Robert Mugabe resigns as president of Zimbabwe

Chris Marsden 

Robert Mugabe resigned as president on Tuesday, six days after Zimbabwe’s military first moved against him. His resignation was announced in the midst of a debate in parliament on impeachment initiated by his factional rivals in the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).

Mugabe, 93, who has led the country for 37 years, refused to go after last Wednesday’s move by the army targeting the G40 faction of his wife, Grace Mugabe, and supporting the former deputy prime minister, Emmerson Mnangagwa. He failed to resign in a televised address Sunday while flanked by top military figures, having been removed as party leader earlier that day. Instead, he suggested that he would lead a party congress next month.

Despite the staging of rallies and scenes of euphoria in Harare at news of Mugabe’s resignation, his removal is the result of a palace coup with political and economic aims dictated by bourgeois forces no less corrupt than Mugabe.

Mugabe finally submitted his resignation in a letter to parliament that was read out by the speaker, Jacob Mudenda, to the assembled MPs. The cheering in the chamber was an indication of how far removed the political overturn was from what the army and sections of the media had proclaimed to be a genuinely popular uprising. Even the charges under which Mugabe was to be impeached—that his advanced age allowed his wife to “usurp power”—reflected the intention to limit any fallout.

Mnangagwa, who is to be Mugabe’s replacement, has no principled differences with the man for whom he acted as enforcer for decades. He moved against his former boss only when Mugabe deposed him a fortnight ago, after sidelining other members of the “old guard” close to the military in favour of a younger bourgeois layer around “Gucci Grace.”

The military portray Mugabe’s actions as undermining the heroes of the independence movement. But in the decades since the 1980s, the military leveraged its power to become a major economic force that grew wealthy at the expense of the working population. The generals were angry at Mugabe only for his promotion of a younger venal layer at their expense.

Mnangagwa has been alleged to be Zimbabwe’s richest man in cables released by WikiLeaks and written by a US ambassador in 2001. The sources of his wealth include ill-gotten gains obtained while secretary for finance in ZANU-PF as well as illegal mineral exploitation in the Congo. His first destination in seeking support for a move against Mugabe was Beijing, Zimbabwe’s biggest investor, where Mnangagwa fled after being deposed. Mnangagwa has appealed to China, the US and Britain by advancing himself as “engagement”-friendly and an opponent of Mugabe’s recent turn to policies of “indigenisation” that penalised foreign investors in mining and other key industries.

The man immediately in charge of the palace coup, commander of the Zimbabwe national army, General Constantine Chiwenga, is also fabulously wealthy, with an extensive real estate portfolio, control of some 100 companies, a fleet of luxury cars and a mountain of jewellery.

The extent to which the military is managing events was epitomised by the statement issued Monday by Chiwenga. Flanked by Air Force of Zimbabwe Commander Perrance Shiri, Police Commissioner-General Augustine Chihuri, Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services Commissioner-General Paradzai Zimondi and acting Central Intelligence Organisation head Aaron Nhepera, Chiwenga warned against any action by anyone that would “threaten peace, life and property.”

Zimbabweans, he declared, had to “remain calm and patient, fully observing and respecting the laws of the country,” while “your defence forces…remain seized with the operation codenamed ‘Operation Restore Legacy.’” Chiwenga urged students protesting at the University of Zimbabwe “to be calm and to proceed with their educational programmes as scheduled.”

Lining up behind the impeachment move is Morgan Tsvangirai, head of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The former leader of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) now speaks of his desire to see all the hungry fed as a reason for temporarily siding with the Mnangagwa faction. But he and the trade union bureaucracy are aligned with bourgeois forces in Zimbabwe and major imperialist powers, including Britain and the United States.

Set up in 1999, the MDC stood against ZANU-PF as the defender of International Monetary Fund-imposed structural adjustment programmes and white farming interests when Mugabe was forced to make a show of opposition to both to preserve his popular base. In an interview with the South African Mail and Guardian in 1997, Tsvangirai denied that the IMF caused Zimbabwe’s social crisis, insisting that it was because “We are not living within our means.” He continued: “At the stage we had reached, some form of structural adjustment was needed… We had to relax and open up and allow business to operate without these constraints.”

The MDC has been a consistent advocate of this agenda and backed Western moves to depose Mugabe that involved crippling sanctions that destroyed the livelihoods of millions.

London and Washington have over time combined backing for the MDC with seeking relations with factions within ZANU-PF, including that led by Mnangagwa. The ailing Tsvangirai still enjoys international backing, with the US and Britain insisting that the military must give way to civilian rule in arrangements that include the MDC and other opposition tendencies. The MDC is considered to be an important political lever against China’s influence within ZANU-PF.

Another party concerned that Mugabe’s departure from office be carefully managed is the African National Congress government in South Africa. President Jacob Zuma heads a regime that has just as decisively betrayed its promises to the working class and poor farmers in return for a share in their exploitation through governmental positions and business connections forged by means of the policies of “Black economic empowerment.” He arrives in Harare today from a meeting in Angola of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) to discuss how the power transition will continue.

