Commonwealth Medical Fellowships 2018 for Students in Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 21st May 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Bangladesh, Cameroon, The Gambia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia.

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: Commonwealth Medical Fellowships (Enhancing Clinical Skills) are offered for mid-career medical staff from developing Commonwealth countries. These fellowships are funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), with the aim of contributing to the UK’s international development aims and wider overseas interests, supporting excellence in UK higher education, and sustaining the principles of the Commonwealth.
The purpose of this fellowship is to provide mid-career medics with the opportunity to enhance their clinical skills, and to have catalytic effects on their workplaces.
These fellowships are offered under the second of the CSC’s six themes:

1. Science and technology for development
2. Strengthening health systems and capacity
3. Promoting global prosperity
4. Strengthening global peace, security and governance
5. Strengthening resilience and response to crises
6. Access, inclusion and opportunity

Offered Since: 1959

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To apply for these fellowships, you must:

• Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
• Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
• Be employed by a hospital affiliated to a university
• Be available to start your fellowship in the UK in January 2019
• Have qualified as a doctor between 1 October 2008 and 30 September 2011, or before 1 October 2003
• Have qualified at a medical school recognised by the World Directory of Medical Schools
• Have met the English language requirements of the General Medical Council (GMC) by 31 August 2018

You will be expected to participate in clinical practice during your fellowship, and to register with the General Medical Council (GMC). If your proposed programme does not require this registration, your application will be considered ineligible.
The CSC aims to identify talented individuals who have the potential to make change. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity and non-discrimination, and encourage applications from a diverse range of candidates.

Selection Criteria: Each year, the CSC invites each nominating body to submit a specific number of nominations. The deadline for nominating bodies to submit nominations to the CSC is 4 June 2018.

The CSC invites around three times more nominations than fellowships available – therefore, nominated candidates are not guaranteed to be awarded a fellowship.
Each nominated candidate’s application will be considered firstly by an academic adviser with expertise in the subject area concerned, and then by the CSC selection committee in competition with other candidates.
Applications will be considered according to the following selection criteria:

• Academic merit of the candidate
• Quality of the proposal
• Potential impact of the work on the development of the candidate’s home country

Duration of Fellowship:  Between three and six months

Value of Fellowship: Each fellowship provides:

• Approved airfare from your home country to the UK and return at the end of your award (the CSC will not
  reimburse the cost of fares for dependants, nor usually the cost of journeys made before your award is finally
  confirmed)
• Research support grant, payable to your host university hospital
• Stipend (living allowance) at the rate of £1,627 per month, or £2,019 per month for those at university hospitals
  in the London metropolitan area (rates quoted at 2017-2018 levels)
• Reimbursement of the fee for a single English language test and the fee for General Medical Council (GMC)
  registration
• Warm clothing allowance
• Study travel grant towards the costs of approved travel within the UK
• If you are widowed, divorced, or a single parent, child allowance of £457 per month for the first child, and £112
  per month for the second and third child under the age of 16, if you are accompanied by your children and they
  are living with you at the same address in the UK

How to Apply: You must apply to one of the following nominating body in the first instance – the CSC does not accept direct applications for these fellowships:

• Selected universities/medical colleges
• In Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka, the national University Grants Commission
• In Pakistan, the Higher Education Commission

All applications must be made through a nominating body in your home country. Each nominating body is responsible for its own selection process. You must check with your nominating body for their specific advice and rules for applying, and for their own closing date for applications.
You must make your application using the CSC’s application system. Your application must be submitted to and endorsed by one of the eligible nominating bodies listed above. The CSC will not accept any applications that are not submitted via the CSC’s application system to a nominating body in your home country.
All applications must be submitted by 23.59 (BST) on 21 May 2018 at the latest.
You must provide the following supporting documentation, which must be received by the CSC by 23.59 (BST)on 28 May 2018 in order for your application to be eligible for consideration:

• Academic references from at least two individuals

Apply now

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC) and UK Department for International Development (DFID).

HiiL Innovating Justice Challenge 2018 for Entrepreneurs in Africa and Middle East

Application Deadline: 31st May 2018

Eligible Countries: The HiiL Justice Accelerator particularly encourages applications from Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ukraine, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and the Netherlands.

To be taken at (country): The Hague, The Netherlands

Field of Award: The HiiL Justice Accelerator has identified a few key “pain points” across the world, in which areas we particularly encourage applications:

• Family Justice
• Land- and Neighbour Disputes
• Crime and Law Enforcement
• Employment Justice
• Micro, Small and Medium sized Enterprises

Note that if your innovation does not specifically address one of these areas, you are still eligible to apply! Simply make sure to tell us how your startup 1) addresses a specific justice need in your community; and 2) has some sort of a legal element.

About the Award: The HiiL Justice Accelerator finds and supports the world’s best justice entrepreneurs in order to create access to justice for all.
Between 40-50 startups, selected as semi-finalists, will be invited to pitch at local Boostcamps. This year’s Boostcamps will take place in Johannesburg, Lagos, Nairobi, Kampala, Kyiv, and The Hague. In some cases, startups may pitch by Skype or be brought to the nearest Boostcamp. Additionally, these semi-finalists will be guided through a “market validation” process.

