19 Sept 2016

‘Burkini’ And French Imperialist Mind

Andre Vltchek


In Europe, oppression is never really called by its true ugly name. It is constantly concealed by lofty slogans such as culture, even tolerance. Repression, discrimination and harassment are administered in order for the ‘entire society to be free’.
Or so at least the official narrative goes.
In France, recent and ugly row overso-called burkinis, a swimsuit used by many Muslim women all over the world, has demonstrated how little tolerance there really is in today’s Europe for other cultures and for different ways of life.
Recently, France’s highest administrative court has ruled that “burkini bans” being enforced on the country’s beaches are illegal and a violation of fundamental liberties. Still, more than 90 percent of French people are supporting the ban, which is thoroughly illogical and philosophically as well as ethically indefensible.
*
What is suddenly so shocking about a woman wearing a wetsuit on some French beach? And let’s face it: burkinis are nothing else but a wetsuit, which is commonly used on countless beaches of California, Australia, and Europe, in fact all over the world, by surfers and other water sport enthusiasts.
Just compare these images and these. Can you really tell much of a difference?
According to Wikipedia, a wetsuit is:
“…A garment, usually made of foamed neoprene, which is worn by surfers, divers, windsurfers, canoeists, and others engaged in water sports, providing thermal insulation, abrasion resistance and buoyancy.”
If courts manage to resurrect the ban (and actually some municipalities have already declared that they will uphold it no matter what), are the French police going to interrogate women on public beaches, while trying to determine whether they are wearing these plastic garments simply because they are planning to go surfing, or because of their religious beliefs? Would the first reason be allowed, while the other one forbidden?
Are we heading towards an era when people will be forced to confess to the authorities, why they are choosing to cover their bellies and shoulders? And is this going to re-define the meaning of ‘freedom’?
*
Who would be free to cover and who would not? Would the French state be permitted to decide what is the legitimate menace from which a woman should be allowed to protect herself from?
For instance, would the cold be ok? Imagine Paris, in January or February;100 degrees Celsius below zero… Most of the women you pass on the streets (Christian, Muslim and atheist) are “fully covered”, aren’t they? What can you see of them? Nothing, almost nothing! Their entire bodies are covered; their heads are covered, even their feet and hands are covered (unlike the hands and feet of women wearing burkinis). You travel to Grenoble in the winter, and the chances are that women will even be covering their faces with scarves. You know why, right? Because they are cold! Is this reasonOK, or should the French authorities demand that they expose their bellybuttons or shoulders or legs, in order to prove how “European”, how “French” they are?
Fine, so covering yourself up from the cold is most likely admissible; it is not ‘un-European’.
But what about the heat; is it OK to protect yourself from sun? In almost the entire Southeast Asia, but also in some parts of Latin America and the Sub-Continent, women want to be as white as possible. Unlike Western women, they hate suntan. I used to live in Vietnam and in Indonesia, as well as in many parts of Latin America, so I know… In the summer in Hanoi, you spot those (mainly secular, I emphasize it here!) elegant ladies on designer scooters, covered from head to toe: their feet are covered; they wear gloves, long dresses (áodài) or pants, most likely a helmet and underneath one more layer of headwear, plus sun glasses. Sometimes their mouth and nose is ‘protected’ by some fabric as well. While French women are fighting against the cold during the cold winters, hundreds of millions of women all over the world are covering themselves up because they are fighting against the sun. Could that be tolerated in France? Or is it unacceptable; just more evidenceof how badly foreigners are ‘integrating’?
But back to the beach… Would wetsuits or burkinis or whatever they are called by,be out-rightly banned, or only when a woman decides to go into the water? And as we know, when we go diving, we all, men and women, have to ‘cover ourselves up’ fully. So even if a woman would not be allowed to enter the water unless she exposes herself, could she still be covered if she would intend to go diving, surfing, or kayaking? Would there be some‘benevolent set of exceptions’?
And one more question: ‘If all women were to be required to expose themselves (by the new French law), then how much has to be actually shown?’ Could 60% of their skin be covered, or would only 40% be tolerated? Is there going to be some new and precise measuring device supplied to the police, calculating whether the law hasactually been broken?
And what about the punishment? Should women be fined? Should they be arrested, or even deported? Should they be forced to show their legs? Should police simply kick them out of the beaches? I really want to know.
Does it all sound absurd? But of course! But sadly, it is also real. To ban or not to ban burkini is one of the most passionately debated topics in Europe today!
*
That Europe is a ‘beacon of freedom’ is something that only Europeans (and far from all of them) truly believe. While anti-immigrant bigots are protesting against those relatively few migrants arriving at the EU doors every year, Europe annually literally regurgitates millions of its citizens, those who cannot stand living in what they see as a sad, oppressive and deteriorating continent. Legal and illegal European migrants are heading for North and South America, for Southeast Asia, China, even Sub-Continent and parts of Africa. Annually, they are entering millions of arranged marriages in order to secure local residency permits; others are crisscrossing Asia during their ‘visa runs’.
Many of the European migrants living abroad are very far from being ‘culturally sensitive’.Those who have plenty of money are buying off entire coastal areas of Asia and Africa. Entire nations like Thailand, Cambodia or Kenya are getting culturally ruined.
It is hardly ever debated in Europe:what is actually more damaging to local cultures – thoseMuslim women covering their bodies and hair on the streets and the beaches of Europe, or those literally millions of European potbellied, drunk,and half naked men in their sixties and seventies, promenading themselves publicly with their local teen female or male ‘acquisitions’ all over the Asian and African cities, villages and beaches?
And what about the European women, with their exposed breasts, wearing hardly detectable bikinis on the beaches of the once conservative Muslim communities of Indonesian Lombok or Southern Thailand?
I hate to write about this topic fleetingly, in such a short essay. I have lived, for many years, in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. The destruction of local cultures and entire communities by European migrants amounts toan extremely disturbing and painful topic, worthy of in-depth analyses. I mainly address these issues in my novels.
But this absurd anti-burkini outburst in France suddenly forced me to react, as it is thoroughly one-sided and hypocritical.
*
My ability to cope with today’s Europe is quickly evaporating. I still go there, perhaps 4 times a year, to meet my translators and publishers, to show my films, to give a speech here and there, or to see my mother who married a German around a quarter of century ago. I plan to stay for a week, but mostly I escape after 2-3 days.
The continent rubs me up the wrong way. I feel terribly un-free there. I’mforced to eat lunches and dinners at particular designated hours (as if Europe does not have tens of millions of doctors, pilots, writers, sex workers, firefighters, train operators and others who are on totally different schedules). In September I cannot buy a windbreaker that I forgot to pack, as only clothes for cold weather are now available in all department stores. I stopped renting cars in Europe, as even passing the speed limits by 5km/h kept getting me endless (electronically processed) fines. Unlike in China or in Cuba, I am not allowed to film or photograph at European train stations or at some ‘sensitive areas’. I was even stopped and chased away when I filmed the ice skating ring in front of the Municipality building in Paris! Surveillance cameras keep watching me from almost every corner, and the mainstream media feels ridiculously censored and submissive to the regime.A few months ago, when I travelled from Lebanon to Germany on Air France via Paris, both my suitcases were cut open by a saw, and then delivered to the final destination in plastic bags. “For security reasons they were ‘checked’ at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, as your bags were travelling from the Middle East,” I was told.
Of course I have a choice to stay for a while or to leave. And mostly, I leave. I frankly dislike 21stCentury Europe, so why should I stay for longer than is necessary.
But many foreigners do not have this luxury. Their countries were raped, plundered and destabilized by the West, by NATO, by the US and by Europe. They are trying to survive, somehow. Surprisingly, only very few come to Europe! Very, very few compared to the millions of Europeans who are annually shutting the door behind their backs and leaving – leaving permanently, for distant shores.
Other ‘foreigners’ were born in Europe, but were never accepted. Were they to be born in Brazil or modern day South Africa, no one would even blink. They are Muslims, so what? They want to cover themselves on the public beaches? Well, it is hot and unusual, but illegal! How could it be illegal?
Europe is not at peace with itself. It robbed all over the world, it became rich because of colonialist and neo-colonialist plunder, but there is no joy behind its walls. Whenever I speak to Greeks, French, Germans, Italians, Czechs or Danes, I clearly feel it. Most Europeans do realize that their continent is in decline.
When one does not like his or her home, why not to re-think its concept, and rebuild it? Why not bring in totally new, even foreign ideas? Why stick to what makes it so oppressive?
But again, European ‘logic’ is quite different! The more dissatisfied people become, the more conservative and inward looking they get. Foreigners irritate them, or they even horrify and infuriate them. Unless they totally ‘adopt’ (abandon their culture), the majority of Europeans want them out.
In reality, Muslim women wearing burkinis is not about burkinis at all. At the beginning of this essay, we already illustrated how absurd the anti-burkini laws and regulations really are.
It is about something else. It is about the globally disliked culture of colonialist oppression and exceptionalism, flexing its muscles once again, at home and abroad. It is actually much more terrible than it looks. The movement to ban burkinis has its roots in a horrible past, when entire nations and cultures were annihilated by European barbaric expansionism.
So read between the lines:
“You can wear any wet suit, but not a burkini. It is exactly the same thing, but the wetsuit is our own invention (and therefore it is right), while the ‘burkini’ was designed by and for ‘the others’ (therefore it is clearly wrong). Remember, only our definitions are allowed on this Planet.
We are not religious or cultural fundamentalists (because only ‘the others’ can be), but we will protect our right and freedom to tell the world what can be believed, thought or even worn. Amen!”
This is the iron, unapologetic logic of the imperialism.
Therefore, poor burkinis should be defended! Let’s all buy them, even us, men. After all, when you look at those old black and white photos depicting European swimming pools and beaches, many dudes were wearing almost identical all-covering stuff, and so were the women. Just see it here!

