Brutal crackdown on West Bank as Netanyahu pledges stepped-up land grab

Jean Shaoul

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu authorized a military crackdown on the Palestinian West Bank.

The assault was calculated to appeal to Israel’s ultra-nationalist forces at the expense of his fascistic coalition partners, which are vying over who has a tougher policy against the Palestinians.

In the days that followed, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carried out a series of military operations, killing six and arresting at least 100 more in protests that erupted over Israeli brutality in Nablus, Tulkarem, Ramallah, Hebron and al-Bireh. One of those arrested in the Hebron area was the Palestinian legislator Mohammed Ismail Al-Tal.

The assault started after a drive-by shooting on December 9 near the West Bank city of Ofra that injured seven Israelis, including a pregnant woman whose baby was subsequently delivered by Caesarian section but later died. Settler leaders demanded to “see the blood of the terrorists.” Netanyahu’s son Yair joined the calls for revenge, following a series of posts on social media calling for the expulsion of the Palestinians and writing that he would prefer all Muslims to leave Israel. Facebook’s temporary ban on him for breaking its rule on hate speech only served to make him a martyr among Israel’s fascists.

On Wednesday, Israeli security forces gave chase to 29-year-old Salah Barghouti, who lived near Ramallah, opening fire on his car before arresting and killing him. His family denied that he had any involvement in the shooting, pointing out that he had not gone into hiding. The next day, the conflict escalated after Palestinians shot and killed two Israeli soldiers and injured two others in a drive-by shooting at a bus stop near the illegal settlement of Ofra. Amid another media uproar, there were calls from several far-right figures for Israel to legalise the entire settlement in retaliation for the attack.

The IDF mounted a full-scale provocation, moving into Area A, supposedly under the Palestinian Authority’s full control. The IDF blockaded the city of Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority (PA), for two days, escalating tensions throughout the West Bank. They carried out a mass round-up, arresting 40 Palestinians, mostly members of Hamas, the bourgeois Islamist group that controls Gaza.

The PA’s security forces reportedly went into hiding during the Israeli military presence on the streets. PA President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the Palestinian attacks, while pointing to Israel’s raids as the cause of popular anger.

The same day, Israeli security forces killed 23-year-old Ashraf Naalwa, whom they suspected of shooting and two killing Israelis in the Barkan settlement industrial plant last October. They had forced their way into a home in Askar al-Jadid refugee camp, near the northern city of Nablus, sparking a lengthy gun battle. Troops used live rounds or rubber-coated steel bullets on crowds of angry Palestinians protesting Naalwa’s murder, injuring at least 11.

Soldiers shot Hamdan al-Arda, a 58-year-old resident of the northern town of Arrabeh, near his aluminum plant in al-Bireh, claiming that he had tried to ram soldiers with his car. Al-Arda died after soldiers refused to allow Palestinian medics to attend to him. Eyewitnesses told the Ma’an News Agency “that the incident was merely a car accident,” and that taken by surprise by the presence of the Israeli soldiers, the driver—who was hard of hearing—had tried to turn away from them before they opened fire on him, a claim that Israel’s Channel 10 also supported. There were reports of Israeli forces using drones to tear gas protesters gathering in the aftermath of the killing.

On Friday, the IDF shot and killed 18-year-old Mahmoud Yousef Nakhla in the Jalazone refugee camp near Ramallah. Palestinians came out onto the streets in protest. The IDF responded by firing stun grenades and rubber-coated steel bullets to disperse the crowds. At least six Palestinians were wounded by the bullets and dozens more suffered from gas inhalation, while 57 were arrested.

Meanwhile in Gaza, the IDF shot and wounded 75 Palestinians, including five paramedics and two photojournalists, during the weekly Friday protests—held last week under the banner of the “legitimate right of resistance”—ongoing since the end of March against the Israeli blockade. Since then, Israeli forces have killed 235 Palestinians and injured 7,000 more with live fire, at least 1,000 of whom face permanent disabilities.

Early Saturday morning, 700 IDF soldiers besieged al-Amari refugee camp and demolished a four-story building that was home to Umm Nasser Abu Hmeid, after throwing the residents out onto the streets without even giving them time to put on warm clothes or take their possessions, as punishment for the killing of an Israeli soldier in May, allegedly by Umm Nasser’s son, Islam. On at least three occasions they stopped Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances trying to evacuate a pregnant woman who had gone into labour.

An Israeli court gave the go-ahead for the demolition—a flagrant violation of international law that bans collective punishment—as a “deterrence” against future attacks. Umm Nasser has faced decades of Israeli oppression. Mother to 12 children, 10 boys and two girls, she has six sons, including Islam, in Israeli jails, four of them serving multiple life sentences. Israeli soldiers killed another of her sons in 1994. As she told the Middle East Eye, “There isn’t a home in Palestine that hasn’t been affected in some way by the occupation. My family has been through everything with the Israeli occupation, and we will get through this as well.”

The Palestinians have faced not just the IDF but also Israeli settlers who have been attacking cars and civilians in the West Bank since Thursday, shooting and injuring at least one. Settlers from Ofra went on the rampage through the village of Ein Yabroud, northeast of Ramallah, firing on Palestinians’ homes and provoking clashes. Many of the attacks took place in full view of Israeli soldiers who did nothing to stop them. One far-right group put up posters all over the West Bank calling for the assassination of PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

Palestinians protesting in the city of Hebron also came face to face with the violence of Abbas’ PA security forces who attacked them, detaining a number, and prevented journalists from filming.

Netanyahu followed up the brutal crackdown with a pledge to expand the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that Israel annexed illegally after seizing it during the 1967 June war. Last Thursday, he announced his intention to legalise thousands of Jewish homes built in settlement outposts in the West Bank, previously deemed illegal under Israeli law, while he is pursing plans to redefine Jerusalem’s borders to exclude Palestinian residents. Netanyahu said he would fast-track the demolitions of the family homes of Palestinians suspected of carrying out attacks on Israelis.

