5 Mar 2018

British Council Future Leaders Connect Programme for Young Leaders (Fully-funded to the UK) 2018

Application Deadline: 13th May 2018.

Eligible Countries: Canada, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tunisia, UK and the USA

To Be Taken At (Country): As a part of the programme, those who are selected will be required to travel to the UK from 22 October – 1 November 2018.

About the Award: The project is being undertaken to support the development of future policy makers in key countries, aiming to help them become exceptional leaders. The Programme is run by the British Council.
Future Leaders Connect (the “Programme”) is where exceptional young people from around the world will join a long-term network of emerging policy leaders (“Participant(s)”). They will develop their policy making expertise, make valuable connections and gain the skills to have real impact. Together they will discuss major global policy issues in the Houses of Parliament, engage with inspiring leaders, visit some of the UK’s leading global institutions and collaborate to produce innovative policy recommendations. The skills, experience and connections they make through Future Leaders Connect will support them to seize their leadership potential.

Type: Training

Eligibility: The Programme is open to individuals of the participating countries who meet all the criteria listed below. To meet the Eligibility Criteria, listed below, Participants must;
  • Be aged between 18 and 35 years old on the 13 May 2018.
  • Be able to speak English at IELTS level 6 or equivalent (Generally applicant have an effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies, inappropriate usage and misunderstandings. Applicant can use and understand fairly complex language, particularly in familiar situations.)
  • Hold a passport valid for at least 6 months from November 2018.
  • Be based in one of the participating countries. In this case, being ‘based in’ means that applicant currently live in this country at the time of applying and applicant have a long term commitment to that country. their policy vision for change needs to match the country applicants are applying from.
  • Be available to travel to the UK for 11 days around the time of 22 October and 1 November 2018.
Number of Awards: Approximately 50 Participants will attend.

Value of Award: The costs of travel, accommodation and meals are covered by the British Council and the programme is fully accessible. For those who do not gain one of the exclusive places on the programme, applicants will be invited to be part of the Future Leaders Connect Community where applicant can access a range of free online professional development policy and leadership resources.

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: British Council, 10 Spring Gardens, London SW1A 2BN, United Kingdom.

University of York Protective Fellowship Scheme for Human Rights Defenders at Risk 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 15th April 2018 (23:59 GMT Sunday).

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All. So far the Centre has hosted 75 defenders from Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Chad, China, Colombia, DRC, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Somaliland, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

To Be Taken At (Country): UK

About the Award: The Centre for Applied Human Rights has run the Protective Fellowship Scheme for Human Rights Defenders at Risk since 2008.
One of the most important elements in bringing about improvements in human rights at a local level is the presence of active human rights defenders. They often find themselves working in hostile environments and without adequate training and support. Over time, the cumulative challenges of working in such an environment can have a negative impact on the individuals concerned and on their contribution to human rights work.
The focus of the Scheme is on defenders who work in difficult environments and have a need for human rights training, including research training, that the Centre can provide.

Type: Fellowship (Professional)

Eligibility: Nominations to the fellowships are accepted from recognised civil society organisations working in human rights and/or specifically with human rights defenders.

Number of Awards: The Centre accepts up to ten human rights defenders as visiting fellows every year.

Value of Award: The benefits are three-fold:
  • Awardees have the opportunity to acquire new skills as well as take time to recuperate and reflect upon their work, enabling them to return to their activism re-energized
  • Enhancing the skills of human rights defenders is a sustainable way to bring about medium and long-term social change in their home countries
  • The Centre for Applied Human Rights benefits from the experience of the awardees, allowing it to create and share knowledge relating to best practice in human rights activism.
Duration/Timeline of Program: 
  • A call for nominations usually goes out in February/March and the fellows are expected to arrive in York in either mid-September or early January.
  • The fellowships take place at the University of York and last for a period of three to six months.
How to Apply: 
  • For queries regarding the Scheme, please contact Patricia Bartley, the Protective Fellowship Scheme Support Officer (patricia.bartley@york.ac.uk).
  • Applications for fellowships can only be made via designated nominating organisations. The Centre cannot consider individual petitions.
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The Protective Fellowship Scheme for Human Rights Defenders is generously supported by FIDDH, the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Evan Cornish Foundation, the Alan and Babette Sainsbury Charitable Fund, York Annual Fund and the University of York.

Women PeaceMakers Program for Women Building Peace (Fully-funded to San Diego, USA) 2018

Application Deadline: 2nd April 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Institute for Peace and Justice (IPJ) at the University of San Diego’s Kroc School of Peace Studies, USA.

About the Award: Four Women PeaceMakers and four individual international partners will be selected as a cohort to build mutual learning and stronger modes of engagement between women building peace (“insiders”) and international actors (“outsiders”) working to end cycles of violence.
During the 10-month fellowship, the program will focus on women’s formal participation in national and subnational peace negotiations to answer the question:
“How can Women PeaceMakers and international partners build more effective local/global collaborations that support women’s meaningful participation in peace negotiations?”
The internationally-renowned Women PeaceMakers program is honoring 16 years of documenting the diverse roles women play in peacebuilding. Knowing the power of women’s full participation in peace and security decision-making to building more durable peace, the Women PeaceMakers fellowship aims to build stronger, more effective collaborations between women peacebuilders from conflict-affected communities and their international partners

Type: Fellowship (Professional), Training.

