10 Jan 2018

Swedish Institute Management Programme (SIMP) Africa for Young African Leaders 2018

Application Deadline: 6th February, 2018
Eligible Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda or Zambia
To be taken at (country): Sweden and selected countries in Africa
About the Award: Sweden is considered to be one of the leading countries in sustainable business practice. Swedish companies play a prominent role in finding new, innovative ways to integrate social, environmental and ethical concerns into their core business models. But the challenges are global and we have a common need for sustainable development.
SIMP Africa is partly funded by the Swedish Government and aims at emerging leaders from Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Zambia. The programme curriculum revolves around advanced business-related problem solving, seminars and meetings with front figures in the commercial, political and cultural fields, as well as on-site company visits. By providing the platform for knowledge sharing, experience exchange and quality networking, the programme aims to challenge traditional approaches, reinforce professional skills, deepen cross-cultural perspectives and unite the participants in a long-lasting and active global network.
The programme, spread over seven months, comprises three weeks of intensive training divided into an introductory kick-off at the Swedish Embassy in each country, a two week module in Sweden and a concluding five day module in Africa.
Type: Training
Eligibility: To apply to SIMP Africa you have to:
  • aspire to make sustainability an integral part of your business strategy
  • be in a leading position within trade, industry or the public sector
  • have mandate to influence the business strategy for your organisation
  • be between 25-45 years old (born 1973 – 1993)
  • have a good working knowledge of both written and spoken English
  • be a citizen and resident of Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda or Zambia
  • be can take part in all parts of the programme
  • be willing to forward competences and knowledge you gain from the programme
Selection: The applications will be evaluated according to the following selection criteria:
  • The relevance and quality of personal motivation and commitment, and the applicant’s answers in the application form.
  • An assessment of the CV
  • The general qualifications of the applicant
The Swedish Institute will make its decision taking into account the recommendations of the selection committee as well as the candidates’ general suitability for the programme. We are striving for as much diversity as possible in the group in order to maximise the exchange of experience between the participants, which means the distribution of candidates from each country will differ.
Out of all applicants, a number of shortlisted candidates will be called for interviews as a second step in the selection process. The interviews will be conducted by Business Sweden. The 25 selected applicants will be contacted by e-mail and offered a place in SIMP Africa 2017.
Number of Awards: 25
Value of Program: 
Costs covered and arranged by Swedish Institute
  • Training and content
  • Accommodation, food and domestic transport during the programme
  • Flight tickets to and from Sweden
  • Insurance covering acute illness and accident when in Sweden
Costs covered and arranged by you
  • Flight tickets to and from the kick-off and module 2
  • Visas costs, when necessary, to all programme modules
  • Occasional meals
  • Occasional airport transfers
  • Insurance when modules are held outside of Sweden
Duration of Program: 3 weeks
How to Apply: A complete application consists of all the information in the Program Webpage (see Link below)
Please ensure that the application form in PDF format and CV reaches us by e-mail simp.africa@business-sweden.se by February 6, 2018. Write your name and country in the e-mail’s subject line.
Award Provider: Swedish Institute

Imperial College Forté Foundation MBA Scholarships for Outstanding Women 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 26th January 2018
Offered annually? Yes
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: MBA
Eligibility: The Fellowships are open to all women applying to the MBA programme.
Selection Criteria: Successful candidates will demonstrate strong leadership skills through academic achievement, or in roles as team or community leaders, and show a commitment to helping women achieve their career potential through personal mentoring or community involvement.
The scholarships will be awarded to applicants based on the following criteria:
  • A demonstrable track record of leadership in your field
  • Commitment to Forté’s mission of launching women into fulfilling, significant careers through access to business education, opportunities, and a community of successful women
  • The information supplied in your original application to the programme, including a strong academic background, and an excellent track record of professional achievement
  • A high and well-balanced GMAT score, which should also be submitted by 26 January 2018
  • Your performance during the admissions process, where academic and professional merit will be judged
  • Your professional references
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: £25,500
In addition to the financial support provided, Forté Fellows have access to a number of unique resources from Forté Foundation including:
  • Participation in the annual Forté MBA Women’s Leadership Conference held 15-16 June in the United States (city tbc)
  • Access to exclusive networking groups of Forté Fellows, Forté Fellow Alumnae and sponsor companies on social media and through Forté Fellow listservs
  • Special e-introductions to Forté sponsor companies and inclusion in the Fellow résumé book, which is distributed to all sponsor companies
  • Free lifetime Forté Foundation Premium Membership
  • Women students can also apply for a stipend to attend the annual Forté MBA Women’s Leadership Conference, organised by the Forté Foundation. The conference is a great opportunity to meet like-minded women, develop leadership skills and build your professional network.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: Female candidates who submit their application and GMAT score before 26 January 2018 and receive an offer for the Full-Time MBA programme commencing in September 2018 will automatically be considered. All candidates should address the requirements of the scholarship in their personal statement.
Award Provider: Forté Foundation

