The application period for Summer and Winter School Scholarships and Researcher & Academic Staff Grants is March 17th, 2025 – April 16th, 2025 (23:59 Estonian time). The application period for degree and exchange study scholarships will be announced in May 2025.
Tell Me About The Award:
The Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, in collaboration with the Education and Youth Board, offers scholarships to international students, researchers, and academic staff through the Estonian Scholarship Programme. These scholarships are based on bilateral agreements between Estonia and other countries.
Which Fields are Eligible?
For Degree and Exchange Studies: Master’s and PhD studies in all fields. Bachelor’s scholarships are available only for Estonian language and culture.
For Summer and Winter Schools: Courses cover Estonian language & culture, IT, media, international relations, synthetic biology, self-driving cars, and more.
For Researchers & Academic Staff: Fields vary based on research and teaching opportunities at Estonian institutions.
Type:
Fully Funded & Partially Funded Scholarships
Grants for Researchers and Academic Staff
Who can Apply?
Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD students from eligible countries (must have completed at least one year of study).
Foreign researchers and academic staff with an academic position at a non-Estonian institution.
How are Applicants Selected?
Applicants are evaluated based on:
Academic merit and motivation
Relevance of study/research to Estonia
Potential for academic collaboration
Pre-registration confirmation (for summer/winter school applicants)
Where will the Award be Taken?
At Estonian universities and research institutions. Some summer and winter school courses are available online.
How Many Awards?
The number of scholarships is limited and highly competitive. Historically, only 10% of applicants receive the award.
What is the Benefit of the Award?
Summer & Winter School Scholarships: Covers course fees up to €700 and accommodation up to €25 per night (max. 4 weeks).
Degree and Exchange Scholarships: Financial support for studies in Estonia.
Grants for Researchers & Academic Staff: Funding for research, teaching, and academic collaboration.
How Long Will the Award Last?
Summer/Winter Schools:1–4 weeks
Degree and Exchange Studies:One academic year (with potential renewal)
Researchers & Academic Staff Grants: Varies based on research project duration
How to Apply:
Prepare your documents, including the completed application form, motivation letter, proof of enrollment/employment, and course registration confirmation (if applicable).
Submit your application via email to rvo.dokumendid@harno.ee (in Word format, no signature required).
Results will be announced in June 2025 for Summer/Winter Schools and Research Grants.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC), the world’s largest contract manufacturer of the most advanced chips, would invest $100 billion in the United States over the next four years, US President Donald Trump declared on March 3 at the White House. He spoke alongside US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and the corporation’s chief executive, Che Chia Wei.
Trump referred to Wei as a “legend” since the next planned investment would bring the company’s total investment in the US to $165 billion. The expansion includes three new fabrication plants (fabs), two advanced packaging facilities, and a major research and development center, consolidating this project as “the largest single foreign direct investment in US history”, as TSMC indicated.
Trump had previously asserted, “Taiwan took our chip business away”, and “we want that business back”. Prior to the spectacle at the White House, TSMC had already committed to investing $65 billion in advanced semiconductor production in Phoenix, Arizona. One fab has started to manufacture advanced 4 nanometer (nm) chips in the US since October 2024.
The generally law-abiding TSMC did not even submit the investment plan to Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs for assessment and approval, as it had previously done. In other words, the announcement was made unilaterally by the Trump administration.
Following Trump’s statement, Taiwan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung noted in an interview on March 5 that the projected investment was in line with US strategic interests, and hence should be considered as a boost to semiconductor supply chain resiliency.
Trump was “very pleased” with the deal, he said. TSMC played “an indispensable role in bringing about America First.” Lin went on to urge the public to contemplate how to “Make Taiwan Great” and craft “a win-win situation” for both the United States and Taiwan.
His rhetoric echoed the statement made by Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, who promised to “collaborate with” the Trump administration in order to establish “democratic supply chains” for industries connected to high-end chips on February 14.
The opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and the KMT-aligned media railed against the investment plan, accusing the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of “getting nothing back” for “handing over Taiwan’s silicon shield” to the “business-minded” Trump administration. Unlike the Biden-Harris administration, Trump showed “no commitment to democracy and the defense of democratic allies of the US”. By ceding TSMC to the US, the DPP government had gradually turned Taiwan into Ukraine.
