27 Jan 2017

French presidential candidate François Fillon calls for alliance with Germany against US

Alice Laurençon

François Fillon, the right-wing Republicans’ (LR) candidate in the French presidential elections, travelled to Berlin on Monday to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Also present were German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen.
The aggressive stance taken by President Trump towards Europe, and in particular towards Germany, is causing panic among the European powers over the consequences of Trump’s “America First” policies for their economic and military position. Fillon’s visit to Berlin, aimed at strengthening France’s economic and military ties with Germany, Europe’s dominant economic power, underscored that the European powers are moving rapidly toward conflict with Washington.
The meeting reaffirmed the geostrategic orientation outlined by Merkel and French President François Hollande after the UK’s vote to leave the European Union (EU) last June, when Paris and Berlin proposed to create a European military alliance, independent of NATO and the UK. Much of Merkel’s discussion with Fillon centred on his call for a “European defence alliance.” This is a proposal for increased military cooperation between France and Germany to assert their imperialist interests independently of NATO, which Trump recently declared to be “obsolete”.
Fillon’s statements made quite clear that the purpose of this policy is to prepare to forcefully counter, with military power if necessary, hostile moves by the US government.
In a long interview jointly conducted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and French newspaper Le Monde the day before the Berlin meeting , Fillon described Trump as a threat to Europe: “Europe has been warned. It must organise itself in the face of an American policy that will do us no favours. This means more than ever European initiatives. What Trump has announced began before Trump.”
Fillon pointed to multi-billion-euro fines imposed by US financial authorities on Germany’s Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas in France.
Fillon also called for closer ties between Germany, France and Russia, based on finding a settlement of US-instigated wars in Syria and Ukraine. Washington and the European powers led a bloody proxy war for regime change against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad starting in 2011, and installed an anti-Russian Ukraine regime in a fascist-led coup in Kiev in 2014. Fillon made clear that he sees these interventions as mistaken and based on deception by the NATO powers, including France.
Russia, he said, “is an immense country that one can’t treat lightly, it’s a country without a democratic tradition that has nuclear weapons. … Who can reasonably want to enter in conflict with Russia?” Asked whether Putin is a reliable partner, he replied: “Was the West always reliable? Did it never mislead the Russians about [the war in] Libya, Kosovo, on economic partnership with the EU? Russia has a lot to answer for, but it is not the only one.”
Calling France’s alliance with Germany “fundamental,” and denouncing Hollande for having initially sought the “encircling” of Germany in the initial years of his presidency, Fillon called for the “reinforcing” of the Franco-German alliance. However, he also insisted that this alliance be a “partnership between equals,” despite France’s “economic weakness and lack of structural reforms.”
Fillon outlined proposals for an economic government in the Eurozone, lead by Paris and Berlin. “I propose to first of all revive the Eurozone”, stated Fillon, by setting a “harmonised programme of tax... on businesses”. Fillon also proposed to lessen the supremacy of the dollar in the world economy and “make the euro an international reserve currency”, by creating a European Monetary Fond as a potential counterweight to the International Monetary Fund.
The aims of Berlin and Paris in developing such military and financial collaboration are reactionary. In response to Trump’s threats and the imminent danger of the breakup of the European Union (EU), the European ruling class is trying to hold the EU together with militarist and police-state policies.
