Dozens killed in bomb attacks at Istanbul airport

Patrick Martin

Dozens have been killed and nearly 150 people wounded after a series of bombs exploded at Istanbul’s Atatürk International Airport. Overnight media reports from Turkey said the death toll has risen to 36, with Turkish officials predicting the final figure might be as high as 50.

The city’s governor Vasip Şahin said that three suicide bombers were responsible for the carnage. The attackers reportedly opened fire with assault rifles before blowing themselves up. Police exchanged fire with the bombers and several police officers were among the dead and wounded.

The method and staging of the attack was similar to that carried out at the Brussels airport three months ago by gunmen claiming loyalty to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Turkish government officials strongly suggested that ISIS had arranged the attack, but no organization has yet claimed responsibility.

There were conflicting reports about which locations the attackers targeted, but they included the entrance to the international terminal, and the airport parking lot. Ataturk airport is the world’s 11th largest and the third busiest in Europe, after London’s Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.

A video circulating on social media showed a police officer wounding an unidentified man, who then blew himself up only seconds later, as he lay on the ground. An NBC News reporter who witnessed the explosions said he saw a police officer wrestle a man to the ground, who then detonated himself. It was not clear whether these were the same incident or separate events.

All entries and exits to the airport were sealed off by the police, with access limited to emergency vehicles. Some incoming air traffic was diverted, and all outbound flights were canceled. US authorities halted all flights between Istanbul and the United States, and issued instructions for special handling of the ten Turkish Airlines flights en route from Istanbul to various US destinations at the time of the bombings.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan met with Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım and Chief of Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar at the presidential complex to discuss the attack. Afterwards Yıldırım, Deputy PM Numan Kurtulmuş, Transportation Minister Ahmet Arslan and Family and Social Policies Minister Fatma Betül Sayan travelled to Istanbul.

This is the fifth terrorist attack in Turkey’s largest city this year, but the first that Turkish authorities attributed unambiguously to ISIS. Earlier attacks had been blamed on a radical split-off from the Kurdish nationalist movement PKK, giving the Erdoğan regime a pretext for intensifying its military operations against the Kurdish population in southeastern Turkey.

The tourism industry, one of Turkey’s main earners of foreign exchange, has been devastated by the previous attacks, with April showing the biggest drop in tourist arrivals in 17 years, according to official figures.

The attack came the day after the US State Department warned Americans against travel to southeastern Turkey, where there have been multiple terrorist attacks along with military conflicts between Turkish forces and the PKK.

A US government official, who would not be quoted by name, told NBC News that that the Istanbul attack “fits the ISIS profile, not PKK … This does not fit the PKK profile, they go after Turkish targets, not international targets.”

Another US official told NBC that more such attacks could be expected, saying, “Our long summer of discontent has just begun.”

There have been many indications over the past year of ties between ISIS and sections of the Turkish military. For instance, last November, Newsweek cited the comments of a former ISIS commander who claimed that the terror group operated massive truck convoys transporting oil into Turkey, with the “full cooperation” of the Turkish military.

Alongside the US, Turkey has provided extensive support to Islamist militias in Syria, in a bid to topple the Russian-aligned Assad regime. As with previous terror attacks, the Erdoğan regime will also use the latest tragedy as the pretext for a further crackdown on civil and political rights.

The attack will also be used by Washington to justify its predatory military operations in the Middle East. Both presidential candidates of the two main US parties, Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Donald Trump for the Republicans, issued statements denouncing the terrorist attacks. Clinton pledged support for Turkey as a NATO ally, while Trump cited the attack as an argument to “take steps now to protect America from terrorists.”

Brexit crisis poses disintegration of United Kingdom

Steve James

The Leave vote in the Brexit referendum has immediately called the survival of the United Kingdom into question.

The outcome of the June 23 vote on UK membership of the European Union (EU) has seen tensions rise between the Westminster government and the devolved government in Scotland.

While across Britain, the Leave camp won by 52 percent to 48 percent, in Scotland 62 percent voted to Remain against only 38 who preferred Leave. Notably, while in England, the Leave vote was concentrated in rural areas and poorer regions outside the major cities, in Scotland every region, including the most impoverished, voted to Remain.

The contrast in results has allowed the SNP to claim a mandate to ensure continued Scottish membership of the EU and to again seek independence from the UK. Within hours, Scottish First Minister and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said that the “option of another [independence] referendum must be on the table, and it is on the table.”

