10 Jul 2018

Floods and landslides in Japan leave more than 100 dead

Ben McGrath 

Torrential rains in southwestern Japan that began Thursday and continued over the weekend led to devastating floods and landslides. At least 126 people are dead as of Tuesday morning. Several dozen more remain missing. At the height of the emergency, at least 5.9 million people were advised to evacuate and hundreds of homes have been destroyed. Such natural disasters are becoming increasingly common in Japan.
In total, 19 prefectures have been affected, with the Hiroshima prefecture being one of the worst hit. At least 30,000 people took refuge in shelters and, as of Monday night, a third of those are still unable to return home. In many cases, cities were struck with record rainfall for the entire month of July in the span of just a few hours. Uwajima, in Ehime prefecture, for example, received 364 millimeters of rain in two hours, or 1.5 times the monthly average.
Masanori Hiramoto, a 68 year-old farmer from Mihara in Hiroshima prefecture, was one of those who evacuated. Heading towards the local shelter, which has only two rooms, he and his wife found it full already and ended up spending the night at a highway rest stop. He remarked to the Japan Times on the flooding, “I have lived here all my life. I have never seen anything like this.”
The Japanese central government’s response to the disaster has been typical. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for “all-out efforts” in conducting search and rescue operations. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said, “The record rainfalls in various parts of the country have caused rivers to burst their banks, and triggered large scale floods and landslides in several areas.” He said nothing about what could have been done to predict the devastating storms. Some 73,000 personnel, including police, firefighters and military troops have been mobilized to conduct rescue operations.
However, inadequate planning and resources to prevent flooding and protect lives lies at the heart of what makes this and other recent disasters so devastating. Dozens were killed in mudslides last July while in August 2014 Hiroshima was hit by mudslides that killed 74 after then-record rainfall. In 1999, 32 people were killed in mudslides in the same region.
Between 1999 and 2014, the government supposedly undertook measures to prevent a reoccurrence of the 1999 disaster. However, Mitsuharu Hiura, an official with the Sediment Control Division of the prefectural government, said in 2014, “We couldn’t finish the infrastructure work due to a large number of dangerous locations and limited budget.”
In other words, the financial resources in the world’s third largest economy were not made available to protect people’s lives. It has become clear over the last four years that nothing has changed to address the danger of mudslides or improve Japan’s aging levee system. In addition, while annual landslides and floods claiming people’s lives have become the norm, the central government has cut funding to prefectures that would have strengthened flood and landslide prevention infrastructure.
Furthermore, the criteria to designate areas as landslide-prone have not changed over the last decade. This is despite people being killed by landslides in areas considered safe, including during the 2011 earthquake that resulted in the Fukushima disaster. As a result, people living or working in those areas still do not have adequate warning in the event of mudslides from increasingly dangerous rain storms.
The threat that Tokyo faces is growing. In fact, parts of the city have sunk by 15 feet over the past century. In March, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government released a report stating that one-third of Tokyo could be flooded, potentially impacting at least four million people, in the event of a super-typhoon hitting the city. The local government claimed it would update evacuation measures and the distribution of warning messages.
Tokyo has a massive subterranean system to divert flood waters. Construction began in the early 1990s when the government was spending on public works programs and was completed in 2006 at a cost of $2 billion. The frequency of rainfall over 76.2 millimeters an hour has increased by 70 percent over the last three decades in Japan. But the price tag, a drop in the bucket compared to what is spent on war preparations, has caused the government to balk at establishing similar systems in other parts of the country.
Japan’s national warning system, known as J-Alert, has also been criticized in the past for being ineffective. While it is unclear whether or not problems with this system contributed to the loss of life over the weekend, it has been too slow to notify people during other events and has even sent false messages. In other cases, people receiving the messages have complained that the appropriate infrastructure is not in place for those seeking shelter. The elderly and small children are especially affected as they cannot move quickly.
More intense storms and other extreme weather patterns are hitting Japan and other countries throughout the Asia-Pacific as climate change takes its toll. According to the International Panel on Climate Change, 12 million people in 23 coastal cities in Japan, China, and Korea live in low elevation regions at risk of major flooding in the future. Some 250 million people throughout Southeast and South Asia, mostly poor rural farmers, live in low-lying regions with millions at risk of being displaced by 2050.
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research reported in January that 156 million people in Asia will be at risk from flooding due to climate change within the next 20 years. Millions more in Africa, the Americas, and Europe will similarly be affected.
The response to climate change and the resulting disasters like the flooding and mudslides in Japan this past weekend demonstrates that there is no solution to this growing crisis under capitalism. Only under the rational, socialist planning of society on an international basis can climate change be genuinely addressed and lives protected from natural disasters.

