Armenia’s People-Power Revolution, Russia, and the Western Bloc

 David Boyajian

As we write this, massive peaceful civil actions against Armenia’s establishment have continued under the leadership of Nikol Pashinyan, a National Assembly (N.A.) member who is part of the opposition Yelk (Way Out) Alliance. Though widely unpopular Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan has been forced to resign, his Republican Party (RPA) still has a narrow majority (58 of 105) in the N.A.  Most observers believe that the RPA members were elected through fraud, bribery, and intimidation.

The RPA’s politicians and oligarchs are also generally blamed for stealing billions of the country’s wealth; violating civil rights; debasing the judiciary and civil service; keeping the talented Armenian Diaspora at arm’s length; and failing to successfully address Armenia’s many problems: corruption, a less-than-robust economy, unemployment, outward migration, and more.

A bright spot: Christian Armenia and its brother Artsakh/Karabagh Republic survive, even though blockaded by genocidal Turkey and Turkic/Muslim Azerbaijan who outnumber Armenians by 90 million people.  This miracle is due to the tenacity of Armenia’s people and armed forces.

As Armenia is a long-time friend and admirer of our country, we Americans need to understand it.

Why Armenia Matters

The current revolution is home-grown and purely Armenian. Outside powers – whether countries or organizations – neither initiated nor control the revolution.  Still, major nations definitely have strong opinions, usually unstated, about the present crisis.

Russia loathes the revolution. Russia wants Armenia to continue to be highly dependent on it for natural gas, the nuclear power plant and energy grid, investments, sophisticated weapons, and the right to travel to Russia to work and sometimes deposit stolen money. Ongoing corruption in Armenia makes it easier for Russia to bribe, intimidate, and blackmail dishonest leaders and oligarchs, represented mainly by the RPA.  A Russian base guards Armenia’s border with Turkey.

Why is Russia so intent on controlling its small ally? Because without Armenia, Russia would lose its grip on the Caucasus, Caspian Sea, and probably Central Asia. The US/NATO/EU/Turkey (“Western Bloc”) would then move in. Thus perched along the Russian Bear’s soft underbelly, NATO would slice it open and have his insides for dinner. Thus, Russia needs Armenia far more than it cares to admit.

Georgia was coopted by the Western Bloc years ago. It has invested billions in Georgia, which desires NATO membership as protection against Russia.

Azerbaijan, corrupt and a virtual dictatorship, but flush with oil and gas income, has also expressed interest in joining NATO.  Over 27 years, the Western Bloc has invested untold billions in Azerbaijan in such sectors as energy, banking, hotels, aviation, agriculture, and consulting.  The Western Bloc has also constructed major oil and gas pipelines from Azerbaijan’s Caspian fields through Georgia and into Turkey and beyond.  More such pipelines (to supply Europe) are planned.

Interestingly, Israel receives around 40% of its oil from Azerbaijan and sells it billions in weapons. Major Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee provide Azerbaijan political support while, sadly, a coterie of Jewish writers constantly and unfairly berate Armenia in the US and international media.

The Pan-Turkic Path

Turkey’s long-standing dream is a pan-Turkic path from Turkey to Azerbaijan, then across the Caspian Sea to the four Central Asian Turkic countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.  The Western Bloc has implicitly bought into pan-Turkism in order to exploit the region’s energy deposits and, as explained, perch along Russia’s underbelly.

Georgia – predominantly non-Turkic and Christian – serves as the Western Bloc’s door into the Caucasus.  Of course, Georgia remains under Russian pressure. Witness not only Russia’s support for Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but also Georgia’s defeat in the 2008 Russian-Georgian war.  All that pressure becomes meaningless, however, were Russia to lose Armenia to the Western Bloc.

Russia would then have no military or operational base in the Caucasus.  Moreover, if Armenia got off its dependence on Russian energy and military equipment, Russia would have little ability to pressure Armenia, especially as the two lack a common border.

The Western Bloc’s path to the Caspian Sea (which a NATO fleet would dominate) and Central Asia would be wide open.  NATO would probably eventually sit along Iran’s northern border.

Russia could also lose its mainly Muslim North Caucasus regions (Chechnya, Daghestan, etc.) to the Western Bloc.

‘As Armenia goes, so goes the Caucasus, Caspian, and Central Asia’ is a fair statement. For Russia, Armenia is vital – perhaps a matter of life or death. Russia needs Armenia far more than it will admit.

Unfortunately, many Armenians who see Russia as a Christian “big brother” don’t realize that the Russian-Armenian relationship should be a two-way street.

Would Armenia ever join the Western Bloc?

Armenia’s Dilemma

To dissuade it from explicitly joining the Western Bloc, Russia is flattering Azerbaijan as a “strategic partner” (which it really isn’t) and sells it weapons that it will use against Armenia/Artsakh. Russia is also cozying up to Turkey to pull it away from the Western Bloc.  It won’t work.  Turkey and Azerbaijan (“One nation, two states”) are historically and inherently hostile to Russia.   But it makes Armenia nervous nevertheless.

Armenia’s main concern is security. Armenians remember the Genocide of 1915-23 and numerous anti-Armenian massacres committed by Turks against Armenians in the last 150 years.  Since 1991, Turkey has threatened several times to attack Armenia. In 1993, Turkey and the Muslim Chechen Speaker of the Russian Duma hatched a plan to invade Armenia while Russia stood aside. Turkey also arms and trains the Azerbaijani army.

And Azeris have long committed massacres against Armenians – as recently as the late 1980s, early 1990s, and currently against Armenians in Artsakh/Karabagh.

Armenians know this history very well. Western Bloc attempts to reassure Armenia that Turkish intentions are benign are understandably treated with derision. With Turkey’s return to its traditional authoritarianism and repression, and its ongoing alliance with jihadists in Syria, even the Western Bloc is reconsidering its long-standing sycophantic treatment of Turkey.

However, Armenians know that Russia may go too far in accommodating Turkey and Azerbaijan and thereby betray Armenia.

After WWI, Turkey used weapons supplied by Bolshevik Russia to exterminate the former’s remaining Armenian citizens and invade the independent Republic of Armenia.  Russia also gifted Armenian territory, including Artsakh and Nakhichevan, to Azerbaijan. Russia prevented Armenia from retaking Western Armenia (now eastern Turkey), which Armenia was entitled to according to the Treaty of Sevres (1920) signed by the European powers.  Russia could sell out Armenia to Turks and Azeris in similar ways today.