Sturgeon continued, “[W]hen the Article 50 process [of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty] is triggered in three months’ time, the UK will be on a two-year path to the UK exit door. If the [Scottish] parliament judges that a second referendum is the best or only way to protect our place in Europe it must have the option to hold one within that timescale.”

Sturgeon replaced Alex Salmond as SNP leader in the aftermath of the defeated 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. Despite all the pseudo-left groups rallying to support the SNP and its independence referendum, the 2014 vote was lost by 10 percent.

For years, the SNP had based its perspective of separation from UK on the financial and oil interests concentrated in Aberdeen and Edinburgh. That is why, while proclaiming the need for Scottish “sovereignty” to be returned, it insisted that Scotland must remain within the EU as a means through which it sought to strengthen relations with the transnational corporations. The crisis within the eurozone upset these plans.

In 2014, out of a total of £76 billion Scottish exports, fully £48.5 billion, or two-thirds, went to the UK, while the EU was the leading international destination, attracting £11.6 billion of exports—42 percent of the total outside the UK. Moreover, with North Sea oil production in free fall, the Scottish economy is far more dependent on fiscal support from London, while tax revenues are collapsing.

From the standpoint of the Scottish bourgeoisie, then, having established more levers of power through devolution and the failed 2014 independence vote, the last thing they want is more political instability.

Sturgeon campaigned prominently for a Remain vote throughout the UK, taking part, like Scottish Conservative rival Ruth Davidson, in TV debates against the Leave camp. Days before the Brexit vote, Sturgeon also issued a joint statement with former Labour First Ministers, Jack McConnell and Henry McLeish, in favour of Remain in an “unprecedented display of unity” to “make the difference in keeping the UK in the European Union.”

Hitherto Sturgeon has been very careful not to commit definitively to a second independence vote until such time as it could confidently be won without disrupting trade, investment and tax revenues. But the Brexit vote has destroyed many sets of best laid plans. As well as placing a new independence vote in play, Sturgeon and her party have also floated back of the envelope proposals to take advantage of the Brexit calamity. Every one of them deepens conflicts with London and threatens to pull the UK apart.

Last Sunday, speaking on the BBC, Sturgeon suggested the Scottish parliament could block the Brexit decision. It was “hard to believe” that “a legislative consent motion” would not be required from the Scottish parliament before the UK could split from the EU, she said.

The basis of Sturgeon’s assertion is the devolution agreement whereby EU law, which is incorporated into Scottish law, also stipulates that changes involving devolution arrangements must have the consent of the Scottish parliament. With all the Holyrood parties strongly pro-EU, this consent would not be forthcoming.

The SNP has mooted the possibility of Scotland retaining some form of EU membership without breaking entirely from the UK. Because both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, it is argued that the EU borders could be re-drawn without forcing Scotland and Northern Ireland out. But this arrangement currently only applies to Greenland and the Faroe Islands, both of which are part of Denmark but not in the EU, both of which are isolated North Atlantic islands with tiny populations entirely dependent on the fishing industry. Applying the same solution to the complex historical edifice of the UK raises all the same conflicts as a new independence referendum for Scotland and the likely border referendum in Ireland.

The SNP has also started sounding out the EU and its member states to explore whether Scotland could retain EU membership. The Scottish government is seeking a meeting with European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and intends to host a meeting of European consul generals. Sturgeon is also expected to meet Guy Verhofstaft, former Belgian prime minister and president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, which includes 70 of 751 members of the European parliament.

Manfred Weber, who heads the European People’s Party, is sympathetic. Weber, a close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said “on a Scottish level: to go the other way, it is up to them. Europe is open to new member states, that it totally clear.”

Weber’s remarks raise the possibility of the EU, led by Germany, easing Scottish EU membership as a means of further punishing London for Brexit through accelerating the dismemberment of the UK.

The SNP has begun a discussion with Labour’s London Mayor Sadiq Khan. Sturgeon reported a conversation with Khan in which they established “clear common cause between us.” What this is remains to be seen, but with major banks already promising to relocate to Paris and Frankfurt to remain in the EU, and with share prices collapsing, London is clearly facing major financial services job losses.

Promoting the Edinburgh-based financial services industry as a British-based, English speaking alternative within the EU might mitigate the damage to the City of London while allowing Edinburgh to compete with France and Germany. Tory MP and member of Westminster’s Treasury Committee, Mark Garnier, a former banker, spelled out this thinking: “I would be trying to build a financial services hub that would be the natural successor to London by leaving the union of the United Kingdom and staying within the European Union.”

