Endeavour Executive Fellowships

Australian GovernmentShort Course/Training

Deadline: 30 June 2016 (annual)
Study in:  Australia
Next course starts: Jan-Nov 2017

Brief description:

The Endeavour Executive Fellowship provides financial support towards professional development opportunities (1-4 months) for high achievers in business, industry, education or government for non-Australians and Australians.

The Endeavour Executive Fellowship focuses on learning and building skills and knowledge through a host work environment in the applicant’s field or area of expertise rather than through formal enrolment in a study programme and are not suitable for academic research proposals. Professional development activities could include management training, peer-to-peer learning, mentoring, short courses and developing leadership skills.

Host Institution(s):

Applicants must be nominated by a senior official in their host organisation which is physically located in their host country.

Number of Awards:

Not specified.

Target group:

Americas: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China (People’s Republic), Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic of Korea – South), Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam.

The Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago.

Europe: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France (including Reunion), Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland).

Middle East: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Pacific: Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated states), Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand* (including Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna.

Scholarship value/inclusions:

The fellowship value is up to $AUD 18,500. The fellowship includes travel allowance ($AUD 3,000), establishment allowance ($AUD 2,000), monthly stipend ($AUD 3,000; up to the maximum category duration on a pro-rata basis).  Health and travel insurance will also be provided.

Eligibility:

To be eligible to receive an Endeavour Executive Fellowship, applicants must:

•  be aged 18 years or over at the commencement of their programme

•  be a citizen and/or permanent resident of a participating country (see above)

•  commence their proposed programme after 1 January 2017 and no later than 30 November 2017. Applicants who have already commenced or will commence their intended programme prior to 2017 are not eligible to apply

•  provide all relevant supporting documentation

• not currently hold or have completed, since 1 January 2015, an Australian Government sponsored scholarship and/or fellowship (directly administered to recipients by the Australian Government)

•  not apply for a category in which they have already completed an Endeavour Scholarship or Fellowship.

Application instructions:

Applications are submitted through the Endeavour Online (EOL) system. The deadline for 2017 Round is 30 June 2016.

It is important to read the 2017 Endeavour Awards Application Guidelines and visit the official website (link found below) for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Website:

Official Scholarship Website: https://internationaleducation.gov.au/Endeavour%20program/Scholarships-and-Fellowships/Pages/default.aspx

Women in Aviation Scholarships 2016/2017 for International Students

Application Deadline: 29th of July, 2016

WAI offers scholarship awards annually to men and women members (students, teachers and professionals) who want to further their studies in Aviation. The WAI scholarships also help teachers fulfill their dreams, by providing them with the resources they need to bring aviation into their classrooms or to enhance their skills. The scholarship awards are a major part of what the organization is all about. Each applicant must be a WAI member and may apply for no more than two scholarships

Eligibility

• Open to Women in Aviation International members who are seeking a degree in Aerospace/Aeronautical Engineering, Aviation Maintenance Technology or an A & P through an Aviation Technician Program.
• Applicants must either be currently enrolled or officially accepted into an Aerospace/Aeronautical Engineering program, Aviation Maintenance Technology program or Aviation Technician Program at an accredited University, College or AMT School in the U.S.
• Applicants must currently have a GPA of 3.0 or equivalent at the time of application – either in High School or their current Aerospace/Aeronautical Engineering program, Aviation Maintenance Technology program or Aviation Technician program. Applicant must be a U.S. Citizen or eligible non-citizen. Applicant to provide copy of a College Acceptance letter.

Value of Scholarship: $1500.

Scholarship funds will be paid directly to the winner’s educational institution. Funds can be used for tuition, books or fees related to obtaining the A & P from an AMT School in the U.S.

Number of Awardees: Two(2)

How to Apply: Applicants are welcome to download the application form

Submission Requirements

In addition to filling out the official WAI application form [download form], please submit academic transcripts and a 500-1000 word essay-typed and double spaced-addressing the following topics:
1. What does “Women in Aviation” mean to you?
2. Who or what inspired you to pursue a degree/career in Aerospace/Aeronautical Engineering or Aircraft Maintenance?
3. Why are you the most qualified candidate for the United Airlines Tech Ops Scholarship?

To download application and Find Scholarships Offered visit scholarship webpage.

Apply for the 2016 African Union Research Grant. Up to USD1 Million.

Application Deadline: 17th of August, 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Africa Countries, EU Member States

To be taken at (country): Candidate’s Home Country

Brief description: The African Union Commission launches Phase 2 of the African Union Research Grants programme with an open call for proposals for Research and Innovation in Africa supported by the European Union.
This call for proposal supports Africa’s Science Technology and Innovation Strategy-2024 which addresses the aspirations identified under Agenda 2063 and Priority 3 on Human development of the EU-Africa partnership. The call supports research on: Food & Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (FNSSA) with particular attention on Sustainable Intensification.

