Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the forgotten history of Iraq

Andre Damon

US President Donald Trump announced the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Sunday morning with a bloodlust and brutality never before heard from an American president.

“He died like a dog… whimpering, screaming and crying,” Trump declared. He added that the footage of the US Army raid, which he watched live, was “something really amazing to see… as though you were watching a movie.” According to the White House, this would have included Baghdadi blowing himself up along with three of his children.

The president, the supposed “leader of the free world,” gloated over Baghdadi’s corpse like a common thug, in language almost calculated to incite reprisals.

There is no doubt Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi carried out monstrous crimes. The organization that he led has murdered thousands of people. But within the media and the political establishment, there is total silence over the circumstances that created him. The general line is that Trump’s assassination operation is to be lauded, but that it only demonstrates that the administration is wrong to pull troops out of Syria and the Middle East, or to criticize the US military-intelligence apparatus.

This position was laid out by the New York Times, whose correspondent David Sanger wrote on the newspaper’s front-page Monday that the raid “vindicated the value of three traditional American strengths: robust alliances, faith in intelligence agencies and the projection of military power around the world.”

The outcome of the raid, Sanger wrote, “did little to quell doubts about the wisdom of [Trump’s] push to reduce the United States military presence in Syria.”

The Times, speaking for the Democratic Party, would like the world to forget the real and bloody history of American imperialist operations in Iraq and the broader Middle East, euphemistically referred to as “the projection of US military power,” out of which ISIS emerged. As for Baghdadi himself, whether an enemy of the United States, a CIA asset, or both, one thing is certain: he is a byproduct of criminal actions by the US government spanning four decades.

Baghdadi was born in 1971, near Samarra, Iraq. During his teenage years, Iraq, backed by the US, waged a war with Iran that cost millions of lives and left both countries traumatized.

He was twenty years old in 1991, when the US, under the first Bush administration, invaded Iraq and carried out a military slaughter that left over 100,000 Iraqis dead. This was followed by a decade of trade and economic sanctions, under the Clinton administration, that killed an estimated 500,000 children.

Then came the invasion of 2003, launched by the second Bush administration. This war was aimed at the predatory plunder of a largely defenseless country for its oil reserves, and based on outright lies, swallowed whole by the media and the Democratic Party. Before the eyes of the entire world, the United States carried out a war of aggression, for which those responsible should have been hauled before war crimes tribunals.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq caused death and destruction on a scale described by the WSWS as “sociocide”—the murder of an entire society. Iraq, once one of the most advanced and developed countries in the Middle East, was blown apart by the US invasion. More than a million people were killed, and millions more turned into refugees.

In 2004, Baghdadi was detained at the Abu Ghraib prison complex, notorious for the horrific mass torture and rape of detainees by American troops. He subsequently spent nearly five years imprisoned at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq before being released by the US Department of Defense.

In 2007, journalist Seymour Hersh described a “redirection” in US foreign policy. “To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East... The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups” that are “sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

The subsequent US-backed “revolution” in Syria, largely directed by Obama, was the product of this “redirection,” which saw the United States funnel arms and money to Islamist forces, many with close ties to Al Qaeda.

In 2013, Baghdadi announced the founding of the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” and took control of most of the foreign fighters of Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda), which the Times reported was playing a “key role” in the US government’s efforts to overthrow the Assad regime.

The Times warned the US against an explicit rejection of the Al Qaeda-linked group, writing that “it would pit the United States against some of the best fighters in the insurgency that it aims to support.” The Times noted that many “Syrian rebels… work closely with it and admire it.”

None of this history has made its way into the current commentary of the New York Times, the Washington Post or the broadcast news networks.

As part of their efforts to frame all opposition to Trump as support for war, the media and the Democratic Party want no accounting of the horrific crimes carried out by the United States. They want to wipe away from memory the millions dead, the photos of torture, the evidence of war crimes.

In 1990, when the Democratic Party still felt compelled to adapt itself to the mass anti-war sentiment that persisted for decades after the Vietnam debacle, virtually all its senators voted against a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq (but which still, as the Democrats knew it would, passed). A decade later, millions of people in the United States and all over the world marched against the Iraq war in 2003, in the largest coordinated global demonstrations in history. But these demonstrations were stifled by their subordination to the Democratic Party, which, 16 years later, has emerged as the most determined advocate of US military involvement in the Middle East.

In its response to the killing of Baghdadi, as with the killing of bin Laden, the media is appealing to and attempting to whip up the most primitive and reactionary instincts. If they have their way, it will be the occasion for even more bloodletting and violence.

The real history of US imperialist violence in Iraq will not be forgotten by the working class, nor will the present and future crimes go unopposed. The deep and abiding hostility to war must be connected to the growth of class struggle in a powerful movement to do away with imperialist barbarism and hold to account those who are responsible.

Chinese president visits Nepal as tensions with the US sharpen

Rohantha De Silva

Chinese President Xi Jinping made a two-day visit to Nepal on October 12 and 13—the first such tour since former Chinese President Jiang Zemin travelled to Kathmandu in 1996.

Xi’s visit underscores the growing geopolitical rivalry between China and the US throughout the Indo-Pacific region as Washington seeks to maintain its global hegemony and undermine Beijing’s economic and political influence in Asia.

In Nepal, Xi met Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli and President Bidya Devi Bandari as well as Pushpa Kamal Dahal, co-chairman of the newly amalgamated Stalinist Nepal Communist Party.

Underscoring the importance of Nepal to China, Xi declared that “China and Nepal are bound by mountains and rivers, and stay as close as lips and teeth.” He promised $US493 million in aid for 2020-2022 to “uplift the living standard of Nepali people”.