Eligibility: Applicants for the Women PeaceMakers fellowship must:
  • Have worked for 5-10+ years as a peacebuilder and have worked directly in formal mediation and peace negotiation processes as members of conflict parties in the negotiations, or as formal mediators to national or subnational peace processes;
  • Held a significant leadership role in the mediation process, and/or of a peacebuilding organization, network, or movement;
  • Demonstrates peacebuilding/peacemaking skills and attitudes;
  • Be in a position to participate in all activities during the 10-month fellowship and apply what is learned at the conclusion of the residency program;
  • Demonstrate local credibility and a strong social network within her country/community of practice;
  • Speak sufficient English to relate personal experiences. Written English is not necessary
Selection Criteria: International partners will likewise be selected based on their work in and support of more inclusive peace processes.

Value of Award:
  • There is no cost to participate in the Women PeaceMakers Program. Selected peacemakers will receive a per diem to cover basic living costs during the residency. This funding is to be used for meals and incidentals, and any local transportation needs apart from residency activities.
  • The program provides all funding related to securing a visa, travel and airfare to and from San Diego at the beginning and end of the residency, and lodging throughout the seven weeks.
  • The program encourages applicants to seek supplemental funding from other sources if needed, although the funding provided by the IPJ for those selected will be sufficient for the full seven weeks.
  • Housing will be provided at La Casa de la Paz, ​”The House of Peace,” on the campus of the University of San Diego in California
Duration of Program: 10 months (September 2018 – June 2019)

How to Apply: Please see the Program Webpage (Link is below) for information on Application.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Kroc School of Peace Studies, USA.

SAG-SEED Replicator Workshop for Aspiring African Entrepreneurs 2018 – Cape Town, South Africa

Application Deadline: 25th March 2018

To Be Taken At (Country): Cape Town, South Africa

About the Award: The SAG-SEED Replicator Programme targets both originators and (future) entrepreneurs who wish to imitate eco-inclusive business models:
Originators are supported through the identification of replicable features of their business model and a matchmaking process which enables them to find potential replication partners. Further, they will be showcased as a SEED originator. For this purpose, SEED collaborates with experienced originators from different sectors around the world and identifies replicable key components of their business models. Their eco-inclusive business models are tested and proven to be viable; create relevant economic, social and environmental impacts and are easily adaptable to different geographic locations at a low risk.
During SAG-SEED Replicator Connect Workshops, future entrepreneurs (adopters) are inspired and capacitated to adapt proven business models to their local context. Each adopter selects a SAG-SEED Replicator Workbook that comprises readings on proven business models as well as tools to adapt them to their market. Afterwards, they receive the possibility to pitch their adapted business idea to originators who are looking for replication partners.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: The SAG-SEED Replicator Workshop targets:
  • future entrepreneurs who don’t have a specific business idea yet,
  • business owners who would like to expand or refine their business model,
  • NGOs wanting to finance themselves through revenues
in the areas of Green Products for Health and Sanitation & Sustainable tourism enterprises (4 April) and Local Clean Cookstove Enterprises & ICT for Agriculture (5 April).

Value of Award:
  • The one-day SAG-SEED Replicator Workshop inspires with proven business models that can be adapted to local markets and needs.
  • Equipped with a SAG-SEED Replicator Workbook including a variety of tools and case studies, participants will be able to successfully kick start their own eco-inclusive enterprise afterwards.
  • The unique SEED online-matchmaking platform provides an opportunity to pitch the newly developed business ideas and get connected to successful business models around the globe.
  • Participation in the Replicator Programme is free of cost but participants need to cover their travel and accommodation costs on their own.
Duration of Program: 
Workshop #1:  04 April 18 |  Cape Town |  Manufacturing, Tourism
Workshop #2:  05 April 18 |  Cape Town |  Manufacturing, Agriculture


How to Apply: Interested future entrepreneurs can register and apply online at www.seed.uno/support/replicator.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The SAG-SEED Replicator in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, South Africa and Uganda are supported by SWITCH-Africa Green. SWITCH-Africa Green is implemented by UNEP with the assistance of the European Union.

Important Notes:
SEED Replicator activities in South Africa are supported through the generous support of the Government of Flanders.

University of Malta Masters and PhD Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019 – Malta

Application Deadline: 30th May 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Malta

About the Award: Deserving students who successfully complete the admission process and who may not have the means to cover full tuition fees will be considered for full or partial fee waivers through a rigorous selection process.
 A total of 100 scholarships will be awarded split over two schemes:
  • Ph.D. and Masters Programmes (mainly by research *)
  • Masters Programmes (mainly taught **)
Up to 50 scholarships will be made available to deserving students, from non-EU/EEA countries, who are accepted to read for a Ph.D. or Masters (mainly by research) programme at the University of Malta.
Up to 50 scholarships will be offered to non- EU/EEA nationals to pursue Master’s Degree programmes that are mainly taught (where the taught component is assigned 60 ECTS credits or more).