The term “silicon shield” was coined by Australian journalist Craig Addison, who authored a book of the same title in 2001. Since then, the Taiwanese bourgeoisie and corporate media have peddled the fiction that the concentration of global semiconductor production in Taiwan has made the island “an indispensable player” on the world stage. This supposedly ensures that if China invades, the United States will intervene to save the island.
Taiwanese nationalism feeds off this fantasy. The island’s ruling class and academics use the term “silicon shield” interchangeably with TSMC and “the holy mountain that safeguards the nation”. They brandish their case of Dunning-Kruger effects—a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence overestimate their capabilities.
Examples abound. Lai declared in 2023 that TSMC’s “achievements” and “products” were shared by the world. As a result, not only Taiwan must defend TSMC, but “the world has a responsibility to do its share” and to “safeguard world civilization”.
Wu Jieh-min, an establishment scholar at Academia Sinica, the island’s leading research institution, similarly asserted in 2024, the ultimate strength of the silicon shield stemmed from “the global consequences of any disruption to the chip supply chain… Any attack on Taiwan would... jeopardize global economic stability. That is the essence of the Silicon Shield.”
Despite tactical differences between the ruling DPP and the opposition KMT, the competing claims of “strengthening Taiwan’s silicon shield” and “handing over the island’s silicon shield” are demonstrably false.
It is necessary to examine to how the US imperialist bourgeoisie delivered a set of blows to Japan’s semiconductor industry before exposing the fraudulent notion of the silicon shield.
In the late 1970s, Japan established itself as a major semiconductor manufacturer, particularly in DRAMs. According to a RAND report, the United States’ market share of DRAMs plummeted from 70 percent to 20 percent between 1979 and 1986.
In the 1980s, the US semiconductor industry complained that it took years to file a successful patent application, and that by the time the patent was granted, the original design had become obsolete. This enabled the Japanese semiconductor industry to “pirate” the intricate circuit designs developed by US manufacturers.
In response, US President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, making layouts of integrated circuits legally protected upon registration.
This did not substantially reduce the US trade deficit with Japan. It also did not hinder the Japanese bourgeoisie’s ambition to compete with the US in manufacturing. Japan’s semiconductor industry turned out to be the country’s largest capital investor.
In 1985, the Reagan administration then “advised” Japan to reduce its investment in the semiconductor industry. Japan swiftly turned down the request, citing the fact that a significant portion of semiconductors destined for the US were manufactured by Japanese subsidiaries of US corporations.
President Reagan with William French Smith making a statement to the press regarding the air traffic controllers strike (PATCO) from the Rose Garden, August 3, 1981 [Photo: White House Press Office]
According to the New York Times, Clyde Prestowitz, then counselor to the Secretary of Commerce, acted like a Mafia gangster when he told his Japanese counterparts, “It’s not the business of the United States Government to tell the Japanese how much to invest, but if you can see ahead of you a potential firestorm, you have to think about how to deal with it.” This viewpoint had bipartisan support and was regarded as a “rational” response to Japan’s economic rise.
Such a threat might sound familiar to many. Trump’s remark at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos is a different version of this, saying “if you don’t make your product in America, which is your prerogative, then, … you will have to pay a tariff … which will direct hundreds of billions of dollars and even trillions of dollars into our Treasury.”
Lionel Olmer, Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, then began to address claims of semiconductor dumping from Japan and its “predatory pricing policy” in the US market.
In September 1985, the US weaponized the dollar by “persuading” its G5 counterparts, which included France, West Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, to conclude the Plaza Accord. The deal was intended to drive up major currencies (especially the yen) relative to the dollar, hence increase US exports and reduce US trade imbalances in manufactured goods with “allies”.
In September 1986, Japan “voluntarily” signed the US-Japan Semiconductor Agreement, which limits Japan’s semiconductor exports to the United States, particularly DRAMs.
An article in the New York Times, “Japanese Chip Makers Falter”, praised the US economic war on Japan, noting that the five largest Japanese electronics companies reported “plunges of between 50 and 80 percent in pretax profits” for the first half of 1986. Noticeably, Japan was projected to “displace the United States for the first time [in 1987] as the world’s largest supplier of semiconductors”. Japan’s predicament came as “it [had] reache[d] a huge milestone of success.”
Head of the Intel Corporation Andrew Grove enthused over the fact that “the memory-chip market has turned out to be Japan’s economic Vietnam”, the same article of the New York Times reported.
