29 Nov 2018

AFRIKA KOMMT! Fellowship Program 2019/2021 for Young African Leaders (fully-funded Internship Program in Germany)

Application Deadline: 11th January 2019

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany, Candidate’s home country

About the Award: Nineteen of Germany’s leading businesses have committed themselves to a common cause. In 2008, they launched the AFRIKA KOMMT! initiative for economic and capacity development. The programme trains young, future managers from Sub-Saharan Africa on-site with German companies. The main idea behind the initiative is to create a win-win-situation for the programme participants and the partnering companies. Thus, the initiative lays the foundation stone for sustainable economic cooperation with Africa and aims at forming stable cooperative partnerships for the future.

Type: Internship, Career Fellowship

Eligibility: Candidates need to fulfil the following formal eligibility requirements:
  • University degree in a relevant subject (please see individual company profiles below)
  • Postgraduate degree (e.g. MBA) is an advantage
  • Two to five years of relevant work experience
  • Excellent English language skills
  • Basic knowledge of the German language is an advantage
  • Not older than 35 years and physically fit
  • Female candidates are welcome
Selection Criteria: Besides the specific technical expertise relevant to the partner company, the programme requires candidates to have the following set of general skills and attributes:

Language and communication skills:
Excellent English skills
Strong oral and written communication skills
High willingness to learn German


Professional skills:
High leadership potential
Strong self-motivation and self-starter mentality
High level of dedication, commitment and target-orientation
Strong capacity for teamwork


Personal attributes:
High level of enthusiasm, flexibility and resilience
Outstanding intercultural competencies
Ability to adapt to new environments quickly


Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: At the heart of the AFRIKA KOMMT! fellowship programme is an eight-months practical training in a leading German enterprise benefiting both, fellows and partner companies – a classic win-win situation:
The programme fellows benefit through:
  • gaining first-hand practical experience in a leading German enterprise
  • being exposed to leadership concepts and management techniques in practice
  • becoming acquainted with working processes and business culture in German enterprises
  • extending their international management competencies
  • initiating networks of cooperation partners between Sub-Saharan Africa and German companies
The partner companies benefit through:
  • establishing networks of cooperation and trust in promising future markets in Sub-Saharan Africa
  • extending their experience with the working and business culture in Sub-Saharan Africa
  • improving their knowledge about cultures, markets, countries etc. in Sub-Saharan Africa
The AFRIKA KOMMT! fellowship programme also includes: Language course, Travelling expenses (Flights, Visa, local travels etc), Monthly living allowances, Accommodation, Insurance, Trainings and Study tours, Alumni activities, Certificate
After five completed programme years, a significant number of the participants now work in the branch office of their respective partner company in Africa.

How to Apply: Applications can only be submitted through the online application system.
Please read the application requirements carefully. You will find all necessary information in the application guide: AFRIKA KOMMT! 2019 – 2021


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

African Leaders of Tomorrow (AlofT) Project 2019 for Young African Leaders

Application Deadline: 31st December 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Online

About the Award: The ALofT Project is a six-month programme, open to African citizens currently enrolled in a postgraduate degree at an African college or university. The Project is structured around a web-based curriculum, delivered via an e-learning platform, offering full-time students from across Africa an opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programme.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Applicants must:
  • Be African citizens
  • Be proficient in written and spoken English
  • Possess good writing and research skills, and analytical abilities
  • Be enrolled in a postgraduate degree at an African-based college or university
  • Have regular and reliable internet access
  • Be able to commit to a minimum of 15 hours a week to the programme
Number of Awards: 10

Value of Award:
  • These successful applicants will acquire research, writing, analytical and other important skills, and will have the
    opportunity to put these skills into practice and gain valuable work experience through collaboration with the IOA team on Africa-focused research projects.
  • Please note that this involvement is unpaid.
Duration of Programme: Six months

How to Apply: 
  • Go here to complete the application form and upload your CV online. Shortlisted candidates will be asked to answer additional questions via email and may be contacted for a telephonic interview.
  • GOODLUCK!
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

French Committee for International Solidarity (CFSI) Grants 2019 for Family Agriculture in West Africa

Application Deadline: 25th February 2019

Eligible Countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.

About the Award: Faced with the rapid growth of cities and increased demand from urban consumers who change the city-countryside relationship, family farming must now strengthen its capacity to feed cities through local production.
In order to support them, the Fondation de France and the French Committee for International Solidarity (CFSI) joined forces in 2009 to launch a program to strengthen family farming in sub-Saharan Africa, refocused since 2010 on the African continent.
The overall goal of this call is to:
  • promote local initiatives to increase access to food through viable and sustainable West African family farming;
  • to share the gains on larger scales;
  • and to contribute to documenting the sustainability of this agricultural model that is likely to challenge decision-makers to take these issues into account in public policies.
The program supports projects that address one and the other of the following two themes:
  • connect family farming and markets / promote “local consumption”;
  • develop sustainable agriculture practices / sustainable food systems.
Type: Grants

Eligibility: This call is for non-profit corporations:
  1. Farmers’ Organizations (POs) in West Africa;
  2. support NGOs active in West Africa or in Europe as long as they work with local partners;
  3. research and / or training organizations.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: In order to encourage applicants to develop diversified partnerships, especially local ones, the Pafao program will not finance the whole project (maximum at 80%). The financing plans will mention the other solicited/acquired financial partners, as well as the self-financing part which is forecast.
Two kinds of initiatives will be supported:
  • short-term projects (one-year duration), with a granted amount of 10,000€ to 15,000€;
  • multi-year projects (3 years maximum), with a maximum amount of 50,000€ for the whole period (3 years) and paid in annual installments in light of the progress of the project.
The supported projects can already be under way, or be specific parts of wider projects, whether under way or new. The financed actions must unfold after January 1st, 2019 and begin before December 31st, 2019

How to Apply: 
  • The file composed of the application form (word file), the budget (excel file) and the annexes requested – completed in French or in English – is to be sent by email only to the following address: secr.aea@cfsi.asso.fr. See all Links in Program Webpage Link below.
  • The shipment will be made in several mails, each of which will have a maximum weight of 8 MB.
  • The files will be processed by the program secretariat provided by the CFSI.
  • Any question relating to this call for projects, and remained unanswered after a careful reading of the guidelines, can be asked by mail only to: secr.aea@cfsi.asso.fr
Visit Program Webpage for Details


Important Notes: The call for projects is reserved for proposals for actions in formalized partnership between a West African organization and a European organization. The leading organization can be West African or European.