Yesterday, Reuters reported a cable it received weeks prior to the palace coup from South Africa’s Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO). The cable reports that sixteen African leaders in the SADC led by Zuma were encouraging Mugabe to step down in the knowledge that the army was ready to remove him. Dated October 23, the CIO source warns that Mugabe would face “fierce resistance from the military” if Mnangagwa was removed and that “the military is not going to easily accept the appointment of Grace.”

The report adds that Reuters “reported in September that Mnangagwa was plotting to succeed Mugabe, with army backing, at the helm of a broad coalition. The plot posited an interim unity government with international blessing to allow for Zimbabwe’s re-engagement with the world after decades of isolation from global lenders and donors.”

Mnangagwa yesterday, in his first public appearance since the coup, offered his vision for a “new Zimbabwe” that was in line with this aim, describing “a national, not party political, project” that was “not a job for Zanu-PF alone…”

The imperialists are calculating that opportunities will indeed be opened up to them. Prime Minister Theresa May said that the UK, “as Zimbabwe’s oldest friend,” will do all it can to help “rebuild” the Zimbabwean economy.

Whatever rebuilding is planned involving Britain and other imperialist powers will be at the expense of the working class and rural poor. The essential issue posed before the working class of Zimbabwe is to assert its interests independently of all factions of the bourgeoisie. That class and not just Mugabe has proved incapable of freeing the masses from imperialist domination and creating the conditions for genuine and lasting social and economic progress.

Google’s Eric Schmidt admits political censorship of search results

Niles Niemuth

Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, confirmed this weekend that the world’s largest Internet company is, in close coordination with the state, manipulating search results to censor sites critical of the US government.

Responding to a question about the “manipulation of information” on the Internet during an appearance at the Halifax International Security Forum, Schmidt announced that Google is working on algorithms that will “de-rank” Russian-based news websites RT and Sputnik from its Google News services, effectively blocking users’ access to either site.

Schmidt’s remarks at the gathering of military and national security officials confirm the World Socialist Web Site’s charges that Google has been deliberately altering its search algorithms and taking other steps to prevent people from accessing certain information through its search engines. The WSWS has itself been a principal target of these efforts.

The statements expose as lies the company’s previous claim that changes to its search engine were aimed at “improving search results” and that these changes were politically unbiased.

Google’s efforts are just one part of a much wider government-corporate drive to assert control over the flow of information over the Internet, involving Amazon, Twitter and Facebook, as well as Internet service providers such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T. The FCC announced this week that it will eliminate “net neutrality” regulations, allowing service providers to limit which sites customers can access, either by throttling Internet download speed or charging extra fees.

Earlier this month, the US Justice Department forced RT to register as a “foreign agent” in a move aimed at delegitimizing the site as a news source and intimidating its journalists and guests. Google removed RT from its “preferred” channels on YouTube last month, and Twitter has blocked the news service from advertising.

Schmidt’s statements, however, are the most direct to date. He asserted that Google is “trying to engineer the systems to prevent” users from seeing content from RT and Sputnik.

Schmidt denied that this would amount to censorship while claiming that Google’s anti-RT algorithm would block information that is “repetitive, exploitative, false, [or] likely to have been weaponized.”

A campaign against “fake news” has now become a campaign against “weaponized news,” meaning true information that is critical of or damaging to the political establishment. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed that when her emails and Wall Street speeches were leaked by WikiLeaks they had been “weaponized.” Under Google’s new censorship rubric, any article written about the true information in the Clinton leaks would be a candidate for censorship.

As for “repetitive, exploitative, false and weaponized” information, by any objective measure this applies above all to the campaign over claims that Russia is “sowing divisions” in the United States. The endless and unsubstantiated stories in the media, channeling the intelligence agencies, are being used to prosecute a war against democratic rights.

The anti-Russian campaign that began as an effort by the Democratic Party to ensure that the Trump administration maintained a hostile position towards the Kremlin has been transformed into a general clampdown on free expression and the free exchange of information.

While RT and Sputnik are the immediate targets of this campaign, the real concern is any website that exposes the lies of the American government and promotes stories critical of the official narrative promoted by the American ruling class.

The WSWS first reported in July that Google’s new algorithm launched in April under the guise of combatting the spread of “fake news” was blocking access to a broad range of left-wing, progressive, antiwar and democratic rights organizations. Since April, search referrals from Google to the WSWS have fallen by 75 percent. Just last month the WSWS and other left-wing journalists were removed from Google News.

In an open letter to Schmidt and other Google executives published in August demanding an end to the censorship, David North, the chairperson of the WSWS International Editorial Board, stated:

“The facts prove that Google is rigging search results to blacklist and censor the WSWS and other left-wing publications,” North noted. “This raises a very serious question, with far-reaching constitutional implications. Is Google coordinating its censorship program with the American government, or sections of its military and intelligence apparatus?”

While Google has so far refused to respond to direct inquiries from the WSWS, we now have a definitive answer: Yes.

That Schmidt makes such a statement so openly is a warning that the campaign to censor the Internet is entering a new stage. An increasingly open and unrestrained attack on free speech and political expression is being prepared.

The crackdown on the Internet comes amid historic and ever-growing levels of social inequality. The American ruling class fears the growth of social opposition and anti-capitalistic and pro-socialist sentiments that are building beneath the surface of official life. Above all they fear the development of a conscious movement of the working class fighting for the overthrow of the rotten capitalist system.