Eligibility: 

• (New) Ventures with a strong potential of delivering concrete justice solutions for many people, including micro, small and medium-sized businesses.
• Innovative justice initiatives that are already making a difference and have the potential and ambition to scale internationally or to many more users.
• Unique initiatives that are solving the most pressing justice problems for people, based on evidence and data, in particular family, land, crime or employment issues.
• Ventures that are financially sustainable and have measurable impact.
• Innovative initiatives within existing justice systems or public institutions, spearheaded by driven intrapreneurs that want to see things work differently.

Criteria: who can apply?

• The founder and applicant should be 18 years of age or older.
• The venture must be committed to providing access to justice underpinned by evidence showing justice needs.
• The person(s) with whom we engage should be the founder or a co-founder of the organization and should be able to make key, high-level, and direction-shifting decisions (such as whether or not to take investments and who to partner with) on behalf of the entire organization.
• We can only accept innovations to be incorporated with a bank account in the name of the legal entity by the time they receive our grant funding.

Selection Criteria:

• Scope (is it a justice innovation? is it solving pressing justice problem)
• Impact
• Uniqueness
• Sustainability
• Scalability
• Team

Value of Award: Apply to receive seed funding, training and acceleration support, access to an international expert network and potential further investment opportunities.

How to Apply: Click here to apply

Visit Program Webpage for details

Scholarship Provider: HiiL

SOCAP18 Scholarship to SOCAP Conference for Promising Social Entrepreneurs 2018 – San Francisco, USA

Application Deadline: 1st June, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Scholarship recipients span across the globe

To be taken at (country): Fort Mason Center, San Francisco, USA

About the Award: SOCAP (Social Capital Markets) is a world-renowned conference series dedicated to increasing the flow of capital toward social good.Social entrepreneurs are the heart of SOCAP. They identify new solutions to pressing issues, balancing true impact with sustainable business models. We prioritize support for inspiring entrepreneurs, as they are the future of the social capital markets.
Every year, SOCAP offers scholarships to promising social entrepreneurs. We want your energy and your ideas at the conference! Past SOCAP entrepreneurs have come from over 35 countries on six continents, representing a wide variety of inspiring and innovative ventures.
The most common industries represented among past Scholarship winners are:

• Energy
• Health
• Education
• Agriculture
• Community Development
• Technology
• and Environment

If you are an innovator who is using a market-based solution to solve a challenge that will create real impact, either social or environmental, you are invited to apply for a SOCAP Scholarship.

Offered Since: 2008

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility Criteria: Entrepreneurs are recognized for their outstanding ideas, inspiring stories, and passion for creating sustainable business models

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship is an amazing opportunity for social entrepreneurs! Scholarship recipients receive support including:

• Free SOCAP18 full conference pass (valued at $1495)
• Free hostel accommodations (limited – prioritized for international entrepreneurs)
• Impact Accelerator @SOCAP – a pre-conference program just for entrepreneurs
• Recognition and high visibility in the SOCAP program
• Mentorship from experienced social impact leaders

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

Scholarship Provider: SOCAP (Social Capital Markets)

Important Notes: Scholarship does not include travel expenses. If you know someone who would benefit from this opportunity, please spread the word.

Mozilla Fellowships for Research in Open Science and Data Sharing 2018

Application Deadline: 20th April, 2018 at 11:59PM EDT.

Eligible Countries: All. As long as interested candidate is legally allowed to work in the country they currently reside in.

About the Award: We’re looking for researchers with a passion for open source and data sharing, already working to shift research practice to be more collaborative, iterative and open. Fellows will spend 10 months starting September 2017 as community catalysts at their institutions, mentoring the next generation of open data practitioners and researchers and building lasting change in the global open science community.
Throughout their fellowship term, chosen fellows will receive training and support from Mozilla to hone their skills around open source, data sharing, open science policy and licensing. They will also craft code, curriculum and other learning resources that help their local communities learn open data practices, and teach their institutional peers.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Fellows must be:

• be currently employed at a research institution
• have the ability to accept outside funds for this fellowship directly (i.e., not distributed through the institution)
• be an early-career researcher (i.e., graduate students, post-docs, research scientists, lecturers)
• specialize in scientific research: physical, life, social, library, or natural sciences
• be able to travel
• obtain support from their advisors. As fellows will be based at their home institutions, please note that a letter of support from their advisor is mandatory for consideration
• have experience participating in open communities

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Fellows will receive:

• a stipend of $60,000 USD, paid in 10 monthly installments
• a one-time health insurance supplement for Fellows and their families, ranging from $3,500 for single Fellows to $7,000 for a couple with two or more children
• a one-time childcare allotment of up to $6,000 for families with children
• an allowance of up to $3,000 towards the purchase of laptop computer, digital cameras, recorders and computer software; fees for continuing studies or other courses, research fees or payments, to the extent such purchases and fees are related to the fellowship
• coverage in full for all approved fellowship trips – domestic and international

Duration of Fellowship: 10 months

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Mozilla

Important Notes: Fellows are encouraged to continue their personal research for up to 20% of their time during the course of their fellowship (i.e., one day a week). Fellowship applicants must have buy-in from their supervisors in advance, and include Advisors’ contact information on the application. Advisors will be interviewed separately should applicants move on to the second round, and their support will be a critical consideration for acceptance of fellows.

