18 Jul 2018

The Global Growth of U.S. Special Operations Forces

Nick Turse

Early last month, at a tiny military post near the tumbledown town of Jamaame in Somalia, small arms fire began to ring out as mortar shells crashed down. When the attack was over, one Somali soldier had been wounded — and had that been the extent of the casualties, you undoubtedly would never have heard about it.
As it happened, however, American commandos were also operating from that outpost and four of them were wounded, three badly enough to be evacuated for further medical care. Another special operator, Staff Sergeant Alexander Conrad, a member of the U.S. Army’s Special Forces (also known as the Green Berets), was killed.
If the story sounds vaguely familiar — combat by U.S. commandos in African wars that America is technically not fighting — it should. Last December, Green Berets operating alongside local forces in Niger killed 11 Islamic State militants in a firefight. Two months earlier, in October, an ambush by an Islamic State terror group in that same country, where few Americans (including members of Congress) even knew U.S. special operators were stationed, left four U.S. soldiers dead — Green Berets among them. (The military first described that mission as providing “advice and assistance” to local forces, then as a “reconnaissance patrol” as part of a broader “train, advise, and assist” mission, before it was finally exposed as a kill or capture operation.) Last May, a Navy SEAL was killed and two other U.S. personnel were wounded in a raid in Somalia that the Pentagon described as an “advise, assist, and accompany” mission. And a month earlier, a U.S. commando reportedly killed a member of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a brutal militia that has terrorized parts of Central Africa for decades.
And there had been, as the New York Times noted in March, at least 10 other previously unreported attacks on American troops in West Africa between 2015 and 2017. Little wonder since, for at least five years, as Politicorecently reported, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, and other commandos, operating under a little-understood legal authority known as Section 127e, have been involved in reconnaissance and “direct action” combat raids with African special operators in Somalia, Cameroon, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Tunisia.
None of this should be surprising, since in Africa and across the rest of the planet America’s Special Operations forces (SOF) are regularly engaged in a wide-ranging set of missions including special reconnaissance and small-scale offensive actions, unconventional warfare, counterterrorism, hostage rescue, and security force assistance (that is, organizing, training, equipping, and advising foreign troops). And every day, almost everywhere, U.S. commandos are involved in various kinds of training.
Unless they end in disaster, most missions remain in the shadows, unknown to all but a few Americans. And yet last year alone, U.S. commandos deployed to 149 countries — about 75% of the nations on the planet. At the halfway mark of this year, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM or SOCOM), America’s most elite troops have already carried out missions in 133 countries. That’s nearly as many deployments as occurred during the last year of the Obama administration and more than double those of the final days of George W. Bush’s White House.
Going Commando
“USSOCOM plays an integral role in opposing today’s threats to our nation, to protecting the American people, to securing our homeland, and in maintaining favorable regional balances of power,” General Raymond Thomas, the chief of U.S. Special Operations Command, told members of the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year. “However, as we focus on today’s operations we must be equally focused on required future transformation. SOF must adapt, develop, procure, and field new capabilities in the interest of continuing to be a unique, lethal, and agile part of the Joint Force of tomorrow.”
Special Operations forces have actually been in a state of transformation ever since September 11, 2001. In the years since, they have grown in every possible way — from their budget to their size, to their pace of operations, to the geographic sweep of their missions. In 2001, for example, an average of 2,900 commandos were deployed overseas in any given week. That number has now soared to 8,300, according to SOCOM spokesman Ken McGraw. At the same time, the number of “authorized military positions” — the active-duty troops, reservists, and National Guardsmen that are part of SOCOM — has jumped from 42,800 in 2001 to 63,500 today. While each of the military service branches — the so-called parent services — provides funding, including pay, benefits, and some equipment to their elite forces, “Special Operations-specific funding,” at $3.1 billion in 2001, is now at $12.3 billion. (The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also provide their special operations units with about $8 billion annually.)
All this means that, on any given day, more than 8,000 exceptionally well-equipped and well-funded special operators from a command numbering roughly 70,000 active-duty personnel, reservists, and National Guardsmen as well as civilians are deployed in approximately 90 countries. Most of those troops are Green Berets, Rangers, or other Army Special Operations personnel. According to Lieutenant General Kenneth Tovo, head of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command until his retirement last month, that branch provides more than 51% of all Special Operations forces and accounts for more than 60% of their overseas deployments. On any given day, just the Army’s elite soldiers are operating in around 70 countries.
In February, for instance, Army Rangers carried out several weeks of winter warfare training in Germany, while Green Berets practiced missions involving snowmobiles in Sweden. In April, Green Berets took part in the annual Flintlock multinational Special Operations forces training exercise conducted in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Senegal that involved Nigerien, Burkinabe, Malian, Polish, Spanish, and Portuguese troops, among others.
While most missions involve training, instruction, or war games, Special Forces soldiers are also regularly involved in combat operations across America’s expansive global war zones. A month after Flintlock, for example, Green Berets accompanied local commandos on a nighttime air assault raid in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, during which a senior ISIS operative was reportedly “eliminated.” In May, a post-deployment awards ceremony for members of the 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group, who had just returned from six months advising and assisting Afghan commandos, offered some indication of the kinds of missions being undertaken in that country. Those Green Berets received more than 60 decorations for valor — including 20 Bronze Star Medals and four Silver Star Medals (the third-highest military combat decoration).
For its part, the Navy, according to Rear Admiral Tim Szymanski, chief of Naval Special Warfare Command, has about 1,000 SEALs or other personnel deployed to more than 35 countries each day. In February, Naval Special Warfare forces and soldiers from Army Special Operations Aviation Command conducted training aboard a French amphibious assault ship in the Arabian Gulf. That same month, Navy SEALs joined elite U.S. Air Force personnel in training alongside Royal Thai Naval Special Warfare operators during Cobra Gold, an annual exercise in Thailand.
The troops from U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, or MARSOCdeploy primarily to the Middle East, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific regions on six-month rotations. At any time, on average, about 400 “Raiders” are engaged in missions across 18 countries.