Speaking during a tour of the West Bank, he said, “We will bolster the settlements even more, as we have now, and we will take all the necessary steps against terror.” He added, “We won't tolerate terror—neither from Gaza nor from the West Bank. We will beat it with a strong fist.”

He made a point of extolling “the settlers, who are showing strength and perseverance in face of this murderous terror, and the commanders and soldiers of the IDF who safeguard all of the country’s civilians, around the clock, throughout the year.”

Netanyahu faces the prospect of being indicted for bribery and corruption on numerous charges. He heads a fractious far right coalition that has a majority of just one in the Knesset, following the resignation of Avigdor Lieberman, his former Minister of Defence and leader of Israel Beiteinu (Israel is Our Home). The religious Agudat Yisrael, part of the United Torah Judaism party, has threatened to quit the coalition if Netanyahu goes ahead with the bill enforcing the conscription of the ultra-Orthodox into the army, as required by a High Court ruling before January 16.

At the same time, Netanyahu faces rising social discontent within Israel itself, fueled by social inequality, rising prices and the “yellow vest” protests in France that led to several hundred to protest on the streets of Tel Aviv last weekend.

The US hails Wickremesinghe’s reinstatement as Sri Lankan prime minister

Wasantha Rupasinghe

Colombo has been showered with praise by the US and its allies after President Maithripala Sirisena swore in United National Party (UNP) leader Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister last Sunday. Sirisena’s decision reversed his unconstitutional removal of the UNP leader and installation of former President Mahinda Rajapakse on October 26.

The immediate and enthusiastic support for Sirisena’s about-face is another indication of the concerted pressure brought to bear by the US behind the scenes for Wickremesinghe’s reappointment. The US “advice” to Colombo to uphold “parliamentary democratic norms, constitution and rule of law” was simply a smokescreen to cover up its geo-political agenda in the India-Pacific region.

Sirisena’s dismissal of Wickremesinghe last October was in response to sharp political divisions within Colombo’s political elite. The conflict was fuelled by growing tensions between the US and China, a mounting crisis in the Sri Lankan economy, and above all the eruption of militant struggles by workers in Sri Lanka and internationally.

The bitter dispute between Sri Lanka’s two political factions—one led by Sirisena and Rajapakse and the other by Wickremesinghe’s UNP and its allies—is over how best to deal with the mounting popular resistance to International Monetary Fund-dictated austerity measures.

The US and its regional partner India were concerned that the close military relations developed with Colombo during the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government as a part of their escalating confrontation with China would be undermined by an incoming Rajapakse government.

US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Alaina Teplitz, welcomed Sunday’s reappointment of Wickremesinghe, declaring in a Twitter comment, that the decision “upheld Sri Lanka’s democratic and constitutional norms.” Sri Lanka, she added, “is a valued partner in the Indo-Pacific and we look forward to continuing to develop our relationship with the government and people in this country”—i.e., to increase Colombo’s involvement in US military preparations for war against China.

Teplitz’s tweet was echoed by State Department spokesman Robert Palladino who noted: [W]e look forward to engaging with Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and his cabinet to advance cooperation on bilateral and regional issues of common interest.”

Washington, of course, is not concerned in the slightest with Sri Lanka’s “democratic and constitutional norms.” The US fully backed the Rajapakse government’s anti-democratic methods of rule and its bloody war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). But when China emerged as a major military hardware supplier and provider of financial aid to Colombo, Washington suddenly “discovered” human rights violations in an attempt to pressure Rajapakse to distance his government from China.

When these moves failed to persuade Rajapakse to change his foreign policy orientation, Washington, with the aid of Wickremesinghe and former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, orchestrated the regime-change operation that brought Sirisena to power in the January 2015 presidential election.

The incoming Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration immediately reoriented Sri Lanka away from China and began closely integrating the Sri Lankan military with its US counterpart.

The close military relations between the two countries are reflected in the temporary logistics hub established by the USS John C. Stennis, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, in Trincomalee in eastern Sri Lanka. According to a December 6 article on the US Navy’s website “the hub provides logistics support to US Navy ships operating in the Indian Ocean.”

As Lieutenant Bryan Ortiz, USS John C. Stennis’s stock control division officer explained: “The primary purpose of the operation is to provide mission-critical supplies and services to US Navy ships transiting through and operating in the Indian Ocean. The secondary purpose is to demonstrate the US Navy’s ability to establish a temporary logistics hub ashore where no enduring US Navy logistics footprint exists.”

On December 14, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia David J. Ranz visited Sri Lanka and the Maldives to “strengthen” relations. The trip occurred after the recent pro-US regime change in the Maldives and just before Wickremesinghe’s reinstatement.

Sirisena also came under pressure from the IMF to “reconsider” his previous dismissal of Wickremesinghe. In November, the bank announced that it was withholding the final installment of its loan to Sri Lanka until the “political uncertainty” in Colombo was resolved. Additional pressure was exerted by the US postponement of its Millennium aid program for Sir Lanka and the announcement by US ally Japan that it was delaying its aid and investment project to the island.

Commenting on Washington’s postponement of the Millennium aid program, US Ambassador Teplitz told the Colombo-based Daily FT on December 10: “We are waiting to see how the crisis [in Sri Lanka] is resolved before we could resume our negotiations and go forward. … There is definitely an impact from the crisis on some of our bilateral opportunities.”

India immediately praised the return of Wickremesinghe. Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said that “India welcomes the resolution of the political situation in Sri Lanka” and declared that the Modi government was “confident that India-Sri Lanka relations will continue to move on an upward trajectory.” New Delhi considers Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries as its backyard and is hostile to China developing its influence in the region.