USAID African Young Water and Sanitation Professionals (AfYWSP) Scholarships for Young African Leaders 2018

Application Deadline: 28th February, 2018.
Eligible Countries: African countries
About the Award: This program, funded by USAID West Africa through the AfriCap Program (WASH – African Water Association – AfWA – Capacity Building Program –AfriCap), will provide young graduate students at the graduate level (Master II) with research scholarships. Each grant, amounting to $ 1,000, will reward each selected project in accordance with the budget.
Field of Research: The following themes were selected for this scholarship program for the 2017-2018 academic year:
  1. Approaches to reducing Non-Revenue Water in water utilities
  2. Improved Water Quality Control
  3. Water services in low-income urban areas
  4. Fecal sludge Management
  5. Improvement of urban and peri-urban sanitation
  6. ICT use in water and sanitation services
Type: Research, Fellowship
Eligibility: Candidates for the award of a scholarship shall formulate their research topics in relation to one of the themes proposed in this call for applications. They may also apply with one of the research topics proposed by one of AfWA members. To apply, applicants must fulfill the following requirements:
  • Be a citizen of a country in the USAID West Africa desk coverage area and identified on the map in Program Webpage (Link below);
  • be in good standing academically with respect to their institution;
Selection: A first screening will be carried out by the academic institution. This will enable it to select and transmit the five best applications to AfWA. AfWA’s Selection Committee for the award of scholarships to Young Professionals, on the basis of the applications submitted by the various institutions, will establish the final list of beneficiaries.
Value of Scholarship: As part of this scholarship, the maximum amount allocated per beneficiary is 1,000 US Dollars. Sixty per cent (60%) of this amount will be paid to the recipient when the detailed plan of the research project is finalized, approved by the Research Director and received by AfWA’s Research and Capacity Building Program before the deadline. The remaining forty percent (40%) will be paid once the recipient submits the final electronic copy.
How to Apply: Submit a nomination file including :
  1. Student card or registration receipt for the current year
  2. Last completed degree
  3. Curriculum vitae,
  4. Three recommendation letters (one should be from the academic supervisor),
  5. Research proposal form to be downloaded from hereClick here
Applicants must submit their application electronically at the following addresses simultaneously: vyao@afwa-hq.org and gdjagoun@afwa-hq.org.
Award Provider: AfWA (African Water Association)
Important Notes: The selected list will be posted on AfWA’s website and each beneficiary will receive an official notification from AfWA.

Kellogg-Morgan Stanley Sustainable Investing Challenge for International Graduate Students 2018