Ontario’s new Tory government slashes social spending, scapegoats refugees

Roger Jordan 

Having formally taken office June 29, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and his Conservative government have moved quickly to shift politics in Ontario and across Canada sharply right.
The Ford government has made a series of policy announcements aimed at demonstrating the new government’s resolve to slash social spending, while further reducing taxes for big business and the rich. It has also underlined its support for a reactionary, “tough on crime” agenda and is employing Trump-style rhetoric to scapegoat refugee claimants for Ontario’s chronic lack of social housing and dilapidated public services.
During the election campaign, Ford demagogically vowed to eliminate $6 billion in annual public spending by cutting “waste” and to order a line audit of the government’s books by “independent” experts. Even the bourgeois media has interpreted the latter pledge as a ruse meant to provide Ford with a pretext for repudiating his snake-oil promises of increased spending on health care and education and for imposing far greater cuts than his promised four percent of current provincial spending.
As a down payment on the coming austerity drive, Ford has imposed a provincial government hiring ban, an across-the-board freeze on incidental expenditures, and an indefinite wage freeze for civil service managers and administrators.
Within hours of the government taking office, Health Minister Christine Elliott made sweeping regressive changes to a recently introduced, aged-limited Pharmacare program that provided free prescription drugs for all Ontarians aged 24 or under. Now these benefits will be restricted to those without any existing drug coverage.
In a provocative and politically inflammatory move, Ford announced last Thursday, just as he was to have his first meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that his government was repudiating the previous Ontario government’s agreement with Ottawa to jointly provide services to migrants fleeing the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant witch hunt—people he labelled “irregular border crossers.”
Ford blamed Trudeau for the increased number of refugee claimants, a reference to Trudeau’s hypocritical 2016 statement welcoming immigrants to Canada. Employing the rhetoric of Trump and European ultra-right forces like the National Front in France and the Alternative for Germany, he went on to cynically accuse the refugees of endangering Ontarians access to public services.
“The federal government encouraged illegal border crossers to come into our country,” declared Ford, a millionaire businessman and Trump acolyte, and “continues to usher people across the U.S.-Quebec border into Ontario. This has resulted in a housing crisis, and threats to the services that Ontario families depend on.”
Following what was described as a testy meeting between Ford and Trudeau, Lisa Macleod, the provincial minister overseeing the immigration file, repeated Ford’s vow that the Ontario government will henceforth contribute not a penny to assisting the refugee claimants, as well as his slanderous claim that, after a quarter-century of social spending budget cuts carried out by successive Ontario NDP, Conservative and Liberal governments, refugees are “putting a strain on many of our public resources.”
Ford has also come into conflict with the Trudeau government over his jettisoning of the previous government’s cap-and-trade carbon pricing system, which satisfied Ottawa’s requirement for all provinces to impose some form of price, or tax, on carbon. Ford’s move is supported by a faction of the Canadian bourgeoisie, led by the oil and gas industry and sections of the Toronto-based financial elite, that believes Canada should follow Trump’s lead in abandoning the Paris Climate Accord, so it can exploit to the hilt the advantage it enjoys over many of its imperialist rivals as a major producer of carbon-based energy.
Despite concerns over Ford’s crude demeanor, penchant for right-wing bombast, and staggering ignorance, and their fears he could become a lightning rod for popular opposition to austerity and social inequality, decisive sections of the ruling class swung behind a Conservative victory in the June 7 provincial election, with a view to intensifying the class war assault on the working class.
Working in close cooperation with the trade union bureaucracy, the 15-year-old Ontario Liberal government had imposed years of austerity, while reducing the corporate tax rate to the lowest in the country. But big business soured on Kathleen Wynne and her Liberals when, in the face of electoral oblivion, they made a feint left, and allowed the province’s budget to go back into deficit. And did so under conditions where corporate leaders were claiming that their “competitive position,” i.e., their ability to attract investor support and make profits, had been imperiled by Trump’s tax cuts, gutting of regulations, and trade-war tariffs.
Through their support for a hard-right government in Ontario, the country’s most populous province, Canada’s corporate elite is also signaling to Trudeau that they expect his government to pursue a more aggressive policy, both internationally, including by delivering on his promise to hike military spending by 70 percent over the next decade, and at home, against the working class.
The day Ford was sworn in as premier, the National Post, the standard-bearer of the neoconservative right, published an editorial titled “Doug Ford can make Ontario great again by learning from Trump.” Claiming Ontario had been “run into the shoals” by a Liberal government that had presided over an “intrusive and out of control regulatory state” and racked up “runaway debt,” the editorial called on the Ford government to take an axe to social spending and redistribute wealth to the richest social layers. “The Republican administration in the US,” it declared, “has shown once again what a powerful tonic it can be to roll back a business-stifling over-regulating nanny state while reforming taxes to boost growth. … In the first 17 months of his presidency, Donald Trump has repudiated for good the dismal Obama-era defeatists who insisted that the sun had set on the economic miracle of Western capitalism and innovation and truly booming growth could never happen again.”
The Post urged Ford to get on with it, calling on him to eschew his “usual impulse to sugarcoat the truth with … populist slogans” and instead press forward with “change” that will “hurt.”
Ford is only too eager to oblige. He has indicated that if the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) does not corral striking York University teaching and research assistants back to work, his government will adopt strikebreaking legislation when the Ontario parliament reconvenes next week.
Well aware that the impending brutal assault on public services and working people will trigger a popular backlash, the Ford government is moving to strengthen the state’s repressive apparatus and the Conservatives’ already close ties to an increasingly politically active police. On the eve of its coming into effect, Ford announced he was suspending Bill 175, Liberal legislation that would have enhanced the powers of Ontario’s police oversight body, the Special Investigations Unit, to investigate police misconduct, saying this would “hurt policing efforts.”
Significantly, Ford first announced this move not in a press release, but in a letter to the province’s most important police associations, which had vehemently complained that any increased oversight of its actions, such as the brutal suppression of the 2010 anti-G-20 protests or restrictions on “carding” (racial profiling), would hamper police work and threaten public safety.
Working class opposition to the Ford government is already emerging and will grow rapidly. But if it is to become a genuine working-class counter offensive, it must break free of the political and organizational control of the pro-capitalist trade unions and the social-democratic politicians of the NDP and be armed with a socialist program—the fight for working-class political power and the reorganization of socio-economic life to make fulfilling social needs not profit the animating principle in Ontario, across Canada and internationally.
The unions and NDP have responded to the ever-widening big business assault over the past four decades by moving ever further to the right, jettisoning their reform programs and imposing concessions and austerity.
They opened the door for Ford to come to power, in part by exploiting popular anger over the decimation of industrial jobs and stagnant and declining wages, through their systematic suppression of the class struggle and close collaboration with the pro-austerity Liberal governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne and their continuing collaboration with the supposedly “progressive” federal Liberal government of Justin Trudeau.
The NDP, which imposed a wage and job-cutting “social contract” the one and only time it held office in Ontario, propped up a minority Liberal government for two-and-a-half years, ending in 2014, as it slashed social spending and imposed concession contracts on teachers by criminalizing teacher job action.
The unions, with Unifor in the lead, funneled millions of dollars to the Liberals in successive election campaigns, beginning in 1999—an alliance struck in the aftermath of the unions’ scuttling of the mass working class upsurge against the Thatcherite policies of the Harris Conservative government.
With Ford now in power, the unions have resorted to pathetic appeals for him to meet with them. An Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) statement issued the same day Ford was sworn said it is “eager to begin discussions with the government on how to best safeguard the rights of workers in the province of Ontario.”