Talent Meets Bertelsmann for Creative Student Entrepreneurs (Fully-funded to Berlin, Germany) 2018

Application Deadline: 13th May 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany

About the Award: This year, it’s all about data. And all about your ideas: Are you ready to shape the digital future?

We are looking for talents with an entrepreneurial, innovative mindset to take part in Talent Meets Bertelsmann (TMB) 2018. Are you creative and passionate about the media landscape and data-driven business models? Then take your chance: Get to meet members of our Executive Board and other top international leaders. You will participate in demanding workshops, working hand in hand with experienced entrepreneurs on key business ideas, which will be evaluated by a jury composed of Bertelsmann’s Executive Board members.
Use the opportunity to explore the different people working for Bertelsmann and make memories that will last a lifetime!

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

• Bachelor, Master, MBA students or doctoral candidates, ideally in the field of economics, humanities, media management or business informatics with a keen interest in data science
• Talents who are experienced in developing creative and innovative business models and fascinated by cutting-edge digital trends
• Participants with a demonstrated affinity for media and data projects conducted outside of a school or university context
• Students or graduates with an above-average academic performance as well as strong analytical and conceptual abilities
• People with strong communication skills who are fluent in written and spoken English

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: 

• An invitation to Berlin from July 2 to July 4, 2018.
• The opportunity to take part in workshops on future trends in our business areas.
• Attractive prizes for the best ideas and designs.
• An unforgettable party, complete with a concert from a BMG Rights Management talent.
• Individualized career consulting and outstanding networking opportunities.
• Membership in the extraordinary “Talent Meets Bertelsmann“ network, which gives you the chance to build a long-term relationship with us.

How to Apply: To access the online application, click here!

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award  Provider: Talent Meets Bertelsmann Network

Schwarzman Scholars Fully-funded Masters Scholarship for International Students 2018/2019 – China

Application Deadlines: 27th September 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All (except Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macao)

To be taken at (country): Tsinghua University, Beijing, China (students live and study together on the campus of Schwarzman College, a newly-built, state-of-the-art facility, where all classes will be taught in English.)

Fields of Study:  Masters degree programmes in one of these three disciplines:

• Public Policy
• Economics and Business
• International Studies

What will be taught: Business, Social sciences, Leadership skills

About the Award: Enrolling the inaugural class in 2016, the program will give the world’s best and brightest students the opportunity to develop their leadership skills and professional networks through a one-year Master’s Degree at Tsinghua University in Beijing – one of China’s most prestigious universities.
With a $350 million endowment, Schwarzman Scholars will be the single largest philanthropic effort ever undertaken in China by largely international donors. The extraordinary students selected to become Schwarzman Scholars will receive a comprehensive scholarship.

Schwarzman Scholars was inspired by the Rhodes Scholarship, which was founded in 1902 to promote international understanding and peace, and is designed to meet the challenges of the 21st century and beyond. Blackstone Co-Founder Stephen A. Schwarzman personally contributed $100 million to the program and is leading a fundraising campaign to raise an additional $350 million from private sources to endow the program in perpetuity. The $450 million endowment will support up to 200 scholars annually from the U.S., China and around the world for a one-year Master’s Degree program at Tsinghua University in Beijing, one of China’s most prestigious universities and an indispensable base for the country’s scientific and technological research. Scholars chosen for this highly selective program will live in Beijing for a year of study and cultural immersion, attending lectures, traveling, and developing a better understanding of China.

Type: Masters Degree

Offered Since: 2015

Eligibility: The following criteria must be met by all candidates:

• Undergraduate degree or first degree from an accredited college or university or its equivalent. Applicants who are currently enrolled in undergraduate degree programs must be on track to successfully complete all degree requirements before orientation begins in 1 August 2019. There are no requirements for a specific field of undergraduate study; all fields are welcome, but it will be important for applicants, regardless of undergraduate major, to articulate how participating in Schwarzman Scholars will help develop their leadership potential within their field.
• Age. Applicants must be at least 18 but not yet 29 years of age as of 1 August 2019
• Citizenship. There are no citizenship or nationality requirements
• English language proficiency. Applicants must demonstrate strong English Language skills, as all teaching will be conducted in English. If the applicant’s native language is not English, official English proficiency test scores must be submitted with the application. Acceptable test options are:
  • Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL PBT)
  • Internet-based Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL iBT)
  • International English Language Testing System (IELTS)
  This requirement is waived for applicants who graduated from an undergraduate institution where the primary language of instruction was English for at least three years of the applicant’s academic program.

Number of Awardees: Up to 200 exceptional men and women will be accepted into the program each year. The class that begins in summer 2019 will include 125 scholars, and the program will grow to include up to 200 students in coming years.

Value of Scholarship: 

• Semi-finalist interview expenses, such as economy class air or train travel, group meals and one night in a hotel if needed, will be arranged and covered by the program.
• Expenses for successful Schwarzman Scholars are also FULLY covered by the program.
• It will include Tuition and fees, Room and board, Travel to and from Beijing at the beginning and end of the academic year, An in-country study tour,
• Required course books and supplies, Lenovo laptop and smartphone, Health insurance, and
• A modest personal stipend.