The Reagan administration subsequently inflicted a one hundred percent tariff on Japan electronic products in 1987. According to the Los Angeles Times, the punitive measure was intended to generate up to $300 million in revenue while punishing Japanese companies such as NEC, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Toshiba, and Oki by either pricing their products out of the US market or causing substantial sales losses. The Reagan administration was not an outlier in insisting that America got “ripped off” by Japan.
As NPR showed in an audio clip, Trump lamented on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show in 1988, “We let Japan come in and dump everything right into our markets and everything. It’s not free trade.” This was a political expression of the normalization of destructive measures against Japan, which emerged as the second-largest manufacturing powerhouse after the United States.
Unlike Taiwan, Japan was more than merely a contract manufacturer. Japan’s semiconductor design and manufacturing capabilities, as well as its contributions to “world civilization”, however, offered no protection whatsoever against US economic warfare.
When Japan’s chip makers faltered, Western imperialist bourgeoisies felt no responsibility to safeguard Japan. Likewise, they had no obligations to confront the US when Japan was forced to accept the provisions of the Plaza Accord. When existing rules were incompatible with Washington’s imperialist interests, it changed them at will.
Successive governments of Taiwan have since the 1950s served as an instrument of US imperialism. The Island’s political establishment has been far more loyal to Washington and compliant with requests made by the US than even US-backed proxy regimes such as Israel and Ukraine.
As indicated by a 2021 article in the US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, the US and Taiwanese governments should devise a “scorched-earth strategy that would render Taiwan... unattractive if ever seized by force,” which would include the destruction of TSMC fabs and supply chains within the island.
Taiwan Semiconductor Yilan Plant [Photo by Kevin CW Lu / CC BY-SA 4.0]
In other words, the Nord Stream moment would pale in comparison to the ruin inflicted on the Taiwanese toiling masses by the ruling classes of the United States and Taiwan.
The opposition KMT felt so outraged at Trump’s announcement since the former deluded itself and the general public into believing the island’s ruling elite deserved to be treated as “an ally”, not as a pawn. The ruling DPP groveled at the feet of the American Führer precisely because it could serve no purposes apart from as a tool of US imperialism. Prior to the White House’s unilateral move, Taiwan’s Minister of Economic Affairs blurted out that “It would not be unreasonable to levy a 100 percent tariff on chips from Taiwan”
The Taiwanese ruling class, across the political spectrum, has thus far concealed the fact that, similar to the Smoot-Hawley tariff measures adopted by the United States in 1930 and the German Reich’s autarky policy, the global economic warfare launched by Trump’s fascist regime is a prelude to all-out wars on all fronts between nuclear-armed powers.
The relocation of semiconductor production (encompassing 3 nm, the most advanced 2 nm, and the future 1.6 nm chips) along with the supply chains to the US territory in the coming years would massively accelerate US war drives against China and European powers.
As Rosa Luxemburg explains powerfully in “The Accumulation of Capital—an Anti-Critique”:
What distinguishes imperialism as the last struggle for capitalist world domination… is the circle of development is beginning to close—the return of the decisive struggle for expansion from those areas which are being fought over back to its home countries. In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure.
Tell Me About The NWAG Scholarships For Nigerian Female Undergraduates:
The Nigerian Women Association of Georgia (NWAG) is offering 111 one-time scholarships to female undergraduate students in Nigeria. Each awardee will receive $300 in scholarship funds. Additionally, the first runner-up in each state will receive $150, while the second runner-up will be awarded $100. The scholarship will be given in Naira equivalent and is aimed at supporting the education of young Nigerian women.
Which Fields are Eligible?
All fields
Type:
Undergraduate scholarship
Who can Apply for the NWAG Scholarships For Nigerian Female Undergraduates?
Also, the eligibility criteria include:
Open to female undergraduate students in Nigeria.
Applicants must not be in their final year of study.
Applicants must provide proof of state of origin.
How are Applicants Selected?
Applicants will be assessed based on:
The completeness and accuracy of their submitted documents.
The quality of their essay on: “Analyze how technology can be leveraged to address gender-based violence (GBV) in Nigeria, including facilitating reporting, access to services, and creating safe spaces for survivors. Evaluate current interventions and propose innovative solutions for ensuring timely and effective assistance for GBV survivors.”
The level of financial need and academic merit.
Required Documents
Applicants must submit:
Proof of State of Origin – A letter from the university or a local government office.
Two letters of recommendation from any of the following:
Pastor or Imam
Village Head
Local Government Chairperson
University Lecturer or Head of Department
One additional letter of recommendation from the Dean of Faculty or School Head.