Violent Haitian protests triggered by IMF austerity measures

John Marion 

A general strike paralyzed the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince Monday. following three days of violent demonstrations, looting and clashes with security forces triggered by drastic hikes in fuel prices. Taxi and mini-bus drivers shut down operations and businesses and stores closed down, while scattered protests and barricades continued, with demonstrators calling for the ouster of the government of President Jovenel Moïse.
On Friday the government of Haiti attempted to drastically cut fuel subsidies, a move it had promised the International Monetary Fund in February. An IMF mission in June to follow up on the “Staff-Level Agreement” it was imposing concluded with a statement that “the mission welcomes the government’s intention to eliminate fuel price subsidies.”
The subsidy cuts would have caused a 38 percent jump in the price of a liter of gas, to more than 300 gourdes. The minimum wage for textile workers in Port-au-Prince is less than 400 gourdes per day, despite a strike last summer demanding a salary increase.
The IMF’s June statement claimed that annual inflation of less than 15 percent in Haiti is a “positive” sign, but that is cold comfort in a country where inflation is 12.7 percent per year and driven by price hikes in basic food commodities.
The subsidy cuts would also add 85 gourdes to the price of a liter of diesel—a jump of nearly 50 percent—and 89 gourdes to the price of kerosene, raising a liter to 262 gourdes.
In addition to the pressure from the IMF, the Haitian government claimed that the price hikes are necessary because it loses money when drivers from the Dominican Republic cross the border to take advantage of cheaper prices.
The reaction in the streets of Haiti was both swift and violent. A member of the Haitian National Police was killed in the Delmas 83 neighborhood outside of Port-au-Prince, although Alterpresse reported that the police presence in the streets of the capital was “timid.” A police station in the Artibonite region was set on fire, as were a courthouse and government tax offices in Petit-Goâve.
Haitilibre reported that a Coca Cola plant was set on fire, and that driving in the capital was impossible because of barricades. Supermarkets were looted and, according to Alterpresse, numerous people were unable to obtain food and water between Friday afternoon and Saturday.
Two young men in Port-au-Prince died in the protests, and a security guard for the leader of an opposition political party was reportedly lynched and then burned.
Cap-Haïtien in the north, Jacmel in the southeast, and Les Cayes in the southwest also experienced violence. Le Nouvelliste reported that all public transportation and traffic in Les Cayes was stopped by flaming barricades.
On Saturday, American Airlines, Air France, Delta, JetBlue, and Spirit canceled all flights to Port-au-Prince. Coverage in the American press focused on two hotels in Port-au-Prince that were housing a mixture of wealthy visitors and Christian missionaries.
President Moïse publicly contradicted his Minister of Communication by stating that the national government would reimburse businesses that have been damaged.
Moïse is in a precarious position, despite having reinstated the army last year to aid the Haitian National Police in suppressing workers and despite having traveled the country in his “Caravan of Change” to announce the funding of infrastructure projects.
The handpicked successor to former president Michel Martelly, Moïse won the 2016 presidential election with less than 20 percent of eligible voters. Less than a year after his inauguration an audit of the country’s participation in the PetroCaribe exposed the no-bid contracts and outright looting that had occurred during Martelly’s administration of the program.
By Saturday night, the mass opposition to the subsidy cuts had forced Moïse to revoke them. In a national address, he stated that “you sent me the message and I received it.” While claiming that “the price of fuel is staying as it was before” and that “there is no longer an increase in the price of gas,” he nonetheless signaled to the IMF that he intends to continue imposing its demands. Moïse ended his speech by boasting that no fewer than 30 private companies are interested in producing electricity in Haiti, in keeping with the June IMF statement’s insistence that the government “ensure sustainable medium-term growth of the electricity sector and improve the environment for private investment.”
Prime Minister Jack Guy Lafontant surrounded himself with the heads of the national police on Saturday and gave a national address defending the subsidy cuts and begging the people for calm. He was quickly undercut by the president’s address and is now being treated as a scapegoat by influential parliamentary deputies. Pétion-Ville deputy Jerry Tardieu issued a statement on Sunday demanding that Lafontant resign immediately.
Last week, two days before the cuts in fuel subsidies, protests had already broken out in the Pétion-Ville neighborhood where Moïse is staying. The government, claiming to be removing illegal dwellings, has been evicting people in the middle of the night and destroying their homes. One woman told Le Nouvelliste that “they came with heavily armed police to demolish my house without warning.” Another resident pointed out the falsity of the government’s claim to be destroying precariously situated houses, given that the President’s house is next to a ravine.
The mass protests triggered by the fuel price hikes are the product of the immense buildup of social anger over conditions of poverty, inequality and oppression that prevail throughout Haiti.