Air Force Special Operations Command, which fields a force of 19,500 active, reserve, and civilian personnel, conducted 78 joint-training exercises and events with partner nations in 2017, according to Lieutenant General Marshall Webb, chief of Air Force Special Operations Command. In February, for example, Air Force commandos conducted Arctic training — ski maneuvers and free-fall air operations — in Sweden, but such training missions are only part of the story. Air Force special operators were, for instance, recently deployed to aid the attempt to rescue 12 boys and their soccer coach trapped deep inside a cave in Thailand. The Air Force also has three active duty special operations wings assigned to Air Force Special Operations Command, including the 24th Special Operations Wing, a “special tactics” unit that integrates air and ground forces for “precision-strike” and personnel-recovery missions. At a change of command ceremony in March, it was noted that its personnel had conducted almost 2,900 combat missions over the last two years.
Addition Through Subtraction
For years, U.S. Special Operations forces have been in a state of seemingly unrestrained expansion. Nowhere has that been more evident than in Africa. In 2006, just 1% of all American commandos deployed overseas were operating on that continent. By 2016, that number had jumped above 17%. By then, there were more special operations personnel devoted to Africa — 1,700 special operators spread out across 20 countries — than anywhere else except the Middle East.
Recently, however, the New York Times reported that a “sweeping Pentagon review” of special ops missions on that continent may soon result in drastic cuts in the number of commandos operating there. (“We do not comment on what tasks the secretary of defense or chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may or may not have given USSOCOM,” spokesman Ken McGraw told me when I inquired about the review.) U.S. Africa Command has apparently been asked to consider what effect cutting commandos there by 25% over 18 months and 50% over three years would have on its counterterrorism missions. In the end, only about 700 elite troops — roughly the same number as were stationed in Africa in 2014 — would be left there.
Coming on the heels of the October 2017 debacle in Niger that left those four Americans dead and apparent orders from the commander of United States Special Operations forces in Africa that its commandos “plan missions to stay out of direct combat or do not go,” a number of experts suggested that such a review signaled a reappraisal of military engagement on the continent. The proposed cuts also seemed to fit with the Pentagon’s latest national defense strategy that highlighted a coming shift from a focus on counterterrorism to the threats of near-peer competitors like Russia and China. “We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists,” said Secretary of Defense James Mattis in January, “but great power competition — not terrorism — is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.”
A wide range of analysts questioned or criticized the proposed troop reduction. Mu Xiaoming, from China’s National Defense University of the People’s Liberation Army, likened such a reduction in elite U.S. forces to the Obama administration’s drawdown of troops in Afghanistan in 2014 and noted the possibility of “terrorism making a comeback in Africa.” A former chief of U.S. commandos on the continent, Donald Bolduc, unsurprisingly echoed these same fears. “Without the presence that we have there now,” he told Voice of America, “we’re just going to increase the effectiveness of the violent extremist organizations over time and we are going to lose trust and credibility in this area and destabilize it even further.” David Meijer, a security analyst based in Amsterdam, lamented that, as Africa was growing in geostrategic importance and China is strengthening its ties there, “it’s ironic that Washington is set to reduce its already minimal engagement on the continent.”
This is hardly a foregone conclusion, however. For years, members of SOCOM, as well as supporters in Congress, at think tanks, and elsewhere, have been loudly complaining about the soaring operations tempo for America’s elite troops and the resulting strains on them. “Most SOF units are employed to their sustainable limit,” General Thomas, the SOCOM chief, told members of Congress last spring. “Despite growing demand for SOF, we must prioritize the sourcing of these demands as we face a rapidly changing security environment.” Given how much clout SOCOM wields, such incessant gripes were certain to lead to changes in policy.
Last year, in fact, Secretary of Defense Mattis noted that the lines between U.S. Special Operations forces and conventional troops were blurring and that the latter would likely be taking on missions previously shouldered by the commandos, particularly in Africa. “So the general purpose forces can do a lot of the kind of work that you see going on and, in fact, are now,” he said. “By and large, for example in Trans-Sahel [in northwest Africa], many of those forces down there supporting the French-led effort are not Special Forces. So we’ll continue to expand the general purpose forces where it’s appropriate. I would… anticipate more use of them.”
Earlier this year, Owen West, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflictreferred to Mattis’s comments while telling members of the House Armed Services Committee about the “need to look at the line that separates conventional operating forces from SOF and seek to take greater advantage of the ‘common capabilities’ of our exceptional conventional forces.” He particularly highlighted the Army’s Security Force Assistance Brigades, recently created to conduct advise-and-assist missions. This spring, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recommended that one of those units be dedicated to Africa.
Substituting forces in this way is precisely what Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, an Iraq War veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, has also been advocating. Late last year, in fact, her press secretary, Leigh Claffey, told TomDispatch that the senator believed “instead of such heavy reliance on Special Forces, we should also be engaging our conventional forces to take over missions when appropriate, as well as turning over operations to capable indigenous forces.” Chances are that U.S. commandos will continue carrying out their shadowy Section 127e raids alongside local forces across the African continent while leaving more conventional training and advising tasks to rank-and-file troops. In other words, the number of commandos in Africa may be cut, but the total number of American troops may not — with covert combat operations possibly continuing at the present pace.
If anything, U.S. Special Operations forces are likely to expand, not contract, next year. SOCOM’s 2019 budget request calls for adding about 1,000 personnel to what would then be a force of 71,000. In April, at a meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities chaired by Ernst, New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich noted that SOCOM was on track to “grow by approximately 2,000 personnel” in the coming years. The command is also poised to make 2018 another historic year in global reach. If Washington’s special operators deploy to just 17 more countries by the end of the fiscal year, they will exceed last year’s record-breaking total.
“USSOCOM continues to recruit, assess, and select the very best. We then train and empower our teammates to solve the most daunting national security problems,” SOCOM commander General Thomas told the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities earlier this year. Why Green Berets and Navy SEALs need to solve national security problems — strategic issues that ought to be addressed by policymakers — is a question that has long gone unanswered. It may be one of the reasons why, since Green Berets “liberated” Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has been involved in combat there and, as the years have passed, a plethora of other forever-war fronts including Cameroon, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen.
“The creativity, initiative and spirit of the people who comprise the Special Operations Force cannot be overstated. They are our greatest asset,” said Thomas. And it’s likely that such assets will grow in 2019.