Yemen: To Build a Fire in the Heart of Our Country

George Capaccio


But for most of us, the movement was a life-giving force. To join a hundred thousand others in marches and rallies, to know that even if you felt helpless against the power of government you were not alone in your feelings—that people all over the country, of all ages, black and white, working people and middle-class people, were with you—was to be moved beyond words. … to see Mohammed Ali defy the authorities even at the cost of his championship title, to hear Martin Luther King speak out against the war, to see little children marching with their parents, carrying signs—“Save the children of Vietnam”—was to feel the best of human beings were fighting your cause. … millions of people protested the war not because their own lives were at stake, but because they truly cared about other people’s lives, the lives of Vietnamese, of fellow Americans.
– from You Can’t Be Neutral On A Moving Train by historian and activist Howard Zinn.
When I was young and the war in Vietnam was raging, I rejected much of what I associated with a government and a society that could undertake the destruction of an entire people and still carry on as if there were nothing in the least bit abnormal about that state of affairs. In time, I saw that the way forward, at least for me, was to join those who understood just how evil the war was and how imperative it was for people to lift their voices, take to the streets, and risk their personal well being to protest the war.
Reading Zinn’s account of the Vietnam antiwar movement (in his book You Can’t Be Neutral On A Moving Train) and how it grew from isolated pockets of opposition into a massive, nation-wide wave of resistance, I felt re-united with feelings that have languished inside me for the past decade and a half. In the winter of 2003, as the US prepared to invade Iraq, I was on the streets with hundreds of thousands of others who truly cared about preventing the needless deaths of both Iraqis and fellow Americans. For a time, I believed we would prevail over the Pentagon, the defense contractors, and the Department of Defense—each of which had its own reasons for wanting to prosecute yet another act of criminal aggression against a relatively defenseless country. This time around, however, it was conceivable that our passionate commitment to peace and its expression through movement building, rallies, and demonstrations might actually stay the hand of our “Commander-in-Chief” and his war-mongering, neo-conservative ideologues: Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al.
On a frigid, fingertip-freezing day in February 2003, close to a million of us hit the streets of New York to make our voices heard. Together with comparable numbers of our brethren in other countries, we declared our united opposition to a war against Iraq—a war that many in the peace movement judged would be both illegal and immoral, and unconscionably destructive.
That winter afternoon stands out in my memory as the last time I felt the degree of exhilaration Howard Zinn so beautifully evokes in his description of the camaraderie he experienced during the high watermark of the Vietnam antiwar movement. A month later, on March 20, 2003, the war we hoped to prevent officially began with the much ballyhooed “shock and awe” bombing of Iraq. As someone with deep, personal connections to people in Iraq and a long-term involvement with the anti-sanctions movement, I felt profoundly demoralized by our failure to stop Bush II from attacking yet another Muslim nation under the pretext of “defending the world from grave danger.” But fellow activists reminded me that our surrender was not an option. However much defeated many of us felt, we had to keep up the struggle to bring some measure of sanity to a world in which the glorification of military power and the choice of violence over diplomacy nine times out of ten trumps international law and humanitarian considerations.
This year, on the eve of Thanksgiving, I turned to historian and activist Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States,for a way to hold and live with the terrible knowledge that once again my country is putting the projection of power and the pursuit of hegemonic objectives (controlling global energy resources; maintaining ties with US-friendly regional allies, etc.) ahead of simple humanity. Instead of the Vietnamese, the latest target of the US government’s malevolent, calculated indifference to massive human suffering are the people of Yemen. Progressive writers and activists have spoken out forcefully against the genocidal nature of Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen, and demanded a total suspension of arms sales to the Saudi regime and the cessation of all other forms of assistance, including mid-air refueling of Saudi war planes, targeting information, and diplomatic cover.
In this essay, I have no wish to repeat what has been said elsewhere about the conflict between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Houthi rebels of Yemen. Informed readers are aware of the Kingdom’s bogus claim that the rebels are significantly supported by Iran, its greatest foe. Therefore, the war is, in effect, a battle with the Islamic Republic of Iran for dominance of the Middle East and the ultimate victory of extremist Sunni Islam over the Shia theocracy of Iran. By this line of specious reasoning, the US alliance with Riyadh is a necessary bulwark against Iran’s growing regional influence and its purported role in fomenting terror and further destabilizing the Middle East.
I leave the delineation of such matters in far more competent hands. What matters most to me are the humanitarian consequences of this three-year-conflict, which shows no sign of stopping any time soon despite the recent US decision to stop re-fueling Saudi war planes and the growing, world-wide alarm that the Saudis are condemning an entire people to death from famine, sickness, and unrelenting airstrikes on civilian targets, like markets, hospitals, schools, and mosques. Consider the following figures from author Nicholas Davies, citing data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a nongovernmental organization (NGO):
ACLED now estimates the true number of people killed in Yemen is probably between 70,000 and 80,000. ACLED’s estimates do not include the thousands of Yemenis who have died from the war’s indirect consequences, such as starvation and preventable diseases like diphtheria and cholera. UNICEF reported in December 2016 that a child was dying every 10 minutes in Yemen, and the humanitarian crisis has only worsened since then.  At that rate the total of all deaths caused directly and indirectly by the war must by now be more than one hundred thousand.
