23 Oct 2019

Inquiry whitewashes Kiribati government over ferry disaster

John Braddock

A report compiled by a Commission of Inquiry investigating the 2018 ferry disaster in the Pacific state of Kiribati, in which 95 people perished, was finally released on October 2 after months of public pressure and growing anger. Only single copies were initially available at the office of the president, Taneti Maamau, and the national library. The restriction was criticised as secretive and undemocratic, with claims that time restrictions had been imposed along with a ban on copying, photographing and note-taking.
The document only became generally available, including to overseas media, on October 8. The report was originally submitted in September 2018, but the government declared that it would not be made public until a police investigation was completed.
The sinking of the MV Butiraoi, a double-hulled wooden catamaran, in January 2018 was the country’s worst disaster. The population was deeply shocked, with widespread criticism of authorities over the extraordinary tardiness of the rescue effort and demands for legal action against the operating company. The vessel, built for the government in 2010, was owned by the Abemama Island Council but leased to a company called TOKs Holding Co Ltd, which was responsible for maintenance and repair work.
The report whitewashes the Kiribati government and its agencies, which are absolved of any wrongdoing. It identifies no criminal culpability and makes no demands for prosecutions, sackings or resignations, including within the company.
The report makes clear the Butiraoi should never have been allowed to set sail. It was severely overloaded, unauthorised to carry passengers, had no emergency beacon, insufficient life jackets and its radio licence had expired—all of which made it unseaworthy. The boat had run aground three times previously, compromising its structural integrity, but had not been checked by marine authorities. It had no permission to sail, but did so anyway.
The Butiraoi departed the island of Nonouti on January 18 for the capital Tarawa, with over 100 passengers and crew, including 23 school students, and 29.5 tonnes of cargo. The 260 kilometre journey should have taken two days. It was not until seven days later that the company raised the alert, asking Nonouti’s mayor to mount a search and rescue operation.
President Maamau has consistently claimed the government was not aware the ferry was missing, even though a plane had reportedly searched for the ferry and found nothing as it lacked sophisticated radar equipment. After a series of meetings, a search-and-rescue operation was mounted by the Marine Division on 26 January, eight days after the sinking. An alarm was sent to the rescue coordination centre in New Zealand and a NZ Air Force Orion and two Australian aircraft were deployed, arriving on 27 January.
For the first time, the report reveals, in terrible detail, the circumstances surrounding the sinking and the fate of its victims. Most died from hunger, dehydration and hypothermia. One woman died while giving birth as the ferry sank.
The captain, who is not named in the report and who went down with the vessel, was warned on the day of departure of severe weather with swells up to three metres. However, the captain decided to set sail anyway without telling the marine guard at Nonouti.
After only 30 minutes at sea, the main cross beam holding the catamaran’s two hulls together failed. After three hours, the ferry collapsed in on itself, with the cabin and wheelhouse tumbling between the hulls. From there, panic ensued as the vessel sank rapidly.
The Butiraoi had only enough life jackets for 30 people. It was equipped with just two inflatable life rafts, which subsequently failed, and two aluminium dinghies. With passengers fighting and scrambling for their lives, no distress message was sent and an emergency locator beacon was either not activated or did not work.
About 30 survivors clinging to the dinghies drifted away into the open seas. They had little food and no water, and one by one started to perish. Seven people were finally spotted by the searching NZ Orion, frantically waving from one dinghy. The two crew and five passengers were the only survivors.
The commission blamed the ship’s operator and captain, saying the Butiraoi was not regularly maintained. In 2017, the report said, a locator beacon was borrowed from a pilot boat so as to pass an inspection. The captain and crew were under-qualified and should not have been in charge after the previous groundings. The captain was criticized for his lack of leadership, and emphasis was placed on the use of alcohol during working hours by crew members.
While making only general criticisms of the company’s lack of “procedures,” the report in fact blames the passengers for overloading the ferry. The operator had a debt to a local businessman and promised free passage to Nonouti people to pay it off. The report alleges the passengers “took advantage” to board in large numbers, and were “audacious… to the point of being virtually unstoppable by both master and crew.”
The government escaped any significant criticism. The report makes 15 hollow recommendations about tightening regulations, including ship-building guidelines and oversight, a reporting mechanism for damage, and code of ethics among seafarers. This is likely to remain a dead letter. The government failed to implement stricter maritime laws following a previous ferry sinking in 2009, which left 33 people dead.
Two groups—Tragedy that Affects Lives, composed of victims’ families, and Kiribati Citizens Against Corruption—are preparing lawsuits against the government. Ngatau Neneia, a NGO worker representing the latter group, said the case would centre on gross negligence: fewer people would have died if authorities had launched a search and rescue mission earlier. Australian and New Zealand legal firms have been approached, Neneia said, because local lawyers are seen as being “too close to the government.”
Such disasters in the Pacific are frequent, with similar sinkings in Tonga and Papua New Guinea in recent years. Responsibility rests not only with the private owners and government agencies that run the ferries or oversee their operations. The poor quality of transport services is bound up with a history of imperialist domination, exploitation and economic underdevelopment.
Kiribati, home to about 108,000 people, only became independent from Britain in 1979. The remote and impoverished nation has 33 atolls spread over 3.5 million square kilometres. From 1900 to 1980, Britain, New Zealand and Australia reaped huge profits from intensive phosphate mining on the country’s Banaba Island, which made it practically unlivable. Today, climate change and rising sea levels mean the country risks disappearing into the sea.