An EU statement welcomed “the peaceful and democratic resolution of the political crisis in accordance with Sri Lanka’s constitution” and pledged to continue supporting “the island nation’s efforts towards national reconciliation and prosperity for all.” When Sirisena sacked Wickremesinghe as prime minister in October the EU threatened to “reconsider” GSP tariff concessions provided to Sri Lankan exports.

China issued a pro-forma statement welcoming the “resolution of the political situation” in Sri Lanka and declaring that it would work with the new government and all Sri Lankan political parties to promote “cooperation between the two countries.” This response cannot hide the fact that Wickremesinghe’s reinstatement undermines China’s position in Colombo.

Both of Sri Lanka’s warring factions sought the support of the major imperialist powers. Rajapakse insisted that he had “no grudge” against these powers and that his party was “taking steps to change their attitude towards us.”

These international pressures and fear of growing class struggle, expressed at its sharpest in indefinite strike action taken by tens of thousands of plantation workers, which emerged outside of the unions’ control, were key factors forcing Sirisena to reinstate Wickremesinghe.

After Sunday’s swearing-in ceremony, Wickremesinghe pompously thanked those “who stood firm” to defend the constitution and “ensuring the triumph of democracy.” His reinstatement does not end the crisis of the Sri Lankan ruling elite, which will intensify as pressure from US imperialism and international capital continues. Like his imperialist masters, Wickremesinghe and his UNP do not “defend democracy” but are involved in a headlong rush by the entire Colombo establishment towards authoritarian forms of rule.

Under his administration, Sri Lanka’s population of 20 million will be subjected to even harsher IMF-dictated austerity measures and will be further drawn into the maelstrom of major power rivalry and the US drive to war.

Turkey threatens to invade Syria amid tensions with Washington

Barış Demir 

On December 12, at the Turkish Defense Industry Summit, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to launch a new military operation east of the Euphrates River in northern Syria in coming days, targeting the Kurdish nationalist groups.

He dismissed arguments that US support for Kurdish nationalists was necessary to fight the terrorist threat from ISIS: “There is no ISIS threat in Syria any longer. This is only a tale. We said before and we are saying now that we will start the operation in east of the Euphrates in a few days to save it from the separatist terrorist organization. It is clear that the purpose of US observation points in Syria is not to protect our country from terrorists, but to protect terrorists from Turkey.”

This reflected longstanding concerns in Ankara over US support for the Kurdish nationalist People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria, an affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Kurdish separatist movement against which Ankara has waged a bloody counter-insurgency for more than 30 years in Turkey. Ankara opposes Kurdish autonomy in Syria, fearing that it will provoke demands for Kurdish autonomy in eastern Turkey.

To crush the Kurdish nationalist forces, Erdogan has twice ordered the Turkish army to launch its own bloody invasions of Syria: “Operation Euphrates Shield” (in August 2016) and “Operation Olive Branch” (in January 2018), directed against the US-backed YPG.

Erdogan’s December 12 speech was a direct response to the announcement made by Department of Defense spokesman Rob Manning on December 11. “At the direction of Secretary (James) Mattis, the US established observation posts in the northeast Syria border region to address the security concerns of our NATO ally Turkey,” Manning said.

Mattis had announced that Washington would establish observation posts in northern Syria near the Turkish border in order to share military intelligence on Kurdish movements into Turkey. Mattis’ remarks were framed as an attempt to reassure Turkey that US support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which is comprised largely of YPG troops, would not harm Ankara’s interests. Ankara rejected this, however, seeing it as an unacceptable proposal to place US troops athwart a Turkish attack on Kurdish forces in Syria.

As high-level talks continued, US-Turkish relations were nearing the breaking point. While Washington and its European imperialist allies had initially launched the Syrian war in 2011 using Turkey as a base to resupply Islamist militias fighting the Syrian regime, Turkey’s planned invasion threatened to provoke a direct clash with US troops in Syria.

While Erdogan rejected US attempts to mollify Ankara by pledging to monitor the Kurdish nationalists, US officials rejected Ankara’s claims that its planned invasion of Syria was compatible with US interests. Thrusting aside Erdogan’s statement that “Turkey’s target is never US soldiers,” US officials promptly warned Turkey against attacking Washington’s Kurdish proxies.

US Department of Defense spokesman Commander Sean Robertson said: “Unilateral military action into northeast Syria by any party, particularly as US personnel may be present or in the vicinity, is of grave concern. We would find any such actions unacceptable.” He added, “We believe this dialogue is the only way to secure the border area in a sustainable manner, and believe that uncoordinated military operations will undermine that shared interest.”

Despite the reference to “shared interests,” powerful forces in Washington saw Ankara’s determination to crush the Kurds as a major obstacle to its plans to harness the Kurdish nationalists to Washington’s plans for a military confrontation with Russia and Iran.

In a phone call Friday with Erdogan, Trump discussed Turkey’s concerns, and the two “agreed to continue coordinating to achieve our respective security objectives in Syria,” the White House stated.

Erdogan denounced the Kurdish nationalist groups as terrorist and demanded a shift in US war policy to accommodate a bloody Turkish assault in Syria.

Erdogan spoke at the meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, warning Washington that “85–90 percent of the people living in Manbij are Arabs, but they have completely given it to those terrorist organizations. They have promised us to clear that area and send them east of the Euphrates, but they have not. Now, we say, you either clear it or we enter Manbij… Turkey has already lost a lot of time to intervene in the terror swamp east of the Euphrates. From now on, we cannot afford even a one-day delay.”

Now, with Trump’s announcement Wednesday of a withdrawal of US troops from Syria, it appears that Washington is preparing to throw its Kurdish nationalist allies to the wolves, removing obstacles to a Turkish attack. YPG officials have responded by announcing that they may ally with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to fight off a Turkish invasion of Syria.

YPG general commander Sipan Hemo told the London-based Şarku’l Avsat newspaper: “Turkey is making every effort to destroy the achievements of Kurds and sees it as a priority job. They sent their forces to the border and bombed inside of Syria.” He called on the Syrian regime to protect Syria’s borders, saying, “we are ready to talk about the mechanisms to protect the borders and cooperation against Turkey.”

Erdogan’s maneuvers to try to work out a common war strategy with US imperialism in the Middle East are thoroughly reactionary. They pave the way for not only more bloodshed inside Syria, but also Ankara’s continued collaboration in Washington’s plans for strategic and military intervention in Eurasia.

A closer look at American “democracy”

Barry Grey

A central theme of the hysteria over alleged “Russian meddling” in US politics is the sinister effort supposedly being mounted by Vladimir Putin to “to undermine and manipulate our democracy” (in the words of Democratic Senator Mark Warner).

According to the narrative fabricated by the intelligence agencies and promoted by the Democratic Party and the corporate media over the past year-and-a-half, Putin and his minions hacked the Democrats and stirred up social divisions and popular grievances to secure the election for Donald Trump, and they have been working ever since to destroy “our institutions.”

Their chosen field of battle is the internet, with Russian trolls and bots infecting the body politic by taking advantage of lax policing of social media by the giant tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter.

To defend democracy, the argument goes, these companies, working with the state, must silence oppositional viewpoints—above all left-wing, anti-war and socialist viewpoints—which are labeled “fake news,” and banish them from the internet. Nothing is said of the fact that this supposed defense of democracy is a violation of the basic cannons of genuine democracy, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution: freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

But what is this much vaunted “American democracy?” Let's take a closer look.

The two-party monopoly

In a vast and complex country with a population of 328 million people, consisting of many different nationalities, native tongues, religions and other demographics, spanning six time zones and thousands of miles, two political parties totally dominate the political system.

The ruling corporate-financial oligarchy controls both parties and maintains its rule by alternating control of the political institutions—the White House, Congress, state houses, etc.—between them. The general population, consisting overwhelmingly of working people, is given the opportunity every two or four years to go to the polls and vote for one or the other of these capitalist parties. This is what is called “democracy.”

The monopoly of the two big business parties is further entrenched by the absence of proportional representation, which it makes it impossible for third parties or independent candidates to obtain significant representation in Congress.

The role of corporate money

The entire political process—the selection of candidates, elections, the formulation of domestic and foreign policies—is dominated by corporate money. No one can seriously bid for high office unless he or she has the backing of sponsors from the ranks of the richest 1 percent—or 0.01 percent—of the population. The buying of elections and politicians is brazen and shameless.

Last month's midterm elections set a record for campaign spending in a non-presidential year—$5.2 billion—a 35 percent increase over 2014 and triple the amount spent 20 years ago, in 1998. The bulk of this flood of cash came from corporations and multi-millionaire donors.

In the vast majority of contests, the winner was determined by the size of his or her campaign war chest. Eighty-nine percent of House races and 84 percent of Senate races were won by the biggest spender.

Democratic candidates had a huge spending advantage over their Republican opponents, exposing the fraud of their attempt to posture as a party of the people. The securities and investment industry—Wall Street—favored Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 52 percent to 46 percent.

Elections are anything but a forum to openly and honestly discuss and debate the great issues facing the voters. The real issues—the preparation for new wars, deeper austerity and further attacks on democratic rights—are concealed behind a miasma of attack ads and mud-slinging. The research firm PQ Media estimates that total political ad spending will reach $6.75 billion this year. In last month's elections, the number of congressional and gubernatorial ads rose 59 percent over the previous, 2014, midterm.

The setting of policy and passage of legislation is helped along by corporate bribes, euphemistically termed lobbying. In 2017 alone, corporations spent $3 billion to lobby the government.

Ballot access restrictions

A welter of arcane, arbitrary and anti-democratic requirements for gaining ballot status, which vary from state to state, block third parties from challenging the domination of the Democrats and Republicans. These include filing fees and nominating petition signature requirements in the tens of thousands in many states. Democratic officials routinely challenge the petitions of socialist and left-wing candidates who are likely to find support among young people and workers.

Media blackout of third party candidates

The corporate media systematically blacks out the campaigns of third party and independent candidates, especially left-wing and socialist candidates. The exception is candidates who are either themselves rich or who have the backing of wealthy patrons.

Third party candidates are generally excluded from nationally televised candidates’ debates.

In last month’s election, the Socialist Equality Party candidate for Congress in Michigan’s 12th Congressional District, Niles Niemuth, won broad support among workers, young people and students for his socialist program, but received virtually no press coverage.

Voting restrictions

Since the stolen election of 2000, when the Supreme Court shut down the counting of votes in Florida in order to hand the White House to the loser of the popular vote, George W. Bush, with virtually no opposition from the Democrats or the media, attacks on the right of workers and poor people to vote have mounted.

Thirty-three states have implemented voter identification laws, which, studies show, bar up to 6 percent of the population from voting. States have cut back early voting and absentee voting and shut down voting precincts in working class neighborhoods. A number of states impose a lifetime ban on voting by felons, even after they have done their time. In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the enforcement mechanism of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, with no real opposition from the Democrats. The United States is one of the few countries that hold elections on a work day, making it more difficult for workers to cast a ballot.

Government of, by and for the rich

The two corporate parties have overseen a social counterrevolution, resulting in a staggering growth of social inequality. In tandem with this process, the oligarchic structure of society has increasingly found open expression in the political forms of rule. Alongside the erection of the infrastructure of a police state—mass surveillance, indefinite detention, the militarization of the police, Gestapo raids on workplaces and attacks on immigrants, the ascendancy of the military in political affairs, internet censorship—the personnel of government have increasingly been recruited from the rich and the super-rich.