War danger surges as India blames Pakistan for attack on Kashmir base

V. Gnana

Seventeen Indian soldiers were killed and at least 20 critically injured Sunday when fighters assaulted an Indian military base at Uri, near the Line of Control, the de facto border between India and Pakistan in the disputed Kashmir region
The fighting lasted from approximately 5:30 to 8:30 AM and all four of the assailants were reportedly killed in the engagement. Indian authorities responded by “heightening” the already massive security presence in the Kashmir Valley.
Coming amid escalating tensions in South Asia fueled by the US drive to make India a frontline state in its war drive against China, as well as escalating social and political unrest in Kashmir itself, yesterday’s attack heightens the danger of a major war breaking out in Asia.
Currently, no organization has claimed responsibility for the Uri attack. However, India immediately accused Pakistan of being responsible and vowed that the deaths of its soldiers will be avenged.
Tensions between India and Pakistan have been on the boil for weeks. New Delhi has responded to the mass unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, its only Muslim-majority state, and the strengthening of Pakistan’s already close ties with China by launching a diplomatic offensive targeting Pakistan for its brutal repression of an ethno-nationalist insurgency in Balochistan. Implicit in this campaign, which Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to take to the floor of the United Nations General Assembly this week, is that India is ready to support the dismemberment of Pakistan.
The Indian Army has accused the deceased Uri base assailants of belonging to the pro-Pakistan Kashmiri Islamist group Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM). They claimed the JeM fighters had crossed over from the part of the disputed Kashmir region that is controlled by Pakistan and launched their attack on the military base from the side furthest from the Line of Control (LoC) and presumably least well-guarded.
“Initial reports indicate that the slain terrorists belong to Jaish-e-Muhammad tanzeem,” said the Indian Army’s Director General of Military Operations, Lt.-General Ranbir Singh. “Four AK-47 rifles and four under barrel grenade launchers, along with a large number of war-like stores, were recovered from them.”
Indian government officials, active and retired military leaders, and the press have responded to the Uri attack with bellicose threats.
“I assure the nation that those behind this despicable attack will not go unpunished,” vowed Prime Minster Modi, while his Home Minister Rajnath Singh, tweeted, “Pakistan is a terrorist state and should be identified and isolated as such.”
Numerous statements from establishment figures stressed that a turning point has been reached.
While Modi and his top security officials conferred on their next steps, the General-Secretary of the ruling Hindu chauvinist BJP, Ram Madhav, said the “Days of so-called strategic restraint are over. If terrorism is the instrument of the weak and coward, restraint in the face of repeated terror attacks betrays inefficiency and incompetence.”
His comments were echoed by Shekar Gupta, the former editor of the Indian Express: “If Pakistan thinks [the] Uri attack will have the usual Indian non-response, it’s delusional. This India has moved on from old strategic restraint.”
Powerful elements within India’s military-security establishment, as well as the Hindu supremacist groups that constitute a key base of support for the BJP, have long advocated that India answer a Pakistan-based attack with a cross-border strike. Islamabad has signaled it will consider any such action as tantamount to an act of war, raising the prospect that Indian “retaliation” could quickly lead to all-out war between the rival nuclear-armed states.
Amid the chorus of bellicose statements, Lt.-General Ranbir Singh said the military was prepared to give “a befitting reply” to “any evil designs of the adversary.”
Though covert ties have long existed between Islamist anti-Indian Kashmiri groups, including the JeM, and factions of Pakistani intelligence, Pakistan rejected Indian charges that it was involved. “India immediately puts blame on Pakistan without doing any investigation. We reject this,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Nafees Zakaria.
A Pakistan army statement said that the allegations were “unfounded and premature,” reiterating Islamabad’s stance that Pakistan no longer allows anti-Indian Kashmiri insurgents to infiltrate India-controlled Kashmir from its side of the LoC.
Washington issued a statement condemning the Uri attack and reaffirming its strategic partnership with India, while avoiding comment on New Delhi’s charge that the Pakistan was responsible. US State Department spokesman John Kirby said that Washington “strongly” condemned the attack. “We extend our condolences to the victims and their families.” “The United States,” added Kirby, “is committed to our strong partnership with the Indian government to combat terrorism.”
The Uri attack underscores the reactionary role both of the various pro-Pakistani Islamist militias that exploit mass social anger in Kashmir with the Indian government, and the bellicose response of the Indian government. The resulting conflicts deepen communal-sectarian and regional tensions in the Indian subcontinent, and raise the danger of a war between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India.
Such a war could have cataclysmic consequences. Because of the growing military-strategic disparity between India and Pakistan, Islamabad has deployed tactical nuclear weapons. This has prompted New Delhi to signal that if Pakistan employs “battlefield” nuclear weapons it will consider the nuclear threshold to have been breached, i.e. India is prepared to reply with thermonuclear weapons.
India and Pakistan first clashed over Kashmir in 1947-48 in the immediate aftermath of the communal Partition of the former British Indian Empire into a Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India. Kashmir was also the central issue in the second of the three declared wars India and Pakistan fought and in their 1999 undeclared Kargil war.
In recent years the region has been dubbed a “nuclear flashpoint” and even the “world’s most dangerous nuclear flashpoint” because of the toxic and explosive character of the rivalry between the Indian and Pakistan bourgeoisies, who have managed to equip themselves with nuclear weapons even as they fail to provide the vast majority of the people of South Asia with the basic necessities of life.
Adding to the explosiveness of the Kashmir conflict is the region’s growing importance to China. Beijing is building a pipeline and transportation corridor from western China through Pakistan-controlled Kashmir to the Arabian Sea port of Gwadar, Balochistan. For Beijing the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has great strategic significance as it would allow it to partially circumvent US plans to impose an economic blockade against it in the event of a war or war crisis by seizing Indian Ocean and South China Sea chokepoints.