Application Deadline: 20th February, 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Any
To be taken at (country): Teams will be funded to London UK and Los Angeles, USA.
About the Award: The Kellogg-Morgan Stanley Sustainable investing Challenge harnesses the power of capital markets and student creativity to create positive impact in a world of perpetual resource scarcity and continued population growth.
The Challenge seeks to identify the next generation of sustainable finance practitioners, connect emerging leaders with industry professionals, and foster even greater emphasis on sustainability at graduate schools around the world.
The Kellogg-Morgan Stanley Sustainable Investing Challenge seeks to identify outstanding proposals offering novel investment strategies to meet some of the most pressing global challenges ahead. As the world’s population approaches 9 billion people by the year 2050, the challenge of meeting human demand for scarce global resources will intensify. Finance has a key role to play in meeting this challenge.
Moreover, an increasing number of institutional investors are seeking sustainable investment opportunities for their portfolios. Specifically, these investors seek to identify investment strategies that can meet the financial needs of their organizations by investing in funds, investment vehicles, or direct investments that are consistent with the principles of sustainability and impact. Teams are encouraged to think beyond social enterprises, venture capital fund vehicles and strategies.
This competition requires you to propose and defend a sustainable impact investment strategy that uses finance and investment tools to create an innovative solution to an environmental or societal challenge. Integral to this competition are first, that you are creating a financial vehicle, and second, that your financial vehicle will have social impact.
Contestants must propose and defend a strategy that uses finance and investment tools rather than an operating enterprise to address an environmental or societal challenge. The competition is an opportunity to apply core finance principles to target the economic, social and environmental challenges that drive the field of sustainable investing.
Type: Contest
Eligibility: 
  • Graduate students from around the world are invited to participate in the Kellogg-Morgan Stanley Sustainable Investing Challenge.
  • Teams are limited to a maximum of four members, all of whom must be enrolled in a graduate program at the time of the prospectus submission, and the team cannot include more than one member who is pursuing an Executive MBA.
  • A team may include members from different graduate schools. All ideas must be the original ideas of the team members.
  • Each team is required to submit a two-page prospectus outlining their proposal.
  • From the submitted prospectuses, ten teams will be selected to present at the finals competition. At least one team member should be available to present at the finals competition, if the team is chosen to advance to that round, and all team members attending the finals competition should plan to stay for the entire event.
  • Please note that any team member not in attendance at the finals competition will not share in any prizes awarded to that team.
Judging Criteria: The following criteria are applicable to both the first and final rounds of the competition:
  1. Creativity & Financial Innovation (25%)
  2. Impact and scale (25%)
  3. Feasibility (25%)
  4. Quality of due diligence and financials (20%)
  5. Presentation (5%)
Value of Contest: $15,000 in prizes will be awarded to the winning teams. Awards will be made for the overall quality of the proposals based on the judging criteria.
  • Overall First Place:  $10,000
  • Overall Runner-Up:  $5,000
How to Apply:  Two-page prospectuses must be submitted by February 20, 2018, 11:59PM CT. The prospectus should outline a unique sustainable investment strategy. The selection committee is familiar with the broad area of sustainable investing, so avoid overemphasizing general observations about this section of the market.
Ten finalist teams will be announced by March 12, 2018. These teams will be flown to London and will be provided with two nights of lodging, and are expected to present their proposal at the finals competition on April 13, 2018.
Please click on “Submit a Prospectus” to submit your two page prospectus. Remove all identifying student name and school information from the prospectus before submission.
It is important to properly go through the Contest Webpage before applying.
Award Provider: Kellogg School of Management, Morgan Stanley

FAO-Hungarian Government Scholarship for Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 28th February 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Residents (who must be nationals) of the following countries are eligible to apply for the Scholarship Programme:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali,Myanmar, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nigeria, North-Korea, Palestine, the Philippines, Serbia, Somalia, South-Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda,Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen.
To be taken at (University): The following universities are participating:
  • University of Debrecen, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management
  • Szent István University, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Fields of Study: The following Master of Science degree courses are being offered in English for the 2018-2019 Academic Year:
  • Animal Husbandry Engineering (University of Debrecen)
  • Agricultural Water Management Engineering (Szent István University)
  • Environmental Engineering (Szent István University)
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Candidates will be selected on the basis of the following criteria:
  • Citizenship and residency of one of the eligible countries
  • Excellent school achievements
  • English language proficiency (for courses taught in English)
  • Motivation
  • Good health
  • Age (candidates under 30 are preferred)
Selection Procedure: The selection process as described below applies to scholarships beginning in September 2018.
Student selection will take place in two phases:
  • Phase 1: FAO will pre-screen candidates and submit applications to the Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary that will send them to the corresponding University as chosen by the 2 applicants. Students must submit only COMPLETED dossiers. Incomplete dossiers will not be considered. Files without names will not be processed.
  • Phase 2: Selected candidates may be asked to take a written or oral English examination as part of the admission procedure. The participating Universities will run a further selection process and inform each of the successful candidates. Student selection will be made by the Universities only, without any involvement on the part of FAO. Selected students will also be notified by the Ministry.
Number of Awardees: Courses will be offered provided the minimum number of students is reached.
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship covers student costs only; family members are not supported within the frame of this programme.
The scholarship will cover:
  • application and tuition fees throughout the study period with basic books and notes;
  • dormitory accommodation;
  • subsistence costs;
  • health insurance.
How to Apply: Interested applicants should prepare a dossier to be sent by E-MAIL consisting of:
  • Application form duly completed
  • A recent curriculum vitae
  • A copy of high school/college diploma and transcript/report of study or copy of the diploma attachment
  • A copy of certificate of proficiency in English
  • Copies of relevant pages of passport showing expiration date and passport number
  • A letter of recommendation
  • Statement of motivation
  • Health Certificate issued by Medical Doctor
  • Certificate of Good Conduct issued by local police authority.
All submitted documents must be in ENGLISH. Documents submitted in any other language will not be accepted. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that documents are duly translated and certified by a competent office; and that each document is saved with a name that identifies what it is.
As the number of scholarships is limited, interested applicants are strongly encouraged to E-MAIL their applications as soon as possible.
Award Provider:  Food and Agricultural Organisation and Hungary
Important Notes: 
  • Applicants who were not selected in previous years may re-apply to the 2018-2019 Programme. These applicants will have to submit the complete dossier once again by E-MAIL ONLY.
  • Please note that the duration of the scholarship cannot be extended or postponed.
  • A Scholarship Study Contract will be signed between the selected student and the Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary (MoAH), which is the donor of the program, at the time of first semester registration.
  • Applicants wishing to explore external funding opportunities to cover the travel costs may do so at their own initiative. However, in view of the length of the process, applicants wishing to apply for 2018 scholarships are strongly encouraged to E-MAIL their application while they endeavour to identify funds or pending confirmation that such funds will be granted.