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility: 
  • To qualify for these scholarships, candidates must not be in receipt of a full scholarship (tuition fees and living costs) from another sponsoring institution or organisation. However, an applicant who holds a partial scholarship or maintenance grant to cover living costs from another institution may be considered. Such a scholarship or grant should be disclosed to the Selection Board when applying.
  • Candidates accepted for Joint Degrees, Joint Programmes, International or Collaborative Masters, Professional Masters, Professional Doctorates and other Masters programmes offered on a part-time basis are not eligible for these scholarships.
Selection Criteria: Requests for scholarships will be evaluated by a Selection Board to ensure awards are granted to deserving candidates. The decision of the Selection Board shall be final.
The selection criteria are as follows:
  • Academic ability of the applicant
  • Quality of the Motivational Letter
  • Performance during Interview (which may be conducted via the internet)
Number of Awards: 100 (50 for each type of scholarship)

Value of Award: 
  • Scholarships covering tuition fees of up to 100% shall be awarded to deserving applicants. Where applicable, bench fees may also be included.
  • Students will have to ensure that they have the means to support themselves throughout their studies in Malta and to cover expenses related to travel, accommodation and other living expenses, insurance, visa and residence permit, academic and other expenses that will be incurred throughout their course of studies.
How to Apply: The scholarship request is to be submitted following the receipt of a letter of acceptance for commencement in 2018. Scholarship applicants are to send an email to the International Office with the Applicant ID (as indicated in the Letter of Acceptance) and ‘University of Malta Scholarship Application’ in the subject line. The request is to be sent within one month of the receipt of the letter of acceptance. Applicants are to attach the following documents to the email:
  • Their Curriculum Vitae
  • A motivational letter
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: University of Malta

Important Notes: Late applications will not be considered and there will be only one deadline each year.

Advocacy-for-Cure Academy Fellowships for Talented HIV Advocates (Fully-funded to Training in Uganda) 2018

Application Deadline:  22nd March 2018.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Uganda

About the Award: The International AIDS Society (IAS) Towards an HIV Cure initiative and AVAC are organizing an Advocacy-for-Cure Academy in Uganda on 28-30 May 2018.
Fellows will enrol in a three-day training and development course on HIV cure advocacy.
Through workshops and sessions, networking opportunities with leaders in the field and project work, the interactive course will provide the tools and resources for fellows to:
  1. Develop their research literacy in HIV cure.
  2. Improve and reinforce their advocacy and engagement skills.

Type: Training, Fellowship (Professional)

Eligibility: 
  • The academy is specifically for advocates currently working in the HIV field in resource-limited settings and who are interested in strengthening their HIV cure-related advocacy or engagement.
  • The selection committee will take into account the candidates’ experience, their motivation to work in the HIV cure field, and their potential to apply the knowledge gained at the academy in their work.
Number of Awards: 20-25

Value of Award: Selected fellows will be awarded:
  • Enrolment in the Advocacy-for-Cure Academy
  • Travel to Uganda
  • Accommodation and meals
  • Ground transportation
  • Course materials
Duration of Program: 28-30 May 2018.

How to Apply: APPLY HERE
All applicants will be notified of the status of their application by mid-April.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The International AIDS Society (IAS), AVAC

Still Meddling in Venezuela

Mark Weisbrot

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has stepped up its efforts at “regime change” in Venezuela. In the past, Trump himself has even mentioned military action as a possible option, but the most recent moves appear more likely to be implemented, and some are already operational. According to sources with knowledge of the matter, the leading opposition contender for Venezuela’s upcoming presidential election, Henri Falcón, was told by US officials that the Trump administration would consider financial sanctions against him if he entered the presidential race. (The US State Department did not return requests for comment.) The US has backed the main opposition coalition decision to boycott the election.
Falcón is a former governor and retired military officer. He is leading in the latest polls, and according to the most reliable opposition pollster, Datanalisis, would defeat Maduro in the election by a margin of nearly 7 percentage points.
Why would the Trump administration want to prevent an opposition leader who could possibly win the presidency in Venezuela from running in this election? There is no way to know for sure, but high-level sources from inside the administration have stated that Florida Senator Marco Rubio is determining US policy toward Venezuela. Rubio is a hard-liner who does not seem interested in an electoral or negotiated solution to Venezuela’s political crisis. On February 9, he appeared to support a military coup when he tweeted: “The world would support the Armed Forces in Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator.”
Such open support from Washington for a military coup against an elected government ― before the coup has occurred ― is unusual, to say the least, in the twenty-first century. But the Trump team is not just sitting around waiting for it to happen. The Rubio/Trump strategy seems to be to try to worsen the economic situation and increase suffering to the point where either the military, or the insurrectionary elements of the opposition, rise up and overthrow the government.
That appears to be the purpose of the financial sanctions that Trump ordered on August 24, 2017. These sanctions cut off Venezuela from billions of dollars of potential loans, as well as from revenue even from its own oil company in the US, Citgo. They have worsened shortages of medicine and food, in an economy that is already suffering from inflation of about 3,000 percent annually and a depression that has cost about 38 percent of GDP. These sanctions are illegal under the Organization of American States (OAS) charter and under international conventions to which the US is a signatory.
Now US officials are talking about a more ferocious collective punishment: cutting off Venezuela’s oil sales. This was not done previously because it would hurt US oil refining interests that import Venezuelan oil. But the administration has floated the idea of tapping the US strategic petroleum reserves to soften the blow. All this to overthrow a government that nobody can claim poses any threat to the United States.
No one can pretend that the Trump administration cares about fair elections in Latin America. The Honduran election of November 26 was almost certainly stolen, and even Washington’s close ally who heads the OAS, Secretary General Luis Almagro, called for it to be run again. But the Trump administration went with the incumbent President Juan Orlando Hernández in Honduras, a politician whose brother and security minister have been linked to drug traffickers and whom Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly, former head of the US Southern Command, has described as a “great guy” and a “good friend.” The Trump administration did not object to their post-election killings of unarmed protesters or other human rights abuses ― in fact, the State Department certified the Honduran government as complying with human rights obligations just days after the election.
There are certainly valid complaints about the upcoming election in Venezuela. Some opposition candidates have been excluded, and the government moved the election forward from its initially scheduled time in December, to April. The opposition had wanted it moved forward, but this was sooner than they wanted. (On Thursday, Reuters reported that an agreement had been reached between Venezuela’s election board and some opposition parties to hold the election in late May.)
Negotiations between the government and the opposition over these and other problems broke down last month, although the government did agree to allow election observers from the United Nations. With regard to the procedural credibility of Venezuela’s elections, in the past two decades there has almost never been any legitimate doubt about the vote count, due to the adoption of a very secure voting system. (The only exceptions were the Constituent Assembly election of July 30 last year, which the opposition boycotted and there was some question about the number of people who voted; and one out of 23 governors’ elections on October 15, where the local vote count was not credible.) For the current negotiations, we cannot know if other disagreements might have been resolved if the Trump administration had not been pushing so hard to prevent elections from taking place, and encouraging extra-legal “regime change” as an opposition strategy.
The main opposition coalition, the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD, by its acronym in Spanish), has as of now decided to boycott the elections. But it’s not clear that the voters will follow their lead. The most reliable and recent polls, from Torino Capital and Datanalisis, show that 77.6 percent of voters intend to vote in the upcoming election, with only 12.3 percent planning to abstain. They should have that opportunity, and the Trump administration should not be trying to take it away from them.

