9 Oct 2017

Adobe Research Women-in-Technology Scholarship for Female Undergraduate Students in STEM Fields 2018

Application Deadline: 31st October 2017
About the Award: Adobe Research creates innovative technologies for software products to better serve consumers, creative professionals, developers, and enterprises. Adobe brings together the smartest, most driven people to give them the freedom to nurture their intellectual curiosity, while providing them the necessary resources and support to shape their ideas into tangible results.
Fields of Study: This scholarship is intended for students studying computer science, computer engineering, or related technical fields.
Type: Fellowship, Undergraduate
Eligibility: In order to be eligible for the 2018 Adobe Research Women-in-Technology Scholarship, applicants must meet all of the following criteria:
  • Be a female student currently enrolled as an undergraduate student at a university for the 2017-2018 academic year.
  • Intend to be enrolled as a full-time undergraduate student at a university for the 2018-2019 academic year.
  • Be majoring in computer science, computer engineering, or a closely related technical field.
  • Maintain a strong academic record
  • Not have a close relative working for Adobe Research.
Selection: Letters of recommendation for applicants can be submitted up to November 3, 2017 at 5pm Pacific Time. A committee of Adobe researchers will review all applicants and select the winners at their discretion. Recipients are selected based on their academic record, a personal statement, and three letters of reference. Students may be invited for phone interviews following the initial review.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The Adobe Research Women-in-Technology Scholarship includes:
  • A $10,000 award paid once.
  • A Creative Cloud subscription membership for one year.
  • An Adobe Research mentor.
  • An opportunity to interview for an internship at Adobe.
How to Apply: Applications must include:
  • A resume
  • Academic transcripts from your current and/or past institution
  • Three references (our online application system will request letters from your references via email)
  • Answers to up to four essay questions, which will be available when we start accepting applications
  • An optional 60-second video or multimedia submission describing your dream career.
Click here to begin.
Award Providers: Adobe
Important Notes: Scholarship recipients will be announced by December 21, 2017.

Adobe Research Fellowship for Graduate Students in STEM Fields 2018

Application Deadline: 31st October 2017
About the Award: This year, Adobe will be awarding fellowships to graduate students working in the areas of computer graphics, computer vision, human-computer interaction, machine learning, visualization, audio, natural language processing, and programming languages.
Type: Fellowship, Research
Eligibility: In order to be considered for the 2018 Adobe Research Fellowship, students must meet the following criteria:
  • Be registered as a full-time graduate student at a university.
  • Remain an active, full-time student in a PhD program for the full duration of 2018 or forfeit the award.
  • Cannot have a close relative working for Adobe Research.
Selection Criteria: Recipients are selected based on their research (creative, impactful, important, and realistic in scope), how their work would contribute to Adobe, their technical skills (ability to build complex computer programs), and their personal skills (problem-solving ability, communication, leadership, organizational skills, ability to work in teams).
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The Adobe Research Fellowship consists of:
  • A $10,000 award paid once.
  • A Creative Cloud subscription membership for one year.
  • An Adobe Research mentor.
  • An internship at Adobe for the 2018 summer.
Duration of Program:
How to Apply: Applications must include:
  • A research overview comprising two pages of text and figures not including citations. At least half a page should highlight how the student’s research could contribute to Adobe.
  • Three letters of recommendation from those familiar with the students work. One letter should come from the student’s advisor.
  • A CV.
  • A transcript of current and previous academic records both undergraduate and graduate.
 Click here to begin.
Award Providers: Adobe

Commonwealth Youth Council “No Hate Speech Movement” Need for Trainers 2018

Application Deadline: 16th October 2017
To Be Taken At (Country): London, UK
About the Award: Run by the Commonwealth and Council of Europe, the five-day course will empower young leaders and youth workers from across the Commonwealth to develop counter narratives to hate speech and strengthen support for human rights through non-formal education and awareness-raising actions.
The organisers are looking for two senior trainers who will prepare, implement and evaluate the training course.
The Commonwealth Secretariat will host the five day training of trainers to empower youth leaders from its member states to develop a youth led coordinated approach to address hate speech, and strengthen support for human rights and dialogue through non formal education and awareness raising actions.
The No Hate Speech Movement is a youth campaign of the Council of Europe to promote human rights online, helping to ensure that hate speech is unacceptable.  It also develops youth participation and citizenship on-line, including Internet governance processes.
Type: Training, Contest
Eligibility: 
  • Delegates for next month’s course will include youth leaders, youth workers, educators and government officials who work with young people on peace-building, dialogue or human rights through awareness-raising and educational activities.
  • Participants are expected from Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, Jamaica, Canada, United Kingdom, Cyprus, Cameroon, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and Australia.
Competence asked for:
  • Conceptual and practical knowledge and training experience regarding human rights, using human rights education and intercultural learning and non-formal educational methodologies
  • Experience with using the manuals Bookmarks and/or We CAN! in trainings and/or youth campaigns;
  • Conceptual and practical knowledge and training experience regarding: hate speech, racism, discrimination, online campaigning and online activism, counter and alternative narratives, peace building, intercultural and inter faith dialogue and learning
  • Knowledge of the Council of Europe’s Youth campaign No Hate Speech Movement
  • Working knowledge of English.
  • Knowledge of Commonwealth youth programmes and Networks
Number of Awards: 2
Value of Award: Trainers are paid. Both trainers will be contracted for 8 days at 260 euro per day.
Duration of Program: The trainers must be available for the full duration of the preparatory meeting and training course
  • Preparatory meeting: 6-7 November 2017
  • Second Preparatory meeting 26 November
  • Training Course: 27 November – 1 December 2017
How to Apply: If you would like to be considered as a paid trainer, you should download the application form below.
  • Find the training call out document here.
  • Find the application form for trainers here.
Award Providers: Council of Europe, Commonwealth Secretariat