Iran’s Water Crisis

Louis Proyect

On January 2nd, an New York Times article about the protests in Iran included a couple of paragraphs that caught my eye:
For decades, those living in Iran’s provincial towns and villages were regarded as the backbone of the country’s Islamic regime. They tended to be conservative, averse to change and pious followers of the sober Islamic lifestyle promoted by the state.
In less than a decade, all that has changed. A 14-year drought has emptied villages, with residents moving to nearby cities where they often struggle to find jobs. Access to satellite television and, more important, the mobile internet has widened their world.
In a nutshell, these are exactly the sort of social/ecological contradictions that helped to pave the way for the Syrian revolution as I pointed out in an article titled “Syria, Water and the Fall from Eden”, where I quoted a high-level government official:
There is no more rain, but there are more and more people. We forget that we are living in the desert here and that more than a quarter of the Syrian population now lives in Damascus. We have no water anymore and our Barada River cries. In the plain, in the Ghuta, it’s the same thing: there used to be five large springs there that fed the crops. They have all dried up.
–Nizar Hussein, agricultural engineer, Barada & Awaj River Authority, Damascus, Syria
In going through 16 years of articles on Lexis-Nexis about the drought in Iran, I came across a Financial Times article dated August 21, 2014 that cited a high-level government official who was just as terror-stricken:
Thousands of villages rely on water tankers for supplies, according to local media, while businessmen complain shortages are a daily hazard in factories around Tehran. At least a dozen of the country’s 31 provinces will have to be evacuated over the next 20 years unless the problem is addressed, according to a water official who declined to be named.
The situation may be even worse than that, says Issa Kalantari, a reform-minded agriculture minister in the 1990s. “Iran, with 7,000 years of history, will not be liveable in 20 years’ time if the rapid and exponential destruction of groundwater resources continues,” he warns, adding that the shortages pose a bigger threat to Iran than its nuclear crisis, Israel or the US.
It is important to understand that the migration of countryside people to the cities of Syria and Iran was not exclusively made up of people like the Joad family in Grapes of Wrath. It did not just include farmers but those tied into the agrarian economy as well– such as farm equipment vendors and their workers, shopkeepers, professionals and the like. When the farm is the hub of a wheel, the spokes will certainly be affected when it is removed.
Most dramatically, Iran has suffered the loss of major sources of water in the last few decades that were as much of a cultural landmark as they were economically critical. It would be somewhat analogous to the Rio Grande river drying up in the USA (a not far-fetched comparison in light of this article:
On September 18, 2001, the NY Times reported that Lake Hamoun, Iran’s largest body of fresh water and one of the largest in the world, had turned into a desert. The drought was to blame but so was the geopolitical conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which controlled a major dam on the Hirmand River that fed Lake Hamoun. Despite a 30-year-old agreement that allowed some water to flow even in dry years, the Taliban cut off the supply. After the Taliban were ousted, the American-supported regime had just as little interest in cooperation with Iran for obvious reasons. As I pointed out in my review of Müşerref Yetim’s “Negotiating International Water Rights: Resource Conflict in Turkey, Syria and Iraq”, this is not uncommon:
Competition for Euphrates and Tigris water has reverberated in domestic politics, especially in Iraq and Turkey. Following the March 1975 Algiers Agreement between Iran and Iraq, Iraq began to step up suppression of the Kurdish movement in the north. This prompted Syria to undermine Saddam Hussein by reducing the Euphrates flow. In effect, the conflicts between states in the Middle East over strategic goals almost inevitably spills over into the conflicts over water.
Lake Urmia, another key water resource, was also deeply impacted but in this instance, drought was conjoined with government mismanagement to create an environmental disaster as the Guardian reported on September 6, 2011. This time it was not an Afghan dam that was drying up a lake but the 36 dams within Iran built on rivers flowing into Lake Urmia. Since Urmia was a salt lake, the ecological impact would be catastrophic for farms surrounding it. When salt lakes go dry, the salt diffuses into the surrounding terrain and will kill crops such as almond and garlic found near Lake Urmia. It is also necessary to understand that its loss would be a major loss to the Azeri people who lived in the region. This video shows a protest held in September 2011 about the pending loss of the lake.
One other example should give you an idea of the gravity of the situation. Zayanderud is a river whose name means “life-giving waters”. In the FT article referenced above, you discover that it has flowed through Isfahan for more than 1,000 years from its source in the Zagros Mountains to the vast wetlands of Gavkhooni south of Isfahan. But the FT now described it as “a vast, gravelly beach, a dead stretch of sun-baked land that winds through the heart of Isfahan”. A man quoted in the article has the exact profile of those who were raising hell a few days ago:
“No water in this river means I had to leave my farmlands in the town of Varzaneh and work for the Isfahan municipality for 15,000 tomans [$5.6] per day,” says Afshin as he cuts weeds on the riverbed.
A loss of this river meant that about two million people who depend on agriculture have lost their income, according to Mostafa Hajjeh-Foroush, head of the agriculture committee of the Isfahan Chamber of Commerce. “If this situation continues they should think of changing jobs,” he adds.
Despite the FT’s obvious neoliberal bias, its analysis of how this came about is quite accurate. Under Ahmadinejad, profits generated through the sale of oil helped to prop up a water distribution system that was unsustainable. As a rentier state, Iran’s economy was based on handouts rather than the production of manufactured goods. Ahmadinejad targeted the farmers as a primary source of support without regard to the broader consequences for the nation. Cheap oil and subsidies made the massive use of pumps feasible just as was the case in Syria. As groundwater became more and more diverted into growing water-hungry crops like melons for the export market, the mostly urban population had to pay the piper. According to the UN, groundwater extraction nearly quadrupled between the 1970s and the year 2000 while the number of wells rose fivefold.
