6 Sept 2018

NNPC/SNEPCo National University Scholarship for Undergraduate Nigerian Students 2018

Application Deadline: 24th September, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Undergraduates in universities in Nigeria

To be taken at: Nigerian Universities

Accepted Subject Areas: The merit-based scholarship is open to FULL TIME undergraduates studying any of the under listed courses in Universities within Nigeria.
  • Agricultural Science
  • Chemical / Process Engineering
  • Chemistry
  • Civil Engineering
  • Economics
  • Electrical Engineering
  • Finance
  • Geophysics
  • Geoscience / Geology
  • Instrumentation Engineering
  • Marine Engineering
  • Materials / Corrosion Engineering
  • Mathematics / Applied Mathematics
  • Mechanical / Aerospace Engineering
  • Medicine
  • Metallurgical Engineering
  • Mining Engineering
  • Petroleum Engineering
  • Pharmacy
  • Physics / Applied Physics
  • Process Control Engineering
About SNEPCo Scholarship: SNEPCo on behalf of itself and its co-venturers is launching the SNEPCo National Merit University Scholarship Scheme.  The programme aims to promote academic excellence and improve the skills of young Nigerians.

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: Applicant must:
  • Be a citizen of Nigeria, currently enrolled in an accredited and approved university in Nigeria.
  • Currently be in their second year of fulltime study in a Nigerian university accredited by NUC.
  • Have a minimum grade point average of 3.0 – 5.0 at the time of application (attach  transcripts or official records).
  • Not be a beneficiary of any other scholarship.
Number of Scholarships: Several

Scholarship Worth: Grant for the remainder of student’s Program

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarships are renewable through graduation. Recipients are expected to maintain high academic / ethical standards, and other conditions outlined in the scholarship award letter.

How to Apply: Please take the following steps to access the website:
  1. Use the direct link https://www.nnpc-snepco-scholarship.shell.com/
  2. Every applicant should have a valid personal email account (for communication purposes)
Candidates who meet the above entry qualifications should apply via the link above online and provide the required personal and educational details, and load scanned copies of the following:
  • A recent passport-sized photograph of the applicant (i.e. jpeg format, not more than 200kilobytes);
  • University or JAMB (UTME or D/E) Admission Letter;
  • Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examinations (UTME) Scores;
  • ‘O’ Level Result(s); and ‘A’ Level /OND /NCE Result(s) as applicable; and
  • Letter of Identification from State (showing Local Government) of Origin.
  • Students are to upload their 100l results
Sponsors: Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company (SNEPCo)

50 Travel Fellowships for Tony Elumelu Foundation (TEF) Entrepreneurship Forum 2018

Application Deadline: 12th September 2018

Eligible Countries: African Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Lagos, Nigeria

About the Award: The TEF Entrepreneurship Forum 2018 will be the largest gathering of African entrepreneurs and other ecosystem stakeholders from across the continent. It will be a showcase of the innovation and entrepreneurial potential that exists in Africa and has the potential to be the debut of the next generation of African business titans onto the global stage.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • Working Journalists affiliated with African national or global media houses
  • Documented support provided from Supervisor/media outlet
Number of Awards: 50

Value of Award: The TEF Entrepreneurship Forum Travel Fellowship provides 50 fellowships that cover travel, accommodation, and a per diem. TEF will handle travel arrangements, accommodation and assist with visas.

Duration of Program: October 25, 2018

How to Apply: Each member of reporting teams should apply separately. Maximum two-person reporting teams.
To Apply, Fill in the application details (Link below).

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Tony Elumelu Foundation

Criticism of Saudi leadership seeps through cracks as report questions kingdom’s utility for Britain

James M. Dorsey

Signs of opposition to policies of Saudi King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and potentially increased domestic polarization have in the past week spilled on to the streets of London while a just released report questioned the economic and political benefits of Britain’s relationship with the kingdom.
The London incidents, involving a brother of King Salman as well as an assault on a Saudi critic, suggest a long suspected greater degree of domestic questioning of Saudi Arabia’s 3.5-year-old ill-fated war in Yemen than has been publicly evident until now.
Although focused on British-Saudi economic and political relations, the report by King’s College London and the Oxford Research Group calls into question not only British but also by implication long-standing Western willingness to turn a blind eye to the kingdom’s violations of human rights and its conduct of the Yemen war that has produced one of the worst humanitarian crises in post-World War Two history.
The London incidents coupled with increasing European questioning of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, including this week’s cancellation by Spain of the sale of 400 laser-guided precision bombs, suggests that Saudi Arabia is finding it more difficult to keep domestic dissent and international criticism under wraps. Spain follows in the footsteps of Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium who have suspended some military sales.
The Spanish cancellation came on the heels of last month’s Saudi-Canadian spat sparked by a call on Saudi Arabia by Canada’s ambassador to the kingdom, Dennis Horak, to release detained women activists, including Samar Badawi, the sister-in-law of a recently naturalized Canadian citizen, Ensaf Haidar.
Ms. Haidar is married to Ms. Badawi’s brother, Raif Badawi, who was arrested in 2012 and sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for promoting freedom of expression and women’s rights.
It also came in the wake of the withdrawal of Malaysian troops from the 41-nation, Saudi-sponsored Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC) and the closure in Malaysia of the Saudi-backed King Salman Centre for International Peace (KSCIP).
In a rare public distancing from the Salmans, Saudi Prince Ahmed bin Abdelaziz – one of the few still living sons of the founder of Saudi Arabia and a younger brother of King Salman, asked anti-Saudi protesters on a London street chanting “down, down Al Saud” and “Al Saud criminal family”: “What does the al-Saud family have to do with your chants? We have nothing to do with what is happening (in Yemen). Certain officials are responsible.”
Asked by protesters who he held responsible, Prince Ahmed, who served as deputy interior minister for 37 years and briefly as interior minister under King Salman’s predecessor, King Abdullah, said “the king and his heir apparent,” a reference to King Salman and Prince Mohammed.
The state-run Saudi News Agency subsequently quoted Prince Ahmed as seeking to roll back his comments captured on video by saying that he said that “the King and the Crown Prince are responsible for the state and its decisions. This is true for the security and stability of the country and the people.”
Meanwhile, video on social media showed Ghanem al-Dosari, who hosts a satirical show on YouTube critical of Saudi Arabia, being accosted by supporters of King Salman and Prince Mohammed.
In a bid to stymie criticism, Saudi prosecutors this week reportedly sought the death penalty against prominent cleric Salman Al-Odah who was detained a year ago.
“The Saudi attorney general accused my father @salman_alodah of 37 charges and asked for his execution,” his son Abdullah said in a tweet. He said some of the charges were related to comments Mr. Al-Odah had posted on Twitter and membership in organizations associated with Qatar and Qatari-Egyptian Islamic scholar Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is close to the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Al-Odah has 14 million Twitter followers.
Prosecutors last month demanded the death sentence for five human rights activists, including Israa al-Ghomgham, a Shiite activist arrested with her husband in 2015. Ms. Al-Ghomgham is thought to be the first female Saudi campaigner to face execution.
Applying a cost-benefit analysis, The Kings College/Oxford Research Group report concluded that, contrary to the projections of the government of Prime Minister Theresa May and popular perception, Britain enjoyed limited economic benefit from its relationship with Saudi Arabia while suffering considerable reputational damage.
The report noted that Britain’s US$ 8 billion in exports to Saudi Arabia accounted for a mere one percent of total exports in 2016. The British Treasury reaped US$ 38.5 million in revenues from arms sales or a paltry 0.004 percent of the Treasury’s total income in 2016. Overall, Britain’s defense industry produced in 2010/11 only one percent of the country’s total output and created a meagre 0.6 percent of all jobs.
The analysis stroked with the conclusion of a 2016 study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) that “arms exports cannot be said to represent an important part of the UK economy, and even less so of the labour market, despite the prominence of the ‘jobs argument’ amongst politicians and industry figures seeking to promote and defend arms exports.”
The King’s College/Oxford Research report took issue with assertions by successive British governments that trade and weapons sales as well as support for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s reform programme enabled Britain to influence Saudi policy and introduce democratic and human rights values.
“There is little evidence, based on publicly available information, that the UK exerts either influence or leverage over Saudi Arabia. In fact, there is greater evidence that Saudi Arabia exerts influence over the UK. There is a contradiction between the UK presenting itself as a progressive, liberal country and defender of the international rules-based order, while at the same time providing diplomatic cover for a regime, which, based on our analysis, is undermining that rules-based order,” the report said.
It warned that “the UK appears to be incurring reputational costs as a result of its relationship with Saudi Arabia, while the economic benefits to the UK are questionable.”
The report’s call on the British government to critically analyse its foreign policy and limit and be more selective and transparent in in its engagement with Saudi Arabia could constitute an approach that would appeal to other European governments.
It could also attract support from some members of the US Congress, despite US President Donald J. Trump’s backing of Saudi policies, with public criticism of the kingdom mounting in Europe and the United States as well as growing unease among some officials and politicians.
Saudi Arabia “is a case study in what happens when a country’s supposed economic interests come into conflict with its stated norms and values and its international obligations. The situation cannot carry on indefinitely,” said Armida van Rij, one of the report’s authors.