An estimated one hundred thousand people killed directly or indirectly in a war that never should have begun in the first place. A war that has the blessings of Donald Trump in the form of billions of dollars of arms sales; a “bromance” with Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia; and a brazen refutation of the CIA’s conclusion that the Crown Prince “personally ordered” the killing of Saudi journalist and self-imposed exile Jamal Khashoggi. Quoting Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump told the world on Thanksgiving morning, “It’s a mean and nasty place out there.”
And thanks to people like Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, Donald Trump, and his bosom buddy the Little Prince of the world’s leading autocracy and exporter of terrorist doctrine, it’s getting a whole lot meaner and nastier. According to a recent report issued by the charity Save the Children, about 85,000 children under the age of 5 have starved to death as a consequence of the civil war in Yemen. How can anyone possibly grasp the significance of that number and the scale of human suffering implicit in the deaths of so many little children. One only has to look at photos of severely malnourished Yemeni children to realize the inhumanity of this war and that of the people who either prosecute or condone the violence. Working in Yemen since 1963, Save the Children states unequivocally that “13 million people face starvation—many of them children.” Furthermore, “Over 22 million people—three out of every four—urgently need lifesaving assistance, including over 11 million children.” The following statistics are from the above-mentioned report:
+ Only 55% of girls 15 and older are literate
+ 29% of children are out of school, with up to 75% of schools destroyed
+ 55 out of 1000 children die before their 5th birthday
+ 23% of children are engaged in child labor
+ 54% of people live in poverty
+ 1,600 children have been killed since the start of the conflict
The US, first under Obama and now under Trump, does much more than condone the bombing of civilian, government, and military targets in Yemen. Not only do we provide the killers with bombs and guided missiles; we unashamedly support the economic war being conducted against the people of Yemen by Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners. Martha Mundy, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the London School of Economics, has done extensive fieldwork in Yemen and other Arab countries. In her recent report for the World Peace Foundation, Mundy notes the responsibility of the US, the UK, and France—the three major arms dealers—in the commission of war crimes in Yemen as a result of the bombing. But their support for the economic war being waged is generally ignored, she says, and it is this form of violence that is “the major cause of starvation” in Yemen.
According to Professor Mundy, the war has evolved in stages, from attacks on mainly military and government facilities to “civilian and economic targets, including water and transport infrastructure, food production and distribution, roads and transport, schools, cultural monuments, clinics and hospitals, and houses, fields and flocks.” In August 2016, the Coalition launched a third stage: economic war with intermittent blockades of al-Hodeidah, Yemen’s major port on the Red Sea; the closure of the airport in Sana’a to all commercial flights; and the transfer of the central bank of Yemen to the city of Aden. (Southern Yemen, where Aden is situated, is controlled by forces of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is aligned with Saudi Arabia in its war on the Houthi rebels, based in San’a’ in the north.) On the basis of her research, Mundy concludes that the economic war is the leading cause of the tragedy that has befallen the people of Yemen:
Today Yemen is commonly described as the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world with 80% of the population requiring food assistance and with outbreaks of cholera that have affected more than a million people. The causes of that include not just the effects of the bombing campaign on the quality and quantity of food and water available … but above all the impact of the deepening economic war from late 2016.
The good news is that this crisis is finally getting the attention it deserves. During the week of December 1, the US Senate is expected to vote on S. J. Resolution 54, the bipartisan War Powers Resolution on ending US support for the slaughter of innocents in Yemen. Voters are encouraged to contact their senators and urge them to support the bill, sponsored by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT).
In my home state of Massachusetts, a coalition of peace groups—including Mass Peace Action, Veterans for Peace, the American Friends Service Committee, and Friends Meeting at Cambridge (Quaker)—is undertaking a variety of actions to draw attention to the crisis and to get more people involved in working to end it. The centerpiece of our peace advocacy is an ongoing campaign to hold Raytheon accountable for its sale of deadly weapons to the Saudi-led coalition. To that end, we’ve held well-attended demonstrations in front of the company’s Cambridge office and encouraged attendees to play an active role in the campaign. Some of the tactics we advocate include organizing educational events, writing opinion pieces for local papers, and using social media to inform people about the crisis in Yemen.
The movement against that war is growing. My hope is that it will soon reach a critical mass, and that once again, as they did during the Vietnam War and in the build up to the Iraq war,  people from all walks of life, of every ethnicity and color under the sun will come together on the streets of their towns and cities, and with one indivisible voice, cry out in the wilderness, “Save the children of Yemen!”
Because the lives of those children matter every bit as much as the lives of our own children. Because our government, along with US-based arms manufacturers, is just as responsible for the bloodshed in Yemen as the Saudis and their allies. Because as members of a purportedly democratic society we are obliged to hold our leaders accountable and demand that they do everything in their power to protect and preserve the lives of the people of Yemen.
A CNN reporter once interviewed Denis Halliday about the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq by the UN but enforced by the US and the UK. A few years earlier, in 1998, Halliday resigned his post as the UN humanitarian coordinator of the Oil-for-Food program in Iraq to protest the sanctions and the devastation they caused. In response to the interviewer’s question about Saddam Hussein’s brutality and the need to keep the sanctions in place, Halliday said, “Nothing justifies the killing of children in Iraq. Nothing.”
What was true then is no less true today: “Nothing justifies the killing of children in Yemen. Nothing.”