We urge our readers and supporters to take up the fight to defend a free and open Internet. Join the thousands who have already signed the petition demanding that Google cease censoring the WSWS and other left-wing websites. Help take the fight against Internet censorship to all sections of workers and youth, in the United States and internationally, connecting the fight against the attack on democratic rights with the fight against war, dictatorship and social inequality.

The Pangsangh Alliance and the Future of Myanmar’s Peace Process

Angshuman Choudhury

Between 11-12 November 2017, senior officials from Myanmar’s union government and the Tatmadaw met with the country’s largest Ethnic Armed Organisation (EAO), United Wa State Army (UWSA), and its less powerful ally, National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA), in their respective autonomous enclaves in the northeastern state of Shan. Both these EAOs are part of the Federal Political Negotiation and Consultative Committee (FPNCC), a new alliance that includes five other non-ceasefire groups, mostly based in the north.

Preliminary media reports suggest that the meeting did not bear any constructive outcome. However, it highlighted certain deep-rooted divergences between the northern groups and the union government that stand tall in the way of a permanent negotiated settlement.

Indications from the MeetingThe crucial meeting came after months of failed attempts by Naypyidaw to arrange talks with the northern groups who have refused to sign the Nationwide Ceasefire Accord (NCA), the premise of the current dialogue process. Earlier this year, these non-ceasefire EAOs broke away from the original alliance of non-signatories, the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), to create the FPNCC - also known as the ‘Pangsangh Alliance’.

Certain issues indicative of the rift between the union government and the northern groups surfaced during the meeting.

First, the FPNCC members want the government to follow its alternative framework for political dialogue enshrined in FPNCC’s charter of principles that was submitted to the government earlier this year, while the government wants them to sign the NCA. This deadlock is not expected to be resolved soon given the government's staunch insistence government on preserving the union-centric NCA as against the starkly contrasting FPNCC charter, which demands extensive devolution of power to ethnic ‘nations’.

Second, while the government insists on holding talks with the northern EAOs individually, UWSA, who is also the leader of the alliance, wants to engage with Naypyidaw as a single alliance ie FPNCC. The government may not agree on this point easily since opening an official dialogue channel with the FPNCC would mean legitimising the existence of the group, thus giving greater credence to UWSA as a parallel agenda-setter. This would directly impinge on Naypyidaw's authority and administrative autonomy, particularly the Tatmadaw.

Third, UWSA demands the revocation of the ‘terrorist’ designation slapped on three members of FPNCC - Arakan Army (AA), Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), and Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) - through a motion passed in the Shan State parliament in December 2016. The union government claims to maintain a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and talking to these groups without revoking the label would be a contradiction for the government. At the same time, revocation could take time since the Shan State parliament is dominated by the pro-military party, Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) while the state government is led by the National League for Democracy (NLD). This split could hinder or delay consensus on revocation.

Fourth, during the meeting, UWSA put forward certain demands to the government representatives, mostly related to provision of union funds for public infrastructure, sanction for hydropower projects, and issuance of national ID cards for higher education in Wa-controlled regions. This gives the impression that UWSA is merely using FPNCC, or rather the entire peace process, to forward its own agenda and secure the Wa’s future.

What Must The Government Do?First, the union government should engage in informal talks with the FPNCC through backdoor channels. This would give Naypyidaw a clear idea about the agendas on the table, including the commonalities and differences, while also not putting an official stamp on the alliance. An effective mediator would be China who is already in direct talks with the northern EAOs. Since Beijing enjoys significant political leverage over these groups, Naypyidaw could instrumentalise its own bilateral relationship with China to arrange back-channel discussions.

Second, the union government and the Tatmadaw must engage with the Shan State parliament on a priority basis to revoke the terrorist label currently placed on AA, MNDAA, and TNLA. These three EAOs, along with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), constitute the ‘Northern Alliance,’ which maintains a hostile posture on the ground, thus preserving openings for escalated violence. If the government is serious about restoring peace in the conflict-torn north, then it has no other option but to talk to these groups.

Third, Naypyidaw must consider holding national-level dialogues in Shan and Kachin States and including them as core participants in the upcoming edition of the Union Peace Conference. This would not only strengthen the NCA’s credibility, but also bridge some of the trust deficit between Naypyidaw and influential non-signatory groups like the Kachin Independence Army (KIA). In fact, facilitating FPNCC members to consult their own people and inviting them to the union-level dialogue could dissuade them from following an alternative, more radical path.

It remains palpably clear that the peace process is hardly going anywhere. Without the cooperation and compliance of the northern EAOs, there can be no peace in Myanmar. The union government needs to realise this before a fresh cycle of violence begins and the situation spirals out of control.

Why are Nuclear Disarmament Initiatives Bound to Fail?

Shivani Singh

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for being a strong and active force in campaigning for disarmament and pushing for the adoption of the nuclear weapons ban treaty, 2017.

Despite the best efforts of disarmament organisations like ICAN over the past decade, in the specific case of the ban treaty, the purpose of adopting the treaty itself was belittled as none of the states possessing nuclear weapons attended the negotiations, let alone sign or ratify it. This begs the question, why has bringing states possessing nuclear weapons on board for negotiations towards nuclear disarmament proven so difficult?