To give you an idea of how irrational such practices can become, the Trend News Agency reported on November 7, 2017 that Iran continues to prioritize the agri-export sector even as increased production yields fewer revenues. Last year exports increased by 15 percent but their value fell by 9 percent.
Watermelon was an exception to the norm. It registered an 18 percent and 33 percent growth in terms of volume and value respectively. This is a water-consuming commodity par excellence and as its name implies is mostly water. Some economists in Iran argue that Iran is actually exporting water in a period of drought.
As the drought and the misuse of water resources began to take its toll on society, Ahmadinejad came up with a novel excuse. In 2012, he made a speech claiming that the drought was “partly intentional, as a result of the enemy destroying the clouds moving towards our country”. Supposedly Europe was using high tech equipment to drain the clouds of raindrops. As might be expected, Global Research found this plausible. To bolster its case, the conspiracist website informed its readers:
Hollywood just released a film on Weather Modification gone mad titled, ‘Geostorm’ right after the worst hurricane season in a century. The film is about a network of satellites designed to control the global climate landscape. The plot of the film is that the satellites turns on Planet Earth with the intention to destroy everything in it by causing catastrophic weather conditions including hurricanes and earthquakes.
“Geostorm” earned a 13% rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with one critic opining that a Sharknado or two could have livened things up.
Not to be outdone by Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Yousef Tabatabai-Nejad from the city of Isfahan that lost its legendary life-giving waters blamed the drought on—who else—impious women. In a sermon, he offered this version of why the lakes and rivers were running dry:
“They have brought me pictures that shows women by the side of the dry Zayanderud river. These actions will ensure the upper stream of the river will become dry too. Believe me it is true. You may ask yourself why European countries with so much crime and sin have so much rainfall … God punishes the believer, for remaining silent and letting girls take pictures by the river as if they were in European countries.”
Although the Ayatollah might be dismissed as Iran’s version of the idiot living in the White House, he reflects a deep structural problem in the political system that militates against a solution to these deeply entrenched policies that are typical of the short-term mindset of rentier states. With the revenues generated by oil exports, it is likely that the elites will not pay much attention to the overall need for a sustainable economy but to seek out technical solutions, the most recent of which is the use of desalination plants.
Ahmadinejad, the conspiracy theorist, initiated something called the Caspian Project that envisioned a vast network of pipelines that pumped desalinated water to the major cities. This was met with skepticism by the nation’s water and environmental experts who warned that the infrastructure necessary for such a system would cripple fragile agricultural communities and ruin ecosystems, especially near the desalination plants. These massive operations separate the salt from the incoming water and funnel the brine byproduct back into the ocean. In so doing, it has caused irreparable damage to marine life. In effect, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. There are also heavy financing requirements that are just as onerous as those involved in building nuclear power plants. If Iran is in a race to build a society that has a future, it is probably a big mistake to use technologies so wedded to the past.
There is only one scholarly article that deals with these intractable problems, which fortunately can be read online. Titled “Iran’s Socio-economic Drought: Challenges of a Water-Bankrupt Nation”,  it reviews the main causes of the crisis in terms geared to a mainstream audience. The section on the role of agriculture is worth quoting in its entirety:
The agricultural sector uses up to 92 percent of Iran’s water. Due to having an oil-based economy, Iran has overlooked the economic efficiency of its agricultural sector in its modern history.10 The desire for increased agricultural productivity has encouraged an expansion of cultivated areas and infrastructure across the country. However, this sector is not yet industrialized and is suffering from outdated farming technologies and practices leading to very low efficiency in irrigation and production.
The agricultural sector in Iran is economically inefficient and its contribution to gross domestic product has decreased over time. Irrigated agriculture is the dominant practice, while the economic return on water use in this sector is significantly low, and crop patterns across the country are inappropriate and incompatible with water availability conditions in most areas. Recently, concerns about the embodied water content of produced and exported crops have increased, but business still continues as usual as interest in crop choice by farmers is mostly correlated with crop market prices and their traditional crop choices in the area.
The claimed interest in improving the living conditions of farmers is inconsistent with their relative income, which has decreased over time due to increasing water scarcity and decreasing productivity. Forced migration from rural to urban areas has been observed in some parts of the country where farming is no longer possible. However, agriculture continues to play a major role in the country, providing employment to more than 20 percent of the population. This role will remain significant as long as alternative job opportunities are unavailable in other sectors such as services and industry. The recent turmoil in Syria underscores that a loss of jobs in the agricultural sector can cause mass migration, creating national security threats and serious tensions.
While I would agree with the general analysis presented above, I would not call the protests a “national security threat”. If anything I have confidence in the ability of ordinary working people to solve the nation’s problems once they overthrow the Maserati-driving elites and their clerical allies and begin to build a society based on the common good rather than personal gain. Iran has long-standing revolutionary traditions that will acquit the country well as the state lurches unsteadily into an approaching storm that will pose very sharp class contradictions.