Germany: Tens of thousands demonstrate against inhumane anti-refugee policies

Gustav Kemper

Under the slogan “Stop the deaths in the Mediterranean,” tens of thousands demonstrated in Germany on Saturday against the savagely inhumane refugee policy of the federal government and the European Union. In Berlin, over 10,000 people demonstrated, more than ten times as many as the organizers of the coalition “Seebrücke” had originally expected. Demonstrations also took place in Hamburg, Hanover, Bremen and a dozen other cities in Germany.
The high level of participation is particularly significant because the initiative was launched only a week earlier by refugee aid organisations. The protests were organised within the space of a few days almost exclusively via social media.
Protesters at the Neptune Fountain in Berlin
The immediate trigger for the protests is the persecution of Claus-Peter Reisch, the captain of the lifeboat Lifeline, and the man who, together with his crew, saved the lives of 234 refugees who faced death by drowning in the Mediterranean in June. The ships and aircraft of the aid organization have since been detained in Malta, where Reisch faces criminal charges. He has been released on bail.
The Facebook page of the “Seebrucke” reads: “Allowing people to die in the Mediterranean in order to advance the isolation of Europe and carry out political power struggles, is unbearable and contravenes all humanitarian principles…Migration has always been part of our society! Instead of closing borders, we need an open Europe, solidarity cities, and safe havens.”
The demonstrations were fuelled not only by indignation at the brutal crackdown on those who risk their own lives to save people from drowning. Those taking part also condemned the so-called “Master Plan” for refugees proposed by German interior minister Horst Seehofer, as well as the recent EU summit, which called for setting up a comprehensive system of camps across Europe.
Many protesters came with homemade posters and banners reading, “Sea Rescue instead of Seehofer”, “Imagine your family was sitting in the boats”, “The dignity of people is inviolable”, and “What should we say when we are called to account in the after-life?” The Seebrucke organization also distributed several hundred lifejackets to participants in a symbolic gesture.
In discussion with those taking part, there was virtually unanimous opposition to any more restrictions being placed on the right of asylum, and to all the obstacles put in the way of refugees to prevent them from entering safe host countries. Many participants not only rejected the policy of the governing parties, the Christian Democratic Union, Christian Social Union and Social Democratic Party, but also criticized the other parties represented in the Bundestag, including the Left Party.
Wolfgang and Irene from Berlin, both in their mid-40s, told the WSWS that they wanted to make a stand against the inhumane policies of governments in Europe. “The isolation of Europe is incompatible with human rights,” Irene said. Wolfgang added: “None of the parties is committed to the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. I also find the position of sections of the Left Party to be disgusting, when they describe refugees as ‘guests’ who can be rejected if they behave incorrectly.” He was referring to statements made by the parliamentary chair of the Left Party, Sahra Wagenknecht. “Just like the CDU/CSU, SPD and Greens, they (the Left Party) are also sending refugees back when they are part of the government, as is the case in the states of Thuringia and Berlin.”
A section of the rally
Philip, a young worker, told our reporters that he had spent an hour and a half traveling to Berlin to attend the demonstration. “The obstruction of rescue operations by the European Union contradicts the basic values of humanism. After plundering countries throughout the Middle East for raw materials and finally destroying them with wars, they are now letting the fleeing population die in the Mediterranean.” When asked about the causes of this disaster, he added, “Of course, this has to do with the capitalist economy, company executives are profit-oriented, they follow the laws of the system. The governments back this up militarily.”
Many participants came to the demonstration for basic humanitarian considerations. Till from SOS Mediterranee (an aid organisation from France, Italy, Germany and Switzerland), which has operated the Aquarius rescue ship for three years, complained about the massive impairment of aid operations which are refused docking facilities in the Mediterranean. “The Aquarius is now in the port of Marseille and cannot sail because of the uncertain situation. A few weeks ago, our ship with 630 people on board was prevented from docking in Italy. We then had to sail to Valencia in Spain. Only then were we accepted.”
In the course of the past year. the obstruction of aid ships and the journalists on board has been deliberately stepped up, Till said. “When no one reports anymore and when people no longer see the pictures, then refugees die unknown and unseen. This makes it easier for governments to enforce their asylum plans.”
Till saw parallels between the refugee camps in Europe and North Africa, which are now to be further expanded by the EU and the German government, with the 1930s: “It is shocking how quickly these parallels can be drawn today. Sinti and Roma are being registered, and one sees that humanity in government circles is no longer an issue today. Human rights are violated without an outcry. That's why it’s time to say today, ‘enough is enough!’”
Sebastian Jung from Doctors Without Borders
Sebastian Jung is project coordinator of Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF) which supported the protest. He reported on the unspeakable cruelty of the internment camps in Libya at the rally in Berlin. In an utterly shattered state, refugees, forced to undertake marches across the desert, often fell into the hands of traffickers, who took them to their own unofficial internment camps, where torture and intolerable conditions prevail. MSF has no access there.
Jung was active in the official refugee camps, which were set up in warehouses and are actually the worst sort of prisons, where people are detained 24 hours a day. The halls are overcrowded, with barely a square meter of space per refugee. When describing a conversation he had had with one MSF-treated asylum seeker, Jung could barely control his emotions.
Following horrific torture, the man’s legs and some fingers had to be amputated. “Extremely overcrowded cells and poor sanitation increase the spread of illnesses such as rashes, diarrhea and mental suffering due to the horrors experienced before they arrive at the camps,” he told the WSWS. “You cannot overcome a psychic trauma in a closed camp.”
MSF is currently working in five so-called internment camps in Tripoli, where it provides emergency medical care. The situation in these camps is critical because they are often overcrowded, and sanitary conditions are bad. “There is a direct correlation between the poor health of people and the type of housing. They also have no legal counsel and are detained arbitrarily for months on end,” he added.
In general, the perspective of many participants remained limited to finding some sort of immediate solution to the problems that impelled them to protest. A member of Seebrucke, Gonzalo, who attended an IYSSE meeting at the Humboldt University on the same topic, called upon German Chancellor Angela Merkel to respect the “C”, i.e. the “Christian” in the name of her party. He expressed the hope of many participants that pressure on the political elite through demonstrations and public actions could bring about a change in politics.
In fact, a solution to the refugee crisis cannot be achieved within the decaying capitalist system, which is responsible for the wars and social depredation which cause millions of people to flee their homelands. The leaflet distributed by representatives the Sozialistischen Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party, SGP) at the demonstration in Berlin, stated:
“The fact that the EU and all the governing parties in Europe—from the pseudo-left Syriza in Greece, to the grand coalition in Germany and overtly far-right governments in Italy, Austria and Eastern Europe—are all pursuing austerity policies and terror against refugees, makes clear that workers and young people are confronted with revolutionary tasks. European capitalism cannot be tamed, but must be overthrown and replaced by the United Socialist States of Europe.”