Mass unrest in Kashmir

The assault on the base in Uri came as Indian security forces violently repress mass protests against the Indian administration of Kashmir.
Indian-administered Kashmir has been in the grip of deadly unrest for more than two months. There have been almost daily protests and clashes with security forces, in the region’s worst violence since 2010. More than 85 people have been killed in almost daily anti-Indian protests and rolling curfews prompted by the July 8 killing by Indian security forces of Burhan Wani, a leader of the Islamist, pro-Pakistan Hizbul Mujahideen militia.
On Saturday, thousands defied the curfew to attend the funeral of a schoolboy, eleven-year-old Nasir Shafi, whose body was found riddled with pellet wounds. Police reportedly fired tear gas at mourners.
The Central Reserve Police Force, an Indian paramilitary unit, told the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that it had fired 1.3 million pellets in 32 days.
“It is the first time I have seen so many pellet-injured people. Pellets were also used during the 2010 unrest, but this time they [government forces] are using them on a large scale,” a Kashmiri doctor, who did not want to be named, told Al Jazeera. “We get, almost every day, people injured with pellets and many of the patients lose their eyesight.”
Another doctor at a hospital in Indian-administered Kashmir’s capital, Srinagar, said 756 people have been hit in the eyes by pellets over the past 72 days.
In this fraught context, the attack on the base at Uri heightens military tensions in the region and internationally. As Washington aggressively confronts the Chinese regime in the South and East China Seas, it is also building up India as a counterweight against China in the Indian Ocean region.
When Modi met US President Barack Obama in June they issued a joint statement promising to increase military cooperation across the Indian Ocean and Asian Pacific regions and in all “domains…land, maritime, air, space and cyber space.”
Last month, India signed an agreement giving the US military routine access to its ports and military bases for resupply, repairs and rest. Washington, for its part, has recognized India as a “Major Defense Partner,” meaning it can now buy the advanced US weaponry made available to the Pentagon’s closest allies.
Pakistan, in increasingly shrill language, has warned that the ever-burgeoning Indo-US alliance has overturned the balance of power in South Asia, thereby fueling an arms and nuclear weapons race and encouraging New Delhi to act more aggressively.
But Washington has blithely ignored these concerns, while demanding that Pakistan do more to support the US occupation of Afghanistan and encouraging India, behind the scenes, to make the CPEC a major issue in its relations with Beijing on the grounds that the corridor project violates Indian sovereignty. New Delhi, like Islamabad, claims that all of Kashmir rightfully belongs to it.
Confronted by the burgeoning Indo-US strategic alliance, Pakistan and China are drawing ever closer.
The India-Pakistan conflict has thus become enmeshed with the US-China confrontation, adding to each a massive and highly explosive new charge.