Xi was in Nepal after his visit to India where he met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Indian foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale told the media that the two leaders discussed “terrorism and radicalisation” and trade issues but issued no joint statement, underlining the continuing rivalry and distrust between the two regional powers.

In Nepal, however, China signed 20 agreements, including related to infrastructure, port, energy, and tourism. The most critical was an agreement to conduct a feasibility study for an ambitions Chinese-built railway to Nepal through the Himalayan mountains.

The proposed cross-border railway covering 70 kilometres of extremely inhospitable terrain, would connect Kerang in the Chinese region of Tibet with Nepal's capital, Kathmandu, and would pave the way for closer political and economic relations.

Xi declared that the link would help Kathmandu “realise its dream of becoming a land-linked country from a landlocked one.” Nepal has been heavily dependent on India for its connections to the world, but growing frictions between the two countries have driven sections of the Nepali ruling elite to look to Beijing to break New Delhi’s monopoly.

Nepal’s relations with India took a downward turn in 2015 when the Modi government used the agitation by ethnic Madhesi in the southern Terai region of Nepal for greater autonomy, and imposed a five-month fuel blockade.

A proposal for China and Nepal to sign an extradition treaty, mainly targeting Tibetan dissidents, was dropped because it could draw international and domestic opposition. However, Nepal accepted that “Tibetan matters” are China’s internal affairs and promised not to allow “any anti-China activities on its soil.”

Nepali authorities are helping the Beijing law enforcement agencies in tracking and deporting Tibetan dissidents. There are around 20,000 Tibetan refugees living in Nepal, including 9,000 in the capital who are banned from criticizing China or showing support for the Dalai Lama.

Xi warned: “[A]nyone attempting to split China in any part of the country will end in crushed bodies and shattered bones.” Given that he was speaking in Nepal, the message was clearly directed against Tibetan dissidents in particular, as well as protesters in Hong Kong and separatist movements elsewhere in China.

China and Nepal also agreed to expand the security cooperation between the two countries. Four of the signed documents related to law enforcement, including on border management, the supply of border security equipment, mutual legal assistance, and collaboration between Nepal’s Attorney General and China’s Prosecutor General.

Nepal has already joined China’s Internet service, ending India’s monopoly on cyber connectivity in the country. Though New Delhi is still Kathmandu’s largest trading partner, Beijing is investing heavily in Nepal. Kathmandu recently signed a transit treaty with Beijing to use Chinese ports for its foreign trade, so as to reduce dependence on Indian ports.

Kathmandu is a partner of China’s Road and Belt Initiative (BRI) designed by Beijing to counter the aggressive encirclement pursued by the US and its allies and to open up trade and investment opportunities. This program involves up to $1.4 trillion in rail and road infrastructure to create a rapid-transit route overland from China across Russia, Central Asia, and the Middle East to Europe and seen by Kathmandu as a big opportunity.

As part of strengthening military relations between the two countries, Nepalese army chief General Puma Chandra Thapa visited China in June for a week-long visit. The two countries have already held two military exercises, the second one last September, after Nepal withdrew from joint military exercises in India at the last minute.

New Delhi, which considers Nepal as its backyard, is concerned about its relations with its strategic rival China. The Indian government has been attempting to repair the damaged relations caused by the 2015 economic blockade on Nepal.

Last August Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Kathmandu and signed several agreements providing financial assistance. This August Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar visited Nepal to co-chair the fifth meeting of the Nepal-India Joint Commission with Nepal Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali. India also handed over two cheques totalling 3.74 billion rupees [$US53 million].

New Delhi also agreed to funding a 3.24 billion rupee oil pipeline with Kathmandu. This project, with annual capacity of 2 million metric tonnes, was opened on September 10.

China’s main concern with India is its strategic partnership with the US which is directed mainly against Beijing and aimed at securing Washington’s dominance in the Indo-Pacific Region. India has signed agreements with the US to open its bases to the US military, and holds joint military exercises with US and its allies including Japan and Australia.

The Indo-Pacific Strategy Report (IPSR) published in June by the US Department of Defence spelled out Washington’s interest in Nepal. It stated that in South Asia, the Pentagon is “working to operationalise our Major Defence Partnership with India” and “pursuing emerging partnerships with Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bangladesh, and Nepal.”

A statement issued after Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi held discussions with Nepal Communist Party Co-Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal in early September declared that the Kathmandu government “disapproves of the so-called US ‘Indo-Pacific strategy’.”

Dahal led the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) until it amalgamated with its electoral ally, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) in May 2018. The Maoists conducted a guerilla war for more than a decade before exchanging their weapons for parliamentary seats in a deal brokered by India in 2006. They have been instrumental in propping up bourgeois rule in Nepal for more than a decade.

The ruling elites in Kathmandu are trying to balance between US, China and India amid growing geopolitical tensions and the threat of war. Nevertheless, Nepal, which is strategically located in the underbelly of China, is being inexorably drawn into this maelstrom.

The murder of Baghdadi and Washington’s crisis in the Middle East

Bill Van Auken

Donald Trump’s Sunday morning speech announcing the targeted assassination of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was another degrading spectacle expressing the criminalization of the US government and the terminal crisis of American democracy.

Trump reveled in what he described as the “ruthless,” “vicious” and “violent” killing of the ISIS leader, claiming that he died like a “coward” and a “dog.”

Describing Baghdadi and his followers as both “losers” and “savage monsters,” Trump asserted that, as a result of the US special operations raid into Syria, “the world is a safer place.”