The $1.5 Billion Campaign to Whitewash Genocide in Yemen

Dan Glazebrook

“The situation in Yemen – today, right now, to the population of the country,” UN humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock told Al Jazeera last month, “looks like the apocalypse.”
150,000 people are thought to have starved to death in Yemen last year, with one child dying of starvation or preventable diseases every ten minutes, and another falling into extreme malnutrition every two minutes. The country is undergoing the world’s biggest cholera epidemic since records began with over one million now having contracted the disease, and new a diptheria epidemic “is going to spread like wildfire” according to Lowcock. “Unless the situation changes,” he concluded, “we’re going to have the world’s worst humanitarian disaster for 50 years”.
The cause is well known: the Saudi-led coalition’s bombardment and blockade of the country, with the full support of the US and UK, has destroyed over 50% of the country’s healthcare infrastructure, targeted water desalination plants, decimated transport routes and choked off essential imports, whilst the government all this is supposed to reinstall has blocked salaries of public sector workers across the majority of the country, leaving rubbish to go uncollected and sewage facilities to fall apart, and creating a public health crisis. A further eight million were cut off from clean water when the Saudi-led coalition blocked all fuel imports last November, forcing pumping stations to close. Oxfam’s country director in Yemen, Shane Stevenson, commented at the time that “The people of Yemen are already being starved to submission – unless the blockade is lifted quickly they will have their clean water taken away too. Taking clean water from millions of people in a country that is already suffering the world’s largest cholera outbreak and on the verge of famine would be an act of utmost barbarity.”
Since then, things have been getting worse. As of late January, fuel imports through the country’s main port Hodeidah were still being blocked, with cholera cases continuing to climb as a result. And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of one million since 2017.
This is unsurprising, as both the bombardment and the blockade have intensified in recent months. For almost a month at the end of last year, the coalition blocked all imports into Hodeidah port, through which 70% of the country’s imports would otherwise enter. And since the death of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh on 4th December, the air campaign has been stepped up, with massacres occurring on a near-daily basis. On 9th February, the UN announced that 85,000 had been displaced in ten weeks due to “surging violence”, particularly on the Red Sea Coast, where the coalition have mounted a new campaign to capture the country’s strategically important Hodeidah port.
With the Hodeidah campaign now entering a new phase, this war on the Yemeni population is set to escalate still further. Since it launched in early December, the coalition and their Yemeni assets have taken several towns and villages on Hodeidah province, and are now poised to take the battle to the city itself. On 20th February, Emirati newspaper The National reported that, in the coming days, “more forces will be committed to Hodeidah as a new front is to be opened in the next few days by Maj Gen Tariq Mohammed Abdullah,” nephew of the deceased former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. This attack would put the almost completely-import dependent country’s most essential port out of action for months, leaving millions unable to survive. “If this attack goes ahead”, Oxfam chief executive Mark Goldring told the press when a similar attack was proposed earlier last year, “this will be a deliberate act that will disrupt vital supplies – the Saudi-led coalition will not only breach International Humanitarian Law, they will be complicit in near certain famine.” His colleague Suze Vanmeegan added that “any attack on Hodeidah has the potential to blast an already alarming crisis into a complete horror show – and I’m not using hyperbole.”
There is no doubt the war’s British and American overseers have given their blessing to this escalation. In late 2016, the “Yemen Quartet” was formed by the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to co-ordinate strategy between the the war’s four main aggressors. Throughout 2017, they met sporadically, but since the end of the year their meetings have become more frequent and higher-level. At the end of November, just before the launch of operations in Hodeidah province, Boris Johnson hosted a meeting of the Quartet in London as Theresa May simultaneously met with King Salman in Riyadh, presumably to give the go-ahead to this new round of devastation for Yemen’s beleaguered population. They met again two weeks later, and then too on 23rd January, also at Johnson’s instigation, where the meeting was attended, for the first time, by Rex Tillerson. The “economic quartet” – also attended by officials from the IMF and World Bank – convened  on 2nd February in Saudi Arabia, whilst Johnson and Tillerson once again met with their Saudi and Emirati counterparts to discuss Yemen in Bonn on 15th February. Of course, these meetings do not carry out the nitty-gritty of strategic war planning – civil servants in the military and intelligence services do that. The purpose of such high level forums is rather for each side to demonstrate to the others that any  strategic developments carry the blessing of each respective government at the highest level. That the “quartet” met just days before an announcement that the long-planned attack on Hodeidah port was imminent, then, speaks volumes about US-UK complicity in this coming new premeditated war crime.