The Russian minority in the Baltics live under ‘apartheid’ states

Max Parry

It has been nearly three decades since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Despite Russia’s reemergence on the world stage as a respected power after market-oriented ‘reforms’ destroyed its economy for the duration of the nineties, the breakup of the USSR is an event regarded by an increasing amount of Russians as a catastrophic tragedy rather than a triumph of ‘freedom and democracy.’ In recent years, there have been numerous polls showing that more than half of Russians not only regret the collapse of the Soviet Union but would even prefer for its return. However, the nostalgia only comes as a surprise to those who have forgotten that not long before the failed August Coup that led to its demise, the first and only referendum in its history was held in March of 1991 which polled citizens if they wished to preserve the Soviet system.
The results were more than three quarters of the population in the entire socialist federation (including Russia) voting a resounding yes with a turnout of 80% in the participating republics. In Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the outcome was more than 90% voting for renewal. Even the country with the lowest amount of support, the Ukraine, was still 70% in favor. While the measure was officially banned in six republics— Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and the three Baltic states— despite being unrecognized by their local governments the vote was still organized and the outcomes were all over 90%. Ironically, the union dissolved five months later under the pretext of establishing ‘democracy’ in Eastern Europe just as it ignored the very wishes of Soviet citizens. After more than 25 years of suffering at the hands of economic and trade liberalization, gutting of state subsidies and mass privatization of the former state-run industry, is it any wonder that Russians are yearning for a return to socialism?
The consequences of the disintegration are still felt in the relations with the United States today. It planted the seeds for the carefully arranged revival of the Cold War that was hiding in plain sight until it surfaced with ‘color revolutions’, proxy wars and dubious spy poisonings. One source of the strained relations between the West and Russia has been the Baltic states, which burgeoned following their integration into the European Union and enrollment in NATO membership in 2004 during its enlargement. NATO continues its provocations with massive war games bordering Kaliningrad, while Moscow is painted as the aggressor even though the U.S. defense spending increase this year alone surpasses Russia’s entire military budget.
The antagonism between Latvia, Estonia and(to a lesser degree) Lithuania with Moscow stems partly from from the cessation of the USSR itself. The conclusion of the Cold War resulted in more than 25 million Russians instantly discovering themselves living abroad in foreign countries. For seventy years, fifteen nations had been fully integrated while Russians migrated and lived within the other republics. The Soviet collapse immediately reignited national conflicts, from the Caucasus to the Baltics. While the majority of the ethnic Russian diaspora live in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, nearly 1 million reside in the post-Soviet Baltics and since 1991 they have been subjected to a campaign of forced assimilation, discrimination and exclusion.
The Baltic republics made nationalism their official state policy while moving away from Russia’s sphere of influence into a closer relationship with the West. Boris Yeltsin’s subservience to Washington eclipsed any concern for the fate of captive Russians as the Soviet Bloc was herded into the EU, but his administration did quarrel with the new Baltic authorities and accused them of creating an anti-Russian ‘apartheid.’ As geopolitical tensions have increased under his successor, Vladimir V. Putin, who has embarrassed Western imperialism in the international arena, so has Moscow’s disapproval of the treatment of its minority held hostage in the Baltic Rim. Is a comparison to South Africa warranted? Even if the similarities are only partial, the three states show evidence of deep ethnocracy.
While less than 10% of Lithuania is ethnically Russian, in Latvia and Estonia the number is much higher at a quarter of their entire populations. The three governments have passed laws promoting their official languages and restored citizenship requirements that existed up until 1940, demanding that their Russian minorities apply or risk losing basic rights and guarantees. Russia has interpreted these measures as a form of slow-motion ethnic cleansing intended to coerce Russians to immigrate elsewhere. When the three states first became independent, in an act of systematic discrimination they distributed non-citizen ‘alien’ passports to ethnic Russians and excluded them from obtaining citizenship automatically, even if they had lived and worked in a Baltic state for their entire life. In fact, citizenship was not immediately granted to anyone whose ancestry arrived after 1940, a policy that specifically targeted ethnic Russians who without naturalization are left stateless.
For example, when Estonia first declared its independence more than 30% of its population (or every third person) did not have citizenship of the country of residence. This inscribed ethnic division into their society and although many Russians have become naturalized over the last two decades, there are still more than 80,000 in Estonia without determined status who are mostly former Soviet citizens and their descendants. In Latvia, segregation runs even deeper where more than 250,000 Russians (15% of the population) remain stateless. Even when they do become citizens, the parliaments have attempted to pass laws banning non-EU immigrants (predominantly Russians) from possessing voting rights on several occasions. Polls also show the prejudice within their societies, with many Balts indicating they would prefer their Russian-speaking neighbors to repatriate. Meanwhile, the Russian population has expressed concern about the reemergence of neo-Nazism. The authorities have nurtured holocaust denial, such as the Latvian government objecting to an UNESCO Holocaust exhibition of the Salaspils concentration camp on the basis it would ‘tarnish the country’s image.’ No kidding.
One criteria for the naturalization exams is based on language where in order to become citizens Russians must become fluent in Latvian and Estonian, even though they are such a large minority that in larger cities they often constitute 50% of the population and Russian may be the most spoken language. Simultaneously, any attempt to make Russian a second official language have been struck down. It is a deliberate effort to assimilate the Russian-speaking minority and erase remnants of Soviet culture. In order to obtain basic entitlements, Russians have to pass the tough naturalization tests which many fail several times (especially the elderly), facing fines and risking losing their employment in the process. The tests are notoriously difficult as Latvian and Estonian languages bear little resemblance to Slavic Russian and are much closer to Finnish. Apart from ethnicity, 40% of Latvia as a whole identifies as Russian-speaking and have been accustomed to schooling in their native tongue where they already have low career prospects and income rates. Rather than inclusion, they have been mandated to adopt the Baltic languages. Beginning in 2019, the Russian language education options in Latvia will be discontinued altogether in higher education at colleges and universities as well as many secondary schools, which has sparked demonstrations in protest.
Russian-speakers protesting Latvia’s language reform laws
It should be made clear that what ethnic Russians experience in the Baltics has its own particularities that make it significantly different from the institutionalized racism and violently enforced segregation that existed in South Africa (or what many believe is applicable to the Palestinians under Israeli occupation). The word apartheid itself originates from the Afrikaans word for ‘separateness’ (or apart-hood), but an exact comparison is not the real issue. There are many overlapping characteristics that make an analogy arguable. For instance, the use of an ID system denoting ethnicity and alien status with the inability of Russians to participate in the democratic process or politics. Their reduced standing contributes to a society where ethnic groups often do not intermingle and are concentrated in particular areas with Russians mostly residing in urban cities. Yet even Israel recognizes Arabic as a second official language, while none of three Baltic states do so for Russian. When referendums have been held on whether to adopt Russian as a second language, the non-citizen communities are excluded from voting, ensuring its inability to pass.