This is, of course, all nonsense. The strategic value of Baghdadi’s death is negligible. By all accounts, he was by the time of his killing a sick man who had been badly wounded in a 2017 air strike, forced into hiding and playing little role in the operations of ISIS. All that will come from his assassination and from Trump’s thuggish and provocative rhetoric is another wave of terrorist violence.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi delivering a sermon at a mosque in Iraq. (Militant video via AP, File)

Trump’s only real interest in ordering the killing was securing a “safer place” for himself in the Oval Office under conditions where he has come under increasingly sharp attack from within the US ruling establishment and its military and intelligence apparatus over his policy in the Middle East.

As with the 2011 targeted killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, it is likely that the account given of Baghdadi’s death will over time prove to be largely fabricated.

As for “monsters,” there is no question that Baghdadi and ISIS carried out monstrous acts in the course of the movements’s ascendency in and subsequent conquest of large portions of Iraq and Syria. But both were ultimately the creation of US imperialism’s unending wars in the Middle East, beginning with the 1991 Persian Gulf War and followed by the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the 2003 “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq, the wars for regime change in Libya and Syria and the so-called war against ISIS itself.

These wars have killed millions, while driving tens of millions from their homes, creating the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. The war crimes committed by US imperialism in the Middle East far eclipse the atrocities carried out by ISIS, which were merely one of their poisonous byproducts. The brutal and backward ideology of Baghdadi and ISIS could gain a following only through the obliteration of Iraqi society and the deliberate provocation of sectarian conflicts.

Baghdadi’s own trajectory makes this clear. He joined the Sunni rebellion against the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 and was detained by US forces in 2004 during the siege of Fallujah. He was held for 11 months in the infamous US prison and torture center at Abu Ghraib and subsequently at Camp Bucca, where Islamists captured by the American military were allowed to recruit and train adherents. He was then released.

He emerged as the leader of a group in Iraq that was affiliated with Al Qaeda, an organization that itself was a product of the CIA-orchestrated war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It was able to grow amid Sunni disaffection with the American occupation and subsequently the repressive policies carried out by the US-backed regime in Baghdad, which was led by Shia sectarian parties.

By 2013, it moved into Syria, gaining arms, funding and recruits thanks to the US-NATO-backed regime change operation, which relied on Islamist militias as its proxy ground troops. It could gain a disoriented following for its reactionary sectarian ideology internationally only thanks to the decades of US crimes against predominantly Muslim countries.

The organization known as ISIS became a problem for Washington only after it surged back across Iraq’s western border, seizing roughly a third of the country from the corrupt US-backed regime.

Baghdadi was someone not only known to the US intelligence agencies, but by all evidence an asset of at least one of their factions. He had played a useful role in the sectarian divide-and-rule strategy in Iraq and the regime change war in Syria.

His death came about not because he was suddenly discovered in his hideout in Syria’s northwestern province of Idlib, the last redoubt of the former Al Qaeda-led forces of the CIA-funded “Free Syrian Army.” Rather, it was because previous protection was withdrawn. Once whatever elements within the CIA or military intelligence were convinced that Baghdadi was no longer more useful alive than dead, his fate was sealed.

This was patently the case with bin Laden in 2011, who had been ensconced in a walled compound in Abbottabad, where he was a ward of Pakistani military intelligence.

The timing of Baghdadi’s death was entirely political. Trump’s green-lighting earlier this month of the Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria and his partial pullout of US troops from the region had triggered a political firestorm in Washington, not only eroding his support within the Republican Party as he faces impeachment, but also provoking what amounted to a near mutiny within the military brass.

He has attempted to counter this opposition not only with the Baghdadi assassination, but also by sending US troops back into Syria with the mission of “securing” the country’s oil fields. An armored unit, reportedly comprised of 30 Abrams tanks and 500 support troops, is being sent into northeastern Syria for that purpose.

Trump stated that US troops “may have to fight for the oil” in a region where Turkish, Russian, Syrian government, Kurdish and Sunni Islamist forces are all operating in close proximity. He added that he may “make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies” to go in and exploit it “properly.”

Trump used the occasion to also reprise his condemnation of the US war Iraq on the grounds that Washington did not “keep the oil.”

While confirming the real motive for the wars launched in the name of fighting terrorism and “weapons of mass destruction”—securing US hegemony over strategic oil-producing regions—Trump also provided a blunt explanation of why he and significant layers within the US ruling class want a strategic shift from the wars in the Middle East.

“We’re in that Middle East now for $8 trillion,” he said, adding, “I’ll tell you who loves us being there, Russia and China. Because while they build their military, we’re depleting our military there.”

Behind Trump’s demagogic vows to bring an end to Washington’s “forever wars” lies a strategic orientation to preparing for war against the US’s principal “great power” rivals, nuclear-armed Russia and China.

There is little evidence that the killing of Baghdadi will have even the extremely limited impact on popular consciousness produced by the assassination of bin Laden.

Within the bourgeois media and the leadership of the Democratic Party, however, it has produced the desired effect. Typical of the media’s reaction was the statement of ABC correspondent Terry Moran, who described the killing as “a big victory for the president” and affirming that “this is the kind of presidential leadership that people do expect.”

It may be the leadership that the media’s talking heads expect, but there is no reason to malign the entire American people by claiming that what they want from Washington are more extrajudicial killings.

As for the Democrats, all of their congressional leaders described the killing as a major victory, while using it to argue for continuing the US wars in the Middle East. Bernie Sanders, the supposedly left candidate for the party’s presidential nomination, tweeted his approval of the assassination of the “murderer and terrorist,” while hailing the “brave efforts of the Kurds and other US allies.”

Adam Schiff, who is leading the impeachment investigation against Trump, was typical of the Democratic response. He described the murder as an “operational success,” while lamenting the fact that Trump had failed to provide prior notice to the congressional leadership.

