Kremlin suffers defeats in regional elections

Andrea Peters 

Russia’s ruling party, United Russia, suffered a number of defeats in recent regional elections. The electoral upsets come amidst widespread popular opposition to the passage of a bill raising the official retirement age by five years for both men and women.

In voting held in early September to elect representatives to local assemblies, United Russia won less than 50 percent of the ballots cast in eleven of the sixteen races. In three regions—Irkutsk, an area in Siberia that borders Lake Baikal and is home to nearly 2.5 million people, Ulyanovsk, which is southeast of Moscow and has a population of almost 1.3 million, and Khakassia, a Russian republic with around a half million residents located north of the country’s border with Mongolia, China, and Kazakhstan—United Russia lost altogether to the Communist Party by between two and six percent.

In addition, four of the Kremlin-backed candidates for regional governorships failed to win a majority. This resulted in run-off elections in three places and the invalidation of the election in another, amidst claims of voter fraud.

In Primorsky Krai, a region in Russia’s far east and home to the port city Vladivostok, officials were compelled to throw out a narrow win by United Russia incumbent candidate Andrei Tarasenko. His opponent, the Communist Party’s Andrei Ishchenko, was in the lead in ballot counting until the very last minute when, suddenly, he lost by 7,000 votes. Allegations of voting irregularities affecting precincts that accounted for at least 24,000 votes, more than enough to have changed the outcome of the election, prompted protests. New elections are now scheduled to take place in December, and Putin has ordered Tarasenko be replaced by an interim leader, a United Russia representative who previously governed Sakhalin.

In Khabarovsk, the federal region just north of Primorsky Krai, the Kremlin’s candidate lost heavily in a second-round run-off vote to the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) candidate, Sergei Furnal. While both sides claimed electoral fraud, the Central Election Commission declared that whatever violations occurred were not enough to shift the results. A similar outcome occurred in Vladimir Oblast, due east of Moscow, where the incumbent United Russia candidate lost in a run-off vote to the LDPR challenger by about 20 percent.

In Khakassia, United Russia also failed to secure the governorship. Its candidate, Viktor Zimin, lost to the Communist Party’s Konstantin Konovalov by about 12 percent. Election authorities scheduled and then cancelled a run-off for October 7, postponing the second round of voting until October 21. Zimin and a third candidate from the Just Russia party have now dropped out of the race. Konovalov will face off against the fourth-place winner in a few weeks.

A recent report on the September elections by foreign policy institute BMB observes, “Shifts in basic measures of economic well-being since 2014—unemployment, population below minimum wage, and changes in median incomes—were strongly correlated with the decline in UR support.”

In Khakassia, over 17 percent of the population make less than the minimum wage recognized by the federal government as necessary to survive, and male life expectancy is lower than the recently-raised legal retirement age.

In the wake of the electoral turmoil, the Kremlin, which has the right to appoint interim governors, has replaced the leaders of Astrakhan, Kabardino-Balkaria, and the country’s second largest city, St. Petersburg.

The election results point to the possibility of regionalist tendencies emerging in Russia, as local leaders in the country’s nominal opposition work to take advantage of social discontent and simultaneously enrich themselves.

In commenting on the broader implications of the declining support for UR, the authors of the BMB note, “For investors—both foreign and domestic—this means that the investment and operating environment will become increasingly fragmented across different regions.” Russia is made up of disparate regions that vary substantially in terms of their industrial base, natural resources, socio-cultural features, and their roles in the national and global economy.

Further evidence of the ruling party’s unpopularity continues to mount. On Friday, Russia’s Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) announced the results of a new poll that showed that the ruling party’s approval rating has fallen to a record low. Were elections to the parliament to be held now, UR would garner just 31 percent of the vote, a slide of 5 to 10 percent from July of this year and down from a recent high of 55 percent in 2015.

Indonesia’s earthquake catastrophe

Tom Peters

Eight days after a 7.5-magnitude earthquake and tsunami devastated central Sulawesi, Indonesia, the death toll continues to climb. The official figure has now surpassed 1,570 and there are more than 2,500 injured. Thousands more bodies, however, are thought to be buried in mud, under collapsed buildings, or swept out to sea.

An area with over 1.5 million inhabitants, including the cities of Palu and Donggala, has been devastated. In Palu, population 380,000, thousands of poorly-constructed houses were swallowed up by liquefaction (when an earthquake causes the ground to liquefy). Others were swept away in the tsunami. Some villages have been wiped off the map.

At least 70,000 people are homeless or displaced, many sleeping in tents or in the open. Hospitals are overflowing and medical supplies are scarce. Power has not returned to most areas. Food and drinking water are in desperately short supply. Thousands of people have been reduced to scavenging in farmland and searching abandoned shops and warehouses for food.