Chilean military deployed against protests for the first time since Pinochet

Andrea Lobo

For the first time since the fascist military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, tanks rolled into downtown Santiago, Chile, this weekend, deployed against protesters demonstrating against a drastic fare hike of the Santiago metro, from the equivalent of USD $1.12 to $1.16. Military personnel in plainclothes and uniform were filmed shooting machine guns and pointing them at crowds of demonstrators.
On Saturday, the right-wing government of billionaire Sebastián Piñera invoked the still-standing 1980 Constitution established by Pinochet to declare a state of emergency across the country and to impose curfews in Santiago, Valparaiso and Concepción, enforced by 9,441 soldiers and thousands of Carabineros, the infamous militarized police. The main border crossing with Argentina was also blocked throughout the weekend.
The seamless imposition of these dictatorial measures by the Chilean ruling class, with the backing of US and European imperialism, exposes the sham of a “transition to democracy” in which the basic political and military set-up under Pinochet remain untouched under the “Concertación” governments led by the Social Democrats and Stalinists that ruled the country for 25 of the last 30 years.
A demonstrator holds up his hands toward advancing soldiers during a protest as a state of emergency remains in effect in Santiago, Chile, Sunday, Oct. 20, 2019. Protests in the country have spilled over into a new day, even after President Sebastian Pinera cancelled the subway fare hike that prompted massive and violent demonstrations. (AP Photo/Esteban Felix)
The international character of this process, reflected concurrently in the fascistic repression against the Catalan nationalists by a Social Democratic government in Spain and the military crackdown in Ecuador, demonstrates that the ruling class everywhere is responding to the crisis of capitalism and the resurgence of the class struggle with a return to dictatorship to impose the economic diktats of finance capital.
The metro rate hike, which was announced in early October, led youth and workers via social media to call for rallies last Monday. Users jumped over turnstiles en masse, meeting brutal police repression. On Friday, these demonstrations sparked mass social anger against growing inequality and triggered protests for broader social demands.
Expressing these sentiments, Alejandra Ibánez, a 38-year-old demonstrator, told AFP: “I don’t like the violence or that some people break things, but all of a sudden these things have to happen so that they stop mocking us and stuffing their fingers in our mouths, raising everything but salaries, and all of this to make the rich in the country richer.”
On Friday, demonstrations grew and shut down all 136 stations of the Santiago metro system. Dozens of stations were lit on fire, as was the headquarters of Enel, a private Italian firm that controls 40 percent of energy distribution in Chile, and the offices of the pro-Pinochet El Mercurio newspaper in Valparaíso.
On Saturday and Sunday, the curfews were defied by thousands of demonstrators and, in Santiago, protesters holding pictures of victims under the Pinochet dictatorship temporarily surrounded the tanks.
At 10 p.m. Saturday, hours after invoking the state of exception and calling demonstrators “true delinquents who do not respect anything,” Piñera said he had “heard with humbleness the voice of my compatriots” and announced the repeal of the most recent fare hike of 30 pesos for the Santiago Metro. (Metro prices in rush hour had already increased 100 pesos, or nearly 15 percent, since February 2018.)
The state of emergency, however, will continue indefinitely, and the curfew was also invoked on Sunday night. According to a statement Sunday by the Ministry of Interior, 1,462 people have been arrested and 15 civilians hurt.
Five civilians died when a supermarket in Santiago caught fire amid the demonstrations and repression. At the same time, entire sections of Santiago remained without electricity Sunday, while school classes were suspended today.
The main trade-union confederation, Workers United Center (CUT), which is controlled by the Stalinist Communist Party (CP), has worked to suppress any industrial action beyond ordering metro workers to skip work due to “unsafe conditions.” Instead, the trade union officials marched in a stunt to the Moneda Presidential Palace to appeal to the conscience of Piñera to end the state of emergency.