These strategies, which escalate the danger of outright military conflict between the NATO powers, are predicated on devastating attacks on workers’ social and democratic rights. Fillon’s call for “structural reforms” in France is linked to his campaign pledge to cut 500,000 public sector jobs and eliminate much or all of the Social Security system’s publicly-funded health care in France.
On immigration, Fillon stated that he would ignore the theoretically open borders of the Schengen Zone and called for increased security on Europe’s internal and external borders. “France doesn’t have to accept refugee quotas. That’s a concern for each state”, said Fillon, criticising Merkel’s refugee policy and stating that France would “make a different choice” from Germany under his leadership.
Fillon’s proposed alliance with Berlin, which strongly recalls the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis that emerged as several of the European powers criticized the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, point to deep and lasting inter-imperialist rivalries that twice in the last century erupted into world war.
The relative stability of relations between the US and Europe after World War Two rested on the vast economic superiority of the United States, and the fact that the Soviet Union provided the imperialist powers in NATO with a common enemy. The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 therefore transformed relations between the United States and Europe. Conflicts rapidly re-emerged among the imperialist powers over war policy and the struggle for oil, resources, markets and access to cheap labour.
Global geostrategic tensions are even sharper today than 25 years ago, as US economic decline accelerates and the European powers, including Russia, develop ever closer ties with China, which Trump has designated as one of the main targets of his administration’s foreign policy.
The German minister for economic affairs, Sigmar Gabriel, stated that Europe and Germany should not react to Trump by being “afraid or submissive”, but rather “firmly” pursue their own interests. Germany is “a strong country” and Europe “a strong continent, which must stick together.” According to Gabriel, Germany and Europe needed a new orientation toward China and Asia. If the United States “starts a trade war with China and throughout Asia, then we are a fair partner,” he added.
Were an alliance of the capitalist regimes of Germany, France, Russia and China against the US to emerge—a threat that will increasingly spur Washington to military action in order to prevent it from occurring—it would prove to be utterly reactionary. What is emerging is that the international bourgeoisie is again showing itself to be incapable of overcoming the fundamental contradictions between the integrated character of the global economy and the division of the world into antagonistic nation states.
The only force that can prevent the explosion of a new world war is the international working class, by struggling against the capitalist system that is its root cause.
Indeed, the increasingly bitter and intractable divisions tearing apart capitalist Europe were clearly on display during Fillon’s visit, even as he tried to lead Paris towards closer ties with Berlin.
Trump’s hostility towards Germany, including his threatened sanctions on its auto industry and labeling of the EU “a vehicle for Germany”, is seen as a threat by Germany’s ruling class, requiring a more independent and aggressive European foreign policy, including coordination with Paris.
Nonetheless, there were significant conflicts between Merkel and Fillon, not just over the question of immigration, but on Fillon’s proposal for a unified European economic government, which Berlin had already rejected when it was proposed by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Also, Fillon aims to “rebuild” relations with Russia by establishing closer military ties and lifting economic sanctions imposed during the Ukraine crisis—which Merkel has opposed.
Social, economic and political tensions are already extremely sharp in Europe, and Fillon has declared that he wants France to become Europe’s dominant power—in a barely veiled challenge to German hegemony in Europe. In both countries, right-wing, nationalist forces are on the rise, and Brexit last year only exacerbated tensions in Europe. London no doubt sees calls for more military integration on the European continent as a threat, particularly as, post-Brexit, UK Prime Minister Theresa May is moving closer to Trump.