Ordinary people responded to the disaster with bravery and selflessness. Many spent days digging through rubble by hand in search of survivors, who were crying out for help. By yesterday, all the voices had gone silent. The lengthy delay in sending rescue teams and excavating machinery led to countless avoidable deaths among those who were trapped. Some areas have still not been reached by rescuers.

There is widespread outrage over the uncoordinated and grossly inadequate official relief operation. President Joko Widodo initially tried to downplay the catastrophe, refusing to declare a national disaster. His administration did not call for international aid for three days. Military and police were quickly sent to guard private property and suppress any unrest, with orders to “shoot on sight” desperate people caught “robbing” shops for food and water.

The amounts donated by foreign governments so far are a pittance, showing their disinterest and lack of concern for those affected. The US government offered to send a Navy hospital ship, turning the disaster into a military exercise, but Jakarta rejected the proposal.

The horrific suffering and loss of life in Sulawesi is not the result of random, natural forces. It is a crime produced by the capitalist system. All the resources needed to prepare for such disasters are monopolised by the super-rich.

Adam Switzer, a scientist at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, told the Guardian the disaster was “not unexpected.” A paper published in 2013 “suggested that the Palu fault, which is very straight and very long, had the potential for causing a very destructive earthquake and tsunami.” Yet nothing was done to prepare.

Indonesia is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, located in what is known as the Pacific Ring of Fire due to its highly volatile tectonic fault lines. Earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding and volcanic eruptions regularly kill hundreds or thousands. The Lombok earthquake on August 5 killed over 400 people, largely because of cheap and unsafe housing, without adequate foundations or reinforcements.

The catastrophic Indian Ocean tsunami on December 26, 2004, killed more than 230,000 people in 14 countries, including 167,000 in Indonesia, and displaced 1.7 million people. Fourteen years later, there is nothing to prevent a tragedy on the same scale from happening again.

The Indonesian government refuses to pay for even the most basic precautions, such as educating the population about tsunamis. Reports indicate that the first waves hit Sulawesi about 25 minutes after the earthquake, yet many people did not understand that the quake was a warning to move quickly inland. A text message sent by Indonesia’s disaster agency five minutes after the tremor did not reach many people because of damaged phone towers. There were no coastal sirens or other warning mechanisms.

After 2004, governments in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and many other countries promised to establish a tsunami warning system for the Indian Ocean. Indonesia’s 22 tsunami detection buoys installed as part of that system have not worked since 2012 due to budget cuts and a lack of maintenance. An advanced network of undersea sensors and cables, which could provide early tsunami warnings, has been stalled in its prototype phase because of what one report described as “inter-agency wrangling” over a mere 1 billion rupiah ($69,000) needed to finish the job.

There is no shortage of money in the hands of the rich in Indonesia and globally that could be used to vastly improve the warning system. Like the rest of the world, Indonesia has become increasingly socially unequal. Last year, 32 dollar billionaires had a combined wealth of $113 billion, while 93 million people, more than a third of the population, lived on less than $3.10 a day.

Successive governments have stripped away funding for basic infrastructure, including emergency systems, while slashing corporate taxes and regulations that are seen as constraints on profits. Mining companies, palm oil plantations and other businesses are given free rein to pollute the environment and destroy forests, raising the risk of landslides and floods. Building standards are also routinely flouted with impunity.

Vast sums of money are squandered on the military. Indonesia’s defence budget soared from $2.5 billion in 2005 to $8 billion in 2018. Like other countries throughout the Indo-Pacific region, Indonesia has become embroiled in the US-led military build-up and threats against China, which Washington views as a potential challenge to its global hegemony.

In the heavily-militarised South China Sea, advanced warships and planes from several countries stand ready to launch devastating attacks at a moment’s notice. But just 600 miles to the southeast, in Sulawesi, thousands of traumatised quake victims are forced to spend days and weeks without assistance, told by President Widodo to “be patient.”

During the 2004 disaster, the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono left hundreds of thousands of tsunami victims to fend for themselves. Displaced people spent years living in squalid camps, while reconstruction dragged on for nearly a decade. Survivors of the Sulawesi quake, many of whom have lost everything, can expect the same callous treatment.

Indonesia is far from unique. Throughout the world, from earthquakes in China and Nepal, to hurricanes in the United States and Haiti, profit-driven considerations make natural calamities immeasurably worse. The results include climate change and environmental degradation, the lack of emergency services, poverty and social inequality, and the failure of governments to cooperate internationally in the interests of protecting vulnerable people.

Wije Dias, general secretary of the Socialist Equality Party in Sri Lanka, noted in a statement on the first anniversary of the 2004 tsunami: “The humanitarian instincts of ordinary people stood in marked contrast to the reaction of the political establishment. They provide a small glimpse of what would be possible if the vast resources created by the international working class were utilised to meet the social needs of the world’s population.”

The failure of the international aid operation, he explained, posed the need for a conscious political movement that sets out to replace the outmoded capitalist nation-state system, with one based on international socialism. The building of such a movement, fought for by the World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International, is today more urgent than ever.