Japan-South Korea: Choking Global Technology Markets through a Bilateral Trade War

Prakash Panneerselvam

The economic consequences of the 2019 Japan-South Korea trade dispute are already becoming apparent. S&P Global Ratings has warned that it will disrupt global supply chains, leading to potential global economic damage. However, both countries have chosen to intensify their political campaigns against each other. In the midst of these developments, Japan signed a new trade agreement with the US on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York in September.
The US-Japan deal, though limited in scope, is significant because it shows a change in the approach adopted by Trump, who has so far been reluctant in arriving at a compromise in the US' ongoing trade war with China. It also coincides with the extension of the long-standing Japan-Korea dispute to the trade and security sectors, with South Korea recently announcing its decision to exit the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) in response to Japan's imposition of trade restrictions. The deal follows another important judgement: the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) ruling in favour of Japan on anti-dumping duties on pneumatic valves imposed by Seoul in 2015.
How does the Japan-South Korea dispute impact East Asian markets? What are its consequences for global technology supply chains?
Background
The WTO recognised Tokyo's stand that Japanese valves do not compete directly with locally-made products, and that South Korea’s price analyses fail to meet WTO requirements. The ruling was quickly interpreted in the scope of an already tense environment of mistrust between the two countries, leading South Korea to formally lodge a complaint with the WTO over Japan’s export restrictions.
This is but the latest in a series of developments that has further eroded the Japan-South Korea relationship. In October and November 2018, the South Korean Supreme Court's order to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nachi-Fujikoshi, and Nippon Steel, to compensate South Korean families of wartime labourers, was strongly protested by Japan on the grounds that this was a violation of the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Problem Concerning Property and Claim and on the Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea. On the basis of this agreement, all outstanding issues, including the wartime labour issue, was considered settled after Japan paid US$ 500 million in economic assistance to South Korea.
By interpreting the agreement as a settlement between the two governments, and not between the corporate houses and individual people, the court’s verdict re-opened the historic agreement to new scrutiny. Following the decision, Japan undertook export control measures on essential chemicals used in South Korean electronic products, specifically those manufactured by Samsung and LG. In retaliation, the South Korean government removed Japan from its list of preferred trade partners. This further escalated with the South Korean announcement on the GSOMIA, which is an important aspect of US-Japan-South Korea trilateral security cooperation through its facilitation of information-sharing on North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats.
Trade Wars and Technology as Weapon
Japan's export control on chemicals was explained as the result of  a "loss of trust" with South Korea. It was securitised through Tokyo's accusation of Seoul improperly handling the exports of these sensitive materials, bringing into question the management of re-export controls and the chemicals' dual-use applications.
The materials in question are fluorinated polyimides, photoresists, and hydrogen fluoride. While fluorinated polyimides are used in smart phone displays, photoresists are thin layers of material used to transfer circuit patterns onto semiconductor wafers; and hydrogen fluoride is used as an etching gas in the chip-making process. Japan produces more than 80 per cent of the world’s fluorinated polyimides and photoresists, and without these raw materials, manufacturing chip and other smart phone components are impossible for Samsung or LG. The South Korean economy is technology-dependent, and stopping the supply of key components for the production of smart phones shows that beyond tariff and other fiscal policies, it is technological resources (raw materials) that determine the economic and political environment between the two countries.
Japanese officials have not yet stopped material shipments, and the companies concerned have some stockpiles. However, there is the possibility of disruptions in global supply chains–after all, in an interdependent market, a manufacturing-based economy feeds into the service-oriented markets of another country.
With Japan stripping South Korea of its ‘white list’ status under a trade control law, it could now seek an export license to countries that are suspected of using these materials in weapons-related applications. Media reports claim that some of the chemicals are finding their way into North Korea. This has prompted South Korea to not renew the military intelligence-sharing pact.
The East Asian security architecture could be in jeopardy as a result of these developments, particularly with no outcome forthcoming the US-North Korea talks. At this juncture, the Japan-South Korea rift has impacted how each country assesses its gains from the security alliances they are members of. In this light, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-in have different approaches in dealing with North Korea. Abe has been extremely cautious of the Trump-Kim talks, and considers Moon’s policy of reconciliation with a regime that is reluctant to relinquish its nuclear weapons as dangerous. Moon, on the other hand sees economic positives in the inter-Korean economic zone and a thawing of relations on the Korean peninsula.
Economic Slowdown
In the first quarter of 2019, the South Korean Won had already witnessed a severe drop by 8 per cent against the US dollar, making it the worst performer in Asia. This slowdown was  due to the faltering demand for semiconductors and a weakened Chinese currency. It was further affected by Japan’s export controls on chemicals.
In 2018, semiconductor sales accounted for almost 92 per cent of South Korea’s export growth, giving the country a monopoly in the supply of telecommunication parts. The trade dispute has since systematically affected semiconductor prices. Samsung and Hynix together supply 70 per cent of DRAM chips and 50 per cent of NAND flash memory chips globally. With low export volumes and material shortage, making more semiconductors leads to the possibility of price rise, which, in turn, will impact global demand and supply chains. This has induced South Korea to rethink its supply chains, and look for supplier alternatives like Israel.
Just like South Korea, Japan may also experience a hit on product demand. Japanese products are currently preferred for their superior quality, but could be replaced by US or Chinese-made components if the bilateral tensions with South Korea continue. This will make it difficult for Japan to restrict exports for an extended period. In an interdependent economy, the Japan-South Korea dispute is a stark reminder of what resource monopolisation can lead to in the long-term.
Japan's export control policy has alarmed many corporate houses but has been largely supported by its conservative administration. While this is the first time the country has taken action against South Korea as a response, it will have severe economic consequences even if it fares well within domestic politics. 
For its part, South Korea has begun producing etching gas domestically. In September, Samsung announced its decision to use domestically-produced etching gas in the chip-making process to address the dependence on Japanese suppliers. The news of localised production came in August with a government proposal to increase the R&D budget by 17.3 per cent in 2020 to "strengthen the indigenous production in material sector." With South Korea as the largest buyer of Japan's technology-related chemicals, pushing Seoul to look elsewhere, or inward, will inevitably tilt Tokyo's export pattern as well.   
The Japanese restriction on imports will force South Korea to either stop production or pay much higher prices to secure crucial materials, which will impact China as well. The Japan-South Korea trade dispute, if not stemmed quickly and effectively, will have far-reaching negative implications for the global technology market.