The so-called indifference of nuclear-armed states to disarmament efforts must be seen in the context of evolving security dynamics, which are accompanied by three challenges: fear of the threat of regime change in ‘rouge states’, security dilemmas that result from a trust deficit among the states possessing nuclear weapons, and ineffective non-proliferation regimes.

Fear of Threat of Regime Change
A theme that dominates West-dominated global nuclear conversations is pushing ‘rouge’ states to disarm. An example is North Korea, whose actions are offered as a justification for the lack of traction with disarmament initiatives. North Korean nuclear weaponisation has made the very notion of complete disarmament irrelevant for discussion.  

However, North Korea’s nuclear advances cannot be wished away. Its actions are guided by a lack of trust with the international community, and the fear that if it gives up its nuclear weapons, the country will be open to external attempts at regime change. Gaddafi and Libya's fate in this regard serve as a cautionary tale, as do the conversations in the US about decertifying the Iran deal despite Iran's adherence to agreement, as certified by the IAEA.

Given these unsettling precedents, Kim Jong-un, is unlikely to surrender his nuclear arsenal and thus surrender his only leverage.

Prevailing Security DilemmaNuclear-armed states, especially in Southern Asia, are part of a complex nuclear weapons geometry and each state in this web measures - or at least claims to -  their nuclear arsenal in regard to the other.

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is said to be designed to counter India’s nuclear capabilities whereas India measures its nuclear capability against China's. In turn, China has its eye on US capabilities. The US, in turn, shares a tense dynamic with North Korea. Added to this are US' extended nuclear deterrence commitments to South Korea and Japan.

With the prevailing trust deficit and every state advancing their nuclear and military capability against their adversary, this kind of interconnectedness is hard to break through. Without the participation of these same nuclear-armed states, any disarmament effort is deemed to fail.

Ineffective Non-Proliferation RegimesDisarmament goes hand-in-hand with non-proliferation and both have to be approached simultaneously. Over the past few decades, nuclear non-proliferation efforts have come under the scanner for their ability and success in curbing proliferation. For instance, China’s involvement in directly (or indirectly) facilitating nuclear proliferation is probably one of the biggest testaments to this failure.

China has been known to play a central role in transferring conventional and non-conventional weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, to countries like North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran and so on. As Samuel P Huntington writes in ‘Clash of Civilisations’, China’s biggest contribution has been to Pakistan's nuclear programme, which has been in the form of “furnishing Pakistan with Uranium for enrichment, advising on bomb design, and supplying Pakistan with M-11, 300 kilometers range ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons.”

The legacy of Chinese nuclear technology was further merchandised by countries like Iran and Pakistan to North Korea with the help of the AQ Khan network. China, a P5 state, has been indirectly involved in supplying nuclear weapons and technology right under the nose of such non-proliferation regimes, without facing any punitive action.

Conclusion
For the successful implementation of any regime, it is crucial that the biggest and the strongest players in the international system support it. Without this kind of backing, any initiative to ensure global security, especially those aimed at nuclear disarmament, starts on the wrong foot.

In order to get the disarmament ball rolling, it is important to first acknowledge these three challenges, and then attempt to address them. A one-size-fits-all approach in disarmament, especially at this particular juncture, is unlikely to yield a positive result. 

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Science Communication Fellowship Program 2018

Application Deadline: 11th January 2018

Eligible Countries: Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, Egypt, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Korea, Republic, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands the, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Ukraine, UK, USA, Vietnam.

To Be Taken At (Country): Austria

About the Award: The science communication fellow will gain experience in communicating complex systems science for a general audience, through a variety of platforms including blogs, website content, and articles for our magazine, Options. The science communication fellow will work as part of the IIASA Communications Department, assisting with a variety of tasks including editorial work, website maintenance, media relations, event coverage, social media, and other communication activities.

The Science Communication Fellow will also work closely with participants in the IIASA Young Scientists Summer Program (YSSP), producing several pieces of work covering research from the program.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• A Bachelor’s or equivalent degree in science or journalism, and/or current student or graduate of a science journalism program
• Applicants from all countries are welcome. However, IIASA gives priority to citizens or residents of countries in which IIASA has a National Member Organization. We encourage applications from developing countries.
• Experience writing about science for the general public, via blogs, newspapers, university web sites, or other outlets
• Experience with or interest in social media, video, photography, or other multimedia is a plus
• Written and oral fluency in English and proven ability to understand complex scientific research.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The fellowship covers the cost of travel to and from Vienna and the awardee’s home at the beginning and end of the fellowship, and a modest stipend to offset living expenses during the period of the fellowship.

Duration of Program: The fellowship begins on 28 May and ends on 31 August.

How to Apply: To apply, please email the following materials:

• CV/Resume
• Cover Letter
• One writing sample of no more than 800 words, about a scientific topic and aimed at a general audience. Examples: Article for a newspaper or magazine, blog post, op-ed
• One letter of recommendation

to Ms. Alia Harrison, Recruitment Coordinator, Human Resources Department,
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA),
Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
E-mail: harrison@iiasa.ac.at

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Google Developers Launchpad Africa for African Tech Startups 2018

Application Deadline: 11th December 2017

Eligible Countries: Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda.