British Supreme Court rules only Parliament can trigger Brexit

Robert Stevens

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Parliament must agree to begin the process of exiting the European Union.
The decision followed an appeal to the Supreme Court by the government of Prime Minister Theresa May challenging a November High Court decision. The High Court had likewise ruled that only Parliament has the right to invoke Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, under which a member state can begin the process of exiting the EU.
A pro-EU group of claimants led by Gina Miller, a London-based investment manager, brought the legal challenge at the High Court. Miller won the support of all three High Court judges, who submitted that when the UK passed the 1972 European Communities Act paving the way for Britain to join the EU’s predecessor organization, rights were conferred on citizens via that act of Parliament. Therefore, it was not within the powers of Royal Prerogative—enacted by a government minister, as proposed by May—to take away those rights.
The Supreme Court dismissed the government’s appeal by an 8-3 majority. Reading out a statement, Lord Neuberger, the Supreme Court president, said that because of the UK leaving the EU and ceasing to be party to EU treaties, UK domestic law will change and the rights of UK residents will be affected. “Therefore,” the statement declared, “the government cannot trigger Article 50 without Parliament authorising that course.”
The statement concluded, “The Supreme Court holds that an act of Parliament is required to authorise ministers to give notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union.”
The ruling was widely anticipated. In response, the government stated that it planned to proceed with a timetable of triggering Article 50 by the end of March. In a statement to MPs, Conservative Brexit Secretary David Davis said a bill allowing the government to trigger Article 50 would be introduced “within days.” This would be “the most straightforward Bill possible...”
While the Supreme Court came down in favour of Parliament, nothing has been resolved politically by its verdict. Indeed, it lays the basis for the schism within ruling circles over Brexit to deepen and for the conflict to be fought out on the new terrain dictated by the ruling.
Given these divisions, the pro-EU wing does not want to be seen as seeking to overturn a Leave vote made by more than 17 million people.
The Supreme Court justices were careful to stress that their ruling would not overturn the decision to leave the EU. Neuberger said, “The issues in these proceedings have nothing to do with whether the UK should exit from the EU, or the terms or timetable for that exit.”
The ruling was crafted to make possible the government putting the briefest bill forward in order to allow Article 50 to proceed on the basis of its timetable. The pro-Remain Guardian newspaper commented, “Ministers will…be reasonably happy: the Supreme Court ruled an act of Parliament was required to trigger article 50, but it made no statement on what that act should look like, allowing a very brief bill to be put before MPs.”
The central concern on which no compromise is possible for the Remain forces is to ensure that UK corporations and financial institutions maintain access, post-Brexit, to the strategically vital European Single Market and Customs Union.
On this score, the judgement in favour of Parliament still ensures that pro-Remain MPs can make amendments to whatever Bill the government proposes. Even more importantly, the decision serves to ensure that MPs can vote on—and seek to substantially amend or even block—whatever agreement the government reaches with the EU at the conclusion of negotiations expected to extend over the course of two years.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn plans to hold Labour MPs to a three-line whip to ensure that Article 50 is passed, but he responded to the judgement by insisting on Single Market access for British corporations and a final vote on the deal that is eventually reached.
“Labour will seek to build in the principles of full, tariff-free access to the Single Market and maintenance of workers’ rights and social and environmental protections,” he said. “Labour is demanding a plan from the Government to ensure it is accountable to Parliament throughout the negotiations and a meaningful vote to ensure the final deal is given Parliamentary approval.”
Even so, a minority group of 39 cross-party MPs, led by 18 (mainly Blairites) within the Labour Party and supported by six Liberal Democrats and 13 from the Scottish National Party, are pledged to vote against triggering Article 50. One of the Labourites, Owen Smith, challenged for party leadership against Corbyn to spearhead last year’s attempted coup, centring his campaign on accusations that Corbyn lost the vote for Remain because he was not sufficiently enthusiastic in his backing for the EU. Smith pledged in a Guardian article Tuesday to oppose Article 50 in any parliamentary vote.
His first argument for doing so was to reject May’s assertion of a “buccaneering Britain striking advantageous trade deals across the globe,” accusing her of placing “party politics over the national interest.” He predicted “a protracted and painful withdrawal from the Single Market and Customs Union...”
The ruling is also meant to oppose the danger of Brexit leading to the breakup of the United Kingdom, but fails in this respect too.
All 11 Supreme Court justices rejected the argument made by claimants representing the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that they should be consulted before the government triggers Article 50. The judges’ summary decision said that the various acts of devolution creating the devolved administrations “were passed by Parliament on the assumption that the UK would be a member of the EU, but they do not require the UK to remain a member.”
The Scottish National Party (SNP) have repeatedly threatened to hold a second referendum on independence—less than three years after the previous one—if Scotland loses access to the Single Market as a result of the EU exit. Only a week ago, after Prime Minister May confirmed that the UK would leave the Single Market in a “hard Brexit,” the Scottish parliament passed an SNP motion stating that “Alternative approaches within the UK should be sought that would enable Scotland to retain its place within the Single Market and the devolution of necessary powers to the Scottish Parliament.”
In response to the Supreme Court ruling out any veto rights over Article 50 for the devolved powers, SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon declared, “It is becoming clearer by the day that Scotland’s voice is simply not being heard or listened to within the UK.”
She added, “Is Scotland content for our future to be dictated by an increasingly right-wing Westminster government with just one MP here—or is it better that we take our future into our own hands?”
The SNP, who have 56 MPs at the Westminster Parliament, plan to put forward 50 amendments to the Article 50 legislation of a “serious and substantive” character.
The situation is made more fraught still by the fact that Northern Ireland voted in favour of Remain and the pro-EU Sinn Fein has precipitated a general election. Having brought to the forefront the prospect of a united Ireland, it will contest bitterly against the pro-British and pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party.

