Is This the End of U.S. Interference in West Asia?

Vijay Prashad

Major General Hossein Salami, the chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran, said on January 4 that his country would take “strategic revenge” against the United States for the assassination of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani. The assassination of Soleimani, Salami said, will be later seen as a “turning point” in U.S. interference in West Asia.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif reacted strongly to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s suggestion that Iraqis were “dancing in the street” to celebrate the assassination. On Twitter, Zarif posted pictures of the funeral procession for Soleimani and wrote, “End of US malign presence in West Asia has begun.”

Both the military and the diplomatic wings of Iran’s government are in agreement that it is not Iran that will be weakened by the assassination of Soleimani, but that the United States will suffer the consequences of this action.

Why the U.S. Fears Iran

Why does the United States of America—the country with the largest military force in the world—fear Iran? What can Iran do to threaten U.S. interests?

To understand U.S. fears about Iran, it is important to recognize the ideological threat that Iran poses to Saudi Arabia.

Until the Iranian revolution of 1979, relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran were on an even keel. Both were monarchies, and both were subordinate allies of the United States. Whatever historical animosity remained between the Shia and Sunni—two branches of the Islamic tradition—were on mute.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 shook up the region. The crown of the monarch was set aside, as a specifically religious republic was created. The Saudis have long said that Islam and democracy are incompatible; this is precisely what the Islamic Republic rejected, when it created its own democratic form of Islam. It was this Islamic republicanism that swept the region, from Pakistan to Morocco. Fears of Islamic republicanism brought shudders into the palaces of the Saudi royal family, and into the U.S. higher establishment. It was at this point that the U.S. President Jimmy Carter said that the military defense of Saudi Arabia’s monarchy was a paramount interest of the U.S. government.

In other words, the U.S. military would be used to protect not the people of the Arabian Peninsula but the Saudi monarchy. Since the main threat was Iran, the U.S. turned its entire arsenal of military and information war against the new Islamic Republic.

The Saudis and the West egged on Saddam Hussein to send in the Iraqi army against Iran in 1980; that bloody war went on till 1988, with both Iran and Iraq bled for the sake of Riyadh and Washington. Soleimani and his successor Brigadier General Esmail Gha’ani both fought in the Iraq-Iran War. Both Saddam Hussein and later the Afghan Taliban held Iran tight inside its borders.

American Wars, Iranian Victories

U.S. President George W. Bush broke the wall around Iran. The United States prosecuted two wars, which were essentially won by Iran. First, the U.S. in 2001 knocked out the Taliban and delivered an advantage to pro-Iranian factions, who joined the post-Taliban government in Kabul. Then, in 2003, the U.S. took out Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath Party; the pro-Iranian Dawa Party succeeded Saddam. It was Bush’s wars that allowed Iran to extend its influence from the Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean Sea.

The United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel used several mechanisms to push Iran back into its borders. They first went after Iran’s regional allies: first sanctions against Syria (with the 2003 Syria Accountability Act in the U.S. Congress), and then a war against Lebanon (prosecuted by Israel in 2006 to weaken Hezbollah). Neither worked.

In 2006, the U.S. fabricated a crisis over Iran’s nuclear energy program and pushed for UN, European Union, and U.S. sanctions. This did not work. The sanctions regime ended in 2015.

Attempts to intimidate Iran failed.

Trump’s Incoherence

Trump left the 2015 nuclear deal, and then said that he would get the U.S. a better deal from Iran. The Iranians scoffed.

Trump ratcheted up the economic war against Iran. This hurt the Iranian people, but with Chinese help, Iran has managed to survive the contraction of its economy.

Trump’s policy toward Iran is known as “maximum pressure.” It was this that led to the recent fracas, including the assassinations of Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a leader of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (Hashd al-Sha’abi).

After the assassination, the U.S. sent an envoy to Tehran. The brief from Trump was simple: if Iran does not retaliate, the U.S. will remove part of the regime of sanctions. Soleimani’s life was the price to pay to reduce sanctions. Trump wants to make a deal. He does not understand Iran. His is a policy that is both naïve and dangerous. But it is rooted in the Carter Doctrine, and therefore in the U.S. establishment’s policy framework.

What Will Iran Do?

Iran will not accept Trump’s tawdry deal. It has already set aside its policy of “strategic patience” for a much more forthright “calibrated response” policy.

If the U.S. wants to leave the nuclear deal, then Iran will start to process uranium.

If the West threatens Iranian shipping, then Iran will threaten Western shipping.

If the U.S. attacks Iranian interests, then Iran will attack U.S. interests.

Now, the U.S. has assassinated a senior Iranian military leader—who was traveling from Beirut to Baghdad on a diplomatic passport; will Iran offer a proportionate response?

Where will this U.S. policy of “maximum pressure” lead? Iran has said that it would not bow down to the U.S. pressure.

It has become commonplace to compare the assassination of Soleimani to the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which led to World War I. This is chilling. If the U.S. starts a full-scale war against Iran, what will be the reaction of the other major powers in Eurasia, namely China and Russia? Both China and Russia have condemned the assassination, and both have called for calm.

However, Iran responds, the Iranian officials—such as Zarif and Salami—are correct that U.S. influence in the region has deteriorated and will deteriorate further. The U.S. can continue to thrash about with its superior military force, and it will continue to have bases that ring Iran. But what it can do with that power is unclear. This power was not able to subdue Iraq, nor was it able to overthrow the government in Syria, and nor could it create anything near stability in Libya. The attitude toward the U.S. is dismissive on the streets of West Asia, even as the Saudi monarchy continues to flatter U.S. presidents into its worldview.