It’s possible, therefore, that Armenia could turn to NATO as a protector. This is risky, however. NATO member Turkey far exceeds Armenia in military weight. Moreover, the West, though historically sympathetic to Christian Armenians for hundreds and even thousands of years, has generally helped Armenians only in humanitarian – not military – ways.

Still, it is possible for Armenia to switch sides if Russia continues to treat Armenia as little more than a pawn. In fact, one pro-Russian writer just called Armenia a “pawn.”

Indeed, Armenia has excellent relations with the Western Bloc (except for Turkey) and recently signed a partnership agreement with the EU.  The Western Bloc, of course, silently hopes that the current revolution and possible internal liberalization in Armenia will someday turn it away from Russia.

Shaping its Own Destiny

The RPA, Russia’s favorite pin-up boys, is trying to depict Nikol Pashinyan as anti-Russian and thus a security risk.

However, Pashinyan has firmly stated that Armenia’s alliance with Russia will not change, nor will Armenia drop out of the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and CTSO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) if he becomes Prime Minister.

The RPA claims that Pashinyan is anti-Russian because he once opposed his country’s entry into the EEU and preferred an association agreement with the European Union. The charge is absurd. Until Russia twisted his arm in 2013, even then-President Serzh Sargsyan was set to sign an agreement with the EU.

Armenians appreciate Russia’s help. But they refuse to be taken for granted and betrayed yet again.

Armenia’s populace simply wants Armenia to become stronger and more self-confident in every way – for Armenians’ own sake and so that Russia treats it equitably.

This is neither anti-Russian nor pro-Western Bloc.  It’s just the right thing to do.

Agrochemicals and Institutional Corruption: Pleading with the Slave Master Will Not Set You Free

Colin Todhunter

Environmental campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has just written to President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans and Health Commissioner Vytenis Andruikaitis. As set out below, she asks these top officials some very pertinent questions about the EU’s collusion with the agrochemical corporations.

1) In authorising glyphosate on behalf of the Glyphosate Task Force led by Monsanto, why did President Juncker fail to state the European Chemicals Agency’ (ECHA) risk assessment in full?

2) Why did the EU collude with corporations that made nerve gases in WW2 for chemical warfare and for use in the Nazi concentration camps? These firms continued to use similar chemicals in agriculture to poison ‘pests’, beneficial insects, birds and people.

3) Could it be that is it is because biocides regulations in the EU are merely designed to make corporations money and are ultimately controlled by the agrochemical industry?

4) Why did Monsanto, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the ECHA and the industry-funded UK Science Media Centre suppress the paper by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the two-year rat feeding study of GM crops and Roundup that produced organ damage and tumours at four months?

5) Do the commissioners know that Cancer Research UK was hijacked by the Agrochemical Industry in 2010 with the full knowledge of the UK government? Michael Pragnell, former Chairman of Cancer Research UK (CRUK), was founder of Syngenta and former chairman of industry lobby group CropLife International. The CRUK website says that there is no convincing evidence that pesticides cause cancer. Instead, CRUK links cancer to life style choices and individual behaviour and blames alcohol use, obesity and smoking.

6) Why did the EU regulators and David Cameron, on behalf of the British government, ignore the Letter from America in 2014 from nearly 60 million citizens, warning you not to authorise GM crops and Roundup because of their toxicity to human health and the environment?

7) Where have all the insects and birds gone as a result of intensive chemical agriculture? The UK, Germany, France, Denmark and Canada are rapidly losing biodiversity. US farmland growing GM Roundup Ready crops has become a biological desert.

8) Did Monsanto and President Juncker conceal the ECHA harmonised classification of glyphosate as “toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects” because it would explain the accelerating deterioration of coral in the Great Barrier Reef?

Mason concludes her letter by reiterating the damning advisory opinion of the International Monsanto Tribunal delivered in 2017. She also sent the commissioners a recent letter signed by 23 prominent organisations criticising the EU’s decision to renew the license for glyphosate and outlining Monsanto’s undue influence over decision making.

Along with her letter, Mason also sent a 22-page document containing detailed information on:

• The European Commission’s flawed renewal of the license for glyphosate
• The causes of decline in coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef

* European legislation existing for the benefit of the agrochemical industry

• Contamination by glyphosate and neonicotinoid insecticides causing dramatic declines in insects and birds
• Glyphosate being present everywhere
• The International Monsanto Tribunal and various alarming reports on pesticides, their use and impacts

To date, there has been no response from the commissioners to Mason.

In 2003, the World Wide Fund for Nature (UK) concluded that every person it tested across the UK was contaminated by a cocktail of highly toxic chemicals, which were banned from use during the 1970s. Over the years, Mason has cited a range of sources to show the harmful impact of pesticides and that the amount and range of pesticide residues on British food is increasing annually. She also notes a massive rise in the use of glyphosate between 2012 and 2014 alone.

In her many detailed documents and letters (which contains her own views on all the questions she poses above to the commissioners) she has sent to officials over the years, Mason offers sufficient evidence to show that the financial and political clout of a group of powerful agrochemical/agribusiness corporations ensure that its interests are privileged ahead of public health and the environment to the detriment of both. Mason has gone to great lengths to describe the political links between industry and various government departments, regulatory agencies and key committees that have effectively ensured that ‘business as usual’ prevails.

The corporations which promote industrial agriculture and the agrochemicals Mason campaigns against have embedded themselves deeply within the policy-making machinery at both national and international levels. From the flawed narrative that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed the world to providing lavish research grants and the capture of important policy-making institutions, global agribusiness has secured a bogus ‘thick legitimacy’ within policymakers’ mindsets and mainstream discourse.

By referring to the Monsanto Tribunal, Mason implies that governments, individuals and civil groups that collude with corporations to facilitate ecocide and human rights abuses resulting from the actions of global agribusiness corporations should be hauled into court. Perhaps it is only when officials and company executives are given lengthy jail sentences for destroying health and the environment that some change will begin to happen.

From Rachel Carson onward, the attempt to roll back the power of these corporations and their massively funded lobby groups has had limited success. Some 34,000 agrochemicals remain on the market in the US, many of which are there due to weak regulatory standards or outright fraud, and from Argentina to Indonesia, the devastating impact of the industrial chemical-dependent model of food and agriculture on health and the environment has been documented by various reports and writers at length.