More than half of the members of Congress are millionaires, as compared to just one percent of the American population. All the presidents for the past three decades—George H. W, Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama—have either been multi-millionaires going in or have cashed in on their presidencies to become multi-millionaires afterward. In the person of the multi-billionaire real estate speculator and con man Donald Trump, the financial oligarchy has directly taken occupancy of the White House.

In The State and Revolution, Vladimir Lenin wrote: “Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor.”

The working class will never achieve genuine democracy, nor succeed in defending the democratic gains it extracted in the course of more than a century of struggle against the capitalist class, so long as it remains an oppressed class, exploited by the corporate owners and their state apparatus. Democracy for the workers and oppressed, as opposed to the phony democracy of the rich, can be achieved only through the creation of organs of workers’ struggle and control and the building of a revolutionary leadership to overthrow the existing state, place power in the hands of the working class, expropriate the capitalists and establish a socialist economy based on social equality.

German Development Institute Managing Global Governance (MGG) Academy 2019 for Young Leaders

Application Deadline: 15th February 2019.

Eligible Countries: Brazil, China, Europe, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa

To be taken at (country): Bonn, Germany

About the Award: The Managing Global Governance (MGG) Academy is a dialogue and advanced training course that brings together young professionals from rising powers and from Europe.Its overarching purpose is to support the development of future change makers who are addressing global challenges and are dedicated to transformative change.

Type: Training, Internship

Eligibility: Prospective participants should

• work in a governmental organisation, policy-oriented think tank, research institution, civil society or private sector oranisation in an MGG partner country (Brazil, China, Europe, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa),
• work on issues relevant to global governance such as international trade, international economics and finance, environmental challenges, international security or development cooperation,
• speak English fluently,
• have at least three years of working experience,
• be open to a broad variety of working methods,
• be willing to reflect on collective and individual experiences and competencies,
• be sensitive to other cultures.

Candidates for the MGG Academy have to be nominated by their organisation and can then participate in a selection process. 

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• The participants in the MGG Academy are granted a scholarship from the German Federal Government. The scholarship covers the current costs of living, all MGG related costs and travel expenses in Germany and Europe as well as health, personal liability and accident insurances during the training in Germany.
• The German government’s financial provision for the scholarship ensures an adequate standard of living in Germany. However, the scholarship is not sufficient to provide financial support for families or relatives, neither fora visit to Germany nor at home.
• The partner institution is requested to cover the travel expenses for a round trip to and from Germany and to grant the participant a special leave of absence for the training.

Duration of Programme: The MGG Academy 2019 is taking place from 15 August – 11 December 2019.

How to Apply: To successfully apply to the MGG Academy 2019, please

1. Download the application form and have it duly filled, signed and stamped by yourself and your employer.
2. Afterwards, please apply here.
3. Please upload the application form part 1 and part 2 duly filled, signed and stamped to your application. (Please upload the whole form as filled pdf-file. Please only print pages 9 and 12 and upload them signed and stamped as scanned copy. Please include application forms part 1 and 2, your CV, diplomas, passport and English language certificate to your online application.) Kindly understand that we are not able to take incomplete applications into consideration.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

IDB Scholarships 2019/2020 for Students in Muslim Communities (Undergraduate, Masters, PhD)

Application Deadline: 28th February 2019

About Scholarship: The IsDB is pleased to announce that calls for scholarship applications for the academic year 2019-2020 are now opened through a new portal to receive online applications for the following programmes:

1. Undergraduate Scholarship Programme
2. Master Scholarship Programme
3. PhD Scholarship Programme
4. Post-Doctoral Research Programme
5. IsDB/ISFD Scholarship Programme for Vocational Education and Training (VET)
6. Joint Programme with The World Academy of Science (TWAS) in Trieste, Italy for Sustainability Science, Technology and Innovation

Offered Since: 1983

Type: Undergraduate, Masters, PhD, Research

Eligibility: To be eligible for this scholarship, the student/applicant must be able to meet the basic criteria for their preferred programme.

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The Programme covers all relevant expenses during students’ study period, including tuition fees, health and living costs as determined by the IDB.

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study

To be taken at (country): Consistent with the concept of the Programme, students must get admission or be in the first year in their own countries.
On exceptional basis and where admissions in professional courses are not possible or not available in any particular country, the IDB assists to place students from these countries in IDB member countries, which have been generous enough to provide places for the IDB students in their universities.

How to Apply: Interested candidates for the programme must fill in the appropriate application form in the link below.

Visit scholarship webpage for more details

Government of Japan MEXT Teacher Training Scholarships 2019 for Primary/Secondary School Teachers