LDI Africa Emerging Institutions Fellowship Program for Young African Leaders 2019

Application Deadline: 15th November, 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Fellows come to the EIFP with diverse backgrounds and skill sets. However, all fellows are required to have an undergraduate degree, a commitment to excellence, and be fluent in English. Host organizations may also designate other specific skill requirements for their Fellows. Other requirements include:

• Two to ten years of professional experience
• Early to mid-level professional with interest in/familiarity with emerging markets
• Professional background in business, management consulting, strategy, finance, and social enterprise and international development.

Selection Process: Interviews are mainly conducted via Skype video. Shortlisted applicants undergo a preliminary interview with LDI Africa selection board member, and if successful will undergo a second interview round with a host organization(s). Based on these two interview rounds the fellowship decision will be reached by LDI Africa.
Finalists will be notified via email by LDI Africa that they have been selected as a Fellow.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: LDI Africa through its EIFP recruits organizations that are doing excellent work particularly in the financial and investment industries across Africa. Partners range from mid-level to large global institutions; with capital investment of $200,000 and above.
While working with their organization, Fellows enjoy the following benefits and more;

• Experience the growth of Africa’s most innovative businesses
• Direct exposure to emerging markets
• Paid positions, housing and travel
• Training and professional development opportunities
• Potential consulting, employment and seed capital investment after fellowship
• Access to the global LDI Africa network

Duration of Fellowship: 12 months

How to Apply: Interested candidates should go through the Application instructions before applying.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: LDI Africa

Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) Internship (Fully-funded to Netherlands & €800 Stipend) 2019

Application Deadline: 21st October 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Wageningen, the Netherlands

About the Award: The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) is a joint international organization of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States and the European Union (EU). Its mission is to advance food security, resilience and inclusive economic growth in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific through innovations in sustainable agriculture. CTA operates under the framework of the Cotonou Agreement and is funded by the EU.
CTA envisions agriculture in ACP countries as a vibrant, modern and sustainable business that creates value for smallholder farmers, entrepreneurs, youth and women, and produces affordable, nutritious and healthy food for all.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: 

• Recent graduate, between 21 and 29 years old (maximum).
• National of one of the ACP or EU States signatory to the Cotonou Agreement (79 African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union Member States).
• University (or similar institution of higher education) degree in agriculture, information and communication or other discipline relevant to the duties to perform.
• Experience in online network animation and knowledge of key ICT4D issues.
• Skills and experience with the development of innovative communication tools such as animations, infographics, etc.
• Experience in project management is a plus.
• Excellent communication, interpersonal and organisational skills.
• Strong computer skills.
• Excellent knowledge of English or French and satisfactory command of the other language.
• Keen interest in agricultural and rural development issues in developing countries is an advantage.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• Participation in CTA activities will give you an invaluable experience at international level.
• Internship stipend (€ 800 per month for holder of a Bachelor’s degree, € 1,000 per month for holder of a Master’s degree).
• Payment of travel costs when joining and leaving the Centre.
• Medical coverage for emergency cases of sickness and accident, for the duration of the internship.

Duration of Program: 6 months (renewable once)

How to Apply: Interested candidates are required to send their application via email or mail to Christèle Coutureau, Human Resources Officer. Email address: intern7@cta.int.

Please indicate in the ‘Subject’ of the email the title ‘Internship Youth, Entrepreneurship, and ICT4Ag’.

Applications should include:

• A letter of motivation (maximum one page) explaining why the candidate considers that he/she is in a position to contribute to CTA’s activities and what he/she expects to gain from the internship. The date of earliest availability should be specified as well;
• An up-to-date curriculum vitae, preferably in EUROPASS format, highlighting qualifications, experience and skills with regards to the position;
• A copy of the highest diploma/degree, as well as training certificates related to the position. Original documents are to be presented once a candidate is selected.
• Two letters of recommendation and/or references.

Visit  Program Webpage for Details

IDFA Bertha Fund for Filmmakers in Developing Countries 2019 – Amsterdam

Application Deadlines: 

• IBF Classic – Development: 10th December 2018, 10th June 2019 
• IBF Classic – Production & Post-production: 10th December 2018, 10th June 2019 
• IBF Europe – Co-Production: 1st April 2019 

No changes concerning the deadline will be made for the category IBF Europe – Distribution of International Co-Productions, and will thus be continuously open for applications from December 1, 2018 until October 1, 2019. 

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Amsterdam, Netherlands

About the Award: The IDFA Bertha Fund supports documentary filmmakers in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe (see IBF Classic Country List) by offering them financial contributions, assistance and coaching to complete their projects. The Fund is looking for creative documentaries that use strong visual treatments to tell compelling stories and have the potential to reach a global audience.
Projects can be submitted in two categories:

• Project development: The maximum contribution for project development is €5,000, which must be spent in a country on the IBF Classic Country List.