The exams also coerce Russians to accept a nationalist and historically revisionist account of the last century where the Soviet Union is said to have “occupied” the Baltics. A history lesson is needed to understand how this is untrue and based on pure Nazi mythology. During the Romanov dynasty, the Baltic states had been part of the Russian Empire but became independent for the first time in centuries following the February Revolution in 1917. Along with Belarus and Finland, the Bolsheviks were unable to regain the three republics during the Russian Civil War. During the 1930s, the three nations were officially sovereign states but under their own brutal nationalist regimes. The Soviet liberation of the Baltics can hardly be seen as a ‘forceful incorporation’ considering what they replaced were not democracies themselves and they were absorbed in order to block Hitlerite expansionism.
Since the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe, the Baltic states have waged a campaign of diminishing and obscuring the Holocaust into a ‘double genocide’ of equal proportions , conflating the Nazis and the Soviets as twin evils. Western ‘democracies’ have helped obfuscate the truth about the widely misunderstood Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the treaty of non-belligerence between Germany and the USSR. The 1939 non-aggression pact has been painted as a ‘secret alliance’ between the Nazis and the Soviets, disregarding that France and Great Britain had done the same with the Germans the previous year with the Munich Agreement. Only the Soviets are said to have ‘conspired’ with Hitler, just as when the West fought the Germans it was for ‘liberal values’ but when the USSR did so it was for competing ‘dominion’ over Europe. In order to mask their own fascist sympathies, the West has falsified the historical reasons for the accord. In reality, there were measures incorporating the Baltic states into the USSR as part of a mutual defense and assistance against German imperialism and their ‘master plan’ for the East.
The truth is that the ruling class in the West feared the spread of communism much more than fascism, and actually viewed the rise of Hitler and Mussolini in Europe as an opportunity to crush the Soviet Union. Leading up to WWII, not only was it Western capital investment which financed the rapid buildup of Germany’s armed forces, but the U.S., Britain and France did everything within their power to encourage Hitler’s aggression toward the USSR. More than once they collectively refused to sign any mutual security alliance with Moscow while appeasing Hitler’s expansionism in Czechoslovakia, with the British in particular guilty of sabotaging negotiations to isolate the Soviets and pit them into a war against Germany.
Stalin was well aware the Nazis planned to expand the Lebensraum further East, but the Soviets were in the midst of a rapid industrialization process that accomplished in a single decade what took the British more than a century. They needed time to guarantee they could defeat an offensive by the Wehrmacht, the most powerful and developed military force in the world at the time. It provided an additional year and ten months of further buildup of Soviet armaments — if not for this move, it is possible the Germans would never have been stopped twenty kilometers short of Moscow and turned the outcome of the war in their favor. The real reason the pact infuriated the West was because it obligated them into having to fight the Germans, something the imperial powers had hoped to avoid altogether.
More disturbingly, the Baltic governments have drawn from the traditions of the far right by whitewashing the local nationalists that sided with Germany during their invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 which broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The Nazi collaborators have been restored and normalized as ‘freedom fighters’ who fought solely for Baltic independence. The Estonian parliament has even adopted resolutions honoring the Estonian Legion and 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) without any such equivalent measure for the more than 30,000 Estonians who courageously fought in the Red Army. To most Russians, it is an absolute insult to the 27 million Soviets who died defeating the Nazis, including the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians who did so as well. Today, if they wish to become citizens they must swear an oath of allegiance to this rewriting of history which has been made a precondition for obtaining citizenship. The three states also do not recognize the May 9th Victory Day as a holiday, forcing the Russian minority to celebrate it informally.
The rehabilitation of the local nationalists who fought alongside the Germans has been done under the false premise that the collaboration was a purely strategic alliance. The Soviets are portrayed as equal to or worse than Nazi Germany, a false equivalency between fascism and communism that is a ubiquitous trait among ultra-rightists today. Tens of thousands of Latvians and Estonians volunteered and were conscripted into legions of the SS which participated in the Holocaust, as did Lithuanians in the Nazi-created Territorial Defense Force and their Security Police. They did not simply coordinate on the battlefield with the Germans, but directly participated in the methodical slaughter of Jews, Roma and others because they shared their racism. In Lithuania, for example, quislings welcomed the Wehrmacht as liberators and for the next three years under Nazi occupation helped murder 200,000 Jews, nearly 95% of the country’s Jewish population, a total which exceeded every other European country in terms of percentage of extermination. It is certain that the only thing that prevented Lithuania’s Jews from extinction was the heroism and sacrifice of the Red Army.
During the Cold War, the US and NATO sought to whitewash certain Nazi war criminals when it suited its strategic interests against the Soviets. This went beyond the Germans themselves, whether it was recruiting their spies for espionage, atomic scientists in Operation Paperclip, or making Hans Speidel the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Central Europe. The Nuremberg Trials had ruled the entire Waffen SS as an organization to be guilty of war crimes during the holocaust, but the US chose to make a distinction between the 15th and 19th SS divisions in Latvia (Latvian Legion) and 20th division in Estonia from the German divisions of the SS. In 1950, the US Displaced Persons Commission determined:
“The Baltic Waffen SS Units are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act, as amended.”
While the displaced persons laws let Jewish refugees into the United States, it also provided cover for the reserved spaces for thousands of Nazi collaborators in an open-door policy providing them safe harbor. Following the end of WWII, many of the former members of the Baltic SS units became anti-Soviet partisans known as the Forest Brothers who carried on a guerilla campaign against the Soviets with the assistance of the CIA and MI6 until it was defeated in mid-50s. Unfortunately, Nikita Khruschev then made one of a series of colossal mistakes by permitting the exiled Baltic nationals to return as part of the de-Stalinisation thaw.
The idea that regiments of the Schutzstaffel were fighting purely for Estonian and Latvian independence is a horrifying fabrication in defiance of the overwhelming evidence documented by holocaust historians. The West has exploited this sanitizing of history that reappeared following the reinstatement of free enterprise in eastern Europe which has proliferated the far right in the EU as a whole. Why? It serves their cynical immediate interests in undermining Moscow. The same manipulations are occurring in the Cold War’s sequel. Last year, NATO even produced a short film and a-historical reenactment entitled Forest Brothers: Fight for the Baltics, glorifying the anti-Soviet partisans as part of its propaganda effort against Russia.
Any crimes that were committed by the Soviet NKVD during the war are dwarfed by the tens of thousands of Jews and Roma which were exterminated on an industrial level by the Nazis and their co-conspirators using the race theory — there is no comparison. Not to mention that the reintroduction of the free market to Eastern Europe killed more people than any period in Soviet history, reducing life expectancy by a decade and undoing seventy years worth of progress. We only ever hear of the faults of socialism and the inflated numbers of losses of life attributed to its failure, never the daily crimes of capitalism or the tens of millions lost in the wars it produces. The Soviet brand of socialism was far from perfect, but nevertheless a model for what humanity can achieve in the face of tremendous adversity without being shackled by the contradictions of capitalism — an industrial society with relative equality in education, wealth, employment and basic necessities. Now that Western capitalism is once again collapsing, it is making friends with nationalists to revise its ugly history and the Russian minority in the Baltics are suffering the consequence. It will continue to apportion blame on the up-and-coming power in Moscow, no longer the quasi-colony of the Yeltsin era, for its soon-to-be expiration. Let us hope it does not start another World War in the midst of it — for all our sake.