9 Jul 2018

NDDC Foreign Postgraduate Scholarship for Nigerian Students to Study Abroad 2018 – Masters & PhD

Application Deadline: Friday 20th July, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Niger Deltan states in Nigeria which includes Akwa Ibom State, Bayelsa State, Cross River State, Delta State, Edo State and Rivers State.

To be taken at (country): Universities Abroad

Eligible Fields of Study: The Scheme is for suitably qualified applicants with relevant Bachelor’s/Master’s Degree(s) from recognized universities in the following professional disciplines:
  1. Agricultural Sciences
  2. Engineering
  3. Environmental Sciences
  4. Geosciences
  5. Information Technology
  6. Law
  7. Management Sciences
  8. Medicine
  9. Education
  10. Humanities
About Scholarship: As part of our Human Resource Development initiatives, the Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC, is commencing the 2016 Post-Graduate Foreign Scholarship Programme, to equip Niger Deltans with relevant training and skills for effective participation in the Local Content programme of the Federal Government, as well as compete globally in various professional fields.

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility/Criteria:
  • First degree with minimum of 2nd Class Lower Division for those wishing to undertake a Master’s Degree programme and a good Master’s Degree for PhD candidates from a recognized University.
  • Applicants must have gained admission for a Post Graduate Programme in any of the listed disciplines above, in a foreign University.
  • Applicants who have already enrolled in Overseas’ Universities are NOT eligible to apply.
  • Guarantor’s written consent of good conduct of the applicant from any of the following persons from the applicant’s community/clan.
    • Member of National Assembly/State House of Assembly
    • Chairman of the LGA
    • First Class Traditional Ruler
    • High Court Judge
  • Persons with evidence of cult membership or criminal record shall not be considered for the award.
  • Applicants must have completed the mandatory National Youth Service (NYSC).
Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: Full-fee scholarship

Duration of Scholarship: For the period of the programme

How to Apply: Application must be made online at the Commission’s website: with the following attachments:
  • Recent passport photograph
  • Local Government identification letter.
  • Post Graduate (PG) admission letter from a recognised Overseas University.
  • Relevant Degrees from a recognized University.
  • N.Y.S.C Discharge/Exemption Certificate.
Successfully completed application form will be assigned a registration number automatically.
Print the hard copy of the on-line generated acknowledgement for ease of reference.
All shortlisted applicants will be posted on NDDC website,
Select Your Preferred Program from the Links Below to the appropriate application form

Masters Degree – forms.nddc.gov.ng
PhD Programme – forms.nddc.gov.ng
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Scholarship Provider: Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC

International Society for the Performing Arts (ISPA) Global Fellowship Programme 2019

Application Deadline: 20th July, 2018 at 17:00 EDT

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All (with particular attention paid to applicants from developing economies)

To be taken at (country): Home country and New York, USA.

About the Award: The International Society for the Performing Arts’ (ISPA) Global Fellowship Program provides one-year access to ISPA’s extensive international network of arts professionals to emerging and mid-career leaders from the global performing arts community, with particular attention paid to applicants from developing economies.
Participants join the ISPA membership and attend the New York ISPA Congress where they engage in the development and exchange of ideas with leaders from some of the world’s most significant presenting
organizations, performing arts organizations, artist management agencies, cultural policy groups, foundations, festivals and related professionals.

In considering applying, please be aware that the ISPA Congress is not a traditional arts market and opportunities for self-promotion are limited. This opportunity is intended for those working in the management of the performing arts. Performing arts professionals who are deeply committed to increasing the global connectivity of the performing arts industry, as well as those who take initiative in their own professional development, are most likely to benefit.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: ISPA accepts applicants from all regions of the world, with priority given to applicants from developing economies.
Applicants must:
  • Be currently employed/working in the professional performing arts
  • Have a minimum of 5 years professional experience in the performing arts field
  • Demonstrate a need for financial assistance
  • Ability to attend and fully participate in the New York 2019 ISPA Congress, January 8 – 10, 2019, including the one-day Fellows-only Seminar on January 7, 2019
  • Have received no more than two ISPA Fellowships in the past
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Fellows receive:
  • One-year ISPA membership with access to all member benefits
  • Full Pass registration to the New York 2019 Congress (January 8 – 10, 2019)
  • One-day Fellows-only Seminar prior to the New York Congress (January 7, 2019)
  • Subsidy to assist with travel and accommodation expenses related to attending the Congress (subsidies do not generally exceed 2,500 USD)
  • Introduction to a current ISPA member who will welcome the Fellow to the Congress and help facilitate their participation as part of ISPA’s Community Building Program
Duration of Fellowship: 1  year.

How to Apply: To apply to the Global Fellowship Program, please download and review the application instructions and submit the online application form. Applications are reviewed and selected by the Fellowship Review Committee which consists of ISPA members and staff.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, many Fellowship Challenge and Patron donors

Important Notes:Please note that for the purpose of ISPA’s Global Fellowship, the professional performing arts includes individuals working principally in the arts and culture sector either with organizations/institutions or as independent producers/managers. Generally those working within academia, education, community organizations, and independent artists are not eligible.

African Biomedical Engineering Mobility (ABEM) for African Postgraduate Students & Academics 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 26th August 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries under this program

About the Award: The scheme is modelled on Europe’s well-established and successful Erasmus-Mundus programme. As part of the Roadmap 2014-2017 of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, the Intra-Africa Mobility Scheme underlines the contribution of higher education towards economic and social development and the potential of academic mobility to improve the quality of higher education.
ABEM will build human and institutional capacity in Africa for needs-­based health technology research and development. The project will train postgraduate students with skills and specialisations not offered at their home institutions. Furthermore, it will support the development of biomedical engineering programmes that are being established, or have recently been established, at partner institutions and contribute toward harmonising biomedical engineering curricula across the continent. This will be achieved through the provision of scholarships to cover the full cost of mobility between African higher education institutions.
Overall, the project will enhance employment opportunities for graduates, enhance staff research profiles and teaching competencies, enhance institutional research profiles and inter-­university cooperation, and support the development of solutions for health challenges from an African perspective.