Application Deadline: 31st January, 2019

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Japan

About the Award: The Embassy of Japan is pleased to inform you that the Government of Japan will provide scholarship for Primary/Secondary school teachers who desire to take teacher training course and Japanese language training in Japan.
The scholarship is open to graduates of universities and teachers training colleges no more than thirty-four (34) years of age who have worked as teachers at primary/secondary schools or teacher training college for at least five years in their home countries at the time of application.
Beneficiaries shall upon their return, help to promote Japanese Language education in Nigeria.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 
(1) Nationality: Applicants must have the nationality of a country that has diplomatic relations with Japanese government. An applicant who has Japanese nationality at the time of application is not eligible.However, persons with dual nationality who hold Japanese nationality and whose place of residence at the time of application is outside of Japan are eligible to apply as long as they give up their Japanese nationality and choose the nationality of the foreign country by the date of their arrival in Japan. Applicant screening will be conducted at the Japanese Embassy or Consulate (hereinafter referred to “Japanese diplomatic mission”)in the country of applicant’s nationality.
(2)　Age：Applicants, in principle,must be born on or after April 2, 1984.
(3)　Academic and Career Background：Applicants must be graduates of universities or teacher training schools and have worked as teachers at primary/secondary educational institutions or teacher training schools (excluding universities)in their home countries for five years in total as of April 1, 2018.In-service university faculty members are not eligible.
(4)　Japanese Language Ability：Applicants must be keen to learn Japanese. Applicants must be interested in Japan and be keen to deepen their understanding of Japan after arriving in Japan.Applicants must also have the ability to do research and adapt to living in Japan.
(5)　Health：Applicants must be judged that they are medically adequate to pursue study in Japan by an examining physician on a prescribed certificate of health.
(6)　Arrival in Japan：　Applicants must be able to arrive in Japan by the designated period(usually October) between the day two weeks before the course starts and the first day of the course. (If the applicant arrives in Japan before this period for personal reasons, travel expenses to Japan will not be paid. Excluding cases of unavoidable circumstances, if the applicant cannot arrive in Japan by the end of the designated period the applicant must withdraw the offer.)
(7)　Visa acquisition：Applicants should,in principle,acquire “Student” visas before entering Japan and enter Japan with “Student” residence status. The visas should be issued at the Japanese diplomatic missions located in the country of applicants’ nationality. Those who change their visa status to one other than “Student” after arrival in Japan will lose their qualification to be Japanese Government Scholarship recipients from the date when their visa status changes.
(8)　Applicants must return to their home country and resume their work immediately after the end of the scholarship period.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:

• Allowance：143,000 yen per month. (In case that the recipient researches in a designated region, 2,000 or 3,000 yen per month will be added. The monetary amount each year may be subject to change due to budgetary reasons.)
• Transportation to Japan：The recipient will be provided an economy-class airplane ticket, according to his/her itinerary and route as designated by MEXT,from the international airport nearest to his/her home country residence,where in principle is in the country of nationality, to the Narita International Airport or any other international airport that the appointed university usually uses when they enter to Japan.
• Expenses such as inland transportation from his/her home address to the international airport, airport tax, airport usage fees, special taxes on travel, or inland transportation within Japan including a connecting flight will NOT be covered. (*Although the address in the home country stated in the application form is in principle regarded as the recipient’s “home country residence,” if it will be changed at the time of leaving from his/her home country the changed address will be regarded as “home country residence.”)
• Transportation from Japan：The recipient who returns to his/her home country within the fixed period after the expiration of his/her scholarship will be provided, upon application, with an economy-class airplane ticket for travel from the Narita International Airport or any other international airport that the appointed university usually uses to the international airport nearest to his/her home address, wherein principle is in the country of nationality.
  • (Note 1) Any aviation and accident insurance to and from Japan shall be borne by the recipient.
  • (Note 2) Should the recipient not return to his/her home country soon after the end of the scholarship period to resume his/her duties, the transportation fee for the return to the home country will not be provided.
• Tuition and Other Fees：Fees for the entrance examination, matriculation and tuition at universities will be paid by the Japanese Government.

Duration of Scholarship: The term is the period necessary to complete each university’s training course and should be between October 2019 (or the starting month of the course) and March 2021. Extension of the term is not permitted

How to Apply: 

• Applicants must submit all required documents to the Japanese diplomatic mission in the applicant’s country. The submitted documents will not be returned.
• For Nigerian teachers: Completed MEXT scholarship application forms (find in link below) can be submitted by hand or by post to this address below:
  Embassy of Japan – Culture & Information Section
  No. 9 Bobo Street (Off Gana Street),
  Maitama District,
  Abuja

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Government of Japan

Important Notes: 

• (1)The recipient is advised to learn, before departing for Japan, the Japanese language and to acquire some information about Japanese weather, climate, customs, and university education in Japan, as well as about the difference between the Japanese legal system and that of his/her home country.
• (2)As the first installment of the scholarship payment cannot be provided immediately upon the recipient’s arrival, the recipient should bring at least approximately US $2,000 or the equivalent thereof to cover immediate needs after arrival in Japan.

Romanian Government Scholarships 2019/2020 for International Students

Application Deadline: 15th March 2019.
This is the date whereby Foreign diplomatic missions accredited to Bucharest must send the application files with a Verbal Note to Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Public, Cultural and Scientific Diplomacy Directorate.
However, the candidate should enquire at the diplomatic mission where he intends to submit the application file about the enrolment calendar. The deadline for submitting the application files is established by each diplomatic mission.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Any non-EU country

To be taken at (country): Romanian Universities

Eligible Field of Study: priority will be given to the candidates applying for: political and administrative sciences, education studies, Romanian culture and civilization, journalism, technical studies, oil and gas, agricultural studies, veterinary medicine, architecture, music, arts.

About Scholarship: The scholarships are granted for three levels of study:

1.  for the first cycle (licenta): This scheme is dedicated to graduates of high schools or of equivalent pre-university systems, as well as to candidates who require the equivalent of partial studies and the continuation of their studies in Romania. The complete cycle of university studies lasts for 3 to 6 years, according to the specific requirements of the chosen faculty, and ends with a final examination (licenta);
2.  for the 2nd cycle (master): This scheme is dedicated to graduates of university/post graduate studies; it lasts for 1,5 to 2 years and ends with a dissertation;
3.  for the 3rd cycle (doctorate) this scheme is dedicated to the graduates of university/postgraduate studies (i.e. master); it lasts for 3-4 years, in keeping with the specific requirements of the chosen faculty, and ends with a doctor’s thesis.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters and Doctoral degrees

Eligibility: Citizens of non EU countries (irrespective of their country of residence) are eligible to apply. Priority is given to citizens from non EU states with which Romania does not have cultural and education cooperation agreements.