India: Police charge pro-Dalit activists under anti-terrorism laws

Kranti Kumara

With the aim of muzzling opposition to India’s Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government and its noxious Hindutva (Hindu supremacist) ideology, Maharashtra state police raided and conducted warrantless searches of the homes of seven left-wing activists on August 28 in six different cities across the country. The seven are all prominent advocates for the rights of Dalits (the former “untouchables”) and Adivasi (India’s tribal peoples).
The raids come amid mounting struggles against social inequality, cheap-labor jobs, and environmental devastation, and growing apprehension in government circles that the BJP could suffer a major reversal in the national elections slated for April/May 2019.
The police arrested 5 of the 7 targeted persons under the notorious Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2012 (UAPA), “anti-terrorist” legislation that in numerous ways trammels the due-process rights of the accused. On an order of India’s Supreme Court, the five are being held under house arrest pending a hearing on the legality of their arrests.
The raids and arrests have provoked a national outcry, which has been joined by the bourgeois opposition, including the Congress Party, and other pillars of the establishment. The former Chief Justice of the Indian Supreme Court R. M. Lodha has characterized the arrests as “an attack on freedom of speech” and as “an act to undermine the fundamentals of constitutional democracy”.
The police have labelled the five “Urban Maoists”—a term routinely used by officials to criminalize left-wing dissent and justify its violent repression. (For decades, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and its predecessor organizations have mounted an insurgency in remote jungle areas of India.)
The authorities claim, falsely, that the five organized a Dalit-oriented conference, titled Elgaar Parishad (literally “battle-cry conference”), that was held in Pune, Maharashtra’s second largest city, on the last day of December, 2017. They charge the five activists used the conference to incite violence and were the main instigators of a riot that ensued the next day in Bhima Koregaon, a small village about 30 kilometers north-east of Pune.
In fact the riot was provoked by Hindu communalists.
The police also claim to have found a letter in the laptop of one of the arrested that purportedly laid out a plot to kill Prime Minister Modi. This claim has all the hallmarks of planted evidence. India’s police are notorious for fabricating evidence, including, as was conclusively proven, in the frame-up murder convictions of 13 Maruti Suzuki workers.
The arrested include: the US-born Sudha Bharadwaj, a lawyer and a trade-unionist; Gautam Navlakha, a leader of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights who for decades has been a contributor to the Economic and Political Weekly; Vernon Gonsalves, a labor activist; the writer Arun Ferreira; and the 78-year old poet Varavara Rao. The last named has publicly proclaimed his sympathy with the Maoist “people’s war,” but there is no credible evidence linking him in any way to the insurgency.
All of them have long been subjected to surveillance and harassment by the police for their activism. Several were previously tortured and/or convicted on trumped-up charges leading to lengthy jail terms.
The police narrative against the five began to unravel almost as soon as it was propounded.
Two prominent Indian jurists, retired Supreme Court Justice P.B. Sawant and Retired Bombay High Court Justice B G Kolse-Patil, held a press conference the day after the arrests at which they denounced them as “an attack on freedom of speech” and identified themselves as the chief organisers of the Elgaar Parishad event.
Stressed Justice Kolse-Patil: “We have openly been saying this from the beginning. We organised Elgaar Parishad with the simple motive of spreading the message of fighting communal forces.”
Speaking to the Indian daily the Hindu, Justice Sawant stated: “All those who have been arrested and linked to the Elgar Parishad held on December 31, 2017, have nothing to do with it. They were never a part of the Elgaar. They were also not organisers of the Parishad. Justice Kolse Patil and I were mainly instrumental in organising the conference. We had no physical or telephonic contact with any of those arrested.”
The theme of the conference, as indicated by Kolse Patil, was the need to oppose the Hindu right—the BJP and the RSS-led nexus of Hindu communalist organizations—and their drive to transform India into a “Hindu nation.” Modi and his government are systematically installing Hindutva ideologues at the head of India’s educational and cultural institutions and have encouraged the growth of Hindu communalist vigilante organizations, including by appointing the leader of one such organization, Mahant Yogi Adityanath, as chief minister of the country’s most populous state. Modi has conspicuously turned a blind eye to the spate of lynchings targeting Muslims and Dalits that Hindu communalists have perpetrated in the name of cow protection.
Irked by the anti-Hindutva theme of the Elgaar Parishad, two Hindu-extremist leaders, identified by the police as Manohar ‘Sambhaji’ Bhide and Milind Ekbote, rallied a mob of about 1,500 and exhorted them to violently disrupt the January 1, 2018 Dalit-gathering at Bhima Koregaon.
Bhide, it need be noted, has direct ties not just to the BJP, but to Modi himself. At a 2014 election rally, Modi used the honorific “Guruji” (teacher) when referring to Bhide and said he was an inspiration to him.
When attacked, the Dalits assembled at Bhima Koregaon fought back. In the ensuing melee two people were killed and several others injured.
There is a striking contrast between the police’s treatment of the five left-wing activists and the Hindu extremist leaders Bhide and Ekbote. The former face trumped up terrorism charges and the threat of a fast-track trial and lengthy jail terms. Ekbote was released on bail after being briefly detained in March and faces far less severe criminal charges. Bhide has never been arrested.
Even the Pune police concede they are violent reactionaries, describing them as “habitual-offenders creating communal discord,” and that they were principally responsible for fomenting the violence at Bhima Koregaon.
The December 31/January 1 gathering celebrated the 200th anniversary of a battle at Bhima Koregaon where a small army of about 850 soldiers, comprised mostly of Dalit-Mohars serving the British East India Company, defeated a 28,000 strong army of the Brahmin Peshwa dynasty.
This “victory,” attributed to the bravery of the Dalit soldiers, by the brutal British colonial forces over an upper-caste king has been politically recast by middle-class activists, associated with the Ambedkarite movement, as a victory of Dalits against the indignities and oppression meted out to them by the upper castes. The anniversary of the battle at Bhima Koregaon has been transformed into a celebration of “Dalit-pride” and a means of promoting a caste-ist politics that is antithetical to class struggle and the fight for socialism; thus sowing enormous political confusion in the minds of Dalit workers and toilers, who along with poor Muslims, comprise a vastly disproportionate section of India’s most impoverished.
Last week’s arrests are the second time in three months that the police have used anti-terrorism legislation against pro-Dalit activists. On June 6, the police raided and arrested 5 other activists accusing them of similar “crimes.” Unlike those arrested on August 28 and now confined to house arrest, those arrested in June are still languishing in jail.
In its August 29 order, confining the five to house arrest and ordering a subsequent hearing on a motion to strike down their arrests, the Supreme Court expressed concern that the BJP’s authoritarian measures could rebound against the ruling elite as a whole. “Dissent,” declared the court, is the safety valve of democracy. If you don’t allow these safety valves, it will burst.”