But for workers across Britain, any combination of the options above brings with it an inevitable sharp intensification of the assault on living standards, mass job losses, regional fragmentation and privatisation of vital services. Animated by nationalism and regionalism, and falsely presenting EU membership as a means of offsetting the social consequences of Brexit, all of these proposals serve only to tie workers to one or another section of a capitalist class.

Tensions erupt at Brussels summit on British exit from EU

Johannes Stern & Alex Lantier

European Union officials adopted a hard line against David Cameron on Tuesday at the final EU summit to be attended by the outgoing British prime minister. The meeting was called in response to last week’s referendum vote for a British exit from the EU. Prior to the summit, European and British officials traded bitter attacks in the European parliament, underscoring the intention of the major EU powers to punish the UK for voting to leave the union.

Cameron has announced he will step down after the ruling Conservative Party’s annual conference in October, leaving it to his successor to invoke Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, triggering negotiations on the terms of Britain’s exit. Once Article 50 is invoked, a country leaving the EU has two years to renegotiate all treaties and other agreements with the EU before they lapse.

No agreement between Cameron and top EU officials on the Brexit crisis emerged from a working dinner, whose attendees included EU Council President Donald Tusk and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The EU decided to exclude Britain from a second day of talks, though Britain is still technically an EU member state, and Cameron went home empty handed.

Arriving at the EU summit, Cameron asked European officials to be “as constructive as possible” with Britain’s next prime minister. “These countries are our neighbours, our friends, our allies, our partners, and I very much hope we’ll seek the closest possible relationship in terms of trade and cooperation and security, because that is good for us and that is good for them,” Cameron said. “And that’s the spirit in which the discussions I think will be held today.”

On the contrary, leading EU officials, starting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, had the previous day issued a series of statements pressing for a rapid and punitive exit of Britain from the EU.

In an official address to the German parliament (Bundestag), Merkel adopted a harsh position vis-a-vis Great Britain. She said German officials were “conscious” that Great Britain “does not yet want to file” for Article 50. However, she continued, Great Britain should “be conscious that there can be no negotiations or preliminary discussions so long as the Article 50 procedures have not been launched.”

Barely concealing the implied threat in her remarks, the chancellor added, “I can only advise our British friends not to fool around as they prepare to take the decisions that must be taken in Great Britain.” Merkel stressed that even though Britain is one of “the closest allies in NATO,” Germany and the EU would negotiate with Britain “on the basis of their own interests.” She said Berlin would “orient its policy around the interests of German citizens and businesses.”

In an especially provocative part of her speech, which was applauded by all the parties present in the German parliament, Merkel said: “We should make sure that the negotiations do not proceed on the basis of cherry-picking. It must make and it will make a noticeable difference whether a country wants or refuses to be a part of the EU family. Anyone who wants to leave this family cannot expect that as all the responsibilities of EU membership are removed, all the rights remain.”

Merkel cited the so-called Lisbon Strategy, formulated in 2000, which called for establishing the EU economically and politically as a world power, to justify pushing for an independent EU foreign and military policy: “We all see that the world faces deep unrest. Also in Europe, we face the consequences of oppression, crises, conflicts, and wars in our immediate neighbourhood. There are foreign and security policy challenges that we Europeans must unfortunately take up ...”

Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem echoed Merkel’s hard line, making clear that the EU intended Britain’s exit from the EU to damage that country’s international trade. He attacked Nigel Farage, the head of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), saying Farage was “living in his own world” if he thought Brexit meant Britain would be able to trade on better terms with the EU. Dijsselbloem chided that Farage “thinks Britain is still a world-spanning empire and can dictate everything, and it’s not going to happen like that.”

Reporting on the working dinner he had had with Cameron and Juncker, EU Council President Tusk confirmed that the EU aimed to inflict serious economic damage on Britain, even at the cost of provoking a global recession, in order to make an example of Britain for voting to leave the bloc. EU officials at the dinner made clear, Tusk said, “that Brexit means substantially lower growth in the UK, with a possible negative spillover all over the world.”

The European parliament voted a resolution calling upon Britain to rapidly invoke Article 50 and begin negotiations, following a chaotic parliamentary session dominated by aggressive statements by Farage and EU Commission President Juncker.