Duration of Scholarship: 1 year

How to Apply: There is no fee associated with applying to the Schwarzman Scholars program. To apply, you will need to complete and successfully submit an online application form, including all required documents and essays before the deadline date.
Visit the official website (link below) for complete information on how to apply to this scholarship programme.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Schwarzman Scholars

NORPART Call for Applications 2018 – Funding between Norway and Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 31st May 2018

Offered annually? The call is open to long-term project cooperation with a project period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023

Eligible Countries: A list of 39 relevant countries have been developed, all of which are potential partner countries for Norwegian development cooperation.
Africa: Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe
Other Countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, East Timor, Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestine, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam

About the Program: The programme will support academic partnerships and student mobility with an emphasis on the Master and PhD level. The programme addresses both higher education policy and development policy goals.
Objectives of NORPART: The programme shall lead to:

• Strengthened partnerships for education and research between developing countries and Norway
• Increased quality and internationalisation of academic programmes at participating institutions
• Increased mobility of students from developing countries to Norway, including mobility in connection with work placements
• Increased mobility of students from Norway to developing countries, including mobility in connection with work placements

Offered Since: 2016

Eligibility Criteria: In order to be eligible, applications must meet the following requirements:

• The applicant must be an accredited Norwegian higher education institution.
  The application must include at least one partner that is an accredited higher education institution in one of the NORPART partner countries.
• A curriculum vitae (CV) for the project coordinator must be uploaded.
• Applications must be written in English and be submitted fully completed, including attachments, through SIU’s online platform for applications and reporting (Espresso) within the call’s final deadline.
• All project activities described in the application must be completed within the project period defined in the duration below.

Failure to meet the above criteria will lead to dismissal of the application.
Selection criteria: The eligible applications’ relative strength will be assessed on the degree to which they are
deemed able to meet the following selection criteria:

• The project’s relevance to the overall aim and objectives of the programme
• The quality of the project design, including:
  • the application’s overall clarity and quality
  • correspondence between project goals, proposed activities, budget allocations and expected project results
  • demonstration of cost-effectiveness
  • the sustainability of the project results
  • the project’s feasibility, including the feasibility of the plans for student mobility
• The quality of the partnership, including:
  • complementarity, experience and expertise of the project team
  • level of formalised commitment
  • potential for long-term collaboration between the partners
  • the degree to which the partnership is based on mutual academic interests and capacity within relevant academic programmes at the participating institutions
  • documented synergies with other funding programmes, such as Erasmus+, Horizon 2020, other international and regional programmes for higher education and research in the partner countries, NORHED, NORGLOBAL and other Norwegian-funded programmes.

In line with the Sustainable Development Goals’ commitment to leave no one behind, the following cross-cutting issues will be assessed as they pertain to all the three abovementioned selection criteria: Gender perspectives and gender equality in project activities; female participation in project activities, including student mobility; inclusive practices towards indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable or marginalised groups of society; and transparency and anti-corruption measures.
Please note that the selection criteria correspond to various compulsory fields in the online Espresso application form, and that the application’s ability to meet these relative criteria will be assessed on the basis of the description provided. In order to ensure coherence and a logical order in the description of your project, please read the relevant help texts in the online application form as well as the “Guidelines for applicants” carefully. Remaining questions may be directed to SIU.

Value: The total funds made available in this call are approximately NOK 90 million.  Each application may be awarded up to 5 000 000 Norwegian kroner (NOK).

Duration: The call is open to long-term project cooperation with a project period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023.

How to Apply: The applications should be prepared jointly by the main partner institution in Norway and the other partner institution(s).

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: NORPART is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and is administered by the Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education (SIU).

Important Notes:

• All applicants will be notified of the outcome of the application process, tentatively in November 2019.

ITC Excellence Scholarship Programme for Students from Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 22nd April 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): The Netherlands

About the Award: The ITC Excellence Scholarship Programme is available for excellent students applying for ITC’s
Master’s degree programme Geo-information Science and Earth Observation with specializations in:
– Applied Remote Sensing for Earth Sciences
– Natural Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction
– Geoinformatics
– Land Administration
– Natural Resources Management
– Urban Planning and Management-
– Water Resources and Environmental Management.

Eligible Field of Study (Students must have a Bachelors degree in): Agriculture, forestry and fishery, Architecture and town planning, Environmental Sciences, Mathematics and computer sciences, Natural sciences, Other, Transport and communication.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Additional requirements for the application for the ITC Excellence Scholarship Programme include:
– Residing in and being a national of a country listed on the OECD approved List of Recipients of Official Development Assistance
– Having completed the Bachelor’s degree from a well-acknowledged university outside the Netherlands
– Academic performance among the top 10%
– English: IELTS 6.5
– Relevant background for the intended field of study
– Not eligible for support under the Dutch system of study grants and loans

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: As this is a partial scholarship, admitted applicants must be able to show that additional funding is available to complement the funding through this scholarship (i.e. covering all remaining fees and costs in full before the payment deadline).
Extra facilities: Next to the standard study programme in which the applicant will be enrolled:

• Students receiving an ITC-ES and who perform excellently during the course may be offered some additional academic research courses or workshops.
• Depending on the study and thesis research results, a selected limited number of students will be offered a 3-month study extension during which either a scientific paper or a PhD research proposal can be developed.