Fascist group carries out terrorist attack in Brazil

Tomas Castanheira

On December 24, the headquarters of the Porta dos Fundos comedy program in Rio de Janeiro was attacked with Molotov cocktails after it produced a Christmas Special shown on Netflix portraying Jesus as gay. The terrorist action was claimed on social networks by a fascist group that calls itself the Nationalist Popular Insurgency Command of the Brazilian Integralist Family.

The identity of one of the perpetrators of the attack was disclosed by police on December 31, two days after he fled the country to Russia. Eduardo Fauzi is a member of the Brazilian Integralist Front and PSL (Social Liberal Party), the same right-wing party that ran the fascistic ex-army officer Jair Bolsonaro for president. The Bolsonaro government, which employs hysterical rhetoric denouncing every form of social protest as “terrorism”, has deliberately remained silent about the firebombing, signaling tacit government support for fascist violence. The president’s son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, was one of the politicians who spoke out against Porta dos Fundos, saying, “How much is it worth to attack the faith of others?”

Frame of video in which fascists took responsibility for the attack on Porta dos Fundos.

The use of the term of “Integralist” in the name of the group claiming responsibility for the attack is a reference to a short-lived version of Brazilian fascism known as Brazilian Integralist Action (AIB) which was founded in the 1930s. While Brazil’s President Getúlio Vargas initially embraced the fascist movement as a base of support for his Estate Novo (New State), as he assumed increasingly dictatorial powers he turned against it. Former Integralistas would hold positions of power in the US-backed military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985.

Notably, a few days before the attack in Rio de Janeiro, the country’s two main newspapers, Folha de Sao Paulo and Estado de Sao Paulo, reported uncritically on the return of the Integralist movement. Estado covered a demonstration held by the Brazilian Integralist Front (FIB) in downtown Sao Paulo, with about 15 people wearing the green shirted uniform worn by the Integralists in the 1930s and giving the fascist salute. The newspapers also reported that the group intends to launch itself as a political force in the next elections.

Following the release of the video taking responsibility for the attack, the FIB stated that “the group in question is unknown” and claimed that it was surprised by the revelation that the attack was carried out by Eduardo Fauzi, the organization’s president in Rio de Janeiro. The same authors of the video had already taken responsibility for another attack a year ago, when they tore down and burned anti-fascist flags at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). At the time, Fauzi had claimed on Facebook that the attack was carried out by an “Integralist circle” inside the university.

Eduardo Fauzi is an expression of the social base that gives rise to fascist organizations. Born to a family that owns property and gas stations, he graduated in economics from UFRJ and, according to Veja magazine, lived in a $1.5 million apartment in Rio de Janeiro. Fauzi is, at the same time, president of the São Miguel Autonomous Car Guardians Association, which supposedly represents the workers in one of the most miserable jobs in Brazilian cities. Through this association he could control a mafia of irregular parking lots in downtown Rio de Janeiro connected to right-wing militias and the police, as a report by the Civil Police pointed out.

Fauzi was able to escape by flying unhindered out of Rio’s Tom Jobim International Airport. That could not have happened if it were not for his direct contact with the police, who informed him of an arrest warrant in advance, as he made clear in an interview granted to Project Collaborate. He said that he is in Russia, where he believes he will receive asylum. In a photo, allegedly taken in 2014, he appears alongside Russian fascist ideologue Alexander Dugin.

Eduardo Fauzi with Alexandr Dugin, supposedly taken in 2014.

The other perpetrators of the attack, who, unlike Fauzi, wore masks, are unlikely to be identified. Chances are they also have their connections with the police, or are themselves police officers. Just as the confessed suspect participates in the PSL, it is entirely possible that the others are involved in Bolsonaro’s recently launched fascist party, the Alliance For Brazil.

The reappearance of Integralist groups in Brazilian political life is an event promoted directly by the Bolsonaro government and the ruling class. With nationalist, religious, and anti-communist appeals that dovetail with Jair Bolsonaro’s speeches, these groups are beginning to carry out illegal violent actions while gaining ground in state institutions.

After the bombing, the government elevated an Integralist to a high office. Paulo Fernando Melo da Costa, a deputy elected by the Patriota party and who is no less than the president of the FIB in the Federal District, was appointed on December 30 as special advisor to Damares Alves, the evangelical leader who serves as Bolsonaro’s minister for Women, Family and Human Rights.

In the face of these dangerous developments, the supposed opposition to the government has remained silent. Neither Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the former Worker Party (PT) president, nor Fernando Haddad, the party’s 2018 presidential candidate, have said a word about the fascist terror attack.

The PT issued a short note, condemning violence, while reaffirming the party’s historical connection with the Christian religion. Just as in the past they made the most reactionary commitments—such as President Dilma Rousseff’s vehement opposition to abortion—to maintain the support of right-wing Christian chauvinist parties, today they avoid any defense of the comedy program against the fascists for fear of offending the Christian right.

In a lengthy interview given to the TeleSur television network after Christmas, Lula focused his attacks on the mass demonstrations that took place in Brazil in June 2013, under the Rousseff administration. He characterized the protests, triggered by transit fare hikes, as a US intervention carried out through the manipulation of the media. The protests were, for Lula, the source of a feeling of “hatred” that explains the current political situation in the country, characterized by unemployment, wage cuts and loss of workers’ rights. In other words, workers got what they deserved for daring to challenge the PT government and its austerity policies.