Type: Masters, PhD, Training.

Eligibility: 
Applications for the following will be considered:
  • Credit-seeking mobility (6-12 months) for registered master’s and PhD students
  • Degree-seeking mobility (48 months) for PhD students only
  • Staff mobility
Student mobility – eligibility criteria
To be eligible for a scholarship, master’s and doctoral students must comply with the following criteria:
  1. Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries covered by the Programme
  2. At the time of the application for a scholarship, be registered/admitted in their final year or have obtained their most recent degree (or equivalent) from:
    1. one of the higher education institutions included in the partnership (Target Group 1); or
    2. a higher education institution not included in the partnership but established in an eligible country (Target Group 2)
  3. Have sufficient knowledge of the language of instruction in the host institution.
  4. Meet the specific requirements of the host institution.
Students can only benefit from one scholarship under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.
Students having benefited from scholarship(s) under the previous Intra-ACP Academic Mobility Scheme cannot receive scholarships under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.

Academic and administrative staff mobility
Staff may undertake mobility visits for 1-6 months, at any of the African partner institutions.
  • Areas of activity
    Staff mobility should contribute to strengthening the academic, management and co-operation capacity of partner institutions, through participation in research projects, teaching, production of new teaching material, development of teaching methods, harmonisation of curricula, development of joint curricula, development of administrative tools and sharing of management approaches. The mobility is also expected to be an integral part of the institutional staff development plan and recognised as such upon return of the staff member.
  • Eligibility criteriaIn order to be eligible for a scholarship, staff must comply with ALL the following criteria:
    • Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries (see Section 2.1)
    • Work in or be associated with a partner higher education institution.
Number of Awards: Up to 32

Value of Award: The scholarship will cover:
  • roundtrip flight ticket and visa costs;
  • participation costs such as tuition fees, registration fees and service fees where applicable
  • insurance (health, accident, travel);
  • a settling-in allowance;
  • a monthly subsistence allowance;
  • a contribution towards the research costs associated with student mobility of 10 months or longer.
Duration of Program: Master’s and doctoral students may undertake:
  • Credit-seeking mobility of 6 to 12 months at a partner institution, leading to academic recognition of the study period towards a degree programme at the home institution,
  • Degree-seeking mobility to complete a full degree at a partner institution.The project aims for 50% of students and at least 30% of staff who participate in mobility visits to be women.
  • Academic and administrative staff mobility: Staff may undertake mobility visits for 1-6 months, at any of the African partner institutions.
How to Apply: Interested applicants should go through the Application requirements and Guidelines before applying.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The African Biomedical Engineering Mobility (ABEM) project is funded by the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Commission.

Agrostrides 30 under 30 (Africa) Awards for Creative African Agropreneurs 2018

Application Deadline: 30th July 2018 11:59pm

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: Agrostrides is looking for under 30 farmers, founders, Agric focused venture capital/funders, agricultural development experts, founders of an agriculture incubator/accelerators, Agritech Founders, agricultural media personalities, agro- processors. In essence, basically, anyone under the age of 30 doing something phenomenal within the agricultural space in Africa.

Type: Award

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Agrostrides 30 under 30 list:
  • the nominee must be 29 years or younger as of December 31, 2018
  • All African countries, citizenship doesn’t matter but the business must be most prominent in Africa
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Award:

How to Apply: Are you someone who fits these criteria or Do you know someone who you think should join our under 30 (Africa) community?

Kindly Nominate them by filling this form

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: Agrostrides

Important Notes: At least one founder on your team must be younger than 30 years old as of the 31st of December 2018. Also, the information you provide may be published

The Prospects for De-Nuclearization

David Krieger

After the Singapore Summit between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, Trump was very upbeat about the denuclearization of North Korea.  On June 12, 2018, Trump said in a CNN interview, “He’s denuking the whole place and he’s going to start very quickly.  I think he’s going to start now.”  Seriously?
For this to happen, Kim would have to be either a fool or a saint.  And, of course, he is neither.  Rather, he is a third generation dictator who fears the overthrow of his regime, likely by the US.  Kim knows that his best guarantee against that happening is his possession of nuclear weapons.
Kim certainly knows the history of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi.  Both gave up their respective country’s nuclear programs.  After doing so, each was overthrown and killed. Hussein was put on trial by the US puppet regime in Iraq and was sentenced to death by hanging.  The sentence was carried out on December 30, 2006. When Libyan rebels, with help from the US, France and the UK, attacked the Gadhafi regime, Gadhafi attempted to hide and escape, but he was captured, tortured and killed.
Given this history, why would Kim make himself vulnerable to overthrow when he doesn’t need to do so? The answer is that he won’t, which also means that he won’t completely denuclearize.  Since this is the logic of Kim’s position, we might ask: why has Trump been so effusive about Kim’s prospects of denuclearizing?  Obvious explanations are that Trump is a novice at conducting international negotiations and that he thinks exceptionally highly of himself as an effective negotiator.
For Trump to believe that Kim would bend to Trump’s will and denuclearize, Trump would have to be either a fool or an extreme narcissist.  Unfortunately, he appears to be both and seems intent on proving this over and over again.  Another example is his pulling out of and violating the Iran agreement negotiated with Iran by the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany.  Fortunately, none of the other parties to the agreement has joined the US in pulling out.
Denuclearization is a good thing, and I am all for it.  The US, as the strongest military power in the world and the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, should be leading the way.  Nuclear weapons do not protect the Trump regime, as they do the Kim regime.  Nor, for that matter, do they protect the US.  Which would be safer for the US: a world with nine nuclear-armed states, as we currently have, or a world with zero nuclear-armed states?
The logic here is that if Trump is serious about a denuclearized North Korea, he had best play a leadership role in convening negotiations among the nine nuclear-armed states to achieve a denuclearized planet.  In such negotiations, it will be necessary to deal with the concerns and fears of the leaders of each of the nuclear-armed countries, including those of Kim Jong-un.  The world we live in is far from perfect, but we would all be better off if the overriding nuclear threat to humanity was lifted from our collective shoulders.
It will require a process of good faith negotiations to get to zero nuclear weapons.  That, in turn, will require political will, which has been largely lacking, even though it was agreed to by all the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  Article VI of this treaty obligates its parties to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for complete nuclear disarmament.  Fifty years after the NPT was opened for signatures in 1968, this obligation remains not only unfulfilled but untried.  For the nuclear-armed parties to the NPT to take this obligation seriously would be a major turn-around in their behavior.
Another treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, was adopted by 122 countries in July 2017 and is now opened for signatures and the deposit of ratifications. The treaty prohibits, among other things, the possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.  Again, the nuclear-armed countries have been largely hostile to this treaty.  None of them have signed it or indicated support for it, and the US, UK and France have said they would never sign, ratify or become parties to it.
Our common future on the planet rests on generating the support and political will to fulfill the promise of these two treaties.  Putting the global nuclear dilemma into perspective, it should be clear that denuclearization of North Korea is only one piece of the puzzle, one that is unlikely to be achieved in isolation.  A far greater piece lays in the failure of the US to show any substantial leadership toward attaining a nuclear zero world.  Failure to achieve the goal of global denuclearization could mean the end of civilization and most life on our planet.  And where is the logic in that?