Baby’s death on Australia’s Gold Coast points to worsening social conditions

Gary Alvernia

A passerby made the horrifying discovery last week of a dead baby girl, nine months old, washed up at Surfers Paradise, a prominent tourist beach on Australia’s Gold Coast. Though the plight of the infant’s parents, a homeless couple, had been known to police and government authorities for months, they have now been accused of criminal neglect and the father has been charged with murder.
While the immediate cause of the tragedy may be complicated, a picture has emerged of the desperate poverty gripping layers of workers and youth in Australia, caused by decades of attacks on public services and living standards carried out by successive governments, Labor and Liberal-National Coalition alike.
The tragedy is all the more revealing because the Gold Coast embodies the obscene poles of wealth created by capitalism, with homeless families living in tents, near sewers and under bridges, close to some of the most expensive homes in the country.
Police say they believe the baby drowned after being thrown into the Tweed River at Tweed Heads, about 30 kilometres south of Surfers Paradise, and was carried onto the beach by ocean currents. Police soon arrested the couple, describing them as “known to the police,” and later charged the father, a 48-year-old indigenous man, with murder. The mother, a 23-year-old former university student, underwent treatment at a mental health service, but police refused to rule out charging her with murder as well.
Police told a Gold Coast court the father had a history of “street offences” and mental health issues, including schizophrenia. He was living on a meagre disability pension. At one point, the couple and two infant children were known to be living in a tent on beach dunes. These facts alone are a damning indictment of the lack of mental health and homelessness services.
It quickly emerged that both parents suffer from mental illness, and had, for months, been living homeless on local beaches and in parks. Concerned residents, both in Queensland’s Gold Coast, and Tweed Heads, in the neighbouring state of New South Wales, had long asked authorities to assist them, only to be bureaucratically brushed aside.
The death has had a strong impact in the Gold Coast and Tweed Heads communities, which include substantial working class suburbs. It appears both parents had attempted to give away the baby to people—even random strangers—reflecting a state of desperation and psychological instability.
One Gold Coast resident, Erin Sorensen, posted on her Facebook page that she had informed the police of the situation two months earlier, saying: “It was winter and the dunes were freezing every time the sun went down. I didn’t think that was good for a baby or toddler… I reported it straight away and monitored the following week. And if authorities did the job correctly this little girl would still be here!”
Another resident wrote to the Gold Coast City Council in May, expressing similar fears as the family spent winter nights sleeping on a wooden platform in a park. At night the baby could be heard crying. A council official wrote back after five days, telling the resident to raise the matter with other authorities as it was not a council responsibility.
One anonymous person asked the Gold Coast Bulletin: “Why was the baby left with the parents—just why?” Child Protection Services (CPS) in Queensland were made aware of the family’s situation but took no further action, despite subsequent complaints, after the father reportedly turned away a social worker.
Tweed Heads resident Willem Ungermann said the baby’s parents frequented the park near the Jack Evans Boat Harbour, where the baby was allegedly thrown in the river. Homelessness had “got very, very bad over the last two years,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
Homelessness, exacerbated by the exorbitant cost of housing, has become an increasingly urgent problem in Australia. With hardly any new public housing units being built, and waiting lists expanding dramatically, individuals and entire families are forced to seek assistance from relatives, friends and charities.
According to an ABC Fact File in August, the number of homeless people Australia-wide had risen to 116,400 homeless—the highest level ever recorded. The rate of homelessness had increased by 14 percent since 2011, or from 47.6 per 10,000 people to 49.8. Young and indigenous people were over-represented, with 58 percent of the homeless aged 34 or younger and 20 percent indigenous.
In the Gold Coast alone, an estimated 1,700 people were homeless in 2016, representing a 27 percent increase compared to 2011. The true number may be greater. Homeless advocate Kathleen Vlasic told the ABC that the high volume of transient people and tourists in the Gold Coast could make homeless people difficult to identify. “They can wander through Surfers and they’re not really going to stand out like a sore toe,” she explained.
Reverend Jon Brook, whose charity provides free meals, said dozens of homeless people are forced to stay in unsafe conditions and areas such campgrounds, dilapidated buildings or boarding houses. He noted an increase in multi-generational homelessness, with some homeless families consisting of three generations.
Incidents of children being harmed or killed as a result of the worsening social conditions are being reported across the country in rising numbers. Requests for child protection interventions increased by 25 percent in 2016–17 alone.
Wendy Coe, a former coordinator of a non-profit homeless service on the Gold Coast, wrote in a letter to the Brisbane Times: “A baby is dead. A family is in ruin. A brother will never see his sister again. It is a tragedy unfathomable and yet it was highly predictable.”
Coe said she was first alerted to the fact that a homeless couple with two little children was “sleeping rough in Surfers” six months ago when a friend copied her into an email she sent to a Gold Coast city councillor. However, Coe was unable to assist. “I know there is nowhere for a family to go for crisis accommodation,” she wrote.
The response of the Queensland state Labor government has been characteristically inhumane. Rather than address the issues of homelessness, mental illness or poverty, it has vowed to increase criminal sentences and broaden the definition of murder to include manslaughter.
These measures will succeed only in vilifying desperate parents and obscuring the horrific social conditions that lead to such tragedies. The deaths of children are a malignant byproduct of the austerity measures and cuts to welfare, championed by all state and federal governments over the past forty years.