The media representing the PT and its satellites exploited the bombing of Porta dos Fundos to promote this 2013 libel campaign. As soon as the identity of the bomber was revealed, they brought up a video in which the 2013 activist Elisa Quadros called for the release of political prisoners, including one Eduardo Fauzi. Media such as Forum Magazine and Brazil 247 broadly reported on the video, claiming that if it was the same Eduardo Fauzi “it pretty much closes the subject on the nature of the 2013 protests.”

Scene from Porta dos Fundos' Christmas Special.

This claim is a fraud. Fauzi was in fact arrested in 2013 after assaulting the former Secretary of Public Security of Rio de Janeiro when he closed a parking lot in the city center. However, there is no hint of direct link between Fauzi and Elisa Quadros. The activist who became known as “Tinkerbell”—a code name she adopted on digital media—was named by the military police as the leader of the black bloc. She and 23 others were sentenced to prison on the eve of the World Cup in Brazil, serving as scapegoats to prevent protests during the sporting event.

In trying to impute a fascist character to the imprisoned activists and the entire 2013 movement that brought millions of young people into the streets against the rising cost of living, the PT is pursuing the same politics as Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro would applaud the persecution of protesters as a “counter-terrorism” measure, as well as all PT’s repressive measures against the protests, including the deployment of the Army on the streets and passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2016.

The rightward shift of the entire Brazilian ruling class is directly linked to the resurgence of class struggle on an international scale. As social inequality becomes increasingly unsustainable and social opposition among youth and workers grows, the ruling class is dispensing with democratic forms of rule. In this situation, not only are fascists ascending to the circles of power, but supposedly left parties, such as the PT, draw closer to the far-right program.

This trend was spelled out in an announcement made at the end of the year by the Maoist Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB), which is already enforcing austerity policies. The PCdoB said it is rebranding itself, dropping the word “communist” from its name and adopting the colors of the Brazilian flag, green and yellow, instead of red, in order to blend in with Bolsonaro’s nationalism.

The state buildup of fascist organizations along with the promotion of nationalism and militarism, the main trends of global political reaction, can only be countered by an international mobilization of the working class. Political and organizational independence from bourgeois parties like the PT, as well as from the pseudo-left, is an essential condition for the working class to advance its struggle against capitalism.

Iran strikes US bases in Iraq as Pentagon deploys B-52 bombers

Bill Van Auken

Iranian media reported Tuesday night that the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had attacked multiple American bases inside Iraq in the first step of retaliation for the criminal January 3 US drone missile assassination of General Qassem Suleimani, the head of IRGC’s Quds Force. Suleimani was considered the country’s second most powerful figure.

The main targets of the first missile attacks were reported by the Pentagon to be the Ain al-Assad base in western Iraq’s Anbar province and another base near Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. A major center for US military operations in both Iraq and Syria, the Ain al-Assad base was visited by Trump in December of last year and by Vice President Mike Pence last November.

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) fire rockets targeting the U.S. air base of Ain al-Assad in Anbar in Iraq. (Credit: https://en.irna.ir)

The spiraling war crisis in the Persian Gulf that was initiated with the murder of Suleimani had an immediate effect on world markets, with oil prices climbing by more than four percent and Dow futures dropping some 350 points Tuesday night. The clear implication being drawn by world finance capital is that a US counter-retaliation against Iran may well lead to Iranian attacks on Saudi and other Gulf state oil facilities, or a closing of the strategic Strait of Hormuz through which some 20 percent of globally traded oil passes.

In evident preparation for full-scale war, the Pentagon has dispatched a bomber strike force consisting of six B-52 heavy bombers to the US military base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, a British colonial possession that is within striking distance of Iran but beyond the range of Iran’s longest-range missiles.

Amid the steadily escalating tensions that have followed the assassination of Suleimani, the deployment of the nuclear-capable bombers represents a direct threat of wholesale military violence against the nation of 82 million people.

The sending of the B-52s to Diego Garcia follows the deployment to the Middle East of 4,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, along with the dispatch to the Persian Gulf of 2,000 Marines aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan.

The US military buildup in the region follows a series of increasingly virulent threats from Washington of new war crimes in response to any Iranian retaliation for the murder of General Suleimani, who was killed along with four other Iranians and five Iraqis in a US drone missile strike at Baghdad’s international airport.

Speaking at the White House Tuesday, Trump stated, “If Iran does anything they shouldn't be doing, they are going to be suffering the consequences, and very strongly.” Earlier, the US president claimed that he had selected 52 targets in Iran, one for each of the hostages taken in the 1979-1980 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, and that these would include cultural sites, a war crime.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and Vice President Mike Pence all assembled with Trump at the White House Tuesday night following the report of the Iranian missile attacks.

Multiple Iranian officials had made it clear that retaliation for the assassination of the Iranian leader was inevitable, particularly in the face of the mass outpouring of grief and rage in cities across the country. The turnout of millions of Iranian men, women and children, unprecedented at least since the 1989 funeral for the Islamic Republic’s founder Ayatollah Khomeini, took a tragic turn on Tuesday. A massive crowd attempting to accompany Suleimani’s coffin to a cemetery in his hometown of Kerman became trapped in its narrow streets, leading to a stampede in which a reported 56 people were killed and over 200 more injured.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, considered a “moderate” within the Iranian ruling establishment, said of Suleimani’s assassination: “This is an act of aggression against Iran, and it amounts to an armed attack against Iran, and we will respond. But we will respond proportionately, not disproportionately… We are not lawless like President Trump.”

Washington denied Zarif a visa to attend a scheduled meeting of the United Nations Security Council, where he would have indicted Washington for a war crime in carrying out the cold-blooded murder of an Iranian government official conducting a state visit to Iraq. National security adviser Robert O'Brien justified the denial of the visa by declaring, “Whenever he comes to New York, he spreads propaganda.”

In a Tuesday morning press conference, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo mocked Zarif’s statement that Suleimani had gone to Baghdad on a diplomatic mission. “Is there any history that would indicate it was remotely possible that this kind gentleman, this diplomat of great order, Qassem Suleimani, traveled to Baghdad for the idea of conducting a peace mission?” he said.

What Pompeo sought to ignore is the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has himself said he was scheduled to meet with Suleimani the morning of the murder to discuss the situation in Iraq and Baghdad’s attempts to mediate in the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Trump administration’s claims that it acted in response to an “imminent threat” of an attack involving Suleimani have proven increasingly threadbare. Defense Secretary Esper claimed before briefing the so-called “Gang of Eight,” the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses of Congress and both of their intelligence committees, that US intelligence on the supposed threat was “exquisite.” Responding to reporters’ questions, however, he allowed that “imminent” could have meant either days or weeks.

Pentagon officials speaking off the record have indicated that there was no intelligence of any impending attack. In any case, had there been, killing Suleimani, a top-level Iranian government official who was operating openly and in discussions with the Iraqi government, was hardly likely to stop it.

The US position in Iraq has grown increasingly untenable in the wake of the assassination. Confusion continued to reign in Washington over a letter drafted by Gen. William Seely, a US commander in Iraq that clearly implied that US forces were preparing to withdraw from the country in response to a unanimous vote by the Iraqi parliament on Sunday demanding their expulsion.

Esper, Pomepo and others in the administration insisted that the letter was merely an unsigned draft and that Washington had no intention of withdrawing, no matter what the Iraqi parliament or people want. Esper went so far as to claim that the Iraqi members of parliament had voted unanimously for forcing US troops because “they were threatened.” As for the letter, they claimed it was merely a poorly worded notification that US troops were being redeployed within Iraq as the US and its NATO allies evacuated Baghdad’s Green Zone out of fear of attack.

Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, however, insisted that he had been delivered a signed copy of the letter in Arabic not just once, but twice after it was sent back with a translation correction.

In a televised speech, he reiterated the call for the end of the US military presence. “We have no exit but this, otherwise we are speeding toward confrontation,” he said, adding that Iraq would have to take a “historic decision” to expel US forces. “Otherwise we will not be taken seriously.”

Outrage in Iraq over the drone strike has been nearly as strong as in Iran, with huge crowds taking to the streets of Baghdad, Basra, Najaf and other cities to condemn the assassinations of both Suleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was second in command of the powerful Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of Shia militias that is considered part of the Iraqi armed forces. If the US defies Iraqi demands for a troop withdrawal, it could well face a resumption of the Iraq war, pitting American soldiers against these militias.

The Iranian retaliation for the Suleimani assassination was expected to push back consideration of a toothless “War Powers Resolution” proposed by House Democrats, which would limit US military action against Iran to 30 days without a formal congressional authorization for the use of military force.

As of Tuesday night, there were no reports of US casualties resulting from the missile attacks. Trump issued a tweet stating “Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good!” He added that he would make a statement Wednesday morning.

Whatever the response by Washington, the recklessness and criminality that characterize US policy toward Iran are a sign not of strength, but rather of the deep-going crisis of US imperialism, which has failed to achieve any of its strategic aims in the Middle East after decades of war, and which faces mounting social conflict and unprecedented political crisis at home.

Abel Visiting Scholar Program 2020 for Mathematics PhD Scholars in Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 1st April, 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

About the Award: The program is designed for post doctoral mathematicians in the early stages of their professional careers.   It is designed to offer the opportunity for a ‘research sabbatical,’ a necessary complement to teaching and other academic duties for mathematicians desiring to also sustain a viable research program.

Type: PhD

Eligibility: Applicants must

     1.   hold at the time of application a PhD in Mathematics,

     2.   be based in a developing country at the time of application

     3.   hold a position in a university/ research institution

     4.   be in the early stages of their professional careers, more precisely: the applicants  should

            4. 1) not yet be of full professorial rank but have a working contract in a university/ college

            4. 2) be under 40 years of age at the day of the application deadline.

The maximum age may be increased by up to three years in the case of an individual with a broken career pattern (applicants who wish to apply for the April 30, 2017 deadline should be born on or after August, 31, 1974). This should be noted in the application together with the reason for the broken career pattern.

 Applications from women mathematicians are strongly encouraged.

Selection Criteria: The selection criteria is based on the the quality of the project and the benefit/added value for the home institution/country.

Selection: A selection committee decides which applications are successful.

The Selection Committee consists of

• • a) a member chosen by the Abel board

• • b) a member chosen by CDC

• c) a third member chosen by the IMU EC

The time of members of the committee is three years for the members b) and c) with a maximum of two periods. The Abel Board decides for a).

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The grant can cover for one month and only for the applicant:

1. travel costs to the host institution (economy flight or equivalent) Please note that the flight will be booked and directly paid by the IMU Secretariat.
2. accommodation expenses (monthly rent should not exceed 1,200 USD – in case you expect higher accommodation cost, please explain in your application the expected higher cost)
3. travel health insurance
4. Basic living cost  (daily allowance based on living cost of the visiting country/city, This amount includes the cost for public transport and all other living costs). For a list please go here.
5. visa costs

The total maximum amount is 5,000 USD per grantee.
Family expenses and any other costs cannot be covered.

Duration of Scholarship: September 1 and December 31, 2020

How to Apply: Each application must include:

1. The completed Online Application Form
2. A curriculum vitae including a list of recent publications
3. A research plan for the visit
4. An official invitation from the institution of the international research partner
5. One letter of recommendation If the letter of recommendation is not written by the international research partner (the host), the application should include a statement from the host approving the research plan.
6. A copy of the PhD certificate
7. A statement about the current employment status/ position in the home institution signed and stamped by your employer. The statement should include the duration of your employment
8. A budget estimation. Please, use the Tentative Budget Form. (for more information see ‘Financial Support’)
9. In case you are planning to stay for more than one month you must attached a proof of the matching funds for your living costs from the host institution
10. Please submit the completed bank information form in order to receive your funds.

Please merge all required documents into one (1) PDF file.
Please always send your application form cc to “cdc.grants@mathunion.org”.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Eisenhower Fellowships’ Women’s Leadership Program 2020 (Fully-funded)

Application Deadline: 24th February 2020

Eligible Countries: International

To be Taken at (Country): USA

About the Award: Eisenhower seek diverse, dynamic doers with the vision to make the world a better place as well as the ability to create and implement a concrete plan to make that vision a reality post-fellowship. Fellows represent all professional sectors – private, public and nonprofit – and hail from any number of careers, from journalism to the military to higher education to private corporations to the theater and beyond.
What all Fellows share, regardless of their professional background or nationality, is a desire to make meaningful positive change in the world in collaboration with peers across sectors and borders. Successful candidates are eager to leverage the global network of Eisenhower Fellowships and engage, over their lifetime as an Eisenhower Fellow, in constructive projects and initiatives designed to enhance the values of Eisenhower Fellowships: peace, prosperity and justice. 
This innovative program connecting and empowering exceptional women leaders from all fields builds on Eisenhower Fellowships’ previous Women’s Leadership Programs and is open to outstanding candidates from every country in the EF global network.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

• We seek ambitious, disciplined rising leaders with the vision to make the world a better place as well as the ability to create and implement a concrete plan to make that vision a reality post-fellowship.
• Fellows represent all professional sectors – private, public and nonprofit – and hail from any number of careers, from journalism to the military to higher education to private corporations to the theater and beyond.
• What all Fellows share, regardless of their professional background or nationality, is a desire to make meaningful positive change in the world in collaboration with peers across sectors and borders.
• The fellowship is aimed at mid-career leaders who have a demonstrated track record of accomplishment as well as the potential to go further and beyond their chosen field. Typically, Fellows range between 32 and 45 years of age at the time of fellowship. This age range has proven to be most amenable to the fellowship experience, with Fellows having attained the maturity to take advantage of the program and represent Eisenhower Fellowships abroad, as well as draw upon the experience to catapult them forward as thought leaders and influencers for years to come. Applications received from candidates outside of this age range will be considered, but their likelihood of selection is less.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: In the fall of 2020, Eisenhower Fellowships (EF) will assemble a diverse group of exemplary women change agents, aged 32-45, from around the world to participate in its unique six-week program. The goal of this program is to deepen Fellows’ leadership skills, connect innovative Fellows with like-minded colleagues in the EF network and foster sustained collaborations that result in measurable, positive real-world impact.

Duration of Award: 6 weeks

How to Apply: Click here to apply: Please note that the application process is extremely selective and competitive.  Please carefully consult the guidelines and tips before beginning the application process.

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Google Hash Code Programming Challenge 2020 for Students/Professionals in Africa, Europe and Middle East

Application Deadline: 17th February, 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: countries in Africa, Europe & Middle East

To be taken at (country): For the Online Qualification Round, your team can participate from anywhere. To make this round a bit more exciting, you can volunteer to organize a hub (e.g. at your university) where local teams can come together to compete.
The Final Round will take place in Dublin, Ireland

About Scholarship: For each round of the competition we’ll present a problem (see past problems in Program webpage below) and your team will write a program that generates a solution. Your team can submit as many solutions as you’d like using the online Judge System, and a live scoreboard will let you know how you stack up against the competition. Top scoring teams will win cool Google prizes, because of course you can’t host a programming competition without something to work for! Convinced?

Offered Since: 2014

Type: Contest

Eligibility Criteria: 

• Hash Code is open to university students and industry professionals in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
• Participants register and compete in teams of two to four.
• Registration is free
• The only thing you need for the Online Qualification Round is a computer connected to the Internet. The Hangout on Air will be available on YouTube, so if you can watch YouTube videos on your computer then you should be able to view it. The Judge System will be available as a web application, compatible with recent web browsers. For the rest of your computer setup, you’re free to use the tools and programming languages of your choice.

Selection Process: Top scoring teams from the Online Qualification Round will be notified and invited to the Final Round at Google Dublin. We’ll present a second challenge, and the winning teams will be awarded cool Google prizes. In addition to the competition, participants will also get the chance to learn more about Google through a variety of tech talks and presentations.

Number of Winners: Not specified

Value of Program: For the Final Round, the three teams with the highest scores will be awarded cool Google prizes. Every participant will also get a certificate of qualification to the Final Round and a gift bag.

How to Apply: You should carefully review the rules of the competition. It may also be helpful to look at problem statements from past editions of Hash Code. We encourage you to practice together with your teammates, and agree on the programming languages and tools you’d like to use.
The only thing you need for the Online Qualification Round is a computer connected to the Internet.


Visit Program Webpage to apply

Government of Brunei Darussalam Scholarships 2020/2021 for International Students

Application Deadline: 14th February 2020.

Offered annually? Yes

To be Taken at (university): 

• Universiti Brunei Darussalam (UBD),
• Universiti Islam Sultan Sharif Ali (UNISSA),
• Universiti Teknologi Brunei (UTB) and
• Politeknik Brunei (PB).

Fields of Study: These scholarships are awarded for pursuing undergraduate and postgraduate degree program in various disciplines offered by the UBD, UNISSA and ITB at different levels.

About the Award: Applications are invited for Brunei Darussalam Government Scholarships 2020/2021 available for foreign students to study at University of Brunei Darussalam [UBD], Islam Sultan Sharif Ali University [UNISSA], Brunei Institute of Technology [ITB] and Politeknik  Brunei (PB) in Brunei. These scholarships are awarded to the students of ASEAN, OIC, Commonwealth Member Countries and others. Scholarship award is normally tenable for the duration of the programme.

Type: Undergraduate and postgraduate degrees

Eligibility:

• Applications are open to citizens of, but not limited to, ASEAN, Commonwealth and OIC member countries.
• Applicants should be nominated by their Government.
• Applicants must be certified to be medically fit to undertake the scholarship and to study in Brunei Darussalam, by a qualified medical practitioner who is registered with any Government Authority(ies) prior to arrival in Brunei Darussalam. Any and all costs incurred in obtaining this certification are to be borne by the applicant.
• Applicants must be, between the ages of 18-25 for Undergraduate and Diploma programmes and must not exceed the age of 35 for Postgraduate Master’s Degree programmes on the 31^st July 2020.
• The award is NOT eligible to Brunei Darussalam Permanent Residents.

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The scholars are exempted from paying tuition fees and other appropriate compulsory fees as determined by the university for the duration of the programme.
One return economy class air-ticket for the most economically viable route to Brunei Darussalam will be determined by the Brunei Darussalam Government. No additional assistance will be provided towards other travel expenses.
Allowances payable will include:

• Monthly personal allowance of BND500.00
• Annual Book Allowance BND600.00
• Monthly food allowance of BND150.00
• Upon completion of the program, Baggage allowance to a maximum institution of BND250.00 to ASEAN region and BND500.00 to non ASEAN region.
• An accommodation at respective institution residential college is provided. If the scholar opts not to live in the provided accommodation, no additional allowance will be given in the lieu of board and transport.
• Outpatient medical and/or dental treatment is at any Brunei government hospitals, However an administrative charge is payable for each consultation with the government general practitioner or specialist.
• Should the scholar seek further medical or dental treatments at any private hospital or clinic, all expenses are to be borne by scholars themselves.

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship award is normally tenable for the minimum period required to obtain the specific degree which is four years for a first degree with honours, one to two years for a master’s degree, three years for a doctoral degree at UBD, UNISSA and ITB, two and a half years for HND at ITB, three years for diploma of health sciences at UBD, all on a full time basis.

Eligible Countries: Students of ASEAN (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam), OIC (Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Yemen), Commonwealth Member Countries ((Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Botswana, Cameroon, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Falkland Islands, Gambia, Ghana, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Montserrat, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, St Helena, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and The Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Virgin Islands (British) and Zambia) and others can apply for the scholarships.

How to Apply: Application forms can be downloaded from the following link:
APPLICATION FORM 2020/2021

• Application forms must be duly completed and endorsed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the National Focal Point for scholarships of the applicant’s country.
• Applicants are required to also submit a security clearance statement from their National Security Agency(ies)/ Police Station (i.e. a statement/ report certifying that applicants are clear from any civil and criminal charges).
• Completed application forms are to be emailed to the following address:

applyBDGS2020@mfa.gov.bn
Applicants applying to Universiti Brunei Darussalam must also complete an online application through https://apply.ubd.edu.bn/orbeon/uis-welcome/
Incomplete application forms will not be considered.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

The existential crisis of teachers in the age of technology!

  Abu Osama

 For many of us, a university is (was?) a critical place for the interpretation and making sense of everydayness; a place for envisaging a just society; an important site where ideas and ideologies are debated and developed. Freedom of criticality and liberty of creativity were always remained the core and central to university teaching-learning processes.

The ideas on education cherished by people like Tagore, Nehru, Maulana Azad, Lohia, Jayaprakash Narayan etc. have shaped the public imagination of universities. They imagined education in its real terms where inputs and insights were considered more important than outputs. However, it is saddening to state that universities have now been bound to take the said priorities aback and their very existence to remain the sites of learning is under question.

At the outset, universities are facing serious issues of financial implications from their concerned departments (in various reports done by Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability, New Delhi). Huge cut on education in central budget tells us a bit of the story. It is irony on the proposed National Education Policy (NEP), 2019 which desperately seeks to transforms the higher education without any additional financial commitment to education sector. The idea of public funded university is moving to students funded university. Across the universities students had been on strikes over the issues of lack of amenities and gradual fee hike. But the establishment (actors from university administration to the Ministry of Human Resource Development) has blissful excuses to condemn their genuine worries and push them to convince in a different (capitalist) manner.

We are living in a time when the higher education institutions are weakening due to the market driven ideas on education and neo-liberal penetrations all the way into universities and public institutions, the new tool is to have regulatory captures and control in all academic and executive affairs of a university. In a more nuanced manner, one can observe the upsurge emotions for privatization and overwhelming presence of regulatory bodies in higher education institutions in the proposed NEP, 2019 as well. Digital records, social media profiles, bio-metrics, CCTV cameras, CCS rules and so on, for students and teachers are some keyholes in the diverse strands of issues. The underlying purpose is to make teachers and students efficient and effective. There is a prejudice prevailed throughout the common sense psyche about the ‘non-productivity’ and ‘comfort zone’ of teachers. Thus the transformation of higher education system (herewith particular reference with central universities) becomes inevitable!

This idea must be appreciated, however, a few questions arise in this changing context: Do the teachers and students earlier who did not have the ‘privilege’ of information technology were less or not efficient and effective beings? Are the writers, scholars and philosophers till the last decade of 20th century of no merit? Or should we write off Ambedkar, Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Azad from the list of the makers of modern India as they do not belong to the ‘age of revolution’ in absolute sense? So the fundamental question is that are we concerned about the utilization of digital technology in education or are we more convinced for digitization of the entire education system? One should also not neglect the vested interest of private players who see the universities as their potential market. It seems government and their implementers are more convinced than the investors. Or, more importantly, are these the new tools to control the bodies and regulate the ‘rebellious and undesired behaviors’ of students and teachers. It is exactly what Foucault says about an establishment which is eagerly committed to producing docile bodies. The frequent directives from MHRD and the regulatory bodies like UGC, NCTE, AICTE etc. hardly leave space for the total autonomy of universities. By scrolling official website of any public university, one will find no difficulty in understanding the very much dominance and canopy of digitization rampant in universities.

Has the time arrived to say good bye to all kind of academic freedom and enabling environment that one enjoyed in universities for a long time? Is their role as conscious keepers going to sing a farewell song? The idea of panoptican has been exactly true to our universities. You never know when you are being monitored and captured by some hi-tech fancy cameras. One can debate on the idea of university but it should not be diluted.

Creativity and innovation have been confined to the use of technology and Information and Communications Technology (ICT). The use of ICT may scaffold but could it become the sole substitute in the realm of education. It is rather more important to have that orientation, the realm and view point on education. Are the university teachers have come down to earn money or they treat it as a source of their livelihood? Do they, primarily, join any institution for handsome salaries? Or, somewhere, they are looking for a space, a place to satisfy their conscience. They are paid for the pain, time and energy they devote in teaching and researching.  Are students, for them, simply clients to deal with or the people who need to be shaped?

Ideally teachers’ task is to shape conscious human beings. They meant to critically evaluate the existing systems of governmentality, besides imparting the subject curricula with students. Yes! There are responsibilities of teachers towards students: students should learn that they are living in a society which is deeply divided and stratified and on the lines of several identities. They should learn the harsh realities of our society; the reasons of prolonged injustices for certain marginalized groups; the unfair distribution of resources.

Teachers are becoming clerical and co-curricular job masters. They need to participate in governments’ extension services on cleanliness and other social responsibilities. Grown with patriotic sense of schoolchildren, where national anthem and song, hanging photos of freedom fighters and fancy stories of Maratha and Mughal clashes were part of core syllabi, now the public funded universities have been turned into the laboratory of nationalism and eventful celebrations of personalities. The focus has been shifted from questioning the systemic anomalies to focusing on individual morality. The very notion of academic culture has been replaced by standards and targets set by some accreditation agencies (for example, NAAC). We, as teachers, are turning into masters of examinations but feeble at thinking differently and innovatively.

What is more striking that debating and deliberating in a face-to-face setting is being replaced by SWAYAM PRABHA, MOOCS and online lectures. It indicates of a particular trend- to cut the workforce and employment opportunities at one side and to block the scope for reasoning and questioning on the other. The virtual or online method of teaching-learning is an act of monologue which could only promote the ‘banking concept’ and the ‘culture of silence’ in education as proposed by the Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire. Are only we committed for replacement or should we search for new possibilities of progressiveness within education system? Firstly the Semester System and subsequently, the Choice Based Credit System have done injuries to our academic culture. Students have to meet the targets of paper wise assignments on weekly basis. The very idea of continuous and comprehensive evaluation has dampened the quality teaching-learning. Neither students nor do the teachers have time to read and deliberate. It becomes even more worrisome situation when education is losing its political vocation. As the higher education institutions (with their deliberative roles) are potential and permanent threats to the state machinery. The best way to deal with this threat is to turn the curriculum upside down and regulate the behaviors of teachers and students through technology.

The byproducts of such initiatives are alarming: Students complain about teachers who want discursive classroom to be happened; only handful students need Amartya Sen’s scholarship and ‘argumentative’ classroom; they do not want to grapple with the core of the concept or any idea rather require a quick fix solution of every concept and everything, be it social science or management or any other subject for that matter; they started loving conclusions; hardly are they prompted in developing introductions. To create a challenging and problem posing classroom has become a challenge for a teacher itself. When laws and acts are simply meant to memorize without understanding the basic tenets and philosophy of it, how could one develop an imagination to critique any unconstitutional laws such as the Citizenship Amendment Act.

Having said this, how could one expect from students and teachers to be prompt and daring to raise their voices or put their dissenting muse against any kind of injustice in society! The notion of justice and human rights comes if one has that perspective. And perspective building is not done overnight, it takes years of contemplation. Beyond ‘career progression’, one needs quality time, freedom of criticality, libratory pedagogy to question the prevailing state of affairs in society. Teachers have traveled a journey from receiving reverence to become irrelevant. Because Google as a university and as a teacher can contest the most brilliant teachers of this country!

National Clean Air Programme requires teeth and grit to make a difference

Rohin Kumar

Reports cite that India’s carbon emissions are growing at a faster rate than the United States of America or China.

The World Air Quality Report 2018 prepared by Greenpeace revealed that of the 20 most polluted cities in the world, 18 are in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In January 2019, the Government of India launched National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), a time-bound national level tactic to tackle worsening air quality. NCAP is supposed to be a mid-term, five-year action plan with 2019 as the first year.

The primary objective of NCAP is to reduce PM2.5 and PM10 concentration by 20% to 30% by 2024. The programmetakes 2017 as the base year for the comparison of concentration.

Then Environment Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan while launching NCAP said, “The overall objective of the NCAP includes comprehensive mitigation actions for prevention, control and abatement of air pollution besides augmenting the air quality monitoring network across the country and strengthening the awareness and capacity building activities.”

Green bodies and experts welcomed the NCAP to tackle pollution, albeit somewhat warily, particularly on the subjects of compliance and targets.

Need for a stronger mandate

NCAP mentions that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) will execute this nation-wide programme in consonance with the section 162 (b) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1986. But NCAP seems to be only “co-operative and participatory” initiative.

If NCAP remains merely an advisory, will it change anything at all? The past experiences show that MoEF&CC and the CPCB have regularly asked non-compliant cities to come up with a plan to reduce emissions from time to time. It could be intermittently followed only after the Supreme Court, in 2004, had then asked ten polluted cities to prepare roadmap to reduce emissions.

Perhaps, the MOEF&CC is hoping that the proposed institutional arrangement would include an apex committee under the MoEF&CC at different levels – be it a committee at the state level or a committee at the city level. It must also be noted that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) earlier this year asked chief secretaries of all the states to take the responsibility of preparation of action plan and implementation of non-compliant cities.

Environmentalists also point out one important aspect of NCAP. They say, “It [NCAP] fails to establish state and city level emission targets. It must include a new thrust on compliance with the national as well as state and city level regulations on emissions supported by necessary enforcement actions.”

A pressing demand has been to frame a policy in a way that provides sector-wise targets. Every city must have its roadmap to reduce emissions in line with the National Clean Air Programme. Apart from this, strong legal backing to take action against non-implementation of the plan is also required.

NCAP also includes an increasing number of monitoring stations in the country. It includes rural monitoring stations, technology support, emphasis on awareness and capacity building initiatives, setting up of certification agencies for monitoring equipment, source apportionment studies, emphasis on enforcement, specific sectoral interventions etc.

The most perplexing aspect of NCAP is the absence of a robust fiscal and funding strategy. “Clearly, NCAP cannot be sustainable nor can it gain strength or make a difference on a longer-term basis if it lacks fiscal strategy,” said Abhishek Saha, a member of Mumbai Air Collective.

Increasing carbon emissions

On one hand government is proposing Clean Air Programme, while on the other, reports cite that India’s carbon emissions are growing at a faster rate than the United States of America or China. According to a new report by the Paris based International Energy Agency, Carbon-di-oxide emissions in the country rose 4.8% from the previous year. The report states that emissions from India accounted for 7% of the global CO2 burden in 2018 in comparison to the USA’s 14%. And, the major reason for increase in carbon emissions is due to increase in fossil fuels.

India has set renewable targets for 2022 but it’s hard to achieve if the trends continue in the similar fashion. Till date, the vast population of the country is highly dependent on fossil fuels.

Under the Paris agreement, India set a target to reduce emissions intensity of its economy around 30% by 2030. But at the same time, new coal fired power plants have been installed citing demands pressed by growing population.

Health and NCAP

Although the policy document continues to express skepticism about the existing health impact studies and evidence related to air quality, it is encouraging to see that it has finally proposed support for health impact studies. NCAP has now taken on board the National Health Environmental Profile of 20 cities that the MoEF&CC initiated along with the Indian Council of Medical Research with special focus on air pollution and health. It has asked the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to maintain health database and integrate that with decision making. It has recommended support for studies on health and economic impact of air pollution.

“Health is one of the major reasons why there is a resounding chorus and deep public interest in binding air quality targets with an effective accountability framework is because there has to be zero tolerance for health emergency,” said Dipti, an Environmental activist based in Mumbai.

There is not an iota of doubt that air pollution is the top killer today. Children, the ailing, elderly and the poor are the most vulnerable. Air pollution control cannot remain only policy intent. Local and national action will have to have teeth and grit to make a difference and save lives.

Now about a year has passed since the launch of NCAP but still all the cities have not  come up with proper plans to reduce emissions. Local administration are still unaware about the program, which is also a reflection of the willingness to tackle the crisis. It is high time that the policy implementation process must also be reviewed and stringent action be taken against the responsible authorities.