University of Edinburgh MasterCard Foundation Scholarships for African Students 2018/2019 – Scotland

Application Deadline: 30th November 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): Scotland, UK
Eligible Field of Study: 
  • All Undergraduate programmes
Scholarships are available for the following Postgraduate Masters programmes:
  • MSc Africa and International Development
  • MSc Environment and Development
  • MSc Global Health Policy
  • LLM Human Rights
  • MA Product Design
  • MSc Sustainable Energy Systems
About the Award: The Edinburgh MasterCard Foundation Scholars Programme supports the brightest and best African scholars with great potential but few educational opportunities. Through the generous support of the Foundation, Scholars will be provided with the opportunity to become leaders within their communities and to improve the lives of countless more when they return home to Africa.
The Edinburgh MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program provides young people who have demonstrated academic talent with access to quality education. The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program is a growing initiative and to date, the Program has committed over $700 million to supporting the education and leadership development of over 30,000 young people. Throughout a network of partners, the Scholars Program ensures that students whose academic talent and promise exceed their financial resources, are equipped with the knowledge and skills they need to become the next generation of ethical leaders.
Scholars will be provided with the opportunity to become leaders within their communities and to improve the lives of countless more when they return home to Africa.
Type: Bachelors and Masters
Eligibility: 
  • You must qualify academically for admission to the University of Edinburgh. We prefer that applicants apply to this scholarship BEFORE applying to the University. Please see section on applying below for more information;
  • You must be a resident and citizen of a Sub-Saharan African country, whose personal circumstances would make accepting an offer from the University of Edinburgh difficult.  Applications from Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe are particularly welcome;
  • You must demonstrate a track record of leadership and service within your community; and
  • You are able to present economically disadvantaged circumstances and be able to show that you lack financial means from family or other sources to pursue post-secondary (university) education in your home country or elsewhere.
The scholarship is not available to students already on programme.
The scholarship may be terminated at any time when an unsatisfactory progress report is received from the School or if the scholarship holder ceases to be registered as a full-time student at the University of Edinburgh.
Selection Criteria: 
  • The scholarships are competitive and awarded broadly on the basis of academic merit. Applicants financial, personal, and family circumstances will also be taken into account.
  • Applicants must also be committed to returning to Africa following their graduation to give back to their home community and country.
Number of Awardees: 
  • 25 scholarships are available in 2018/2019 for undergraduate programmes
  • 10 scholarships are available in 2018/2019 for Masters programmes
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship will provide full scholarships, including accommodation costs, living costs, travel and tuition fees to students taking courses on campus at Edinburgh. 60 Scholars from other MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program institutions will also benefit from participating in a number of online distance learning Masters programmes offered by the University of Edinburgh. As well as receiving an excellent education at one of the top ranked universities in the world, undergraduate Scholars will:
  • Participate in UK and Africa based Summer Schools;
  • Complete a course on African development;
  • Engage in a volunteering project in their home country;
  • Undertake a work-based placement in the UK;
  • Receive support on their return to their home country; and
  • Following their graduation, around 50% of our undergraduate Scholars will then be supported to complete distance learning Masters degrees after their return to Africa.
Postgraduate masters Scholars will:
  • Complete six courses followed by the production of a dissertation;
  • Participate in a retreat designed to nurture leadership skills;
  • Attend a short Summer School; and
  • Undertake an internship which will include reflective learning.
Online distance Masters Scholars will:
  • Undertake a range of online distance Masters degrees which will be available to 60 Scholars from Edinburgh MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program institutions.
Duration of Scholarship: Complete duration of any programme.
How to Apply: All applicants must apply for the scholarship first through our online application form and, if successful, will be assisted in the process of applying for admission to the University.
It is important to go through application instructions on the Scholarship Webpage (See Link below) before applying.
Award Provider: The MasterCard Foundation
Important Notes: Interviews via video or phone will be held during February and March 2018, with final decisions made by April. All successful applicants will join the Program in September 2018.