These military and humanitarian ‘developments’ (if such a word can be applied to the deliberate reversal of a country’s living standards) form the backdrop to the Saudi-led coalition’s unveiling on 22nd January of their new plan to deliver “unprecedented relief to the people of Yemen”. YCHO – “Yemen Comprehensive Humanitarian Operations” – is a new ‘aid’ programme with the ostensible aim of “addressing immediate aid shortfalls while simultaneously building capacity for long-term improvement of humanitarian aid and commercial goods imports to Yemen”, primarily through increasing the “capacities of Yemeni ports to receive humanitarian as well as commercial imports” – and all sealed with a whopping $1.5billion in aid contributions. What could possibly be wrong with that?
The problem here is not only that the the funding required to meet the needs created by the Saudi-led coalition is estimated by the UN to be twice that amount. The real problem is that the plan will not, in fact, increase the imports on which Yemen is utterly dependent, but reduce them still further. This is because the much-vaunted ‘improvements in port capacity’ will apply solely to “coalition-controlled ports”, excluding the ports outside their control – Hodeidah and Saleef – which, between them, handle about 80% of Yemen’s imports. For these, absolutely critical, ports, the plan explicitly states that it wants a reduction in the flow of cargo they handle: by around 200 metric tons per month, compared to mid-2017 levels. Yes, you heard correctly: cargo levels in mid-2017 – when 130 children were dying each day from malnutrition and other preventable diseases largely caused by the limits on imports already in place – are now deemed in need of further, major, reductions. This plan is nothing less than a systematisation of the starvation politics of which the Saudis were accused by the UN Panel of Experts on Yemen in relation to their closure of Hodeidah and Saleef in November. Back then, noted the panel’s Final Report, all Yemen’s ports had been closed following a Houthi missile attack on Riyadh airport. But whilst coalition-controlled ports were quickly reopened, Hodeidah and Saleef remained closed for weeks. “This had the effect,” said the panel, “of using the threat of starvation as an instrument of war.” Today, the ‘Comprehensive Operations’ plan envisages making permanent the juxtaposition of wilful starvation of Houthi-controlled territory (in which the vast majority of Yemenis live) and ‘generous’ aid deliveries into coalition-controlled territories. These are the same ‘methods of barbarism’ as were employed by the British in the Boer war – when Boer-controlled territories were subjected to scorched earth policies of torching farms and destroying livestock – and then revived for Britain’s colonial wars in Malaya,  Kenya and, indeed, Yemen in the 1950s-60s. Small wonder Britain is so deeply involved today.
But such a strategy will surely be hard to sell in this day and age. Certainly, the Saudis seem to think so; which is presumably why they have employed a plethora of the world’s most notorious PR agencies to help them do so.
An exceptional investigation by the IRIN news agency reported that “the press release journalists received announcing the [YCHO] plan came neither from the coalition itself nor from Saudi aid officials. It came, along with an invitation to visit Yemen, straight from a British PR agency”. That agency was Pagefield Global Counsel, one of the successor companies to disgraced PR giant Bell Pottinger (employing over 20 former Pottinger staff).
The investigation also revealed that the powerpoint presentation used to introduce the YCHO to high level UN officials was authored by Nicholas Nahas, of Booz Allen Hamilton, a US management consultancy with long-established links to the US state – including involvement in the illegal SWIFT and PRISM mass surveillance programmes – and which currently has, says IRIN “35 job listings in Riyadh on its website, including “military planner”, a role that requires the applicant to: “Provide military and planning advice and expertise to support the coordination of Joint counter threat operations executed by coalition member nations and facilitate resourcing to enable operations.””
Another PR company involved in ‘selling’ the YCHO, long on the Saudi payroll, is Qorvis MSLGROUP, who, says IRIN, “booked US revenue of more than $6 million from the Saudi Arabian embassy [in the US] over a 12-month period up to September 2017”.
These masters of spin have certainly been busy: their work on the plan has been delivered to “the offices of major INGOs in the UK as well as to members of the UK parliament”, and YCHO accounts has been set up on facebook, twitter, instagram, youtube and gmail. The YCHO twitter account has around 10,000 followers; but, says the investigation, “almost half of YCHO’s followers have less than 10 followers themselves, while some 1,000 followers were accounts created on the same day in 2016 – signs that a significant number of bots or fakes are inflating YCHO’s popularity”.
“All of this,” concludes IRIN, “has fed suspicions that rather than a genuine attempt to help the people of Yemen, the plan is really intended more to gloss over the Hodeidah issue and improve Saudi Arabia’s battered image, or at least a bit of both.”
You would think a strategy aimed at starving the world’s most starving population still further would be a hard sell. But, then, money not only talks, it silences.  And $1.5 billion is a lot of money.
The UN’s own ‘Humanitarian Response Plan’ for Yemen, issued just two days before the YCHO, on 20th January, had noted that “Al Hudaydah port, which accounts for 70-80 per cent of commercial imports in Yemen, remains a critical lifeline, despite operating at reduced capacity after being hit by an airstrike in August 2015”, adding that “the extended blockade imposed on Al Hudaydah and Salif ports on 6 November 2017 significantly threatened this lifeline of Yemenis” and that “only a sustained flow of imports of essential basic goods can avert further catastrophe”. Yet the cash-strapped UN, facing dramatic budget cuts from the Trump administration, and presumably nervous of saying anything that might jeopardise Saudi-Emirati money as well, officially welcomed the announcement, despite its clear commitment to essentially tightening the very blockade of Hodeidah and Saleef ports which the UN had denounced just days earlier.