Departmental proof of enrollment (e.g., letter or document).
Photocopy of current student identification card.
A recent passport-sized photograph.
A short explanation (not exceeding half a page) on why they need the scholarship.
A two-page, double-spaced, typewritten essay on the given topic.
Which Countries Are Eligible?
Nigeria
Where will the Award be Taken?
Nigeria
How Many Awards?
111
What is the Benefit of the NWAG Scholarships For Nigerian Female Undergraduates?
Additionally, the benefits include:
$300 for each selected winner.
$150 for the first runner-up in each state.
$100 for the second runner-up in each state.
Funds will be awarded in Naira equivalent.
How Long Will the Award Last?
One-time award
How to Apply:
Visitwww.nwag.org to download the application form.
Prepare and gather all required documents listed above.
Submit your completed application via email, ensuring that the email subject line includes your state and full name.
Ensure your application form is typed-written (handwritten submissions are not accepted).
Do not send money to anyone, the application is free of charge.
About the Award: The Islamic Development Bank funds and implements its scholarship programmes as part of its overall efforts to develop the human resources of its member countries and those of the Muslim communities in non-member countries.
Undergraduate
Master’s
PhD and Post-Doctoral Research Programme
IsDB-ISFD for Technical Vocational Education & Training (TVET) for 21 Least Developed Member Countries (LDMCs): Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somali, Sudan, Togo, Uganda and Yemen
IsDB-ISFD Bachelor studies for 21 LDMCs as mentioned in No. 4 above
IsDB-The World Academy of Science (TWAS) Joint Programme for Capacity Building and Technology Transfer
Objectives: The Programmes are important parts of the developmental initiatives led by the Bank since 1983 to foster technology and knowledge sharing among its member countries and Muslim communities in non-member countries. They are designed to attract talented male and female students and in order to build the right competencies required with a special focus on sustainability sciences to empower communities and to assist them in achieving their national and global development plans including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The motto is to develop the students/researchers as Good Citizens & Competent Professionals (GCCPs).
Concept:
The IsDB Scholarship Programme is more than just a scholarship programme in the traditional sense of a straight financial assistance to the outstanding and qualified students. It is also a tool for the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of the Member Countries and Muslim communities.It is basically a scholarship programme and a development programme at the same time, since the scholarship is given as an interest-free-loan (Qard Hasan) to the students and as a grant to their communities /countries to which they belong.
The students are required to fulfil the obligations detailed, under each programme, after graduation and gainful employment. Besides, the students are also required to take part in the development of their communities/countries, through their respective professions. The repaid fund will be used to provide scholarships to other students from the same community/country to complement the IsDB Programme and to ensure its continuity in the long run, while the community development services rendered by the students and graduates will contribute to the overall development of the community/country.
Type: Undergraduate, Masters, PhD, Postdoc
Eligibility:
Undergraduate
The Programme is open for academically meritorious students with strong desire to engage in social services and community development after graduation. Candidates MUST ensure that they meet all the criteria of the programme listed hereunder,failing which the Application will not be considered:
Must be a citizen of any of the IsDB member countries or Muslim communities in non-member countries.
Candidate from non-member countries must be a Muslim.
Must have obtained a high school diploma or registered in one of the top 10 public/government universities in his/her own country.
Must have minimum of 70% in his/her high school final GPA.
Must choose a field of study listed among the approved disciplines of the programme.
Must provide evidence of language proficiency in university medium of instruction as relevant. The language proficiency must be supported by a document or certificate, e.g., for English, by a recognized language certificate such as TOEFL, IELTS or passed required level test conducted such as by British Council or equivalent system in French or other language).
Must provide certified English or French translation of all documents in case if they are initially in other languages.
Must not be in receipt of any other scholarship at the time of application and during study.
Must be medically fit and willing to undergo medical tests after selection.
Masters:
The Programme is open for academically meritorious students and mid-career professionals from member countries and Muslim Communities in non-member countries. Candidates MUST ensure that they meet all the criteria of the programme listed hereunder, failing which the Application will not be considered:
Must be a citizen of any of the IsDB member countries or Muslim communities in non-member countries.
Candidate from non-member countries must be a Muslim.
Must have minimum of 70% in his/her Bachelor studies’ GPA.
Must choose a field of study listed among the approved disciplines of the programme.
Must provide certified English or French translation of all documents in case if they are initially in other languages.