19 Oct 2019

Government of Turkey Success Scholarships (Bachelors, Masters, PhD) 2020/2021 for International Students

Application Deadline: 31st October 2019

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Turkey

Eligible Field of Study: All

Type: Undergraduate, Masters and PhD

About the Award: A specific number of international students will be granted Success Scholarships provided that they receive education in Turkey and meet the necessary requirements.
Students must apply to Success Scholarships online between October 15 – 31, 2019. Applicants must first open an account on Turkey Scholarships Application System (https://tbbs.turkiyeburslari.gov.tr) and enter their “Personal Information, Educational Background, Social Activities, etc.” in order to apply to Success Scholarship.
Students must provide all requested data for application; scan and upload requested documents to the system in a supported format (pdf, jpeg, etc.). Otherwise, applications will be considered invalid.
In case any error or mistake is detected in the information and documents submitted by students, their applications will be considered invalid. And in case such a mistake or error is detected after granting the scholarship, the total amount of scholarship paid to students will be collected as per the relevant legislations.

Eligibility:
  • Students must have a foreign citizenship. In case students hold dual citizenship, one of their nationality being the Republic of Turkey, they cannot apply to the Success Scholarship Program (Exchange students are not eligible).
  • Students must complete at least one academic year (2 semesters) in undergraduate, graduate or PhD degrees in Turkey (including scientific preparation classes), and undergraduate students must have at least 3.00 (out of 4) GPA (Grade Point Average), while PhD students must score at least 3.5 (out of 4) in order to be eligible.
  • Undergraduate students in Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy as an exception must have at least 2.50 (out of 4) GPA in order to be eligible.
  • Students who will apply to the Success Scholarship Program must not be previously granted or currently benefiting from any other scholarship granted as per Turkey Scholarships (including State, Government Scholarships, and cancelled scholarships).
  • Also, students must not be currently benefiting from a scholarship granted by any institution or organization.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
***Since there is a limited quota reserved for the Success Scholarship, in determining the winning ones; it will be fairly allocated by country, university, department and levels***

Value of Scholarships: Applicants eligible to Success Scholarship will receive the following monthly payments:
  • ₺ 450 for undergraduate students,
  • ₺ 600 for graduate students,
  • ₺ 900 for PhD students.
Duration of Scholarships: Success Scholarships cover only monthly scholarship payments for an academic year and these payments are made only in months (9 months) students continue their education. 


How to Apply: 
  • Student Certificate with signature and seal received from registrar’s office after October 1, 2019 (Mandatory)
  • Transcript with signature and seal received from registrar’s office after October 1, 2019 (Mandatory)
  • Copy of a valid ID or Passport (Mandatory)
You can send your questions and suggestions to basari@turkiyeburslari.gov.tr
Wish you success.