Thankfully, the aid agencies do not seem to have been fooled. A joint statement on the YCHO by a number of international NGOs, including Oxfam and Save the Children, stated that “We remain concerned that the blockade on Red Sea ports has still not been fully lifted and about the insufficient volume of fuel reaching these, which has led to an increase in the price of basic goods across the country. As a result, we are seeing families pushed into preventable disease and starvation because they cannot afford to buy food and clean water. Hodeidah port handles the majority of the country’s imports and cannot be substituted. It is vital that the warring parties commit to keep Hodeidah port fully open and functioning, including unfettered access for both humanitarian and commercial supplies.” Save the Children’s Caroline Anning explained that the plan “is a misconception – in the publicity around this new plan they say the blockade around Hodeida port has been fully lifted but actually what we’re seeing is that fuel is still being blocked coming into that port which is having a really horrendous knock-on effect around the country.” She added that if “they want to try and push the delivery of key important commercial supplies through other ports like Aden, Jazan and Saudi Arabia and cut off the Hodeida port, again that could be really problematic and again it means one of the warring parties in the conflict is controlling access routes for goods coming in…Improved humanitarian access is really important and that’s been a massive challenge – but in reality that’s not going to solve the humanitarian conflict in Yemen. We’ve seen increased violence, air strikes across the country in the last few months, civilians being killed every day, vital infrastructure like health clinics being hit all the time. While that’s happening and while the economy is collapsing and public sector salaries aren’t being paid, the humanitarian crisis is going to continue.”
And the International Rescue Committee (IRC)’s scathing response – issued with the title “Yemen: Saudi ‘aid’ plan is war tactic” – is worth quoting at length:
“The Yemen Comprehensive Humanitarian Operations (YCHO), announced on January 22, 2018, is neither comprehensive, nor reflective of clear, shared humanitarian priorities…The YCHO politicizes aid by attempting to consolidate control over access and transit points. Rather than endorsing a parallel plan, which was created without broad input from humanitarian actors, the Saudi Led Coalition (SLC) and its supporters, notably the US and UK, should work to ensure the full implementation of the existing UN humanitarian response plan.
“The name in itself is misleading: it is neither comprehensive, nor particularly humanitarian,” said Amanda Catanzano, senior policy and advocacy director at the International Rescue Committee. “The Saudi-led coalition is offering to fund a response to address the impact of a crisis it helped to create. The acute crisis in Yemen needs more than what appears to be a logistical operations plan, with token gestures of humanitarian aid”. The IRC go on to list a number of ‘red flags’ about the plan, first and foremost, that it does not end the blockade: “If the Saudis were serious about addressing the humanitarian crisis,” they point out,  “the most valuable step they could take would be to lift the blockade, permanently, which they and the international community should do without delay”. Furthermore, they add, the YCHO “severely threatens humanitarian access, endangering the lives of millions more civilians. The plan would move the main hub of the response from Hodeidah port to Aden port and would increase capacity of additional Southern ports of Mokha and Mukalla as additional alternatives. The development of additional Yemeni ports is welcome and laudable, but not at the expense of access to Red Sea ports like Hodeidah and Saleef. The southern ports are neither equipped for, nor well placed to service populations in need: they the lack basic infrastructure and capacity of the northern ports, through which 80% of all imports come into Yemen, and humanitarians would need to go through 70 checkpoints between Sanaa and Aden, complicating delivery and driving up costs”. They also note that it is precisely the Saudi-led coalition and its Yemeni stooges who have implemented a  policy of cutting off payments to public sector workers, leading to the current public health disaster: “The acute deprivation in Yemen is as much a function of the blockade as it is the absence of basic public services. The SLC is overfunding the war effort at the expense of governance and service delivery. The vague “economic stabilization” clause in the YCHO does not address the restoration of basic public services. These funds should be used to reinstate basic government services and pay government workers.” It concludes:
“A meaningful response to the world’s largest humanitarian crisis requires more access – not less. At best, this plan would shrink access and introduce new inefficiencies that would slow the response and keep aid from the neediest Yemenis, including the over 8 million on the brink of starvation,” said Catanzano. “At worst, it would dangerously politicize humanitarian aid by placing far too much control over the response in the hands of an active party to the conflict.”
Essentially, this is a plan to tighten the blockade whilst monopolising access to aid in the hands of the aggressors, presented as a great humanitarian effort, and unveiled just as the coalition begins an attack on the country’s “vital lifeline” which will lead to “a complete horror show” and “near-certain famine”. In the twisted minds of men like Mohammed bin Salman, Rex Tillerson and Boris Johnson – for whom even the liquidation of an entire people is a apparently a noble cause in the pursuit of containing Iran – this is what passes for humanitarianism today.