Syrian government, “rebels” meet for talks in Kazakhstan

Bill Van Auken

For the first time in six years of the bloody conflict provoked by the US and its allies in pursuit of “regime change” in Syria, representatives of the government of Bashar al-Assad and those of the armed “rebels” backed by Washington met face-to-face this week in Russian and Turkish-brokered talks held in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan.
The US was conspicuous by its absence, declining to send any official delegation and present only in the person of the US ambassador to Kazakhstan, who acted as an observer.
While the talks accomplished little beyond an agreement between Russia, Turkey and Iran to establish mechanisms for monitoring the cease-fire that was declared at the end of last year, the fact of the meeting itself was an expression of the debacle suffered by Washington in its strategy to overturn the Assad regime and of the strategic reversal inflicted upon the “rebels” by the Syrian army, backed by Russia and Iran, in retaking the former Islamist stronghold of east Aleppo.
The face-to-face meeting took place between a Syrian government delegation led by Bashar al-Jaafari, Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, and a “rebel” contingent headed by Mohammed Alloush, the leader of Jaysh al-Islam, a virulently sectarian Islamist militia backed by Saudi Arabia that even former Secretary of State John Kerry referred to as a terrorist “sub-group.”
Each side denounced the other as “terrorist” and the same question that has stymied previous attempts at peace talks, the future of Syria’s President Assad, emerged early in the talks, with the “rebels” demanding his ouster as a pre-condition for a peace settlement, and the government insisting that his status is not up for discussion.
Both sides accused the other of violating the Russian-Turkish-brokered cease-fire initiated on December 30. Like earlier abortive cessations of hostilities negotiated between the US and Washington, the agreement does not cover either the Islamic State (ISIS) or the Fateh al-Sham Front, which was formerly known as the Al Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.
Jaafari insisted that the Syrian army would continue to carry out combat operations in the strategic Barada River Valley to break the grip of Al Qaeda forces over the village of Ain al-Fijah, which is the source of the water supply for the 7 million inhabitants of Damacus. The Islamist militia has cut off water to the city since December 23.
The final statement issued by the meeting was signed by Russia, Iran and Turkey, the sponsors of the talks, but not by either the “rebels” or the Assad government. It commits the three countries to “establish a trilateral mechanism to observe and ensure full compliance with the cease-fire, prevent any provocations and determine all modalities of the cease-fire.”
The communique signed by the three countries expressed support for the armed “rebel” groups participating in UN-sponsored peace talks set to take place in Geneva on February 8.
While declaring their commitment to “the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic,” the document omitted the previous definition of Syria as a “secular” state. Ambassador al-Jaafari said that the reference to secularism was taken out at the insistence of both Turkey, which is ruled by an Islamist party but claims itself to be secular, and the armed groups, which virtually all call for the establishment of an Islamic regime.
Despite the absence of an official US delegation, Moscow has expressed optimism that it will reach a rapprochement with Washington over Syria following the inauguration of Donald Trump as US president.
Moscow’s Special Envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentyev, who led the Russian delegation at the talks, told reporters Tuesday: “Trump’s recent statements on him prioritizing not only the issues of internal policies, but also fighting terrorism, give hope. We think that the US leadership will take the right decisions towards coordination of efforts on the international level, to coordinate efforts to fight terrorism.”
At the beginning of the week, Russia’s Ministry of Defense claimed that the US military had provided targeting information for a joint US-Russian airstrike against ISIS positions in Syria. The Pentagon, however, vigorously denied any such collaboration. US Air Force Col. John Dorrian, chief spokesman for the US-led coalition in Baghdad, called the claim by Moscow “rubbish.”
Earlier this month Russia did carry out joint airstrikes with Turkey against ISIS in the area around al-Bab, a strategic town in northern Syria that Turkey is determined to capture as part of its military campaign to prevent Syrian Kurdish forces from consolidating a contiguous enclave on Turkey’s border. The unprecedented joint action by Turkey, a NATO member, with Russia underscored the sharp tensions between Ankara and Washington, which has utilized the Syrian Kurdish militia, the YPG, as its main proxy ground force in the campaign against ISIS.
Russia’s hopes for improved relations with Washington appeared to get a boost on Monday when Sean Spicer, Trump’s White House press secretary, answered a reporter’s question on potential US-Russian collaboration in Syria by declaring, “I think if there’s a way that we can combat ISIS with any country, whether it’s Russia or anyone else, and we have a shared national interest in that, sure, we’ll take it.”
At the same time, however, both Trump and his key cabinet appointees, including his recently confirmed defense secretary, Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, have signaled the incoming administration’s intentions to ratchet up tensions with Iran, including through the possible withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal concluded between Tehran and the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany) last July and the re-imposition of sanctions lifted as part of the deal.
Such a provocative action could lead to Iran resuming its nuclear program and the reigniting of the threat of a far wider war in the region, including possible US-backed airstrikes by Israel, which could draw in Russia as well.
Significantly, the Syrian “rebel” representatives in Astana voiced their acceptance of Russia’s role as a mediator in the Syrian conflict, but strongly opposed that of Iran. Whether or not this stance was worked out in collaboration with their CIA and Saudi patrons, its apparent aim is to harness the incoming Trump administration’s anti-Iran policy to further their own drive for regime change in Syria.
In a further indication that the incoming administration’s “America First” policy is one not of isolationism, but rather an explosive escalation of global militarism, in his remarks Saturday at the CIA headquarters, Trump reiterated the statement he made during the 2016 presidential campaign that the US should have “taken” Iraq’s oil after the 2003 invasion.
In his rambling address to the assembled CIA functionaries, Trump declared: “The old expression, ‘to the victor belong the spoils’ —you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil. Now, I said it for economic reasons. But ...if we kept the oil you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil. But okay. Maybe you’ll have another chance [emphasis added].
Asked to clarify Trump’s statement, Spicer, the White House press secretary, stated, “We want to be sure our interests are protected. We’re going into a country for a cause. He wants to be sure America is getting something out of it for the commitment and sacrifice it is making.”
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi issued a fairly subdued reaction to Trump’s implicit threat, declaring that “Iraq’s oil is constitutionally the property of the Iraqis,” and claiming he had commitments from the new administration for increased aid.
Whether Trump’s offhand comment about “another chance” for seizing oil was directed at Iraq or is an indication of the threat of new and even bloodier wars of aggression against Iran or even Russia is unclear.