Chinese consulate in Pakistan attacked by Balochi separatists

Sampath Perera

Heavily armed Balochi separatist insurgents, including at least one suicide bomber, attacked the Chinese consulate in Karachi last Friday morning. The targeting of the Chinese consulate comes amid a concerted campaign by the United States against deepening China-Pakistan strategic ties.
The three attackers reportedly died in a firefight with Pakistani security forces before entering the consulate, leaving the staff unharmed. Two policemen and two civilians waiting to enter the consulate, all Pakistani nationals, were killed as well. Weapons, explosives, food and medicine supplies recovered from the slain gunmen suggests they planned to take hostages within the consulate.
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan condemned the attack on the consulate as well as a sectarian suicide bomb blast on the same day in the northwest Pakistan. The latter attack resulted in the deaths of over 35 people, with Khan vowing to “crush the terrorists.”
However, he took especial exception to the “failed” attack on the consulate. Khan claimed it is “part of conspiracy against Pak[istan] and China economic and strategic cooperation.” Such incidents will “never be able to undermine” the relationship between the two countries that is “mightier than Himalaya and deeper than Arabian sea.”
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang, in a statement, strongly condemned the attack and urged Pakistan to take “practical measures to ensure the safety of Chinese citizens and institutions in the country.” Since the launch of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project in 2014, Pakistan has already created a 15,000-strong security force to protect Chinese investment projects and personnel–in particular, to counter Balochi secessionist attacks.
The selection of the Chinese consulate and a target outside Balochistan province are significant. The Balochi nationalists have demonstrated not only that they are willing to intensify attacks on Chinese interests, but also their ability to penetrate and carry out attacks inside a high security zone in Karachi.
The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), a separatist Balochi-nationalist militant outfit fighting the government security forces in Balochistan, claimed responsibility for the attack. “The objective of this attack is clear: we will not tolerate any Chinese military expansionist endeavors on Baloch soil,” the BLA stated. It contacted Qatar-based Al Jazeera while the attack was still ongoing and later the German state broadcaster Deutsche Welle.
The BLA released photos purportedly of the men who died in the attack. The BLA claimed that these men belonged to its Fidayeen Majeed Brigade, exclusively formed to carry out suicide attacks against Pakistani security forces and Chinese targets, according to its spokesperson Jihand Baloch, who spoke with Al Jazeera.
The Karachi attack is not the first time the BLA has targeted Chinese interests, but this attack is perhaps the boldest. It marks a new stage in the efforts of the BLA and the Balochi separatist movement as a whole to secure the backing and patronage of New Delhi, and above all Washington, by showing that they can serve as a useful and deadly tool in disrupting the China-Pakistan strategic partnership.
The Arabian Sea port Gwadar, in southwestern Balochistan, is at the center of the CPEC project that involves a sophisticated network of highway, pipeline and rail infrastructure involving over $60 billion in Chinese investment. The CPEC is, in part, Beijing’s response to the US move to heavily militarize the Asia-Pacific region, including the South China Sea, in order to threaten China’s trade routes at a series of “choke points” in the event of war. The CPEC initiative will connect Gwadar to the Chinese mainland over land routes allowing China to, at least partially, bypass a US blockade of sea lanes.
Washington has publicly declared its opposition to the CPEC and has recently condemned Chinese investment as “debt trap diplomacy.” When Pakistan announced its intentions to seek International Monetary Fund assistance to alleviate a balance of payments crisis, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned in July that Washington would oppose money going to “bail out Chinese bondholders or China itself.”
However, Washington has maintained that it supports the “territorial integrity” of Pakistan, including in relation to Balochistan. Despite its official position, there is a section of the American political establishment that advocates US support for Balochi secessionist demands—as shown in 2012, when three Republicans in the US House of Representatives sponsored a non-binding resolution advocating “self-determination” for Balochistan.
In contrast, India, as part of its adoption of an ever more aggressive stand against Pakistan, announced a major and highly provocative strategic shift in the summer of 2016, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi criticized human rights violations in Balochistan. The underlying threat was to support the Balochi nationalists and dismember Pakistan.
The Modi government’s hawkish attitude toward Islamabad was shown by Ajit Doval, who, shortly before becoming Modi’s national security adviser, threatened Pakistan: “You do one more Mumbai [a reference to the 2008 Mumbai terror attack], and you lose Balochistan.” New Delhi sees the CPEC as cutting across its aim of politically isolating and economically crushing Pakistan. It opposed the initiative from the outset, on the pretext that some of the highways cross Gilgit-Baltistan, which India claims as its own.
Both countries, however, promptly issued statements condemning the attack on the consulate. The US State Department condemned the two attacks on Friday “in the strongest terms” and said it is seeking “opportunities to cooperate with the Pakistani government to combat these threats in the region.” India’s Ministry of External Affairs in its statement said, “The perpetrators of this heinous attack should be brought to justice expeditiously.”
However, the language the BLA used in justifying its attack was clearly borrowed from the intensifying propaganda emanating from Washington. The US has condemned China’s land reclamation activities in the South China Sea—in the face of provocative measures by the US and its allies, aimed at asserting the Pentagon’s “right” to park an armada off China’s coast—as “expansionist” and “militaristic.”
The Pentagon’s annual report to the US Congress in 2017, titled “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China,” claimed, “China most likely will seek to establish additional military bases in countries with which it has a longstanding friendly relationship and similar strategic interests, such as Pakistan.” The report, however, did not provide any evidence.
The BLA is probably the most prominent of the Balochi-nationalist separatist militant groups, alongside the Baloch Liberation Front. Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest, most resource rich and strategically located province, and simultaneously its poorest. The severe poverty in the province is a result of decades of negligence by Islamabad. The latest insurgency in Balochistan has been raging since 2004.
Not willing to offer anything other than violence, successive governments in Islamabad, and the military, instead respond with methods of enforced disappearances, torture and extra-judicial killings to all forms of opposition emerging in the province. The contempt with which Islamabad deals with the legitimate grievances of the impoverished population has fueled the growth of numerous Balochi nationalist militant groups.
However, the BLA’s move to build a suicide squad is a strong indication of the bankruptcy and crisis within the Balochi nationalist movement. It represents sections of the local bourgeois elite who hope to carve out a separate state so as to make their own deals with imperialism at the expense of the workers and toilers.
Balochistan’s workers and toilers cannot gain anything from the reactionary perspective of Balochi nationalism advanced by the BLA and other such organizations. Indeed, the violence carried out against Pashtun workers and other non-Balochi residents in Balochistan by the ethno-nationalist separatists is a clear expression of the anti-working class nature of the movement.
The attack on the consulate, however, is an ominous sign that CPEC will increasingly face the challenge of the Balochi nationalists.
While dramatically downgrading ties with Pakistan, Washington has showered India with strategic favors to entice it to transform itself into a frontline state against China. Finding itself increasingly politically and strategically isolated, Islamabad has responded by deepening ties with Beijing, especially in the face of the increasingly bellicose attitude of its rival, India. Islamabad is well aware that the CPEC is a cornerstone for its relations with China and has been ruthless in protecting it.
At the same time, Washington has made clear that it is only intensifying its offensive against Beijing, which was the message that US Vice President Mike Pence had for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit this month. Pakistan will no doubt come under increasing pressure to shut down the CPEC and distance itself from China. Under intense pressure from Washington, Khan said in November, prior to his trip to China that he would renegotiate the terms of CPEC, especially to move its focus from strategic issues to economic ones.
The CPEC, and along with it Balochistan, is increasingly dragged into US imperialism’s rivalry against China with disastrous consequences for the entire region.