“Had this escalated, had something gone wrong, had we gotten into a fire fight with the Russians, it’s to the administration’s advantage to say, ‘We informed Congress we were going in, they were aware of the risks,’” he said.

But while Schiff was arguing the value of congressional cover for an operation that could have escalated into World War Three, Trump was insisting that he did not tell Democrats in Congress about the planned killing because they could have leaked the information, i.e., that his political opponents are “traitors.”

To the extent that the media and the Democrats criticized Trump, it was in large measure by contrasting his reckless rhetoric to Obama’s supposedly dignified treatment of the killing of bin Laden.

The reality is that Obama bequeathed to the fascistic presidency of Donald Trump an apparatus and pseudo-legal justification for targeted assassinations across the globe, including against US citizens.

Under conditions of a mass upsurge that has seen millions take to the streets to demand an end to capitalist oppression and social inequality—from Chile to Lebanon—along with a resurgence of strikes in the US by autoworkers, teachers and other sections of the working class, the danger is that extra-judicial killings will be increasingly utilized as a tool of social repression both at home and abroad.

The attempt by Trump—abetted by the Democrats and the media—to promote the killing of Baghdadi as a “unifying moment” will be immediately eclipsed by the inexorable intensification of the class struggle in the US and around the globe. The critical task is arming this growing movement with an international socialist program.

French Government’s Make Our Planet Great Again Postdoctoral Program 2020 for Researchers

Application Deadline: 4th November 2019

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Comoros Islands, Cuba, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire), Jordan, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Palestinian Territories, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, Saint-Lucia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

To be Taken at (Country): France

About the Award: France’s ministries of Europe and foreign affairs (MEAE) and of higher education, research, and innovation (MESRI) have implemented a program of support for foreign postdoctoral researchers wishing to conduct further research in France on a topic related to earth systems, climate change and sustainability, or the energy transition.

Type: Postdoctorate

Eligibility: 

• Foreign researchers holding a doctoral degree are encouraged to respond to this call for proposals. Candidates must include with their application a letter from a French host institution agreeing to host their research if the candidate’s proposal is accepted by the program.
• Candidates must possess a doctoral degree. They must not be French nationals and must not have been resident in France after September 1, 2018. Candidates may be of any age. The postdoctoral contract must take effect no later than March 31, 2020.
• The candidates must either come from one of the 56 countries listed above or propose a post-doctoral project that benefits one or several of the listed countries.

Selection Process: Consistent with the aims and requirements of this call for proposals, the selection process will unfold in two phases. In the first phase, scientific experts in the covered fields will evaluate the applications received. In the second phase, an international jury will make the final selection of candidates to receive support.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Institutions hosting the selected researchers will be financed up to:

• 75 000€ to support the candidates research over a period of 18 months
• 50 000€ to support the candidates research over a period of 12 months
• 25 000€ to support the candidates research over a period of 6 months.

Duration of Award: 6-18 months

How to Apply: Candidates must submit their research proposals online at https://campusfrance.smapply.io/prog/mopga_post_doctoral_second_call

Documents needed:

1. Your CV and the list of your publications in English ;
2.  Your PhD Diploma ;
3.  The CV of your postdoctoral supervisor ;
4.  The letter of commitment of the French host institution for hosting your post-doctorate (the host institution receives a financing a maximum of 75 000€ for 18 months) ;
5.  Letters of recommendation.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Google AI Residency Programme 2020 for Young STEM Graduates

Application Deadline: 19th December 2019

• The Google AI Residency Program will have 3 start dates over the course of 5 months, from June to October 2019. Exact dates are yet to be determined.

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: The Google AI Residency Program (formerly known as the Google Brain Residency Program) is a 12-month role designed to advance your career in machine learning research. Residents will work alongside distinguished scientists from various Research teams. The goal of the residency is to help residents become productive and successful AI researchers.
We created the Google Brain Residency Program in 2015, and we are now expanding it into a broader program that involves not just the Google Brain team, but a broader group of research teams doing machine learning research. Residents will have the opportunity to do everything from conducting fundamental research to contributing to products and services used by millions of people. We encourage our Residents to publish their work externally. Take a look at what some have done in previous years.
We are looking for people who want to learn to conduct machine learning research in collaboration with our researchers. You may have research experience in another field (e.g., mathematics, physics, bioinformatics, etc.) and want to apply machine learning to this area, or you may have limited research experience but, a desire to do more. Of course having machine learning research experience is great.
Current students will need to graduate from their current degree program before the residency begins. We encourage candidates from all over the world to apply. If a candidate requires a work visa, Google will explore what options are available on a case by case basis.

Type: Internships/Jobs

Eligibility: 
Minimum qualifications:

• BA/BS degree in a STEM field such as Computer Science, Mathematics or Statistics, or equivalent practical experience.
• Completed coursework in calculus, linear algebra, and probability, or their equivalent.
• Experience with one or more general purpose programming languages, including but not limited to: C/C++ or Python
• Experience with machine learning or deep learning, applications of machine learning to NLP, computer vision, speech, systems, robotics, algorithms, optimization, on-device learning, social networks, economics, information retrieval, journalism, or health care.

Preferred qualifications:

• Research experience in machine learning or deep learning (e.g., links to open-source work or link to novel learning algorithms).
• Strong open-source project experience that demonstrates programming, mathematical, and machine learning abilities and interest.

Selection Criteria: The research teams are looking for coding abilities in either Python or C++ and exposure to machine learning or deep learning; or applications of machine learning to NLP,  computer vision, speech, systems, robotics, algorithms, optimization, on-device learning, social networks, economics, information retrieval, journalism, or health care

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: All residents will be paid a competitive base salary and bonus.  If you need to relocate for the residency, Google will also provide a relocation bonus to assist you in the move to the Bay Area (or other location, if needed).