Australia: Another fire at Melbourne recycling plant

Eric Ludlow 

Early this month, a serious fire erupted in bales of co-mingled recycling material at the SKM Recycling plant in Coolaroo, a working class suburb of north Melbourne. Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) staff and 70 firefighters brought the July 7 blaze under control within three hours, but remained at the site overnight before extinguishing the last of the smouldering material the next morning.
The fire was almost exactly one year after a major blaze at the same plant on July 13 which burned for 11 days, led to five people being hospitalised and forced the evacuation of 115 nearby households. That fire—the plant’s third in 2017—came after the company promised to secure the site following the first incident in February that year.
Fires at SKM’s Coolaroo plant, in February and June 2017, sent smoke drifting over nearby suburbs. It took 130 and 65 firefighters respectively to bring them under control. In both instances, local residents were warned to stay indoors and avoid contaminated air. Toxic water resulting from the fire in February 2017 was removed by SKM on instruction from the EPA. After failing to report back, the company was fined just $1,500.
While this month’s fire was smaller than last year’s, the issues that produced both incidents remain unresolved, including the ongoing environmental safety violations by the company, stockpiling, and the long-term impact of toxic fumes on residents.
SKM, the media and state government agencies attempted to downplay the significance of this month’s fire. The Victorian Labor government of Daniel Andrews, which faces a state election this year, told the media that the blaze would be investigated by environmental authorities. Emergency Victoria issued a statement insisting that there was no threat to the community, but warning nearby residents to “stay informed and monitor conditions.”
Emergency Victoria told people to avoid the immediate surrounds of the plant and to turn off heating and cooling systems. “If you are sensitive to smoke or you live with someone who is sensitive to smoke you should close windows and doors,” it added.
It is the third recycling plant fire in Victoria this year: Norstar Steel Recyclers at Laverton North and KTS recycling in Wantirna South also caught fire in February and April respectively.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which heads a state Labor government task force investigating recycling stockpiles that pose a fire risk, remained on the Coolaroo site until July 8. Since last year’s July fire, SKM Recycling has been the subject of six legally enforceable notices and 28 EPA inspections.
The EPA has identified 800 sites across the state of Victoria that it will be inspecting. Its website blandly declares that the agency’s audit “has identified that the resource recovery sector is generally poorly prepared and ill-equipped when it comes to managing fire risks at their facilities.”
The EPA audit states that “most inspected sites” had fire risk issues “ranging from minor housekeeping matters to major failings in the management of the stockpiled materials.”
In November last year, Victoria’s Inspector-General for Emergency Management published a “Review of SKM Coolaroo Recycling Plant Fire.” The document, however, limited itself to “observations” on the July 2017 blaze and did not make any recommendations specific to the Coolaroo fire.
Incredibly, despite the unknown extent of the health and environmental impact of the fire, the report stated that “[s]ector feedback on the systems, equipment and intelligence provided for the Coolaroo fire was very positive and highlighted the significant improvements” since an extended fire in 2014 at an open cut brown coal mine. That blaze, which continued for more than a month, endangered the eastern Victorian working-class town of Hazelwood.
SKM Recycling is currently facing a class action legal suit by over 180 residents who are suing the company over damage to their homes and ongoing health problems caused by the toxic fumes from the July 2017 fire at Coolaroo.
Among the most oppressed working class suburbs in Melbourne, Coolaroo—in the Broadmeadows area—is home to significant numbers of immigrant families, many of whom depended on the auto, car-parts, rubber and other manufacturing industries. Over the past two decades the Labor Party and the unions have worked hand in glove with the corporations to eliminate tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, including through the closure of Ford’s Broadmeadows plant in 2016.
While SKM Recycling has rapidly expanded after winning a tender from nine Melbourne councils, the recycling industry is being hit by a global oversupply of plastic and paper recyclables that is impacting on profits.
State governments, local councils and Australian recycling companies also confront strict “contamination threshhold” restrictions recently imposed by China, which purchases a large percentage of Australia’s recyclable waste.
In 2017, Australia exported 29 percent of household kerbside recycling paper and 36 percent of all plastics to China. The average price of scrap mixed plastic dropped from $A325 per tonne to $A75 per tonne and cardboard from $A210 to $A125 per tonne in 2017.
Focused on maintaining their profit margins, recycling factories, which are stockpiling massive amounts of flammable material, are ticking time bombs. The danger of major toxic fires erupting in working class areas is ever present.
Following this month’s blaze, SKM issued a media statement declaring that it had worked “hand-in-hand with the EPA to ensure a major fire event like that [July 2017 fire] can never occur again.”
This claim did not reassure Coolaroo residents who spoke with the World Socialist Web Site. Some said there seemed to be increased incidents of asthma and other health issues after last year’s 11-day toxic blaze. Others voiced their concern and anger at the lack of action by companies and governments.
Mohammed, who lives near the plant, has three children. His eldest son has allergy problems. He said: “I don’t know if it’s related to the area or not. The recycling plant should be put in another place.”
Joseph, an older resident, said the toxic fires “put people’s health at risk.” Incensed at repeated incidents at the SKM plant, he said: “No one has done anything about it. It’s a money issue. A heap of rubbish is always a risk of fire.
“You don’t need to be a scholar to recognise that no-one cares about the lower class people. You can kill the people around you as long as you get rich. Whether it’s Labor or Liberal everybody turns a blind eye.”