China denies establishing military base in Afghanistan

Peter Symonds

An article in the South China Morning Post last week suggesting that China was establishing a military base in north-eastern Afghanistan provoked a flurry of articles in the US and international press inflating the Chinese military role. While the report was quickly denied by Kabul and Beijing, it is clear that Afghanistan is another key arena for intensifying geo-political rivalry between the major powers.
The article claimed that around 500 Chinese troops would be sent to a base in Afghanistan’s strategic Wakhan Corridor—a narrow sliver of inhospitable land between Tajikistan and Pakistan that also borders China. A source told the newspaper: “Construction on the base has started, and China will send at least one battalion of troops, along with weapons and equipment, to be stationed there and provide training to their Afghan counterparts.”
Beijing is seeking to crack down on Uyghur separatists from the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) that reportedly have bases in Afghanistan, as well as Tajikistan, and prevent them crossing into China’s western Xinjiang region. Within Xinjiang, the Chinese regime is engaged in widespread repression against any expression of separatism among the Muslim Uyghur minority.
The article also noted a report in January by the Russian-based Ferghana News that China would finance a new military base in Badakhshan, which includes the Wakhan Corridor, after the Afghan and Chinese defence ministers agreed last year to collaborate in fighting terrorism.
The Afghanistan embassy in Beijing sent a fax to the South China Morning Post declaring that “there will be no Chinese military personnel of any kind on Afghan soil at any time.” It noted that China was assisting Afghanistan to set up a mountain brigade as part of counter-terrorism efforts in the country’s north. Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying also dismissed the report as “not true.”
Both Beijing and Kabul are well aware that the stationing of Chinese troops in Afghanistan, even on a limited basis, would provoke opposition from Washington and its allies, which have been engaged in a bloody military occupation of the country since 2001. Far from “fighting terrorism,” the US has sought to transform Afghanistan into a base of operations in Central Asia aimed against Russia and China.
A Chinese military base would also be opposed by India, which, under the aegis of its strategic partnership with the US, has sought to expand its influence in South Asia, including in Afghanistan. India regards Afghanistan as vital to strengthening its strategic position against regional rival Pakistan which has long borders with both India and Afghanistan. New Delhi also regards Beijing as a major adversary, as recent acute military tensions in the Dokham Plateau border area between the two countries have underscored.
Significantly, Andrew Cordesman, a US strategist closely tied to the military-intelligence apparatus, downplayed reports of a Chinese military base, saying only that “China does seem to have some role in a training facility or small base in the Wakhan Corridor.” His comment entitled “Are Russia and China sabotaging American policy in Afghanistan?” concluded that “Russian and Chinese roles in Afghanistan are much more driven by self-interest than hostility [to the US].”
China and Russia have both sought to find a way to end the protracted conflict in Afghanistan, concerned that it will destabilise Central Asia which they regard as their strategic backyard. A planned peace conference organised by Russia for September 4 was postponed at the last minute on a request by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.
China is part of the Quadrilateral Coordination Group that includes Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States which is part of stalled efforts to end fighting in Afghanistan. The Financial Times reported today that China has met secretly with Afghan Taliban leaders several times over the past year in a bid to broker a peace.
China and Russia have also sought to involve Afghanistan in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation established in 2001 to counter US influence in Central Asia. Members include some of the Central Asian Republics as well as Pakistan and India since last year. Afghanistan has attended meetings of the organisation as an observer since 2012.
China has significantly boosted its ties with Afghanistan especially since 2012 as the US was winding back its troop numbers. Beijing feared not only greater instability in Afghanistan, but also in neighbouring Pakistan where China is engaged in the $67 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor infrastructure project linking China to the Pakistani port of Gwadar. It is a centrepiece of Beijing’s broader Belt and Road Initiative aimed at connecting the Eurasian landmass by sea and land.
Diplomat article in June entitled “Is China bringing peace to Afghanistan?” explained: “In the 2002–13 period Beijing provided just $240 million in aid to Afghanistan. In 2014 alone China gave it $80 million in aid and pledged an additional $240 million over the next three years. In September 2017, China extended $90 million towards development projects in Afghanistan’s Badakhshan province alone.
“China is Afghanistan’s biggest foreign investor now. It is interested mainly in resource extraction and infrastructure building. It has started extracting oil from the Amu Darya basin in northern Afghanistan. In the telecommunications sector, China’s role has grown from supplying Afghanistan with telecom equipment in 2007 to the construction of fibre-optic links in 2017.”
Afghanistan has large mineral deposits that China needs for its huge manufacturing industries. In significant areas, however, investment plans have stalled. Chinese companies won a $3 billion contract to extract copper from the Mes Aynak mines in 2008, but little progress has been made due to continuing instability in the area.
The US, which retains some 15,000 troops in Afghanistan, certainly has no intention of securing Chinese investment in the country or encouraging a greater presence. The media reaction to an unsubstantiated report that China is establishing a small base in northern Afghanistan highlights the fact that Washington is determined retain its grip over the strategically-located country.
The hype about Chinese military expansion is being used as the pretext for the US to boost its presence throughout the Indo-Pacific region. China earlier this year opened its first external military base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa capable of hosting up to an estimated 10,000 troops. By contrast, the US has a world-wide network of hundreds of bases and basing agreements with well over 200,000 military personnel backed by warplanes, warships, armour and missile systems.

Mounting turmoil in emerging markets

Nick Beams

There are now clear indications that the plunge in the value of the Argentine peso and the Turkish lira in recent weeks is the most graphic expression of a developing “emerging markets” crisis with global implications.