Visit Scholarships Webpage for details

Award Provider: Türkiye Buslari Committee

French Agency for Development (AFD) Digital Challenge Innovation 2020 for African Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 18th November 2019

Eligible Countries: Francophone and Anglophone African countries

To be Taken at: France

About the Award: For this new edition, the AFD Digital Challenge wanted to combine the challenge of digital transition with that of sustainable cities, in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11 (SDG).
“Creating sustainable cities and communities” is a major challenge in view of the phenomenon of massive urbanization that affects the African continent. Indeed, the vulnerabilities related to the centralization of populations are numerous and more particularly in a global context of climatic instability.
The sustainable city is a city that must first meet the basic needs of its population and that as economic engine of the country integrates the various environmental, social and cultural issues related to its development.
Digital is a powerful lever for the development of a sustainable, resilient, modern city in which its population actively participates in public decisions. However, the rise of digital technology must remain inclusive, accessible to all so as not to increase the inequalities of the continent.
Your startup, association, or research center is developing a digital solution that promotes the development of inclusive and sustainable cities in Africa and falls under one of the categories below? So you can apply !
Categories:
  • CREATION OF QUALITY URBAN SERVICES
  • URBAN PLANNING FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE
  • STIMULATION OF LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
  • ​IMPROVING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITIZENS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Eligible projects for the AFD Digital Challenge Innovation are those that take into account the specific constraints and issues of women, and facilitate the access to:
  • education, vocational training, mentoring and tutoring services.
  • health services (including sexual health and reproduction),
  • employment and professional opportunities, including women’s participation in sectors that traditionally employ men,
  • financial services and other markets
  • information about rights and access to judicial services
  • mobility and transport
Will also be considered projects that contribute to:
  • the deconstruction of gender stereotypes (eg media)
  • the fight against gender-based violence
  • the development of practices that do not discriminate against women (eg in the professional world, at school, etc.).
The challenge will be open to all entrepreneurs who have developed innovative solutions for Africa on this topic.

Number of Awards: 5 startups

Value of Award: 
  • 20 000 €
  • International Visibility
  • A  tailor-made support program “Acceleration pack”
How to Apply: apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Provider: French Agency for Development

Next Generation Social Sciences in Africa Doctoral Dissertation Fellowships 2020/2021 for Sub-Saharan African Countries

Application Deadline: 10th January 2020

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Citizens of and reside in a sub-Saharan African country while holding a current faculty position at an accredited college or university in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda.

Field of Study: The fellowships support dissertations and research on peace, security and development topics.

About the Fellowships: The programme, launched in June 2011, responds to a shortage of experienced faculty in African higher education. The Next Generation Social Sciences in Africa program provides fellowships to nurture the intellectual development and increase retention of early-career faculties in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda.
The fellowships are:
  • Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship
  • Doctoral Dissertation Proposal Fellowship
  • Doctoral Dissertation Completion Fellowship
The doctoral dissertation research fellowship supports 6-12 months of dissertation research costs of up to US$15,000 on a topic related to peace, security, and development.

Proposal development fellowships are intended to support doctoral students working on developing a doctoral dissertation research proposal as well as students who recently completed a master’s degree and seek to enroll in a PhD program.

The doctoral dissertation completion fellowship supports a one-year leave from teaching responsibilities and a stipend up to US$15,000 to permit the completion of a dissertation that advances research on peace, security, and development topics.
The programme assists fellows to develop research opportunities and skills, obtain doctoral degrees, and participate in robust research communities. Toward this end, the project features a thematic focus in order to renew basic research agendas addressing peace, security, and development topics as well as strengthen interdisciplinary social science research capacity on these issues.

Offered Since: June 2011

Type: Research, Fellowship .

Selection Criteria: Strong proposals will offer clear and concise descriptions of the project and its significance. Proposals should display a thorough knowledge of the relevant social science literature that applicants will engage and the methodologies relevant to the project. In addition, applicants must demonstrate that all proposed activities are feasible and can be completed in a timely manner. All proposals will be evaluated for these criteria by an independent, international committee of leading scholars from a range of social science disciplines.
Fellows must be willing to attend two workshops sponsored by the SSRC each year that are intended to help early-career faculty produce scholarly publications. We anticipate awarding as many as 45 fellowships in total across all categories each year.

Eligibility: All candidates must:
  • be citizens of and reside in a sub-Saharan African country
  • hold a master’s degree
  • be enrolled in a PhD program at an accredited university in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, or Uganda
  • have an approved dissertation research proposal
The program seeks to promote diversity and encourages women to apply.