24 Jan 2017

Xiamen University Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018:China

Application Deadline: Application starts from 1st February to April 30, 2017 (annually)
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Xiamen University, China
Accepted Subject Areas: Most undergraduate, master’s and doctoral programmes are taught in Chinese. However these courses are offered in English language and are eligible for the scholarship among other Chinese taught courses.
Undergraduate programme: Economics
Masters Programme: Chinese Philosophy, Civil and Commercial Law, International Relations, International Business, Marine Affairs, Chemical Engineering, Physical Chemistry (Electrochemistry), Finance (Applied Finance), Financial Engineering, Western Economics
Doctoral Programme:Archaeology & Museology, History of Specialized Field, Chinese Modern and Contemporary History, World History, Anthropology, Statistics, World Economy, International Trade, Energy Economics, Western Economics, Finance, Quantitative Economics, Statistics, Labor Economics, Regional Economics, International Law, Intellectual Property Law, English Language and Literature, Electromechanical Engineering, Condensed Matter Physics, Radio Physics, Electromagnetic Field and Microwave Technology, Basic Mathematics, Computational Mathematics, Probability & Mathematical Statistics, Analytical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Chemistry and Physics of Polymers, Materials Physics and Chemistry, Physical Oceanography, Marine Biology, Marine Chemistry, Marine Physics, Marine Geology, Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Marine Biotechnology, Environmental Science, Environmental Management, World Economy, Theory of Political Science, History of Specialized Field
About Scholarship
The Xiamen University in China offers scholarships for doctoral, master’s and undergraduate candidates. The first-class scholarship for doctoral and master’s candidates will have their tuition fees covered (a maximum of 3 years for doctoral programmes, 2-3 years for master’s programmes). Meanwhile, the University provides monthly living allowance for outstanding doctoral and master’s candidates in accordance with the Chinese Government Scholarships (RMB 2,000 /month /person for doctoral students; RMB 1,700/month/person for master’s students). Bachelor’s candidates will not be provided with the first-class scholarship.
The second-class scholarship will have the awardees’ tuition fees covered (a maximum of 3 years for doctoral programmes , 2-3 years for master’s programmes ; 4-5 years for bachelor’s programmes).
By what Criteria is Selection Made?
Scholarship assessment will be on the basis of application documents, applicant’s academic performance and overall quality, and their supervisor’s opinions. The recipients’ academic performance will be assessed each year and only those achieving the required standard will have their scholarship renewed for the following year.
Who is qualified to apply?
  • Applicants must be non-Chinese citizens and in good health.
  • Applicants for undergraduate studies must hold a high school diploma and be under the age of 25.
  • Applicants for master’s studies must hold a bachelor’s degree and be under the age of 40.
  • Applicants for doctoral studies must hold a master’s degree and be under the age of 45.
Number of Scholarships: 24 (including 8 for doctoral candidates, 11 for master’s candidates and 5 for undergraduate candidates)
Value of Scholarships: Scholarship awardees will have their tuitions covered. Two kinds of scholarships exist:
The first-class scholarships for doctoral and master’s candidates will have their tuition covered (a maximum of 4 years for doctoral programmes, 2 or 3 years for master’s programmes) and offer monthly living allowance (RMB 3,500 for each doctoral student; RMB 3,000 for each master’s student). Undergraduate candidates will not be provided with the first-class scholarship.
The second-class scholarships will have the awardees’ tuition covered (a maximum of 4 years for doctoral programmes, 2 or 3 years for master’s programmes,  4 or 5 years for undergraduate programmes).
How long will sponsorship last?
  • Bachelor’s degree students         4-5 years
  • Master’s degree students            2-3 years
  • Doctoral degree students            4 years


How to Apply: Applicants will be eligible for scholarship assessment only after they are admitted to the undergraduate, masters or doctoral programme of Xiamen University.
Sponsors: Xiamen University, China Government
Important Notes: The result is expected to be out in early June and will be published on the website of the Admissions Office. Awardees will be notified via email and their certificate of award will be sent out as soon as possible.

UNICEF Voices of Youth Blogging Internship 2017

Application Deadline: 10th February 2017 at 12am (EST).
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Online
About the Award: The internships will have a partial focus on climate change and the environment – one of the world’s most pressing issues. The 3-month internship (February- June 2017) offers you (young people aged 14-25) an opportunity to receive personalized feedback on your blog posts, a series of live interactive sessions with subject matter experts, weekly lessons and tips on blogging, access to a network of international youth bloggers, and the opportunity to have your pieces published on notable digital media platforms.
Type: Internship
Eligibility: To be eligible, candidates must be young people aged 14-25
Number of Awardees: 10-15
Value of Internship: At the end of the internships you will have improved your blogging skills with the help of your peers and the VOY Community Coordinator who supervises your work, gained new insights into environmental and climate issues, and been connected to a network of international young bloggers. The internship is done by remote participation, which means that interns are not required to travel anywhere.
Upon successful completion of the internship, you will receive a certificate of merit by UNICEF – definitely a great addition to your CV!
Duration of Internship: 3-month internship (February- June 2017)
How to Apply: If you are interested to be part of the interns batch that starts in February, please apply to the internship by submitting this Google form:
Award Provider: VOY, UNICEF
Important Notes:  Due to the high demand and limited number of spaces available, Voices of Youth will only contact candidates that were selected for the internship.

Nuffic Fellowships at the Hague Academy for Local Governance 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 7th March 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
To be taken at (country): The Netherlands
About the Award: The Netherlands organisation for international cooperation in higher education (EP-NUFFIC) offers fellowships to participate in training courses in The Netherlands. The aim is to promote capacity building within organisations in eligible countries via training and education for professionals. This is initiated and (almost) fully funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the budget for development cooperation.
The Netherlands Fellowship Programme (NFP) for short courses offers scholarships for participants living and working in one of the following 50 countries.
The MENA Scholarship Programm(MSP) aims to contribute to the democratic transition in one of the 10 participating countries in the Middle East and North Africa region.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: In order to qualify for a NFP Scholarship, you need to meet the following selection criteria. You must:
  • be a national of, and working and living in one of the countries on the following
    NFP country list (in link below);
  • not be employed by an organisation that has its own means of staff-development, for example:
    • multinational corporations (e.g. Shell, Unilever, Microsoft),
    • large national and/or a large commercial organisations,
    • bilateral donor organisations (e.g. USAID, DFID, Danida, Sida, Dutch ministry of Foreign affairs, FinAid, AusAid, ADC, SwissAid),
    • multilateral donor organisations, (e.g. a UN organization, the World Bank, the IMF, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IADB),
    • international NGO’s (e.g. Oxfam, Plan, Care);
  • must have an official passport that will still be valid for at least three months after completion of the training;
  • must not receive more than one fellowship for courses that take place at the same time;
  • English Language skills: The short courses are taught in English. Therefore, it is important that your English language skills (writing and speaking) are good.
  • Work experience: Minimum of 2 years of experience required, working with or for local or regional authorities. It is to your advantage if the work/experience is related to the content of the training.
  • To be eligible for a MSP Scholarship you must meet the selection criteria mentioned above. Furthermore you must:
  • be a national of, and working and living in one of the countries on the following
    MSP country list  valid at the time of application;
  • have an official passport that will still be valid at least three months after completion of the training;
  • not be over 45 years of age at the time of the grant submission.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: The Nuffic Fellowship programmes covers cost of tuition fee, travel costs, accommodation and living expenses in The Netherlands.
How to Apply: To apply for a fellowship, You will have to answer the following 3 questions to support your application:
  • Question 1: What is the issue or problem you want to address in your country?
  • Question 2. How will this training course enable you to address this issue?
  • Question 3. How will you address this issue with your position within your organisation?
It is very important to go therough the Application Guidelines before applying.
Award Provider: The Hague, The Netherlands
Important Notes: You can only apply for one Fellowship per deadline.

Open Society Civil Society Scholar Awards 2017 for Doctoral Research Students and Faculties

Application Deadline: 31st March 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: See Below
Type: Research, Grants
Eligibility: The awards are open to the following academic populations:
  • doctoral students of eligible fields studying at accredited universities inside or outside of their home country
  • full-time faculty members teaching at universities in their home country
Candidates must be citizens of the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Kosovo, Laos, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Myanmar/Burma, Nepal, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Serbia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or Yemen.
Selection Criteria: Civil Society Scholars are selected on the basis of their outstanding contributions to research or other engagement with local communities, to furthering debates on challenging societal questions, and to strengthening critical scholarship and academic networks within their fields.
Requests for support for first-year tuition and fees only will be considered on the basis of a clearly demonstrated need from doctoral students who have gained admission to universities outside of their home country.
Selected grantees may be invited by CSSA to attend short-term trainings/summer school, and a participant conference during the grant period. Travel costs and accommodation for these events will be covered by CSSA.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Program: Maximum funding requests: $10,000 for doctoral students; $15,000 for faculty members.
The awards support short-term, international academic projects, such as: fieldwork (data collection); research visits to libraries, archives, or universities; course/curriculum development; and international research collaborations leading to peer-reviewed publication.
Duration of Program: 
  • Project duration: between two and nine months
  • Eligible dates: September 1, 2017–August 31, 2018
How to Apply: Detailed guidelines on the conditions of these awards are available in the Program Webpage link below.
  1. Online Applications: Applicants are strongly advised to submit their application online.
  2. Paper Applications: For those wishing to submit a paper application, an application form and budget/timeline template can be downloaded from the Download Files section.
Award Provider: Open Society Foundation