To be taken at: Lagos, Nigeria

Type: Event

Eligibility: Each startup that applies to Launchpad Africa is evaluated carefully. Below are general guidelines behind our process to help you understand what we look for in our candidates.

All startups in the program must:

• Be a technology startup.
• Be based in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, or Uganda (stay tuned for future classes, as we hope to add more countries).
• Have already raised seed funding.

Additionally, we also consider:

• The problem you’re trying to solve. How does it create value for users? How are you addressing a real challenge for your home city, country, or Africa broadly?
• Will you share what you learn for the benefit of other startups in your local ecosystem?

Anyone who spends time in the African technology space knows that the continent is home to some exciting innovations. Over the years, Google has worked with some incredible startups across Africa, tackling everything from healthcare, education, streamlining e-commerce, to improving the food supply chain. We very much look forward to welcoming the first cohort of innovators for Launchpad Africa and continue to work together to drive innovation in the African market.

Value of Program: Launchpad Accelerator matches the best of Google – its people, network, and advanced technologies – to top global startups, helping scale great products.

As part of the three-month program, startups will receive:

• Equity-free support
• Access to Google’s engineers and intensive mentoring from over 20 teams
• Access to Silicon Valley experts and Africa’s top mentors
• Three months of workspace in Lagos
• PR training and global media opportunities
• Exposure though demo day events

How to Apply: APPLY

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Google

Important Notes: Google will neither provide support nor reimbursements for visas, flights, accommodation and transportation to and from the events. Potential attendees are please advised to apply to attend events for which they can comfortably provide for their own travel and related logistics.

Digital Health Cape Town (DHCT) Accelerator for Digital Health Startups in South Africa 2018

Application Deadline: 5th December 2017

To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa

About the Award: Successful applicants will participate in a 10 week online programme, as well as face to face engagements with business coaches and industry mentors to develop their business plans. The top graduating students will be eligible to receive funding and industry assistance to launch and expand their business.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: start-up digital health companies with a viable business and social impact model in South Africa are eligible to apply.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The top graduating entrepreneurs will be eligible to receive funding for their business.

Duration of Program: The startups will enter the accelerator for a fixed-period of time (10 weeks), as part of a cohort of companies.

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Digital Health Cape Town

CrazyGames Game Development Scholarship for Online Game Enthusiasts 2018

Application Deadline: 31st December 2017

• Application Results Announcement: February 1st, 2018

Eligible Countries: All

Type: Contest, Undergraduate

Eligibility: Both current students and rising freshmen are eligible for this scholarship.

Selection Criteria: The student will be chosen based on their creativity in and commitment to digital media and game development. The choice will be made by a scholarship committee of 2 game publishing experts, and 2 game developers.

Number of Awards: 1

Value of Award: The $1,500 scholarship will be awarded to one student and the money will be transferred to their University to go towards the tuition fee.

How to Apply: To apply, applicants need to submit one piece of work. There are no limits on the form of this work. Examples of work would be a game prototype, an essay related to games, an overview of game development technologies, and so forth. The work will remain the student’s property. CrazyGames will only consider the work for this scholarship, and will not use it for any other purposes. The student wholly reserves the right to submit this work to other bodies and publish it elsewhere. If you have any questions about the scholarship, please send an email to scholarship@crazygames.com.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: CrazyGames

Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Regional Training Program for Young Leaders from MENA Region 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 15th December 2017

Eligible Countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon

To Be Taken At (Country): Tunis, Tunisia, Spain and Germany

About the Award: Acknowledging the necessity to strengthen civic engagement and participation in the MENA region, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung is launching a regional training program, designed for young adults from the Middle East and North Africa. The overall objective of the training program is to enhance the knowledge of a professional methodology for civic activism; strengthen the understanding of and the capacity for democratic participation of civil society; increase the CSO contribution to economic and social development processes as well as their role as mediator between citizens and state in terms of articulating interests and defending citizens’ rights. Moreover, the program aims at motivating young people to participate in the civic life and local development of their respective countries.

Type: Training, Workshop

Eligibility: 

• Citizen of the following MENA region countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon
• Age: Between 20 and 30 years
• Active in a civil society organization or any other form of civic engagement
• Very good command of the English language
• Available to contribute to the entire program cycle 2018-2019.

Number of Awards: 25

Value of Award: 25 selected participants from seven countries will follow a unique program cycle throughout 2018 and 2019 comprising a series of four trainings to strengthen organizational and functional capabilities of CSOs. The program will furthermore focus on individual skill trainings such as communications and negotiation workshops. The training series will be finalized with a study trip to Germany.

Duration of Program: The training program will take place over a two-year period

How to Apply: Applications should not be submitted later than 15 December 2017 to Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung’s Regional Program South Mediterranean.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung

United States Institutes for Scholars 2018

Application Deadline: 17th December, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.

To Be Taken At (Country): The United States of America

About the Award: Study of the U.S. Institutes for Scholars (SUSIs) are intensive post-graduate level academic programs with integrated study tours whose purpose is to provide foreign university faculty and other scholars the opportunity to deepen their understanding of U.S. society, culture, values, and institutions. The ultimate goal of the Institutes is to strengthen curricula and to enhance the quality of teaching about the United States in academic institutions abroad.