Number of Fellowships: 45 fellowships are awarded each year.

Value of Fellowships: 
  • The doctoral dissertation research fellowship supports research costs of up to US$15,000 on a topic related to peace, security, and development.
  • The doctoral dissertation proposal fellowship supports short-term research costs of up to US$3,000 to develop a doctoral dissertation proposal.
  • The doctoral dissertation completion fellowship supports a one-year leave from teaching responsibilities and a stipend up to US$15,000 to permit the completion of a dissertation that advances research on peace, security, and development topics.
Duration of Fellowship: Fellowships are offered each year. The doctoral dissertation research fellowship is about 6-12 months

How to Apply: 

Visit Fellowship Webpage for more details

Chevening Africa Media Freedom Fellowship (CAMFF) 2020 for African professionals

Application Deadline: 9th December 2019.

Eligible Countries: Selected fellows will be from the following Sub-Sahara African countries: Ethiopia, Burundi, Cameroon, Gambia, Malawi, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Sudan, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

To be Taken at (Country): The fellowship is hosted by the University of Westminster.

About the Award: Fellows will undertake a bespoke 8-week fellowship programme titled ‘New Media for a New Africa: Freedom of Speech, Economic Prosperity and Good Governance’.  The programme will combine professional development of the values of good journalism (curiosity, rigour, challenge, storytelling, research, doing no harm, and freedom of speech) with an understanding of new opportunities to make reporting more effective and to use new ways to enhance its reach and impact.
This programme will bring together 12 leading media and information practitioners and regulators from 11 countries. The course is designed to promote vigorous exchange of ideas and experience, and constructive learning, between participants and course leaders, with both seminars and speaker talks, off-site visits and fieldwork. Fellows will be challenged to discuss evidence-based context for key policy debates, understand international positions (including appreciation of UK approaches), supply practical experience, and encourage dialogue on key issues.
Participants will be expected to participate in individual and group coursework projects, take an active role in their professional and career development, and engage actively throughout the programme and as part of the network.
The curriculum focuses on the ways in which the media are held responsible, and the wider context within which political institutions operate. The ethics of reporting are at the heart of all debates.
Fellows will participate in six intensive weeks of lectures, visits, and discussions that introduce them to key UK academics, media, and political figures in the field, followed by two weeks of fieldwork research and professional practice. This will culminate in an interactive day of news events focused on Africa and the UK.
This fellowship programme will commence in May 2020.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible for a Chevening Africa Media Freedom Fellowship (CAMFF), you must:
  • Be a citizen of Ethiopia, Burundi, Cameroon, Gambia, Malawi, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Sudan, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
  • Return to your country of citizenship at the end of the period of the fellowship
  • Have a postgraduate level qualification (or equivalent professional training or experience in a relevant area) at the time of application
  • Have at least seven years’ work experience prior to applying
  • Be a mid-senior level African professionals with demonstrable leadership skills in fields which may include public servants working in areas of media policy and regulatory frameworks, or media professionals such as journalists
  • Be fluent in written and spoken English
  • Not hold British or dual-British citizenship
  • Agree to adhere to all relevant guidelines and expectations of the fellowship
Number of Awards: 12 

Duration of Award: 8 weeks. Fellows will participate in six intensive weeks of lectures, visits, and discussions that introduce them to key UK academics, media, and political figures in the field, followed by two weeks of fieldwork research and professional practice. This will culminate in an interactive day of news events focused on Africa and the UK.

Value of Award: Each fellowship includes:
  • Full programme fees
  • Living expenses for the duration of the fellowship
  • Return economy airfare from your country of residence to the UK
How to Apply: APPLY
  • For key steps and dates during the application process, please follow the placement timeline
Visit Award Webpage for Details

Asia-Pacific Trade Deal: Trading Away Indian Agriculture?