Farage called for a “grown-up and sensible attitude to how we negotiate a different relationship,” but then denounced the European parliamentarians to their face, saying, “Most of you have never done a proper job in your lives.” He launched into an anti-immigrant diatribe against Merkel for allowing Middle Eastern refugees into Europe, and called the euro currency a “failure,” adding, “As a policy to impose poverty in Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean, you have done very well.”

Juncker, for his part, turned on UKIP parliamentarians who applauded a statement calling for respect for the Brexit referendum vote and told them to leave Brussels. He snapped: “That’s the last time you are applauding here… To some extent I am really surprised that you are here. You were fighting for the exit, the British people voted in favour of the exit. Why are you here?”

The EU’s vindictive policy toward Britain and the escalating conflicts between British and EU officials shed light on the deep divisions that have built up throughout the EU, especially since the 2008 financial crisis and the austerity policies imposed in its aftermath. Now, tensions are exploding not only between Britain and Brussels, but throughout the EU.

On Monday, Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski blamed “the leadership of the European Union” for “mistakes,” and said that “at least a part of the European leadership should suffer the consequences.” He called the Brexit vote a “defeat,” and demanded that “new politicians and experts… work on new proposals for both Great Britain and Europe.” He announced that Poland might present “radical” proposals at the EU summit, including “a new European treaty” that would give “the main power in the EU to the European Council, not the Commission.”

The right-wing and notoriously anti-Russian governments in Poland and the Baltic countries regard Brexit as a threat that could not only weaken the military buildup against Russia before the upcoming NATO summit in Poland, but also undermine the NATO Alliance as a whole. Arriving in Brussels and asked by reporters about the possibility that Britain in the end might turn around and decide to stay in the EU, Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite took a noticeably different line from Merkel, saying, “Welcome, welcome back!”

After meeting US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made clear that the military alliance does not want a change in its relationship with London. “The UK is a strong and committed ally, responsible for almost one-quarter of defence spending among European NATO allies,” he declared, adding, “The Warsaw Summit will be important for the whole of Europe because we will make decisions on deterrence and defence, on projecting stability to our neighborhood, and on how we can enhance and further strengthen cooperation with the EU.”

The West Virginia floods and America's class divide

Jerry White

Residents of West Virginia are facing an immense cleanup and reconstruction effort in the aftermath of the flash floods that killed at least 23 people and destroyed or damaged thousands of homes, bridges and roads. As of Tuesday, hundreds were living in emergency shelters, 7,000 remained without power, and health officials were warning of the dangers of contaminated well water and disease-carrying mosquitoes.

As in previous disasters, the declaration of a state of emergency by President Obama will provide minimal aid, and those trying to reconstruct their lives will face bureaucratic indifference from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and challenges by private insurers to their claims.

The immediate trigger for the flood was record-setting rainfall, called a “nearly one in a thousand-year event” by the National Weather Service. However, like all natural disasters, the extent of the damage and its human impact were determined by social and political conditions that are man-made.

The victims of such disasters are predominantly working-class and poor people living in the most vulnerable homes and communities. West Virginia is the second poorest state in the United States, trailing only Mississippi. After extracting vast fortunes from the labor of generations of miners, the giant energy corporations and coal bosses have left West Virginia in a state of economic, social and environmental ruin.

King Coal has long dominated the state’s political structure, through both Democratic and Republican politicians. Successive governors have showered tax cuts on the coal companies and looked the other way as they flagrantly violated environmental and job safety regulations. Just last month, the state legislature voted to slash millions from the budget, including a two percent across-the-board cut in already underfunded environmental protection programs.

After the 1972 Buffalo Creek Disaster, which killed 125 men, women and children, civil engineers and environmental organizations warned that deforestation from strip-mining and commercial logging operations made mountainsides and the communities in the hollows below them far more susceptible to deadly mudslides and flooding. These warnings have long been ignored, and many of the counties hardest hit by last week’s flooding were heavily mined and logged.

It is now nearly 11 years since Hurricane Katrina, the costliest natural disaster in US history. The hurricane, and the breaching of the levees protecting New Orleans, destroyed working-class and poor neighborhoods and killed nearly 2,000 people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other states. The disaster exposed the criminal level of neglect of basic infrastructure, at the time overseen by the Bush administration, and the desperate poverty facing millions of Americans.

The social conditions revealed by the West Virginia floods are no less horrendous than those in New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward, where so many perished. Were it not for a less dense population, the loss of life in the flood-struck areas of West Virginia could have been just as great as in New Orleans.