Berlin election results show growing anger towards establishment parties

Johannes Stern

The results from the election for the Berlin state House of Representatives show the growing anger and alienation of large sections of the population from official politics. All of the parties are hardly distinguishable from each other and represent the same right-wing, anti-social programme. All of them have taken part in different governments in the capital city over the past 25 years and created a social catastrophe. They received payback for this at the polls on Sunday.
The so-called people’s parties of Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD), who formed the previous Berlin state government and are also in a coalition at the federal level, suffered heavy losses of more than 6 percentage points each. With 21.6 percent, the SPD achieved one of its worst results since German reunification. The CDU, with 17.5 percent, had its worst result in Berlin since the founding of the Federal Republic. Compared to 2011, the Greens lost 2.5 percent and ended up at 15.2 percent of the vote.
The Left Party was able to increase its vote somewhat from its catastrophic result five years ago, finishing with 15.7 percent. But Left Party lead candidate Klaus Lederer’s attempt to portray himself as the election victor is absurd. In 2011, voters punished the Left Party for its 10 years in coalition with the SPD, with its support collapsing to 11.7 percent. Just 10 years earlier, the PDS, the Left Party’s predecessor that governed in the eastern part of Berlin until reunification, had obtained 22.6 percent of the vote.
The Free Democrats (FDP), following their historic low in 2011 of 2 percent, will return to the House of Representatives after securing a little over 6 percent.
Under conditions where the working class has not yet built a leadership to intervene independently into political events, the right-wing extremist Alternative for Germany (AfD) was able to profit from the widespread anger and disgust at the establishment parties. In Berlin, for the 10th state election in a row, the AfD surpassed the hurdle for representation in a state parliament, with 14.1 percent. The majority of those casting ballots for the AfD voted for the right-wing party out of protest. According to market research firm Infratest Dimap, only 26 percent of AfD voters backed the party out of conviction. Sixty-nine percent voted for the AfD out of disappointment with the other parties.
In 2011, thanks to a huge media campaign, the Pirate Party secured 8.9 percent of the vote in its first election, channelling the mounting dissatisfaction of mainly young voters with its demand for more transparency and consultation. But over the past five years, the Pirate Party has been quickly exposed as yet another bourgeois party and rapidly lost support. On Sunday, with less than 2 percent of the vote, it missed the 5 percent required for parliamentary representation by a long way.
Under conditions of a deepening crisis of bourgeois rule, which currently finds expression in the decline of the established parties and the rise of the AfD, the ruling elite views a red/red/green (SPD/Left Party/Green) coalition as the best option to enforce a programme of austerity and the build-up of the state apparatus at home and abroad. The SPD’s lead candidate, Michael Müller, already spoke out during the election campaign for cooperation with the Greens and Left Party. He saw “a lot of common ground with the Greens” and would “also conduct coalition talks with other parties,” he stated on election night.
Left Party representatives pledged that they were not only prepared for a red/red/green coalition in Berlin, but also at the federal level. As party chairwoman Katja Kipping declared, the election result was not only a “tremendous signal” for Berlin, but also “for the federal level.” The chair of the Left Party parliamentary group in the Bundestag (federal parliament), Dietmar Bartsch, commented, “Sahra Wagenknecht is of course prepared for a different constellation at the federal level.”
The Partei für Soziale Gleichheit (PSG, Socialist Equality Party), which took part in the elections with a statewide list of candidates and direct candidates in Wedding, Tempelhof-Schöneberg and Friedrichshain, had warned in its election statement, before the results of the balloting, of the danger of red/red/green:
“The Berlin election is seen as a trial run in laying the foundations for an SPD-Left Party-Green coalition at the federal level, a so-called red-red-green government. Such an administration would not represent progress. In 1998, the SPD and Greens formed a coalition, which sent the Bundeswehr on foreign combat missions for the first time since World War II, and cut wages and benefits. Now this alliance is to be revitalized using the Left Party in order to impose the next round of social cuts and pave the way for further German militarism.”
Throughout the entire election campaign, the Left Party signalled to the ruling elite that it was a reliable partner in the implementation of these reactionary plans.
Along with a few promises on social issues, the Left Party demanded in its election programme “appropriate training and equipping” of the security forces and the hiring of “more police officers.” A few days ago in the Bundestag, Bartsch accused the grand coalition of being “responsible for misguided policies on hiring and cost-cutting.” They had made the police a “victim of cuts” over recent years and, since 1997, “eliminated 17,000 positions in the police.” But what was necessary was a “state capable of action.” This included “well trained and equipped personnel in the public sector, particularly in the police.”
The Left Party is preparing the same shift on the issue of war that the formerly pacifist Greens carried out 18 years ago. During the election campaign, Bodo Ramelow, who was the first “left” minister president and leads a Left Party/SPD/Green coalition in Thuringia, told Der Spiegel that the Left Party was “not pacifist.” For her part, Wagenknecht said in a summer interview with public broadcaster ARD, “Germany will of course not leave NATO on the day we enter government.”
While all parties are demanding the domestic build-up of the state and war—and the tensions between the major powers increase and a new world war is threatened—the PSG placed the building of an international movement against war at the centre of its election campaign. The PSG noted on thousands of placards, tens of thousands of leaflets, at stalls and public meetings, and in appearances online and on television, that such a movement had to be based on the working class, oppose the capitalist system, fight for a socialist programme, and be international.
The PSG was not concerned with winning the largest number of votes with superficial slogans, but to prepare for the coming developments that will confront the working class with the question of war or revolution. On this principled basis the PSG received more votes than ever before in an election in Berlin. With over 2,000 votes, it was able to achieve a significant increase from the 1,690 votes won in 2011.
In the districts in which the party concentrated its campaign, the PSG won even higher percentages. In the Mitte 6 district, Peter Hartmann won 0.9 percent of first votes. Ulrich Rippert, the PSG chairman, and Andreas Niklaus, each won 0.6 percent in their districts, and Christoph Vandreier and Endrik Bastian got 0.5 percent. In Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, Markus Klein secured 0.3 percent.