Argentina remains in the eye of the storm as emergency measures, including the lifting of the bank rate to 60 percent, intervention by the International Monetary Fund and commitments to begin further austerity measures, have failed to halt the flight of capital.
The social consequences are immediately apparent. A major university study has reported that the already depleted buying power of the country’s retirees has fallen by at least 30 percent since President Mauricio Macri took power at the end of 2015, and is now down to where it was at the time of the collapse of the country’s economy in 2001. Further attacks are now being directed at ever-wider sections of the population in response to the latest collapse.
The fall in the Turkish lira has abated somewhat in the last few days. But it could resume at any time if the central bank does not take action to lift interest rates at its meeting next Thursday.
The currency turmoil is now spreading across the spectrum of emerging markets, with an index of equity markets for these countries down by more than 20 percent since January and entering bear market territory.
Yesterday, the Indonesian rupiah fell to close it its lowest level since the Asian financial crisis in 1998. The country’s share market suffered its worst day in two years, falling by 3.8 percent, while yields on government bonds rose to 8.49 percent, the highest since January 2016. Indonesia, which has been described as the nearest thing to Argentina and Turkey in the Asian region, has come under financial pressure because of its dollar indebtedness and its current account deficit.
In the Philippines, the peso fell to a 12-year low against the US dollar amid concerns over inflation and the impact of a strengthening US dollar.
The South African rand has fallen to its lowest level in two years following the release of data showing that the country had experienced two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the first half of the year. Output in sub-Saharan Africa’s most industrialised nation fell by 0.7 percent in the second quarter, following a 2.6 drop in the first three months of this year.
The Mexican peso has also come under pressure, not least because of uncertainty about the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
While there are particular issues in each of these countries, the currency falls are a product of the strengthening US dollar and the increase in interest rates, which is starting to suck capital back into American markets, creating dollar liquidity problems.
This is combined with the growth of uncertainty, especially for commodity-exporting countries, resulting from the escalation of trade war measures by the United States against China. The administration is set to announce plans for levying tariffs on a further $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, on top of the tariffs already imposed on $50 billion worth, possibly as early as this week.
As the Financial Times reported this week, analysts from the French financial firm Société Générale commented: “Can emerging markets turn the page and find their feet after the assault of August? Expectations are low, and more worryingly, if one looks at currencies like [the Australian dollar] or at European stocks, cracks are starting to appear in the G10 as concerns over trade and growth from tightening conditions in EM take their toll.”
This week, Bloomberg published a significant report by well-known financial analyst Satyajit Das warning of what he called a “textbook emerging market crisis,” in which large debts combine with a domestic credit bubble, uneconomic projects, financial speculation, the reliance on commodity exports and inadequate currency reserves.
Based on these criteria, he noted, “the number of emerging markets at risk extends well beyond Turkey and Argentina.”
The most striking indication of a developing crisis cited in his report was the escalation of debt. Total emerging market debt increased from $21 trillion (145 percent of gross domestic product) in 2007 to $63 trillion (210 percent of GDP) in 2017. The foreign currency debt of these countries has doubled in the same period to around $9 trillion, with China, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, Chile, Mexico, Brazil and some eastern European countries saddled with foreign currency debt between 20 and 50 percent of GDP.
He noted that EM borrowers in total needed to repay or refinance $1.5 trillion of foreign debt in 2019 and the same amount in 2020 and “many are not earning enough to meet those commitments.”
Combined with tightening global liquidity, resulting from interest rate rises in the US and tensions arising from trade conflicts, “weaknesses in the real economy and the financial system feed each other in a vicious cycle.”
While the situation is commonly described as an “emerging markets crisis,” this is something of a misnomer because its origins lie in the heart of the financial system not in its extremities.
In the years following the eruption of the global financial crisis in 2008, the US Federal Reserve, after bailing out the banks and finance houses, pumped trillions of dollars into financial markets, making available ultra-cheap money that facilitated the continuation of the speculation that had caused the crisis.
With interest rates in the US and other major economies at historic lows, money from banks and investment funds poured into emerging markets, where rates were higher. Now this money is being pulled back into the US as interest rates there start to rise.
This takes place under conditions where the potential volatility of the global financial system has risen to new heights in the ten years since the financial crisis as a result of the rapid increase in the use of computer trading, accelerating the speed with which massive funds can move in an out of markets.
The business channel CNBC this week reported an analysis conducted by Marko Kolanovic, one of JPMorgan Chase’s leading financial analysts, warning that a new financial crisis could take the form of “flash crashes” such as the 1,600-point intraday drop on Wall Street in February.
So far, such turmoil has occurred under conditions of economic expansion in the US, but the “new market” has not been tested amid a recession. Under such conditions, there could be a rush to sell, removing liquidity and leading to a cascading decline in prices.
“Suddenly, every pension fund in the US is severely underfunded, retail investors panic and sell, while individuals stop spending,” he said.
Pointing to the social and political consequences, he concluded: “The next crisis is also likely to result in social tensions similar to those witnessed 50 years ago in 1968.”
The turmoil in emerging markets and its connection to the major banks and investment houses is a sure indication that none of the contradictions of the global financial system that exploded in 2008 has been overcome. In fact, the policies of the major capitalist government and central banks have only created a new series of financial power kegs.