Number of Scholarships: 85 scholarships for undergraduate and postgraduate studies in Romania

Value of Scholarship:

• Free-of-charge tuition
• Free-of-charge accommodation (depending on availability, accommodation will be offered free-of-charge in students hostels, in keeping with the higher education regulations and within the limits of the sums available for this purpose),
• Financial support – a monthly amount representing :
  •  the equivalent in Romanian currency of 65 EURO per month, for the under-graduate students (1st cycle),
  • the equivalent in Romanian currency of 75 EURO per month, for post-graduate students (master degrees and specialization) 2nd cycle.
  • the equivalent in Romanian currency of 85 EURO per month, for post graduate students (doctor’s degree) 3rd cycle.

These scholarships do not cover food, international and local transport. The candidates must be prepared to support personally any other additional expenses.

Duration of Scholarship: For the period of study, subject to academic performance.

How to Apply: To get all the necessary information about the scholarships (conditions, necessary documents, enrolment calendar) and to submit their application files, the candidates should apply directly to:

• the Romanian diplomatic missions accredited to the candidate’s country of origin or of residence or to
• the diplomatic mission of candidate’s state of origin accredited to Bucharest

Visit scholarship webpage for Details

Sponsors: Romanian Government


Important Notes: Language of Study: In order to promote Romanian language and culture, the Ministry of National Education has decided that the beneficiaries of the scholarships should study only in the Romanian language. The candidates who do not know Romanian are offered one supplementary preparatory year to study the language. Students who declare that they know Romanian language will have to pass a language test organized by the competent higher education institutions.

Leadership and Advocacy for Women in Africa (LAWA) Fellowship Program 2019/2020 (Funded) – Georgetown University, USA

Application Deadline: 18th January, 2019

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Over 80 women’s human rights advocates from Botswana, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe have participated in the LAWA Program, and we hope to include Fellows from additional countries in the future.

To be Taken at (Country): Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., USA

About the Award: The Leadership and Advocacy for Women in Africa (LAWA) Fellowship Program was founded in 1993 at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., in order to train women’s human rights lawyers from Africa who are committed to returning home to their countries in order to advance the status of women and girls in their own countries throughout their careers.

Type: Fellowship, Masters

Value of Fellowship: The LAWA Fellowship provides the tuition for the Foundations of American Law and Legal Education Course and for the LL.M. degree (a U.S. $46,865 benefit) at the Georgetown University Law Center, as well as professional development training. Candidates who are admitted to the LAWA Program must be prepared to cover the costs of all additional expenses (such as their visas, travel, housing, utilities, food, clothing, health insurance, books, etc.), and must be able to demonstrate to the U.S. Embassy for visa purposes that they have the funds available to cover those expenses (approximately $28,000).

Duration of Fellowship: The entire LAWA Fellowship Program is approximately 14 months long (from July of the first year through August of the following year), after which the LAWA Fellows return home to continue advocating for women’s rights in their own countries. The LAWA Program starts in July, when the Fellows attend the Georgetown Law Center’s Foundations of American Law and Legal Education course. From August through May, the LAWA Fellows earn a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree at Georgetown with an emphasis on international women’s human rights and complete a major graduate paper on a significant women’s rights issue in their home countries. After graduation, the LAWA Fellows then have an opportunity to engage in challenging work assignments for several months at various public interest organizations to learn about different advocacy strategies to advance women’s human rights, before returning home to continue advancing women’s human rights in their own countries.
Upon completion of their Program, LAWA Alumnae have returned home to assume prominent leadership positions enabling them to focus on women’s rights issues in non-governmental organizations, government agencies, law schools, courts, legislatures, and private firms.

More Fellowship Guideline: LAWA Alumnae have formed their own non-governmental organizations, such as the Women’s Legal Assistance Center in Tanzania and Legal Advocacy for Women in Uganda (LAW-Uganda) to promote women’s human rights in their countries (e.g., by bringing impact litigation under their countries’ statutes, constitutions, and the human rights treaties that their countries have ratified).

How to Apply:

Please click here to access the application.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for Details

Harvard University Middle East Initiative (MEI) Research Fellowships 2019

Application Deadline: 15th January, 2019

To be taken at (country): USA

Field of Study: Priority will be given to applications pursuing one of these four primary areas of focus:

1. Democratizing Politics: Establishing durable, accountable democracies not only by focusing on political institutions, but also by empowering the region’s citizens.
2. Building Peace: Addressing the sources of domestic and interstate conflict and generating durable political settlements.
3. Revitalizing the State: Reforming the Middle East’s social service delivery systems with a special emphasis on health, education and social protection.
4. Democratizing Financial and Labor Markets: Working to ensure that the financial and labor markets in the Middle East benefit the entire population, not merely the elite.

About the Award: The Middle East Initiative (MEI) engages public policy issues in the Middle East by convening academic and policy experts, collaborating with regional partners, and developing the next generation of leaders.

Fellows are expected to be physically present at Harvard for the duration of the two-semester fellowship. Pre-doctoral research fellows are encouraged to work on, and ideally complete, their doctoral dissertations. Postdoctoral or faculty fellows may use this fellowship to complete a book or develop other works-in-progress.

Fellows are generally expected to:

• Complete a 25-30 page Working Paper to be published by the Middle East Initiative
• Present their research at seminars open to the public
• Attend seminars of other Middle East Initiative research fellows
• Participate in Middle East Initiative activities as appropriate

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:  

• Eligible candidates include advanced doctoral candidates, recent recipients of a Ph.D. or equivalent degree, and untenured faculty members.
• Applicants for pre-doctoral fellowships must have passed general examinations and should be in or near the final year of their program.
• Applications are welcome from political scientists, historians, economists, sociologists, and other social scientists.
• Applications are also encourage applications from women, minorities, and citizens of all countries.