Intelligence inquiry whitewashes New Zealand’s spying in the Pacific

John Braddock 

A long-running inquiry into whether the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spied on New Zealanders visiting and working in the Pacific has confirmed the mass collection of communications data by the country’s overseas intelligence agency.
Data sourced from a satellite link was collected in order to advance New Zealand capitalism’s mercenary interests across the region. The GCSB labelled the system, “full take.”
However, according to Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn, who conducted the inquiry, there was no evidence of the spy agency acting “unlawfully.”
Under NZ law, the GCSB acts as the “external” spy organisation. Before a widely opposed amendment in 2013, it was barred from spying on NZ citizens and residents. The “internal” spy agency, the Security Intelligence Service, had that role.
Gwyn’s report, released on July 4, followed complaints from individuals and the Green Party in 2015 that when the GCSB carried out “broad sweep” mass surveillance in the Pacific, it intercepted the communications of New Zealanders.
The report’s legitimisation of the GCSB’s activities, on the narrow basis that it was deemed “legal” in relation to NZ citizens, is an absurd travesty. It confirms the analysis of the WSWS that the sham inquiry’s purpose was to contain damage to the government and wider political establishment from revelations of the GCSB’s anti-democratic activities at home and across the region.
The allegations date back to revelations by US whistleblower Edward Snowden, made public in 2015. Documents released by investigative journalist Nicky Hager showed the GCSB was engaged in wholesale spying on New Zealand’s Pacific neighbours. According to Hager, the GCSB passed the information directly to the US National Security Agency (NSA).
The GCSB still records virtually all telephone calls, emails and other Internet data in the region and shares it with the other members of the Five Eyes alliance, the spy agencies of the US, Canada, Britain and Australia.
Leaked NSA documents showed how the GCSB and NSA tapped the Southern Cross undersea cable, which carries Internet traffic between New Zealand and the rest of the world. The GCSB spies on Asian countries, including China. The documents showed that the NSA highly values the intelligence gathered by the GCSB on its behalf, including in “areas and countries ... difficult for the US to access.” The GCSB also provides intelligence to the NZ Defence Force’s Afghanistan operations in which NZ troops have been accused of committing war crimes.
At the time of the original allegations, former GCSB director Bruce Ferguson admitted mass surveillance was conducted on Pacific countries, but said information “inadvertently” collected on New Zealanders was not used.
Gwyn found that the GCSB undertook signals intelligence gathering in the South Pacific during 2009–2015, including the collection of satellite communications. She found that the mass collection of data effectively meant everything channelled through certain satellites was indiscriminately ‘hoovered’ up by the GCSB.
Nevertheless, Gwyn claimed “full take” collection contrasted with storage of “selected” data, which had been filtered by reference to selectors, like telephone numbers.
While some South Pacific countries now rely on undersea cables, network connections to many outer islands are still provided by satellite, Gwyn said. It was also possible to intercept domestic communications if they were over a satellite link in a domestic network.
Yet Gwyn claimed that the GCSB had “necessary procedures” in place to cover its collection, including to recognise the citizenship rights of residents in the NZ territories of the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau.
Until 2013, the GCSB did not seek warrant authorisation for intelligence collection through foreign partners. Gwyn admitted that because the agency shares intelligence with Five Eyes partner agencies, complainants’ communications were possibly shared, along with other collected information.
However, Gwyn’s press release declared it “unlikely” that this occurred, given the “targeted” nature of intelligence sharing and “safeguards” against unauthorised access to New Zealanders’ communications.
No credence can be given to these assurances. The spy agencies operate in secret and no one has been held accountable for their repeated breaches of basic democratic rights. Gwyn said she would make no recommendations as a result of her inquiry “due to the lack of any adverse finding in relation to the complaints.”
She added that her report was primarily concerned with GCSB activity under the 2003 legislation, which was “superseded” by the Intelligence and Security Act 2017 and a “revised suite of Bureau policies.” The law was changed in 2013 and 2017 to legalise previously unlawful surveillance methods and broaden the powers of both the GCSB and the SIS to spy on the population.
Recent “inquiries” into the activities of both agencies are part of a damage limitation campaign after widespread outrage following the Snowden revelations. Along with the GCSB’s unlawful spying for the police and the FBI on NZ resident Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, the revelations shattered claims the agencies were protecting New Zealanders from terrorist threats.
Far from being an independent “watchdog,” Gwyn was appointed in 2014 by the then-National Party government, which was confident of her essential reliability. Having spent some years in an anti-Marxist Pabloite group in the 1980s, Gwyn later pursued a career in the state apparatus, working as deputy solicitor-general during the 1999–2008 Labour government.
Gwyn’s appointment paralleled that of SIS head Rebecca Kitteridge, who had joined anti-apartheid protests in the early 1980s. The fact that secret service agencies were now headed by women with “radical” credentials was hailed as a “cultural shake-up” in media reports, aimed at portraying their activities as “open” and benign.
Gwyn recently took this charade a step further. In April, she established an 11-member “Reference Group,” consisting of journalists, lawyers, academics and security experts, purportedly to help ensure the intelligence agencies “act lawfully and properly” and keep them “in touch” with legal, social and security developments in New Zealand and overseas.
Significantly, the group includes figures such as Hager and New Zealand Herald journalist David Fisher, who have been critical of the spy agencies’ activities in the past.
This is a further attempt to put a gloss on reactionary state institutions whose role is to advance New Zealand’s neo-colonial interests in the Pacific and elsewhere, while contributing to US imperialism’s operations, in particular the drive to prepare for war against China.
The secret spying operations, hostile to the interests and basic rights of the working class within New Zealand and across the Pacific, will intensify in the coming period, as working class opposition grows to the war preparations and the accompanying deepening attacks on living and working conditions.