The flooding in West Virginia has once again revealed the basic reality of life in the United States: the immense social gulf separating the working class—of all races and ethnicities—from the corporate and financial elite that controls the political system. These conditions have been immensely exacerbated since the financial crash of 2008, which coincided with the coming to power of President Barack Obama.

This class chasm, intensified by ever-widening social inequality, dominates the capitalist system internationally. According to the World Wealth Report 2016 just issued by the consulting firm Capgemini, the number of High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI) in North America (those with liquid assets of $1 million or more) “grew by 8.3 percent to 4.68 million and their wealth by 9.1 percent to US$16.2 trillion, driven largely by strong equity market performance.” The net worth of these individuals would cover five times the amount the American Civil Engineers Association says the US needs to spend by 2020 to rebuild America’s decaying dams, levees, schools and other critical infrastructure.

In West Virginia, some 11,000 miners have lost their jobs since 2013. In many abandoned mining towns, half to three-quarters of the male population is jobless. Similar conditions prevail throughout the country. Meanwhile, Obama continues to declare that life in America is “pretty darn great” and workers have nothing to complain about.

The social anger over these conditions is beginning to take a political form. In last month’s West Virginia primary, Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a socialist and who focused his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination on social inequality and denunciations of the “billionaire class,” defeated Hillary Clinton by a margin of 51.4 to 35.8 percent. Sanders secured far higher margins in the poorer counties and among young people who are looking for an anti-capitalist alternative to both big-business parties.

This political radicalization flies in the face of the official presentation of the “white working class” by the New York Times and other media mouthpieces of the Democratic Party, which slandered West Virginia workers as “racist” after Donald Trump’s victory in the state’s Republican primary.

As the World Socialist Web Site explained at the time, if sections of miners and others were susceptible to the demagogy of the billionaire real estate mogul, it was because their struggles had over decades been betrayed by the United Mine Workers (UMWA) and because they were deeply alienated from the Democratic Party, which combines ruthless attacks on their jobs and living standards with racial and gender politics and denunciations of supposed “white privilege.”

Now that Sanders has effectively ended his campaign and is moving to back Clinton, the Times & Co. are stepping up their campaign to castigate white workers, insist that all issues must be considered from the standpoint of race and gender, and bury the issue of social inequality and the fundamental class questions. They do so even as they promote a right-wing, militaristic Democratic candidate who personifies the corrupt relationship between the political establishment and Wall Street.

West Virginia has a rich history dating from its inception in the rebellion of poor farmers against the slaveholders in Virginia and extending to the semi-insurrectionary Mine Wars of the 1920s and 1930s and the mass miners’ strikes of the 1960s and 1970s. The latter culminated in the 111-day strike of 1977-78, when miners defied the back-to-work order by Democratic President Jimmy Carter. But the miners have long been politically disenfranchised by the UMWA’s subordination of the working class to the Democratic Party. The anti-working-class character of the UMWA is summed up by its current support for the gubernatorial campaign of Democrat Jim Justice, a coal baron and the state’s richest man, worth $1.6 billion.

Over the last seven-and-a-half years, President Obama has poured trillions of dollars into bank bailouts, endless wars, and domestic security programs to spy on the American people and arm the police with military-grade weaponry for the purpose of suppressing social discontent. As a result, the American people have never been so economically and socially insecure and vulnerable to disasters like the floods in West Virginia.

Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships (Vanier CGS)

Canadian GovernmentPhD Degree

Deadline: before 2 Nov 2016 (annual)
Study in: Canada
Course starts May/Sept 2017

Brief description:

The Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships (Vanier CGS) was created to attract and retain world-class doctoral students and to establish Canada as a global centre of excellence in research and higher learning.  The scholarships are towards a doctoral degree (or combined MA/PhD or MD/PhD).

Host Institution(s):

Canadian Universities with Vanier CGS allocation. Without exception, the Vanier CGS is tenable only at the eligible Canadian institution that submitted the nomination.

Level/Field(s) of study:

PhD programmes (or combined MA/PhD or MD/PhD) in health research; natural sciences and/or engineering research; and social sciences and/or humanities research

Number of Scholarships:

Up to 167 scholarships are awarded annually

Target group:

Canadian citizens, permanent residents of Canada and foreign citizens are eligible to be nominated for a Vanier CGS.

Scholarship value/duration:

The scholarships is worth $50,000 per year for three years.

