them in the face of poverty. She is a victim of not just these circumstances, but of social attitudes.
Over the years, several strategies have been used to empower women. One of them relies on community groups whose members can be trained and equipped to use their collective strength and wisdom to tackle their problems.
In India, the most popular model for empowering village women through financial access and provision of other services is the self help group (SHG) mechanism. A typical Indian SHG consists of 10-20 poor women from similar socio-economic backgrounds who pool their savings into a fund from which they can borrow as and when necessary. They meet once a month to pool savings discuss a social issue, like family planning or schooling for girls.
Group members  engage  in livelihood activities such as running a retail shop, cattle rearing, zari work, tailoring jobs, making candles, artificial jewelery. These women make smart financial decisions and elevate their incomes above the poverty line. They cross guarantee each other’s debts.
SHGs are also an instrument for the empowerment of poor and marginalised sectors. They have proved to be an effective instrument for changing oppressive relationships in the home (gender- and tradition-related) and in society. This is especially true for those relationships arising from caste, class and political power . These women from remote, rural villages spoke eloquently about the power of this platform – this platform of coming together, of supporting one another, of “opening doors and gateways of progress.”
“We were separated from power,” a woman told me. “We were in the dark and now we are in the light.”
The self help groups have their origin in the Self Help Affinity Groups facilitated by the Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency (MYRADA) that were adapted by the National Bank of Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD). The adapted version started in 1992 as a pilot project and was soon upgraded to a regular banking programme .The self-help group movement, which is now in its silver jubilee year has, over a span of 25 years, grown massively with 85 lakh units operating across the country.
Nirmala Geghate, a shop owner in Wanoja, a village in Chandrapur district of Maharashtra, has a simple method to manage her finances. Every day – no matter how good or bad the business was – she puts Rs 20 into a secret lock-box at her home; this is her “core reserve” for emergencies. Moreover, on days when she has surplus revenues in the shop she hides the extra cash in another lock-box at her house. From this box she pays daily expenses.
As soon as she has accumulated Rs 1000 she also buys durable stock, such as canned foods, at the value of 800; Rs 200 she puts aside for shop maintenance. This method allows her to have full shop shelves even during times when the revenues drop and she would not be able to spend money on new stocks. Nirmala never had to borrow money, except once when her father got very ill and she had to pay the doctors. Her story was echoed by several women I spoke to. That is what SHG’s assistance to Nirmala amounted to: a bit of help where and when it counts most, which often means focusing on women like her.
Development experts now widely recognise women’s role as critical to economic progress, good governance, and healthy civil society – especially in developing countries. The key levers for change, from the ground up, are clearly female education and women’s access to income.
There is an African adage that goes: “If you educate a boy, you train a man. If you educate a girl, you train a village.”
This is not only true, it is measurable. For example, women are more likely to spend their resources on health and education, investing up to 90 per cent of their earnings in this way compared with just 30-40 per cent for men.
However, to free people from poverty and empower women, far more than access to affordable credit is required. Income alone is not enough to alleviate poverty, so they often pair skills training with education, particularly in basic and financial literacy, and give women information about their legal rights and social issues, including protection against violence and exploitation. Without these services, women cannot develop resilience to withstand political, economic, social or environmental upheaval. Overturning entrenched cultural and social mores is no easy task.
During my recent visit to villages where I have been closely associated with social programmes, I found sprinklers spouting rainbow streams of water into the fields. In one village, a new deep well replaced the old inadequate shallow one. A large pond had been dug to catch rainwater and provide for aquaculture. Irrigation stretched from the pond to fields planted with grains, quick-growing rice and potatoes. There was watershed management to stop erosion off the steep slopes.
There was a light shining in the villagers’ eyes when they talked about the transformation of their village economy. Hope had begun coursing through communities once shackled by fatalism and low expectations. For a world where people live on less than an American dollar a day, this is an important step. In the words and expressions of these unlettered people. It showed me the boundless potential for immense possibilities.
I was humbled by everything that I learned that day about their life, their enterprises, and the people who have benefited from the success. I found the bliss and flavour of quotidian wisdom worn humbly and lightly. In the lives of these tenacious women, I found the story not of a country’s doom but a story of a country’s will to survive.