Objectives of Research: 

Overall Objectives

The Overall objectives of this call for Proposals are to deploy Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) in the Agricultural sector as tool for Africa’s sustainable economic growth, wealth creation, and food and nutrition security, as well as for political stability through:

• supporting collaborative Research and Innovation (R&I) activities that address critical issues facing African countries and contribute to the sustainable development of African countries and the fight against poverty, while respecting ethical and gender issues;
• developing the capacity of the African Union Commission (AUC) to design, implement and monitor R&I funding programmes and establish the basis for a credible and reputable African framework programme for R&I that could attract additional funds from other sources, e.g. African Union (AU) Member States and other partners and donors;
• enhancing intra–regional and North-South scientific collaboration and research that contributes to Africa’s sustainable development.

Specific Objectives

The Specific objective of this Call for Proposals is to award grants to finance research projects that aim to Eradicate Hunger and Ensure Food and nutrition security. It is highly envisaged that the deployment and the improvement of science and technology research in this challenging area will effectively contribute to Africa’s poverty reduction strategies, economic growth and social development efforts.

About the Award: The African Union Research Grant (AURG) is one of the programmes initiated within the Department of Human Resources, Science and Technology (DHRST) to support a Pan African research and development through grants and direct funding. The programme provides the needed opportunity to use Science and Technology (S&T) as a tool for sustainable development, building and strengthening Africa’s S&T capacities. The African Union Research Grants programme is financed through the Financing Agreement between the European Commission and the African Union Commission (CRIS number: DCI/PANAF/037-621 under the Pan-African Programme (PanAf), based on Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (DCI) for the period 2014-2020. It is based on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which establishes the fight against poverty as the primary objective of EU development policy and refers to the European Consensus on Development (2006/C 46/01) [24.02.2006], the ‘Agenda for Change’ COM(2011) [637 final 13.10.2011] and subsequent relevant Commission communication.

Offered Since:

Type: Postgraduate Research

Eligibility: In order to be eligible for the grant, candidates must:

• be legal persons
• be registered locally in ( or have a memorandum of understanding in relevant research areas, with) an African Country prior to the publication of this call for proposals
• have at least a three-year record in the formulation and/or implementation of research activities in Africa for which they will have to provide the relevant legal documents
• be directly responsible for the preparation and management of the action with their partners, not acting as an intermediary
• be able to demonstrate their experience and capacity to manage activities corresponding in scale and complexity to those for which a grant has been requested
• have stable and sufficient sources of finance to ensure the continuity of their organisation throughout the implementation of the proposed action
• Partnerships must involve at least three organisations out of which 2 should be national of Africa countries. The number of African countries in a partnership should be a majority. There is no upper limit to the number of members in a partnership; however it is highly recommended that partnership should not to exceed five.
• A partnership should be composed in such a way as to allow for the achievement of project objectives in the most efficient manner. Those proposals having partners from the different AU Regional Economic Communities (RECs) have an added advantage
• belong to at least one of the following categories:
  • National or regional science and technology organizations, research institutions, universities, government ministries or public and private institutions dealing with scientific research including  regional science and technology institutions, with separate legal status, not belonging to any national system but formally recognised by one of the eligible countries; or
  • Established science and technology networksprovided that: all network members and the network headquarters are located in eligible countries; the network has a legal status; the network is applying in its own right; and the network has been registered for a minimum of two years;

Selection Criteria: The evaluation will be carried out in accordance with the following documents:

• African Union Commission Grants Management Manual
• Guidelines for the applicants

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:

• minimum amount: USD 500,000.00
• maximum amount: USD 1,000,000.00

Duration of Scholarship: Not stated

How to Apply: Go apply here

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: African Union

The West’s Needless Aggression

Jason Hirthler

Last week at the United Nations, Russian President Vladimir Putin made another futile appeal for sanity in international relations. He commented that the recent activation of the U.S./NATO ballistic missile defense system in Romania, of all places, constitutes a direct threat to international security, by which he primarily meant Russian security. Another such site is being hastily erected in Poland. The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system is also installed on U.S. warships floating in the Mediterranean, and there are supposedly ABM-launching submarines prowling the Arctic.

Putin was primarily referring to the Aegis Ashore ABM “defense”system, but also to the larger sea-based Aegis Ballistic-Missile Defense System (Aegis BMD). Russia fears the ABM system because it can knock down its nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, which essentially removes its ability to mount a nuclear response to an attack from Europe. Say goodbye to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). At least that’s what Rumsfeldian crackpots in the bowels of the Pentagon must be thinking. The Aegis system is on land and sea in Europe and will be nominally run by NATO starting this summer, but will be managed out of a U.S. base in occupied Germany. Washington and Brussels have predictably ignored Russia’s ongoing protestations.

No surprise there, though. Nor is it a surprise that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg claimed, in a conceit as tiresome as it is ancient, that the system was not actually designed to counter Russia but rather the nefarious designs of evil Iran, which is doubtless plotting its diabolical takeover of Europe, perhaps with the aid of Dr. No and Odd job. (Evidently, the job of the Secretary General of NATO is to frequently appear in public and make counterintuitive claims that have no basis in reality.)

But by no means can we be sure that Tehran will launch a surprise attack first. Russia might send its streaming hordes across the Urals into placid Europe at any moment. As Britain’s Defense Secretary Michael Fallon once announced to the EU’s huddled masses, Russia is as big a threat to Europe as ISIS. Scheming hawk Hillary Clinton likewise compared Putin to Adolf Hitler (providing yet another reason to have this brazen imperialist institutionalized or jailed.)

Agent Carter

All of this theatrical posturing by Western warmongers is only escalating thanks to Barack Obama’s thoughtful choice for Secretary of Defense at the end of 2014, when he appointed security hawk Ashton Carter to the post, once a strong advocate of preemptive war on North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Iraq. As if neoconservatives like Hillary and Victoria Nuland and John Bolton and Samantha Power hadn’t already conclusively demonstrated how worthless the entire neocon movement is. Unless your goal is world domination. Then the neocons are the outfit you want: aggressive, arrogant, and amoral.

Secretary Carter likes to accuse the Russians of “saber rattling.” Could not the estimable secretary have found a less careworn cliché in his thesaurus of piffle? Notice he is claiming Russia is saber rattling by moving troops around inside its own borders. This is aggression, but NATO sending four battalions to the Baltics is necessary self-defense.

Carter added another barefaced lie to his sterling track record, “We do not seek to make Russia an enemy.” In an ABC News article covering Carter’s comments, the writer added, “The U.S. and NATO have sought to avoid provoking Moscow more than necessary, such as opting against opening new bases or permanently stationing troops in the Baltic countries.” This would be the place to insert the standard left trope, ‘breathtaking dishonesty’, but to suggest as much would imply a ‘breathtaking’ naivety. But this is an instructive example of good propaganda: the opening clause is demonstrably false, but the following independent clause is technically true. What is omitted is the unnecessary provocation of quadrupling U.S. military spending in Europe for the express purpose of moving heavy weapons to Central and Eastern Europe, and to rotate troops through the region to ensure a full armored combat brigade is a permanent presence on the edge of Russia. Washington cleverly decided to rotate troops so Moscow couldn’t accuse it of violating their now worthless NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 wherein both nations agreed not to station large troop deployments by shared NATO-Russia borders.

(This is a good example of the kind of dispiriting legal casuistry that gives the lie to Washington’s protestations of good intentions. But it’s not only militarily that we behave like this. Note how Obama talks about “free trade” when stumping for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)? These aren’t really about trade; they’re about establishing corporate sovereignty over states and—as usual—about battering open new markets in order to privatize public assets (such as Britain’s National Health Service). If you can’t dangle an International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan above the fiscal head of a troubled nation—approvable on the condition that said country privatizes public assets—then you can establish “partnerships” that create a superstructure of international corporate rights than supersede any petty protectionist measures a country might have in place. How provincial national sovereignty seems in today’s world of border-trampling financial globalization. In any event, these so-called trade treaties have as much to do with trade as the increasingly muscular posture of NATO in Europe has to do with self-defense. Even Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski once called the Bush-era plan for BMD in Europe, “designed against a non-existent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection.”)

These needless affronts by NATO are based on a premise that is so obviously false it strains credulity. Even the aforementioned ABC writer can’t resist pointing this out. After fulfilling his job description by successfully distorting the regional picture, he gleefully notes that Secretary Carter forgot to mention the historic effrontery of expanding NATO to Russia’s doorstep after promising not to, and stationing ABM systems in Europe.

But alas, these were “necessary” vexations. What contemptible nonsense. As one journalist noted, NATO moves closer to Russia then blames Russia for being closer to NATO.  Looking down from space, an alien would see, over time, NATO moving rapidly eastward in ever expanding numbers, not to mention hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops deployed globally on hundreds of military bases, actively bombing in half a dozen countries, among other actions. What sort of collective pathology permits the Pentagon and White House to claim this is all defensive behavior? It reminds me of a line in Jonathan Cook’s upbraiding of British conservatives for their gutless anti-Semite smears against Muslim Labor MP Nas Shah. Cook said, “The only suitable response is derision.”

As if to punctuate the fact of American aggression, North Korea yesterday joined India and China by announcing it would not use nuclear weapons first, but only in response to an attack. By contrast, the U.S. (hence NATO) refuses to rule out a first-strike option, and frequently hints at the preemptive use of nukes with its “all options are on the table” euphemism, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Bill Clinton even made it an open policy with his Presidential Policy Directive 60. One might say this position is the coup de grace of America’s policy of aggression.

Not to be upstaged by craven pacifists, former NATO deputy commander Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff released this week a book predicting certain war with Russia in 2017. Naturally, Shirreff’s scenario is precipitated by Russian aggression and can only be prevented by supplying more troop deployments to Eastern Europe.

Par for the Course

Removed from their historical context, the hyperventilating threats so frequently issued by our so-called ‘statesmen’ sound positively cracked. But in context, they sound like the bloodless internal logic of a monomaniac. The context is a relentless historic push for world domination. Nothing less will do. The West has wanted to control and dismember Russia since the dawn of the Russian Revolution, digesting it as another vassal state on the quest to control the Eurasian continent. For a long time this animosity was fueled by the nasty specter of a viable anti-capitalist social and economic model. When the USSR collapsed, that model was pronounced DOA and consigned to oblivion by Western groupthink.

Now Russia has emerged from the festival of neoliberal looting that began under the drunken agency of Boris Yeltsin, due in large part to Vladimir Putin’s nationalism. Moscow now stands as a bulwark against the West’s targeted exploitation of Eurasia. Russia and China have grown into genuine American rivals with economic and military clout—not to mention good relations—the very thing Paul Wolfowitz, in echoing Zbigniew Brzezinski, militated against in his early Nineties foreign policy outline for the Clinton administration. We are to have no rivals, the better to pluck Middle Eastern and Eurasian resources free of constraints.

The Bush administration laid out the Middle Eastern leg of the global strategy, calling for an aggressive plan of rolling regime change beginning with Iraq, and moving through Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iran, and finally Russia. We’ve successfully extinguished a strong civil state in Libya, helped quash Egypt’s hopes for representative government, kept Iraq from becoming a stable Shia partner for Iran, and fractured a multi-confessional Syrian state in our ongoing efforts to shatter the bridge between Tehran and Hezbollah. Obama has extended the masterplan by reorienting much of the American force posture in an Asian Pivot designed to encircle China with military bases and exclusionary investor-rights agreements.

On both fronts, we are moving toward the climax of the plot line. We are closing in on the pivotal confrontations that will ultimately determine whether Washington achieves hegemony or becomes another object lesson in imperial overreach. There are steep odds against establishing some kind of second Roman Empire that presides over a far-flung portfolio of pacified conquests. The odds seem to favor global war. Do not expect Iran and Russia and China to go gently into that dark night.

There is no one individual to blame for this madness. It is the implacable logic of imperial institutions. This is capitalism writ large. Power at any price. Hegemony at any cost. Whether it means clinical assassinations, alliances with terrorist mercenaries, genocidal sanctions, ceaseless bombing campaigns, show trials that indict the victims, or special forces manning the war rooms of jihad. There is no red line across which the forces of neo-conservatism will not cross. That is the price of full-spectrum dominance. Total amorality. The ruse of propaganda is a necessary component in democratic countries, keeping us distracted from the nasty specter of world war. It keeps Boomers celebrating the crowing achievement of their Sixties activism: the election of a black man and a woman to the presidency (policies aside). It keeps Gen Xers complacently managing the empire, heads down, docile and in debt. It thankfully hasn’t yet rewired the Millennial mind—they sometimes seem to be the sole unwavering voice of reason among us, almost pushing a New Deal liberal into the presidency, much to the consternation of the ruling class and the diseased inner sanctum of the Democratic Party, which feeds on corporate largesse and peddles incrementalism and humanitarian intervention to the disenfranchised.

If we continue down the road toward a totalitarian society, propaganda may become even more pervasive. With the population unendingly surveilled, relentlessly entrapped, enslaved by debt, permanently profiled and all-too-frequently imprisoned, elites will go about their exploitation with calm impunity as ordinary citizens internalize the dictates of power. The question is whether the flashpoints of unrest seemingly everywhere in the world will coalesce into a popular front that can stem the tide of empire. We have little time left before state repression, blood-soaked bombing campaigns, and ecological ruin overcome us. It’s either a Green New Deal or Mad Max. The choice is ours.

Is Pope Francis a Teamster at Heart?

David Macaray

Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) raised the spirits of millions of union members around the world when he said, “Trade unions have been an essential force for social change, without which a semblance of a decent and humane society is impossible under Capitalism.”

Resorting to incendiary, unambiguous words like “essential” and “impossible” and “semblance” makes it pretty damn clear where Pope Francis stands in regard to organized labor and the plight of working men and women. Saying what he did about “Capitalism,” this Pope would have fit right in with the IWW and early ILWU. Indeed, the great Harry Bridges himself couldn’t have expressed the thought any more eloquently.

While today, religion, labor unions and moral crusades aren’t likely to be mentioned in the same sentence, that wasn’t always the case. At age 79, Pope Francis is old enough to recall the role the Roman Catholic Church played in the launching of Cesar Chavez’s revolutionary United Farm Workers (UFW) union, in California, back in the 1960s.

Not only was Chavez deeply religious and an ardent Catholic, he intentionally and systematically utilized the Church of Rome—its ethical teachings combined with the non-violent pacifism of Mahatma Gandhi—as the moral template for the formation of his union. And coupled with the “moral imperative” reflected in the civil rights and anti-war movements (which were going on simultaneously), the UFW was propelled forward.

It’s not inaccurate to say that no American labor union in history, before or since, was more dependent upon, more connected to or more grateful for, the teachings of Jesus Christ than the UFW. In truth, Cesar Chavez (born in Yuma, Arizona, in 1927) saw the Mexican-American farm workers’ labor movement as a “moral and spiritual uplifting” rather than a purely economic “money grab.”

All of which makes the current state of organized labor that much more painful. In addition to membership roles having declined precipitously, the public’s respect and admiration for union members and union leaders alike is, arguably, lower than it’s been in memory.

Indeed, the notion of an American union presenting itself not only as (per Pope Francis) necessary for Capitalism to function “humanely,” but as the “driving moral force” of a nation’s economy seems almost ludicrous.

Perhaps we’ve all become too cynical and relativistic to put things in “moral” terms. Maybe we’re too “jaded.” Anyone old enough to recall JFK’s inspirational speech—the one that included the phrase, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”—has to cringe in embarrassment at how sappy that sounds by today’s standards. Reagan’s anti-government rhetoric long ago supplanted JFK’s cornball idealism.

Even union members have become demoralized. That’s partly due to what they see as organized labor’s inability to get the Democratic Party to stand up and fight for it (despite hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions), and partly due, fairly or unfairly, to what they perceive as labor’s bloated, greedy and self-indulgent national leadership.

What labor most needs is an injection of Old Time Religion. It needs to abandon the economic axis and embrace the moral axis. Labor needs to follow the Pope’s lead and focus the issue on morality. It needs to remind everyone that if Jesus Christ returned to earth, he would want workers to make a living wage and do their jobs with dignity.

And I say the following not only as a non-Catholic and non-Christian, but as a non-theist. Who is the American public more apt to listen to? The Pope and Jesus? Or Wal-Mart executives?

Aiding Africa

Cesar Chelala

I started traveling to Africa on health-related missions at the beginning of the 1980s. And from the beginning Africa caught my interest, and my imagination. It is, after all, the continent where my father was born, when my Lebanese grandfather went to work providing food to miners in Transvaal. That I went on public health missions was a big advantage since it allowed me to go to places and see situations that no tourist normally sees.

I realized that there are two Africas: one normally portrayed in the media, a land of poverty, disease and war. And another Africa: a vital, energetic continent of hard working men and women, a continent of beautiful children and young men and young women, a continent of humor and a continent of hope. Today, six of the ten fastest economies in the world are in Africa.

Despite some progress, however, some important problems remain, such as unemployment, particularly among the young. It is estimated that 70 percent of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa is under the age of 30, and that 60 percent of the unemployed are also young people. New policies should be developed to incorporate them into the labor force.

To do that, it is important to provide them with the basic skills that would allow them to live up to their earning potential. UNESCO and the International Labor Organization (ILO) have recommended that governments, international donors and the private sector develop integrated policies to create jobs for young people and ease the transition from school to work.

In the health area, although considerable progress has been made in the fight against HIV/AIDS (South Africa will become the first African country to fully manage its HIV care and treatment program in a few years) other challenges remain. HIV/AIDS, however, is not the only concern.

South Africa has the highest tuberculosis death rate per capita worldwide, followed by Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The situation is worsened by the high number of cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR) in several countries. In addition, diarrheal and respiratory infections, malaria, measles and malnutrition represent big threats to children’s health. Malaria is the leading cause of death among children under five years old.

The continuing exodus of physicians and nurses to industrialized countries makes health problems even worse. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 23,000 health care workers leave Africa annually. Malawi, a country of 15.38 million people, has a severe shortage of doctors and nurses. There is only one doctor for every 40,000 people in the country, according to WHO.

Health problems in Africa cannot be considered in isolation, and still require foreign technical and financial assistance. More efforts need to be made to increase access to primary health care, especially in rural areas, accompanied by health promotion, disease prevention and improved health education activities.

To be effective, however, aid must bypass corrupt governments and find ways of helping people in more direct ways. As writer Paul Theroux, who has travelled extensively in several African countries stated, “I would not send private money to a charity, or foreign aid to a government, unless every dollar was accounted for. Dumping more money in the same old way is not only wasteful, but stupid and harmful.”

Aid to Africa should be aimed at strengthening civil society and community-based organizations. African governments need to provide education for all age levels, and they need better trade conditions for their products. They need financial assistance given in a carefully planned and responsible way.

Islamophobia on the Rise in England

Linn Washington Jr.

During a casual conversation inside a store on a swanky shopping street located a short distance from London’s fabled Kensington Palace a twenty-something retail clerk said she feels a strange sense of discomfort that she’s never felt before in London, the city where this native of Algeria has lived most of her life.

She traces this alienating discomfort to the sharp increase in Islamophobia.

Islamophobia is generally defined as dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims.

This London resident is an identifiable target for Islamophobia because she wears a modest headscarf that is traditional in her culture and religion – Islam. (She does not wear a full-face covering burka.)

For her and others, Islamophobia ranges from disdainful stares and caustic comments to physical assaults. A few assaults have ended in fatalities. And then there are British government policies like ‘Prevent’ – the professed counter-terrorism program that seemingly is targeted solely at Muslims. Prevent enlists citizens to report actions and attitudes deemed suspicious.

The Muslim community in Britain “has been targeted against the backdrop of hostility buttressed by the War on Terror,” stated a report issued by the London-based Institute of Race Relations in 2013. This report warned that racial violence across Britain is not “something consigned to history” citing police force statistics from 2011/2012 documenting over 100 racially or religiously aggravated crimes per day.

Islam is the second largest identified religion in Britain behind Christianity. Half of the twenty communities across Britain with the largest Muslim populations are located in London. Muslims comprised five percent of England’s population with the majority having ancestral roots in Pakistan and Bangladesh not Arab countries.

Ugly Islamophobia ran rampant during the recent mayoral election in London that ended with the historic victory of Sadiq Khan, a London born lawyer and liberal Labour Party Member of Parliament who is now the first Muslim to head any major Western capital.

Top members of Britain’s ruling Conservative Party, including Prime Minister David Cameron, along with minions in the news media, pointedly painted Khan as a person who eagerly embraced Islamic extremism despite Khan’s record of condemning extremism. Khan, during that mayoral campaign, tacked increasingly rightward in advocating militarized responses to terrorism.

Britain’s Defense Minister, Michael Fallon defended Conservative Party campaign attacks on Khan as merely the “rough and tumble of elections” during a media interview. Yet the former co-chair of Britain’s Conservative Party, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, castigated her party colleagues for unleashing an “appalling dog whistle campaign.” Even the sister of Khan’s Conservative Party challenger used the word “sad” to describe the tactics utilized during her brother’s mayoral campaign.

Much of the news media coverage of Khan’s historic election referenced the Islamophobic attacks unleashed on that man whose working-class parents immigrated to London from Pakistan. Yet that coverage omitted wider references about Islamophobia beyond noting pledges of presumptive U.S. Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump to bar Muslims, like Khan, from entering the United States. (Trump has flip-flopped saying he would not bar Khan.)

A few weeks before Khan’s historic victory, Mubeen Hussain, founding member and spokesperson for the British Muslim Youth Association, criticized Islamophobia during his presentation at a conference on political policing and state racism in the United Kingdom. Hussain said many Muslims are now obscuring their religion to avoid discrimination.

“I have problems with the way the Prevent strategy is deliberately directed against the Muslim community because it links religiosity with extremism,” Hussain said during that conference in London.

“This Us versus Them projected in the media feeds a polarization that affects perceptions across society. If things keep going the way they are we will become the society we are trying to prevent.”

The Prevent program, according to a British government document, seeks “to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.” That document declares that no evidence exists to support claims that Prevent programs “have been used to spy on communities.”

Another presenter at that subversion/spying conference, sociology Professor Mark McGovern, said Prevent and other government policies are now requiring even schools, universities and hospitals to engage in reporting, even from the perspective of concerns about a possibility of future affiliation with terrorism. McGovern feels such policies are devised more to cultivate a “culture of compliance” than to stop terrorism.

“These policies are framed as protecting British values but the policies define non-whites as those in need to accept British values,” McGovern noted. “There is a substantial rise of rightwing racist violence in Northern Ireland but the UK government ignores this in their anti-terrorism measures.”

A group of Muslim men from a town in the north of England face trial for a September 2015 clash that erupted when white racists assaulted participants in a protest against Islamophobia. “You should not be prosecuted for fighting back against racists,” said Vakas Hussain, a spokesman for those Muslims facing trial.

Islamophobia shares similarities with anti-Semitism, especially in the notion that those who are religiously and/or culturally different from the majority of a population are a threat to that dominate population, said Fiyza Mughal, founder of Tell Mama, a London-based organization that monitors Islamophobia and aids victims of Islamophobia.

Mughal said issues like the bloody rampages of ISIS and the crisis of migration from war-torn countries aggravate tensions in the UK, a country he described as generally a safe and cohesive society. While Muslim mosques and businesses have been attacked and online harassments by right-wing racists rise, Mughal said most Islamophobia manifests itself in face-to-face incidents.

“Most of those who suffer Islamophobia are targeted on the street level for hateful rhetoric. This particularly happens to women wearing head scarfs,” Mughal said.

Interestingly, critics of Tell Mama include some within the Muslim community.

“We oppose homophobia and some in the Muslim community do not like our values on this point,” Mughal said. “The work we do is based on core human rights values.”

Gareth Pierce, a respected civil rights/human rights lawyer in Britain, voiced concern over misuse of the law to “terrify” the Muslim community. That misuse, she said, “Is beyond what is done in a dictatorship.”

Corruption in Latin American Governments

Chris Gilbert

Caracas.

Corruption makes the world go round. That, in a few words, is the basic idea of Bernard Mandeville’s The Fable of the Bees, a work that became a basis for liberal thought, most famously in the case of Adam Smith. This long poem tells how a corrupt beehive — in which “no calling was without deceit… every part was full of vice” — through the moral intervention of a higher power, ceases to have vices, and it also ceases to work!

Now something similar could be said of politics. Of course, it may not be that corruption is a necessary feature of all politics at all times, but it is certainly a feature of modern state politics, both in the Global North and Global South. That is why it is an especially slippery area for “progressive” parties or individuals that enter into the state and from there attempt to improve the situation of the masses by making popular reforms.

The most basic feature of state politics today — that is, electoral and institutional politics in a modern democracy — is that it requires enormous amounts of money. On the one hand, election campaigns everywhere involve a great deal of money, and, on the other hand, there are systems that structurally “depend on” corruption. For example the Brazilian state systematically pits the legislature against the executive branch, which needs to buy its members off to govern.

Where then is the money for parties such as the PT in Brazil or the PSUV in Venezuela to come from? From dues paid by the impoverished masses? There was a time when important workers’ movements, such as Chartism in England, could be financed by the dues of their humble militants. But that was before the top one percent came to control 99 percent of the world’s wealth. Also, today the progressive small bourgeoisie, that might be relied on to fund movements for change, has almost completely ceased to exist.

The logical upshot of this unfortunate, unfair situation is that in our time the money for left parties’ campaigns and other operations must be acquired (usually diverted) from the state itself. It should be noted that much, though certainly not all, of what is identified as corruption in Latin America’s left goverments today is money that has been diverted for political, not strictly personal, purposes. 

This is exactly what Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff is accused of doing: shifting money from one account to another to pay for social programs that were presumably important for her reelection in 2014. It is also what a number of Chavist politicians are doing in amassing money in the present moment. That money is generally for campaigns and for political positioning in preparation for upcoming scenarios.

Corruption of this political kind is indeed a problem for the left. Its abolition should be aggressively pursued. Yet if eliminating corruption does not change the whole form of politics for all players in the country and instead amounts to just ceasing to be a player, it is a futile project for the left.

It should be remembered that Joseph Stalin, with Lenin’s approval, robbed banks to finance the Bolshevik party. Chavist politicians have also robbed banks: their own. This may seem relatively lacking in glory, but at least most of the time it is also in the service of political ends.

It is possible that, today, a specific form of politics — one that is triangulated among parties with large amounts of money, elections that involve mass-media budgets, and expensive top-heavy states — has reached the limits of its effectiveness for the left. In fact, the current corruption scandals in Latin America, such as those that have emerged in Brazil in the past few years, are best understood as a symptom of the weakening of left governments, due to their inability to produce results, than a consequence of increased real corruption or of new evidence in the hands of their enemies.

Exposing this kind of corruption is a questionable project. If it comes from the political left, it risks being like the moralizing power in Mandeville’s fable, which does more harm than good. Another option is simply destroying the beehive. Effectively, the beehive is the top-heavy state that rests on and reflects a top-heavy — that is, capitalist — civil society.

Transforming both that state and society is an old Marxist idea, and perhaps its time has come.

Colombia: the Displaced & Invisible Nation

Daniel Kovalik

The latest thematic report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) concerning Colombia makes for shocking though quite important reading.   [1] In short, it details human rights abuses on a massive scale, and lays the blame for these abuses chiefly upon the right-wing paramilitaries aligned with the Colombian State.   Citing Colombia’s Center for Historical Memory, the IACHR concludes that Colombia, with its over 6 million internally displaced persons, is indeed “a displaced nation.”

Exhibit at Center for Historical Memory, Showing Personal Effects of “False Positive” Victim

As the IACHR explains, the paramilitaries were responsible for 72% of the attacks recorded in the first half of 2015.   Incredibly, the Colombian State, along with its U.S. sponsor, insist that the paramilitaries (also known as Autodefensas) no longer exist as a result of a demobilization (largely faked) back in 2003-2006.   And, it is this very denial, the IACHR points out, which allows the paramilitaries to carry out their reign of terror with near complete impunity.   After all, the State will not dismantle or prosecute what it claims does not even exist.

As explained in the report, “during 2015 the IACHR has continued receiving information about actions of the illegal armed groups that emerged after the demobilization and which are identified as being related or having among their members, persons that belonged to paramilitary groups who, in many cases allegedly continue acting under the protection of State agents.”

The misdeeds the paramilitaries are carrying out under State protection include disappearances, of which there were an incredible 3,400 during the first 7 months of 2015 alone.   In all, the IACHR reports that there have been a total of between 45,000 and 61,918 forced disappearances in Colombia in the past 30 years.   Thus, there have potentially been more than three times the disappearances in Colombia than in Argentina during all of the Dirty War years.   And, of course, with such disappearances come mass graves, of which Colombia has many – 4,519 of them to be exact, with 5,817 bodies exhumed from them so far.

Meanwhile, the IACHR reported on the fact that at least 5,736 individuals were the victims of extrajudicial executions by the Colombian State forces between 2000 and 2010 – that, is during the period of the U.S.’s major military support for Colombia known as Plan Colombia.   Nearly all of these executions were “false positive” killings in which the Colombian military murdered innocent civilians – many of them young, unemployed men – and then dressed them up as guerillas to justify to the U.S. the military assistance the Colombian military was receiving for counter-insurgency purposes.   And, while the rate of such killings has decreased since 2010, they nonetheless continue, with 230 reported cases since then.

To the extent Colombia is covered at all in the mainstream press these days, one rarely gets a glimpse into the horror show which is taking place in that country.   And, casual visitors to places such as Bogota or Medellin would rarely get a glimpse of this either.   This is so because the lion’s share of the violence described above is taking place in the more remote areas where Colombia’s Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities live, and it is these communities which are suffering the brunt of this violence.

As the IACHR explains, these communities are largely “invisible” in Colombian society, “are victims of racial discrimination and disproportionately affected by violence, forced displacement, poverty and social exclusion.” In addition, “the majority of victims of sexual violence in armed conflict are Afro-descendant and indigenous women.” And, impunity for sexual violence in Colombia is near total “given that sexual violence against women would be perpetrated mainly by paramilitary, but also by agents of the government . . . .”