Duration of Program: 2 years

How to Apply: 

• First, you must have applied for the ITC course of your interest through the on-line application system and have received an academic acceptance letter.
• If subsequently you are interested to apply to the ITC Excellence Scholarship Programme, you will have to send the completed application form.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: University of Twente

Nigerian Agip Oil Company Tertiary Scholarship Scheme for Undergraduate Nigerian Students 2018

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018

About the Award: Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited (NAOC) Joint Venture in pursuance of its Community Development Programme invites suitably qualified candidates for its 2017/2018 Tertiary Institutions Scholarship Awards Scheme.

Eligible Countries: Nigerian Students

To be taken at (country): Nigerian tertiary institutions

• Host Communities Merit Award: For applicants strictly from NAOC host communities
• National Merit Award: For applicants from non-host communities

Fields of Study: Only applicants studying Engineering, Geology, Geosciences and Agricultural Science are eligible for the National Merit Award.

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility
To qualify for consideration, applicants MUST be:

• Registered Full TIME undergraduates in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions
• Certified 100 level students at the time of application

NOTE: The following categories of students should NOT apply:

• 200 level students and above
• Current beneficiaries of similar awards from other companies and agencies
• Dependants of employees of NAOC, AENR and NAE

Number of Scholarships: Several

What are the benefits? Monetary financial aid

Duration of Scholarship: As determined by the sponsor

How to Apply

1. Before you start this application, ensure you have clear scanned copies of the following documents
   • Passport photograph with white background not more than 3 months old (450px by 450px not more than 200kb)
   • School ID card
   • O’Level Certificate
   • Admission letter
   • Birth certificate
   • Proof of Local Government Area of Origin
   • Letter from Community Paramount Ruler
   • Letter from CDC Chairman
   • JAMB Result
2. Ensure the documents are named according to what they represent to avoid mixing up documents during upload
3. Ensure you attach the appropriate documents when asked to upload
4. Ensure to provide valid Email and Phone Contact for effective communication

For further information on how to apply for this scholarship, Visit the Scholarship Webpage

Sponsors: Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited (NAOC), Operator of the NNPC/NAOC/Phillips Joint Venture

Important Notes:

• Please ensure you understand the Instructions carefully before you start application to avoid errors and disqualification.
•  The aptitude test will take place at designated centers to be communicated to applicants on a later date and applicants are to fully bear the cost of transportation to and from Aptitude test centres.

Striking Syria: The Real Reasons

Chandra Muzaffar

The United States government has once again shamelessly violated international law. There was no legal or moral justification for launching more than a 100 missile strikes against so-called chemical weapons’ sites in Syria on the 14th of April 2018. Unlike the last strike targeting a single airfield in April 2017 which was also in retaliation for President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of sarin gas against civilians, the US was joined in its assault this time by its allies, Britain and France.The three Western powers claimed that they had strong evidence that the Assad government had again employed chemical weapons in Douma on the 7th of April, killing scores of civilians, including children.

If the evidence was so compelling, why didn’t the US President present it to the US Congress and seek its endorsement for military action, as required by law? Why didn’t the British Prime Minister seek approval from her Parliament, instead of getting a Cabinet cabal to endorse her war plan? The French President also erred in this respect. One could go further and ask why Washington did not share the evidence it had with Moscow, Syria’s staunchest protector?  Or, with other members of the UN Security Council, apart from Britain and France?

Is it because the so-called evidence was obtained from dubious sources — such as the terrorist group, Jaish al- Islam which was fighting the Assad government and in control of parts of Doumaon the 7th of April? Were the White Helmets, a fake civil defence outfit established by British intelligence and funded by both Britain and the US yet another supplier of ‘evidence’? Or as it has happened on numerous occasions in the past, was the ‘evidence’ generated by  Mossad, Israel’s intelligence network, in pursuit of its own nefarious agenda ?

The source or sources of evidence of Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons is an issue that has to be explored thoroughly for an obvious reason. Since the beginning of the war in Syria in 2011, there have been at least half a dozen alleged episodes of Assad resorting to chemical weapons in order to eliminate his adversaries which after independent investigations have turned out to be false flag operations or gross distortions of what had really occurred. In fact, some analysts are of the view that a terrorist group had stage managed the 7th April Douma episode and then put the blame upon the Syrian government to justify foreign intervention. Ghouta in 2013 was also a false flag operation, according to the celebrated investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh. Let’s not forget that Syria’s neighbourhood has witnessed some major false flag operations including that monstrous lie about Saddam Hussein’s ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in 2002-3.

What lends credence to this view about fabricating evidence and false flag operations is the actual situation on the ground. Why should Assad employ chemical weapons when he is on the cusp of total victory over his terrorist opponents and other militants? How does it benefit him? Why should he deliberately elicit the wrath of people everywhere when he is already in a position of strength? Besides, he had surrendered his arsenal of chemical weapons to the UN affiliated Dutch based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 2013. This was verified by the OPCW. It was also the OPCW that established some time ago that one of the three facilities destroyed by Western missiles on the 14th of April was in fact a civilian pharmaceutical and chemical research centremanufacturing among other things drugs for cancer treatment necessitated by the embargo imposed upon Syria.

With all this as the backdrop, one is not surprised that the US and its allies chose to attack Syria on the eve of the visit of the OPCW to Douma to verify whether, and what type of, chemical weapons were used on the 7th of April. Were the aggressors afraid that the truth about the 7th April episode would expose them? Was the attack a move meant to render the OPCW investigation academic?