Israel Launches Airstrikes on Syria, as Assad’s Forces Near Victory

Patrick Cockburn

Israeli jets and ground-to-ground missile attacks on targets in the outskirts of Damascus are a mark of Israel’s heightened concern as President Bashar al-Assad comes close to winning the civil war in Syria. Israel’s security cabinet has held meetings several times in recent days to discuss how it should respond to the “day-after” the war as Syria returns to Mr Assad’s control and to Iran’s expanded influence in Syria according to Israeli television reports.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel’s policy was to stop Hezbollah moving “game-changing weapons” out of Syria into Lebanon. “We back it [the policy] up as necessary with action,” he added. Israel has carried out more than 100 air strikes against Syrian Army and Hezbollah arms depots and military facilities in the past six years.
The strikes are a sign that Israel is trying to adjust to likely new developments in Syria in 2018: as the end of the civil war comes in sight, Hezbollah and the Syrian armed forces, both battle hardened by the war, will no longer be tied down by fighting and could be deployed to confront Israel.
The Syrian war is by no means over, but the success of the coalition that includes Iran, Syria, Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia forces means that the balance of power in the region is swinging against Israel.
The Syrian Army is advancing swiftly without much resistance into the largest remaining rebel enclave in province of Idlib south west of Aleppo, in an offensive launched a week ago. Backed by artillery and air strikes, Syrian units are fighting Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly known as the al Nusra Front and once the Syrian arm of al-Qaeda, which is dominant in the province. Other rebel groups complain that HTS is refusing to cooperate with them in holding back government forces.
The Syrian Army and air force are also battering Eastern Ghouta, the other large rebel enclave just east of Damascus, the capture of which would give Mr Assad full control of the capital and the area round it, something he has not enjoyed since 2011.
Although the long-term success of Syrian government forces looks inevitable, it will take them time to re-establish central control. The Syrian Kurds – who captured Isis’s de facto capital Raqqa in October backed by US-led air strikes – control a great swathe of territory east of the Euphrates. They need to keep US support, including several bases in Kurdish-held territory, as a guarantee against Turkish military intervention or an offensive by Syrian forces. At the same time, they look to a long-term agreement with Damascus which would guarantee their autonomy.
Israel is concerned about the return of the Syrian Army to parts of southern Syria close to Israel as it tries to reopen the road to Jordan. There is a US-Russian agreement arranged by President Vladimir Putin that Hezbollah and Iranian backed forces will not approach within 25 miles of the Israeli-Syrian front line in the Golan.
But Mr Assad is likely to be less reliant on the support, and more independent of the wishes, of his two main allies, Russia and Iran, as he gets close to victory.
The latest Israeli air strikes and the angry Syrian response show that both sides are muscle-flexing. But, while the Israelis have an interest in preventing Hezbollah acquiring a substantial arsenal of long-range missiles that could reach far into Israel, neither side has an interest in going to war which would cause a lot of destruction but produce no winner, as in 2006 when Israel fought Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Israel has received vociferous backing from President Trump and the US but the Israelis must wonder – along with the rest of the world – how much Mr Trump’s supportive tweets are really worth. Even his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not an unalloyed gain for Israel since it changes nothing much on the ground, but it has put the Israeli-Palestinian issue back at the top of the political agenda in the Middle East to a degree not seen since 9/11 and the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Israeli air strikes are not necessarily a precursor to a wider military conflict, but they do show that Israel believes it can no longer stay on the margins of the Syrian war. As the conflict comes to an end that  is bound to be messy, Israel wants to be a leading player in shaping its final outcome.

