4 May 2018

Apple hands out $102 billion to shareholders

Patrick Martin 

Apple, Inc. announced Tuesday that it would convert much of its overseas profits, held in a huge cash hoard for several years, into a $102 billion windfall for corporate executives and other shareholders. The financial bonanza for a single company is comparable to the GDP of Ecuador or Sri Lanka.
The maker of the iPhone, the Mac personal computer and other consumer electronics is raising its quarterly dividend by 16 percent, from 63 cents a share to 73 cents a share, a move that will provide $2 billion in increased income directly to owners of the company’s stock. Apple will become the largest payer of dividends in corporate America, surpassing ExxonMobil.
As princely as this payout is, it is dwarfed by the $100 billion buyback of Apple stock, to be carried out over the course of the year. Its effect will be to boost the company’s share price indirectly. Moreover, by reducing the number of Apple shares in circulation, it will dramatically increase such financial indicators as earnings per share, the principal measure by which Wall Street judges a company and which corporate boards use to set executive pay levels.
The $100 billion figure is not so much a record as it is another dimension in corporate plunder. With that sum, Apple could have bought every share of stock in UPS, Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs or Boeing. It is greater than the market value of 460 of the Fortune 500 largest US companies.
The funneling of $102 billion from Apple to its shareholders is a distribution of wealth within the ruling elite. The top five individual shareholders are all Apple executives, including CEO Tim Cook. The top three institutional shareholders, holding nearly 18 percent of the stock, are Vanguard, Black Rock and State Street, three giant investment funds. These and others like them will reap the bulk of the financial plunder from the dividend payout and buyback.
The bonanza for the super-rich is the product of two interrelated processes. First is the sweatshop labor of millions of workers in Asia, mainly China, who manufacture components and assemble the iPhones, laptops and watches Apple sells. Second is the tax cut pushed through last December by the Trump administration and the Republican Congress, with only token opposition from the Democrats.
Apple reaps superprofits from the labor of cruelly exploited workers in Asia, most of them employed through subcontractors, as well as through monopoly rents generated by its control of intellectual property rights to the underlying technology. As the WSWS has written elsewhere, “It has been estimated that the cost of an iPhone, retailing for around $650 to $700, is made up of $220 for the components and $5 for the labor of assembly.”
This accounts for the cash hoard accumulated abroad, and deliberately held there in a tax avoidance scheme, while the company’s paid lobbyists obtained the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to back a “one-time” cut in the tax rate to induce American companies to return these funds to the United States.
Such a measure was initially proposed by Obama and backed by congressional Democrats, but it was not finally adopted until it could be incorporated into the broader tax cut for corporations and the wealthy proposed by Trump and congressional Republicans.
The resulting tax cut legislation slashed the basic corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, the largest single business tax cut in US history. Apple was already paying an effective rate of only 26 percent on its current US earnings, because of various financial manipulations and tax breaks.
By far the biggest benefit for Apple came from the provision allowing global companies to bring home profits held overseas and pay a one-time low rate of only 15.5 percent, less than half the statutory rate of 35 percent. Apple had the largest single stockpile of such profits, a staggering $257 billion, accumulated in part from global sales and in part from bookkeeping transactions that artificially diverted profits to overseas accounts to escape US taxation, pending the passage of such a bill.
As part of the repatriation of this cash hoard, the company will pay $38 billion in taxes to the Treasury—an amount that will no doubt be hailed as the largest single corporate tax payment in history—but this represents a saving of $47 billion over what Apple would actually have paid if US tax laws had been enforced instead of being treated as a dead letter by giant corporations.
Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 would have been better named the “Amnesty for Corporate Tax Cheats Act,” or perhaps the “An Act to Give Apple $47 Billion While Starving Schools and the Poor.”
In a democratically organized and rationally planned society, much better use would have been found for the $102 billion being used to enrich those already wealthy. As the chart suggests, Apple’s $102 billion windfall could have paid for the entire budget of the federal Department of Education, or paid the full tuition cost for every US college student, with $20 billion left over. It is double what all US public schools spend on capital improvements (buildings, playgrounds, school buses, equipment) and nearly twice as much money as the federal government spends on food stamps for more than 40 million low-income families. It is more than three times what the United Nations estimates is needed to feed every hungry family in the world for the next year.
When the tax cut bill was passed last December, the White House began hyping a series of announcements by major companies of plans to raise wages, hire more workers, or invest in new facilities, in order to provide “evidence” for its phony claims that the legislation was aimed at benefiting American workers.
Apple, for example, has pledged to hire another 20,000 workers over the next five years, at a cost of $5 billion ($50,000 a year per worker, counting wages and benefits, below the median wage in the United States). Even if this $5 billion materializes, it would represent only 2 percent of Apple’s total repatriated funds. It is dwarfed by the $102 billion handout to shareholders.
In the past week, at least one prominent Republican, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, has publicly admitted that the tax bill was sold under false pretenses. In an interview with British magazine The Economist , Rubio said, “There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers … In fact, they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”
Surveys by business groups have confirmed that the lion’s share of the tax cut gains will go the stock buybacks and dividends, while wage gains are estimated at 15 percent (which includes, of course, bonuses and salary increases for executives, as opposed to options and other stock-related compensation) to as low as 6 percent of the total.
Wall Street analysts now estimate that stock buybacks and dividend increases will top $1 trillion in 2018, nearly doubling the previous record set in 2007, the year before the financial crash. In the first quarter alone, stock buybacks and cash takeovers topped $305 billion, before Tuesday’s $102 billion declaration by Apple.
As for working people, nearly half own no stock at all, and the rest have minimal amounts in 401(k) retirement accounts and pensions. The bottom 80 percent of the population—the entire working class and sections of the middle class—own just 8 percent of stocks. The richest 10 percent of Americans own 80 percent of all shares.
Such figures only demonstrate the complete irrationality and bankruptcy of the profit system. The historical task of the working class is to organize itself as an independent political force, representing the vast majority of the human race, put an end to capitalism, and establish a planned socialist society under the democratic control of the workers.