Given these and a multitude of other questions hanging over the allegation about Assad’s chemical weapons, why were the US and its allies in such a hurry to strike Syria? Before we attempt to answer that question, we must understand that the US and Israel have for decades regarded Syria, together with Iran and the Hezbollah, as the unyielding obstacle to their persistent drive to dominate and control the region. To put it in another language, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah constitute the triumvirate of resistance to the US-Israel Agenda of Hegemony over West Asia and North Africa (WANA). Israel in particular seeks to curtail and if possible crush each of the three for similar and dissimilar reasons. Since our concern is with Syriawe shall examine why the leadership of that country is in Israel’s radar.

For Israel, control over Syria’s Golan Heights is vital for its security. Israel’s notion of security is defined by its ability to control and dominate its neighbours such as Syria and Lebanon. The Golan Heights which Israel captured in the 1967 War was formally annexed on 14 December 1981. It is important to note that it supplies water to Israel and contains oil, gas and minerals.  With annexation, Israel asserted its perpetual sovereignty over Golan which to this day international law recognises as part of Syria. To translate its illegal annexation into political reality, Israel has for a number of years sought to oust the independent minded government in Damascus and replace it with a puppet regime. It saw the uprising that broke out in March 2011 in a small township in Syria as an opportunity and backed the rebels. Very soon, the rebels were joined by militants, many of whom were linked to various terrorist outfits. These terrorist outfits such as Al-Qaeda were financed by countries in the region and trained and equipped by groups in WANA and from Europe and the US. It is not widely known for instance that Israel itself has provided arms to seven different terror groups in Syria.

By the middle of 2015, Israel and other supporters of these groups within WANA such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey and those outside the region such as the US, Britain and France, were confident that they would be able to oust Bashar Assad, based upon the vast swathes of land and resources that the anti-Assad forces had seized. Realising that its longstanding ally in WANA was in mortal danger, Russia decided to intervene militarily in September 2015. It fortified the Syrian Army, and with the assistance of Hezbollah and Iranian advisers and militias, Russia intensified the fight against terrorist groups in Syria. Within 20 months it was obvious that the tide had changed. The Bashar government, buttressed by Russia, had regained control of most of Syria by the last quarter of 2017. Douma was in a sense one of the last footholds of one of the terrorist groups. With defeat staring in the face of not only the terrorists but also Israel, some other regional players and of course the US and its allies, the latter decided hastily to strike against Syria on the 14th of April.

Defeat in Syria is more than defeat in one Arab state. It portends a significant shift in the power balance in the entire region. Russia may well emerge as the pivot of this change with crucial roles for Iran and Syria and other players. It is a scenario that is totally unacceptable to the US and its allies like Britain and France. Incidentally, all three at various points in the present and the past have been imperialist powers in the region.

It is not a coincidence that in all these three countries, Israel and Zionism exercise inordinate influence. Israel has always viewed the US and to a lesser extent Britain and France as the protectors of a power structure in WANA that guarantees its own regional hegemony. It is because Israel and its protectors are now uncertain about their dominance that they have chosen to flex their muscles.

7 Questions About the Syria Airstrikes That Aren’t Being Asked

Richard (RJ) Eskow

“Mission accomplished,” says the President. What, exactly, was the mission? And what exactly was accomplished?

Donald Trump is being mocked for using this phrase in a tweet to praise what he claims was a “perfectly executed” airstrike against chemical weapons facilities in Syria. This recalls George W. Bush’s egregious evocation of the phrase in 2003 to claim an early end to the U.S. entanglement in Iraq, which is still ongoing fifteen years later.

History made a fool of Bush for that proclamation, which was printed on a banner behind the President as he delivered his speech proclaiming an end to the Iraqi conflict on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

But Bush’s foolish and lethal incursion to Iraq had the backing of virtually the entire national-security establishment. So did Donald Trump’s bombing attack on Syria, as did the bombing attack he ordered last year.

The Costs of Intervention

U.S. media, for the most part, reinforce the idea that intervention by our military is the preferred solution to global conflicts. Some of the same reporters who now mock Trump for saying “Mission Accomplished” cheered on Bush’s invasion of Iraq. They remember Bush’s errors, but not their own.

The media’s job, we are told, is to ask skeptical questions about the people in power. That didn’t happen much in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, and it’s not happening now. Here are the questions that should be asked – not just on the eve of a bombing attack, but every day we continue our disastrous and drifting military intervention in the Middle East.

1. Why couldn’t the military wait for inspectors to do their jobs?

Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an international non-proliferation organization, were scheduled to arrive in Douma, Syria on Saturday, April 15 to begin investigating the reported chemical attack on civilians there. The airstrikes took place on Friday, April 14.

This is a disturbing echo of the 2003 Iraq invasion. There, too, the United States was unwilling to wait for international inspectors to discover the facts before beginning the attack. Fifteen years on, we know that didn’t work out very well. Why couldn’t the bombing of Syria wait for inspectors to do their work?

2. How do we know we’re being told the truth?

“We are confident that we have crippled Syria’s chemical weapons program,” said U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. That statement was echoed by military leaders. But a report from Agence France Presse suggests that one destroyed building, described by attacking forces as a chemical-weapons facility, was actually a pharmaceutical and research facility specializing in food testing and antivenoms for scorpion and snake bites.

“If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here,” said someone who identified himself as an engineer who worked at the facility.

Given our country’s long history of public deception from military and civilian officials, why aren’t we demanding independent confirmation of the airstrikes’ effectiveness?

3.Have strikes like these ever really “punished” a country’s leader – or “sent them a message,” for that matter?

We keep hearing the cliché that airstrikes like these are meant to “punish” leaders like Assad. This time was no different. And yet, it’s unlikely that Assad personally suffered as a result of this attack.

So who, really, are we punishing?

Then there’s this comment, from Defense Secretary James Mattis: “Together we have sent a clear message to Assad and his murderous lieutenants that they should not perpetrate another chemical weapons attack.”

That was also the presumed purpose of Trump’s last missile attack on Syria, less than a year ago. Trump supporters claimed that attack sent a forceful “message,” too – to Assad, to Putin, the Chinese, and others. “With just one strike that message was sent to all these people,” claimed former Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka.

The situation in Syria did not perceptibly change after that attack. And the day after this latest airstrike, Assad launched a new round of airstrikes of his own.

These airstrikes seem more performative than tactical – warfare as theater, but with real lives at stake. There must be better ways to send a message.

4. Why isn’t the full range of U.S. activity in Syria getting more coverage?

Thanks to widespread under-reporting of U.S. involvement in Syria, commentators can complain about “years of unmasterly inactivity by the democracies” with a straight face, wrongly blaming that nation’s disasters on a failure to intervene.

In a paragraph that was subsequently deleted from its website, the Washington Post wrote that the latest airstrikes “capped nearly a week of debate in which Pentagon leaders voiced concerns that an attack could pull the United States into Syria’s civil war.” As of this writing, that language can still be found in syndicated versions of the article.

We were pulled into that civil war a long time ago.  The United States has more than 2,000 troops in Syria, a fact that was not immediately revealed to the American people. That figure is understated, although the Pentagon will not say by how much, since it excludes troops on classified missions and some Special Forces personnel.

Before Trump raised the troop count, the CIA was spending $1 billion per year supporting anti-government militias under President Obama.  That hasn’t prevented a rash of commentary complaining about U.S. “inaction” in Syria before Trump took office. It didn’t prevent additional chaos and death, either – and probably made the situation worse.

5. Where are the advocates for a smarter national security policy?

There’s been very little real debate inside the national security establishment about the wisdom of these strikes, and what debate there has been has focused on the margins. Anne-Marie Slaughter, a senior State Department official under Secretary Hillary Clinton in the Obama administration, tweeted:

I believe that the U.S., U.K, & France did the right thing by striking Syria over chemical weapons. It will not stop the war nor save the Syrian people from many other horrors. It is illegal under international law. But it at least draws a line somewhere & says enough.

In other words: This attack will not achieve any tactical goals or save any lives. And it is illegal – just as chemical weapons attacks are illegal – under international law. It’s illegal under U.S. law, too, which is the primary focus of Democratic criticism.

But, says Slaughter, the amorphous goals of “drawing a line” and “saying enough” make it worthwhile, for reasons that are never articulated.

Michèle Flournoy, who served as Under Secretary of Defense under President Obama and was considered a leading Defense Secretary prospect in a Hillary Clinton Administration, said:

• What Trump got right: upheld the international norm against [chemical weapon] use, built international support for and participation in the strikes, sought to minimize collateral damage — Syrian, Russian, Iranian.
• What Trump got wrong: continuing to use taunting, name-calling tweets as his primary form of (un)presidential communication; failing to seriously consult Congress before deciding to launch the strikes; after more than a year in office, still no coherent Syria strategy.

How can a country uphold international norms by violating international law?

If Trump lacks a coherent Syria policy, he has company. Obama’s policy toward Syria shifted and drifted. Hillary Clinton backed Trump’s last round of airstrikes and proposed a “no-fly” policy for Syria that could have quickly escalated into open confrontation with Russia.

The country deserves a rational alternative to Trump’s impulsivity and John Bolton’s extreme bellicosity and bigotry. When it comes to foreign policy, we need a real opposition party. What will it take to develop one?

Commentators have been pushing Trump to take aggressive military action in Syria, despite the potential for military conflict with nuclear-armed Russia. MSNBC’s Dana Bash accused Trump of “an inexplicable lack of resolve regarding Russia” – leaving the audience to make its own inferences – adding, “We have not been willing to take them on.”

In the same segment, reported by FAIR’s Adam Johnson, Bash complained that “the U.S. hasn’t done “a very good job pushing Russia out of the way,” adding that “we’ve let Russia have too free a hand, in my view, in the skies over Syria.”  Her colleague Andrea Mitchell responded that “the criticism is that the president is reluctant to go after Russia.”

The Drum Beats On

“Mission accomplished.”

This drumbeat of political pressure has forced Trump’s hand. He has now directed missiles against Syria, twice. Both attacks carried the risk of military confrontation with the world’s other nuclear superpower.

That risk is greater than most people realize, as historian and military strategist Maj. Danny Sjursen explained in our recent conversation.

Trump has now adopted a more aggressive military posture against Russia than Barack Obama. Whatever his personal involvement with the Russian government turns out to have been, it is in nobody’s best interests to heighten tensions between two nuclear superpowers.

The national security establishment has been promoting a confrontational approach, but they’ve been unable to explain how that would lead to a better outcome for the US or the world – just as they’ve been unable to explain how unilateral military intervention can lead to a good outcome in Syria.

7. Did the airstrikes make Trump “presidential”?

“Amid distraction and dysfunction,” wrote Mike Allen and Jonathan Swan for Axios, “Trump looked and acted like a traditional commander-in-chief last night.”

The constitutional phrase, “Commander in Chief,” was originally understood to underscore the fact that the military is under civilian control. It has devolved into a title that confers a quasi-military rank on the president.  That’s getting it backwards. The fetishization of all things military is one of the reasons we can’t have a balanced debate about military intervention.

Besides, saying that an act of war makes Trump “presidential” – that’s so 2017!

Here’s a suggestion: In 1963, John F. Kennedy rejected his generals’ advice to strike Soviet installations during the Cuban missile crisis.

Rejecting reckless calls to military action: Now that’s a “presidential” act worth bringing back.

US and Britain hit Chinese telecom company ZTE

Nick Beams

In an escalation of inter-linked trade and national security wars, Britain and the US have taken action against the major Chinese telecom company ZTE, effectively banning it from both countries.

Yesterday, the British National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) ordered the UK telecom sector not to use equipment or services from ZTE, as it would have a “long-term negative effect on the security of the UK.”

Hours later, the US Commerce Department announced it was banning the sale of components to ZTE for seven years. This was said to be enforcing an agreement the company entered when it pleaded guilty in March 2017 to breaching bans on sales to North Korea and Iran.

Under that deal, ZTE paid some $1.2 billion in fines and said it would take action against those involved. Four company directors were sacked but the Commerce Department said bonuses were paid to other employees that were involved. ZTE had “misled” it and so it was invoking the seven-year suspension.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said: “Instead of reprimanding ZTE staff and senior management, ZTE rewarded them. This egregious behaviour cannot be ignored.”

These declarations ring rather hollow. Senior US banking executives have been regularly rewarded with increased bonuses in the wake of the malpractices that led to the crisis of 2008.

In an indication that other reasons were involved, the Commerce Department said the company had argued “it would have been irrational for ZTE to knowingly or intentionally mislead the US government in light of the seriousness of the suspended sanctions.”

Commerce Department officials, cited by the Financial Times, claimed its actions were not related to the recent measures initiated by the White House targeting Chinese companies operating under the “Made in China 2025” program, by which China is seeking to advance its high-tech development in telecommunications and other areas.

“The timing of this is somewhat unfortunate because it could make it seem like they are connected,” a senior Commerce Department official said.

Under the decision, US companies are banned from conducting any business with ZTE in the US or anywhere else in the world.

Last year ZTE purchased as much as $1.6 billion worth of products from US chip makers, and is a significant customer of both Qualcomm and Intel. It has sold handset services to major US companies, including AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint.

A smaller US company, Acacia Communications, that supplies ZTE has been hard hit. Last year it derived 30 percent of its $385.2 million of revenue from sales to ZTE. Its shares fell 35 percent in trading yesterday.

The Commerce Department action came amid calls for more aggressive moves by US authorities against Chinese communications and telecom firms.

Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai issued an op-ed piece on Fox News.com yesterday, warning that a hostile foreign power could exploit the US telecom supply chain to “spy on Americans or attack our critical infrastructure by injecting viruses or launching denial-of-service attacks.”

The FCC earlier this month proposed rules that would make it more difficult for Chinese firms, such as Huawei and ZTE, to sell equipment to small rural US providers.

Last month the US fears of Chinese telecommunication advances were highlighted by the Trump administration’s decision, on the basis of a finding by the Committee for Foreign Investment in the US, to ban a proposed takeover by the US firm Broadcom of the high-tech company Qualcomm because it would advantage Huawei in the development of 5G phone technology.

The British decision to ban ZTE was taken on national security grounds. The NCSC said that if ZTE became a big supplier to the UK it could pose a risk to measures it has taken against Huawei, which is a big supplier to the British telecom sector. Huawei agreed some years ago to set up a centre where its components can be broken down and inspected.

In a letter to British telecom firms, NCSC technical director Ian Levy wrote: “The UK telecommunications network already contains a significant amount of equipment supplied by Huawei. Adding in new equipment and services from another Chinese supplier would render our existing mitigations ineffective.”

The NCSC said it was concerned over new Chinese laws which it claimed gave Beijing “wide-ranging powers of compulsion” that could force companies to infiltrate or sabotage telecommunications infrastructure.

The US and British actions against ZTE were accompanied by a broader offensive by the two imperialist powers following the attack on Syria over the weekend.

Yesterday, the UK and US governments issued a joint warning about Russian cyber attacks on government and private organisations.

US Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary Jeanette Manfra said the government had a “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind alleged intrusions.

“We hold the Kremlin responsible for its malicious cyber activities,” she said, claiming that Russia was trying to seize control of connectivity, including routers, and firewall detection systems, with a view to espionage, intellectual property theft or positioning for offensive action.

The head of the British NCSC, Ciarin Martin, said “there are millions of machines being targeted globally” and the alert was part of an allied “fightback against state-sponsored aggression in cyber space.”

The measures against ZTE, the trade war against China over its high-tech development and the warnings of cyber attacks, coupled with the missile attacks on Syria and the anti-Russia propaganda campaign, are part of an integrated offensive. The US is seeking to overcome its decline through economic and military warfare.