Fabricating a War on Iran

Serge Halimi

Secretary of State Colin Powell brandished a vial he claimed contained anthrax at the UN Security Council on 5 February 2003, and showed satellite photos of secret sites where chemical weapons were supposed to be manufactured. He later admitted the story was fabricated, but not before it had served as a PR launch pad for the Iraq war.
On 11 December 2017 the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, appeared with huge fragments of what she claimed was an Iranian missile that had missed its target. She maintained it had been fired from Yemen at a Saudi civil airport, ‘a G20 country’ and had ‘the potential to kill hundreds of innocent civilians in Saudi Arabia … Just imagine if this missile had been launched at Dulles Airport or JFK. Or the airport in Paris, London or Berlin.’
Never mind it could not have travelled that far. Once again, fear is being manufactured to justify war: 14 years after destroying Iraq, the US government has Iran in its sights.
Haley’s lack of imagination might be entertaining were the subject not so serious. In 2003 Powell criticised the existence of ‘sinister’ links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. This was replayed on 1 November 2017: the CIA published a cache of documents seized in Pakistan when Osama bin Laden was assassinated, supposed to prove the existence of improbable links between some of Bin Laden’s successors and Iran’s (Shia) leadership.
It’s as if Washington has already forgotten the support – real, not alleged – it gave Bin Laden when he fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, or Ronald Reagan’s illegal arms sales to Iran when he sought funding for his far-right friends in Nicaragua.
Back then, no one used this as a pretext for declaring war on the US. Today, Saudi Arabia, Israel and many US leaders are spoiling for a fight with Iran, which faces internal unrest. The influential Republican senator Tom Cotton, possibly the next head of the CIA, can hardly wait. He thinks that all the US’s diplomatic challenges (Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Ukraine) have a ‘military option’. And the danger posed by Iran, which he believes to be greater than that from North Korea, would justify a ‘primarily naval and air attack against its nuclear infrastructure’.
President Obama noted two years ago that Iran’s military budget was only one-eighth of that of US allies in the region and one-fortieth of the Pentagon’s. Nonetheless, the sound of war drums against the ‘Iranian threat’ is almost deafening. In such a climate of psychological war, how smart was it for the French foreign minister to criticise Iran’s desire for ‘hegemony’ last December in Washington?

The European Union and the Venezuelan “Opposition”