US airstrikes kill at least 30 civilians in Afghanistan

Oscar Grenfell 

Local officials and residents have confirmed that US airstrikes on Tuesday night killed at least 30 civilians in southern Afghanistan’s Helmand Province.
These tragic deaths are the latest war crime in the 17-year US-NATO occupation, aimed at subjugating the geo-strategically critical nation to the dictates of the US and its allies. The strikes were part of a “surge” of US air attacks designed to terrorise the population and stem a deepening crisis of the Afghan government and security forces amid ongoing advances by Taliban fighters.
US and Afghan military officials claimed that the strikes were carried out after they came under fire from rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. As is invariably the case after killing civilians, US-NATO forces said they were targeting a “Taliban compound” in the Garmsir district, and that they were unaware civilians were in the area.
Local residents, however, told Reuters yesterday that all of those who perished were civilians. One, named Feda Mohammad, said: “The area is under the control of Taliban but all of the victims of last night’s bombing are civilians.” He stated that some of those hit by the strike are still buried under rubble.
Another resident, Mohammadullah, commented: “Foreign forces bombed the area and the bombs hit my brother’s house.” He said that the dead included women and 16 children.
Similar horrific incidents have taken place on a regular basis, especially since then senior US military commander in Afghanistan John Nicholson declared in October 2017 that “a tidal wave of air power is on the horizon.” He made the statement as the administration of President Donald Trump deployed dozens of additional UH-60 black hawk helicopters to US and Afghan forces.
According to US army statistics, American military aircraft dropped almost 3,000 bombs across Afghanistan over the first half of the year, or roughly 16 every day.
The figure was over five times larger than the number of bombs used in the first half of 2016, and twice the number dropped in the first six months of 2017. It was higher than in 2011, when, at the height of the Obama administration’s “surge” in Afghanistan, US forces dropped 2,300 bombs in the first half of the year.
In July alone, US troops used 746 munitions, the largest monthly figure since October 2010.
The result of the indiscriminate bombing has been a major increase in civilian deaths and injuries.
A UN report, released last month, found that civilian casualties from US and Afghan government airstrikes increased by 39 percent over the first nine months of the year, compared to the same period in 2017.
The 639 documented civilian casualties included 313 deaths and 336 injuries. Around 51 percent of the casualties were caused by US-NATO strikes and 38 percent by Afghan Air Force attacks. Women and children comprised more than 60 percent of the casualties. Child casualties from air raids were up 53 percent in the first nine months of the year, compared to the same period of 2017.
In July, for instance, US and Afghan airstrikes killed a family of 14 in the northern city of Kunduz, including women and three young children. US and NATO forces blithely denied that the victims were civilians.
In the last week of September, at least 24 civilians were killed by Afghan and US bombings in three separate incidents. In one case, nine members of a single family died when munitions hit a teachers’ home in the eastern province of Kapisa. The victims reportedly included elderly grandparents and children between the ages of two and 12.
The bombing campaign has coincided with a deepening crisis of the US-backed Afghan government. According to a report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction presented to Congress last month, the Afghan regime “controls or influences” only 55.5 percent of the country’s districts, compared with 72 percent in November 2015. The data indicated that the Taliban controls 12.5 of Afghanistan, with around 30 percent of the country “contested.”
It is widely reported, however, that the puppet Afghan government has control only over Kabul, the country’s capital.
Taliban advances have reportedly decimated the Afghan army, which is largely composed of economic conscripts amid widespread unemployment and terrible poverty. Afghan security forces numbered 312,328 in July, down by almost 9,000 in the space of a year. The total was the lowest since 2012. 
NATO has responded by bolstering the number of Western “military advisors” to Afghan forces. In August, Britain began deploying 440 additional military personnel to “assist” the Afghan army, including to provide security in Kabul.
US and NATO troops have been hit by a spike in casualties. On Tuesday, three US soldiers were killed, by an explosive device in the southeastern province of Ghazn. Three others and a military contractor were wounded in the incident, which had the highest US casualty toll in almost a year-and-a-half. Three days earlier, a US ranger was shot dead in the southwestern province of Nimroz during a firefight with militants.
The casualties threaten to undermine the Trump administration’s attempts to force a negotiated settlement to the war with the Taliban.
While Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Special Envoy has reportedly held recent talks with Taliban officials on brokering a “peace process,” China and Russia have organised their own negotiations for an end to the conflict. Each country is jockeying for influence in the country, amid mounting geo-strategic conflicts and a deepening crisis of the US occupation of Afghanistan, America’s longest war.

28 Nov 2018

JRD-Tata Fellowships 2019 for Visiting Scientists from Developing Countries – India

Application Deadlines: 
  • 30th April 2019
  • 31st October 2019
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): India

About the Award: The Fellowship provides an opportunity for young scientists, teachers and researchers from the developing countries to undertake research studies in India. It covers short-term, participatory research studies in all major disciplines of science and technology including engineering and medical sciences at premier research institutions in India. The Fellowship awardees are provided considerable freedom in availing the opportunity and formulating the contents of
their research work in India.

The Fellowship Applications will be scrutinized twice a year in May and November by a selection committee. On successful completion of the program, the awardees are required to submit a brief report to the centre and participate in subsequent feedback requirements on the usefulness of the program in their home country

Type: Fellowships

Eligibility: 
  • Applicant (other than Indian) possessing Doctorate or Master’s Degree in Science or equivalent degree in Engineering/ Medicine and allied disciplines, below 45 years of age (as on 31 December of the previous year of selection)
    affiliated to a scientific or academic institution in a developing country (Other than India).
  • Applicant must possess a valid passport.
Number of Awards: About 10 Fellowships are awarded annually.

Value of Award: Fellowship covers return airfare from place of work in their home country to place of work in India, boarding and lodging at the affiliated institution/s, and an adequate allowance in Indian currency to cover incidental expenses.

Duration of Program:  The maximum period of award will be for three months. The awardees are allowed to choose a fellowship period mutually convenient to them and the host institute.

How to Apply: The prescribed application can be downloaded from CICS website: http://www.cics.tn.nic.in

List of enclosures to accompany the application:-
a) A detailed curriculum vitae containing the date of birth & age, applicant’s research interest and experience, publications (only those in referred journals), present position, scientific affiliations, awards and scholarships etc.
b) A brief write-up describing the proposed research work.
c) Reprints of 5 best publications (past 5 years)
d) Two passport size photographs.
e) Copy of degree certificate for highest qualification.
f) A letter of consent from Parent Institution
g) Copy of first page of passport showing date of birth, date of issue and date of expiry
h) Letter of acceptance from the Host Institution in India (Please obtain acceptance letter from the Host Institute as per the format in the pg 6)

Applications should be forwarded by the competent authority.
Selected candidates must obtain permission from their parent institutions for undergoing training in India
Selected candidates must obtain Indian Visa for the proposed period of research upon advice from CICS.



Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Van der Veen-Schenkeveld Scholarship 2019/2020 for Female African Theologians – The Netherlands

Application Deadline: 1st April 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): The Netherlands

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To be eligible for this scholarship the student should meet the criteria listed below:
  • Admission to the international Master of Theology programme of the PThU;
  • Be female;
  • Be a native African;
  • Preferably be under 35 years of age;
  • Have an excellent study record and be committed to furthering the cause of African women.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Full scholarship

Duration of Programme: 1 year

How to Apply: 
  • You can apply for a scholarship by sending a letter to the Board of the Protestant Theological University before April 1, 2019.
  • The address of the Board may be found here. Please send your scholarship application by e-mail to: a.s.nijboer@pthu.nl.
  • GOODLUCK!
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

ifa CrossCulture Internship Programme 2019 for Young Leaders in North Africa

Application Deadline: 21st December 2018

Eligible Countries: 
  • Islamic countries: Target groups in the Islamic countries are young professionals and volunteers in various areas of civil society and multipliers who are engaged in the key areas of (social) political development.
  • Germany: For German candidates, the target groups are employees of the corresponding host organisations as well as young professionals and volunteers committed to fields of work in which intercultural experience is crucial.
About the Award: The programme enables scholarships for young professionals and volunteers from the participating countries and from Germany. International experience is gained and intercultural competence developed through work stays in another culture. CrossCulture scholarships open up and strengthen the exchange between people, institutions and cultures and thus enable an enhanced partnership between Germany and 30 Islamic countries in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, South and Southeast Asia.
Scholarships within the CrossCulture Programme are offered in the following work areas:
  • Politics & Society
  • Human Rights & Peace Building
  • Sustainable Development
  • Media & Culture
Type: Training

Eligibility: Requirements for taking part in the CrossCulture Programme (CCP) include a good command of English and a permanent involvement in an organisation or institution in one’s own country. Knowledge of the German language is an additional qualification, not a requirement. Applicants should be aged between 23 to 45 years. Currently enrolled university students will not be considered for selection. Furthermore the applicants must be in good health. Their physical as well as mental working capacity must be sufficient for the requirements of a longer stay abroad and the essential work requirements of the internship.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:  The interns’ travel and subsistence expenses are covered by the programme funds. This includes a monthly grant of 550 Euro, travel costs to Germany and urban local traffic, as well as visa fees, health insurance and accommodation. The latter is either a private room in a shared flat (according to gender), a private room in a host family or a small furnished apartment. Accommodation includes cost for electricity, water and heating; whereas telephone and internet facilities are not included.
  • In addition to further professional development and specialist training, the programme participants also gain an insight into the social and political structures of the host country and become acquainted with cultural characteristics and behavioural patterns through integration into working and everyday life.
  • They make important contacts which they can use when they return to their home country for future collaboration.
  • CrossCulture fellows returning home can offer a valuable contribution to their respective organisations thanks to the experience they have gained abroad. This intercultural exchange thus sustainably strengthens the formation of networks between Germany and the Islamic countries and encourages cross-border dialogue and cooperation.
Duration of Program: Professional fellowships are awarded for a period of eight to twelve weeks in the following terms:
  • Spring term; April to June 2019
  • Summer term; July to September 2019
  • Autumn term; October to December 2019
How to Apply: 
  • Applications for CCP are to be submitted online via the application portal. Please pay attention to the technical requirements before applying.
  • GOODLUCK!
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

List of Countries (Universities) to Study Abroad Without TOEFL/IELTS for International Students

Application:

Find the list of countries in this order:
  1. America
  2. EU Countries except UK
  3. United Kingdom (UK)
  4. Asia
  5. Australia

AMERICA

USA

Interestingly, few schools in the US are known to exempt students from certain countries from presenting English proficiency test scores. International students whose national language is English often don’t need to take the TOEFL/IELTS. It now becomes important for students seeking admission into their choice schools to check the websites of the schools and generally research deeply about the schools before applying. Researching your school makes the admission process easier and less complicated.
These are some of the schools in the US that do not require TOEFL/IELTS on certain conditions

1) University of Colorado: International students applying to the University of Colorado are required to meet a minimum standard of English proficiency except a) the student’s native language is English b) the applying student has completed at least one year of full-time academic study at a U.S. institution. However, countries like Botswana, Ghana, South Africa and Nigeria are exempted from this arrangement. Students from these countries are NOT required to have TOEFL OR IELTS scores.

2) California State University: The California State University is a public university system in California. For admission in this university, international students need not produce a TOEFL/IELTS score if they have attended secondary school or/and graduate school with English as their medium of instruction. There are also a few countries for whose students they have waived the minimum English requirement.

3) Drexel University: Drexel University is a private research university with campuses in Philadelphia and California. Drexel University has two conditional admission programs i.e. University Preparation Summer Program (UPREP) and Bridge Program for international students who don’t meet the language requirement.

4) State University of New York: The State University of New York is a public university system in Albany, New York. The university grants admission to international students provided they undertake the Intensive English Language Program (IELP).

5) University of Iowa: The University of Iowa is a public research university based in Iowa City, Iowa. The university grants admission to students who are eligible but do not meet the English proficiency requirement.

6) University of Arkansas: The University of Arkansas is a public research university located in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Eligible international students need not produce TOEFL/IELTS scores; instead they must undertake the Intensive English Language Program (IELP).

7) University of Dayton: The University of Dayton is a private Roman Catholic national research university based in Dayton, Ohio. The university grants conditional admission to international students who are eligible but do not meet the university’s language requirement. They are required to undertake the Intensive English Language Program (IELP).

8) University of Delaware: The University of Delaware is a public university located in Delaware. The university will accept international students who are admissible except for English proficiency.

9) University of New Orleans: The University of New Orleans is a public urban university located in New Orleans, Louisiana, US. The university offers conditional admission for international students with secondary education or degrees from certain countries.

BELIZE


University of Belize: Belize is the only country in Central America whose official language is English. The University of Belize and a few other universities in Belize do not require TOEFL/IELTS from students coming from English-speaking countries. The higher institution has a selective admission policy which is based on students’ past academic record and grades. Other proof of proficiency in English language may be provided apart from TOEFL/IELTS.

CANADA

Brock University, Carleton University, University of Winnipeg, University of Regina, Memorial University, Concordia University.
Many universities in Canada do not require TOEFL/IELTS for admission. Essentially, students who have lived and attended school, for at least four years, in a country where English is the acknowledged primary language do not need to submit additional proof of proficiency. International students are usually required to have well above-average academic records, SAT/GRE scores and other university-specific requirements appropriate to the program they wish to pursue.
Canadian universities realise that students who have completed their degrees from a recognized educational institution and have received their instructions in English often show a good degree of English knowledge – be it reading, writing or speaking skills. Hence, they felt it made sense to do away with the requirement of an English language proficiency test like the IELTS that has a minimum score requirement of 6.0, to make it easy for students to apply for higher education in Canada.