Brexit, Kurdistan and Catalonia: Why Such Referendums are Doomed to Fail

Patrick Cockburn

Brexit, Krexit and Crexit: Britain leaves the EU, Kurdistan declares independence from Iraq, Catalonia secedes from Spain – three massive political changes either under way or put on the political agenda by recent referendums. Three very different countries, but in all cases a conviction among a significant number of voters that they would be better off on their own outside any measure of control by a supranational authority like the EU or a nation state like Iraq or Spain.
Referendums have a lot to answer for: no wonder divided governments, demagogues and dictators have such a fondness for them. They have the appearance of popular democracy and give the impression that important decisions are finally being made by reducing complex questions into an over-simple “yes” or “no”. They make public opinion easy to manipulate because what voters are being asked to assent to is most often wishful thinking and what they are opposing is a rag-bag of unrelated grievances. There are a great many unhappy and dissatisfied people in the three countries which have voted in referendums in the last 15 months, but no reason to suppose that their vote will make them happier or better off.
The lack of substance in promises of good things to come should be more obvious than it is. It is particularly obscure in Britain because the pros and cons of Brexit are debated by both sides in economic terms, or in relation to the impact on immigration. The discussion is almost entirely in the future tense, but in practice the main disasters flowing from Brexit have already occurred.
From the moment the polls closed on 23 June 2016, British society has been deeply divided, probably more so than at any time since the 17th-century civil war 375 years ago. “It really is like a civil war without the gunfire,” said one commentator to me last week, speaking of the depth, rancour and lasting nature of these divisions. The Government is so split that it has yet to find enough common ground to get rid of Theresa May, even though she seems to be having a rather public nervous breakdown.
There is another danger at work here. The Brexiteers hark back to a golden British past when Britain stood alone and was the workshop of the world aided by the virtues of free trade. But this is a misreading of British history: being on the winning side in the Napoleonic and in First and Second World Wars had less to do with economic strength and more to do with naval power and skill in making alliances. Once again, the weakening of the British state is not something which will be postponed until after some elastic transition period – but has already begun.
The British experience of referendums is not unique and has parallels elsewhere. Experience shows that referendums are always used by the winning side to pretend that their majority, however slim and however low the turnout, represents the undivided national will. In fact, the 52 to 48 per cent Brexit vote reflected exactly that: a country split down the middle. The turnout in the vote in Catalonia last Sunday was only 42 per cent, but the Catalan Prime Minister is expected to declare independence if he is allowed to address parliament on Tuesday.
As is so often in history, those who want to carry out radical or revolutionary change do not get anywhere without provoking an unreasonable and counter-productive overreaction by those who want to preserve the status quo. It should not have required much consideration for the Spanish government to realise that sending in the national police to try and fail to stop the referendum, while beating up ordinary people in front of television cameras, was the best way to win sympathy for the pro-independence side. Hailing the Catalan chief of police, Josep Lluis Trapero, before a judge in Madrid on suspicion of sedition against the state, is likewise guaranteed to do nothing but give legitimacy to those holding the referendum.
The self-destructive idiocy of governments when defending their own interests never ceases to amaze. Those who justify their power by maintaining law and order cannot suddenly behave like thugs without wounding their authority. I remember half a century ago – in Northern Ireland in 1968 – asking a civil rights organiser about the next steps to be taken by his movement, which was seeking equal rights for Roman Catholics in a sectarian Protestant-run state. He said that he and his colleagues had just voted at a meeting to do nothing, but instead to wait for the government to make another crass mistake such as allowing the police force to attack peaceful civil rights marchers in front of photographers and television cameras. This the government duly did.
The referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan on 25 September has distinct features, but also points in common with other referendums: the vote was for or against independence for the Iraqi Kurds, the poll taking place in territories disputed by the Iraqi government as well as in Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) areas. It appears to have been called by KRG President Masoud Barzani to wrap himself in the Kurdish flag and present himself as the standard bearer of Kurdish nationalism. It can be taken as a given that most Kurds want an independent state, but the question is how feasible this is.
The vote was useful to Barzani in giving him legitimacy, though his term in office controversially ran out in 2015. Despite the KRG’s near economic collapse, Barzani has been able to divert attention from this and present the non-binding referendum result as a panacea or cure-all for the troubles of the Kurds, many of which are the fault of the corrupt and dysfunctional KRG government.
There is another similarity between Brexit and Krexit: Leave politicians in the UK pretended to voters that the balance of power between the UK and 27 EU states was equal and negotiations could proceed on that basis. Mr Barzani likewise said post-referendum he would negotiate independence directly with a compliant government in Baghdad. Of course, this was fantasy: May and Barzani both have weak hands to play against much stronger opponents. Baghdad is saying that there will be no negotiations about anything until the results of the referendum are annulled, and Turkey and Iran are in a position to squeeze the KRG into compliance.
Supporters of Brexit, Krexit and Crexit promise short-term dislocation in return for their countries achieving real independence and long term prosperity.
In fact, Britons, Kurds and Catalans are more like Edward Lear’s Jumblies, who famously went to sea in a sieve despite warnings that they would all be drowned, to which the Jumbles replied: “Our Sieve ain’t big / But we don’t care a button, we don’t care a fig / In a sieve we’ll go to sea!”