62 dead, 100 wounded as US bombs Syrian army near Deir ez-Zor

Alex Lantier


At least sixty-two Syrian troops died and 100 were wounded on Saturday when US jets bombed a Syrian government base on Al-Tharda mountain near Deir ez-Zor. Remarkably, the US Central Command has still not apologized for the attack, even though its bombing allowed the Islamic State (IS) militia to storm and capture the base shortly afterwards.
This massacre is a flagrant act of war that threatens to escalate the Syrian conflict into an all-out war pitting the US-led NATO alliance against Syria and its allies, including Russia. Everything suggests that the attack, coming in the initial days of a US-Russian ceasefire in Syria openly criticized last week by the US army brass, was deliberately committed by forces inside the US government hostile to the ceasefire.
The US military’s refusal to formally apologize for the massacre is staggeringly reckless. Syrian troops fighting US-backed Islamist opposition militias are being aided on the ground by units from Iran, China, and Russia. The Pentagon is signaling to these countries—which not only have powerful forces in Syria but, in the case of China and Russia, nuclear weapons—that their own troops may end up as targets of US military action, as they operate alongside Syrian forces.
Syrian and Russian officials denounced the bombing as US aid to IS, while Russian officials called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to demand explanations from Washington. The Syrian Foreign Ministry declared, “At 05:00 pm, on September 17th, 2016, five US aircraft launched a fierce airstrike on Syrian Army positions on al-Tharda Mountain in the surroundings of Deir ez-Zor Airport. The attack lasted for an hour.”
It accused Washington of complicity with IS: “The attack launched by the ISIS terrorists on the same site, taking control over it...highlights the coordination between this terrorist organization and the US.”
What emerged from the contradictory accounts of the bombing provided by the feuding factions of the US military-intelligence machine is a picture of a massacre prepared and executed in cold blood.
The Obama administration relayed regrets via Moscow to Damascus for the “unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces,” anonymous senior US officials told the press. However, the US Central Command (Centcom), responsible for the Pentagon’s operations in the Middle East, issued a perfunctory statement making no apology to the Syrian military for its losses.
“The coalition air strike was halted immediately when coalition officials were informed by Russian officials that it was possible the personnel and vehicles targeted were part of the Syrian military,” it declared, blandly adding: “Syria is a complex situation with various military forces and militias in close proximity, but coalition forces would not intentionally strike a known Syrian military unit, officials said. The coalition will review this strike and the circumstances surrounding it to see if any lessons can be learned.”
Such claims that US fighters were unaware of who they were bombing are simply not credible, and are flatly contradicted by other accounts in the media.
An anonymous Centcom official told the New York Times that US surveillance aircraft tracked the Syrian army units “for several days” before US fighters attacked them. “The attack went on for about 20 minutes, with the planes destroying the vehicles and gunning down dozens of people in the open desert, the official said. Shortly after this, an urgent call came into the American military command center in Qatar… The call was from a Russian official who said that the American planes were bombing Syrian troops and that the strike should be immediately called off.”
Nevertheless, the US jets continued to bomb the Syrian base for several minutes before ending the attack, according to the Centcom official’s account.
The attack at Deir ez-Zor shows that Washington and its allies are not seeking a cease-fire and de-escalation, let alone peace. They are pursuing the same strategy adopted by the NATO powers in Syria ever since 2011: pursuing regime change by backing Islamist militias like IS or the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The latest attack has shown that, even after IS mounted repeated terror attacks in Europe and the United States, a definite collaboration still exists between US and IS forces to escalate the war.
After Saturday’s attack, US think tank operatives quickly came forward in the media to do political damage control. Aaron David Miller of the Wilson Center warned the Times that the air strikes would “feed conspiracy theories that Washington is in league with IS” and allow Russian President Vladimir Putin to “blast the US on the eve of the UN General Assembly.”
This is cynical propaganda. As they backed Syrian opposition militias, top US officials and journalists were fully aware of their terrorist character. Times journalist C. J. Chivers dedicated a friendly 2012 video to the Lions of Tawhid militia, which set off truck bombs in Syrian cities. This was only one of dozens of US-backed opposition militias that carried out atrocities across Syria, including IS, whose operations in Syria only began to be targeted last year after it carried out repeated terror attacks in Europe.
The dominant factions of the US government want war, and Moscow’s strategy—negotiating truces with Washington, and backing Assad while accommodating US military operations in Syria—is totally bankrupt. Hostile to and afraid of appealing to antiwar sentiment in the working class, particularly in the United States, the Kremlin has sought to deal with the US war drive through talks with the US government. This strategy has failed, as Russian officials were all but forced to admit, in the face of US military opposition to the cease-fire.
After the emergency meeting of the UN Security Council called by Moscow, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin charged that the US attack was a deliberate attempt to derail the joint US-Russian-brokered ceasefire, pointing to the “highly suspicious” timing of the attack.
“It was quite significant and not accidental that it happened just two days before the Russian-American arrangements were supposed to come into full force,” he said. “The beginning of work of the Joint Implementation Group was supposed to be September 19. So if the US wanted to conduct an effective strike on Al Nusra or ISIS, in Deir ez-Zor or anywhere else, they could wait two more days and coordinate with our military and be sure that they are striking the right people… Instead they chose to conduct this reckless operation.”
“One has to conclude that the airstrike has been conducted in order to derail the operation of the Joint Implementation Group and actually prevent it from being set in motion,” Churkin added.
This assessment was echoed by the DEBKA File publication, which has close ties to Israeli intelligence. “The Pentagon and US army are not following the orders of their Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama in the execution of the military cooperation accord in Syria concluded by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on Sept. 12,” it wrote.
It cited concerns by top US defense officials that the terms of the cease-fire give Russia too much of an “opportunity to study the combat methods and tactics practiced by the US Navy and Air force in real battlefield conditions.” For this reason, the Pentagon is opposing it even after it was agreed to by Kerry: “Washington sources report that Defense Secretary Carter maintains that he can’t act against a law enacted by Congress. He was referring to the law that prohibits all military-to-military relations with Russia as a result of Moscow’s annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine.”

Will the US-Russia Deal on Syria Hold?

Ranjit Gupta


The war in Syria is still raging after over five and half years since its outset. Several initiatives have been undertaken to try and end it – first through the Arab League, then Geneva I, Geneva II and the Vienna Process, where even a calendar of steps for bringing peace to Syria was laid out. Obviously, partisan efforts by Western countries and their Arab Gulf allies in the UN Security Council (UNSC) were defeated by Chinese and Russian vetoes.
 
Finally, in February 2016 the US, Russia and 19 other countries met in Munich, preceded by intensive negotiations between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and an agreement for a ‘cessation of hostilities’ in Syria's civil war was announced. On 26 February, the UNSC endorsed this initiative through Resolution 2268. Special Envoys Kofi Annan and Lahkdar Brahimi had toiled without success and resigned; Stefan de Mistura continues his efforts. Despite all this, the situation within Syria has continued to steadily worsen. Given the complex ground realities, a meaningful improvement is nowhere on the horizon, let alone being imminent.

After another round of marathon negotiations conducted secretly between Kerry and Lavrov, a new deal was announced on 09 September, to bring about a ceasefire with the deal coming into effect at 7:00 pm on 12 September. Kerry outlined the main features of the deal at the press conference while announcing the same. 

An Overview of the Deal
The Syrian regime and the opposition will cease all attacks against each other including aerial bombardments and shall not attempt to gain additional territory at the expense of each other; both sides will agree to provide unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access to all besieged and hard-to-reach areas including, in particular, in and around Aleppo; non jihadist opposition groups are expected to sever connections with Fateh al Sham (earlier called Al Nusra Front – an al Qaeda outfit); after seven continuous days of adherence to the cessation of hostilities and increased humanitarian access to the besieged civilian populations, Russia and the US will begin working together to defeat Fateh al Sham and the Islamic State (IS) jihadist groups; after a “period of reduced violence” the US and Russia “will facilitate a political transition which is the only way to bring about a durable end to this war.”
 