Duration of Program: 12 months

How to Apply: To apply, please read all instructions below and submit the following required materials:

• Resume
• Cover Letter
• Transcript

Your application should show evidence of proficiency in programming and in prerequisite courses, notable performance in competitions, or links to an open-source project that demonstrates programming and mathematical ability. Your application should present a interest in the field. This can be demonstrated through links to publications and blog posts, or implementations of one or more (even slightly) learning algorithms, including an explanation for what makes it novel.

Step 1
Prepare the following documents to complete your application:

• Current CV (including links to GitHub, papers and/or blogs if applicable).
• Cover letter including a statement on why you think you’d be great for the Google AI Residency Program.
• Transcripts from your most recent degree.

Step 2
Click on the “Apply” button on the page in Link below to provide the above required materials in the appropriate sections (PDFs preferred):

• In the “Resume Section:” attach an updated resume.
• In the “Optional Section:” attach your cover letter that includes a statement on why you think you’d be great for the Google AI Residency Program. This section is mandatory for the program even though it is optional, as noted on the website, for other jobs at Google.
• In the “Education Section:” attach a current unofficial or official transcript in English. (Under “Degree Status,” select “Now attending” to upload a transcript.)

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Google

Daikin-Samurai Incubate Africa Ideathon 2020 for African Entrepreneurs (Fully-funded)

Application Deadline: 20th November 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country): Nairobi, Kenya

About the Award: Daikin -Samurai Incubate Africa Ideathon’ is an initiative by the leading multinational AirConditioning brand DAIKIN and African early stage VC – Samurai Incubate. The Ideathon aims to find the 10 most innovative startups across Africa who are keen to partner and expand their business with Japanese partners. The startup holds a chance to get in a partnership with Daikin and an exciting chance to get funded by Samurai Incubate Africa.
In Africa, Daikin is interested in trying a completely new and innovative method to sell their products (such as pay-as-you-go/subscription payment model, securitization of the items and etc.) to allow ACs to be beneficial and installable for as many households/commercial properties/buildings as possible.
In fact, the quality of Daikin’s products is absolutely appraised worldwide without a question, but in addition, the company has strong know-hows for capacity building of local engineers for installment/repair/maintenance of ACs, and therefore strongly wishes to contribute to job creation and empowerment of African people as well.
Samurai Incubate Africa Inc., a Japanese venture capital firm focusing on investment into African startups, will co-organize ideathon with Daikin to find a great company to be invested in.
Are you operating in Africa, looking to find a Japanese partner to scale your business? This is an exclusive opportunity to introduce your company to a Japanese investor and the world’s largest AC company from Japan.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

• Your company is for-profit and registered as an independent legal entity;
• You have a product or service available on the market and generate revenue in the following business domains;
  • Fintech (Daikin has a special interest in collaborating with startups having mobile money/banking/payment/lending solutions)
  • E-Commerce
  • Property Tech / Real Estate Tech
  • Clean Energy
  • Air Tech
• Your product or service is designed for scale;
• You have a very strong management team of at least 2 people;
• Your company is based in or planning to expand into one or more countries on the African continent where there is a demand for air conditioners;
• You are seeking an opportunity to be a potential African partner for scaling your business as well as Daikin’s business penetration in Africa by collaboration and partnership;

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• All-expenses-paid trip (air ticket, accommodation and visa for up to two members of your team) to Nairobi on Dec 9-12, 2019
• Winner at the pitch event will have right to receive investment of $100,000-150,000 from Samurai Incubate Africa Inc.
• A few participants proposing great ideas of Daikin’s potential sales expansion during the ideathon will be invited to a committee in early 2020 in order to discuss partnership between the parties further in detail. Once the partnership is agreed and approved, you can commence Proof-of-Concept (POC) of such idea with budget fully covered by Daikin.

If you are selected as a participant startup, you are expected to:

• Prepare to explain why you could be a great African partner for Daikin and how your product / service can support Daikin’s business expansion
• Be prepared to travel to Nairobi in the period of December 9-12, 2019 to attend the event.
• If you are required a visa to travel to Kenya, take necessary procedures and acquire a visa before flying to Kenya. The visa fee will be reimbursed from us.

Duration of Award: Dec 9-12, 2019

How to Apply: Apply Here

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

British Council #IdeasChangeLives Challenge 2020 for Innovation Solutions to SDG Goals

Application Deadline: 10th January 2020 midnight GMT

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: We are looking for organisations, groups, or talented individuals, to work with us on creating hyper-innovative digital solutions.
You should have a vision for how your idea could improve the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.
This challenge gives you a genuine chance to change the world and improve the lives of some of the world’s most disadvantaged people – what’s your idea?
Your digital solution must help the world address one, or more, of these six SDGs:
SDG 4 – Quality education
SDG 5 – Gender equality
SDG 8 – Decent work and economic growth

Type: Contest

Eligibility: #IdeasChangeLives is open to individuals and companies of any size based anywhere in the world. You can enter as an individual, group of individuals, company, partnership, association or other organisation.

Number of Awards: 2

Value of Award: 

• Up to two winning entries will receive prizes of £20,000 each
• In addition, each winner will have the chance to work collaboratively with the British Council’s Digital, Partnerships and Innovation team to develop a minimum viable product (MVP) based on their idea.
• Once each MVP is ready, we will agree with the winner what the next phase of work is. From there we hope to develop a longer-lasting partnership, promoting the work through our network in more than 100 countries.

How to Apply: If you’re ready to enter, submit your idea here.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Heinrich Boll Foundation Scholarships 2020/2021 for International Students in Germany – Undergraduate, Masters & PhD

Application Deadlines:

•  1st March 2020
• 1st September 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Universities, Universities of Applied Sciences, or Universities of the Arts in Germany

Accepted Subject Areas: Any subject area is applicable

About Scholarship: The Heinrich Böll Foundation grants scholarships to approximately 1,000 undergraduates, graduates, and doctoral students of all subjects and nationalities per year, who are pursuing their degree at universities, universities of applied sciences (‘Fachhochschulen’), or universities of the arts (‘Kunsthochschulen’) in Germany.
The special focus regions for international students are Central and Eastern Europe; EU neighborhood countries and the CIS; the Middle East and North Africa; transition and newly industrialized countries; and conflict regions worldwide.

Selection Criteria: Scholarship recipients are expected to have excellent academic records, to be socially and politically engaged, and to have an active interest in the basic values of the foundation: ecology and sustainability, democracy and human rights, self determination and justice.

Eligibility: The following general requirements apply to international student applicants (except EU citizens) who wish to study in Germany:

• You must be enrolled at a state-recognized university or college (e.g. Fachhochschule) in Germany at the time the scholarship payments begin.
• You should provide proof that you have already graduated with an initial professional qualification. This programme mainly supports students aiming for a Masters degree.
• You need a good knowledge of German, and require you provide proof of your proficiency. Please note that the selection workshop (interviews, group discussions) will normally be in German. Exceptions (interview in English) are, however, possible.
• Unfortunately, the current guidelines specify that the foundation cannot support foreign scholarship holders for stays abroad in third countries for more than four weeks.
• You should definitely apply for a scholarship before the start of your studies, in order to ensure long-term support and cooperation.
• The Heinrich Böll Foundation cannot award you a scholarship, if you are studying for a one-year Masters degree and were not previously supported by the foundation.
• Applications are possible before you begin your study programme or within the first three semesters.
• Applicants must provide proof that they have been accepted as a doctoral student by an institution of higher education in Germany or an EU country (for doctoral scholarship).

Number of Scholarships: Approximately 1000

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarship will be offered for the duration of the undergraduate, Masters or Doctoral programme

How to Apply: The application form will be completed online; additional application documents will be submitted as PDF.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details 

NGOs are Too Weak to Halt the Catastrophic Pesticides Crisis

Georgina Downs 

So another day and another NGO report on pesticides that simply fails to deliver!

This latest one by the Soil Association and the lesser known PAN UK entitled “The Cocktail Effect” says that it “exposes for the first time” how pesticide mixtures may be harming the health of both humans and wildlife.

Well, actually, it doesn’t, as the harm to human health, wildlife and the wider environment from the cocktail effect of pesticides has long been raised by the campaign I run, the UK Pesticides Campaign, among other researchers, academics, and journalists. Indeed even the Soil Association itself has raised it for many years, and I first met the late Peter Melchett at an event specifically on the cocktail effect!

It is beyond dispute that agricultural pesticides can cause a wide range of both acute and chronic adverse health and environmental impacts. In relation to human health, this includes irreversible and permanent chronic effects, illnesses and diseases. Whilst operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides – such as use of personal protective equipment, respirators, and will be in filtered cabs – residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all.

Over ten and a half thousand people – mainly affected rural residents from across the UK – have signed a petition calling for a ban on the use of agricultural pesticides in locality of rural residents’ homes, schools, children’s playgrounds.

Yet bizarrely whilst the Soil Association and PAN UK report calls for a ban on the use of non-agricultural pesticides in locality of such areas, it does not do the same for agriculture, despite the fact that agriculture uses far more of the cocktails of pesticides that these NGOs are writing a report about! In fact in the non-agricultural setting pesticides are far more likely to be used individually not in mixtures. I was not surprised to see this contradiction and juxtaposition in the NGO report as this has been a long held and so called ‘strategy’ of PAN UK.

Yet to argue pesticides need to be banned for protection of urban residents, but to not have the same requirement for protection of rural residents health is ludicrous.

It should be noted that the non-agricultural use of pesticides is only around 4% of the annual pesticide use in this country compared to the whopping 80% used each year in relation to agriculture, which is by far and away the largest sector and for which, not surprising, the majority of adverse human health impacts are reported.

That is not to say non-agricultural use is not important to tackle, it is more the question why such NGOs are so dismally weak in comparison when it comes to the biggest user of these poisons in the UK – and which are used in untested and innumerable cocktails – and for which untold damage has already taken place.

The fact that the chemical poisoning of innocent rural citizens was ever permitted in the first place – let alone to continue for over three quarters of a century with no action – is a national disgrace. (In fact, as this public health scandal also goes on in the majority of other countries globally then it is indeed an international disgrace!)

Yet the latest NGO report as per usual calls for the same weak, compromising, and wholly inadequate measures of just “reducing” the use of these poisons in farming to “minimise” the adverse effects, along with some further research, monitoring, IPM (which is a system that still uses pesticides), and a pesticides tax.

Some of this language “reduction” and “minimisation” is the same as the Government when it comes to pesticides and falls way short of the – now very long overdue – urgent action that is needed to halt the catastrophic pesticides crisis

Further, as I pointed out in my previous article on the weakness of NGOs on these issues, such measures would also add even further delay to any real concrete action to truly protect both human health and the environment from pesticides and could even delay such necessary action for many years, even decades, to come.

NGOs have always been notorious for merely tinkering at the edges of the agricultural pesticide problem, but actually it runs far deeper than that, as unarguable evidence already exists of harm to human health, to bees and birds and the wider environment from the use of pesticides in our food production system.