Value of Fellowship:

• The Middle East Initiative offers ten-month stipends of $40,000 to pre-doctoral fellows and $58,000 to postdoctoral fellows. Pre-doctoral fellows are not benefits eligible. Interested candidates are encouraged to apply for other sources of funding. All applicants should clearly indicate on their application form whether they are seeking full or partial funding, and indicate other potential funding sources. Non-stipendiary appointments are also offered, but the application process remains the same.
• Fellows who expect to complete their Ph.D. program prior to the fellowship can apply for a postdoctoral appointment. Confirmation of Ph.D. completion is required to receive the postdoctoral stipend rate and benefits. The fellow will be paid at the pre-doctoral rate and will not be benefits eligible until the Middle East Initiative receives confirmation of Ph.D. completion.

Duration of Fellowship: 10 months

How to Apply: 

• CV/Resume
• Unofficial transcript (pre-doctoral fellow applicants only)
• Research Proposal (3-5 double-spaced pages)
• Writing sample (less than 50 double-spaced pages)
• Contact information for three recommenders submitting letters on your behalf

To apply, please complete the online application form.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

International Brain Research Organisation African Regional Committee (IBRO-ARC) Bursaries 2019 for Young African Researchers

Application Deadline: 20th February 2019
(11:59 p.m. CET)

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: Potential candidates should look for a host institution (within Africa or abroad) and provide a research proposal and detailed information on how the funds will be spent. 
Strong justification must be provided ensuring the applicant will return home after the exchange, in addition to an explanation of how the newly gained knowledge and skills will be used to advance neuroscience research in their home country.
Type: Grants

Eligibility: The candidate should be:
– resident in Africa
– 45 years or younger
– have published significant research achievements in fundamental or clinical neuroscience

Selection Criteria: Selection criteria include academic credentials of the applicant and the host, as well as the quality of the research proposal (complete with a structured research plan). 

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: €4000

Duration of Programme: Four weeks.

How to Apply: 

• Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

May Days in Britain

Binoy Kampmark

It is hard to envisage sympathy for a person who made a name as a home secretary (prisons, detentions, security and such) taking the mast and banner of her country before hopeless odds, but inadequate opponents will do that to you.  Vicious, venal and underdone, the enemies from within Theresa May’s own Tory ranks resemble the lazily angry, the fumingly indulgent.  These are the same men, and a few women, who managed to derive enormous satisfaction from a Britain pampered and spoiled by EU largesse but questioning of its bureaucracy and demands.  Patriotism has an odd habit of making one jaundiced, but manic self-interest will also do that to you.

May remains British prime minister after a botched effort to overthrow her within conservative party ranks.  She faced the unenviable situation of being stonewalled in Europe and by Parliament itself.  President of the European Council Donald Tusk assured May that the deal for the UK leaving the EU is not up for renegotiation, “including the backstop”.

The border with Ireland – soft, hard, or middling – is proving to be a rattling affair.  Should it go “hard”, Britain will find itself trapped.  As The Irish Times noted, “It evokes genuine fear, not least in those who live near the Border or rely on trade for their livelihoods or count themselves among the silenced majority in Northern Ireland who voted Remain.”

As for Parliament, May has ducked and weaved in putting the deal to its irritable members, thereby depriving MPs a hack at sinking it.  May fears, rightly, defeat over a proposal that has satisfied few.  What is now being run in certain circles is the idea of “indicative votes”, which might throw up various Brexit models (Canada-styled; Norwegian adapted).

The May plotters, however, showed the skills and talents of marksmen who end up shooting themselves in a fit of drunken enthusiasm on a poorly planned hunt.  The leadership challenge on December 12 served to demonstrate a good level of incompetence, amplified by the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson.

The fact that May received 200 votes against 117 to stay on as PM was not enough for the righteous Rees-Moog, who spoke as if some inscrutable victory for the rebels had been attained.  “She said in 2017 she would lead the Conservative Party if she had the support of the parliamentary party.”  It was clear that a third of members voting against her suggested she did not. “So if she honours her word she will decide in the interests of the party and the nation she will go.”

This all seems to amount to a stay of execution. May survives, but faces daggers on a daily basis.  Home Secretary Sajid Javid is nipping at her heels in the hope to land a blow. Welfare Secretary Amber Rudd has made it public that she likes the idea of a UK-EU arrangement along the lines of Norway’s relationship with the union.  Naturally, as with so many such ideas, the EU response is automatically assumed.

The idea of a second referendum, long seen as the ultimate betrayal of the Brexit result, has received more than a decent fanning.  Vast swathes have changed their mind since the populist up swell of 2016, goes the view of conservative Dominic Grieve and New Labour’s former spin doctor Alastair Campbell on Good Morning Britain, a bastion of rusted reaction few can match on British television.   The panel, as ever, was on the hunt for the elusive idea of democracy in Britain, and found wanting.   The Remainers remain desperately confused.

If there is a good reason to be suspicious of a second referendum, former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s endorsement of it would be one.  Frankly Tony, whose rule was characterised by long spells of deception and arrogance (remember the Iraq War?), had a singular contempt for democracy that should not be forgotten. He is now spending time slumming in Brussels in the hope that people will take notice, advocating for a second people’s vote.  Should parliament be unable to reach agreement on each of the forms of Brexit being put forth, he suggests, “then the logical thing is to go back to the people.”

To Blair can be added May’s own de facto deputy prime minister, David Lidington and chief of staff at 10 Downing Street Gavin Barwell. The latter has supposedly discussed the issue of a second people’s vote with Chancellor Philip Hammond and Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd.

May is having none of it.  “Let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum.” To do so “would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy, that our democracy does not deliver.”

Brexit is the great exercise of imperfection, an experiment that the EU would like to quash just as many in the UK would like to see reversed.  It has been disheartening and cruel; it has divided and disturbed. It has also demonstrated levels of marked mendacity fitting for countries British citizens tend to mock.  Facts have become fictions; fictions have been paraded as exemplars of truth.  The dark spirits have been released, and there are not going to be bottled any time soon.