5 Sept 2018

TÃœBÄ°TAK International Fellowships for Graduate Research in Turkey 2019

Application Deadline: 5th October, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Recognized Universities in Turkey

Eligible Fields of Study: Natural Sciences, Engineering and Technological Sciences, Medical Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities

About the Award: The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÃœBÄ°TAK) grants fellowships for international highly qualified PhD students and young post-doctoral researchers to pursue their research in Turkey in the fields above. The program aims to promote Turkey’s scientific and technological collaboration with countries of the prospective researchers. Preference will be given to candidates who demonstrate the potential to contribute significantly to Turkey’s goal of international cooperation in scientific and technological development.

Type: Fellowship, Research

Eligibility: 
  1. Candidates should be non-Turkish citizens. Applicants who hold dual citizenship with Turkey are   not eligible to apply.
  2. Candidates should have an invitation from the universities or research institutes in Turkey.
  3. Candidates should certify that they have sufficient command of language to perform their research.
  4. Candidates must be 35 years old or younger.
  5. Candidates should be enrolled in a program in abroad for PhD students.
  6. Candidates who hold a PhD degree in Turkey should have a GPA minimum of 3.50/4.00 in PhD program.
Selection Criteria: All successfully submitted applications are listed and prepared for scientific evaluation after the prior selection. The proposal will be evaluated according to the following 4 evaluation criteria:
  1. Research potential of the fellow
  2. Scientific and technological quality of the research proposal
  3. Impact of the proposed fellowship to the applicant’s training and career development to  the hosting institution and to Turkey
  4. Implementation of the proposed research
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: The scholarship will consist of a monthly stipend, tuition fee, travel costs and health insurance.

Duration of Fellowship: Maximum duration for the fellowship is 12 months.

How to Apply: All applications must be submitted electronically via TÃœBÄ°TAK scholarship application portal by 5th October, 2018
It is important to visit the Fellowshsip webpage (see link below) to access the online application form and for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Turkey Government

Mankind Must Know: The UNO and Global Leaders are a Menace to Peace and Problem-Solving