Study of the U.S. Institutes for Scholars will take place at various colleges, universities, and institutions throughout the United States over the course of six weeks beginning in or after June 2018. Each Institute includes a four week academic residency component and up to two weeks of an integrated study tour.

Type: Short Courses

Eligibility: 

• Experienced, mid-career (between the ages of 30-50 years old), highly-motivated and experienced professionals generally from institutions of higher education or research focused organizations (non-profits, think tanks, etc.).
• Graduate degree and substantive knowledge of thematic area of the Institute required. PHD and/or Masters Degree (s) is/are an asset.
• Little to no prior experience in the United States
• Candidate’s home institution should be seeking to introduce aspects of U.S. Studies into its curricula, to develop new courses in the subject of the institute, to enhance and update existing courses on the United States, or to offer specialized seminars/workshops for professionals in U.S. studies areas related to the program theme.
• Fluency in English
• Candidates should be willing and able to fully take part in an intensive post-graduate level academic program and study tour

Number of Awards: Not specified

Duration of Program: 6 weeks

How to Apply: 

• Completed applications must include:
  • Updated CV/Resume
  • Copy of Egyptian National ID and/or passport
  • Proof of fluency in English by providing a valid score for Institutional TOEFL (Local ITP), Internet-based TOEFL (IBT) or overall International English Language Testing System (IELTS). If none are available, a proof of English proficiency is
    required.
• Applicants may also include up to two letters of recommendation, but these are optional.
• Application form (to download the application and to read application instructions, please visit: https://eg.usembassy.gov/education-culture/exchange-opportunities/
• Please submit your applications and supporting documentation by postal mail or hand-delivered as indicated in the application instructions with the name of the program on the envelope: SUSI Scholar and the name of the U.S. Institute of interest
• Inquiries should be sent by email to CairoSUSI@state.gov
• Only short-listed applicants will be contacted for interviews and will be asked to send their applications by e-mail. Please keep an electronic type-written copy of completed application

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The United States Government

IWMF Anja Niedringhaus Courage in Photojournalism Award for Women PhotoJournalists 2018

Application Deadline: 19th January 2018

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: The IWMF’s Anja Niedringhaus Courage in Photojournalism Award was created to honor Pulitzer Prize-winning AP photographer and IWMF Courage in Journalism Award winner Anja Niedringhaus (1965-2014). It celebrates women photojournalists whose work inspires us to take action and better understand the world. This courageous reporting manifests in many different forms, and we celebrate visual journalism that inspires us to take action. We believe that courage is reflected in everyday life, beyond the frontlines of conflict, and we seek candidates whose work reflects the values of Anja Niedringhaus through compassion, humanity, and a commitment to capturing the whole picture. In Anja’s words “I do my job simply to report on people’s courage with my camera and my heart.” 

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Entrants must be full-time female photojournalists of any nationality.

Value of Award: The Award includes a cash prize of $20,000.

Timeline of Program: As part of the IWMF’s partnership with World Press Photo Foundation, the 2018 Award winner will be announced publicly and have her work showcased at the World Press Photo Festival of Visual Journalism in April 2018.

How to Apply: To apply yourself or submit a nomination for someone else, visit the IWMF’s Submittable page or contact josullivan@iwmf.org. The deadline for 2018 submissions is January 19, 2018.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

FrieslandCampina WAMCO Young Professionals Program for Young Nigerians 2018

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To Be Taken At (Country): Nigeria

About the Award: At FrieslandCampina WAMCO, our mission is to nourish Nigeria with quality dairy nutrition.  As part of this mission, we announce the 2nd cohort of our Young Professionals Programme. The FCW Young Professionals Program (YPP) is a two-year programme that aims to attract highly qualified and motivated young graduates.

Type: Job

Eligibility: FrieslandCampina WAMCO is looking for you if you are 25 years & below and have a 2:1 degree in the following –

1. STEM (Sciences, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)
2. Supply Chain
3. Production Management
4. Finance;

MSc./MBA/MA not required, but advantageous.

Five credits in O ’levels at one sitting, including English and Mathematics.

Selection Criteria: Applications are therefore invited from qualified candidates who can demonstrate outstanding academic achievement, as well as effective team work and leadership potential.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• Projects: Undertakes assigned projects in line with company requirements and instructions resulting in the presentation of possible solutions to identified challenges with the company.
• Organisational Awareness: Acquires functional knowledge within assigned departments in order to develop the ability to perform managerial duties.
• Self Development: Initiate self-development and training opportunities in order to enhance level of competencies.

Duration of Program: 2 years

How to Apply: Apply

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: FrieslandCampina WAMCO

Will Lebanon’s Economy Be Crippled?

Franklin Lamb

As many ten-year old’s in this observers Beirut neighborhood in Dahiyeh, (Hezbollah’s ‘security zone’) can articulate more cogently than me, Lebanon’s economy continues to weaken as foreign investors pull back, internal sectarian turmoil swells, several of Lebanon’s well-known political lords continue to steal a significant chunk of the country’s budget while World Bank and IMF indexes of Lebanon’s economic future increasingly remind one of the 2009 economic shut-down in Greece.