UK: May government in meltdown over Brexit

Robert Stevens

For the second successive evening Tuesday, Theresa May’s Conservative government barely survived, as vital votes were held in parliament on Brexit legislation.
On Tuesday, the government averted defeat in passing the Customs Bill by only 6 votes (307 to 301), after 12 pro-European Union (EU) Tory MPs rebelled to back an amendment.
The amendment from former minister Stephen Hammond would have forced the UK to default to membership of the EU’s customs union if it proved unable to negotiate a better agreement by January 21 of next year. The vote saw three Labour MPs and a former Labour MP—who now votes as an Independent—vote with the government.
On Monday evening, a vote on another amendment was even closer, with the government winning by just 3 votes (305 votes to 302). The vote was on an amendment to the legislation forced on May by the party’s “hard Brexit” wing preventing the UK from collecting taxes on behalf of the EU unless the rest of the EU reciprocated. Had two other pro-Remain MPs been present to vote, the Tories would have won the vote with a majority of just one MP. Fourteen soft-Brexit Tories rebelled to support Labour and the Liberal Democrats’ opposition.
Another hard-Brexit amendment—to ensure the UK would not be part of the EU’s VAT regime post-Brexit—was backed by 303 to 300, with a Tory rebellion of 11. In both votes, Brexit-supporting Labour MPs backed the government.
The Customs Bill was later approved by parliament with a clearer majority of 318 to 285 and goes to its next stage in the House of Lords.
The votes imperilled May’s government, as she was forced to accept four amendments to the Bill from the hard-Brexit faction—which effectively wrecked the agreement on a soft-Brexit she had finally reached with her Cabinet just a week earlier. This deal was reached only under intense pressure from broad sections of business who demand continued access to the European Single market—the UK’s largest trading partner.
To wreck the Chequers agreement, around 20 Tories in the hard-Brexit European Research Group faction, led by backbencher and potential leadership challenger Jacob Rees-Mogg, threatened to vote against the government if their amendments to the bill were not accepted. The most divisive of the four Monday amendments overturned the complex UK/EU tariff proposals contained in the agreement reached at May’s country residence, Chequers, under which the UK would collect tariffs on goods on behalf of the EU.
According to the Daily Telegraph, the party’s “Eurosceptics have set up a ‘party within a party’ with a highly organised whipping operation among Tory Eurosceptic MPs to try to frustrate Theresa May’s Brexit plans.”
It detailed how “[m]ore than 100 Eurosceptic Tory MPs are now on a WhatsApp group co-ordinated by former Brexit minister Steve Baker who is giving them voting instructions.”
Leading soft-Brexit Tory Dominic Grieve said his party’s pro-Brexit rebels appeared “willing to plunge the country into a serious crisis to achieve the purity of their objective.”
Following the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU, Prime Minister David Cameron resigned to be replaced by May—who was a supporter of Remain but pledged to implement Brexit. This compromise has blown up, not simply due to events in Britain but because these events have been shaped by the extraordinary antagonisms between the United States and European powers following the election of US President Donald Trump.
During the Brexit referendum campaign, President Barack Obama visited the UK and threatened that, in the event of a Leave vote, Britain would “go to the back of the queue” in terms of securing a trade deal with the US. Britain’s EU membership was critical to US interests, with the policy underpinning the agenda of all UK governments since Britain entered the EU in 1975. This was epitomised above all by the Blair Labour government, which described Britain as the bridge between the US and EU and the pillar of the “transatlantic alliance.”
Trump has jettisoned this policy, describing the EU as a “foe” to be opposed alongside the rest of America’s global competitors. Prior to his visit to the UK, Trump attacked the EU and Germany at the NATO Summit in Brussels before doubling down on his support for Brexit when he arrived in Britain last week.
He denounced the Chequers deal, which even before he arrived had already led to the resignations from cabinet of Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. In an interview published in the pro-Brexit Sun, Trump said May’s soft-Brexit strategy threatened any future US/UK trade deal. If May’s deal was accepted, “we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the UK,” he said. “We are cracking down right now on the European Union because they have not treated the United States fairly on trading.”
Trump openly touted Johnson to replace May, telling the Sun that he would make a “great prime minister.”
This was a rallying cry for the Tory’s hard-Brexit wing ahead of this week’s Brexit legislation votes.
The votes demonstrate the extent to which the Tory party is irreconcilably split over the issue of Brexit, with May’s days numbered amid constant talk of a leadership challenge ahead.
In a tweet posted after Tuesday night’s vote, BBC Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt reported that Conservative Chief Whip Julian Smith had told his MPs that if May had lost the vote on the Customs Bill, he would have called a vote of confidence in the government on Wednesday. This was confirmed to Sky Newsby Tory Brexiteer Andrew Bridgen. Smith threatened Tory MPs that if the vote was lost, the outcome would be a general election, with the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour government.
Labour is seeking to capitalise on the Tories’ crisis and is positioning itself as the party opposed to a hard Brexit and speaking for dominant sections of big business. Labour has previously abstained on some Brexit legislation votes, but ahead of Monday’s vote on the EU tariffs amendment changed its vote to one of opposing the hard-Brexit amendment.
There is not the remotest progressive element in the programmes of the competing right-wing factions of the ruling elite. If this struggle—which cuts across traditional party lines and nominal political denominations of “left” and “right”—has an incendiary character, it is because it is over how to conduct trade war and escalate militarist policies, as imperialist rivalries over markets and geostrategic interests sharpen, and how best to ramp up the exploitation of the working class.
These developments confirm the insistence by the Socialist Equality Party that the working class must oppose all factions of the ruling class and fight for the only perspective that reflects its interests—a united offensive of European workers against the capitalist oligarchy and for the United Socialist States of Europe.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos: The richest man in modern history