50 University of West London International Ambassador Scholarships 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 16th July 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
About the Award: International Ambassadors are active representatives for the University. They are expected to participate in current and future promotional activities and will be interviewed and photographed by our marketing department.
As outstanding students, ambassadors will also contribute from time to time in the promotion of the University of West London by supporting events organised for scholars and by the International Office.
Type: Undergraduate or Postgraduate
Eligibility: Students are eligible to apply for the scholarship if they have been offered a place to study on a full-time undergraduate or postgraduate course at the University of West London, commencing in September 2017.
Number of Awardees: 50
Value of Scholarship: The International Ambassador Scholarship provides a tuition waiver of £5,000 for the first year of study only.
How to Apply: You can apply for the International Ambassador Scholarships by completing a scholarship application form (doc, 158 kb).
Please save the above form to your computer before completing it. Once completed, save and email your completed application form to int.app@uwl.ac.uk.
If you are unable to save a completed version of the form, you may not have the required software. If this is the case, please print off the form, complete the application and scan and sent it to int.app@uwl.ac.uk.
Award Provider: University of West London

RUFORUM MasterCard Undergraduate & Masters Scholarships for African Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th March 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (Universities): Gulu University and Egerton University.
Fields of Study: The RUFORUM Technical Committee (RTC) has identified the following priority programs for the academic year 2017/2018 as eligible for application and to be supported:
Gulu University
1. Bachelor of Science in Agri-Entrepreneurship and Communication
Management
2. Bachelor of Science in Food and Agribusiness
3. Master of Science in Food Security and Community Nutrition
4. Master of Science in Agri-Enterprises Development
Egerton University
1. Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
2. Bachelor of Science in Animal Science
3. Master of Science in Community Studies and Extension
4. Master of Science in Agri-Enterprise Development
About the Award: The Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM) in partnership with The MasterCard Foundation, Gulu University and Egerton University are implementing an eight year program aimed at transforming African agricultural universities and their graduates to better respond to developmental challenges through enhanced application of science, technology, business and innovation for rural agricultural transformation. This is eight year program (2016-2024) and will be supporting students that are economically disadvantaged, those from post-conflict and conflict affected areas of Africa.
Students who are economically disadvantaged, and students from post-conflict and conflict-affected areas of Africa, are welcome to apply for admission and financial support at Gulu University (Uganda) or Egerton University (Kenya). The announcements lists the available academic programs at each university.
Type: Undergraduate, Masters
Eligibility: 
  • This scholarship opportunity is open to African students of all race, colour, dissent and who in particular are economically disadvantaged and those coming from conflict and post-conflict areas of Africa.
  • The applicant has to be in position to qualify for admission into undergraduate and/or postgraduate programs at Gulu University and/or Egerton University as listed above.
  • Students already having a scholarship of any kind are not eligible to benefit this scholarship opportunity anyone with a double scholarship if found will automatically be discontinued.
Females are particularly encouraged to apply
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded
How to Apply: Applicants should obtain application forms for both the scholarships and admission from the university of choice. Applicants shall only apply to one university of choice. Application forms can also be downloaded from the Scholarship Webpage link below.
Award Provider: MasterCard Foundation, Egerton University, Gulu University