Reception  
The Syrian regime immediately accepted the deal; most opposition rebel groups have also accepted but less categorically and the most powerful, Ahrar al Sham, has rejected it. As of 18 September 2016, the ceasefire is largely holding and fighting has noticeably reduced but humanitarian supplies have not been getting through. However, with opposing sides in Syria increasingly accusing each other of violations and barbs being traded between Russia and the US, even at presidential levels, immediate short-term prospects of the deal working appear bleak.
 
The continuing deep distrust between the two protagonists of the deal, Washington and Moscow, was publicly articulated robustly by both US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter throughout the two weeks of the Kerry-Lavrov negotiations leading up to the announcement of the deal. Even Kerry's remarks at the press conference unveiling the deal were peppered with deep uncertainty if not scepticism – e.g. the repetitive use of phrases such as 'if this happens', 'if those concerned implement the deal', etc. An extremely clear reflection of the enormous difficulties ahead is the fact that the US has made it absolutely clear that the detailed text of the deal cannot be released because if the deal breaks down, the details will be hugely useful to Assad. These are not propitious omens for potential success.

This deal is believed to be very detailed in contrast to past efforts. However, there are no mechanisms to ensure implementation of even a single element of the deal and there are far too many loopholes that can easily be exploited by different parties to continue doing what they have been doing in the past.

Kerry had said that “if groups within the legitimate opposition want to retain their legitimacy, they need to distance themselves in every way possible from Nusra and Daesh." This is perhaps the single most essential key to the deal working out because most rebel groups operate in very close proximity to Nusra fighters when not embedded together in rebel controlled areas. Opposition rebels will inevitably be hit whenever the Syrian regime attacks al Nusra fighters, as it will inevitably do as al Nusra is excluded from the ceasefire, and then the regime will be accused of violating terms of the deal. But who will ensure that this separation is brought about? Neither the US nor Russia can do so. Most of the more effective rebel groups are proxies of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and though they have verbally welcomed the deal, do these countries have the ability or frankly, even any desire or intention, to bring about this separation?
 
Looking Ahead 
Russia has given enough indications that it is not committed to keeping Assad in power beyond a transitional phase. If Russia can persuade Assad to refrain from attacking al Nusra for the next few weeks, progress to the next stage – US and Russia taking on Nusra and Daesh – could take place which is an essential prerequisite for the third stage: initiating a political transition. However, the opposition rebels are resolutely opposed to Assad's continuation for even a very limited period of transition. Will a hugely politically weakened Obama, now also in the last four months of his presidency, and with the US' influence in the region at a historic low, have the clout to persuade Saudi Arabia and its allies to persuade the rebels to accept Assad even for a short time? If Assad is excluded completely from transitional arrangements no progress on a solution is possible at all – Assad and Iran will ensure that notwithstanding Russian views. 
 
Another significant uncertainty is as to whether the exceedingly disparate opposition can cobble together a meaningful representative entity to be a partner in any transitional authority? The obduracy and unalloyed attachment to zero-sum outcomes of all the very large number of players on the ground in Syria is a very serious impediment to a solution.
 
Furthermore, the deal does not say anything about the presence of foreign Shiite militias such as Hezbollah, which like al Qaeda and the IS, is considered a terrorist group by the US, and the Turkish Army having physically entered Syria to prevent the westward advance of Syrian Kurds, who are the US’ most effective ally against Daesh. These issues have the potential to derail any forward movement.
 
The past six years have witnessed many unpredictable surprises thrown up in the Arab world and West Asia. Making predictions, always hazardous, has become more iffy now. The many negative elements outlined above and the even more numerous imponderables make it difficult to be even mildly optimistic of this new deal bringing an early end to the conflict in Syria. That said, it will be good for the world at large and for the people of Syria in particular if this prognostication is proved wrong.

G20 Summit 2016: A Lost Opportunity?

Amita Batra


The eleventh meeting of the Group of 20 countries (G20) was held in the city of Hangzhou in China, 4-5 September. This was the first ever meeting of the group in China and the second in Asia after the 2010 meeting in Seoul. The theme of the 2016 G20 summit meeting was “Towards an Innovative, Invigorated, Interconnected and Inclusive World Economy.” The agenda was all encompassing and consistent with China’s own priorities and vision, as outlined in the proposal for its 13th five year plan that identifies innovation as the main growth driver.  A blueprint for innovation, digital economy development and cooperation initiative was adopted by the leaders at the summit. The joint communiqué similarly emphasized the role of innovation in providing a push to the sluggish world economy and also in the resolution of global imbalances, ensuring along the way a cleaner environment by giving a call for ratification of the Paris agreement to all member countries.  Long running issues of global governance like quota reform at the IMF were included alongside others that have found place on the agenda, of and on, in earlier years, like those related to the Doha Development agenda of the WTO as also those seeking cooperation among existing international financial organizations and the emerging regional financial initiatives. The spirit of inclusiveness was well reflected not just in the development context but also in the larger than ever before guest participation from many non member developing country representatives invited to the summit. 
 
As such, therefore, the G20 Summit in China is seen as successfully having discussed the many diverse issues that are currently of concern to the developed and developing countries. But, is that really the objective of the G20? Is the expanding agenda of the summit not a deviation from the original motivation with which the G20 was created? In fact, the specific task of ensuring global financial stability continues to be as relevant and important in the current context as it was when the group was set up. And perhaps, it would have been most appropriate to address the issue of global financial stability and contagion with the Chinese as hosts of the Summit this year.  A brief reflection below on these aspects may help us better review the scope and direction of the recently held G20 Summit.
 
The G20 was set up as an informal dialogue forum in 1999 primarily to address the challenges to international financial stability that had arisen in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. The composition of the forum was not just representative of all regions of the world and the Bretton Woods institutions but also an acknowledgement of the growing contribution of the emerging market economies to global growth and trade. As a consequence it was considered an innovative step forward in global financial governance despite the constant debate on its legitimacy. Subsequent G20 meetings retained the focus on financial stability but did not shy away from discussing regional economic integration, financial markets, capital inflows, banking sector norms and other such issues in support of the process of globalization. In 2008, when the world was struck by the onset of global financial crisis, the G20 underwent a transition from a meeting of the finance ministers and central bank governors to a summit level meeting of the heads of state.  The 2008 summit, called by the US President, not just lent greater legitimacy to the forum but also to the institutionalization of a cooperative framework to confront and combat financial challenges of a global magnitude. Over three quick and successive summits that were held in a span of a year in 2008-2009, the G20 member economies were able to evolve a cooperative and coordinated response to the contagion impact of the financial crisis. Alongside, global financial regulatory reform and resolution of global imbalances continued to be a part of the agenda in these meetings.
       