Eric London

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ net worth surpassed $150 billion on Monday, making him the richest person in modern world history.
The magnitude of such a sum is difficult to comprehend. Its real meaning emerges when juxtaposed with the social position of Amazon’s 500,000 workers.
* Jeff Bezos has made $50 billion in 2018. The $255 million he has made each day of the year equals the annual salaries of over 10,000 Amazon workers in the US.
* The amount Bezos has made per second in 2018, $2,950, is more than the annual salary of an Amazon worker in India, $2,796.
* In five days of 2018, Bezos made as much money as the combined income of every Amazon fulfillment center worker in the world in 2017.
* If Bezos’ wealth were divided equally among Amazon’s employees, each would get a check for $300,000.
* In the time it will take the average reader to read these five bullet points, Jeff Bezos will have made another $70,000, seven times the global annual average income of $10,000.
The existence of such fortunes exposes the oligarchic character of American and global society. Under capitalism, Bezos and billionaires like him dominate the political parties, select who is elected to public office, determine the policies of the world’s governments, and dictate “public opinion” through their control over academic institutions and the media. Here too, Bezos is a prime example. He purchased the Washington Post in 2013 for $250 million—less than what he now makes in a day.
Behind great wealth there are great social crimes. Bezos has made his billions through the ruthless exploitation of the Amazon workforce, which has more than doubled in size since 2015, when Bezos’s wealth was $60 billion. Amazon has hired roughly 300,000 new workers since 2015, allowing Bezos to pocket the surplus labor value of a veritable army of the exploited.
Amazon has gained a competitive edge by introducing 21st century methods to squeeze every last drop of sweat from its workers, who wear monitoring devices that measure how hard they are working and are forced to walk or run up to 14 miles per day. Injuries are common, and deaths and suicides also take place with regularity. The National Council for Occupational Safety found Amazon among the most dangerous workplaces in the US.
Amazon is deeply implicated in the crimes of the US government, both in its imperialist wars abroad and in its Gestapo-like attack on democratic rights at home.
The company hosts the web servers for the US military and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and it sells its cloud service to Palantir, a data analytics firm that provides software used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct raids and detain immigrants. In May, the ACLU reported that Amazon also sells Orwellian facial recognition software to police departments and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Opposition to this corporate giant is emerging, including from within the company itself.
In June, an undisclosed number of Amazon employees published a letter demanding the company halt its involvement in mass deportation and police surveillance. “This will be another powerful tool for the surveillance state, and ultimately serve to harm the most marginalized,” the letter reads, citing IBM’s involvement in providing Hitler with the infrastructure used to murder millions in concentration camps.
This year has also seen the development of a series of strikes at Amazon facilities worldwide. In Spain, Poland and Germany, workers’ anger over low wages, “permanent temporary” work, and brutal working conditions is near universal, forcing the trade unions to call limited protest strikes to coincide with “Prime Day”—a 36-hour sale period from July 16 to 17.
The trade unions’ goal in calling the Prime Day protest strikes is the exact opposite of the aspirations of the workers participating in them.
In Spain, the union has kept the strike to a single fulfillment center. In Germany, the bulk of workers chose not to participate in a one-day strike called by the Verdi union, knowing Verdi regularly calls isolated strikes that will not impact corporate profits. In Poland, the union has only called a partial slow-down of work in order to block a broader strike.
While the workers want to shut down Amazon’s supply chains and achieve massive increases in wages and significant improvements in working conditions, the unions have admitted from the ontset that they are organizing the strikes as limited protests that will have no impact on Amazon’s supply chains.
While workers aspire to unite in a common international struggle with their co-workers across national boundaries, the unions by their nature keep workers tied to “their own” nation-states and governments.
At Amazon and across all workplaces worldwide, the trade unions serve as an obstacle, not a conduit, for the development of the class struggle. Their leaderships, both in terms of political function and social composition, are hostile to the working-class members whose dues pay their salaries. The trade unions, through the relentless suppression of the class struggle at Amazon and elsewhere, are responsible for making Jeff Bezos’ fortune possible.
In their struggles against the transnational corporations, workers must throw off the shackles of the trade unions and construct new, rank-and-file factory organizations.
These factory committees must fight to establish lines of communication between workers at different workplaces, not to isolate workers at each plant. They must be based on the principle that the interests of workers and capitalists are incompatible, not on “cooperation” between workers and management. They must foster the highest degree of democratic discussion, planning, and debate among the workers themselves. They must be based on an understanding that the working class is an international social force and that workers are powerless when divided based on nationality.
The suppression of the class struggle has produced unprecedented levels of social inequality. In the United States, three people own the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the population—160 million people. Worldwide, the five wealthiest own as much as the poorest half—3.6 billion people. Outside of the wealthiest 5 to 10 percent of the world’s population, the masses of people face levels of economic hardship that vary only in degrees of extremity.
The existence of such extreme levels of inequality raises the urgent need for socialist revolution. Society cannot afford the capitalist system. The trillions of dollars that sit in corporate bank vaults and in the trust funds of the super wealthy must be expropriated and spent on massive international programs to provide water, food, education, culture, housing and infrastructure to every corner of the world.
The international integration of the world economy that under capitalism serves as a source of conflict, war and competition will become, under socialism, a mechanism for distributing resources from each region of the world according to its ability to each region according to the needs of its population. Amazon, with its complex logistical web spanning every continent and dozens of countries, will be transformed into a public utility to ship medicine, building material, food and disaster relief across the world.
Neither Bezos nor the capitalist class will give up their wealth without a fight. The working class must prepare for the coming class battles ahead by joining the fight for socialism.

China and the Shape of the Indo-Pacific

Manpreet Sethi


It is hardly surprising that China figures prominently in the idea of the Indo-Pacific. In fact, China’s behaviour and actions have provided the impetus and trigger for the revival of the Indo-Pacific, since the countries spearheading the concept have felt, if not threatened, then certainly uncomfortable, with what they see emerging. The US for sure, as the driver of this version of the Indo-Pacific, has not shied away from calling out China as an adversary in its National Security Strategy of 2017 and the Nuclear Posture Review of early 2018. In its formulation of the Indo-Pacific, Washington perceives one way of dealing with China. Nearly all other countries, big and small, that have shown interest in the Indo-Pacific are also animated by shared geopolitical concerns posed by China’s 'rise'. 

In fact, the reason why the first avatar of the concept of Indo-Pacific faded away was largely because none of the participants felt the gravity of China’s power which, in 2007, was still quite muted. It may be recalled that India too celebrated a friendship year with China in 2006 that saw fairly large scale political, economic and cultural engagements. The bonhomie continued for a while and in 2008, China agreed to India’s exceptionalisation by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). But, within a couple of years of that, China’s nationalism and assertive behaviour had begun to be felt. 

Eight years down the line, China seems to have had a brush of sorts with many countries of the Indo-Pacific. Japan has its issues with China on both the East and South China Seas; Australia is wary of its interference in its domestic arena; India has had a showdown at Doklam and differences over the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), NSG, terrorism and Pakistan; and the US is engaged in a tug of war on trade issues as also expressing wariness at Beijing’s military activities in the South China Sea. China’s rapid military and nuclear modernisation is changing the balance of power and could have implications for its nuclear doctrine, which until now has been seen as inclined towards minimum and defensive deterrence. Changing capabilities could bring in new dimensions that appear threatening to others, not the least to India.

So, China is a factor in the formulation of concept of Indo-Pacific. For now, Beijing has refrained from expressing any strictly official view on the concept. But, it certainly has taken notice of the development. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi in March 2018 dismissed the Quad and Indo-Pacific as a "headline grabbing idea," but which would dissipate like "foam on the sea." Several Chinese strategic analysts, too, have expressed scepticism over the sustainability of the ‘formless’ concept and have predicted that differences in capabilities of countries would cause coordination problems amongst them. 

Meanwhile, editorials in Global Times have, on the one hand, been characteristically caustic of the prominence being accorded to India, and on the other hand, seem to be cautioning India from becoming a US pawn in its China containment strategy. They contend that US support for India’s rise as a global power is meant to help check China’s movements in the Indian Ocean since Washington has no reliable alliances here. Another editorial of 31 May 2018 called the Indo-Pacific a trap set by Washington to: one, "instigate China and India into long term infighting;" and two, to cope with the inevitable rise of India and to strengthen Washington’s control of the Indian Ocean. It warns India that its period of "smooth diplomacy" with the West will soon run its course, and like China, its rise will be perceived as a threat by the West. So, as per this Chinese view, the Indo-Pacific strategy of the US is meant to drive a wedge between China and India and drag them into a dispute that would delay the rise of both. 
As far as India is concerned, it certainly does not want a zero-sum relationship with either China or the US. In fact, present day multi-polarity allows actors the ability and freedom to simultaneously engage in multiple relations of competition and cooperation. India would certainly not want to sharpen the threat with China. The Wuhan Summit was an indication of this and the fact that despite their differences, both do recognise each other’s presence as important players in the region.