Can India Stop It’s Epic Bank Scams?

Moin Qazi 

The world’s great philanthropist and investment leader, Warren Buffett, once said, “It’s only when the tide goes out that you realise who has been swimming naked”. Well, it’s the ebb of the tide for many of India’s high-flying crony capitalists like Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi, as they find themselves caught in an ignominious buff. Their diamonds may have sparkled on the necklines of world’s acclaimed models, but their names are now dirty blots on the nation’s financial skyline. Their misdeeds have shaken the credibility of India’s $60 billion gem and jewellery industry, which is the country’s second largest forex earner, accounting for about 16 per cent of the total merchandise exports,
Similarly, sometimes, it takes a pitch-black economy to reveal who and what in the financial firmament really shine. It is only when darkness falls that the stars start twinkling. The moonshine on an otherwise bleak sky has been made possible by the small honest taxpayers who are transfusing precious blood to extend a lifeline to the bleeding banks.
It is tragic that even as the country is grappling with massive problems confronting its struggling masses, these ignoble billionaires are having regular rides to the public trough and revelling in plunder and loot. The proportion of dodgy loans — loans on which the borrower is not making interest payments or repaying any principal — in India has surged to be among the highest in the world. The question is: Why should ordinary people bear the burden of fat cats who keep indulging their desires by dipping into public savings and laugh all the way to the bank? These free loaders are gleefully and remorselessly winnowing scarce bank capital and the Government has to goose these banks with spruced up balanced sheets to make them lend again. Ironically, instead of being chastised, they are lauded as captains of the industry and adorn glorious positions in industry associations
India’s near $147 billion pile of soured loans is a classic example of how powerful and politically influential tycoons undermine the rules to secure credit and then default on it. When borrowers become insolvent, their loans are added to an existing mountain of debt. Each time it happens, banks have to make heavy write-downs, plowing the dud loans like rotten potatoes, ultimately choking the credit line. To keep these banks going, the Government has to regularly keep injecting capital into them.
Most major loan defaults have their genesis in frauds; these have ballooned non-performing assets (NPAs). The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) June 2017 Financial Stability Report says losses from financial sector frauds rose 72 per cent in the five years to fiscal 2017 to Rs 16,770 crore. State-run banks have reported 8,670 loan fraud cases, totalling 612.6 billion rupees ($9.58 billion) over the last five financial years up to March 31, 2017. Most big defaulters have the money to employ legal eagles who can play the judicial system and it is here where the law flounders. The country has the most draconian laws in books but they are ineffective against powerful dogders. We show such promptness in condemning waivers for poor farmers but we lack the courage to tame the large fishes because they have enormous clout. Remember how banks become aggressive in turning mortgage defaulters on to the streets? The bankers seem to be totally helpless when it comes to malfeasant promotes of big businesses. Today the stink of these loans and scams is leaching its poison into the financial system.
Swindlers have outfoxed a system which no longer appears impregnable. This failure has shown just how deeply lacerated are the central parts of our economic life. When institutions, such as banks, that are supposed to embody trust, are shown to be brittle, it leads to concerns of how fragile the economy is. The RBI now no longer appears to be the financial seer and therapist which insulated the domestic economy from the financial turmoil of 2008.
Scams are a product of a deadly concoction of greed and immorality. However, abuse of the financial system has been made possible on account of several weaknesses in it: Lax governance standards, supine boards, poor lending practices, manual processes, unionised staff, rogue bank officials, sloppy compliances, outdated software and lack of understanding of technology. Costs may have also impeded the banks from upgrading their systems. In an age which heralds technology as the silver bullet, we should not overlook their most important source of competitive advantage: Their people. Compliance and controls are weak the world over. They are, to a large extent, dependent on people running it. And remember, a process is only as good as the people managing it.  The best  auditors will also have to struggle to stop managers who are determined to hide their dirty laundry from view.
It is strange that repayment ethics, so deeply ingrained in Indian culture, have been made foul words by politicians. The sanctity of repayment, no matter how deceitfully the debt was contrived and how cruel the costs, has been driven into the Indian consciousness since the time of Manusmruti. Today the debts contracts have lost their entire sanctity. It is a fact that the moral culture is under severe strain and any amount of laws and rules can’t discipline the toxic human impulses. Most people have a psychological aversion to repaying bank loans. In several cases, they have sufficient assets and capital to redeem their debt but they use every possible means to avoid it.
Things have turned so ugly that whether it is an individual or institution, getting back any money at all is a reason for jubilation. We have seen how business leaders splurge on birthday bashes but avoid repaying their loans. They have neither lost their homes nor have had to change their lifestyles despite offering personal guarantees for loans to banks? In this respect, small customers are far more honest than big ones. Some of them have such exemplary credit histories that it makes the best bankers blush.
The reason for protecting the borrower against the creditor is that the much reviled moneylender looms large in our collective psyche. The scenario now is totally different. Big borrowers are not like helpless farmers and the lender today is not the cruel sahukar but the public bank. When these large businessmen default, they rob each one of us taxpayers. In several cases, precious and scarce banks funds are being used to finance opulent lifestyles of these people.
The turmoil has prompted calls for improvising risk management models that seem to have created an illusory sense of security. Models and machines cannot act as a surrogate for human expertise. Money management is no more a genteel world. Bankers will now have to bring in hard-boiled traders instincts to make it safe and secure. In a prophetic warning way back in 1913, John Maynard Keynes wrote in Indian Currency and Finance: “In a country so dangerous for banking as India, (it) should be conducted on the safest possible principles”.
The Indian financial sector is at crossroads and its leaders will now have to use their financial alchemy to overcome its most challenging moment. Perhaps it is one of those occasions where Rudyard Kipling’s advice can be the best guide:
“If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
but make allowance for their doubting too”.
It will not be out of place to quote former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan from his Homer Jones Memorial Lecture, delivered at Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri on April 15, 2009. “A crisis offers us a rare window of opportunity to implement reforms-it is a terrible thing to waste. The temptation will be to overregulate, as we have done in the past. This creates its own perverse dynamic… Perhaps rather than swinging maniacally between too much and too little regulation, it would be better to think of cycle-proof regulation. ”