3 May 2018

Leaked documents expose plans for internal surveillance by Australia’s electronic spy agency

Mike Head

For months, high-level Australian government preparations have been underway to allow the country’s electronic surveillance agency, the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), to access emails, bank records, text messages and other sensitive data of citizens and other domestic residents without their knowledge.
These plans, partly revealed by the publication of internal documents leaked to the media this week, indicate a ruling class anxious about mounting domestic disaffection and unrest.
The ASD, originally a military agency named the Defence Signals Directorate, operates interception equipment capable of capturing the communications of millions of people, as part of the global Five Eyes network led by the US National Security Agency (NSA).
Under existing legislation, the ASD is meant to spy only on foreign citizens and governments, unless it obtains a ministerial warrant to target individual Australians. In reality, it has long side-stepped this limited restriction by sharing data with the NSA and its British, Canadian and New Zealand partners.
A leaked letter from Mike Pezzullo, the secretary of the new Home Affairs super-ministry, to his Defence Department counterpart Greg Moriarity, showed that the government is planning to sweep aside legal restrictions and conduct mass surveillance of the Australian population.
An unnamed intelligence source reportedly told the Sunday Telegraph the letter outlined “step-in” powers that could force banks, telecoms and companies to hand over citizens’ data.
There is clear evidence, despite subsequent denials, that the relevant cabinet ministers, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton and Defence Minister Marise Payne, discussed the plans.
In March, a ministerial submission signed by ASD chief Mike Burgess, stated: “The Department of Home Affairs advises that it is briefing the Minister for Home Affairs to write to you (Ms Payne) seeking your support for a further tranche of legislative reform to enable ASD to better support a range of Home Affairs priorities.”
Such was the government’s fear of public opposition that the three named officials, Moriarty, Pezzullo and Burgess, quickly issued an unprecedented joint statement on Sunday asserting that there was “no proposal to increase the ASD’s powers to collect intelligence on Australians or to covertly access their private data.”
The statement claimed: “We would never provide advice to government suggesting that ASD be allowed to have unchecked data collection on Australians—this can only ever occur within the law, and under very limited and controlled circumstances.”
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop also went into damage control on Monday. She denied any knowledge of the leaked plans and said she saw no “security gap” that would justify them. Dutton, however, yesterday publicly advocated a domestic role for the ASD, claiming it was needed to combat cyber attacks and child sexual exploitation.
Documents released by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed that the ASD already hands over to the NSA and its global partners so-called metadata of the phone calls, texts, emails, on-line address books and social media posts of millions of people in Australia and across the Asia-Pacific region.
One document recorded that in just one day, in January 2012, a previously undisclosed NSA program “harvested” 712,336 email address books globally, of which 311,113, or more than 40 percent, were provided by the ASD.
Earlier leaks by Snowden showed that the ASD tapped the phone calls of then Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and that Australian embassies throughout Asia operate as electronic listening posts for the US-led spying network.
Moreover, during the past four decades, and especially since the “war on terrorism” was declared in 2001, successive Liberal-National Coalition and Labor governments have handed the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the domestic spy agency, and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) vast powers and resources to monitor and compile intelligence on Australians.
Last year, the current Coalition government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull took this state apparatus build-up to a new level by establishing the Home Affairs Ministry to take command of seven surveillance and enforcement agencies, including ASIO, the AFP, the Australian Border Force (ABF) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC).
The ASD was elevated into a statutory body but remained part of the Defence Department because of its direct involvement in supplying battlefield, cyber warfare and other information to the military.
Turnbull also announced the creation of a new US-style Office of National Intelligence (ONI) in the prime minister’s office, to establish centralised control over all the internal and external spy agencies. This includes the ASD, as well as the overseas spy agency, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) and the military’s agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO).
The Labor Party gave bipartisan backing to this unprecedented concentration of police-state powers, consistent with its own long record in office of bolstering the intelligence apparatus. Once the ASD plan was leaked, Labor leaders feigned concern about the accumulation of power in the hands of Dutton’s Home Affairs Ministry, but did not oppose the proposal itself.
Labor’s primary orientation was to attack the government for supposedly failing to protect “national security” because top-secret documents were leaked. Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus wrote to Turnbull asking him to investigate how such highly sensitive national security information was handed to the media. The government subsequently launched an AFP investigation into the leak.
Deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek said the leaking of a “top-secret, for Australian-eyes-only, document” pointed to divisions within the government. She said Labor was happy to work with the government on national security, but had not been consulted on this plan and needed to know why any changes were necessary.
The Turnbull government’s reorganisation of the security apparatus is driven by concerns about the global turmoil and uncertainties produced by the Trump administration, the decline in the hegemony of the United States—to which the fortunes of Australian capitalism have been tied since World War II—and the rise of seething discontent in every country, including Australia, generated by ever-greater social inequality.
An intelligence review report prepared at Turnbull’s request last year stated that Australia’s “national security environment” was being re-shaped by intensifying conflicts between the major powers and “a growing sense of insecurity and alienation.”
In Australia, no government has lasted a full three-year term since 2007 because of widespread opposition to the bipartisan program of austerity, war plans and boosting the powers of the police, intelligence and military agencies.
The government’s nervousness about the leaked plan reflects its awareness of underlying hostility toward the surveillance agencies, particularly since the false intelligence claims about “weapons of mass destruction” used to invade Iraq in 2003 and the disclosures of Snowden and WikiLeaks, led by Julian Assange. WikiLeaks revealed many atrocities and war crimes, as well as regime-change coups and intrigues, committed by the US and its allies, including Australia.
Both the Coalition and Labor portray “national security” as being about protecting the Australian population. The opposite is true. Those in ruling circles are preoccupied with suppressing widespread opposition to their preparations for war and to the deepening attacks on the jobs, wages and social conditions of working class people.

Armenian parliament rejects pro-Western opposition leader’s bid to be prime minister