India Can’t Afford To Ignore Mental Health

Moin Qazi

(World Mental Health Day -10th October 2017)
According to an India Spend report, the number of Indians suffering from mental illness exceeds that of the population of South Africa. At present, the mentally ill account for nearly 6.5 percent of the country’s population and it is estimated that by 2020 this number will increase to a staggering 20 percent. Further, the World Health Organisation estimates that nearly 56 million Indians — or 4.5% of India’s population — suffer from depression.   Another 38 million Indians –or 3% of India’s population -suffer from anxiety disorders. Many of these people live with both. . Many of these illnesses can be treated, but access to treatment is often difficult, and stigma continues to scare individuals away from seeking diagnosis and appropriate treatments even when they are available.
As the world observes World Mental Health Day on 10th October, it is time India renews its efforts to improve the mental health services. The abysmal state of mental health care in the country is a cause for great concern and India cannot afford to ignore some of the stark realities. Most government-run hospitals do not have psychiatric drugs, and visiting a private shrink and sustaining the treatment — usually a long drawn out affair — is an expensive proposition for most families.
According to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare report, India faces a treatment gap of 50-70 percent for mental healthcare, implying that more than half of the population does not get the required treatment and medical facilities. The government data highlights the dismal number of mental healthcare professionals in India — 3,800 psychiatrists, 898 clinical psychologists, 850 psychiatric social workers, and 1,500 psychiatric nurses nationwide. The WHO reports that there are only three psychiatrists per million people in India, while in other Commonwealth countries, the ratio is 5.6 psychiatrists for the same.
By this estimate, India is short of 66,200 psychiatrists. Similarly, based on the global average of 21.7 psychiatric nurses per 100,000 people, India needs 269,750 nurses
Mental health accounts for 0.16 percent of the total Union Health Budget, which is less than that of Bangladesh, which spends 0.44 percent .The developed nations’ expenditure amounts to an average of 4 percent. “
A National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) survey estimates that 13.7 percent of the Indian population above the age of 18 suffers from mental morbidity, requiring active intervention. It also suggests that one in every 20 Indians suffers from depression. Nearly 1 percent of Indians suffer from high suicidal risks. Almost 9.8 million children in the age group of 13-17 years are suffering from mental health concerns and require an active intervention.
The World Bank has recently identified mental health as a Global Development Priority which recognizes the critical impact mental health has on economic development and well-being. The economic consequences of poor mental health are equally significant. .A World Economic Forum/Harvard School of Public Health study estimated that the cumulative global impact of mental disorders in terms of lost economic output will amount to $16.3 trillion between 2011 and 2030. In India, mental illness is estimated to cost $1.03 trillion (22% of economic output) between 2012-2030.
A majority of those with these illnesses can recover and lead fulfilling lives such as going to school, working, raising a family, and being productive citizens in their communities.   Although mental illness is experienced by a significant proportion of the population it is still seen as a taboo issue. These barriers deprive people of their dignity. To make dignity in mental health a reality requires every member of society to work and take action together
.A field-based research study in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet (by Pandit et al) concludes, “Most Indians do not have community or support services for the prevention of suicide and have restricted access to care for mental illnesses associated with suicide, especially access to treatment for depression, which has been shown to reduce suicidal behaviours.”   Counseling has a great role to play in alleviating stress and helping depressed people improve their self-esteem and their ability to cope with despair.
There have been some encouraging innovations in India led by   voluntary organizations that are both impactful and replicable Patel, who is a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and co-founder of Goa-based mental health research nonprofit Sangath is the architect   has been in the forefront of community mental health programmes in Central India.
The programme  is designed to establish a sustainable rural mental health support to address issues relating to stress and tension that abet suicides alcohol abuse and depression in the rural community .It deploys health workers from within the community, some with no background in mental health. These workers are trained to raise mental health awareness and provide “psychological first-aid”. The program also includes counselors who are imparted mental health literacy. The third line of workers consists of expert psychiatrists, who are qualified to provide medications for more serious mental health disorders. The programme uses Primary Health Centres for screening and feeding people with mental illnesses.
Dr. Patel’s vision has been the provision of superior mental healthcare to low-resource communities. He argues that 90 per cent of people affected by mental illnesses go untreated owing to the paucity of psychiatrists. Importantly, his research has effectively demonstrated that evidence-based treatments for mental illnesses can be delivered in low-income countries by non-specialist healthcare workers. His work has been applauded by TIME magazine which featured him in its annual list of annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.
Patel feels that mental health problems are still perceived by many as rich man’s diseases. It is assumed that if you are poor, then the symptoms of depression are simply an expression of the misery of your life. Contrary to public belief, mental suffering is not a natural consequence of poverty and those who are poor and depressed deserve, if anything, even more attention than the rich.
A lot of good programmes got their start when one individual looked at a familiar landscape in a fresh way. These creative and passionate individuals saw possibilities where others saw only hopelessness, and imagined a way forward when others saw none.
We increasingly have the tools; but we need to summon the will the way game changers like Patel are doing.
People like him have shown there are solutions if we think out of the box. And don’t accept limits to how the world works.