Therefore, what these NGOs are in fact doing is not only misleading but highly damaging and would condemn us rural residents to an even longer pesticide fate!

Further, the pesticides reduction target advocated by these NGOs sends out completely the wrong message, as it is saying that it is okay to use these poisons in farming but just a bit less! When it was never okay to use such toxic chemicals for food production and certainly not for spraying in the locality of innocent rural residents and communities and which includes babies, children, pregnant woman, the elderly, those already ill and/or disabled, amongst other vulnerable groups.

Just to add that regarding monitoring, under existing pesticide laws no pesticide is supposed to be approved for use if it has not been established that there will be no immediate or delayed harm to human health. Therefore it should not be the case that toxic chemicals are approved and then monitoring reports the damage, but that any chemical that poses a risk to human health is not approved in the first place.

The principal aim of pesticide policy is clearly based on the risk of harm – not that harm has to have already occurred – and so no one should be put at risk of harm from pesticides. Further, if there is harm – which of course there is – then the necessary action is supposed to be taken by the Government to immediately stop that harm (eg. by prohibiting use) and not by just reducing it.

It is a criminal offence to knowingly expose someone to poison so there should not be any exemption on that for agriculture and therefore it needs urgently rectifying.

It is obviously hugely dismaying when NGOs – who often have no direct experience of the problem – fail to present accurate facts of the true dire state of affairs we are in as a result of the vast damage crop pesticides are already known to be causing to both people and planet. Urgent action is needed, not mere half measures and compromises that won’t solve anything. We are way past ‘starting points’, which is another term so favoured by numerous NGOs – none of which of course would be directly affected by the inadequate measures they advocate, as they would continue to exist, get their wages paid, get their funding coming in etc., (including for some of the environmental NGOs from the Government itself, as many NGOs have received funding from the Government, and over many years).

Yet it will continue to directly affect the many millions of rural residents living in the locality of crops sprayed with cocktails of poisonous pesticides year in year out

A 2017 UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food concluded that moving away from pesticide-reliant industrial agriculture to non-chemical farming methods should now be a political priority in all countries globally.

Further, rather surprisingly but most certainly welcome by rural communities was the comment made by DEFRA’s then Chief Scientific Advisor that pesticides need to be designed out of farming systems. When I highlighted this comment at a meeting with the Minister George Eustice he said he agreed with that position (not that that was reflected of course in the previous version of the Agriculture Bill!)

So here’s hoping that Parliamentarians in the Commons and Lords will get the chance to amend the latest version of the Agriculture Bill (when it is published) to reflect the health and environmental protections that are so urgently needed.

The new post Brexit UK Agriculture Bill and policy provides a real opportunity for the UK to clean up agriculture once and for all and adopt a non-chemical farming policy in order to no longer use toxic chemicals in the production of food.

This would then protect not only the health of rural residents and communities, but also the environment, wildlife, pollinators, amongst many other species.

The origins of traditional farming methods did not include dependence on chemical inputs for mass production. Such poisons should never have had any place in the air we breathe, food we eat, and the environment we live in.

Therefore it is a complete paradigm shift that is needed to move away from the use of pesticides in farming altogether. Such a move is absolutely integral to the health and existence of all those living in the British countryside, as well as other species that are being wiped out from the continued use of such toxic chemicals.

The chemical warfare in the countryside under the guise of ‘conventional farming’ has to stop – and not just a bit less – for the protection of us all now, and for future generations.

The Racial Wealth Divide Hurts the Entire Middle Class

Dedrick Asante-Muhammad

Americans are more aware than ever that America has a race problem — and, more specifically, a racial wealth divide problem. As researchers from the Institute for Policy Studies and I found earlier this year, median white families are 41 times wealthier than median Black families in the United States.

As our country becomes more diverse, this shocking racial wealth divide is no longer a challenge for disenfranchised minorities alone. It’s a threat to the entire American middle class.

Let me show you how.

Since the early 1980s, median wealth among Black and Latino families has been stuck at less than $10,000, while median white wealth has grown to $140,000. Yet in spite of this growing white wealth, this huge divide means that national median wealth has actually declined.

The racial wealth divide, in short, is weakening our country as a whole.

Contributing to this divide is ongoing racial inequality in the two largest assets in most Americans’ portfolios: business ownership and home-ownership.

For the last 40 years, Black and Latino home-ownership rates have stayed below 50 percent, while white home-ownership has remained steady at about 70 percent.

And although 13 percent of the U.S. population is Black, only 2 percent of U.S. businesses employing more than one person are Black-owned. Hispanics are 17 percent of the population but own just 6 percent of these businesses.

How do we fix this? By making smart investments.

The white middle class was built by major investments promoting education and home-ownership, among other things, after World War II. But African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans were almost entirely left out of these programs. Now these groups deserve significant investments of their own.

What could that mean, exactly? This year, my colleagues and I presented several options in another report called Ten Solutions to Bridge the Racial Wealth Divide.

One of our ideas is to create Baby Bonds — that is, government-seeded investment accounts —  for every child born in this country. Senator Cory Booker offered a similar proposal in a 2018 bill called the American Opportunity Accounts Act.

We also call for significant investments in affordable housing and home-ownership. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s American Housing and Economic Mobility Act and Senator Bernie Sander’s “Housing for All” plan would both be a good start.

We also believe that Congress should finally establish a commission to study reparations, and that all government agencies should improve their data collection on race and wealth.

For another thing, we could start enforcing laws already on the books.

My organization, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, advocates requiring the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau to collect and disclose better data on loans made to minority, women-owned, and small businesses. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, it’s already supposed to do that.

For centuries, America has turned its back on struggling families of color. This year, it’s time we turned our back on the racial wealth divide. We need stronger data, better monitoring, and bold policy proposals across the board.