What is worrying is that these corporations are being facilitated by the World Bank’s ‘enabling the business of agriculture’, duplicitous trade deals like the US-India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, the Gates Foundation’s ‘opening up’ of African agriculture and the bypassing of democratic procedures at sovereign state levels to impose seed monopolies and proprietary inputs on farmers and to incorporate them into a global supply chain dominated by these powerful companies.

For the reasons set out in my previous piece, pleading with public officials to roll back the actions and influence of agrochemical/agribusiness corporations may have no more impact than appealing to a slave master to set you free.

Ultimately, the solution relies on people coming together to challenge a system of neoliberal capitalism that by design facilitates the institutionalised corruption that we see along with the destruction of self-sufficiency and traditional food systems. At the same time, alternatives must be promoted based on localisation, the principles of a politically-oriented model of agroecology (outlined here, here and here) and a food system that serves the public good not private greed.

The Politics of Nobel Peace Prize

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

A group of 18 GOP lawmakers led by Rep. Luke Messer of Indiana, have formally nominated President Donald Trump for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his work toward peace in the Korean Peninsula.

The nomination letter states that President Trump has worked “tirelessly to apply maximum pressure to North Korea to end its illicit weapons programs and bring peace to the region.”

“His Administration successfully united the international community, including China, to impose one of the most successful international sanctions regimes in history,” the letter says. “The sanctions have decimated the North Korean economy and have been largely credited for bringing North Korea to the negotiating table.”

“Although North Korea has evaded demands from the international community to cease its aggression for decades, President Trump’s peace through strength policies are working and bringing peace to the Korean peninsula,” the letter reads. “We can think of no one more deserving of the Committee’s recognition in 2019 than President Trump for his tireless work to bring peace to our world.”
“The peace through strength approach to national security is delivering results, not just in North Korea,” Messer said. “ISIS is on the run and I think the world is waking up to the fact that there’s a new sheriff in town and the world’s most important leader today is Donald Trump.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also offered his possible support for a Trump Nobel prize on Sunday, saying on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that if things work out, Trump deserves the award.

“President Trump, if he can lead us to ending the Korean War after 70 years and getting North Korea to give up their nuclear program in a verifiable way deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and then some,” Graham said.

This is the second time Trump is nominated for Nobel Peace Prize. In February 2016, the French news agency quoted Kristian Berg Harpviken, the director of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo, as saying that the Nobel committee received a letter nominating Trump for his “vigorous peace through strength ideology, used as a threat weapon of deterrence against radical Islam, ISIS, nuclear Iran and Communist China.”

Not surprisingly, the Nobel Peace Prize has always been a political tool used by the West to promote its political objectives. The Nobel Peace Prize has, more often than not, raised eyebrows and created controversies. The politics of the Nobel Peace Prize have been described as tragic, outrageous and sometimes cringe-worthy. While meant to recognize those whose work has greatly benefited or contributed to the advancement and unity of mankind, the Nobel Peace Prize has sometimes been given to those with violent pasts or who have been exposed for lying in the so-called factual work that earned them the award. In recent years the Nobel prize committee has made some controversial decision on those who were awarded the peace prize.

Here are some controversial awards:

In 2010, the Norwegian committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident and political prisoner Lu Xiaobo. An enraged Chinese government snapped political and economic ties with Norway. Norway could only restore relations in 2014, when the government refused to meet the Dalai Lama who was visiting the country.

President Barrack Obama was given Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 just nine months into office. Much of the surprise arose from the fact that nominations for the award had been due by February 1, 2009, only 12 days after Obama took office.

Former Vice President Al Gore won the Peace Prize in 2007 for creating a documentary to popularize environmentalist views. This prize had nothing to do with the establishment or seeking of peace, again it was an attempt to promote a viewpoint unconnected to peace.

The Dalai Lama won in 1989 for being a Tibetan exile, which has nothing to do with seeking to establish peace. Again, we see the same pattern: The peace prize was given as a sign of friendship, not as an acknowledgement of real work on the part of the recipient to promote peace.

In 1973, Henry Kissinger was given the Peace Prize with North Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho. Le Duc Tho rejected the award, given for the pair’s peace work in South Vietnam, because he felt that peace had not yet been achieved in the area. Kissinger, President Nixon’s Secretary of State, accepted the award, but many felt that it should never have been offered to him in the first place. There were two reasons for this controversy: Kissinger was accused of war crimes for his assistance in America’s secret bombing of Cambodia from 1969-1975, as well as for helping to contribute arms to South American dictators who would slaughter thousands of people during the terror campaign Operation Condor. Two Norwegian Nobel Committee members resigned to protest Kissinger’s win.

In 1945, Secretary of State Cordell Hull was awarded peace prize for his prominent role in the creation of the United Nations, his peace efforts, and his trade agreements. But many felt he was undeserving of the award because his callous anti-immigration stance only years earlier meant almost 1,000 Jewish refugees were denied asylum. In 1939, the SS St. Louis attempted to carry 950 Jewish refugees from Hamburg to America in order to avoid the impending Holocaust. Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt seemed in favor of this action, it was largely due to Cordell Hull’s advice, and the opposition of Southern Democrats, that the ship was turned away and forced to return to Germany, where many of the refugees suffered torture and death at the hands of Hitler’s Nazis.

The 1918 Nobel Peace Prize winner was Fritz Haber, awarded for his significant discoveries in chemistry, specifically his discovery of a method to synthesize ammonia from its elements, something that was sought after for over 100 years prior to Haber’s solution. The controversy surrounding Haber’s win lies in his past. Haber was the director of the Institute for Physical Chemistry when it was making poisonous chlorine gas. Besides assisting in the development of the poison, which would go on to kill over 1.3 million people in World War I, Haber vehemently lobbied for its usage.

Tellingly, the process for Nobel Prize nominations and selections is secretive and has been so since the prize’s inception in 1901. The names of the nominees and any information about how the winners were selected cannot be revealed for 50 years.

The Nobel Committee has also been accused for picking no winner in 1948, when Mahatma Gandhi would have been the ideal choice. Gandhi — leader of India’s peaceful independence struggle — had died that year. He was nominated five times for the peace prize.

Another controversial award

Another controversial award was to a Pakistani teenager, Malala Yousafzai in October 2014. She got the award with an Indian child rights campaigner, 60-year-old Kailash Satyarthi.