The Seeds of Agroecology And Common Ownership

Colin Todhunter

The increasingly globalised industrial food system that transnational agribusiness promotes is not feeding the world and is responsible for some of the planet’s most pressing political, social and environmental crises. Localised, traditional methods of food production have given way to globalised supply chains dominated by transnational companies policies and actions which have resulted in the destruction of habitat and livelihoods and the imposition of corporate-controlled, chemical-intensive (monocrop) agriculture that weds farmers and regions to a wholly exploitative system of neoliberal globalisation.
Whether it involves the undermining or destruction of what were once largely self-sufficient agrarian economies in Africa or the devastating impacts of soy cultivation in Argentina or palm oil production in Indonesia, transnational agribusiness and global capitalism cannot be greenwashed.
In their rush to readily promote neoliberal dogma and corporate PR, many take as given that profit-driven transnational corporations have a legitimate claim to be custodians of natural assets. There is the premise that water, seeds, land, food, soil and agriculture should be handed over to powerful, corrupt transnational corporations to milk for profit, under the pretence these entities are somehow serving the needs of humanity.
These natural assets (‘the commons’) belong to everyone and any stewardship should be carried out in the common interest by local people assisted by public institutions and governments acting on their behalf, not by private transnational corporations driven by self-interest and the maximization of profit by any means possible.
The Guardian columnist George Monbiot notes the vast wealth the economic elite has accumulated at our expense through its seizure of the commons. A commons is managed not for the accumulation of capital or profit but for the steady production of prosperity or wellbeing of a particular group, who might live in or beside it or who created and sustain it.
Unlike state spending, according to Monbiot, a commons obliges people to work together, to sustain their resources and decide how the income should be used. It gives community life a clear focus and depends on democracy in its truest form. However, the commons have been attacked by both state power and capitalism for centuries. In effect, resources that no one invented or created, or that a large number of people created together, are stolen by those who see an opportunity for profit.
We need only look at how Cargill captured the edible oils processing sector in India and in the process put many thousands of village-based workers out of work.  Or how Monsanto conspired to design a system of intellectual property rights that allowed it to patent seeds as if it had manufactured and invented them. Or how India’s indigenous peoples have been forcibly ejected from their ancient forest lands due to state’s collusion with mining companies.
As Monbiot says, the outcome is a rentier economy: those who capture essential resources seek to commodify them – whether trees for timber, land for real estate or agricultural seeds, for example – and force everyone else to pay for access.
While spouting platitudes about ‘choice’, ‘democracy’ and ‘feeding the world’, the corporate agribusiness/agritech industry is destroying the commons and democracy and displacing existing localised systems of production. Economies are being “opened up through the concurrent displacement of pre-existing productive systems. Small and medium-sized enterprises are pushed into bankruptcy or obliged to produce for a global distributor, state enterprises are privatised or closed down, independent agricultural producers are impoverished” (Michel Chossudovsky in The Globalization of Poverty, p16).
As described here, for thousands of years farmers experimented with different plant and animal specimens acquired through migration, trading networks, gift exchanges or accidental diffusion. By learning and doing, trial and error, new knowledge was blended with older, traditional knowledge systems. The farmer possesses acute observation, good memory for detail and transmission through teaching and story-telling. The same farmers whose seeds and knowledge were stolen by corporations to be bred for proprietary chemical-dependent hybrids, now to be genetically engineered
Large corporations with their proprietary seeds and synthetic chemical inputs have eradicated traditional systems of seed exchange. They have effectively hijacked seeds, pirated germ plasm that farmers developed over millennia and have ‘rented’ the seeds back to farmers. Genetic diversity among food crops has been drastically reduced, and we have bad food and diets, degraded soils, water pollution and scarcity and spiralling rates of poor health.
The eradication of seed diversity went much further than merely prioritising corporate seeds: the Green Revolution deliberately sidelined traditional seeds kept by farmers that were actually higher yielding.
We have witnessed a change in farming practices towards mechanised industrial-scale chemical-intensive monocropping, often for export or for far away cities rather than local communities, and ultimately the undermining or eradication of self-contained rural economies, traditions and cultures. We now see food surplus in the West and food deficit areas in the Global South and a globalised geopoliticised system of food and agriculture.
In India, Green Revolution technology and ideology has merely served to undermine indigenous farming sectors centred on highly productive small farms that catered for the diverse dietary needs and climatic conditions of the country. It has actually produced and fuelled drought and degraded soils and has contributed towards illnesses and malnutrition, farmer distress and many other problems.
What really irks the corporate vultures which fuel the current industrial model of agriculture is that critics are offering genuine alternatives. They advocate a shift towards more organic-based systems of agriculture, which includes providing support to small farms and an agroecology movement that is empowering to people politically, socially and economically.
Agroecology: taking back power
Much has been written about agroecology, its successes and the challenges it faces (see thisthis and this). A prominent strand of the agroecological movement regards this model of agriculture as a force for radical change. It offers a political-economical critique of modern agriculture and the vested interests that determine it.
In this respect, Food First Executive Director Eric Holtz-Gimenez argues that agroecology offers concrete, practical solutions to many of the world’s problems that move beyond (but which are linked to) agriculture. In doing so, it challenges – and offers alternatives to – the prevailing moribund doctrinaire economics and outright plunder of a neoliberalism that in turn drives a failing system of GM/chemical-intensive industrial agriculture.
The scaling up of agroecology can tackle hunger, malnutrition, environmental degradation and climate change. By creating securely paid labour-intensive agricultural work, it can also address the interrelated links between labour offshoring by rich countries and the removal of rural populations elsewhere who end up in sweat shops to carry out the outsourced jobs: the two-pronged process of neoliberal globalisation that has devastated the economies of the US and UK and which is displacing existing indigenous food production systems and undermining the rural infrastructure in places like India to produce a reserve army of cheap labour.
The Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology by Nyeleni in 2015 argued for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on truly agroecological food production. It went on to say that agroecology should not become a tool of the industrial food production model but as the essential alternative to that model. The Declaration stated that agroecology is political and requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world.
The more the power structures that shape modern agriculture are understood and the consequent devastating effects are made public, the more urgent the need becomes to establish societies run for the benefit of the mass of the population, and that means a system of food and agriculture that is democratically owned and controlled. This involves prioritising localised rural and urban food economies and small farms (both rural and urban) that should be shielded from the effects of rigged trade and international markets. It would mean that what ends up in our food and how it is grown is determined by the public good and not powerful private interests, which are driven by commercial gain and their compulsion to subjugate farmers, consumers and entire regions, while playing the victim each time campaigners challenge their actions.
There are enough examples from across the world that serve as models for transformation, from farming in socialist Cuba to grass-root movements centred on agroecology in Africa and India.
Agroecology must be regarded as a key form of resistance by food producers and both urban and rural communities to an increasingly globalised economic system that puts profit before the environment. Whether in Europe, Africa, India or the US, agroecology can protect and reassert the commons and is a force for grass-root change that should not be co-opted, diluted or subverted by the cartel of powerful biotech/agribusiness companies. This model of agriculture is already providing real solutions for sustainable, productive agriculture that prioritise the needs of farmers, consumers and the environment.