The data is right there: By bridging the racial wealth divide, we can reduce the economic inequality that’s holding down our entire country.

Populist Crusade against Pope Francis

Punsara Amarasinghe

It is true that many in Europe have stumbled upon a state of insecurity, xenophobia and skepticism as an offshoot of mass immigration, refuge issues and multiculturalism which have agitated European minds about the realty of multiculturalism. The loophole created by European doubt about their own continent dwells in state crisis has eventually paved the path for right-wing populist agendas to spread across Europe as a gigantic wave. The anti-immigrant, anti-refugee slogans have become more conspicuous in political stages in Europe as a new tendency. In particular, the rhetorical quibbles invoked by the brigade of right wing populists in Europe prior to EU elections were much focused on agitating European public sentiments about preserving their cultural identity rooted in Christianity from outsiders and excluding those who come to Europe as invaders of the Christian civilization. Asan example, Hungarian prime minister Victor Orban has emerged as a champion of European populism as he vehemently critiqued the multi culturalism in Europe and how would it dilute European values. The populism targeting the European pubic seems to have been much successful in its campaign so far. Yet, the deeds and words stem from one man stands strong amidst this chaotic order as a dissenting opinion. It is none other than the present bearer of fisherman ring Pope Francis and his audacity to speak for the well-being of the refugees have become a notable factor in European socio political arena in two ways. Firstly, many of the progressive political participants within Europe who are gutted by the new waves of Pan European right wing ideologies have taken the progressive attitude of Pope Francis towards refuges and migrants as a changing gesture of Vatican from its orthodox outlook since Lateran treaty with Italian Government in 1929. It was a conspicuous factor that Vatican established a good rapport with Christian Democrats in Italy as allies against rise of left-wing forces and this tradition was intensified and upheld during the papacies of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. This affinity between Vatican and Rome was seen by many alternatives political parties in Italy and across the Europe as a confederation of power politics and the blatant reflection of Vatican’s apathy over alternative politics. Nevertheless, the rapid change of Vatican under Pope Francis has changed the perception of progressive political activists and participants towards Catholic Church. In particular, this change was galvanized after Pope Francis’s statement at St. Peter’s square on 29th of September after conducting the holy mass on the 105th World Day of Migrants and Refugees where Pope openly denounced the “The Globalization of Indifference “and stated “As Christians we cannot be indifferent to the tragedy of old and new forms of poverty, to the bleak isolation, contempt and discrimination experienced by those do not belong to our group. We cannot remain insensitive, our hearts deadened, before the misery of so many innocent people.  We must not fail to weep. We must not fail to respond “The event held at St. Peter’s square was culminated by unveiling a sculpture at the square that depicts 140 refugees from different historical periods and different cultures. As a matter of fact, Pope’s concern about migrants has not risen out of the blue as his initiatives towards protecting refugees date back to the first few months in his papacy. After becoming the pontiff in 2013 his first visit outside Rome happened to be visiting a tiny Sicilian island called Lampedusa which remains the biggest entry point for refugees to enter Europe.

However, there is a second group in Europe who are primarily driven by jingoistic European sentiments mainly consisted of ultra-nationalistic political parties and that group has been clearly agitated by the revolutionary steps taken by pope Francis. In examining the reaction from Italian politics towards Pope’s concern about immigrants and refugees, the recent rise of right wing populism in Italy under its former deputy prime minister Matteo Salvin’s League Party have clearly shown the tendency of using anti-immigrant and anti-refugee slogans in Italian politics. Especially prior to his downfall from power after the clash with coalition government in last September, his attitude towards Pope Francis was based on disdain as Pope’s open policy towards refugees was not compatible with Salvini’s League party. In the ghastly emptiness of Italian politics, the real rival Salvini encountered is the pope himself. Few years ago he was known for his disinclination towards Pope Francis by wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words “Benedict is my Pope “referring to Pope Benedict XVI who is still popular among the conservative Catholics. A number of theories have suggested that Pope Francis is being targeted by right wing pacts in Europe as the most serious threat against their populist propagandas.

The role of Steve Benon who happened to be the former White House chief strategist to president Trump behind the forces against Pope Francis is another notable factor as it has been alleged that Benon himself actively involved in boosting the populist movements in Europe. Especially, the meetings between Salvini and Steve Benon in last April in Rome has given a sign of some possible camaraderie for ultra nationalist Pan-European movement that would lead to strike Pope Francis and his policies. The movement focusing to sabotage and disfigure Pope Francis has been escalated by the rise of populist movement in Europe, also, it’s important to understand that there has been a wave of sharp criticism of Pope Francis and his approaches to taboo issues like homo sexuality within the walls of Vatican. As an example ultraconservative American Cardinal Raymond Burke always has been the de facto leader of forces against Francis within Catholic church. His remarks about controlling Muslims migrants from entering Europe raised wide attention as it reflects some sort of islamophobia.

The situation looms before migrant crisis in Europe today has essentially impacted upon the internal politics in Vatican. Yet, throughout its most turbulent history neither Catholic church nor its pontiff are strangers for turmoil. However, present trend arising against Pope Francis and his progressive actions towards migrants have been driven mainly by seeing him as an obstacle to the populist project in Europe. In particular, pope’s own way of his hobnobbing with many popular movements expanding from environmental NGO’s to pro refugee groups have depicted Vatican and NGO’s as an antidote for the rising populist movements across Europe. Nevertheless, juxtaposition of populism as a decisive factor in shaping European socio political map and most audacities role of Pope Francis as the champion to advocate for protecting refugee rights are likely to arise a blooming conflict between temporal politics and spiritual order in Europe.