Does the US Have Any Leverage on China?

Dean Baker

With Donald Trump’s trade war with China heating up I thought I should bring in Mr. Arithmetic to clarify the situation. Trump apparently thinks that he holds all the cards in this one because the U.S. imports much more than it exports to China.
As I pointed out previously, China has other weapons. For example, it can just stop respecting U.S. patents and copyrights altogether, sending items all over the world that don’t include any royalty payments or licensing fees. This could reduce the price of patented drugs by 90 percent or more and make all of Microsoft’s software free.
But even ignoring the other weapons that China has in a trade war, the idea that the idea that the country can’t get by without the U.S. market doesn’t fit the data. At the most basic level, China exported a bit more than $500 billion in goods and services to the United States last year. This comes to a bit more than 4.0 percent of its GDP, measured on a dollar exchange rate basis.
As many analysts have noted, much of the value of these exports is not actually valued-added in China. For example, the full value of an iPhone produced in China will be counted as an export to the United States even though most of the value comes from software developed in the United States and parts imported from other countries. Perhaps 40 percent or more of the trade deficit reflects value-added from other countries. (On the flip side, many of the imports from other countries include value-added from Chinese products.)
But let’s ignore this issue. Suppose Donald Trump’s get tough trade policies reduce our imports from China by 50 percent, a huge reduction. This would come to roughly 2.0 percent of China’s GDP. Will this have China screaming “uncle?”
Probably not, as Mr. Arithmetic points out, China’s trade surplus fell by 4.4 percentage points of GDP from 2008 to 2009, yet its economy still grew by more than 9.0 percent that year and by more than 10.0 percent the next year. While all of China’s annual data should be viewed with some skepticism, few doubt the basic story. China managed to get through the recession without a major hit to its growth.
Of course that drop in exports was due to an unexpected economic crisis, this one would be due to a politically motivated trade war. Mr. Arithmetic does not expect China to be giving in any time soon.

Whither Wahhabism?