• Production & post-production: The maximum contribution for production & post-production is €17,500, which must be spent in a country on the IBF Classic Country List.

Type: Contest, Grants

Eligibility: Documentary projects can be submitted for two categories: Project Development or Production & Post-Production. The application has to be submitted by a director or producer from a country on the DAC-list. The core rule of the fund is that the director of the project should have the nationality of a DAC- country and live and work in this country.

• The director of the project should have the nationality of a country as defined on the IBF Classic Country List and should live and work in this country. The IBF Classic Country list is based on the most recent DAC-list.
• In addition, the main producer attached to the project must be based in a country on the IBF Classic Country List.
• Before continuing, please confirm your country is on the IBF Classic Country list.
• In case a co-producer from Europe, North America or Australia is attached to the project, this cannot be the main producer of the project. The application to the Fund must be filed by the main producer from the IBF Classic Country List and the application should be accompanied with a deal memo or co-production agreement which needs to contain detailed provisions on the following aspects: the participation of each co-producer in the financing of the project; joint ownership of all the rights; sharing of the revenues between the co-producers.
• If a project is selected, the contribution must be spent in a country on the IBF Classic Country List. A project can be submitted only once for each category. A project can be submitted for Project Development and at a later deadline for Production or Post-Production, whether or not the Project Development submission was successful.

Submission requirements:

• Incomplete applications will not be taken into consideration. Completed applications must be in our office on the day of the deadline.
• Entry forms must be filled out in English. Only for applications coming from French-speaking African countries and Haiti, the Fund offers the possibility to submit the entry form in French. See: IBF Classic information and regulations in French.
• Production applications will only be accepted when accompanied by a trailer, demo, edited sequence or other audio-visual material of the project with a minimum of 3 minutes and a maximum of 20 minutes.
• Projects that have finished the shooting phase will be considered as Post-Production applications. In this case applications have to be accompanied by an edited sequence or a selection of the rough cut of around 20 minutes.
• In case your material is longer than 20 minutes, please indicate which part we need to watch or make a selection of 20 minutes which you think is most representative and/or complementary to the end result.
• Project Development applications will only be accepted when accompanied by visual material of the project. If available, a trailer or selected research material from the project is recommended if representative of the style. If no audiovisual material is available, photos or a visual presentation can also be presented through a Vimeo or YouTube link.
• Project Development applications should also be accompanied by one previous work, preferably representative for the style of the filmmaker. This previous/additional film, although required for the jury’s selection process, is viewed only if necessary in making decisions regarding the selection process.
• All applications have the possibility to submit a short video by the director introducing him/herself and explaining his/her motivation to the project instead of writing this down. If you prefer to make use of this possibility, the link can be pasted in the entry form.
• Vimeo or YouTube links must be in our office on the day of the deadline. The material must be in English or have English subtitles. Links should remain online for at least two months following the deadline. If possible, please allow for free viewing of the material (no password required) or make sure you send us the password.

Only projects that have been submitted according to the IDFA Bertha Fund regulations will be considered.

Selection Criteria: Project’s originality, cinematic quality and market potential.

Selection Process: In assessing projects the fund will consider (1) the strength and originality of the treatment, (2) the originality and urgency of the story, (3) the vision and ability of the director and (4) the financial feasibility of the project.
Please note that fund is very competitive and can only select around 5 % of applications received.
All applications that are complete will be considered for selection. After a first selection round the fund will make a pre-selection. The filmmakers of the pre-selected projects will receive a more extensive application form. Within two months after the deadline the Fund will inform applicants of the selection results.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Programme: 

• Project development: The maximum contribution for project development is €5,000. A contribution for project development can be spent on research and on the development of a script and/or on the production of a trailer. It must be spent in a developing country.
• Production & post-production: The maximum contribution for production & post-production is €17,500. A contribution for production & post-production can be spent on all forms of production & post-production, but it must be spent in a developing country.

 Each year, also the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) screens a large part of the year’s harvest of completed films supported by the IDFA Bertha Fund. These may be selected in Competition or in the sections Panorama, Masters or Best of Fests. And every year the Fund works with numerous international film festivals, including Cannes, Berlinale, Thessaloniki, Locarno, Toronto and Pusan, to screen the films that have received IDFA Bertha Fund support.

How to Apply: Submit your project via links below

IBF Classic – Development 

IBF Classic – Production & Post-production 

IBF Europe – Co-Production

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: The International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA)

USA State Department Electronic Diversity Visa Lottery 2020 – Live & Work in the US

Application Deadline: 6th November 2018 12:00PM EST (GMT -5)

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: For DV-20, natives of the following countries are NOT eligible to apply, because more than 50,000 natives of these countries immigrated to the United States in the previous five years:
Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.
Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible.