Clara Weiss 

After mass protests that forced Armenia’s prime minister Serzh Sargsyan to resign last Monday, the leader of the liberal opposition bloc, Nikol Pashinyan, failed to secure a majority vote in the parliament in his bid to be elected prime minister on May 1.
While the mass protests that led to the Sargsyan’s resignation were motivated not least of all by social grievances in a country where almost every fifth person is unemployed and every third lives beneath the official poverty line, the liberal opposition has been quick to assert political control over the movement to advance its own agenda.
The vote took place under extraordinarily tense conditions with media reports indicating that the entire country came to a stand-still as the parliament was heatedly debating Pashinyan’s candidacy. Thousands watched the nine-hour parliamentary debate live from the Republican Square in the country’s capital Yerevan.
In a call last week with the former acting prime minister Karen Karapetyan, who replaced Sargsyan as acting prime minister last Monday, Russian president Vladimir Putin stated that his government was insisting on a “peaceful transition” in keeping with the results of the 2017 parliamentary elections. This implied the Kremlin’s ongoing support for the ruling Republican Party, which secured an overwhelming majority of votes in the last parliamentary elections. The opposition bloc Pashinyan represents won, by contrast, only some 8 percent of the votes.
Over the past week, Pashinyan called for numerous demonstrations to pressure the government into accepting him as prime minister, drawing the support of tens of thousands of people. He warned the parliament of a “political tsunami” if they did not back him.
In a frenzy of meetings last week, Pashinyan met with foreign delegations for secret negotiations. The first meeting was with the EU ambassadors to Armenia. Shortly thereafter, he also met with Russian delegations and representatives of the American government. Details about the discussions have not been made public.
On Sunday, Pashinyan called upon his supporters to block the streets leading to the city center of Yerevan, the country’s capital. The ruling Republican Party, which maintains close ties to the Kremlin, announced on Saturday that it would not run its own candidate.
Pashinyan also managed to secure the support of the “Prosperous Armenia” party which is headed by the influential oligarch Gagik Tsarukyan and holds the second-largest number of seats in the Armenian National Assembly.
Nevertheless, he fell short of the necessary absolute majority in parliament, with the bulk of the Republican Party delegates and several opposition delegates declining to vote for him. Instead of the required 53 votes, he only received 45 (out of 105). Pashinyan declared that the vote amounted to a “declaration of war on the people.” He called for “peaceful, nonviolent disobedience” to continue and asked for his supporters to block all roads, including access to the international airport in the capital.
The parliament is set to have another debate and vote next week, on May 8.
Along with the deep class divisions in the country which helped trigger the protests, the main roots of the political crisis lie in the advanced preparations for imperialist war in the region. While fraudulently claiming to speak for the people, Pashinyan, in fact, represents a section of the Armenian oligarchy which, in the face of the US-led confrontations with Russia and Iran, is seeking a rapprochement with the EU and American imperialism.
Pashinyan and his team have been anxious to stress that they had no “anti-Russian agenda.” These statements, however, are belied not only by the fact that Pashinyan met first of all with EU ambassadors, but also by his previous statements. Pashinyan repeatedly criticized Sargsyan’s government for joining the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in 2014, advocating instead an Association Agreement with the European Union which was signed, belatedly, in February 2017.
Last fall, Pashinyan reaffirmed his opposition to the EAEU, stating in a parliamentary debate that the main goal of his faction was to safeguard Armenian sovereignty, something he said would be impossible within the framework of the EAEU. “By joining the EAEU and in the context of the processes that accompanied it, the sovereignty of Armenia was seriously damaged, and these processes will continue, and will become uncontrollable for us starting at some point, if they haven’t become so already,” he declared.