James M. Dorsey

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman could well dash expectations that he is gunning for a break with Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism rather than a shaving off of the rough edges of Wahhabi ideology that has been woven into the kingdom’s fabric since its founding more than eighty years ago.
Prince Mohammed has fuelled expectations by fostering Islamic scholars who advocate a revision of Wahhabism as well as by lifting a ban on women’s driving and creating space for entertainment, including music, theatre, film, and, for conservatives, controversial sports events like wrestling.
The expectations were reinforced by the fact that King Salman and Prince Mohammed have called into question the degree to which the rule of the Al Sauds remains dependent on religious legitimization following the crown prince’s power grab that moved the kingdom from consensual family to two-man rule in which the monarch and his son’s legitimacy are anchored in their image as reformers.
To cement his power, Prince Mohammed has in the past year marginalized establishment religious scholars, detained critics and neutralized members of the elite by arresting relatives, prominent businessmen, and officials and stripping them of much of their assets.
In doing so, Prince Mohammed has subjugated the kingdom’s ultra-conservative religious leaders through a combination of intimidation, coercion and exploitation of religious dogma particular to a Saudi strain of ultra-conservatism that stipulates that Muslims should obey their ruler even if he is unjust. Islam “dictates that we should obey and hear the ruler,” Prince Mohammed said.
In an optimistic projection of Prince Mohammed’s changes, Saudi researcher Eman Alhussein argued that the crown prince’s embrace of more free-thinking scholars has encouraged the emergence of more “enlightened sheikhs,” allowed some ultra-conservatives to rethink their positions, enabled a greater diversity of opinion, and fundamentally altered the standing of members of the religious establishment.
“The conflicting and different opinions presented by these scholars helps demolish the aura of ‘holiness’ some of them enjoyed for years… The supposed holiness of religious scholars has elevated them beyond the point where they can be questioned or criticized. Ending this immunity will allow the population to regain trust in their own reasoning, refrain from being fully reliant on scholarly justifications, and bring scholars back to Earth,” Ms. Alhussein said.
The crown prince’s approach also involves a combination of rewriting the kingdom’s religious-political history rather than owning up to responsibility and suppression of religious and secular voices who link religious and social change to political reform.
Some Saudi scholars argue that the degree of change in the kingdom will depend on the range of opinion among religious scholars. They suggest that change will occur when scholars are divided and stall when they speak with one voice. The wide range of opinion among Islamic scholars coupled with Prince Mohammed’s autocratic approach would appear, according to the argument of these scholars, to largely give him a free hand. Reality, however, suggests there may be other limits.
Prince Mohammed is unlikely to pull off a break with the Wahhabi religious establishment because the clerics have proved to be resilient and have displayed a great capacity to adapt to transitions and vagaries of power… The crown prince’s public denunciations of extremist ideas and promises to promote moderate Islam have been interpreted as a renewed desire to break with Wahhabism. A closer reading shows that Prince Mohammed primarily condemns the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists and exonerates Wahhabism,” said Nabil Mouline, a historian of Saudi religious scholars and the monarchy.
Mr. Mouline went on to say that “the historical pact between the monarchy and the religious establishment has never been seriously challenged. It has been reinterpreted and redesigned during times of transition or crisis to better reflect changing power relations and enable partners to deal with challenges efficiently.”
Predicting that Wahhabism would likely remain a pillar of the kingdom in the medium term, Mr. Mouline cautioned that “any confrontation between the children of Saud and the heirs of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab will be destructive for both.”
Prince Mohammed has indeed in word and deed indicated that his reforms may not entail a clean break with Wahhabism and has been ambiguous about the degree of social change that he envisions.
He has yet to say a clear word about lifting Saudi Arabia’s system of male guardianship that gives male relatives control of women’s lives. Asked about guardianship, Prince Mohammed noted that “we want to move on it and figure out a way to treat this that doesn’t harm families and doesn’t harm the culture.”
Similarly, there is no indication that gender segregation in restaurants and other public places will be formally lifted any time soon. “Today, Saudi women still have not received their full rights. There are rights stipulated in Islam that they still don’t have. We have come a very long way and have a short way to go,” Prince Mohammed said.
Multiple incidents that illustrate contradictory attitudes in government policy as well as among the public suggest that liberalization and the restructuring of the elite’s relationship to Wahhabism could be a process that has only just begun. The incidents, moreover, suggest that Prince Mohammed’s top-down approach may rest on shaky ground.
Prince Mohammed last month sacked Ahmad al-Khatib, the head of the entertainment authority he had established after a controversial Russian circus performance in Riyadh, which included women wearing “indecent clothes,” sparked online protests.
Complaints of creeping immorality have in the last year returned the religious police, who have been barred by Prince Mohammed from making arrests or questioning people, to caution unrelated men and women from mixing.
The police, officially known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, said in a statement in 2017 that it was starting “to develop and strengthen fieldwork.” It said its officers would have a greater presence on “occasions that require it,” such as school holidays.
Saudi sports authorities in April shut down a female fitness centre in Riyadh over a contentious promotional video that appeared to show a woman in figure-hugging workout attire. “We are not going to tolerate this,” Saudi sports authority chief Turki al-Sheikh tweeted as he ordered that the centre’s license be withdrawn.
Saudi beauty queen withdrew last December from a Miss Arab World contest after being attacked and threatened online.
Holders of tickets for a concert in Jeddah by Egyptian pop sensation Tamer Hosny were surprised to receive vouchers that warned that “no dancing or swaying” would be allowed at the event. “No dancing or swaying in a concert! It’s like putting ice under the sun and asking it not to melt,” quipped a critic on Twitter.
Shireen al-Rifaie, a female television, was believed to have fled the kingdom in June after the General Commission for Audio-visual Media said she was being investigated for wearing “indecent” clothes during a report on the lifting of the driving ban for women. Ms. Al-Rifaie’s abaya, the garment that fully cloaks a woman’s body, was blown open as she was filming on a street a report on what the lifting of the ban meant for women.
While women celebrated last month’s lifting of the ban, many appeared apprehensive after activists who had campaign for an end to the ban were arrested calling into question Mohammed’s concept of liberalization. Many said they would stay off the streets and monitor reactions.
Police in Mecca said barely two weeks after the lifting of the ban that they were hunting for arsonists who had torched a woman’s car. Salma al-Sherif, a 31-year-old cashier, said the men were “opposed to women drivers.”
Ms. Al-Sherif said she faced abuse from men in her neighbourhood soon after she began driving in a bid to ease her financial pressures. “From the first day of driving I was subjected to insults from men,” she said. Ms. Al-Sherif was showered with messages of support on social media once the incident became public.
“While the lack of concerted resistance thus far towards women driving may in part speak to a more progressive and younger Saudi society, it would be remiss to assume that those opposing such policies have disappeared from view altogether,” cautioned Sara Masry, a Middle East analyst who attracted attention in 2015 for her blog detailing her experience as a Saudi woman living in Iran.
In adding speed and drama to the Al Saud and the government’s gradual restructuring of its relationship to Wahhabism, Prince Mohammed was building on a process that had been started in 2003 by then Crown Prince Abdullah.
At the time, Prince Abdullah organized the kingdom’s first national dialogue conference that brought together 30 religious scholars representing Wahhabi and non-Wahhabi Sunnis, Sufis, Ismaili, and Shiites.
Remarkably, the Wahhabi representatives did not include prominent members of the kingdom’s official religious establishment. Moreover, the presence of non-Wahhabis challenged Wahhabism’s principle of takfir or excommunication of those deemed to be apostates or non-Muslims that they often apply to Sufis and Shiites.
The conference adopted a charter that countered Wahhabi exclusivity by recognizing the kingdom’s intellectual and religious diversity and countering the principle of sadd al-dharai (the blocking of the means),a pillar of Wahhabism that stipulates that actions that could lead to the committing of a sin should be prohibited. Sadd al-dharai served as a justification for the ban on women’s driving.
Saudi Arabia scholar Stephane Lacroix sounded at the time a cautionary note that remains valid today.
“It…seems that part of the ruling elite now acknowledges the necessity for a revision of Wahhabism. It has indeed become clear that only such a move would permit the creation of a true Saudi nation, based on the modern and inclusive value of citizenship—a reality still missing and much needed in times of crisis. However, the sticking point is that this ideological shift must go hand in hand with a radical reformulation of old political alliances both at home and abroad. And therein lies the problem,” Mr. Lacroix said.