US National Intelligence Council Predicts Indo-Pakistan Nuclear War In 2028

Abdus Sattar Ghazali


The US National Intelligence Council has predicted a nuclear war between India and Pakistan in 2028. The prediction came in the Council report released recently under the title: Global Trends: Paradox of Progress.
Every four years since 1997, the National Intelligence Council has published an unclassified strategic assessment of how key trends and uncertainties might shape the world over the next 20 years to help senior US leaders think and plan for the longer term.
The report is timed to be especially relevant for the administration of a newly elected US President, but Global Trends increasingly has served to foster discussions about the future with people around the world, according to the Council.
About the South Asia, the report said India will be the world’s fastest growing economy during the next five years as China’s economy cools and growth elsewhere sputters, but internal tensions over inequality and religion will complicate its expansion. .….. “Pakistan will feel compelled to address India’s economic and conventional military capabilities through asymmetric means. Pakistan will seek to enhance its nuclear deterrent against India by expanding its nuclear arsenal and delivery means, including pursuing “battlefield nuclear weapons” and sea-based options.”
At-sea deployments of nuclear weapons by India, Pakistan, and perhaps China, would increasingly nuclearize the Indian Ocean during the next two decades, the report said adding: “The presence of multiple nuclear powers with uncertain doctrine for managing at sea incidents between nuclear-armed vessels increases the risk of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation. Nuclear mating requirements for naval-based delivery vehicles remove a safety valve that until now has kept nuclear weapons stored separately from missiles in South Asia.”
The report predicts three scenarios which “postulate alternative responses to near-term volatility at the national, regional and Communities levels.” The India-Pakistan nuclear clash is one of the three scenarios.
The report envisage a crisis between India and Pakistan that may result in a nuclear clash: “The Second Indus Waters Treaty was abandoned by both sides, followed shortly by a series of explosions in New Delhi that the Indian Government quickly attributed to Pakistan-based extremist groups. Islamabad denied involvement, but both sides began mobilizing their military forces. After a few confusing days of cyber attacks that disrupted the ability of both sides to understand what was happening, the situation escalated quickly. According to a subsequent investigation, artificial intelligence systems supporting the military decision makers made the crisis worse by misinterpreting signals meant to deter instead as signs of aggressive intent. The result was the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since 1945.”
The report argues that “it took a mushroom cloud in a desert in South Asia (in 2028) to shake us from our complacency.”
However, Tom Engelhardt, a co-founder of the American Empire Project, does not agree with the National Intelligence Council scenario of nuclear bomb goes off not over a major city, killing hundreds of thousands, but in a desert area. He wrote:
“I, of course, don’t have thousands of experts to consult in thinking about the future, but based on scientific work already on the record, I could still create a very different South Asian scenario, which wouldn’t exactly be a formula for uniting the planet behind a better security future. Just imagine that one of the “tactical” nuclear weapons the Pakistani military is already evidently beginning to store at its forward military bases was put to use in response to an Indian military challenge. Imagine, then, that it triggered not world peace, but an ongoing nuclear exchange between the two powers, each with significant arsenals of such weaponry. The results in South Asia could be mindboggling — up to 21 million direct deaths by one estimate. Scientists speculate, however, that the effects of such a nuclear war would not be restricted to the region, but would spark a nuclear-winter scenario globally, destroying crops across the planet and possibly leading to up to a billion deaths.”
India and Pakistan have fought three wars since they became independent in 1947. There was a standoff between the two countries in 2002 after a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. The standoff resulted in the massing of troops on either side of the border and along the Line of Control (LoC) in the region of Kashmir. This was the second major military standoff between India and Pakistan following the successful detonation of nuclear devices by both countries in 1998. The other had been the Kargil War in 1999.
In September 2016, India and Pakistan edged closer to all-out war over an attack on an Indian military base that killed nearly 20 soldiers. “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us. Pakistan army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure of India,” Pakistan’s Minister of Defense Khawaja Asif told a local TV network. “We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase. If such a situation arises we will use it and eliminate India.”
Perhaps, South Asia or the Indian sub-continent remains among the most dangerous corners of the world. India and Pakistan share 1,800-mile border which is the only place in the world where two nuclear-armed hostile states face off every day.
The US National Intelligence Council report said it will be the combination of competing values among rival states, military build-ups, rising nationalism, and domestic insecurity that will create an era of increased geopolitical competition among the major powers.
“In the early 2020s, polarizing politics and fiscal burdens constrained US engagement on the world stage, prompting foreign assessments that the United States was moving toward a prolonged period of retrenchment. China and Russia, in particular, viewed this time as an opportunity to seek greater influence over neighboring countries within their respective regional economic, political and security orbits. Iran also attempted to take advantage of instability in the Middle East to expand its influence in the region,” the report said adding:
“By the mid-2020s, these developments led to the international system devolving toward contested regional spheres. The powers at the center of the spheres attempted to assert their right to privileged economic, political, and security influence within their regions. China increasingly used its economic and military power to influence the behavior of neighboring states and to force concessions from foreign business seeking access to its markets. India, Japan, and other states adopted more assertive independent foreign policies to counter Chinese encroachment on their interests, increasing regional tensions in East and South Asia. Russia also asserted itself more forcefully in Central Asia to keep that region under Moscow’s influence and to counter China’s growing presence.”
The US and Soviet proxy wars, especially in Vietnam and Afghanistan, were a harbinger of the post-Cold War conflicts and today’s fights in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia in which less powerful adversaries deny victory through asymmetric strategies, ideology, and societal tensions, the US National Intelligence Council report concluded.