While universally described as a “charismatic leader” in the Western press, what is most striking about Pashinyan’s political biography is his utter opportunism, and his decade-long, integration into the ruling establishment in Armenia which he now hypocritically decries as “corrupt.”
Pashinyan worked as a journalist for almost three decades. In 1995, he was thrown out of Yerevan State University two weeks before his final exams because he had criticized the policies of the government of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, the former leader of the Armenian nationalist movement of the late 1980s and first president of the Republic of Armenia after 1991. Ter-Petrosyan oversaw capitalist restoration, with the most devastating consequences for the working class.
In the years that followed, Pashinyan continued to work for opposition papers. In 2008, he became a member of the election campaign staff of Ter-Petrosyan, whom he had criticized in the 1990s, and who was now running as an oppositional candidate against Sargsyan. Pashinyan played a leading role in organizing the anti-government protests of 2008, which were suppressed brutally, with 10 protesters shot dead by the police.
Pashinyan fell-out with Ter-Petrosyan over the latter’s collaboration with the oligarch Gagik Tsarukyan and his party, which formed part of the government coalition until 2012. Pashinyan, however, now works with Tsarukyan himself.
Pashinyan’s deep ties to the Armenian political establishment and pro-EU positions are no doubt the reason that the Western press, although taken by surprise by the mass demonstrations in April, was quick to endorse him and the protest movement.
The major European powers, along with the US, are trying to encourage a shift in Armenia’s foreign policy orientation to ramp-up pressure on Russia and Iran, both of which have historically been closely aligned with the small nation. The coming weeks and months may well bring to light more information about the involvement of Washington and Brussels in the recent political upheavals.
Armenia is a country of major geostrategic significance in the Caucasus, bordering Azerbaijan, a close ally of the US, as well as Turkey, a member of NATO, Georgia, and Iran, a central target of US imperialist aggression.
Russia maintains two military bases in the country and is by far Armenia’s biggest trading partner. Armenia has relied on Russian economic and military support in its decade-long conflict with neighboring Azerbaijan over the mountain enclave Nagorno-Karabakh.
A map showing Armenia and neighboring countries
Moreover, up to two million Armenians work and live in Russia which, poor as it is, still offers more employment opportunities than the economically decrepit Caucasian republic. The Armenian and Russian oligarchies also maintain close ties, and in part overlap, with numerous Armenian-born figures among Russia’s richest individuals. This includes Samvel Karapetyan, the brother of the acting prime minister Karen Karapetyan, who owns the real estate concern Tashir Group and has an estimated net worth of $4.6 billion.
However, while in no position to rival Russia’s economic ties with Armenia, the United States also has significant economic leverage. According to a report by the Russian online newspaper Gazeta.Ru, the US is Armenia’s main creditor, holding the lion’s share of the country’s foreign debts, which amount to about 60 percent of GDP.
Perhaps even more importantly, because its dependence upon the Kremlin, the Armenian elite has felt the growing imperialist pressure on Russia in both Eastern Europe, especially since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, and in the Middle East.
Iran, home to a large Armenian diaspora and the only one of the country’s neighbors that it maintains close political and economic relations with (especially in energy), is the target of a decade-long imperialist campaign by the US and Israel. Fears in the region of an imminent Israel-Iran war, or an attack by Washington, are running high.
Under these conditions, the Armenian oligarchy is torn by vicious infighting over whether or not to loosen its longstanding and economically crucial ties with Russia in favor of greater subordination to US and European imperialism.
Amid mass poverty and a growing danger of war in the region, Armenian workers and young people, sections of whom participated in the mass protests, must advance their own solution to the political crisis, independent of all sections of the oligarchy, and in opposition to imperialism and the profit system.