US-North Korea Face-Off Escalates

K. P. Fabian


The U.S.-North Korea confrontation has reached a perilous level and the risk of war is serious.
The best starting point to take stock  of the perilous face-off between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (D.P.R.K.) and the United States of America is President Trump’s maiden speech at the UN General Assembly on 19 September 2017.Trump said,  “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”  Trump criticized China without naming it when he said that it was an outrage that some nations “would trade, arm and support North Korea.”
Trump had phoned Xi Jin Ping the day before his speech.  In an editorial the state-run China Daily ‘scolded’ the United States for not doing more to start talks with North Korea. “His threat to ‘totally destroy’ the D.P.R.K. if need be will, therefore, likely worsen the already volatile situation,” the paper added.
The reaction from D.P.R.K. was sharper. Its Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho told the media,”If he was thinking he could scare us with the sound of a dog barking, that’s really a dog dream.” A ‘dog dream’ means something absurd in Korean language. The North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in  an  unprecedented televised statement accused  Trump of being “mentally deranged.” He added that Trump would “pay dearly” for the threats, and that North Korea “will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history…I  am now thinking hard about what response he could have expected when he allowed such eccentric words to trip off his tongue, I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire.” The use of ‘dotard’ prompted The New York Times to give its dictionary meaning as its readers might not readily understand the word.
On 22 September 2017, D.P.R.K.’s Foreign Minister Ri  Yong-ho  spoke at U. N. General Assembly  of his country’s search for a “nuclear hammer of justice” and added that his country was “a few steps away from the final gate of completion of nuclear deterrent.”  He hastened to add that it was meant to be a “deterrent”. The same day the Pentagon sent B-1B bombers and F-15 C fighters to fly over waters north of the Demilitarized Zone.  A Pentagon spokesperson said that the intention was ‘to demonstrate the options before the President’.
Tillerson’s Visit to China
President Trump is due to visit China in November. He will visit Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines from November 3 to 14. By that time, Xi Jin Ping would have got his second five-year term at the 19th    National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party due to open on 18 October.
Secretary of State Tillerson was in China on 30 September. He was delayed by six hours as his aging Boeing 757 broke down in Tokyo   and he had to take a C-130, a cargo plane.
Of course, U.S. and China have many things to discuss including the trade imbalance of $347 million in favor of China. North Korea was discussed, but nothing on that was divulged to the media. Even before Tillerson arrived, China had stated that it was going to comply with the latest U.N. Security Council relation on reducing trade with DPRK. Obviously, Xi Jinping wants to make sure that China’s relations with the rest of the world, especially the US, appear to be in good shape, especially before the big Congress.
While in Beijing, Tillerson divulged to the media that his government was in touch with North Korea and was probing North Korea’s willingness to talk; hecalled for a calming of the situation on the Korean Peninsula, adding it was incumbent on the North to halt the missile launches.”We have a couple … three channels open to Pyongyang. We can talk to them, we do talk to them.” He made it clear that the contacts were not arranged by China.
Hours later, the State Department issued a statement saying, : “Despite assurances that the United States is not interested in promoting the collapse of the current regime, pursuing regime change, accelerating reunification of the peninsula or mobilizing forces north of the DMZ, North Korean officials have shown no indication that they are interested in or are ready for talks regarding denuclearization..”
It is clear that Washington wants to discuss the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, an obvious euphemism for dismantling DPRK’s nuclear weapon programme. This is a non-starter. It should be as clear as daylight to anyone familiar with the issues that North Korea is seeking security, respect, and sizable economic assistance.
Some US pundits have pointed out that the two Koreas had agreed on such denuclearization in 1992. That argument does not hold water as much has happened since 1992.Now,  D.P.R.K. is a nuclear power, with weapons and improving delivery capabilities. If US is keen on talking, it has to propose a broader agenda.China’s proposal of a ‘double freeze’ meaning simultaneous halting of tests by D.P.R.K. and of military exercises by US and South Korea might be a possible starting point.