Today, as the world continues to grapple with the consequences of the global financial crisis and uncertain growth, it would only have been fair for the 2016 meeting to take up for discussion the slowdown of the fastest growing economy prior to the crisis, that is the Chinese economy, and its spill-over implications for the Asia Pacific region.  China’s economic slowdown, with structural changes accompanying the move away from an investment led growth strategy towards a consumption led growth path and the underlying shifts in comparative advantage are bound to have spill-over implications for the region and the global economy. Financial sector weaknesses, particularly in the banking sector may also be reinforced as the Chinese economy moves to a new normal. The Asia-Pacific region is most likely to feel the impact as trade and production links with China-centric value chains are intense and complex for the member economies. While the impact may differ across the region depending on the nature and extent of inter-linkages with the Chinese economy and of the real and financial sector, there is no doubt that the developments need to be closely watched and the world needs to be prepared for any eventualities. Having been caught unawares when China chose to undertake a currency devaluation exercise earlier in this year and middle of last year, a coordinated approach to containing and preventing financial volatility as also seeking transparency of policy reform in China as an outcome of the G20 2016 Summit would have done justice not just to the objectives of the G20 but also to its representative character vis-à-vis the world economy.

The Dream that the State Sells

Bibhu Prasad Routray


Given that the state has continued to wrest territories from the control of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), the nature of governance to be unleashed in such areas has remained a subject of speculation. Whether a developmental state would seek to undo the decades-long policies of neglect and deprivation that formed the edifice for a Maoist success story? Or would the state behave in the same predatory way the extremists have warned all along, acting to open up the tribal inhabited resource rich areas for a range of economic activities including mining, while glossing over the need to involve the tribals in the decision making process or even bothering to gather their consent.
 
In spite of the claims of advance against the extremists, Chhattisgarh still remains noticeably affected. Its Bastar region continues to be a stronghold of the CPI-Maoist, a state-of-affair which may not change for at least a couple of years to come. However, Jharkhand and Maharashtra are two states that have made steady gains against the CPI-Maoist. And the recent developments indicate what the Maoist literature had warned might be true, i.e. these states have indeed initiated steps to start mining and other activities in the erstwhile extremist affected areas, without bothering to seek the consent of the tribals who would be the most affected by such decisions. Worse still, such decisions have been enforced by attempting to silence any hint of opposition.
 
Although Jharkhand pursued a somewhat confused policy against the CPI-Maoist initially, its police force has nearly accomplished what its Andhra Pradesh counterparts had managed to achieve in 2005. Using a range of tactics that includes investment in police capacity building, carrying out sustained high profile area clearing operations, and also pursuing a policy of using renegade extremist factions against the CPI-Maoist, it has nearly managed to cleanse the state off the outfit's presence.
 
The state's abysmal failure in kickstarting development projects in Saranda, an area cleared of Maoist presence since 2013, has been mentioned in several forums. Unfinished roads, incomplete school buildings, and failing healthcare systems narrate how the state bureaucracy lost interest in the area after it became Maoist free. Additionally, recent developments have drawn attention to the state's future plans of opening up tribal areas in the state for economic projects. Proposed amendments to two important Acts, the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, will allow tribal lands to be taken for not just infrastructure projects and 'just' mining and industry, but even for, as a newspaper article put, "construction of marriage halls." A massive tribal movement is building up in the state over the decision of the BJP government, which interestingly in 2015, had categorically promised to maintain the sanctity of these two Acts. 
 
Maharashtra is not comparable to any other Maoist affected state. Only one of its districts, Gadchiroli,  sharing a border with Chhattisgarh and the Maoist stronghold of Abujhmaad is affected by extremism. According to police claims, Maoists have been comprehensively defeated in the district. The CPI-Maoist has accepted to have lost 60 of its cadres to security forces' operations in the past seven years. Of the total 270MT iron ore reserves in the state, over 180 MT are in Gadchiroli. Lloyd Steel and two small companies were granted the permission for mining operations in the Surjagarh hills, Damkodvadavi hills and Agri Maseli in 2007. But the project has been delayed in view of the Maoist threat and opposition from the tribals. In 2013, the vice president of Lloyd Steel was shot dead by the CPI-Maoist. In March 2016, months after the state police declared victory over the Maoists, Lloyds Steel began extracting ore from a mine in Surjagadh and claimed to have provided jobs to about 300 people at the site. But the operations shut down within days due to local opposition by groups against mining as well as others who wish for a processing plant closer to the mining site. Since then, the state government has been asking New Delhi to increase the troop presence in the region. 
 
Apparently a systematic regime of terror has been unleashed by the C-60, Maharashtra's anti-Maoist commando force, targeting the anti-mining tribal activists as well as tribals who have been working to implement the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act in the district. The CPI-Maoist has brought out a pamphlet listing over 191 cases of such torture between January and June 2016. The government's response has been to propose a law that makes distribution of any literature an offence attracting arrest.
 
It is convenient to see a CPI-Maoist conspiracy in opposing the state governments' initiatives in Jharkhand and Maharashtra. It is probably right to assume that the outfit will gain out of the popular discontentment. However, the larger question is the gap between the dream that the state is attempting to sell to the areas afflicted by extremism and the reality of its intentions after the extremists have been defeated.

17 Sept 2016

Government of Estonia MA/PhD Scholarships for International Students 2016

Brief description: The Estonian Government through the Estonian Institute is offering international master’s students, doctoral students and post-doctorate researchers, scholarships to study at Estonian universities.
Application Deadline: 1st October 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Estonia
Eligible Field of Study: Candidate’s course of choice
About the Award: The Estophilus Scholarship is offered to finance foreign citizens with foreign higher education master’s, doctorate and post-doctorate researchers in their studies and research.
Type: Postgraduate Taught
Eligibility: Scholarship applicants must submit the following documents in Estonian or English:
  • The completed application form (please submit a hardcopy)
  • Scholarship Recipients of the Estophilus web-application form
  • The research plan
  • Curriculum vitae
  • Proof that the applicant is the MA / PhD student or doctorate document confirming the
  • Estonian research and development institution for confirmation that they are ready to accept the candidate. The recipient must provide written confirmation to the English brief overview of the subject of study and justify the importance of research in Estonia.
  • Postgraduate students a recommendation from their research supervisor
Selection Process: The scholarship is determined by the Estonian Language and Culture Programme of Academic Studies of the Council, involving experts when necessary.
Number of Awardees: Several
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship is intended for living expenses, tuition fees and research costs directly connected. The scholarship for a period is five months of 2500 EUR
Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship may be set at a time generally ranging from five to ten months, in exceptional cases, a shorter period.
How to Apply: Visit Scholarship Webpage to apply
Award Provider: Estonian Ministry of Education and administered by the Estonian Institute.