Lebanon is being accused by 5 GCC members and a growing list of allies regionally and globally of declaring war on Saudi Arabia by its corrupt ‘leaders’ essentially deeding the country to Iran. Consequently, the KSA and other countries have joined in demanding that the Lebanese “government” choose between peace or allegiance to Iran and Hezbollah. The new reactive strategy appears to include targeting Lebanon’s already challenged economy.
On 11/16/2017, Saudi’s Foreign Minister Jubeir, emphasized that Hezbollah is the root of Lebanon’s crisis and “that it has hijacked the Lebanese system.” During a joint press conference with his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian, FM Jubeir added that Hezbollah’s continuous interferences in Arab countries’ affairs will worsen the situation in Lebanon, adding that “the Hezbollah militia is a weapon in Iran’s hands” and that Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah himself has acknowledged this fact. The Saudi FM added that Hezbollah threatens the stability of Lebanon and the region and voiced the importance of finding means to deal with the party. He added that there were practical measures in this regard. Many in Lebanon’s financial institutions believe the “practical measures” may result in the collapse of Lebanon’s already deteriorating economy.

In seeking to combat Iranian influence, Riyadh may indeed shake an already tottering Lebanese economy thus threatening the country’s tenuous calm. On November 6, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Gulf Affairs, Thamer al-Sabhan, announced that henceforth “The Lebanese government, which is dominated by Hezbollah, the Iran-backed political party and militia, will be treated as if it had declared war on Riyadh.” Many in Lebanon, including more than 80% of Sunni, and 65% of Christians, according to recent Pew and other polls, support the new tougher Saudi position despite worries about the policy on Lebanon’s economy.

Mr. Sabhan’s declaration raises the distinct possibility of a GCC “Dahiyeh Doctrine” wherein Saudi Arabia and her allies could take a page from Israel’s 2009 “Dahiyeh Doctrine” wherein the occupiers of Palestine are now committed to targeting all of Lebanon in the next war and not just Hezbollah areas. The justification for both “total wars” is claimed to be that the Lebanese government has failed to effectively control or disarm Iran’s Hezbollah militia but instead has ceded Lebanon’s sovereignty. Some are suggesting that Saudi Arabia, along with her regional and even some global allies may well launch an economic “Dahiyeh Doctrine” wherein all of Lebanon’s economy is fair game for targeting much as Iran’s continues to be.

Saudi initiatives as well as several other recently announced western and regional measures represent an evolving pro-active and protective “brotherly” Arab policy toward Lebanon. Growing resistance to Iran’s absorption of Lebanon may well target Lebanon’s economy following decades of the GCC helping shore it up.

When PM Hariri returned to Lebanon on 11/1/2017 after a visit to Saudi Arabia, he met with the Lebanese Council of Ministers to brief them on his discussions in Riyadh. He told the Ministers that the Saudis would support plans for an international conference in Paris to strengthen the Lebanese economy. In addition, Hariri announced that a Rome meeting was being organized from Riyadh to support the Lebanese army and a joint Saudi-Lebanese Directorate was in the works to promote and assure massive foreign investment to shore up Lebanon’s careening economy. Saad Hariri, like his late father Rafik , is one of the very few genuinely liberal political leaders the Middle East has ever produced by exposing Lebanon’s government for what it truly is—the subject of a hostile takeover by two malevolent foreign powers, one being Iran.

This new GCC approach follows more than a decade of Saudi unsatisfactory efforts to bolster Lebanon’s pro-West Future Movement and its allies against Iran’s Hezbollah. The region may no longer distinguish between weak local confederates and invertebrate hostiles. Frustrated with Lebanon’s Parliament’s acquiescence of Hezbollah’s increasing influence in Beirut, Riyadh and allies may decide to target all of Lebanon’s economy.

LEBANON IS VULNERABLE TO ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

As this observer has noted recently, the Lebanese civil war (1975-90) and postwar reconstruction have had a profound and continuing impact on the state’s economy. Since 1990, accumulated debt, structural imbalances, insufficient revenues, widespread endemic corruption and periodic wars have contributed to an economy that many analysts believe is on the verge of collapse. Today, Lebanon’s debt-to-GDP ratio is 150 percent, among the world’s highest, and the International Monetary Fund predicts that it will increase to 160 percent by 2021. The cost of financing this debt is astronomical. Worse, growth is anemic, about 1 percent, and the regional political situation — even before the current crisis with Saudi Arabia — has undermined investor confidence. Accordingly, foreign deposit inflows have slowed, and Lebanon’s S&P credit rating has declined from a B to a B-.

There are multiple Lebanese vulnerabilities which Saudi Arabia and her allies have in their quiver to encourage Lebanon to resist what many in the region believe is Iran’s more than two decades of executing its hegemonic colonization of Lebanon.

One is pressuring Lebanon’s expatriate work force and two others would likely include targeting Lebanon’s financial sector and its tourism industry.

As seasoned Lebanese journalist and researcher Hanin Ghaddar recently pointed out, according to economists in the region, Lebanon’s economy is currently in danger of collapse. For example, more than 15 million expatriate Lebanese are living and working abroad. The remittances sent back to Lebanon account for approximately 16 percent of Lebanon’s GDP. During 2016, Lebanese abroad sent home more than $ 7.5 billion. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GGC) states, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman create the major employment sources of Lebanese remittances. Approximately two-thirds of the remittances are being generated today in the GCC states, with more than 50% from Saudi Arabia alone.