Eligibility:

To be considered for a Vanier CGS, you must:

• be nominated by only one Canadian university, which must have received a Vanier CGS allocation;

•  be pursuing your first doctoral degree (including joint undergraduate/graduate research program such as: MD/PhD, DVM/PhD, JD/PhD – if it has a demonstrated and significant research component). Note that only the PhD portion of a combined degree is eligible for funding;

•  intend to pursue, in the summer semester or the academic year following the announcement of results, full-time doctoral (or combined MA/PhD or MD/PhD) studies and research at the nominating university; Note that only the PhD portion of a combined degree is eligible for funding;

•  have completed no more than 20 months of doctoral studies as of May 1, 2017;

•  have achieved a first-class average, as determined by your university, in each of the last two years of full-time study or equivalent. Candidates are encouraged to contact the university for its definition of a first-class average; and

•  not have already received a doctoral-level scholarship or fellowship from CIHR, NSERC, or SSHRC to undertake or complete a doctoral degree.

Application instructions:

Candidates must be nominated by a Canadian Institution with a quota at which they want to study. Candidates cannot apply directly to the Vanier CGS program.   

Applications are initiated in one of two ways. Either the student informs the faculty of graduate studies at the selected institution of their intent to apply to the Vanier CGS program OR the institution initiates the nomination process by contacting the desired candidate.

Applications are prepared by the student and submitted to the nominating institution by their internal deadline using the ResearchNet application system.  The nominating institution then forwards recommended nominations to the Vanier-Banting Secretariat (the Secretariat) by2 November 2016.

It is important to visit the official website (link found below) to access the application form and to know the complete details on how to apply for this scholarship.

Website:

Official Scholarship Website:  http://www.vanier.gc.ca/en/home-accueil.html

See also: List of Scholarships in Canada

IMD MBA Class Scholarship for Emerging Markets

IMD
MBA Degree

Deadline: 30 September
Study in:  Switzerland
Course starts January 2017

Brief description:

IMD’s MBA program is offering a new and considerable scholarship program to enable young leaders from emerging markets to earn the IMD MBA degree.

Host Institution(s):

IMD Switzerland

Field of study:

Masters in Business Administration (MBA)

Number of Scholarships:

Not specified.

Target group:

Citizens of developing countries

Scholarship value/inclusions:

CHF 200’000 (to be split between the winners of the scholarship)

Eligibility:

•  Demonstrate financial need by completing our Financial Aid Application

•  Good academic results (GMAT)

•  Strong reference letters

•  Steady career progression

Application instructions:

Before you can apply for the scholarship, you must have been accepted into an IMD MBA Program. You must complete the MBA Financial Aid Application Form (when requested) and submit your essays before 30 September 2016.

It is important to visit the official website (link found below) to access the application form and for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Website:

Official Scholarship Website:  http://www.imd.org/mba-admission-fees/#tab=3

Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP) for Developing Countries 2016/2017

Brief description: Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP) 2016/2017 is open for Masters, PhD and Short Courses applicants from Developing Countries

Application Deadline: Between 1 September and 13 October 2016

Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at: Netherlands

Accepted Subject Areas: The NFP offers candidates three sub-programmes to choose from:

• Master’s degree programmes
• Short courses
• PhD studies

About Scholarship: The Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP), funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the budget for development cooperation, are designed to promote capacity building within organizations in 51 (previously 62) countries by providing training and education to mid-career staff.

The overall aim of the NFP is to help alleviate qualitative and quantitative shortages of skilled manpower within a wide range of governmental, private and non-governmental organizations. This is done by offering fellowships to mid-career professionals to improve the capacity of their employing organizations.

Scholarship Offered Since: Not Specified

Selection Criteria: Priority will be given to candidates who:

• live and work  in Sub-Saharan Africa;
• are women;
• belong to a priority groups and/or are from a marginalised region as defined by the Dutch embassy in your country. You can find these priorities on the embassy’s website.