China has chosen to launch the BRI to provide continued vitality for its economic growth and development through access to resources, creation of jobs and markets. Infrastructure development in under-developed but resource-rich countries in a manner that allows a cash- rich China to profit further is its chosen strategy. However, there has been a pushback from many places on the lack of transparency on the financing of these projects and the absence of actual benefits that it brings to the local population. 

In the Indian formulation, the idea of the Indo-Pacific is an opportunity to offer an alternative model of infrastructure development that follows the principles of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, international law, financial transparency, environmental sustainability and mutually beneficial trade and investment. Therefore, without getting into a direct confrontation with China, the bilateral, trilateral or multilateral arrangements amongst countries of the Indo-Pacific are meant to present a starkly different approach to quality infrastructure development as compared to Chinese projects. 

For India, the Indo-Pacific is not only a geographical space for politico-economic maritime partnerships and strengthening of regional frameworks, but also a platform to showcase an alternative development model in which countries are bound by a vision of shared prosperity underpinned by a common interest in maritime order and strategic stability. Whether this idea will remain a loose set of economic, maritime and political relationships or whether it would lead to the construction of a tight military alliance anchored in the Quad is wholly dependent on China’s own behaviour and actions in the future. These will determine the shape and trajectory that the Indo-Pacific and the Quad ultimately take.

17 Jul 2018

Heinrich Boll Foundation Scholarships for International Students in Germany

Application Deadlines:
  • 1st March 2018 (Summer)
  • 1st September 2018 (Winter)
Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International Students

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.

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 the Scholarship Webpage for Details 

Sponsors: The Heinrich Böll Foundation, Germany

Austrian Government OeAD Ernst Mach Follow-up Grants for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadlines: 
  • 1st February 2018
  • 1st September, 2018
Eligible Field of Study: Natural Sciences, Technical Sciences, Human Medicine, Health Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts.

About the Award: Applications are open to postdocs who are pursuing research or teaching at a higher education institution/university in a Non-European developing country and who were in receipt of a grant in Austria which was administered by the OeAD-GmbH (formerly ÖAD).
At the time of taking up the grant at least 5 years must have passed since the last scholarship-supported study or research stay in Austria.
Targets
• to promote scientific secondary growth
• to promote scientific cooperation
• to build a sustainable network of academics with relation to Austria


Eligible Countries: See list below

To be taken at (country): Austria

Type: Research Grants PhD

Eligibility:
  • Maximum age: 50 years
  • For the application deadline February 1, 2018: Born on or after February 1, 1968
  • For the application deadline September 1, 2018: Born on or after September 1, 1968
  • Applicants must not have studied/pursued research/pursued academic work in Austria in the last six months before taking up the grant.
  • Grants in this programme can only be applied for every 5 years
Selecion Criteria: During the selection process the following criteria are examined and assessed:
• Purpose of your stay
• Why did you choose the specific target institution in Austria?
• Added value of the stay for the partner countries concerned (establishment and/or continuation of institutional cooperation)
• Prior teaching and research activities


Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Grant: 
  • Monthly grant
  • Accident and health insurance If necessary.
  • Accommodation
  • Scholarship holders will receive a travel costs subsidy
Duration of Grant: 1 to 3 months

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan; Algeria; American Samoa; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Azerbaijan; Bangladesh; Belize; Benin; Bhutan; Bolivia; Botswana; Brazil; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; Congo; Congo – Democratic Republic of the; Cook Islands; Costa Rica; Cote D’Ivoire; Cuba; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Fiji; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Ghana; Grenada; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Iran – Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Jamaica; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Korea – Democratic People’s Republic of; Kyrgyzstan; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Libya; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Mali; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Micronesia – Federated States of; Mongolia; Montserrat; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nauru; Nepal; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Niue; Pakistan; Palau; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Rwanda; Saint Helena; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Sao Tome and Principe; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Solomon Islands; Somalia; South Africa; South Sudan; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Suriname; Swaziland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Tanzania – United Rebublic of; Thailand; Timor-Leste; Togo; Tokelau; Tonga; Tunisia; Turkmenistan; Tuvalu; Uganda; Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Vanuatu; Venezuela; Viet Nam; Wallis and Futuna; West Bank and Gaza Strip; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe.

How to Apply: Applications must be submitted at “www.scholarships.at“. Only online at www.scholarships.at. A hardcopy application is NOT possible.
The following documents have to be uploaded together with the online application at www.scholarships.at:
• Consent of the academic partner in Austria
• Scan of your passport (page with the name and photo)
• Proof of employment by the home institution
• Curriculum Vitae
• Scan of university graduation certificate of PhD or doctoral studies


Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economics – BMWFW

Important Notes: The recipients of grants will get the grant contract (Letter of Award and Letter of Acceptance) from the OeAD-GmbH/ICM. The contract covers the following aspects: Start and end dates of the grant; monthly grant rate; grant payment modalities (including a possible travel cost subsidy); compulsory presence at the place of study; performance record; data protection; repayment requirements.

West African Research Association (WARA) Travel Grants for African Scholars 2018

Application Deadlines: 15th September 2018
This round of applications opened July 15, 2018. 

Eligible Countries: West African countries

To be taken at (country): Any African country of candidate’s choice.

About the Award: The WARC Travel Grant program promotes intra-African cooperation and exchange among researchers and institutions by providing support to African scholars and graduate students for research visits to other institutions on the continent

Type: Research Grants

Eligibility: This competition is open only to West African nationals, with preference given to those affiliated with West African colleges, universities, or research institutions.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Grants: The WARC Travel Grant provides travel costs up to $1,500 and a stipend of $1,500. Travel grant funds may be used to:
  1. attend and present papers at academic conferences relevant to the applicant’s field of research;
  2. visit libraries or archives that contain resources necessary to the applicant’s current academic work;
  3. engage in collaborative work with colleagues at another institution;
  4. travel to a research site.
Duration of Grants:  Between December 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019 for the 15th Sept 2018 deadline

How to Apply: All applications must be submitted online here
It is important to go through Application requirements before applying.

Visit Grants Webpage for details

Award Provider: Funding for WARA’s Fellowship Program is provided by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the US Department of State through a grant from the Council of American Overseas Research Centers.