Aidan O’Brien

If anyone is in any doubt about the direction the European Union has been moving in the last say 30 years (or say 500 years) they should consider the recent recipient of the European Parliament’s “prestigious” [sic] Sakharov Freedom Prize: the Venezuelan “opposition”.
The European Parliament is the European Union’s (EU’s) only democratic body. If the will of the “European” people has an expression: this is it. The European Presidency, the European Commission and the European Central Bank (the EU’s agenda setters), in contrast, are strictly top-down organizations. For this reason the strengthening of the bottom-up Parliament is considered by many progressives to be the EU’s only hope.
So what’s there to hope for? Not much, judging by the latest Sakharov Freedom Prize. If the European Parliament has its way Europe and indeed the world is going to resemble Venezuela pre-Chavez. In other words – to put it very mildly – socialism in the 21st century is a nonstarter for the European Parliament.
By embracing the Venezuelan “opposition” – the European Parliament is embracing death. This is no exaggeration. Anyone familiar with the 500 year old Latin American oligarchy that has shaped everything in between Tijuana and Tierra del Fuego – knows the death we speak of. The social torture of the Native American and the African American, in particular, is the business of this oligarchy. And the Venezuelan “opposition” defends this business. And now the European Parliament officially defends it too.
The business in question is the straightforward one of peripheral capitalism. This global structure is based on the economic relations between the core countries of the Empire and the peripheral countries of the Empire. In essence, the peripheral regions must serve the core regions. In other words, the peripheral areas give up their independence, sovereignty and dignity for the benefit of the core areas.
The core is, of course, the obnoxious triad: the USA, the EU and Japan. However, the core essentially is the North Atlantic – Japan is nothing but an honorary White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP). The periphery, on the other hand, consists of those countries that follow the advice of “Economic Hit Men”: traditionally third world countries but now also including some “first world” countries (Ireland, Greece and Spain, for example – notably Catholic and Orthodox).
Venezuela today under its President – Nicolás Maduro – jealously defends (following the example set by Hugo Chavez) its independence, sovereignty and dignity. And therefore it breaks the golden rule of peripheral capitalism: submission to the imperial core. And so Venezuela – in the eyes of the core – must suffer.
And making the periphery suffer is what the imperial core does best. It has a 500 year history of doing precisely this. And it has had 500 years to cultivate a peripheral oligarchy to manage the suffering of the periphery. One that can twist and turn the pain that’s required for the core to gain.
In the case of Venezuela: the Bolivarian revolution has broken the back of the local oligarchy. And as a consequence not only is the peripheral oligarchy (throughout Latin America) hysterical but so too is the oligarchy within the imperial core.
In 2015, 2016 and early 2017 the US President, Barack Obama, declared the Venezuela of Maduro to be a threat to the national security of the USA. And in late 2017 the European Parliament declared the same Venezuela to be an enemy of “freedom”. These aren’t empty words. As the recent fates of Iraq, Libya and Syria testify: death on an industrial scale tends to follow the fanatical judgements of the North Atlantic fundamentalists.
When the self righteousness of the Atlanticists is combined with the social racism (a term Maduro uses) of the Venezuelan “opposition” – the danger facing Venezuela is stark. And it’s a danger with a name: fascism.
The oligarchic Empire demands a “natural” order, or a “natural” hierarchy, in the world. The people of color and the people who labor are expected to stay in the low and unseen place capital has designated for them. And if these “subhumans” get uppity – the oligarchy and their “God” will crucify them. This basically sums up the 500 year history of Latin America – a history that has enriched the North Atlantic countless times.
The Venezuelan “opposition” today is the weakest link in the fascist chain that has been wrapped around Latin America for so long. And the USA and EU (the ultimate beneficiaries of the Latin American status quo) have instinctively appointed themselves as the guardians of this “opposition”.
They automatically do so because the relationship between the core and the periphery is similar to that between a master and a slave. And the fascist chain is that which maintains the imperial order of things. Let go of the chain and the slaves will escape. And the Empire unravel.
In the Capitalist (Orwellian) world in which we live – the world of doublespeak – the giving of shelter and sustenance to the “social racism” of the Venezuelan “opposition” is known as “defending democracy” in the USA and “supporting freedom” in the EU.
However, the fact is that in Europe (and it looks like in America too) there’s no longer any doublespeak. “Freedom” really is the freedom to hate the people of color and the people who labor. As parts of the European core begin to resemble the global periphery (Greece, Ireland, etc.) – as austerity turns the European core into a version of the third world – the European oligarchy is beginning to stink like the third world oligarchy.
Noam Chomsky once intimated that the foreign policy of a government (or a newspaper) most reveals its true political vision. He was right. Foreign affairs allows those in power to openly lay their cards on the table. Uninhibited by domestic details power has the opportunity to freely express it’s values. One way or the other it can without fear show it’s fangs.
By giving the Sakharov Freedom Prize to the Venezuelan “opposition” that’s exactly what the European Parliament has just done. It has bared its fascist fangs. But the European Union has being doing this nonstop recently. In North Africa and the Middle East it openly savages the people of color (genocidal wars). And within Europe it openly savages those who labor for a living (genocidal economics).
The Empire advertised “globalization” as being “the Americanization” of the world. And it was right. But which America was it talking about? North America or Latin America? Decades later the evidence suggests that the world has been “Latin Americanized”. The 1% gloat over all the inequality they’ve created. And the “Salvador option” is on the table everywhere the Empire rules.
This being case it makes perfect sense that the imperial core sees the Venezuelan “opposition” as being the vanguard of “freedom and democracy”. The North Atlantic WASPS may not be Latin but their politics is. Has not “Rome” (the coliseum, the circus and the Vatican) always been their model?
The end result of globalization has been the creation of yet another crude Fascist International. The European Union and the Venezuelan “opposition” were thus made for each other. But not for the people of color and the people who labor in Europe, Venezuela and everywhere else.