Colin Todhunter

On the back of Brexit, there are fears in the UK that a trade deal will be struck with Washington which will effectively lower food and environmental standards to those of the US. At the same time, it seems that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is being resurrected and could have a similar impact in the EU. These types of secretive, corporate-driven trade deals ride roughshod over democratic procedures and the public interest.
India has not been immune to such deals. The US-India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (2005) is aimed at widening access to India’s agricultural and retail sectors for US companies. This agreement was drawn up with the full and direct participation of representatives from various companies, such as Monsanto, Cargill and Walmart, in return for India receiving assistance to develop its nuclear sector.
And now, in India, there are serious concerns about another deal. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is currently being negotiated by 16 countries across Asia-Pacific and would cover half the world’s population, including 420 million small family farms that produce 80% of the region’s food. Although stumbling blocks have prevented any deal being struck thus far, there is an increased sense of urgency to get it signed.
The RCEP could further accelerate the corporatisation of Indian agriculture. The plight of farmers in India has been well documented. A combination of debt, economic liberalisation, subsidised imports, rising input costs, deliberate underinvestment and a shift to cash crops has caused massive financial distress. Over 300,000 (perhaps over 400,000) have taken their lives over the last 20 years. From the effects of the Green Revolution (degraded soils, falling water tables, drought, etc.) to the lack of minimum support prices and income guarantees, it is becoming increasingly non-viable for many smallholder farmers to continue.
Indian smallholder/peasant farmers are under attack on all fronts. Transnational corporations are seeking to capitalise the food and agriculture sector by supplanting the current system with one suited towards their needs, ably assisted by the World Bank and its various strategies and directives. There is a push to further commercialise the countryside, which will involve shifting hundreds of millions to cities.
GRAIN is an international non-profit organisation and in 2017 released a short report that outlined how RCEP is expected to create powerful new rights and lucrative business opportunities for food and agriculture corporations under the guise of boosting trade and investment.
Land acquisition and seed saving
The RCEP is expected to create powerful rights and lucrative business opportunities for food and agriculture corporations under the guise of boosting trade and investment. It could allow foreign corporations to buy up land, thereby driving up land prices, fuelling speculation and pushing small farmers out. This could intensify the ‘great land grab’ that has already been taking place in India.
GRAIN notes that giant agribusiness concerns want to put a stop to farmer seed saving and sharing by forcing farmers to buy their proprietary seeds each season. The global seed industry is highly concentrated today and recent mergers only further consolidate its power and influence over both governments and farmers. For example, with China having acquired Syngenta, that country has a new vested interest in seeing seed laws strengthened via tighter intellectual property rights under RCEP.
We have already seen the devastating effects on Indian farmers due to Monsanto’s illegal ‘royalties’ (on ‘trait values’) on GM cotton seeds in India. Monsanto effectively wrote and broke laws to enter India. Under RCEP, things could get much worse. If patents are allowed on inventions ‘derived from plants’ (whether hybrid or genetically modified seeds), we could see higher seed prices, a further loss of biodiversity, even greater corporate control and a possible lowering of standards (or a complete bypassing of them as with GM mustard) for high-risk products such as GMOs.
India’s dairy sector
Access to the huge Indian market is an important focus for New Zealand in the RCEP negotiations, especially where the diary sector is concerned. However, according to RS Sodhi, managing director of the country’s largest milk cooperative, Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation, this could rob the vibrant domestic dairy industry and the millions of farmers that are connected to it from access to a growing market in India.
The Indian government has encouraged the co-operative model in the dairy sector with active policy protection. However, the dairy trade could be opened up to unfair competition from subsidised imports under RCEP. India’s dairy sector is mostly self-sufficient and employs about 100 million people, the majority of whom are women. The sector is a lifeline for small and marginal farmers, landless poor and a significant source of income for millions of families. They are the backbone of India’s dairy sector.
New Zealand’s dairy giant Fonterra (the world’s biggest dairy exporter) is looking to RCEP as a way into India’s massive dairy market. The company has openly stated that RCEP would give it important leverage to open up India’s protected market. As a result, many people fear that Indian dairy farmers will either have to work for Fonterra or go out of business.
At the same time, some RCEP members not only heavily subsidise their farmers, but they also have food safety standards that are incompatible with the small-scale food production and processing systems that dominate in other RCEP countries. There is sufficient room for concern here: during the ‘mustard crisis’ in 1998, ‘pseudo-safety’ laws were used to facilitate the entry of foreign soy oil: many village-level processors were thereby forced out of business.
The RCEP could accelerate the growth of mega food-park investments that target exports to high-value markets, as is already happening in India. These projects involve high-tech farm-to-fork supply chains that exclude and may even displace small producers and household food processing businesses, which are the mainstay of rural and peri-urban communities across Asia. This would dovetail with existing trends that are facilitating the growth of corporate-controlled supply chains, whereby farmers can easily become enslaved or small farmers simply get by-passed by powerful corporations demanding industrial-scale production.
From pesticides to big retail
Fertiliser and pesticide sales are expected to rise sharply in Asia-Pacific in the next few years. Agrochemical use is heaviest in China and growing rapidly in India. GRAIN notes that China’s acquisition of Syngenta, the world’s top agrochemical company with more than 20% of the global pesticide market, puts the country in a particularly sensitive position within RCEP.
GRAIN states that liberalized trade in farm chemicals are bound to be part of the RCEP, resulting in increased residues in food and water, more greenhouse gas emissions, rising rates of illness and further depletion of soil fertility.
The RCEP also demands the liberalisation of the retail sector and is attempting to facilitate the entry of foreign agroprocessing and retail gaints, which could threaten the livelihoods of small retailers and street vendors. The entry of retail giants would be bad for farmers because they may eventually monopolise the whole food chain from procurement to distribution. In effect, farmers will be at the mercy of such large companies as they will have the power to set prices and also will not be interested to buy small quantities from small producers. In effect, the RCEP will usher in a wave of corporate agri-food consolidation.
It is interesting to note that Ashwani Mahajan, economics professor and national co-convener of Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, an Indian political and cultural organization that promotes self-reliance argues that the ‘make in India’ push by the current government is completely at odds with the RCEP. He argues that no sector seems to want the trade deal and that India’s participation in the talks have overshot the original aim. That aim was to be that of observer, so India could learn from the process. However, Mahajan suggests civil servants now seem to be fully engaged and are ready to sign up to the deal.
The RCEP is a recipe for undermining biodiverse food production, food sovereignty and food security for the mass of the population. It will also massive job losses in a country like India, which has no capacity for absorbing such losses into its workforce.
There is a need to encourage localised food economies that are shielded from the effects of rigged trade and international markets. Rather than have transnational agri-food corporations determining global and regional policies and private capital throttling democracy, we require societies run for the benefit of the mass of the population and a system of healthy food and sustainable agriculture that is run for human need.
We need only look at Mexico and what ‘free trade’ has done to that country’s food and agriculture sector: destroyed health, fuelled unemployment, transformed a rural population into a problematic group of migrants who now serve as a reserve army of labour that conveniently depresses the incomes of those in work. The writing is on the wall for India.