About the Award: The Department of State administers the Congressionally-mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program annually. Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for a class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants” from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. For Fiscal Year 2019, 50,000 Diversity Visas (DVs) will be available. There is no cost to register for the DV program.
Applicants who are selected in the program (“selectees”) must meet simple but strict eligibility requirements to qualify for a diversity visa. The Department of State determine selectees through a randomized computer drawing. The Department of State distributes diversity visas among six geographic regions, and no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year.
The entry form will only be available for submission during this period and this period only. Entries will NOT be accepted through the U.S. Postal Service.

Before beginning the entry process, you can verify that your picture(s) comply with all requirements in the Photo Tool.

Type: Contests/Awards

Eligibility: 
Requirement #1:

• Individuals born in countries whose natives qualify may be eligible to enter.
• If you were not born in an eligible country, there are two other ways you might be able to qualify.
• Was your spouse born in a country whose natives are eligible? If yes, you can claim your spouse’s country of birth – provided that both you and your spouse are named on the selected entry, are found eligible and issued diversity visas, and enter the United States simultaneously.
• Were you born in a country whose natives are ineligible, but in which neither of your parents was born or legally resident at the time of your birth? If yes, you may claim the country of birth of one of your parents if it is a country whose natives are eligible for the DV-2019 program.

Requirement #2:

• Each DV applicant must meet the education/work experience requirement of the DV program by having either:
• at least a high school education or its equivalent, defined as successful completion of a 12-year course of formal elementary and secondary education;

OR

• two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience to perform. The Department of State will use the U.S. Department of Labor’s O*Net Online database to determine qualifying work experience.

Number of Awards: Not specified

How to Apply: 

• Applicants must submit entries for the DV-2019 program electronically at dvlottery.state.gov between noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4), October 3, 2018, and noon, Eastern Standard Time (EST) (GMT-5), to November 6, 2017.
• Do not wait until the last week of the registration period to enter, as heavy demand may result in website delays.
• No late entries or paper entries will be accepted.
• The law allows only one entry by or for each person during each registration period.
• The Department of State uses sophisticated

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: US Department of State

Important Notes: As indicated in the instructions, for the purposes of eligibility some countries include components and dependent areas overseas.  If you are a native of a dependency or overseas territory, please select the appropriate country of eligibility.  For example, natives of Macau S.A.R should select Portugal, and natives of Martinique should select France.

BI Presidential Scholarships (Fully-funded) for Masters Students 2019/2020 – Norway

Application Deadline: 1st March 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Norway

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Students with top-level grades are eligible, which means a GPA of A on the ECTS scale or equivalent top-level grade on international grade scales.

The scholarship will be extended to the second year of the programme based on the following conditions set below. Documentation of financial need for covering living costs must be stated in the financial plan.

Conditions for Second Year:

1. Full study progression (60 ECTS) in the first year.

2. Minimum GPA of a “B” on the BI ECTS scale after completion of the first year (60 ECTS).

The candidates who are awarded the Presidential Scholarship must be prepared to be “BI ambassadors”, acting as spokespeople, assisting in recruitment efforts and promoting a good study environment. The details regarding responsibilities will be specified in the scholarship contract.

Selection Process: Applications for Presidential Scholarships will be evaluated on an ongoing basis effective until the March 1st priority deadline.

Number of Awardees: 20

Value of Scholarship: The scholarships cover full tuition and living expenses stipend for the first year of studies and may be renewed for a second year depending on successful academic progression.

Duration of Scholarship: The BI Presidential Scholarships are offered for the duration of 2 years, which is the duration of the course.

How to Apply: 
1. Write your scholarship essay where you describe why you deserve a scholarship.
2. Upload the scholarship essay to the online application portal when you complete the application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

ARES Masters and Training Scholarships in Belgium for Developing Countries 2019/2020

Application Deadlines:

• 11th January, 2019
• 8th February, 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Students from African and  developing countries

To be taken in: Belgium

About the Award: Each year, the Academy of Research and Higher Education (ARES) grants an average of 150 fellowships in the framework of the Masters and 70 fellowships in the framework of the internships to the nationals of the countries of the South.

Eligible Countries: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cuba, Ecuador, Ethiopia (only for courses in English ), Haiti, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Peru, Philippines, DR Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Vietnam.

Accepted Subject Areas (Masters): 

• Master of Specialization in Development, Environment and Societies
• Specialization Master in Human Rights
• Master of Specialization in Aquatic Resource Management and Aquaculture
• Master of Specialization in Risk and Disaster Management
• Specialized Master in Integrated Management of Health Risks in the Global South (IManHR)
• Specialized Master in International Development
• Master of Specialization in Transfusion Medicine
• Specialized Master in Microfinance
• Master of specialization in integrated production and preservation of natural resources in urban and peri-urban areas
• Specialized Master in Public Health Methodology
• Master of Science in Public Health – Methods of Research Applied to Global Health
• Master of Science and Environmental Management in Developing Countries
• Specialized Master in Transport and Logistics

Accepted Subject Areas (Training): 

• Internship in control and quality assurance of medicines and health products
• Research Initiation to Strengthen Health Systems
• Internship in Geographic Information System
• Internship in secondary resource development for sustainable construction
• Methodological internship in support of innovation in family farming

Type: Masters, Training

About the Award: Within the framework of the Belgian policy for development cooperation, the Minister for Development Cooperation and the Directorate-General for Development Cooperation entrust the Belgian Higher Education Institutions with the preparation of Postgraduate Programmes (Advanced Masters) and Training Programmes that are specifically oriented towards young professionals from developing countries.

International Courses and Training Programmes are part of the global study programmes of the Higher Education Institutions. They are open to all students who satisfy the conditions of qualification, but aim at proposing training units that distinguish themselves by their openness towards specific development issues.
Within the programme for International Courses and Training Programmes 2016-2017, ARES grants 130 scholarships for participation into the masters and 67 scholarships for participation into the training programmes.

Eligiblilty: The following will apply for the selection of holders of scholarships:

1. Originally from a developing country. To be eligible, applicants must reside and work in their own country at the time of filing;
2. Only nationals of the following countries are eligible to apply for scholarships ARES: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cuba, Ecuador, Ethiopia ( only for courses in English ), Haiti, Madagascar, Morocco, Niger, Peru, Philippines, DR Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Vietnam ;
3. Either under the age of 40 for courses and under 45 for training periods at the start of training;
4. Either holds a diploma comparable to a diploma of the second cycle of Belgian university education. However, for certain types of training, different requirements may be set out, which will be specified below;
5. Demonstrates a professional occupation in a developing country of at least two years after completing his / her second cycle or three years after the end of his / her studies when the candidate holds a post-graduate diploma a university in an industrialized country;
6. A good knowledge of written and spoken French. For courses organized in another language, it is necessary to have a good knowledge of the language of the course, written and spoken. The candidate will also be asked to commit to learning French in order to participate in everyday life in Belgium;
7. Apply for a single training

Selection Criteria: 

• The academic curriculum
• For courses, priority will be given to candidates who are already holders of a diploma third cycle, save in exceptional circumstances duly justified in the application.
• Priority will be given to candidates who have not already received a grant in Belgium.
• Professional experience
• Belonging to a partner institution: The commitment of the candidate in development activities
• Nationality requirements
• Gender equality
• The future reintegration prospects

Number of Scholarships: ARES grants 150 scholarships for participation into the masters and 70 scholarships for participation into the training programmes.

Value of Scholarship: Travel (internal and external), Monthly living allowance, Indirect mission costs, Installation costs, Tuition fees, Registration fee, Insurance costs, Housing allowance, Allowances for dependents, Return fees, In 1st session completion bonus (June).

Duration of Scholarship:  For the duration of the program

How to Apply: 

• Download the 2019-2020 form in English (15 pages – 119 KB) (for specialized master’s degrees in English).
• Download the 2019-2020 form in French (15 pages – 118 Ko) (for specialization masters in French).

It is important to go through the Application requirements and procedures on the Scholarship Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: The University Commission for Development

Important: Applying for a ARES Masters and Training scholarship is absolutely free of charge. ARES does not charge any fee at any stage of the application or selection process. You may raise any question or concern about persons or companies claiming to be acting on behalf of ARES and requesting the payment of a fee by emailing ARES at maryvonne.aubry[at]ares-ac.be.
Any application containing cash will be automatically rejected.

The Root of the Internet’s Disrepute: Online Advertising!

Ralph Nader

In all the mounting media coverage of problems with the Internet, such as invasion of privacy, vulnerability to hacking, political manipulation, and user addiction, there is one constant: online advertising. Online advertising is the lifeblood of Google, Facebook, and many other Internet enterprises that profit by providing personal data to various vendors. Moreover, the move of tens of billions of dollars from conventional print and broadcast media continues, with devastating impacts, especially on print newspapers and magazines.

But does online advertising work for consumers? The Internet was once considered a less commercial medium. But today consumers are inundated with targeted ads, reviews, comments, friends’ reactions, and other digital data. Unfortunately for advertisers, consumers are not intentionally clicking on online ads in big numbers.

Google’s search ads tackle people when they search for a product or service. A controlled study by eBay research labs in 2014 concluded that Google was greatly exaggerating the effectiveness of such ads—at least those bought by eBay. eBay’s researchers concluded that “More frequent users whose purchasing behavior is not influenced by ads account for most of the advertising expenses, resulting in average returns that are negative.” This is the “I-was-gonna-buy-it-anyway problem,” says an article in the Atlantic.

The Atlantic notes:

“Whether all advertising—online and off—is losing its persuasive punch…Think about how much you can learn about products today before seeing an ad. Comments, user reviews, friends’ opinions, price-comparison tools…they’re much more powerful than advertising because we consider them information rather than marketing. The difference is enormous: We seek information, so we’re more likely to trust it; marketing seeks us, so we’re more likely to distrust it.”

Some companies like Coca-Cola have cooled on using online advertising. But advertising revenues keep growing for Google, Facebook, and the other giants of the Internet. These companies are racing to innovate, connecting ads to more tailored audiences, which tantalize and keeps hope springing eternal for the advertisers. The Internet ad sellers also provide detailed data to advertise themselves to the advertisers staying one step ahead of growing skepticism. This is especially a problem when there is inadequate government regulation of deceptive advertising. It is the Wild West! Online advertising revenues are the Achilles’ heel of these big Internet companies. Any decline will deflate them immensely; more than public and Congressional criticism of their intrusiveness, their massive allowed fakeries, their broken promises to reform, and their openings to unsavory political and commercial users. If they lose advertising revenue, a major revenue bubble will burst and there goes their business model, along with their funding for ventures from video hosting to global mapping.

After reviewing the many major negatives attributed to the Internet, the New York Times’ Farhad Manjoo writes, “So who is the central villain in this story, the driving force behind much of the chaos and disrepute online?… It’s the advertising business, stupid.” He adds, perhaps optimistically, “If you want to fix much of what ails the internet right now, the ad business would be the perfect perp to handcuff and restrain.”

Randall Rothenberg, who heads a trade association of companies in the digital ad business, urges advertisers “to take civic responsibility for our effect on the world.” Then he shows his frustration by saying that, “Technology has largely been outpacing the ability of individual companies to understand what is actually going on.” All of this even before artificial intelligence (AI) takes root. Meanwhile, Facebook, Google, and Twitter keep announcing new tools to make their ads “safe and civil” (Facebook), open and protective of privacy. At the same time matters keep getting worse for consumers. The backers and abusers keep getting more skilled too (see Youtube Kids ).

In a recent report titled “Digital Deceit,” authors Dipayan Ghosh and Ben Scott wrote:

“The Central problem of disinformation corrupting American political culture is not Russian spies or a particular media platform. The central problem is that the entire industry is built to leverage sophisticated technology to aggregate user attention and sell advertising.”

If so, why isn’t more public attention being paid to this root cause? Not by the mass media which is obviously too compromised by the Congress, by academia, or by more of US before “We the People” become the conditioned responders that Ivan Pavlov warned about so many years ago.

Russia’s New Missile Defense System in Syria May Change Balance of Power in Middle East

Patrick Cockburn

Russia has completed delivery of a S-300 surface-to-air missile system to Syria in a move likely to change the balance of forces in the skies over the Syrian battlefields.

“The work was finished a day ago,” Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin in a meeting broadcast on television.

The decision to supply the sophisticated anti-aircraft system came in response to the shooting down of a Russian Ilyushin reconnaissance plane with the loss of all 15 on board by Syria on 17 September in an incident 22 miles off the Syrian coast for which Russia holds Israel ultimately responsible.

The friendly fire loss of the Russian plane is unsurprising since three of the world’s most powerful air forces – Russia, US and Israel – are frequently flying in or close to Syrian air space. In addition, there are Turkish and Syrian planes, backed up, in the case of Syria, by a ground-to-air defence system. With five air forces operating in close proximity some mishap always appeared inevitable.

Israel has expressed regret at the death of the Russian air force personnel and is concerned that the S-300s may make it more risky for its planes to continue a campaign against Iranian facilities in Syria. The missiles have the capacity to track dozens of targets at a distance of hundreds of miles. The state-owned manufacturer Almaz-Antey says they can also shoot down cruise and ballistic missiles.

Israel has long sought to prevent the delivery of the S-300s to Iran and Syria. Iran did buy the system in 2007 but it was only delivered in 2016.

“We have not changed our strategic line on Iran,” said Israeli education minister Naftali Bennett, a member of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet. “We will not allow Iran to open up a third front against us. We will take actions as required.”

Mr Putin has succeeded hitherto in maintaining good relations and a high level of cooperation with Syria, Turkey and Israel, despite their conflicting objectives in Syria.

Relations between Israel and Russia have been frayed by the 17 September shoot down when the Russians claimed that Israeli F-16s had used the reconnaissance flight of the Russian plane off Latakia to make an attack.

More is at stake than future Israeli air operations over Syria. US military power in the northern tier of the Middle East – notably in Syria and Iraq – stems primarily from the massive destructive power of its air force and its ability to use its planes and missiles at will.

This strategy worked successfully in the campaign against Isis in both countries in 2014-18 when local ground troops – the Kurds in Syria and government security forces in Iraq – defeated Isis thanks to US air support. Any radical improvement in Syrian air defences reduces US military options.

The US could not confirm yesterday that the S-300 missile batteries had been delivered. But the Russian Defence Ministry has published a video of the launcher, radar and command and control vehicle being unloaded.

Moscow will also support and upgrade Syrian electronic defences.

Syria hopes that Israel will be less free in future to carry air attacks on Syrian territory. Syria’s deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad said that: “Israel, which has gotten used to carrying out attacks under various pretexts, will now have to weigh and rethink before attacking again.”

The S-300 missiles will at the very least make Israel more cautious and less likely to take for granted Russian acquiescence in Israeli operations against Iran in Syria. It has also deployed the even more advanced S-400 missile batteries to its own bases in Syria.

Israel gives advanced warning to the Russians of any of its air actions in or close to Syria which has allowed some 200 attacks since the start of 2017 to be carried out in relative safety.

A Russian complaint about the shooting down of the Ilyushin reconnaissance plane is that only one minute’s warning was given. This was too short a period for them to alert the Syrians as to what was happening. An explanation for this could be that the Russians and Syrians must inevitably inform their Iranian allies about Israeli intentions leading Israel to keep the warning time as short as possible.

The shooting down of the Russian aircraft and the delivery of the S-300 is a sign that the military balance is changing to the advantage of the Syrian government.

Since the end of 2016, President Bashar al-Assad has recaptured the most important armed opposition strongholds in East Aleppo, East Ghouta and Deraa, leaving only one, the large opposition enclave in Idlib untaken. He can now focus more time to pushing back against Israeli military operations affecting Syria.

Israel and the US continue to speak of the build up of Iranian influence either directly or through local proxies in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. But Iranian influence probably peaked in Syria and Iraq in 2015 when governments in both countries were under intense military pressure from Isis and needed all the foreign help they could get. Israeli attacks will not stop, but they will be riskier.

Bad Farm Policy Contributes to Natural Disasters

Anthony Pahnke & Jim Goodman

Good farm policy works for rural people by stabilizing prices, encouraging the growth of rural communities, and helping farm families deal with natural disasters. This last point is particularly relevant now, as fires rage in the Western US, tornadoes, hurricanes and floods destroy communities around the country, and drought grips much of the South. Yet, instead of creating sensible farm policy that could lessen the effects of climate change and keep farmers on the land, our government promotes environmentally and economically disastrous overproduction.

The direction of most US farm policy concerning the environment and who actually profits from the system, is misguided. Yes, money is made in the food industry, with for example, Land O’Lakes reporting record profits in 2017, and the world’s largest producer and exporter of meat, the Brazilian- based JBS, making huge profits from its control of just under 25% of the US beef market. Meanwhile, farmers are paid a fraction of the food dollar while bearing all the risk, including the brunt of extreme weather. Many farms depend on tax-payer subsidized crop insurance programs that guarantee a profit to private insurance companies. Then consider the conservation title of the Farm Bill, which should encourage farmers to take land out of production and finance environmentally-sustainable practices. Why did politicians cut conservation funding by $6 billion in 2014? The 2018 farm bill will make even deeper cuts, ending the Conservation Stewardship Program, which helps farmers start or improve responsible land, soil, and resource management practices.

This country is experiencing one of the worst farm crises in generations. Low prices are driving grain, dairy, and livestock producers into debt and foreclosure, while Donald Trump’s trade war with China, Mexico, and Canada further depress prices. Production costs including feed, labor, and machinery, are far in excess of sales revenues, as extreme weather adds even more volatility to an occupation plagued by uncertainty.

There is a single factor that overrides the environmental, economic, and cultural crisis of rural America – overproduction.

Since the 1970s, farmers were told to ‘get big or get out,’ and ‘plant fence row to fence row.’ Emphasizing production rather than stewardship has exacerbated the effects we experience following extreme weather. Fond du Lac county, Wisconsin, had 17 tornadoes touch down on August 28^th. Similarly, throughout the state, tornadoes and subsequent flooding destroyed roads, homes, and farmland. The problem is that fence-row-to-fence-row farming of row crops leads to erosion, as heavy machinery compacts the soil and agrochemicals reduce soil biodiversity and water-holding capacity. As small farms get pushed out, the remaining farmers expand and focus on commodity grain crops. In 2018, soybean acreage in Wisconsin reached a record 2.7 million acres, up 7% over 2017, while corn acreage remained constant at 3.9 million acres. These two crops now dominate over half of the state’s cropland. Less than 25% of Wisconsin’s 10.1 million crop acres are devoted to pasture/hay/alfalfa and over 100,000 acres of this perennial forage is converted yearly to corn and soybeans.

Farm policy must remedy, instead of contribute to the environmental problems that climate change aggravates. Establishing a price floor and ceiling for all commodity farm products would help small producers keep farming by stabilizing prices. This would also promote conservation, by removing incentives for surplus production while also promoting diversified cropping systems.

Current farm policy sacrifices stewardship on the altar of profitability. Controlling price and supply would return power to farmers and rural communities. Unfortunately, the Washington power structure cares little for the environment or working families.