Must provide evidence of language proficiency in university medium of instruction as relevant. The language proficiency must be supported by a document or certificate, e.g., for English, by a recognized language certificate such as TOEFL, IELTS or passed required level test conducted such as by British Council or equivalent system in French or other languages).
Must not be in receipt of any other scholarship at the time of application and during study.
Must be medically fit and willing to undergo medical tests after selection.
PhD and Post-Doctoral Research Programme:
The Programme is designed to help promising and outstanding scholars from member countries and Muslim communities in non-member countries who meet the following criteria:
1. PhD study
Have Master’s degree in one of the fields of study of the programme.
Have minimum (“Very Good”) academic standing;
Preferably have work and/or research experience.
Have a research proposal in one of the fields of study of the programme stating its scientific and development relevance to the community / country.
Be medically fit and be willing to undergo medical tests after selection.
2. Post-doctoral research
Have PhD degree in one of approved fields of the programme.
Have minimum (“Very Good”) academic standing.
Have not less than two (2) years of experience in the field of research.
Must have a record of publications/research in the same field.
Have a research proposal in one of the fields of study of the programme stating its scientific and development relevance to the community / country.
Be medically fit and be willing to undergo medical tests after selection
Eligible Countries: Muslim communities
Number of Awards: Numerous
Value of Award:
Undergraduate & Masters:
The programme covers the following items:
Monthly stipend commensurate with the cost of living of the country of study.
Tuition fees, if any, subject to IsDB’s approval.
Cost of medical treatment at university/government hospital.
Economy class return air tickets (once at the time of joining and on completion of study) and installation and equipment allowance for the students selected to study abroad at partnered universities/countries.
PhD study
The programme covers the following items:
Monthly stipend commensurate with the cost of living of the country of study;
Tuition fees, if any, subject to IsDB’s approval;
Cost of medical treatment at university/government hospital.
Economy class return air tickets (once at the time of joining and on completion of study) and installation and equipment allowance for the students selected to study abroad at partnered universities/countries.
Thesis preparation allowance
Scientific papers’ preparation allowance
Post-doctoral research
The programme covers the following items:
Monthly stipend commensurate with the cost of living of the country of study;
Cost of medical treatment at university/government hospital.
Economy class return air tickets (once at the time of joining and on completion of study) and installation and equipment allowance for the students selected to study abroad at partnered universities/countries.
Scientific papers’ preparation allowance
How to Apply: Apply below
It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
British special forces used a veto to reject over 2,000 asylum claims from Afghan elite units, whom they fought alongside during the US-led occupation of Afghanistan.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed that UK special forces officers blocked every single application from former Afghan commandos referred to them for sponsorship under a resettlement scheme put in place after the Taliban came to power. This followed the ignominious withdrawal of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan after two decades of occupation in August 2021.
British soldiers storm a building in Afghanistan, 2007 [Photo by Defence Imagery / Flickr / CC BY-NC 4.0]
The former Afghan commandos were referred to as the “Triples”, due to their unit designations as CF 333 and ATF 444. The units were established, trained, and paid for by UK Special Forces (UKSF) to support the main special forces units—the SAS (Special Air Services) and the SBS (Special Boat Services) on operations in Afghanistan.
Under the rule of the Taliban some are already feared beaten, tortured or killed in reprisals for collaboration with foreign imperialist forces, while many more are believed to be in hiding.
The MoD had always previously denied any suggestion that there was a blanket policy to reject members of the Triples. However, the BBC confirmed that it had “not been able to find any evidence that UK Special Forces (UKSF) supported any resettlement applications.”
The mass rejection of the resettlement applications coincides with the convening of the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan in London, which is investigating allegations that UK special forces had committed war crimes on operations in Afghanistan where the Triples were present.
The inquiry has the power to compel witnesses to appear who are in the UK, but not non-UK nationals who are overseas. If resettled, former members of the Triples could be compelled by the inquiry to provide evidence that could be highly damaging for the special forces and other armed forces of the UK.
In January, a trove of testimony was released from the ongoing inquiry revealing war crimes, the deletion of evidence relating to these crimes and their whitewashing through internal inquiries. It also showed how dramatically relations had deteriorated and repeatedly broken down between Afghan forces and UK special forces following some of the bloodiest fighting of the occupation.