However, it is to be noted that in his interaction with the media, Tillerson projected realism when he said that the progress towards the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula would be “incremental”.
  The incoherence in US policy
The day after Tillerson divulged about the contacts with DPRK, Trump tweeted and made it clear that his Secretary of State was not speaking on his behalf.“I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man. Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!” A few hours later, Trump tweeted again, “Being nice to Rocket Man hasn’t worked in 25 years, why would it work now? Clinton failed; Bush failed, and Obama failed. I won’t fail.”
It has been reported that Trump was angry with Tillerson for publicly contradicting President’s stated position that it is not the right time to talk to DPRK.  Trump obviously forgot that Kim Jong Un has been in power less than four years.
There has been some speculation that Tillerson might resign after such public humiliation by his President. Tillerson has denied any intention to resign. That apart, the more important  question is:
What is the US policy towards DPRK? Is there a policy followed by the State and the Pentagon,and another by the White House?
Let us have a thought experiment:  Trump orders a military strike on DPRK. Will the Secretary of Defense carry out the order or will he and the Secretary of State threaten to resign? If they threaten to resign, how will the Congress respond?
Some members of the Congress have started publicly expressing their fears about Trump’s taking the country to war. Representative Ted Lieu of California, a Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, says that if Trump starts a war or if North Korea mistakenly concludes that he has started one, the death toll could be as high as 2.1 million and the number of the injured 7.7 million.
South Korea’s concerns
President Moon-Jae-in  finds himself facing a dilemma. As a presidential candidate he had promised to open talks with D.P.R.K. to persuade it to stop testing either missile or a nuclear weapon. Moon had clarified that if D.P.R.K. carries out a nuclear test, he would abandon his policy of engagement and take suitable measures.
After D.P.R.K. tested a nuclear weapon, possibly a hydrogen bomb, on 3 September 2017, Moon came under pressure from his support base to abandon his ‘Moonshine’ policy. Moon was Chief of Cabinet to President Roh Moon-hyun who continued with the so called ‘Sunshine policy’ with D.P.R.K. initiated by   President    Kim      Dae-jung in 1998. That policy of giving economic assistance, invoking the success of the Ostpolitik in the case of Germany, was followed for ten years till 2008.
. After the 3 September test, the South Korean President spoke to President Trump. South Korea came out with the following announcement, presumably with the concurrence of the White House:“The two leaders agreed to strengthen cooperation, and exert stronger and practical sanctions on North Korea so that it realizes provocative actions leads to further diplomatic isolation and economic pressure.”
There is another debate going on in South Korea. Since the end of the Korean War in 1953 by an armistice, not yet followed by a peace treaty, it is a US General who would command the 650,000 South Korean army in the event of war. In a speech on 28 September marking the Armed Forces Day, President Moon said  he would push for the South to move more quickly to retake wartime operational control of its military from its American ally. On the face of it, one wonders whether this is the best time to talk about this matter. But, it is a fact that there is serious concern in South Korea on two counts. One, President Trump might precipitate a war unnecessarily. The other concern is that once D.P.R.K. has the capability to send a nuclear bomb to a US city, will Trump with his ‘America First’ philosophy , risk one of his cities to defend South Korea?
The snap general election in Japan
On 25 September Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that Japan would go to polls in October though he has one more year to go. The election is due on 22 October. We do not know whether Abe’s gamble to get more political support for his plan to amend the pacifist constitution imposed by US will work or not. Abe has gained some popularity bytaking a hard line on D.P.R.K.  We have to wait and watch the policy of the new government led by Abe or another leader, say the popular Mayor of Tokyo, Yuriko Koike
What is in store in the next few weeks?
South Korean government officials fear that D.P.R.K.  might carry out another strike between two crucial dates, 10th October marking the anniversary of the foundation of its  Communist Party and the 18th the start of the big congress of the Chinese Communist Party.
D.P.R.K., it is learnt, has not given a visa to Xi Jingpin’s Special Envoy Kong Xuanyou. Russia is still talking to D.P.R.K.
Even if no test is carried out in October as feared by South Korea, how about a test to ‘welcome’ Trump when he  begins his East Asia tour on 4th November?
It is necessary for DPRK and US to talk and  perhaps the only person who can undertake the delicate task of  mediation is the UN Secretary General.