As for the issue of poverty, these communities are suffering from some of the most extreme versions of it, and live in conditions of misery which residents in the major cities are often shielded from.   For example, in Choco – a town nestled in between the Pacific and Caribbean coasts and populated by mostly Afro-Colombian and indigenous – the infant mortality rate is 42.69 per 1000. This figure is higher than that of post-invasion Iraq, and nearly as high as that in such countries as Burma, Bangladesh, Namibia and Haiti.   Meanwhile, in Bogota, the figure is 12.88 per 1000. These figures underscore the incredible inequities and disparity in wealth which make Colombia one of the most unequal societies on earth, with a very stark divide along racial and ethnic lines.

However, the violence against Afro-Colombians and indigenous is not just the product of racism, but is also the product of the unfettered capital penetration of their rich, ancestral land.   As the IACHR points out, large scale megaprojects – many of them mining projects – “have led to the appropriation of Afro-Colombian’s collective territories, and have resulted in “brutal forced displacements, massive violence and selective assassinations.”

And, of course, many of these megaprojects are owned, in whole or in part, by North American companies to which the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has opened Colombia wide open.

An example of such a deadly megaproject detailed in the IACHR report is the port expansion of Buenaventura, a town which is 90% Afro-Colombian. This port expansion was carried out to facilitate the trade and tourism created by the FTA. And, the struggle of the paramilitaries to control the wealth generated by the port expansion has led to the forced disappearances of hundreds of Buenaventura residents “and the operation of ‘chop houses’ (casa de pique)” where people are chopped up alive.

Like the Colombian and U.S. governments denials of the existence of the paramilitary death squads, the very failure of our mainstream media to acknowledge or discuss the existence of the above-described crimes allows them to continue.   Thus, the U.S. government is able to continue supporting the Colombian military, and by extension its paramilitary allies, and North American multi-nationals are able to keep violently exploiting the Colombian people and their land by virtue of the fact that we are kept in the dark about this reality by a press corps which is failing in its duty to report on such matters of public concern. It is only by breaking this silence around these crimes that we have any chance of stopping them.

Notes.

[1] http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/docs/annual/2015/doc-en/InformeAnual2015-cap5-Colombia-EN.pdf

Obama’s Civil Rights Hypocrisy

Margaret Kimberley

George Zimmerman tried to sell the gun he used to murder Trayvon Martin. The fear of bad publicity prevented him from successfully auctioning the weapon because outrage was loud and swift. But the bigger outrage was ignored. Zimmerman would be in jail if Barack Obama wanted him to be.

Black people, so easily hoodwinked if they fear any risk to Obama’s political fortunes, demanded nothing when Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Martin. It was enough for the gullible to hear Obama say that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon. Neither Zimmerman nor the murderers of Michael Brown, or Eric Garner or Tamir Rice had anything to fear from federal prosecution. The excuse that the bar for prosecution must be high is just that, an excuse.

This same president claimed a right to assassinate Americans without any legislation or case law to back up the assertion. If Obama wanted to prosecute the 21^st century lynch mob he could do that too. While black people watched a killer of one of their own brag about and attempt to profit from his deed, the president chose to defend a different group of people altogether.

There is debate and controversy about the use of public restrooms by transgendered people, those who identify with a gender other than the one they manifest physically at birth. The prominence given the issue is out of proportion to the degree of public need. Yet in true American fashion ginned up outrage is reported endlessly over what ought to remain a non-issue. The fire storm is all very foolish but that is why the Department of Justice acted in this case. President Obama loves to wade in on the side of a small segment of white liberal concern instead of helping the people who love them the most.

The federal agency which is so useless in getting justice for black people directed public schools to allow use of restrooms which match students’ gender identity. Meanwhile black people are still killed with impunity if vigilantes like Zimmerman want them dead. There is no attempt to break new ground or even to use precedent in prosecuting killers of black people while other issues are pushed to the forefront of presidential action and media attention.

There is nothing new about people being transgender or using the restrooms they choose. They have been doing so for years. In contrast, black people risk death constantly just because they exist in this society. Driving, walking, riding a bicycle, being in a public space at the wrong moment, or even calling the police for assistance can get them killed. Yet Obama’s FBI doesn’t even maintain a record of killings committed by the police.

Black people unilaterally surrendered their history of fighting for justice ever since Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses in 2008. From the moment it became clear that he could become president there was no amount of contempt or indifference from him that would dissuade millions of people from giving him unquestioned support.

While other groups can count on media attention and public policy to address their needs and rights, black people languish at the bottom of American society, victimized physically, politically and economically and without any redress. White supremacy is the constant in the United States. Groups ranging from the LGBT community to the obese to the disabled can count on sympathy and official action to address their needs. Black people find themselves in the opposite position. There is no amount of injustice which triggers official action on their behalf.

Americans allow themselves to be whipped into a frenzy over any issue, the more trivial the more likely they are to panic. Doing so provides distraction from racism or climate change or war or any issue they either don’t care about or feel they have no agency to impact.

Anyone who has ever used a public bathroom has done so with transgendered people. Let others fight over foolishness. The demand for justice and the battle for self-determination must continue. No one else will do so on our behalf.