Important Notes: Please note: this competition is open only to West African nationals eligible for non-immigrant visas to the U.S. WARC Travel Grantees must agree in writing to submit to the WARC Library in Dakar two copies of their dissertation/thesis, articles, and all other publications arising from the research funded through this grant. They must also agree to make public presentations on their research to 1) their academic institution, and 2) their local communities and to submit reports on these to WARA.
Please note that late & incomplete applications will not be considered.

Government of Malaysia International Scholarships (MIS) at Malaysian Universities 2019/2020 – Fully-funded

Application Deadline: 31st July, 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at: Public and Private Universities in Malaysia

Accepted Subject Areas? Field of studies is in the following priority areas:
  • Science and Engineering
  • Agriculture and Fisheries
  • Economics and Islamic Finance
  • Information and Communication Technology
  • Biotechnology
  • Biosecurity and Food Safety
  • Infrastructure and Utility
  • Environmental Studies
  • Health not including nursing, medicine, clinical pharmacy.
Candidates may choose any related course within the field/areas mentioned above

About Scholarship: The Malaysia International Scholarship (MIS) is an initiative by the Malaysian Government to attract the best brain from around the world to pursue advanced academic studies in Malaysia. This scholarship aims to support Malaysian Government’s effort to attract, motivate and retain talented human capital from abroad.
Talented international students with excellent academic records and outstanding co-curricular backgrounds are welcomed to apply for this scholarship and further their studies in any selected and well-established Malaysian public and private universities.

Type: Ph.D, Masters degree

Selection Criteria: Applications will be considered according to the following selection criteria:-
  • High-level academic achievement
  • The quality of the research proposal and its potential contribution towards advancement of technology and human well-being.
  • Excellent communication, writing and reading skills in English Language
Eligibility: To be eligible for Malaysia International Scholarship (MIS), applicants must fit the following criteria:-
  1. Not be more than 40 years (Postgraduate) and 45 years (Post-doctoral) of age during application..
  2. Obtained a minimum of Second Class Upper (Honours) or a CGPA of 3.5/4.0 at Bachelor Degree Level for Masters Degree applicants and for PhD candidates must possess CGPA 3.5/4.0 or very good result at Masters degree level in a similar field of intended PhD study. In addition, for post-doctoral programme, the selection will be evaluated based on the number of books produced, refereed/non refereed journals, portfolio and patent copyright. The Post-Doctoral candidate must have excellent reputation in research and possesses knowledge related to the research to be carried out.
  3. Took one of the following English Language Proficiency Test not more than two years before the date of application. The list of tests and minimum scores required:
    1. IELTS Academic Test with a score of at least 6.5; or
    2. TOEFL paper-based test with a score of at least 580 or computer-based test with a score of at least 230 or internet-based test with a score at least 92.
  4. In excellent health condition and certified by a Certified Doctor/Medical Professional. The cost of medical examination is to be borne by the applicants.
  5. Wrote a proposal that is relevant to the needs and interests of Malaysia (research-based programme only).
  6. Has applied for and gained admission to postgraduate and post-doctoral studies in Malaysia (conditional letters of offer will be accepted at the time of application or has a confirmation of acceptance or affiliation with the universities in Malaysia).
How Many Scholarships are available? Several

What are the benefits? Each scholarship consists of:-
  • Air tickets from recipient’s capital city to Malaysia
  • An approved tuition fees
  • Monthly maintenance allowance
  • Annual grant for books and internal travel
  • Medical / Health Insurance
  • Installation and Termination grant
  • Thesis allowance
  • Visa
How long will sponsorship last? For the duration of the programme of study

Visit Scholarship webpage for details. 

Award Providers: Malaysian Government

Malaysia Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan (CSFP) for Developing Countries 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 31st July 2018.

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth developing countries

To be taken at (country): Malaysia

About the Award: The Malaysian Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan are awarded by the Malaysian Government to the nominated students from the Commonwealth countries to study at the post-graduate level in Malaysia. This is a Government to Government scheme without any bond imposed by Malaysia. The awards for Masters degree are between 12 to 24 months depending on the courses. Awards for pursuing PhD degree are for 3 years. The Awards are only applicable for candidates pursuing full-time degree programme in Malaysia.

Type: Masters,. PhD

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: To be eligible for Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan (CSFP), applicants must fit the following criteria:
  • Not be more than 45 years of age during application.
  • Obtained a minimum of Second Class Upper (Honours) or a CGPA of 3.5/4.0 at Bachelor Degree Level for Masters Degree applicants and for PhD candidates must possess CGPA 3.5/4.0 or very good result at Masters degree level in a similar field of intended PhD study. In addition, for post-doctoral programme, the selection will be evaluated based on the number of books produced, refereed/non refereed journals, portfolio and patent copyright. The Post-Doctoral candidate must have excellent reputation in research and possesses knowledge related to the research to be carried out.
  • Took one of the following English Language Proficiency Test not more than two years before the date of application. The list of tests and minimum scores required:
    • IELTS Academic Test with a score of at least 6.5; or
    • TOEFL paper-based test with a score of at least 580 or computer-based test with a score of at least 230 or internet-based test with a score at least 92.
    • In excellent health condition and certified by a Certified Doctor/Medical Professional. The cost of medical examination is to be borne by the applicants
    • Wrote a proposal that is relevant to the needs and interests of Malaysia (research-based programme only)
    • Has applied for and gained admission to postgraduate and post-doctoral studies in Malaysia (conditional letters of offer will be accepted at the time of application or has a confirmation of acceptance or affiliation with the universities in Malaysia).
Applications will be considered according to the following selection criteria:-

  • High-level academic achievement
  • The quality of the research proposal and its potential contribution towards advancement of technology and human well-being.
  • Excellent communication, writing and reading skills in English Language
Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: Each scholarship consists of:-
  • Air tickets from recipient’s capital city to Malaysia
  • An approved tuition fees
  • Monthly maintenance allowance
  • Annual grant for books and internal travel
  • Medical / Health Insurance
  • Installation and Termination grant
  • Thesis allowance
  • Visa
* The Government of Malaysia reserves the rights to review the value of awards at any time (and if such changes are made, the value of scholarship will be changed and the effective date will be informed to the successful candidates).

Duration of Scholarship: The awards for Masters degree are between 12 to 24 months depending on the courses. Awards for pursuing PhD degree are for 3 years.

How to Apply: All applications should be made ONLINE through Ministry of Education’s website at https://biasiswa.moe.gov.my/INTER/ until 31st July 2018.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and the Government of Malaysia