Mahboob A. Khawaja

“….Human nature is at least in part wicked and in part foolish, how can human beings be prevented from suffering from the results of their wickedness and folly? ….Men simply do not see that war is foolish and useless and wicked. They think on occasion that it is necessary and wise and honourable, for war is not the work of bad men knowing themselves to be wrong, but of good men passionately convinced that they are right.” (C.E.M Joad. Guide to Modern Wickedness, 1936).
To Understand the Failure of Global Organizations and Leadership
The global humanity is continuously oppressed, manipulated and victimized by the weapons of mass destruction – from thoughts to all kind of weaponry.  Global peace, conflict management and security are neglected by those who were responsible for its protection and maintenance. Everything thinkable appears to be falling into dereliction and much wanton destruction to be reported as non-living statistic. The UNO Secretary General and most global leaders are entrapped lacking reasoned persuasion and activism to make peace and usher global harmony. They operate in a vicious circle of making statements, tweets and speculative wishful overtures as if the whole mankind was inept and inattentive to the catastrophic challenges of the day.
Good judgments seek honesty of purpose, courage and rational thinking. When the leaders talk about the emerging conflicts and human tragedies, they pretend as if none had ever happened before. As if they never opened the pages of history. History offers lessons to all generations all the time. Human perpetuated tyranny according to late Professor Howard Zenn is “tyranny.” Insanity has no alternative rationale. Look how the UNO leadership and most global politicians witness transgression, forcible displacement and killings of millions and millions across Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Myanmar (Burma) and now Yemen but do nothing except the fake UN-SC resolutions and dubious statements of crimes against humanity. The victimized mankind shares a sense of disarray and loss of being part of the global humanity. A view from afar only asserts conspicuous example of inhumanity flourishing everywhere and seeing the proliferation of anarchy, violations of basic human rights and dignity and use of chemical weapons, and civilian massacres but nobody questions why this now after the Two World Wars? Typical “Right Men” of the 21st century are unchallenged for torture, killing of the innocents, war crimes and genocide. The UNO Fact-finding Mission released the findings after 700,000 Rohingas were forcibly evicted from their homes; 20,000 men, women and children massacred and 10,000 women raped by the Myanmar armies. Would the Myanmar Generals be prosecuted during the lifetime of the victims? Almost 3 million civilians were killed by the US-British forces in Iraq. Nobody called it genocide by Bush and Blair. Both are free and enjoying life. Several Millions have been displaced and killed in Syria – who will punish the authoritarian tyranny and insanity?
The UNO, global leaders and related organizations are all international as the humanity fast transforming to One World reality living on One Planet with inseparable identities and relationship to the Nature of Things. The organizations and leaders should have been vigilant to “safeguard the mankind from the scourge of war.” The global political affairs are not managed by rational people, with rational thinking, doing the rational practices for the interests of global citizenry. The 1% global elite – men of king operate the international institutions – the perverted insanity lacking basic understanding of the Human Nature and of the working of the splendid Universe in which we enjoy coherent co-existence.  The mankind continues to be run down by the cancerous ego and cruelty of the few Western leaders and institutions like NATO and NORAD. Most global leaders represent cruel mindset incapable to see the human side of the living conscience. Madness of the perpetuated war on terrorism and its triggered insanity knows no bound across the global spectrum. Under the false pretext of terrorism, Western allies along with Arab leaders bombed and destroyed the ancient culture and people of the Arab world. Animals do not commit massacre of their kind and species, nor set-up rape camps for the war victims, the Western led wars against the humanity have and continue to do so at an unparallel  global scale without being challenged by any global organizations or leaders. Torture and massacres of innocent civilians are convenient fun games to be defined as “collateral damage” and a statistic. Perhaps, they view humanity just in digits and numbers, not as the living entities with social, moral, spiritual and intellectual values and progressive agendas for change and development. Einstein (“The World as I see it”), made it known that he was against military campaigns, killings and destruction of the natural environment: “This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor… This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism — how passionately I hate them!.”
Lesson of History cannot be Ignored
In his internationally acclaimed classic work, Professor John W. Drapper (A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, NY Harper Brothers, 1864), of the University of New York portrayed the human development process as “man is being treated as an individual” and not an embodiment of collective transformation leading past immersion into making of the present – and the present unfolding the future.   Global humanity is a helpless victim in a world divided for socio-economic and political hegemonic controls by the few egoistic political entities.  There are no conscientious leaders accountable to the interests of the global mankind. Ironically, with time and opportunities on their side, politically recognized leading powers at the UN Security Council forum failed to usher a new era of change and peaceful co-existence. If the human developmental progress is viewed in an historical mirror, Professor Drapper makes a candid observation: “that it is a history of the progress of ideas and opinions from a point of view heretofore almost entirely neglected.” All political actors claim to be working for the mankind. Yet, few could relate themselves to the people if a reality check is applied by critical analysts. One cannot glorify the insanity of the past – the Two World Wars which consumed untold planned bloodbath and countless pains and sufferings of the global mankind.  The question is how to eject from the sadistic past unto a promising future?
Mankind Looks to People of New  Ideas, Visions and Responsible Leadership
Mankind is constantly victimized by the willful deceit of triumphalism of the few who used extreme rhetoric of peace and harmony but deliver nothing except self-serving fantasies and neglect of prevalent truth. They embrace dishonesty of purpose by wasting time and opportunities that could have been used for positive developments to change the distorted scene of the global politics. Reason makes no difference to their immature mindset and their human conscience is filled with follies of political manipulation and exploitation of the humanity.  The essence of global peace and harmony lies in collective thinking and unity of the global mankind.
Bombs and wars kill people – the living human beings, destroy humanity by enforcing barbarism and cruelty, practically denying all prospects of peace and co-existence. Traditional wars were aimed at annihilation of political and economic enemies but the 21st century conflicts are ready-made recipes not only to eliminate the mankind but also the environment in which human beings survive and the Planet Earth that sustains life. Wars appear to be the outcome of sinister minds, devilish individual plans and monstrous scheme of things against the very humanity of which these people are a living part. Like always, few cynical and mentally imbalanced people plan and wage wars against others, not mindful of the dreadful end results of their intrigues and conspiracies against life, human rights and dignity and futuristic possibilities of human survival on the planet.
Global Warlords are haunting the mankind because wars are a racketeering enterprise. Most superpowers are engaged in selling weaponry to the Middle East dictators and warlords. History will judge them by their actions, not by their claims. You cannot change a society with law and order dictum. When a problem is misunderstood, its diagnostic approach will be wrong. An out of the official box approach to understand the problem is urgently needed. The major news media corporations in North America and Western Europe are aligned to the establishments and tainted with biased coverage as they get paid via ads and secret dealings. None of this is helpful to foster change and societal advancement for a peaceful future.  The mankind looks for change in strategic thinking and actions. “In the name of “System Change, Not Climate Change”, points out Paul Street (“For Intelligent Civilizations on Earth”) “we can rescue and preserve humanity and livable ecology through mass resistance and a revolutionary transformation that takes us beyond the world’s unelected and interrelated dictatorships of money, profit, empire, and eco-cide.”
Aggressive thinking is propagated, echo of peace is silenced. Global peace requires Men of New Ideas, new Thinking and New Visions. In a political culture much charged by conscious intransigence of the few, America and European are fearful of the unknown and have no vision for peace and co-existence either in the region or in a global context. NATO will go anywhere anytime under fair or foul pretexts. It has no accountability to anybody anywhere. Peace and security are not one sided pursuits nor can be experimented in a lab. There are many who could do a better and more productive leadership in the current global affairs. The Western leaders must embrace Russia on equal terms to envisage a new world of peace and harmony.  Russia is no longer a former USSR but a changing landscape of reason and responsibility and gradually moving forward for a representative system of public governance. If that was not the case, how could Trump and Putin have met and strike an accord. Accords are based on mutual respect and understanding. America and Russia both need to change their policies and practices for a coherent future. Both desperately need to be proactive, culturally conscientious and intellectual unbiased leaders who should see the bigger picture of futuristic world – a different world of tomorrow of peace and co-existence rather than perpetuated animosity and extreme naïve belligerent behaviors, leaders who will serve the people and could learn to make a navigational change and adaptability to the making of a promising future for all the mankind. Mankind needs morally, spiritually and intellectually responsible leadership. All absolute rulers and leaders tried to run down the mankind as if it was a number- a digit and non-living statistic. But all of them fell in disgrace destroying their own nations and empires.