Nuclear Weapons are an Existential Threat

Olivia Alperstein

There’s a growing awareness now that climate change is an existential threat to humanity. Inspiring movements are demanding solutions, and politicians are scrambling to offer them.
That’s good. But there’s another existential threat that gets a lot less attention: nuclear war. And a new study suggests it’s time to pay attention — and eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us.
The study, published this October in Science Advances, warns that “rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals” could rapidly cause a “global catastrophe.” It examines the possible repercussions of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, but it’s relevant to anyone who lives on this planet — and especially in a heavily nuclear-armed country like ours.
The study paints a grim picture. In a conflict between Indian and Pakistan, it says, up to 50 million people would die if 15-kiloton weapons are used. Almost 100 million would die if 50-kiloton weapons are used. And about 125 million if 100-kiloton weapons are used.
Casualties would occur not only in the nuclear explosions themselves, but also due to smoke emissions and other environmental damage resulting from the aftermath of a nuclear exchange.
Because of the dense populations of cities in Pakistan and India, even a war with the lowest-yield weapons could kill as many people as died in all of World War II. But unlike World War II, these casualties would occur within a single week.
“Perhaps for the first time in human history,” the authors conclude, “the fatalities in a regional war could double the yearly natural global death rate.”
The study’s release is particularly timely, given that India and Pakistan are currently locked in another tense standoff over Kashmir. But the authors also point out that their analysis could be used to model potential impacts of a nuclear war between any two nations.
Indeed, India and Pakistan aren’t the only countries increasing tensions and heightening the risk of a nuclear exchange.
A new nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia is giving young people like me a firsthand, time travel-free look at the Cold War era we were too young to experience. This year, President Donald Trump asked Congress to fund a new so-called “low-yield” nuclear weapon, which is touted as being “more usable.”
But if this study shows anything, it’s that no nuclear weapon should be considered “usable.” Any nuclear exchange anywhere is likely to have catastrophic consequences for the earth’s climate and human health everywhere.
The world can’t afford to ignore these disturbing findings, which emphasize the urgent need to prevent nuclear conflict and to reduce — and eliminate — nuclear arsenals.
Pakistan and India have only a fraction of the nuclear weapons possessed by the United States and Russia — and only a fraction of their potential destructive power. Right now, the United States and Russia are currently engaged in a super-high-stakes game of chicken of their own.
We’ve come very close to nuclear war in the past. Human health and survival are at stake in preventing what we cannot cure. No nation on earth can afford the catastrophic regional and global consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.
There is no such thing as a small nuclear war. American decision-makers at every level of government need to heed this study’s findings and work to advance commonsense policies to reduce and eliminate the nuclear weapons threat — before it eliminates us.