Disinformation campaign scandal shakes Austrian Social Democrats

Markus Salzmann

Just a few days before parliamentary elections on 15 October, a scandal has shaken the Austrian Social Democratic Party (SPÖ).
According to news magazine Profil and daily newspaper Die Presse, a “special unit” controlled by SPÖ policy adviser Tal Silberstein is responsible for two fake Facebook pages in a disinformation campaign against Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz, the lead candidate of the conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP).
One page, “We are for Sebastian Kurz,” presented itself as a fan site for the ÖVP leader. Because of its racist and anti-Semitic tone, the originator was originally suspected of being part of the right-wing milieu. Posts demanded the immediate closure of the Austrian border at the Brenner Pass and attacked the SPÖ lead candidate with hateful comments. The other page, “The Truth About Sebastian Kurz,” attacked Kurz employing right-wing propaganda.
Silberstein is a flamboyant international figure. He also advises right-wing governments in Israel, Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine and politicians in Romania. According to Wikipedia, in the 2002 Bolivian election campaign, he advised the candidate Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada to start a “dirty campaign” against his opponent. Silberstein was arrested in Israel on 14 August, on the charge of bribing the president of Guinea.
Silberstein has been active with the SPÖ regularly for over 15 years. Among others, he has advised the party’s long-standing mayor of Vienna Michael Häupl and former Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer. According to Profil, Kern and the SPÖ provided Silberstein with extensive powers and a budget of 500,000 euros for the current campaign, but claim not to have known anything about Silberstein’s dirty campaign. “Silberstein has acted without any mandate and without the knowledge of the federal executive director,” the party said in a statement.
The SPÖ could not explain why the party’s executive director and election head, Georg Niedermühlbichler, announced his resignation immediately after news of the scandal broke. The party had officially parted ways with Silberstein after he had been arrested in Israel.
Regardless of who knew what in the SPÖ, the fact that it was using such a dubious political adviser casts a harsh light on the state of the party. Being already completely discredited by its right-wing policies and unable to offer voters a positive perspective, its election campaign is based on charlatans and manipulation.
The appointment of Kern as government and party leader already spoke volumes about the right-wing character of the SPÖ. The former railway boss set his goals as carrying through radical austerity measures, boosting the powers of the state and, above all, working together with the right-wing extremist Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ).
For months, the SPÖ and the other parties have been seeking to outdo each other in whipping up anti-refugee sentiment and the call for more state powers. Both the Social Democrats and the Conservatives are in principle prepared to form a government with the far-right FPÖ. The FPÖ’s chief, Heinz-Christian Strache, has pointed out in interviews that the ÖVP and SPÖ have adopted many policies for which his party was criticized earlier as being racist.
According to recent surveys published before the scandal broke, the SPÖ and the FPÖ were on a par with 20 percent, while the ÖVP lay clearly ahead. The media is already assuming that the election will prove “devastating” for the SPÖ. “Kern no longer has a chance,” said Wolfgang Bachmayer in the Kuriernewspaper.
Among young people, the decline of the Social Democrats is even clearer. According to a survey conducted by Youth Trend Monitor, the ÖVP and the FPÖ reach 24 percent among 14- to 29-year-olds, and the SPÖ just 13 percent.
The current SPÖ-ÖVP grand coalition in Vienna is already implementing the FPÖ’s programme. Recently, it drastically tightened up the asylum law, cut social benefits for migrants and adopted a so-called “Burka ban.” Representatives of the SPÖ right-wing, such as Defence Minister Hans Peter Doskozil, and the influential trade union wing, propound xenophobia and law-and-order policies, just like the FPÖ.
Kern himself calls for the country’s borders to be policed more stringently against refugees. He explicitly supported the closure of the Balkan route by right-wing governments in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. On the grounds that the SPÖ will not accept “economic migrants,” the SPÖ is supporting tougher action against refugees in the Mediterranean.
The bankruptcy of the SPÖ is symptomatic of the entire political establishment in Austria, which stands completely aloof from the population.
The Greens, who had already reached 12 percent in the 2013 elections, and whose candidate Alexander van der Bellen is federal president, are threatened with failing to clear the four percent hurdle for entry into parliament. The Green Youth Association left the party some time ago and joined with the Austrian Communist Party, a reactionary Stalinist remnant, as the “KPÖ Plus". This alliance is mainly fishing for support from SPÖ bureaucrats who are disappointed and fear for their posts.
Former Green Peter Pilz may also enter parliament on his own slate. He left the Greens because, in his opinion, they did not move quickly enough to the right. Pilz, a former Pabloite, together with ex Greens, Social Democrats and business figures, opposes “political Islam” and “false tolerance” towards refugees.