Snow, Snowflakes and the UK: Britain’s Response to the Beast from the East

Binoy Kampmark

While the bibliophile and aphorist Samuel Johnson claimed that people of appropriate mental discipline could avoid talking about the weather, the British have found weather an irresistible topic of conversation.  Storms are recalled with  nostalgic exaggeration; accounts are rendered colourful after the fact.
The Beast from the East, as this latest cold freeze has been termed, stands as a form of climactic terror, storming its way through life without care or favour. Even the language is laden with suggestiveness, a Siberian nightmare forcing its way into the lives of Europeans with refrigerating potential.  Ominously, it has been working in tandem with a storm innocuously named Emma.
Such is the mythological fear of unruly weather, intemperate and beyond placation.  Omens are sought, fear noted.  The Great Storm of 1703, as it was termed, led Queen Anne to call it “a Calamity so Dreadful and Astonishing, that the like hath not been Seen or Felt, in the Memory of any Person Living in this Our Kingdom.”  Some 6,000 sailors lost their lives, a costly toll given British participation in the Spanish War of Succession.  It also inspired novelist Daniel Defoe to compile The Storm the following year, a work considered a work of masterful journalistic assemblage.
Meteorologists in the UK have released their predictions suggesting that the freeze of March 2018 is the worst since 1962.  Schools across the country have been closed – 330 in Kent alone.  Irritation at having idle children at home has been expressed, a point similarly made last December when closures affected 2,300 schools across the country.  “We’re breeding,” exclaimed one Howard Webster in The Daily Mail with eugenic fury, “a generation of wimps governed by a generation scared shitless by health and safety regulation.”
The snow fall has also had a freezing delay on transport services.  Serious cases of gridlock on the M80, seeing the stranding of hundreds of drivers between the cities of Glasgow and Sterling, have been registered.
The army has been deployed to supply various services, including the transport of 200 NHS clinical and support staff.  This, in a statement released on March 2, would “enable staff to change over their shifts while the amber weather warning remains for most of Scotland until 10am tomorrow.”
Weather and environmental disruptions have an unmasking effect.  They induce patriotic insensibilities on climate and condition.  With a degree of derision, various public responses from countries more accustomed to dealing with heavy snow have done the rounds.  Canada and the Scandinavian countries have been heavily represented in that regard.  “I knew it was snowing in the UK,” came a caustic Becca McDonald, “but didn’t know it was so full of Snowflakes.”
Such weather disturbances also expose the reprehensible limits of government policy, laying bare chronic inequalities and shoddy administrative decisions.  For Eve Livingstone, while a certain “lack of readiness can probably best be explained by a combination of factors, the hard truth is that almost all of these are ultimately ideological.”
Austerity, budget depletions and slashings normalised by Tory governments, have all done their bit to cripple what might have been better managed efforts to combat extreme weather.  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the body charged with the associated tasks of combating such phenomena, has been a sitting target for the razor gangs.  In 2016, its staff received the ominous news that funding would be cut by 15 percent over four years.  This gutting effort came on top of the previous year’s raiding, which saw a quarter of its budget cut.
As Parliament’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee stated, “The challenges facing Defra are, first, whether the reduced budget available to it is sufficient for its task, and second how to make the correct policy choices so as to allocate smaller funds effectively.”
The National Grid also found itself in a pessimistic mood, warning that gas supply might be disrupted in responding to the cold.  The deficit warning, the first in eight years, was subsequently withdrawn, though it did encourage Ken Cronin, chief executive officer of UK Onshore Oil and Gas to claim that Britain was “worryingly dependent on gas imports”, one set to  “increase to 80 percent by 2035.”
The social response to such weather patterns is also a mirror of ritual and practices.  Heavy snow and freezing conditions did their bit to bring out the parlous state of employment in various parts of the country.  Conditions where zero-hour contracts prevail necessitate a braving of conditions when, in other jobs, employees might be able to work from home.
This has prompted movements to take hold with a certain moral bite, such as the Better than Zero campaign in Scotland.  That particular outfit has attempted to enlist employers to resist punitive action against employees who prefer safety over a dash to the workplace.  “No one,” goes one post to the organisation’s Facebook profile, “should be penalised or disciplined for following the advice not to travel to work for their own safety.”
Scotland’s Transport Minister, Humza Yousaf, has spent time discouraging and even scolding such actions. “Frankly I’d be extremely disappointed if employers chose to dock wages for somebody because they couldn’t travel during the red weather warning.”
As with any such collective response, variations abound.  British media have been scouring for the tinsel moments, the necessary distractions that lessen the seriousness of the event. But the entertainment remains fluff to the gloom unleashed by the Beast from the East, working in league with Storm Emma.  A depleted, and freezing Britannia, awaits the thaw.