Inquiry testimony detailed one meeting held in February 2011, following a growing rift between the SAS and the Afghan special forces over alleged war crimes committed by UK special forces. This episode almost ended in an armed clash and Afghan special forces temporarily withdrew their support.
Afghan units—who would often suffer blowback for the conduct of UK and other foreign forces, not being separated by garrison walls from the general population—have said that they were treated “like dogs” by their imperial masters.
It was first revealed last year by the BBC’s Panorama documentary series that UK Special Forces command had been given veto power over the resettlement applications of Afghan commandos and exercised it to deny them asylum in Britain.
The MoD initially denied the existence of the special forces’ veto, until denial became untenable. After first suggesting that the BBC’s reporting had been inaccurate, the then Conservative government Defence Minister Andrew Murrison was later forced to inform Parliament that they had misled parliament in their denials.
The confirmation of 2,022 specific rejected asylum applications emerged in court hearings this month, during a legal challenge brought by a former member of the Triples.
According to a February 17 BBC News, “Lawyers for the MoD applied for a restriction order which temporarily prevented the BBC from reporting on the relevant parts of the proceedings, before withdrawing their application last week under challenge.”
Documents since disclosed in court revealed that during the time the MoD was denying the existence of the veto, it already knew that every blocking decision made by UK special forces was potentially unsound and would have to be independently reviewed.
Mike Martin MP, a Liberal Democrat member of the Defence Select-Committee and former British Army officer who served in Afghanistan, told the BBC last week, “There is the appearance that UK Special Forces blocked the Afghan special forces applications because they were witnesses to the alleged UK war crimes currently being investigated in the Afghan inquiry. If the MoD is unable to offer any explanation, then the matter should be included in the inquiry.”
Johnny Mercer, the former Conservative MP who served alongside the SBS in Afghanistan, was last year threatened with imprisonment if he didn’t reveal what his sources told him about alleged war crimes by UK special forces in Afghanistan. He said after testifying to the ongoing inquiry that it was “very clear to me that there is a pool of evidence that exists within the Afghan [special forces] community that are now in the United Kingdom that should contribute to this Inquiry.”
According to the BBC, the MoD began a review last year of all 2,022 resettlement applications referred to and rejected by UK special forces. All apparently contained what MoD caseworkers regarded as “credible” evidence of service with the Triples units.
A government announcement at the outset stated that the review would take 12 weeks, but more than a year later it has yet to be completed.
An anonymous former Triples officer said, “Although decisions have been overturned, it’s too late for some people. The delays have caused a lot of problems. People have been captured by the Taliban or lost their lives.” The officer said the Afghan commandos worked alongside UK special forces “like brothers” and felt “betrayed” by the widespread rejections.
The MoD is facing a legal challenge to aspects of the review being brought by a former senior member of the Triples who is now in the UK, on behalf of commandos still in Afghanistan. It includes challenging the decision not to inform applicants whether their case is actually being reviewed or not.
Dan Carey, a partner at the law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, said, “Our client’s focus is on his soldiers left behind in Afghanistan, some of whom have been killed while they wait for these heavily delayed protection decisions.
“As things stand they have a right to request a reassessment of a decision they haven’t even been told about. And there are others who think they are part of the Triples Review when the secret criteria would tell them that their cases aren’t even being looked at.”
Lawyers also criticised the level of disclosure in the case by the MoD. No documentation has yet been handed over from within UK Special Forces or government records about the process that led to the blocked applications.
Last week, sacked Foreign Office whistleblower Josie Stewart won a case for unfair dismissal over her disclosures to the media about the UK’s role in the evacuation from Afghanistan. Stewart was sacked by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) in 2022 after being apparently accidentally identified as a confidential source by a BBC journalist.
Stewart’s lawyers said the case was “without precedent” and “raised numerous important issues about civil servants’ rights to whistleblower protection under existing law.”
The tribunal found there was a “clear public interest” in the evacuation and whether it was being carried out effectively and fairly, as the lives of individuals who had assisted NATO forces in Afghanistan were “potentially at stake.”
It also considered that it was “reasonable” for Stewart to go to the BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme when allegations had already been put into the public domain by former FCDO employee Raphael Marshall and “government ministers were publicly disputing them.”
In a statement upon receiving the judgment, Stewart said, “By calling this out, I lost my career. The outcome of this case doesn’t change any of this, but it has achieved what I set out to achieve: it has established that civil servants have the right not to stay silent when systemic failures put lives at risk, as happened during the Afghan evacuation.”