Eligibility: To be eligible for an NFP fellowship, candidate must:

• be a professional and a national of, and work and live in one of the following countries.
• have been unconditionally admitted to a PhD programme at Leiden University.
• be nominated by their employers and have an employer’s statement that complies with the format Nuffic has provided (see step 5 of the application procedure below).
•  have an official and valid passport.
• (If applicable) have a government statement that meets the requirements of the country in which the employer is established (see step 4 of the application procedure below).
• not receive more than one fellowship for the courses that take place at the same time
• not be employed by an organization that has its own means of staff-development. Organizations that are considered to have their own means for staff development are for example: multinational corporations (e.g. Shell, Unilever, Microsoft), large national and/or a large commercial organisations, bilateral donor organisations (e.g. USAID, DFID, Danida, Sida, Dutch ministry of Foreign affairs, FinAid, AusAid, ADC, SwissAid), multilateral donor organisations, (e.g. a UN organisation, the World Bank, the IMF, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IADB), international NGO’s (e.g. Oxfam, Plan, Care).
• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that finances the NFP scholarships, has determined that 35% of the total NFP budget will be spent on grants and study programmes in food security and private sector development, 50% of the budget is for applications from Sub Sahara Africa and 50% of fellowships has to be awarded to female applicants.

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The fellowship is a supplement to the candidate’s salary and a contribution towards the expenses related to the course or study programme.

Duration of sponsorship: One year

Eligible African Countries: Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, Benin, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya, Cape Verde, Uganda, Mali, Zambia, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Egypt, Namibia

Other Developing Countries outside Africa? Afghanistan, Eritrea, Nicaragua, Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Pakistan, Autonomous Palestinian Territories, Peru, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Philippines, Bhutan, Honduras, Bolivia, India, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Iran, Suriname, Jordan, Cambodia, Thailand, Kosovo, Colombia, Macedonia, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Yemen, Cuba, Moldova, Mongolia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nepal

How to Apply: Visit scholarship webpage for details on how to apply for NFP

Sponsors: The NFP is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the budget for development cooperation.

Social Science Research Council (SSRC) Abe Fellowship for Developing Countries

Brief description: The Social Science Research Council (SSRC) and the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP) announce the annual Abe Fellowship Program competition. Funding for the Abe Fellowship Program is provided by CGP.

Application Deadline: 1st September, 2016 (annual). Fellowship tenure must begin between April 1st and December 31st every year.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries

To be taken at (country): Japan and United States

Eligible Field of Study: Applications are welcome from scholars and nonacademic research professionals. The objectives of the program are to foster high quality research in the social sciences and related disciplines.

About the Award: The Abe Fellowship is designed to encourage international multidisciplinary research on topics of pressing global concern. The program seeks to foster the development of a new generation of researchers who are interested in policy-relevant topics of long-range importance and who are willing to become key members of a bilateral and global research network built around such topics. It strives especially to promote a new level of intellectual cooperation between the Japanese and American academic and professional communities committed to and trained for advancing global understanding and problem solving.

Programme Details: Applicants are invited to submit proposals for research in the social sciences and related disciplines relevant to any one or any combination of the four themes below. The themes are:

1) Threats to Personal, Societal, and International Security
Especially welcome topics include food, water, and energy insecurity; pandemics; climate change; disaster preparedness, prevention, and recovery; and conflict, terrorism, and cyber security.

2) Growth and Sustainable Development
Especially welcome topics include global financial stability, trade imbalances and agreements, adjustment to globalization, climate change and adaptation, and poverty and inequality.

3) Social, Scientific, and Cultural Trends and Transformations
Especially welcome topics include aging and other demographic change, benefits and dangers of reproductive genetics, gender and social exclusion, expansion of STEM education among women and under-represented populations, migration, rural depopulation and urbanization, impacts of automation on jobs, poverty and inequality, and community resilience.

4) Governance, Empowerment, and Participation
Especially welcome topics include challenges to democratic institutions, participatory governance, human rights, the changing role of NGO/NPOs, the rise of new media, and government roles in fostering innovation.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• This competition is open to citizens of the United States and Japan as well as to nationals of other countries who can demonstrate strong and serious long-term affiliations with research communities in Japan or the United States.
• Applicants must hold a PhD or the terminal degree in their field, or have attained an equivalent level of professional experience at the time of application.
• Previous language training is not a prerequisite for this fellowship. However, if the research project requires language ability, the applicant should provide evidence of adequate proficiency to complete the project.
• Applications from researchers in professions other than academia are encouraged with the expectation that the product of the fellowship will contribute to the wider body of knowledge on the topic specified.
• Projects proposing to address key policy issues or seeking to develop a concrete policy proposal must reflect nonpartisan positions.

Selection Criteria: Rather than seeking to promote greater understanding of a single country—Japan or the United States—the Abe Fellowship Program encourages research with a comparative or global perspective. The program promotes deeply contextualized cross-cultural research.