At the age of just 17, Malala was the youngest ever recipient of the prize. The teenager was shot in the head by militants in October 2012 when she was on her way home from school.

Many Pakistanis were skeptical about the meteorite rise to fame of Malala propelled by the Western media and Western controlled international organizations and institutions.

Liaqat Baloch, a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a major political party, said: “Malala is a Pakistani student and she is getting a lot of support and patronage abroad. On the surface this is not a bad thing and we welcome this, and there is no objection to the award, but the attack on Malala and then her support in the west creates a lot of suspicions. There are lots of girls in Pakistan who have been martyred in terrorist attacks, women who have been widowed, but no one gives them an award. So these out of the box activities are suspicious.”

The BBC quoted Tariq Khattack, editor of the Pakistan Observer, condemning the prize and Malala: “She is a normal, useless type of a girl. Nothing in her is special at all. She’s selling what the West will buy.”

Not surprisingly, Chinese media had also expressed skepticism over the Pakistani teenager being chosen for the award saying it was used to positively portray US intervention in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Zhao Gancheng, director of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, told state-run Global Times: “The West is using Malala’s story to publicize the bright side of their effort of military presence in (Afghanistan) and other countries, such as improving the chances of women receiving education as well as their political participation. Meanwhile, they are downplaying the dark side of it, such as more conflict and mass civilian deaths.”

It may be recalled that Malala Yusufzai came to lime light when she was profiled in Adam B Ellick’s 32-minute documentary — Class Dismissed — produced by the New York Times in 2009. Malala was only 11 years old when this documentary was made. In the documentary she acts mature beyond her years. The documentary, which can be seen at the New York Times website and YouTube, shows her, along with her father and mother meeting with the late Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The documentary indicates that Malala played vital role in anti-Taliban military operation in Swat.

There are scores of extraordinary Pakistani kids who blog online, write diaries in publications and appear on TV however, Malala was apparently selected by Western NGOs to be groomed into an anti-Taliban icon. Not surprisingly, she was routinely invited by a variety of senior government, military, diplomatic officials especially the US as indicated by the 2009 New York documentary.

Her father, Ziauddin Yusufzai was the spokesperson for the Swat Qaumi Jirga, which has helped the mercenary Pakistani Army in its Swat operation launched in January 2009 that displaced 2.2 million people.

Internet and Facebook were abuzz with stories that McKinsey & Co, Inc., the globalist management consulting firm was behind the Malala project. Not surprisingly, since October 2012 she was bestowed with 34 global and local awards and honors, according to her biography on Wikipedia.

Official report whitewashes financial crimes by Australia’s biggest bank

Mike Head

Yet another Australian government inquiry has allowed a major bank or finance house go scot-free after systematically defrauding or fleecing millions of customers, primarily working people, retirees and small business operators.

An Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) report this week into multiple financial crimes committed by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), the country’s largest bank, recommends no punishment whatsoever.

Instead the bank agreed to a worthless “enforceable undertaking” to conduct vague “remedial action.” This essentially means it can carry on with the rapacious activities that drove its profit to near $10 billion last year.

The CBA will be required to keep an extra $1 billion in its capital reserve, which is an insignificant portion of its $64 billion in capital. If APRA later rules that the bank fails to implement any of its “undertakings,” the CBA might face fines of up to $210 million—about 2 percent of its annual profit.

The Liberal-National Coalition government commissioned the APRA report last August in a desperate attempt to prevent a wider inquiry after CBA had committed a litany of abuses for at least a decade.

These included mis-selling margin loans to customers to invest in financial products recommended by Storm Financial, which collapsed (2008); misconduct by financial advisers in Commonwealth Financial Planning, part of CBA’s wealth business (2010–11); fees for no service in financial advice (2012 to 2015); use of outdated definitions of heart attacks to deny insurance claims against CommInsure (2016); and misleading selling of credit card insurance (2013 to 2018).

On top of that, in seeking profits at any cost, CBA broke anti-money laundering legislation more than 53,000 times.

Media commentators and politicians described the APRA report as “scathing.” In reality, it is a whitewash. Its 35 recommendations—all readily accepted by the CBA—feature such vague and meaningless proposals as asking senior executives to become more “self-reflective” and to encourage staff members to ask “should we?” not “can we?” in interactions with customers.

This outcome provides an idea of what to expect from the government’s current royal commission into the finance industry. Despite the shocking revelations and evidence of outright criminality emerging daily from the inquiry’s public hearings, there is no possibility of any action being taken that will affect the super-profits extracted by the financial elite.

The government convened both the APRA inquiry and the royal commission in an attempt to head off seething popular hostility, not just toward the banks and other financial giants, but also the political establishment. Successive Coalition and Labor governments have enabled the financial criminality and protected its perpetrators.

Just a day after signing its agreement with the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the CBA was forced to admit—only after a media leak—that it had not told nearly 12 million customers for two years that in 2016 it lost electronic data tapes containing their names, addresses, account numbers and transaction records since 2000. The bank said it had not wanted to “unnecessarily alarm” them. Corporate regulators also kept the CBA customers in the dark about this massive privacy breach.

Like the CBA, all big banks and finance firms have happily accepted “enforceable undertakings” for the past 15 years, without the slightest impact on their predatory practices.

In 2006, ASIC signed such “undertakings” with AMP, the country’s largest non-bank investment company, after it gouged its clients by deliberately overcharging them. Over the past two weeks, royal commission testimony has shown that AMP continued to levy fees for no services, provided misleading financial advice that caused terrible losses and lied to corporate regulators at least 20 times.

In December 2016, ASIC signed another undertaking with the CBA and another “big four” bank, the National Australia Bank (NAB), over their involvement in rigging the foreign exchange market for five years until 2013. No executives were fined or held to account.

Just a fortnight ago, ASIC signed one more such agreement with the CBA over the theft of $118 million from its customers by deliberately charging for financial planning services it had no intention of delivering.

The official protection of financial criminals stands in stark contrast to the vicious treatment of working class people and youth accused of petty offences or breaching welfare rules.

In February 2000, a 15-year-old orphaned Aboriginal boy, “Johnno” Warramarrba, was found hanged in a northern Australian juvenile detention centre cell after being imprisoned for 28 days for allegedly stealing property, such as pens and paint, worth less than $90 on Groote Eylandt, an isolated island in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

Since 2015, crippling fines, including eight-week penalties, have been imposed on more than half a million people accused of failing to meet requirements for “work for the dole” or Newstart jobless payments, which are set at a sub-poverty level of about $40 a day.

The APRA report attributes the CBA’s criminality to “complacency” produced by its profitability, not to the drive for ever-greater profits itself. Yet the report reveals that the bank operates on the basis of extensive bonus payments, both short-term and long-term, tied to “shareholder value”—that is, to boosting profits and the CBA’s share price.

Outgoing CEO Ian Narev and senior executives received $7 million in short-term bonuses alone in the three years before 2016-17, as well as multi-million dollar salaries. Narev, who quit last month after six years at the bank’s top, was paid $12.3 million in 2016, of which nearly $10 million consisted of bonuses.

Narev’s replacement, Matt Comyn, headed the CBA’s retail banking operations for five years. For public relations purposes, he said this week he would forgo short-term bonuses of $2.2 million this year. That would still leave him with a salary of that amount, plus up to $4 million in long-term bonuses.

Turnbull government ministers, who vehemently opposed a royal commission for two years, labelled the APRA report a “wake-up call” for all company board members. In a bid to divert the public anger toward a few scapegoats, Treasurer Scott Morrison said he expected more CBA board members to resign.

Most telling of all was the response of the Labor Party, which cynically adopted the demand for a royal commission in 2016 as a means of containing the fallout from the mounting revelations of financial abuses.

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen dismissed calls for further CBA resignations, saying the royal commission was already taking enough action. He also defended the use of enforceable undertakings, describing them as “a key part of our regulatory infrastructure.”

Labor governments have long propped up and shielded the banks, including by privatising the CBA during the 1990s, laying the platform for the bonanza reaped by the financial elite.

As the record proves, no “reforms” or regulation will stop the abuses committed by the financial giants. The entire political and corporate establishment is committed to imposing the requirements of the bankers, who dominate Australian capitalism as part of the global hegemony of finance capital.

Between them the “big four” banks—CBA, NAB, Westpac and ANZ—have a market capitalisation of almost $400 billion, which is more than most of the rest of the top 200 Australian companies put together. The banks are chaired by some of the country’s most prominent businesspeople, such as former Business Council of Australia president Catherine Livingstone at CBA, ex-investment banker David Gonski at ANZ and former Reserve Bank governor Ken Henry at NAB. They are part of an interlocking network of directors sitting on the boards of every other major company.

To end the financial crimes, what is required is a workers’ government to completely reorganise society along socialist lines. This would include expropriating the banks and financial giants, with full protection for small depositors, and placing them under public ownership, democratically controlled by the working class.

Local elections confirm growing class polarisation in UK

Paul Mitchell 

Local elections held in parts of the UK on Thursday gave a partial indication of the growing polarisation between the classes due to deepening social inequality.

As with any election in Britain, the results are politically distorted due to the electoral system which favours the domination of two parties—Conservative and Labour.

This was not alleviated by the nature of a poll which at least notionally prioritised local issues. Still, the basic framework presented was a choice between support for austerity and war (Tories) and criticisms of militarism and social inequality (Labour).

Polling took place in around 4,300 council seats across England in the first electoral test since last year’s general election—when Theresa May’s Conservative government lost its majority and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party won an extra 30 seats. This was against all the predictions and hopes of the ruling elite and its mouthpieces in the media and Labour’s Blairites.

In London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle every council seat was up for election and the results there give a more complete picture of the political situation compared to the 100 or so other council areas where only a third were contested. Five council mayors were also up for election in London, as well as a mayoral election for the new Sheffield City region.

Around 40 percent of the seats up for grabs were in London, where Labour already controlled 21 of the 32 boroughs. Talk of the party capturing key London councils including Barnet, Kensington & Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster—some under Tory rule for decades and enclaves of the super-rich—was never likely to materialise.

The vote for Labour increased substantially in metropolitan areas, particularly in London, while the Conservative Party held on outside the large cities—helped by a collapse in the vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where the Grenfell Tower fire took place, was especially contentious.

Kensington and Chelsea local council results

Overall the borough turnout increased from an average of 30 percent of voters in 2014 to around 40 percent. The Labour Party saw its vote go up by 27 percent—from 23,845 to 32,816 compared to just 8 percent for the Conservatives—from 47,991 to 52,211. If the popular vote was used to distribute seats it would have resulted in 27 Conservative councillors, 17 Labour and 6 Lib-Dems, but because of Britain’s first past the post system the result was 36 Conservatives, 13 Labour and one Lib-Dem.

The split in the vote parallels the levels of social inequality expressed in the child poverty level per electoral ward. In Notting Dale, the ward with the highest poverty at 44 percent, Labour had its highest result, increasing from 4,132 votes to 4,764. In Queen’s Gate where poverty affects just 6 percent of the population, the Conservative vote barely changed (3,233 in 2014 and 3,346 in 2016.)

Kensington and Chelsea ward poverty map

Should the Tories have lost such key citadels of a super-rich clique, May’s already precarious existence as party leader would have been sealed. As it was, she claimed that “Labour thought they could take control, this was one of their top targets and they threw everything at it, but they failed.”

Quizzed as to why Labour had failed to make the gains predicted, Corbyn replied, “We have consolidated and built on the advances we made at last year’s General Election, when we won the largest increase in Labour’s share of the vote since 1945.

“In these elections we have won seats across England in places we have never held before. We won Plymouth from the Tories, who lost control of Trafford, their flagship northern council. And Labour has won even more council seats than at our high watermark of 2014.”

The Tories had “talked up our chances to unrealistic levels, especially in London.” However, Labour “came within a whisker of winning Wandsworth for the first time in over 40 years.”

In Trafford, one of only two metropolitan districts alongside Solihull under Conservative rule, Labour became the largest party.

In Newham, East London, Rokhsana Fiaz was easily elected mayor with 73 percent of the vote, 12 percent higher than her ousted predecessor, Blairite Sir Robin Wales, under whose 23-year leadership Newham Council had pioneered social cleansing policies, including seeking to disperse homeless families to social housing in other parts of the country. Homelessness in the borough currently stands at a national high of one in 25 people.

Elections analyst and Queen Mary University of London professor, Philip Cowley, said Labour’s results were the best for more than 30 years.

“In both Westminster and Wandsworth, Labour did better—in seats—than at any election since 1986. To have managed to so misjudge the politics of the election that this is presented as a bad result is quite spectacular.”

However, the theme of the night as results came in was that “peak-Corbyn” had been reached because Labour had not captured key London councils remaining under Tory rule. Typical was BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg, whose mantra during the BBC’s night-long reporting was that Corbyn had failed.

Labour had “moved on slightly since the general election. But, in the words of [pollster] Sir John Curtice, Jeremy Corbyn’s party has come out of this more or less ‘empty-handed’, and they can’t show the kind of progress they would be shouting about if they were truly convinced they were on a rapid march to Number 10.”

The reality is that, to the extent Labour’s advances are in working class areas, then they are anathema to the party’s MPs—who measure political success by their ability to win acceptance from the financial oligarchy.

As an unnamed Labour shadow minister told the Sun, “Jeremy has not spent the 11 months since the General Election winning Middle England, and now never will.”

There is no doubt the result will unleash another campaign of slander and lies by the Blairites. An inkling of this was given by anti-Corbyn Labour MP Jess Phillips, who complained, “I see everyone is claiming failure as victory.”

One feature of the attack will be a renewed campaign alleging the party’s left wing to be anti-Semitic. Barry Rawlings, Labour Party leader in Barnet, which has a large Jewish community, laid the blame for the failure to capture the council directly on Corbyn’s failure to tackle anti-Semitism. Rawlings declared, “I want to speak directly to our Jewish brothers and sisters. I am extremely grateful to members of the Jewish community who cast votes for Labour. But too many didn’t.

“It wasn’t because they disagreed with our manifesto, but because they felt the Labour party has failed to deal with antisemitism on a national level. They are right,” he concluded.

Labour’s relative successes will, therefore, throw fuel on the fire of the one-sided civil war in the party, waged by the right with no serious opposition from Corbyn.

Trump ends temporary protected status for 86,000 Hondurans

Eric London

The Trump administration announced yesterday that it is ending temporary protected status (TPS) for 86,000 Hondurans who have lived in the United States for nearly 20 years. To date, the Trump administration has terminated TPS status for 425,000 immigrants, which will lead to a mass deportation roughly equal to the population of Minneapolis, Cleveland or Oakland.

Protections for these immigrants will now expire in 2020, at which point those in the US under TPS will be forced to return to their war-torn, impoverished home country.

The TPS program is intended to provide temporary respite from deportation to immigrants from countries devastated by natural disaster or war. Yesterday’s decision signals that the government is effectively ending it. Including the Hondurans, 97.4 percent of all TPS beneficiaries will now see their protected status end.

In its decision announcing the policy change, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the DHS is “determined that the disruption of living conditions in Honduras from Hurricane Mitch that served as the basis for its TPS designation has decreased to a degree that it should no longer be regarded as substantial.”

Roughly 10,000 people died in the 1998 hurricane, from which the impoverished Central American nation has never recovered. Though TPS has been extended every 18 months since the hurricane, yesterday’s decision fails to indicate what has changed in the last year and a half. In reality, there is no legal basis for the TPS revocation.

Conditions in Honduras have only further deteriorated since the last extension of TPS. After the right-wing National Party led by incumbent presidential candidate Juan Orlando Hernández committed blatant election fraud in the November 2017 general elections, mass demonstrations broke out across the country.

The government declared a curfew and a national state of exception, and dispatched the military to suppress the protesters, killing 38 and arresting nearly 1,700. Even the imperialist-dominated Organization of American States appealed to the National Party to call new elections, but the Hernández regime ignored the request and inaugurated itself on January 27.

The National Party has ruled Honduras since the 2009 US-backed military coup overthrew then-President Manuel Zelaya. The coup was carried out with the approval of the Obama administration and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A number of protesters were killed in the demonstrations following the coup. Disappearances of oppositional figures and activists like the indigenous rights leader Berta Cáceres are increasingly common. Cáceres was murdered by elite government soldiers, two of whom were trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, the former site of the School of the Americas.

In the aftermath of decades of destruction wreaked by US imperialism on Honduras, gangs collaborate with the police and the state to terrorize the population. A 2015 Guardian study found that 35 Hondurans deported from the US were murdered over the span of the prior year.

San Diego State University Professor Elizabeth Kennedy told the Guardian: “These figures tell us that the US is returning people to their deaths in violation of national and international law. Most of the individuals reported to have been murdered lived in some of the most violent towns in some of the most violent countries in the world—suggesting strongly that is why they fled.”

The violence that pervades Honduran society has deep roots, including the US’s decision to station thousands of members of its “contra” deaths squads in the country in the 1980s. From bases in Honduras, the contras not only conducted its anti-Sandinista and ethnic cleansing activities in Nicaragua, but also assassinated left-wing activists and carried out brutal repression in Honduras itself.

About 80 percent of all participants in this year’s “Stations of the Cross” caravan are from Honduras. An estimated 1,200 people made the 3,000-mile journey from Central America through Mexico to the US-Mexico border. Two hundred people were forced to camp at the border crossing between Tijuana and San Diego for days before being allowed to submit asylum applications.

Throughout Trump’s first year and a half in power, the Democratic Party has not lifted a finger to stop the attack on TPS recipients. One by one, Trump has cancelled protected status for hundreds of thousands of residents of what he referred to as “shithole countries” in Africa, Central America, and the Caribbean, and the Democrats have waged no serious opposition. Instead, they have spent their political capital denouncing “foreign meddling” and “Russian interference,” cultivating a xenophobic climate that facilitates Trump and his fascist aides’ attack on immigrants.

Peace Revolution Alafia Francophone Fellowship for Young Africans from Francophone Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 8th June 2018

Eligible Countries: Francophone countries in Africa

To be taken at (country): Bingerville, Ivory Coast

About the Award: Do you want to reach the peak of your performance? Are you ready to try something new in order to make the best version of yourself? With the tools of the “inner arts”, emotional intelligence and meditation, the World Peace Initiative Foundation through its project “Peace Revolution” offers you the opportunity to unleash the latent potential that lies dormant in you so that you become the unique person you deserve to be – through the principle of Peace Inside Peace Outside.
The Training begins with a first phase consisting in following 21 days of the Online Personal Development Program on our interactive platform aiming to offer you the basic theory and practice to cultivate your inner peace.
The second phase offers a 4-day intensive training program that allows participants to better understand the relationship between meditation and the various skills needed to improve efficiency in their professional and social life. Participants will learn more about the benefits of meditation in relation to:

• Self-empowerment
• Emotional intelligence
• Work-life balance
• Stress management, pressure and resistance
• Nonviolent Communication

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Being a national of one of the following countries: Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Chad, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Cape Verde, Senegal, Niger, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Togo, Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Algeria, Djibouti, Rwanda, Burundi, Madagascar.
• Have completed at least 21 days of the Personal Development Program online by July 06, 2018. Note that applicants do not necessarily need to have completed the personal development program online at the time of submission of the application form. application. Have a good command of the French language (written and oral). Knowledge of the English language is an asset. However, the training will be conducted exclusively in French.
• Be optimistic, open-minded, demonstrate leadership, take a particular interest in social change. Candidates can be peace activists, civil servants, journalists, entrepreneurs, young leaders of local, national or international organizations etc. change catalysts in general.
• Applicants must commit to becoming involved with the World Peace Initiative Foundation after the training by submitting a project proposal that uses the practice of meditation as a tool to address various social challenges in their respective communities.

Everyone is welcome to join the fellowship. But to be eligible for the airfare support, candidates must be between 20-30 years old at the time of submitting application. However, if you are above 30 years old but still want to receive airfare support write us directly at the following email cwestafrica@peacerevolution2010.org

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program:

• Airfare (Full or partial)
• accommodation
• Restoration
• Local transport

Duration of Program: September 12 – 15, 2018

Apply Here

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Peace Revolution

Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) Postgraduate Research Internships for Students and Sabbatical Attachments for University Lecturers 2019

Application Deadline: 31st May 2018

About the Award: The Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) is Nigeria’s oldest energy company, and has a long term and continuing commitment to the country, its people and the economy. As one of the world’s leading energy companies Shell plays a key role in helping to meet the world’s growing energy demand in economically, environmentally and socially responsible ways.

Applications are invited for the TWO programmes below:

. Postgraduate Research Internships for Students

Type: Research, Internship

Duration of Programme: 12 months (non-renewable).

• The Postgraduate Research Internship programme is aimed at providing opportunities for talented Nigerians, currently enrolled in postgraduate degree in Nigerian universities, to gain work experience and carry out topical research within SPDC.

Discipline Areas 

• Environment (Environmental Monitoring, Remediation, and Impact Assessment, Carbon / Energy Management).
• Occupational Health (Industrial Hygiene)
• Social Performance
• Project Management & Strategy Development (Library Science, Marketing and Management)

How to Apply: Applications from candidates should consist of:

• An application letter
• A Curriculum Vitae including applicant’s contact phone number, email address, as well as contact information of three referees with their contact information
• A titled, 3-page summary of candidate’s postgraduate research programme including: study background, technical objectives, methodology/data required, and expected outcome.
• A scanned copy of the data page of applicants International Passport or National Driver’s Licence

All documents should be sent to: SPDC-University-Relations@shell.com 

Important Note: Selection will be based on postgraduate programmes/ proposals that are pertinent to SEPCiN business objectives and only students with the highest potential will pass screening

2. Sabbatical Attachment for University Lecturers 

Type: Research, Job

Duration of Programme: 12 months (non renewable)
Job Description

• The sabbatical programme offers University lecturers an opportunity to undertake research that would contribute to SPDC, while offering the sabbatical candidates avenues to acquire industry-related experience

• The programme also offers opportunities for lectureship at the Centre of Excellence in Geosciences and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Benin in the following disciplines: Petroleum Geology , Geophysics and, Petroleum Engineering.

Discipline Areas

• Environment (Environmental Monitoring Restoration, Biodiversity and Impact Management);
• External Relations (Social Impact Assessment & Management and GMOU Implementation)
• Obstetrics & Gynecology, Pediatrics & Public Health.
• Exploration
• Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
• Position Requirements
• Senior lecturers and above.
• Applications from persons who have previously participated in the Programme will not be considered.

How to Apply: Applications from candidates should consist of:

• An application letter
• A Curriculum Vitae including applicant’s contact phone number, email address, as well as contact information of three referees with their contact information
• A titled, 3-page summary of how the candidate intends to add value to the SPDC business during the one year programme
• A scanned copy of the data page of applicants International Passport or National Driver’s Licence

All documents should be sent to: SPDC-University-Relations@shell.com

Important Note: Sabbatical positions are highly competitive, therefore selection will be based on proposals that are pertinent to SPDC business objectives among other criteria.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: SPDC

Crick African Network (CAN) African Career Accelerator Awards for Early-career Researchers 2019

Application Deadline: 1^st July 2018.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): The Fellowships will be undertaken in two locations:

• At the Francis Crick Institute (‘the Crick’, UK) and
• At one of the five African partner institutions: The University of Ghana (Ghana), Stellenbosch University (South Africa), University of Cape Town (South Africa), MRC Unit The Gambia at LSHTM (The Gambia) and MRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research Unit.

About the Award: The Crick African Network’s African Career Accelerator (CAN ACA) awards will provide Fellowship support for African Post-Doctoral researchers aiming to make the transition to becoming an independent researcher and launching their own research group.
The CAN ACA awards will invest in early-career researchers who have demonstrated strong scientific and leadership potential, as well as a commitment to continuing their research on the African continent. This call is made possible by funding from the UK’s Global Challenges Research Fund.
The fellowships will accelerate careers that have already shown great potential both scientifically and in leadership. These awards will identify individuals who will go on to make significant contributions to research as well as science and knowledge on the African continent and applicants should articulate how this award would establish them as a research leader.

Research Areas: The scope of the research themes which can be undertaken as part of this Award can be defined as the infectious diseases of poverty, with an emphasis on Tuberculosis, Malaria and HIV/AIDS, but also extending to neglected tropical diseases or non-communicable diseases with an infection component.
Clinical research is possible, but will have to be discussed specifically with potential supervisors/ advisors and institutions to confirm whether resources are available to support the research.

Type: Research, PhD

Eligibility: 

• Applicants must be a citizen of one of the 55 African nations, as defined by the African Union.
• Applicants will also have a PhD and have no more than 6 years’ post-doctoral research experience (with allowances for legitimate career breaks) but more than 2 years’ post-doctoral experience unless the applicant has an outstanding track record, supported by publication and employment history.

Competitive applicants

• will have a strong track record of research.
• will have a PhD, and have progressed to a postdoctoral role through which they are on a demonstrable path to independence.
• Prior experience of applying for grant funding is desirable but not required.
• Neither is it essential to currently be employed on the African continent, but applications should demonstrate the applicant’s desire to establish themselves as an independent researcher on the African continent.

Selection Criteria: Applications will be assessed predominantly on the quality of the science proposed, which will take into account the project, the individual, the research environments and the timeliness, relevance and feasibility of the project, by peer reviewers. The leadership potential of applicants and statements from supervisors will also be taken into account.

Number of Awards: Up to 6

Value of Award: Each Fellowship has a value of up to approximately £130,000.

• Fellowships may include personal salary, visa costs and research expenses to implement the research.
• Provision has been made to cover costs of travel for both relocation and conferences, as well as research related costs for consumables.
• Each fellowship also includes the option of the purchase of up to two pieces of equipment, each up to a value of £10,000.
• Fellows will be supported by two supervisors/advisors: one each from the Crick and the chosen African partner institution, as well as having the option of support from one of the 14 Crick Science Technology Platforms (STP) which specialize in specific techniques and technologies.

In addition to conducting the proposed research programme, Fellows will participate in advanced training which will provide the skills and competencies to make the transition to becoming an independent research leader on the African continent. To facilitate this, Fellows will be supported to submit a research grant proposal to major international funders in order to be able to continue their work after the end of the Fellowship.

Duration of Programme: Up to two years. Fellowships will commence no later than 31^st March 2019.

How to Apply: To apply, applicants must first submit a mandatory Expression of Interest form (see Guidance Notes for Expression of Interest form) by emailing it to CAN-Fellowships@crick.ac.uk. The Expression of Interest form will be available between Monday 23^rd April 2018 and 23:59 GMT on the 1^st July 2018.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Francis Crick Institute.
The Francis Crick Institute is a unique partnership between the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, Wellcome, UCL (University College London), Imperial College London and King’s College London

African Programme on Rethinking Development Economics (APORDE) Conference Scholarships (Fully-funded to South Africa) 2018

Application Deadline: 28th May 2018

To Be Taken At (Country): Johannesburg, South Africa.

About the Award: APORDE is a high-level training programme in development economics which aims to build capacity in economics and economic policy-making. The course is run for two weeks and consists of lectures and seminars taught by leading international and African economists. This call is directed at talented African, Asian and Latin American economists, policy makers, academics and civil society activists who, if selected, will be fully funded to participate in the course.
APORDE will allow talented academics, policy makers and civil society representatives from Africa, Asia and Latin America to gain access to alternatives to mainstream thinking on development issues and to be equipped in a way that will foster original thinking. Participants will receive intensive high-level training and interact with some of the best development economists in the world and with other participants.
APORDE will cover essential topics in development economics, including industrial policy, rural poverty, inequality and financialisation. Lectures will equip participants with key information pertaining to both mainstream and critical approaches. The programme will mostly consist of daytime lectures, while a number of shorter evening talks and debates will also be organised.

Type: Conference

Eligibility: 

• Applicants must demonstrate first-class intellectual capacity and (at least some) prior knowledge in economics/political economy, as well as proficiency in English.
• The objective of APORDE is to attract participants from a broad range of backgrounds and preference will be given to persons who have demonstrated exceptional capacity in their professional experience.
• The main body of participants will be drawn from Africa, but we welcome applications from Asians, Middle Easterners and Latin Americans who have research or work experience related to Africa.

Number of Awards: 25

Value of Award: The following costs will be covered for selected participants – travel, accommodation, conference fee and per diem.

Duration of Programme: 3rd to 14th of September 2018

How to Apply: In addition to completing the online form, you have to complete and upload the application form in a word format.
The following documents should be prepared to upload

• An official transcript (showing courses taken and grades obtained);
• A certificate of the highest qualification
• A recent curriculum vitae not exceeding 5 pages in length
• 2 (two) letters of reference, where possible 1 academic referee and 1 professional
• For those whose main medium of instruction or work is not English, some proof of English proficiency will be necessary. Results of Standard English proficiency tests (e.g. TOEFL or IELTS) will be preferable, but other proof may also be accepted (e.g. a sample of written work in English).
• The word format of the application form which you will find on the APORDE web page.

The application will be closed on Monday the 28th of May 2018 at 9 o’clock in the morning, Johannesburg time. Incomplete or late applications will not be considered.
Candidates will be notified by E-mail of the outcome of their applications at the latest by the 25th of June 2018.
Should you have any queries, please contact Christian Kabongo (christiank@idc.co.za).
To go to the online application form click here
To download the application form click here

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Supported by
– The South African Department of Trade and Industry (the dti)
– The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC)

Important Notes: Please note that we receive many high quality applications and that, as a result, entry into APORDE will be very competitive (only 25 applicants will be selected). It is therefore important that applicants complete and submit all the required documentation.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Paid Traineeship in Law and Policy Forum 2018 – Geneva, Switzerland

Application Deadline: 18th May, 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): Geneva, Switzerland

About the Award:You will assist the Editor and the Editor-in-Chief of the Review in the conceptualization of the themes, contacts with authors, peer reviewers and the publisher, background research and substantive evaluation of articles.
Key Responsibilities:

• Assistance to the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor of the International Review of the Red Cross;
• Substantial academic research;
• Evaluation and legal editing of article submissions (checking the legal reasoning, arguments, structure and sources);
• Identification of potential authors and peer reviewers;
• Preparation and co-conduct of interviews of key experts in the field of humanitarian law, policy and action for the Review;
• Liaison with the colleagues in-house on identifying potential topics to be covered in the Review;
• Correspondence with authors and partners, and management of the Review files;
• Authoring blog articles;
• Occasional involvement in the organisation of launch events of the journal.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: ICRC is looking for candidates who meet the following mandatory requirements:

• A Master’s degree in law or international relations.
• A demonstrated interest in humanitarian work, IHL and human rights;
• Excellent command of English with good French reading abilities;
• Maximum one year paid professional experience.
• Initiative and capacity to work independently under minimal supervision;
• Excellent ability to work in a team;
• Excellent communication skills including strong writing abilities;
• Excellent organizational skills.

If you do not fulfil the conditions above, your application will not be considered.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value and Duration of Award: Successful candidates will be recruited on a 12-month paid traineeship contract. The positions are based at ICRC headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Benefits include:

• Rewarding work in a humanitarian and multicultural environment;
• Attractive social benefits;
• Paid traineeship.

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: ICRC