One KSA measure that has already been taken over the past few months has been the result of the Saudi Vision 2030 initiative which is aimed at diversifying the KSA’s economy and strengthening local employment numbers. One example, is that Riyadh dramatically increased the cost of residency permits for foreign workers. As the fees ascended, remittances necessarily descended, along with the numbers of expatriate laborers. The more immediate concern for Lebanon is that Saudi Arabia — along with the UAE — might expel Lebanese nationals. Iran has suggested that it would welcome such a move because most of Lebanon’s expat workers in the Gulf are Sunni Muslims and Christians not Shia. Plus, such a move would presumably generate criticism of the GCC.

The loss of Gulf remittances would be yet another blow to the reeling Lebanese economy. Not only would it lower state GDP, it potentially could add to the ranks of the nearly ten percent of the country’s unemployed. These suddenly unemployed workers and their families in Lebanon, including Shia, may also channel their anger toward Hezbollah.

With respect to Lebanon’s recently passed Cabinet measures, including PM Hariri’s Government’s decrees regulating offshore oil and gas exploration as well as the new national budget, Lebanon’s first in twelve years, if his resignation is not withdrawn these measures will likely collapse. And if followed up with additional harsh economic measures by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, Lebanon will face further destabilizing economic challenges.
With respect to foreign investment, two weeks after Saad Hariri’s resignation, some international investors are already signaling their intentions to pull out of Lebanon. More than 82% of percent of foreign direct investment in Lebanon comes from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. 40 percent of which is in the real estate sector.

While Gulf investment in Lebanon has not increased since 2012, despite periodic political problems, investors to date have not sold off most of their investments and avoided harming the economy. Lately, however, Lebanon has witnessed a reported 10-20 percent drop in real estate values. A Gulf selloff would doubtless have major negative consequences for Lebanon’s formerly robust real estate market.

The Saudi-led Gulf countries also have major leverage on Lebanese trade, accounting for 25 percent of Lebanon’s total exports. Should the GCC countries decide to do so, they would have many other suppliers to choose from thus further tumbling Lebanon’s balance of trade, which in 2016 ran a deficit of 30 percent, or approximately $16 billion. Lebanon’s economy cannot any longer absorb these deficits regardless that the Lebanese Lira is linked to the US Dollar.

Saudi Arabia until after the civil war erupted in Syria in 2011 and the first Gulf tourism boycott of Lebanon in 2012, in response to Hezbollah’s military activities in Syria in support of the Assad regime, Saudi tourists constituted a quarter of all visitors to Lebanon. Although Gulf tourists started returning gradually over the years, today they constitute fewer than 8 percent of tourists to Lebanon. The decrease in GCC tourism has collapsed the hotel overnight guests rates percentage of 2010 levels to half while causing skyrocketing unemployment rates in the hospitality sector, dramatically reducing business for restaurants, resorts, and other entertainment venues. On November 9, 2017 Riyadh advised Saudi citizens not to travel to Lebanon and for its citizens in Lebanon to leave. Kuwait and Bahrain immediately did the same. The current Saudi offensive threatens to erode even further Lebanon’s tourism industry.

In addition, Saudi Arabia’s and her allies could negatively impact the Lebanese banking sector. Saudi deposits at Lebanon’s Central Bank (Banque du Liban), are close to one billion dollars. To support Rafik Hariri’s 1992 economic plans for Lebanon, Saudi Arabia until today has kept these deposits in the Central Bank. But given the Saudi view of Lebanon’s “Declaration of War” and that Saad Hariri has resigned, Riyadh is being counseled to withdraw these deposits. It’s true that the Saudi Central Bank deposits amount to only about 3 percent of Lebanon’s foreign reserves, but pulling them out would shatter confidence in and destabilize the Lebanese Lira with resulting panic in Lebanon, the region and global markets.

Last year, rumors were rampant that the KSA was preparing to pull their Lebanon deposits after its government refused to condemn Iran for organizing the sacking of the Saudi embassy in Tehran as well as its consulate in Mashhad. Saad Hariri reportedly convinced the KSA to demure and the withdrawal was frozen, but Riyadh did cancel $4 billion in grants to the Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces because according to recent boasts from Iranian officials, that “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei claims to control both the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Lebanon’s Internal Security Force (ISF).

Meanwhile, on 11/16/2017, with a sort of straight face, Hezbollah’s Michel Aoun’s son in law Gebran Bassil lectured Germany’s Vice-Chancellor that there was not any foreign interference in Lebanon while adding that the Lebanese government maintains its respect for the policy of dissociation in any regional conflicts. Including in Syria.

It is very difficult to predict anything politically in the Middle East these days. But by targeting expatriate labor, the financial sector, and tourism, Saudi Arabia, if it launched an economic campaign against Lebanon would certainly have a major impact.

To be sure, this approach would severely assault not only Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah and its constituents in Lebanon’s government, including Christian allies such as Michel Aoun and the Free Patriotic Movement; it will equally affect Lebanon’s Western-oriented Sunnis and Christians, who until now have been on good terms with Riyadh.