Successful applicants will be those individuals whose work and interests match these program goals. Abe Fellows are expected to demonstrate a long-term commitment to these goals by participating in program activities over the course of their careers.

All proposals are expected to directly address policy relevance in theme, project description, and project structure.

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Fellowship: 

• The fellowship is intended to support an individual researcher totally, regardless of whether that individual is working alone or in collaboration with others.
• Candidates should propose to spend at least one third of the fellowship tenure in residence abroad in Japan or the United States. In addition, the Abe Fellowship Committee reserves the right to recommend additional networking opportunities overseas.
• Funds for language tutoring or refresher courses in the service of research goals will be included in the awards.

Duration of Fellowship: The program provides Abe Fellows with a minimum of 3 and maximum of 12 months of full-time support over a 24-month period

How to Apply: Visit Fellowship Webpage to apply

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Social Science Research Council (SSRC), Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP)

Important Notes: Please note that the purpose of this Fellowship is to support research activities. Therefore, projects whose sole aim is travel, cultural exchange, and/or language training will not be considered. However, funds for language tutoring or refresher courses in the service of research goals will be included in the award if the proposal includes explicit justification for such activities.

The Aurora Prize for Humanitarian Work 2016 – USD1Million in Cash

Brief description: Nominations now open for $1 million humanitarian award by the Aurora Prize for Awakening Humanity.

Application Deadline: 29th September, 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries

To be taken at (country): Yerevan, Armenia

About the Award: On behalf of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide and in gratitude to their saviors, the Aurora Prize for Awakening Humanity will be granted annually to an individual whose actions have had an exceptional impact on preserving human life and advancing humanitarian causes.

Offered Since: 2015

Type: Humanitarian Prize

Eligibility: Any individual or group of people that perform(s) an extraordinary act of humanity may be nominated to receive the Aurora Prize. The Aurora Prize Laureate is recognized for the exceptional impact their actions have made in preserving human life in the face of adversity, risking their health, freedom, reputation or livelihood.

Selection Criteria: Nominations are carefully vetted and reviewed through a rigorous process. The Laureate is determined by the Selection Committee based on the following criteria:

Courage

The extent to which the Nominee’s actions demonstrate:

• Courage in helping others survive
• Having overcome significant risks for the sake of helping others survive
• Going beyond the call of duty of professional obligations for the sake of helping others survive

Commitment

The extent to which the Nominee’s actions demonstrate:

• An explicit intention to help others survive
• A direct involvement in helping others survive
• A commitment to common moral values such as integrity, freedom, justice, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility and compassion

Impact

The extent to which the Nominee’s actions demonstrate:

• An impact on saving lives
• A long-term effect in saving lives
• Inspiration to others to save lives, directly or indirectly
• Saving lives of a large number of individuals

Any members of the public, including members of national assemblies, governments, academic and other institutions, can nominate candidates for the Aurora Prize.

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Award: $100,000

Duration of Award: The Aurora Prize will be awarded annually on April 24 in Yerevan, Armenia.

How to Apply: Visit Award Webpage to apply

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: 100Lives by IDeA Foundation initiative.

IITA Graduate Research Fellowship Programme (GRFP) on Agriculture 2016

Brief description: The Graduate Research Fellowship Programme focuses on providing quality research experience in the areas of IITA research.

Application Deadline: Ongoing. Baased on available funding.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Sub Saharan African countries

To be taken at (country): Candidate’s home country

Eligible Field of Study: Agriculture

About the Award: The overall goal of its training activities is to strengthen the capability of partners in the national agricultural research and extension systems (NARES) to conduct research in their own countries. Further, IITA training activities facilitate research collaboration between IITA and the NARES. Thousands of professionals in SSA have profited from IITA’s training and many more benefit indirectly through knowledge they in turn have passed on to others.

Type: Research Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• The research projects must contribute to IITA research objectives.
• It is assumed that students will use their results to fulfill their degree requirements at their universities.
• The long-term goal is for the IITA-trained student to take up positions in research institutions in their home countries.

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Scholarship: Since the research will be an integral part of an ongoing project, the research expenses/operational costs will be borne by the project. However, applicants will seek funding from their employers, universities, and donors to cover the costs of their living expenses, medical, insurance and travel costs to and from IITA. On a case by case basis and depending on the nature of research, applicants from developed countries may be asked to cover either all or a part of their research costs.

However, full scholarships through special projects or grants to IITA will be advertised as and when available.

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of course

How to Apply: Go here to apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture