The primary aim of this programme is to promote research projects within the context of doctoral programmes.
Which Fields are Eligible?
A research project or course of continuing scientific education at a state or state-recognised institution of higher education or a non-university research institute in Germany, which is being carried out in coordination with an academic adviser in Germany.
What Type of Scholarship is this?
Grants
Who can apply for DAAD Short-Term Research Grants?
Excellently-qualified doctoral candidates and young academics and scientists who have completed a Master’s degree or Diploma, or in exceptional cases a Bachelor’s degree at the latest by the time they begin their grant-supported research, or those who have already completed a PhD (postdocs). Doctoral candidates who are doing their entire doctorate at a German university are not eligible to apply
What requirements must be met?
As a rule, applicants should not have graduated any longer than six years before the application deadline. If you already hold a doctoral degree, you should not have completed your doctorate more than four years ago. Doctoral candidates should not have started their doctoral degree any longer than three years previously.
Applicants who have been resident in Germany for longer than 15 months at the application deadline cannot be considered.
Note: For applicants from the fields of human medicine, veterinary medicine and dentistry, other regulations are applicable. Please refer to the leaflet “Additional information on DAAD Research Grants for applicants from medical fields” (www.daad.de/extrainfo).
A Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Science degree of 2nd class upper division level and a Master of Arts/Master of Science degree are required.
For francophone countries: A Licence or Maitrise degree of “assez bien” level and a DEA/DESS degree or a Master corresponding to the LMD system are required.
Language skills
The required language level depends on the applicant’s study plans and subject: In the arts, social sciences and in law, at least a good knowledge of German is usually expected. For the natural sciences and engineering, proof of good English language skills may also be accepted if English is spoken at the host institute.
How are Applicants Selected?
An independent selection committee consisting of specialist scientists reviews applications.
Central selection criteria are:
a convincing and well-planned research or training project
academic achievements
Furthermore, additional documents submitted that prove the applicant’s professional aptitude or provide information about extracurricular commitment will also be included in the evaluation. For further information on the selection procedure, please refer to the Important Scholarship Information / Section E.
Which Countries are Eligible?
Developing countries
Where will Award be Taken?
Germany
How Many Scholarships will be Given?
Not specified
What is the Benefit of DAAD Short-Term Research Grants?
Depending on academic level, monthly payments of euros 861.- for graduates, euros 1,200.- for doctoral candidates and postdocs
Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover
Travel allowance
In the case of a disability or chronic illness: subsidy for additional costs which result from the disability or chronic illness and are not covered by other funding providers: Further information
How Long will the Program Last?
One month to a maximum of six months; the length of the grant is decided by a selection committee and depends on the project in question and the applicant’s work schedule.
The grant is non-renewable.
How to Apply for DAAD Short-Term Research Grants:
Certificates, proof of credits, certifications and translations may be scanned in non-certified form and uploaded to the DAAD portal. The DAAD reserves the right to request certified copies of the documents.
It is important to read & adhere to application requirements in Award Webpage. Please note that incomplete applications will not be taken into consideration.
Students walking out of Winnipeg's Kelvin High School to protest the lack of COVID-19 safety measures. (Striking Students/Reddit)
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the response of Canada’s ruling elite, led by the Federal Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been organized around the principle of defending corporate profits over the health, wellbeing and, indeed, the lives of the population.
The federal government and its provincial counterparts of all political stripes explicitly rejected the implementation of a Zero COVID policy. They refused to carry out mass testing and contact tracing, the shutdown of all non-essential production with full compensation for all workers affected, and the mobilization of the resources necessary to reinforce healthcare infrastructure and provide families with financial, social, and educational support to shelter at home.
Governments at all levels left health care workers, educators, students and their families, and the entire working class to fend for themselves without adequate personal protective equipment, including high-quality masks. Instead, the political elite concentrated on organizing massive bailouts to the banks and big business with virtually no strings attached. Only a pittance was provided to workers, and much of this support was quickly clawed back by the tax authorities. As a result, Canada’s billionaires, millionaires and sections of the upper-middle class have seen their stock and real-estate portfolios balloon to unprecedented heights, even as more than 36,000 Canadians have succumbed to the virus.
The five successive waves of the virus have been driven by unscientific and premature school and workplace reopenings. Governments’ primary concern was the need to step up the exploitation of the working class to guarantee corporate profits.
These homicidal policies have taken a devastating toll on the mental health of children and young people. The possibility of getting sick and potentially getting Long COVID, as well as the danger of bringing home the virus from overcrowded schools and infecting family members, are constant fears for children. The cynical lies from politicians and the media about their desire to keep schools open at all costs to protect kids’ “mental health” have left many young people feeling like their lives are worthless as far as the ruling class is concerned. The real reason governments were so determined to keep schools open was so they could function as a babysitting service for parents, whose labour power was needed by the capitalists to keep churning out profits.
Social isolation from friends and extra-curricular activities, a lack of robust online learning and social supports for students, and the general economic fallout from the pandemic have exacerbated the mental health challenges youth already face.
Community charity Toronto Foundation president and CEO Sharon Avery describes the mental health crisis as a “shadow pandemic.” The charity’s 2021 Vital Signs report documented “alarming increases in mental health challenges” for children and youth in Toronto over the previous two years based on data from hundreds of studies, interviews, and articles. The report showed trends of increased cases of eating disorders, feelings of loneliness, as well as emergency room visits for suicidal ideation at the Hospital for Sick Children located in Toronto.
Dr. Tyler Black, a British Columbia-based child psychiatrist, has noted that child admissions to hospital for attempted suicides increased most when lockdowns were lifted and the virus was spreading widely.
In an interview with CBC News, Avery explained, “We are concerned that long-term anxiety and depression become life-long illnesses and burdens for our children to carry.” Underscoring both the tragic impact of decades of austerity on critical social and health infrastructure and services, and the urgency of the mental health crisis facing young people, she warned of the danger of the shadow pandemic “overrunning the mental health system, which was already overburdened, particularly for youth.”
According to a report by Children’s Mental Health Ontario (CMHO), the number of youth under 18 on waiting lists for mental health and addiction services more than doubled between 2017 and 2020 to 28,000. The Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) Waterloo Wellington, also in Ontario, reported a 40 percent increase in the number of youth accessing mental health services last year.
In Alberta, members of the Alberta Medical Association and the Alberta Psychiatric Association made an urgent call for a meeting with the provincial Health Minister Jason Copping. The doctors are advocating for significant increases in funding and an overhaul of the mental health system, including more preventative supports in schools.
Dr. Sterling Sparshu, section president of the child and adolescent psychiatry section with the Alberta Medical Association, told CBC earlier this month, “I’ve never seen so many kids suffering so badly. I’ve never seen so many families in need of hope and I’ve never seen so many colleagues struggling with the degree of burnout they are right now. The system is on the edge of collapse.”
The emergency room doctor at the Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary explained that the overburdened and underfunded mental health system has been overwhelmed with the additional stress of COVID. He pointed to a 200 percent increase in mental health related emergency department visits over the past decade. Since the start of the pandemic, admissions for attempted suicide have doubled. There are long waiting periods for community-based support programs, while average wait times for mental health treatment beds have jumped from 10 hours to 33 hours over the past two years.
A meta-analysis of 29 different studies involving 80,879 youth from across the globe published in August 2021 by the University of Calgary found that rates of depression and anxiety symptoms doubled during the pandemic. The analysis was printed in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics under the title “Global Prevalence of Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Children and Adolescents During Covid-19.” The prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms were higher later in the pandemic, in older adolescents, and in girls.
Children’s Healthcare Canada (CHC), a national organization representing child health care providers, reported that Kids Help Phone received about 4.6 million calls in 2020. This was more than double the 1.9 million calls received by the toll-free distress hotline for young people in 2019. CHC also noted that children’s hospitals are recording higher volumes of young people being admitted for suicide attempts, substance abuse and complex eating disorders.
Rather than introducing the social and psychological supports that are desperately needed to combat these troubling developments, governments at all levels claimed that the answer was to force children to return to dangerous, overcrowded classrooms with almost no protections against COVID-19.
The strains and stresses on working class families are not limited to the younger generation. According to a study by the Angus Reid Institute published January 24, 36 percent of Canadians say they are struggling with their mental health. This was an increase from the 25 percent who said they were struggling in November, prior to the fifth wave driven by the Omicron variant, which has killed over 5,000 Canadians since the start of the year.
A Nanos Research poll commissioned by CTV and publish in January found that 33.3 percent of respondents aged 18-34 sought help for their mental health during the pandemic, through either counselling or treatment. This was more than the 19.5 percent of 35-54 year-olds and 5.9 percent of those 55 and up. Nearly half of all respondents, including 64 percent of those aged 18-34, said their mental health had worsened since the start of the pandemic. This is a significant increase from April 2020, when 38 percent of all respondents reported a deterioration in their mental health.
Young adults, including post-secondary students, are also vulnerable to mental health challenges. International students have been particularly hard hit. A study of 1,000 international students from 84 countries conducted by The Conversation found that 55 percent of respondents were at risk of depression and about 50 percent were at risk of an anxiety disorder.
According to a report Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal, US life insurance companies saw nearly a 40 percent rise in death benefit claims in the third quarter of 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic baseline, the largest such increase (so far) in the coronavirus pandemic.
While claims for COVID-related deaths were expected to jump, and did so, up 18.7 percent over the pre-pandemic baseline, there was surprise at the sudden jump in non-COVID death claims, which rose even more, up 19 percent.
The peak in COVID-19 death claims actually occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021. Each quarter showed a rise of almost 22 percent over pre-pandemic levels, coinciding with the brutal winter peak that killed a quarter-million Americans [See chart below]. By comparison, claims for non-COVID-19 deaths only reached 6.4 percent over baseline in the fourth quarter of 2020 and were at baseline in the first quarter of 2021.
Percentage change from pre-pandemic in number of death-benefit claims. Date from 20 US insurers’ employer sponsored group life programs. (Society of Actuaries Research Institute)
This sudden jump in non-COVID-19 death-benefit claims was stunning and unexpected to life insurance analysts. Industry executives and actuaries speaking to the Journal speculated that these “additional non-COVID fatalities” were a byproduct of delays in medical care due to lockdowns in 2020 and more recently due to people’s fears to seek medical attention or delays associated with going to their doctor.
With barely a mention in official political and media circles of COVID-19’s continuing deadly impact in every community across the country, only an analysis of death claims by life insurers suggests the dimensions of another massive crime against the population: the sudden rise in non-COVID-related deaths. Notably, the financial claims arising from these deaths are what drew the attention of the financial executives and the media, rather than the lives lost.
The results of the third quarter 2021 death-benefit claims for COVID-19 fatalities certainly underscore the deadliness of the Delta wave that killed at least 175,000 lives in a matter of three to four months. However, the jump in non-COVID-19 deaths as delineated in the Journal report shows the broader social catastrophe largely buried in the media. The hidden cost of these excess deaths only emerged in the accounting ledgers of these financial companies, which make their livelihoods betting on the population’s life expectancy.
Given that the Omicron wave produced a death toll even higher than Delta and incapacitated health systems across the country for weeks, the trend reported by these life insurance conglomerates is expected to continue well into the future. It will be exacerbated if, as multiple international bodies fear, BA.2 becomes the dominant strain and proves more virulent than its older distant cousin, BA.1.
According to the American Council of Life Insurance (ACLI), a Washington based lobbying and trade group for the life insurance industry, life insurers paid out more than $90 billion in 2020, a 15.4 percent rise in claims over 2019, the highest single-year surge since the 1918 influenza pandemic when payments rose 41 percent. By comparison, the third quarter of 2021 with a 38 percent over baseline increase approaches the calamity wrought by the 1918 influenza virus.
Life-insurance payments percent change for 120 years. (American Council of Life Insurers)
Globe Life finance chief Frank Svoboda, speaking with investors and analysts, said, “The losses we are seeing continue to be elevated over 2019 levels due at least in part, we believe, to the pandemic and the existence of either delayed or unavailable healthcare.” However, the Journal explained that the “hit to the industry’s bottom line has been less than initially feared … because many victims have been older people who typically have smaller policies if any coverage.”
Indeed, the description of these cold-blooded calculations is on par with the impersonal confessions of a sociopath offering a stone-faced accounting of how he killed his victims. It is financial loss, not the loss of priceless lives, that matters under capitalism.
One fact often omitted in news reports, the death rate among working-age people has risen a horrific 40 percent above pre-pandemic levels. According to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker, with data available on 786,000 deaths, at least 191,000 working-age adults have died from COVID-19 alone, about 25 percent of the total. Factoring for the current cumulative COVID-19 deaths, which are around 960,000, then the number of COVID-related deaths among working-aged people would be approximately 230,000.
CEO Scott Davison, the head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica, said during a news conference at the end of last year, “We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business—not just at OneAmerica. The data is consistent across every player in that business.”
He added that the increase in deaths “represents huge, huge numbers,” and not only among the elderly but “primarily working-aged people 18 to 64. And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40 percent over what they were pre-pandemic. Just to give you an idea of how bad that is … a one-in-200 catastrophe would be 10 percent over pre-pandemic. So, 40 percent is just unheard of.”
The Journal continued, “COVID-19 and other excess deaths have cut into many carriers’ quarterly earnings, especially as deaths linked to the Delta variant increased for people in their working years with employer-sponsored death benefits.”
Many of these non-COVID-19 excess deaths were due to heart attacks, strokes and cancers. Recent studies have shown that a month after people are infected by COVID-19, their risk of death from heart attacks, strokes, blood clots and irregular heart rhythms increases. To the extent that COVID infections predispose the population to more health complications, the risk of death from these conditions is not negligible.
NBC News, reporting on these findings, observed, “It appears the coronavirus can leave patients at risk for heart problems for at least one year following infection, according to one of the largest analyses of post-COVID health effects to date … the illness increased the possibility of heart rhythm irregularities, as well as potentially deadly blood clots in the legs and lungs, in the year after an acute infection. COVID also increased the risk for heart failure by 72 percent, heart attack by 63 percent, and stroke by 52 percent, even among those … whose original illness were mild.”
However, the Wall Street Journal failed to elaborate on how good the COVID-19 pandemic has been for policy sales by life insurers. ACLI recorded “$20.4 trillion in total life insurance coverage last year [2020], including $3.3 trillion in life insurance coverage purchased. Overall, 43.1 million life insurance policies were purchased last year. The number includes group life insurance policies, primarily available through employers, which increased 19 percent from 2019 to 2020 and individual coverage rising nearly three percent during the period.”
Though death-benefit payouts in 2020 rose 15.4 percent to $90.43 billion, at the same time, industry assets rose almost eight percent from $7.6 trillion to $8.2 trillion. Insurers are now weighing the direct and indirect costs of COVID-19 for their shareholders and determining how they will plan to “reprice” their group-life contracts.
US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Donald Lu has demanded that the leaders of Nepal’s main political parties ratify the Millennium Challenge Corporation-Nepal Compact (MCC) before February 28 or face a “review” of Washington’s relations with the country.
Nepalese protesters opposing a proposed U.S. half billion dollars grant for Nepal clash with police outside the parliament in Kathmandu, Nepal, Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2022. (AP Photo/Niranjan Shreshta)
Lu delivered his ultimatum in separate telephone calls on February 10 with Nepali Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-UML) chairman Sharma Oli and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal.
Assistant Secretary of State Lu reportedly voiced Washington’s dissatisfaction over alleged Chinese influence in attempts to block the $US500 million MCC-Nepal Compact which was signed nearly five years ago, in 2017.
The Kathmandu Post said it was the “first such strongly-worded message to Nepali political leadership from Washington” since the countries established bilateral relations in 1947.
Washington’s threatened “review” of its relations with Nepal is part of its ongoing efforts to tie the strategically-located country into the escalating US war preparations against Russia and China and reverse its historic decline. Beijing has branded Washington’s intervention as “coercive diplomacy,” reflecting the deepening geopolitical tensions between the US and India on one hand and China on the other.
The proposed MCC grant involves the development of electricity transmission facilities in Nepal, particularly along its border with India. MCC programs, which are presented as aid, are part of Washington’s efforts to entrench its influence in backward countries. Their strategic importance for Washington is indicated by the MCC leadership—the US secretary of state serves as MCC chairman and the US Treasury secretary is the vice chairman.
In a direct threat, Lu made clear to Nepali political leaders during his phone call that Washington would use political corruption and human rights issues in Nepal to enforce its demands. “Manipulation of MCC by some individuals has made us take a tough stand and position on human rights abusers and those involved in systematic corruption in Nepal.”
The US, which has a long and sordid record of human rights violations and war crimes, hypocritically and cynically exploits “human rights” to pressure other countries into aligning themselves with Washington’s geopolitical agenda.
Lu also blamed supposed social media “misinformation” campaigns for popular concerns about the MCC program and its political strings, insisting during the call that it was not “connected to any security or military elements as hyped by some sections in Nepal.”
Stepping up its pressure on Kathmandu, the US embassy in Nepal last week initiated a new Facebook and Twitter campaign against alleged “disinformation” and to promote Washington’s interests.
The ramped-up US threats have increased political turmoil in Nepal. The Nepali Congress-led government attempted to get parliamentary ratification of the MCC compact last Friday but was forced to backtrack after its ally, the Maoist Centre, said it opposed the program “in its present form.” Deuba’s minority government, which came to power last year, relies on parliamentary support from the Maoist Centre.
The media reported that Deuba put the MCC program on the parliamentary agenda again on Sunday, after being assured of support by the opposition CPN-UML leader Sharma Oli.
The Maoist Centre called a demonstration in Kathmandu last Wednesday, and on Sunday, opposing the tabling of the MCC program in the parliament agenda. The government mobilised police to disperse the protesters, attacking them with batons, tear gas and firing rubber bullets.
Nepali workers and students aware of US interventions and regime-change operations in other countries have a legitimate fear of the MCC program. However, the Maoist party, which has been in previous bourgeois coalition governments and is discredited among masses is cynically seeking to exploit this popular opposition.
Dahal, the Maoist Centre leader, is close to China, and was part of the former administration of Prime Minister Sharma Oli which blocked the ratification of the MCC. While Dahal has said that his party will not ratify the aid program unless there are amendments, Lu has rejected any amendments.
In order to increase pressure on the Maoist Centre, the MCC has leaked a joint letter signed by Deuba and Dahal last September. The joint letter sought “additional time for the ratification in the parliament” but did not raise the question of amendments.
Reflecting the concerns of sections of the Nepali political elite, Ramesh Nath Pandey, a former Nepali foreign minister told the Kathmandu Post: “The US will definitely retaliate given its nature and its past records but we do not know what kind of action it may take.” He warned that the fallout would impact Nepal on a “political, economic and strategic” level, and warned, this could “invite a huge political crisis in Nepal.”
Suresh Chalise, who has served as an ambassador of Nepal in Washington, said that the country should not “lose the trust” of the US. “Nepal needs support from countries like the US, because it is sandwiched between India and China, where you can see “ups and downs once in a while.”
The government and the ruling elite are also deeply concerned about losing US aid at a time when the economy is reeling from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nepal’s main foreign currency earners—tourism, and remittances from migrant workers—have collapsed. The US is currently the country’s biggest bilateral donor.
Lu has indicated that not only US aid will be curtailed but other assistance and investments Nepal receives from various bilateral and multilateral agencies as well as private investment will suffer. Washington has the final say in international agencies like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
For its part, China has expressed its concerns about Washington’s aggressive pressure in Nepal. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin told a press conference on Friday: “We oppose coercive diplomacy and actions that pursue a selfish agenda at the expense of Nepal’s sovereignty and interests.” China, he added, provides international aid to Nepal “without political conditions.”
Reporting Wang’s remarks, the Global Times noted: “The US criticism of China is totally groundless. The US has smeared China as an attempt to achieve its own geostrategic goals by sowing discord and creating a rift between China and Nepal.”
Well aware of US plans to militarily encircle it, China is seeking to increase its influence on Nepal with investment projects and aid packages. Beijing is also concerned about India, which has increased its influence in Kathmandu since the Nepali Congress formed government last year.
If the Deuba-led minority government fails to secure parliamentary ratification of the MCC program, it could collapse as Washington intensifies its efforts to impose its demands on Nepal.
A report issued earlier this month by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) provides a glimpse of some of the consequences for cultural life of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The sign on the door of a closed Regal movie theater in New York City, March 2020 (Photo credit–Eden, Janine and Jim)
The Re/Shaping Policies for Creativity 2022 report is written in the usual global-bureaucratic language of such agencies. It is full of references to “Building resilient and sustainable cultural and creative sectors” and “Ensuring a diversity of voices,” “Re-imagining mobility” and “Opening up cultural governance,” and so forth.
The report consists of four sections, concerned, respectively, with supporting “sustainable systems of governance for culture”; achieving “a balanced flow of cultural goods and services” and increasing “the mobility of artists and cultural professionals”; integrating “culture in sustainable development frameworks”; and promoting “human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Generally, in each section, “encouraging developments” are detected that “point to slow but positive progress.” On closer examination, however, a “host of barriers” or “challenges” emerge in almost every case that more or less outweigh, if not wipe out entirely, the previously documented “progress.”
The “barriers” and “challenges” arise inexorably, objectively, in fact, from the existence of capitalist private property, in particular the profit interests of giant entertainment and media corporations, and the system of rival nation-states. The UNESCO study takes the existence of the present social order for granted and seeks some dignified means of navigating around the obstacles this places in the path of harmonious, globally coordinated cultural development. But those obstacles, as a careful reading of the report reveals, are insurmountable within the present economic and political set-up.
The foreword, by UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, a French Socialist Party politician and Culture Minister in the right-wing government of Prime Minister Manuel Valls from 2016 to 2017, sets the general tone.
Re/Shaping Policies for Creativity 2022 UNESCO report
Azoulay acknowledges that the pandemic “has led to an unprecedented crisis in the cultural sector. All over the world, museums, cinemas, theatres and concert halls … have closed their doors. In 2020, the income drawn by creators fell by more than 10 percent, or more than 1 billion euros. What was already a precarious situation for many artists has become unsustainable, threatening creative diversity.”
Who was responsible for this “unprecedented,” but entirely preventable crisis? Azoulay, a former official of the French state, does not care to say. She simply moves on to a series of banalities, “We need the vitality of a sector which employs young people and nurtures innovation and sustainable development,” “we also need what culture and creation, in all the diversity of their expressions, can do to provide some personal respite and what they can do to unite our societies and forge the road ahead.”
She speaks of “long-term policies,” but none of the meager measures proposed, even if they were introduced, would repair the damage done, much less solve the problem of art at the mercy of profits and the market.
In any event, the following passages provide some sense of what is actually occurring.
The current “challenges” in the cultural and creative sectors, we are told, “which have only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis, include poverty, gender inequality, climate change and inequalities within and among countries.”
Re/Shaping Policies notes there is “an ongoing downward trend in public investment for culture, which points to new challenges for the cultural and creative sectors, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the economic and social vulnerability of artists and cultural professionals across the world.”
Moreover, remarkably, the share of Official Development Assistance (i.e., foreign aid) to poorer countries devoted to culture and recreation in 2018 represented only a third of the funding that was available before the 2008 global financial crisis. A further decline “is predicted in the coming years due to COVID-19-related recessions.”
In one of the study’s central passages, it reports that COVID-19 has “led to the closure of cultural facilities and the cancellation of events; hampered or halted regular work and collaboration in most cultural and creative occupations; put a stop to international mobility; and compromised the purchasing power of audiences.” According to initial estimates, the study’s authors continue, “the global Gross Value Added in the cultural and creative industries contracted by US$750 billion in 2020, and at least 10 million jobs were lost. In the countries for which data are available, the revenue of the cultural and creative industries decreased by between 20 percent and 40 percent in 2020, and cultural and creative industries generally performed worse than their national economies, thereby sustaining more damage than during any previous crisis.” [Emphasis added.]
Mean government expenditure on ‘cultural services’ and ‘broadcasting and publishing services’ as a percentage of GDP, 2010-2019
The report observes that the “collapse in employment and income followed a decline in public funding and a rise in the precariousness of cultural workers. These factors have reinforced entrenched patterns of gender and regional inequality. … Digitization took a front seat during the pandemic, as it became more central to creation, production, distribution and access to cultural expressions. … As a result, online multinationals consolidated their position, and inequalities in Internet access became more significant.”
In regard to the consolidation of the multinationals, the report notes: “Unfortunately, monopolistic and oligopolistic structures in the media remain commonplace.”
The report describes “the threat of oligopoly, which could recreate the gatekeeper function that traditional media companies enjoyed when spectrum capacity limited broadcast output and a handful of TV and radio network controllers effectively decided on content. This time, however, the oligopoly would exist at the global rather than the national level.”
Freedom of information and “diversity in media” are threatened by “increased disinformation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, insufficient media monitoring, ongoing concentration of media ownership and broadcasters’ difficulties in meeting existing quota requirements due to a lack of local content.”
As for artists’ conditions, in a remarkable indictment of governments, arts agencies and philanthropists, the report cites figures indicating that “the largest subsidy for the arts comes not from governments, patrons or the private sector, but from artists themselves in the form of unpaid or underpaid labour.”
Artists and cultural professionals globally face “common conditions and vulnerabilities”: “long or atypical working hours, project-to-project contracts and last-minute confirmations or cancellations, … working under physical, emotional and mental pressure and being unable to afford downtime.”
Many artists and professionals work under “informal and undocumented arrangements, which include unfair or inadequate remuneration—and even non-payment—for work delivered, diminished or non-existent pensions at retirement, lack of social safety nets or sick leave and contractual conditions that do not provide stability.”
Freelance workers, the most vulnerable portion of the workforce, make up an estimated 30 to 50 percent of Europe’s creative sector, and that figure rises to between 40 percent and 60 percent in poorer countries. “The predominance of freelancing, as well as irregular contracts, creates a constant lack of predictability and security. This is compounded by the prevalence of low pay, or even working for no pay.”
The pandemic and accompanying social crisis are not only rendering the artists poorer and more economically insecure, they are also making the political and creative atmosphere more dangerous. Re/Shaping Policies points to the work of Freemuse, which produces annual statistics on attacks against artists around the world and across creative sectors.
Freemuse’s records “for the period 2018 to 2020, compared with 2017, show a 20 percent rise in censorship against artists and cultural professionals. The most serious attacks, namely killings, imprisonments, detentions and prosecutions, have all increased in recent years. Other forms of repression make up the bulk of abuses and include instances of physical and online attacks and threats, banning of works and halting of performances, denial of licences and restrictions on freedom of movement.”
The combined economic, political and social consequences of the pandemic, which the UN’s Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Karima Bennoune, in a February 2021 report, termed “a cataclysm for cultural rights,” are taking a horrifying toll. In addition to the hundreds of leading musicians, actors, writers and others who have died from COVID, the report observes that as the pandemic progresses “the impact on mental health globally is being revealed, with early studies carried out in several countries showing exponential increases in reported cases of depression, which in some cases are up fourfold compared with 2019.”
Re/Shaping Policies points out that the impact of this mental health crisis “on the cultural sector has been particularly acute. According to Muzik-Sen, the Turkish Musicians and Performers Union, over 100 musicians in Turkey are believed to have died by suicide because of being unable to continue to practise [perform].” Similarly, in Australia, the report explains, “there has been an increase of people in the music industry taking their own lives during the pandemic … —a sad pattern no doubt echoed in other countries and cultural sectors.”
This is the grim reality, which empty, sugary phrases about “resiliency” and “sustainability” and “new opportunities” cannot conceal.
The Chinese foreign ministry yesterday condemned Washington for deliberately inflaming the danger of war in the Ukraine crisis. It criticised US President Biden’s imposition of further sanctions on Moscow after Russian President Putin signed a decree recognising two eastern Ukrainian regions as “independent” and dispatched Russian troops into these areas.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, and Russian President Vladimir Putin talk to each other during their meeting in Beijing, China, Friday, Feb. 4, 2022. (Alexei Druzhinin, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)
At a press conference, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the US was “raising tensions, creating panic, and even playing up the schedule of war… If someone is adding fuel to the fire while blaming others… then that behaviour is irresponsible and immoral.”
Asked if China would impose sanctions on Russia, Hua stated that the Chinese government believed that “sanctions have never been a fundamental and effective way to solve problems.” She reiterated that the Chinese government regarded the US imposition of unilateral sanctions, not just on Russia but other countries, including China, as “illegal.”
“Since 2011, the United States has imposed sanctions on Russia more than 100 times, but we can all think about it calmly,” Hua said, adding: “Have US sanctions solved the problem?” She repeated China’s plea for negotiations to maintain regional peace and stability.
The US, however, has no intention of “solving the problem.” It is hell-bent on ramping up tensions in the Ukraine and provoking war with Russia. Beijing’s pleas for talks and a peaceful solution will fall on deaf ears.
Hua pointedly warned that in its handling of the Ukraine crisis and relations with Russia, “the US must not harm the legitimate rights and interests of China and other parties.” Beijing is clearly concerned that the US will exploit its unilateral sanctions against Russia as a pretext for taking action against Chinese entities for any alleged breaches.
At the same time, while China has not condemned Putin’s actions in recognising the “independence” of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, it has given no political support to the move or Russia’s dispatch of troops to these areas.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has defended Russia’s concerns about the encroachment of NATO into Eastern Europe as legitimate, but Beijing is deeply worried by the international precedent set by any redrawing of national borders. It has not formally recognised Russia’s annexation of Crimea, which followed the US-backed coup, involving openly fascist forces, that ousted the elected pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
Hinting that Ukrainian security concerns also had to be taken into account, Hua said China had “called on all parties to respect and attach importance to each other’s legitimate security concerns, strive to resolve issues through negotiation and consultation, and jointly maintain regional peace and stability.”
Beijing’s concerns stem from legitimate fears that the US will exploit such precedents to justify support for separatist movements, including in Hong Kong and among the Uyghur and Tibetan minorities, as a means of destabilising and breaking up China. The US propaganda machine endlessly recycles the lie that the Chinese government is engaged in the “genocide” of the Uyghurs in China’s western region of Xinjiang.
Moreover, the US is deliberately inflaming tensions over Taiwan, which it nominally recognises as part of China under the “One China” policy. In a definite echo of its accusations of a Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the US media has repeatedly claimed, without any substantiation, that China is preparing to take control of Taiwan using military force. In reality, the US has undermined longstanding protocols regarding the status of Taiwan by strengthening ties with the island, including the deployment of US troops there for the first time in more than four decades.
The Chinese foreign ministry statements yesterday follow a phone call between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday. Wang expressed concern about the “evolving situation in Ukraine” and did not endorse Blinken’s accusations of “Russian aggression.”
Wang blamed the crisis in the Ukraine on “the delayed implementation of the Minsk agreement.” This ceasefire deal was engineered by France and Germany, not the US, in 2014 and 2015 to end fighting between pro-Russian separatist militia in eastern Ukraine and the Ukrainian military, which was working with armed fascist groups.
The Minsk agreement cut across the agenda of the US and extreme right-wing Ukrainian parties and groupings, which sought to continue and intensify the fighting, including to regain control of the Crimea. Along with the removal of all foreign fighters and the pulling back of heavy weaponry, the agreement called for greater autonomy for the rebel-held areas in eastern Ukraine, while requiring the separatists to return control of the border between Ukraine and Russia to the Kiev regime. These provisions have never been established.
The Russian and Chinese presidents undoubtedly discussed the looming crisis in the Ukraine in depth at their meeting in Beijing on February 4 at the opening of the Winter Olympics. A lengthy joint statement said the two countries had a friendship that had “no limits.” Without naming the US and its allies, the statement declared that Russia and China “stand against attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their common adjacent regions,” and “counter interference by outside forces in the internal affairs of sovereign countries under any pretext.”
Putin and Xi no doubt also discussed their somewhat different positions on the separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as the Crimea. As a result, Putin will not have been surprised by the lack of Chinese support for his announcement recognising Donetsk and Luhansk as independent. He will, however, be looking for Chinese economic and financial support to combat the sanctions imposed by the US and its allies on Russia.
The summit concluded a major agreement for Russia to supply China with 10 billion cubic metres of gas per year—a critical lifeline to Moscow under conditions where its markets in Europe are now being hit by US sanctions. With trade between Russia and China already increasing in the wake of the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, Putin and Xi agreed to boost it to $250 billion annually.
Biden declared that the penalties imposed on Russia this week were just the “first tranche,” so the potential for conflict with China for “breaching” the US sanctions regime can only rise. Washington will have no qualms about drumming up pretexts for punitive measures against Beijing, which it regards as even more of a threat to its global domination than Moscow. This underscores the danger that a war in Europe can rapidly extend to the Indo-Pacific, creating a global disaster.
At 5:50 a.m. Moscow time on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin initiated a “special military operation” in Ukraine.
Explosions were reported in parts of Ukraine starting at around 5:00 a.m. local time, including in the capital Kiev, in the eastern city of Kharkov and in other parts of the country. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry claimed that military bases in Kiev and Kharkov were subject to missile strikes. Later Thursday morning, Ukrainian official Oleksiy Arestovych reported that 40 Ukrainian soldiers and 10 civilians had been killed, and dozens of soldiers wounded.
In this image made from video released by the Russian Presidential Press Service, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressees to the nation in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, Feb. 24, 2022. (Russian Presidential Press Service via AP)
The Ukrainian government also alleged that Russian troops had landed in Odessa and were crossing the border in Kharkov. Contradicting this information, CNN reported that no ground forces had been sighted. On social media, footage was shared showing cars racing on highways to flee Kiev.
The Russian Ministry of Defense denied that Ukrainian cities had been subject to any missile strikes and insisted that only military infrastructure was being targeted. Later, it reported: “Military infrastructure at Ukrainian army air bases has been rendered out of action.”
The Ukrainian government of Volodymyr Zelensky has proclaimed martial law, without specifying what restrictions would be in place.
The Ukrainian government already declared a state of emergency to go into effect Thursday. It involves a ban on strikes, demonstrations and the production and dissemination of “destabilizing” information in the media, as well as unspecified restrictions on the use of social media.
Russia has closed the airspace over East Ukraine and bordering Russian regions. The airport in Rostov on Don, the main Russian city near Ukraine’s border, has been closed entirely. The Ukrainian government had earlier closed several international airports in East Ukraine, including in Kharkov (Kharkiv), Dnepr, Zaporozhe and Kherson. It has now closed its airspace entirely.
US President Joe Biden, who spoke with Zelensky Wednesday night US time, denounced Russia’s troop deployment as a “chosen premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic loss of life and human suffering.” He will deliver a national address today.
Russia initiated its military operation after the separatist leaders of the so-called “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Lugansk (Luhansk) (DNR and LNR) in eastern Ukraine had appealed to the Kremlin for military support. Putin had recognized the independence of the separatist enclaves on Monday.
Russia’s Rossiya 24 state television channel reported Wednesday night that the Ukrainian armed forces had crossed the border of the LNR and had launched artillery bombardment of the city of Nikolaevka (Mykolaivka).
The DNR and LNR were proclaimed by pro-Russian separatists in 2014, after a civil war broke out following the US-backed far-right coup in Kiev that ousted a pro-Russian government.
In his speech early Thursday morning, Putin denounced NATO’s expansion to Eastern Europe and the US wars in the Middle East and Yugoslavia and threatened: “Anyone who tries to interfere with us, or even more so, to create threats for our country and our people, must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history.”
He said that Russia did not intend to “occupy” Ukraine, but only to “demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” it.
The Moscow stock exchange halted trading on Thursday, after the index had fallen by 11 percent in the early morning. The ruble has begun a rapid collapse.
European stock markets fell heavily as trading began yesterday morning, with the FTSE-100 down 2.34 percent in London, the Dax down 3.62 percent in Frankfurt, and the CAC-40 down 3.36 percent in Paris. Oil prices surged above US$100 per barrel for the first time in seven years. In Paris, wheat prices rose 10 percent overnight to over €300 per ton.
Application deadlines vary between courses but range from 28 February to 10 April 2022. Please check the deadline carefully with the university you plan to apply to, in order to avoid disappointment.
Tell Me About British Council Scholarships for Women in STEM:
For the second year running, the British Council has launched a scholarship programme in partnership with 26 UK universities with the aim of benefiting women from the Americas, South Asia, South East Asia, Egypt, Turkey and Ukraine. We are looking for women with a background in STEM, who can demonstrate their need for financial support and who wish to inspire future generations of women to pursue careers in STEM.
Why a scholarship programme?
This scholarship programme aims to increase opportunities in STEM for girls and women. According to data from the UN Scientific Education and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), fewer than 30 percent of researchers worldwide are women and only 30 percent of female students select STEM-related fields in higher education.
Globally, female students’ enrolment is particularly low in Information and Communications Technology (three percent), natural science, mathematics and statistics (five percent), and engineering, manufacturing and construction (eight percent).
What Type of Scholarship is this?
Master, Fellowship
Who can apply for British Council Scholarships for Women in STEM?
Applicants can apply from the following countries
For both Master’s Scholarships and Early Academic Fellowships
Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam
For Masters Scholarships only
Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, Peru, Turkey, Ukraine
We are looking for women who:
are able to take up a course of study in the UK for the academic year from September/October 2022 – 2023
can demonstrate a need for financial support
have an undergraduate degree that will enable them to gain access onto one of the pre-selected postgraduate courses at a UK university
can attain the level of English required for postgraduate study/research at a UK university
are active in the field with work experience or a proven interest in their subject area
are passionate about their course of study and are willing to engage as committed British Council scholarship alumni
Full eligibility criteria are available below in the documents section.
Which Countries are Eligible?
Women from the Americas, South Asia, South East Asia, Egypt, Turkey and Ukraine.
Where will Award be Taken?
UK
How Many Scholarships will be Given?
Numerous
What is the Benefit of British Council Scholarships for Women in STEM?
Main benefits
academic prestige – the UK’s universities are amongst the world’s leaders in STEM subjects
economic support will include tuition fees, stipend, travel costs, visa and health coverage fees
special support for mothers
English language support
How to Apply for British Council Scholarships for Women in STEM:
Applications should be made directly to the participating universities. Please follow the links below (information will be updated as the application process in each participating university becomes live).