WWF Prince Bernhard Scholarships for Nature Conservation 2017 for Developing Countries – Netherlands

Application Deadline: 6th January 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries in the following region are eligible for the scholarship: Africa, Asia/Pacific, Latin America & Carribean, Eastern Europe & Middle East
To be taken at (country): Applicants home country or the Netherlands
Accepted Fields of Study: Field of nature conservation or associated disciplines directly relevant to the delivery and promotion of conservation
About Award: The Prince Bernhard Scholarship Fund for Nature Conservation was created in 1991 to help build conservation expertise and leadership in the developing world. The aim of the WWF Prince Bernhard Scholarships is to provide financial support to individuals who wish to pursue short-term professional training or formal studies that will help them contribute more effectively to conservation efforts in their country.
The WWF Prince Bernhard Scholarships (PBS) are awarded to individuals from Africa, Asia/Pacific, Latin America & Carribean, Eastern Europe & Middle East who wish to pursue formal studies or professional training in the field of conservation.
Each scholarship empowers a dedicated conservationist to build his or her capacity. In turn, these people are in a position to share the benefits of their knowledge and skills with others and so spread the benefits.
Offered Since: 1991
Selection Criteria: Women and people working for non-governmental or community-based organizations are encouraged to apply
Who is qualified to apply?
  • As a priority, the PBS support mid-career training (up to a maximum of one year) for individuals working in the field of conservation or associated disciplines directly relevant to the delivery and promotion of conservation.
  • Applications from candidates doing multiple-year studies will only be considered if the applicant is applying for support for the last year of studies.
  • Applications are encouraged from people seeking to build skills in specific subjects that will enhance their contribution to nature conservation.
  • In particular, women and people working for non-governmental or community-based organizations are encouraged to apply.
  • Only nationals from Africa/Madagascar, Asia/Pacific, Latin America & Carribean, Eastern Europe & Middle East will be considered, including WWF staff or candidates working as partners with WWF.
    • Preference is given to those seeking support for studies in their own country or region, and applicants must provide written proof of acceptance on a course.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
What are the benefits?: The maximum amount for any one scholarship under this scheme is CHF 10,000, and preferential consideration is given to requests for less than CHF 10,000.
Duration: Up to a maximum of one year
How to Apply
Applications (form can be downloaded with information in English, French & Spanish from the link below) should be submitted to the candidate’s nearest WWF Office or Associate (See link below)
Sponsors: The Prince Bernhard Scholarship Fund for Nature Conservation
Important Notes: After completion of their studies Prince Bernhard Scholars are expected to return to their home country or region to work in conservation, or a related field.

Global Youth Leadership Scholarship in Canada for Youths from Developing Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 13th February 2017. To be held from September 18 – October 6, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing countries
To be taken at (country): Coady Institute, Canada
Eligible Field of Study: Programme participants engage in learning grounded in real world experiences and focused on Coady’s core thematic areas.
About Scholarship: The Global Youth Leaders Certificate is a three-week education program offered at Coady Institute. This program enables young development practitioners from developing countries to strengthen their leadership capacities in order to contribute to innovation and change in their organizations and communities. Participants engage in learning that is grounded in real-world experiences and focused on Coady’s core thematic areas. Through a shared learning environment with others from around the world, participants are exposed to a range of experiences and the beginnings of a potentially lifelong network of support.
Offered Since: 2011
Type: Leadership and Mentorship training
Selection Criteria and Eligibility: This program is targeted to young leaders (20-30 years old) from developing countries who are working on development issues. Priority is given to people who:
  • Possess a minimum of two years of demonstrated experience in social, environmental or economic development in sectors such as livelihoods or inclusive economic development, food security, environment, access to education and health care, governance, and the rights of girls and women;
  • Have great drive and passion for their work, demonstrated through their outstanding contributions in their organizations and communities;
  • Are practitioners in civil society organizations including community-based organizations and not-for-profits, or active in public or private institutions, donor/philanthropic agencies, social movements or in a social enterprise/business; AND
  • Have strong oral and written English language competencies.
Value of Programme:
  • The Global Youth Leadership program provides successful candidates with a full scholarship that includes tuition, travel, accommodation, and meals.
  • Program participants also benefit from the guidance and mentorship of accomplished leaders from around the world.
Duration of Programme: three-week education program

How to Apply
Scholarship Provider: COADY International Institute

British Council Ghana Digital Jobs Africa 2016 for Unemployed Ghanaians

Application Deadline: 30th September 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Ghana
To be taken at (country): Ghana
Fields of Study:
  • Introduction to ICT
  • Understanding of the IT industry
  • Call Centre Technology, Terminology, Structure
  • E-Publishing
  • Communication skills
  • Customer relations
  • Time management
  • Self -Management
  • Global and intercultural working
About the Programme: This Rockefeller Foundation project- Digital Jobs Africa has an overall objective of helping disadvantaged and (minimally skilled) unskilled young men and women, move from unemployment into employment through relevant skills development training. This is in line with the Ghana Shared Growth Development Agenda, in which human development; productivity and employment are key thematic areas.
The training will include ICT skills, communication skills, customer relations, intercultural working, time management, self-management and other relevant soft skills. Participants will be provided an opportunity for face-to-face training, guided on-the-job training, facilitated peer-to-peer learning and some professional mentoring in a state of the art training facility.
Type: Training
Eligibility: To qualify, applicants must meet the following criteria:
  • Must be citizens of Ghana
  • Must be between 18- 30 years
  • Must be only Senior,Technical or Vocational High School graduates
  • Must be currently unemployed
  • Ability to communicate and be instructed in English
  • Available to commit to a full month of training
NB: Please note that applicants with university degree or its equivalent are not eligible.
Number of Awardees: Up to 1000
Value of Programme: Training offers unique opportunity to participants to acquire the following:
  • ICT skills for digital jobs
  • Practical skills for the modern workplace
  • Links to careers in IT
  • Introduction to Digital Entrepreneurship
Duration of Programme: Each course will be for duration of one month and successful applicants will be certified upon completion. The training is absolutely free once participants are selected
How to Apply: Applicants should please read the requirements of the application form before they apply. Kindly click here to apply
Award Provider: British Council