EU COUNTRIES EXCEPT UK

Getting admission to the top universities or colleges in Europe without an English proficiency score will require international students to fulfill some criteria before they are exempted from providing these scores. A student showing some proficiency in English language can prove his eligibility by proving:
  1. One has been educated in English medium during the five most recent years of study and has offered English as a first language at the IGCSE (International General Certificate of Secondary Education) or O level (Ordinary Level).
  2. He/she has been able to prove that prior education was entirely conducted in English and that they have good communication skills. Usually, the school conducts interviews with the student via Skype or telephone to verify the student’s proficiency.
  3. Applying to study in the same institution where the first degree was awarded.
  4. Having a degree which has been taught solely in English.
Few schools in European countries such as Norway, Holland and Germany are known to offer the privilege of applying without IELTS.

NORWAY

University of Oslo: At the University of Oslo, only students from South Africa in Africa are overlooked in the English language requirement. Other students from Africa may be asked for TOEFL/IELTS scores. However, international students are required to check the requirements of their courses in the desired university before they apply as they may be lucky to find some courses that are free from TOEFL/IELTS requirements.

GERMANY

College admission requirements in German Universities vary between universities. Usually students do not need a TOEFL or IELTS if they hold a bachelor’s degree with English as language of instruction or if their mother tongue is English. Some, universities just require letter from the student’s college to verify English Language Proficiency. There are specific language requirements for admission to different programs in Universities like Freie Universität Berlin. As a result,while some courses do not require English language proficiency, others do. The requirements for courses in English Philology for example, are met only if the language test is passed. Students are required to check the requirements of their courses in the desired university before they apply as they may be lucky to find some courses that are free from TOEFL/IELTS requirements.

HOLLAND

Inholland University: Inholland University of Applied Sciences in Holland notably accepts students from South Africa who wish to study in the University without IELTS or TOEFL. Students from other countries may be required to present evidence of English proficiency because these countries are  generally classed as non-english speaking countries.

UNITED KINGDOM (UK)

University of Bristol, The University of Bolton, London SouthBank University, Robert Gordon University etc.
Countries like Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa enjoy robust attention from the above listed universities and many more (Request for information from your desired school about their English requirements. This is certainly the best way to go about your admission process). The result is that the entry requirements for students of these countries do not often require IELTS/TOEFL. However, different courses/programmes need different levels of language skills. These language skills can be referred to as ‘profiles’. The profile for an international student’s chosen course/ career may need English, country-preference or not.

ASIA

MALAYSIA

Malaysian University and colleges are world wide recognized. Malaysia is considered as the top most country in Asia after Singapore to study and also the 11th most-preferred study destination. Malaysia has excellent Government Universities like University of Malaya, University Sans Malaysia etc. It also has campuses of many top Universities across the globe like: Monash and Swinburne (Australia), Nottingham and Lancaster Campus (UK) etc. There is no compulsory requirement of English test for studying Bachelor’s, Master’s or PhD courses in multi-ethnic Malaysia. The medium of Instruction in over 80% of  Malaysian Universities is English. As a result of this, students who come from certified English-speaking countries are not required to present TOEFL/IELTS scores wen applying for admission into Malaysian universities. 

INDIA

India has traditionally been seen as a country that sends rather than receives international students, but a growing number of students from elsewhere are now choosing to study in India. There are thousands of colleges and universities in India to choose from, of many different types, sizes, specializations and origins, some state-run, others private. Amongst the thousand universities,  University of Delhi, the University of Mumbai, the University of Calcutta and Banaras Hindu University are some of the popular universities, Africans troop into for quality education and guess what? These universities do not require English language proficiency for their Undergraduate, Masters, PhD and Postdoctoral taught courses. The teaching language at most Indian universities is English especially in management, scientific and technical subjects
Most international students in India do not have to take entrance tests but will receive preferential treatment. Generally, interested students are required to present a higher education entrance qualification. Students will be accepted to a university on the basis of their higher education entrance qualification. In return the students have to pay higher fees, which explains the special treatment.
The need for IELTS/TOEFL scores as an admisssion requirement in Indian universities is absent for now.

AUSTRALIA

Universities in Australia occasionally overlook the need of TOEFL/IELTS scores if the student’s secondary school language of instruction was English, or if they have completed few years of studies in an English speaking country. Also, certain graduate universities may admit students without a TOEL/IELTS score if authorities from their undergraduate university can certify that their medium of instruction was English.
Here are a few Universities that may admit students without TOEFL/IELTS

1) Swinburne University of Technology: In Swinburne University of Technology, international students don’t need to have IELTS/TOEFL scores provided they study English at the Swinburne English Language Centre, or if they have had English as their language of instruction in their previous education. The university offers undergraduate and graduate courses in Business Administration and Management, Technology, Science, Marketing, Commerce, Accounting, etc.

2) The University of Queensland: International students without an IELTS/TOEFL score may be admitted if they have completed full-time course where they had English as their medium of instruction, or if they have worked in an English-speaking professional environment for a minimum of 5 years.

3) The University of Adelaide: The University admits international students without the level of English required only if they complete a Pre-enrolment English Program (PEP) successfully before the beginning of their course. This is an ideal option for international students without the appropriate English training. The University arranges the PEP to be undertaken at the English Language Centre in Adelaide.

4) The University of New South Wales: The University of New South Wales takes in students who fail to meet the minimum standard requirement; hence they are very selective with their international students’ conditional applications

5) The University of Southern Queensland: The University doesn’t require an IELTS/TOEFL score for consideration, instead a high/secondary school or college completion with English as medium of instruction. The University website also suggests undertaking the USQ pathways program for admission to the university.

6) Bond University: The University offers various alternatives to the IELTS/TOEFL tests such as CAE, PTE. The university also admits international students who have completed their secondary education in an institution where the medium of instruction is English.

8) Macquarie University: The University may conditionally give its eligible international students without an IELTS/TOEFL scores an English preparation program at the Macquarie University English Language Centre.