Trudeau defends Canada’s $15 billion arms deal with despotic Saudi regime

Laurent Lafrance 

Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is continuing to defend Canada’s $15 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, even as new information reveals the murderous character of the military equipment Ottawa is shipping to Riyadh.
A recent report from CBC, based on documents it obtained, outlined for the first time specifics of the Canadian-Saudi arms deal that had previously been sealed under a confidentiality accord.
The $15 billion deal was initially approved by the former Conservative government in 2014, but was given the go-ahead when the Liberals signed export permits that allowed the sale to proceed. At the time, Trudeau and his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stephane Dion, were caught out lying about the deal, which they claimed had been finalized by the previous government. It was subsequently revealed that the Harper Conservatives only signed permits to authorize the provision of technical details about the light armoured vehicles (LAV) to be sold. The delivery was only able to proceed after Dion signed permits stating that the sale conformed with Canada’s arms control and human rights policies.
Just like Dion, who fraudulently claimed that “there is no reasonable risk that the military equipment might be used against the civilian population,” Trudeau recently told the House of Commons that “permits are only approved if the exports are consistent with our foreign and defence policies, including human rights.”
While Trudeau boasted of “new processes of transparency and accountability to international sales,” his government is refusing to release details of a recent investigation by Global Affairs Canada staff into allegations that Canadian-made armoured vehicles were used by the Saudi regime in the protracted military conflict against the Shiite population in Al-Qatif, a hotbed of popular resistance to the Saudi regime.
Even though the Saudi embassy in Canada publicly stated that Riyadh has used Canadian-made armaments to suppress its own people in Qatif, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland declared that the Global Affairs report found “no conclusive evidence that Canadian-made vehicles were used in human rights violations.” Freeland refused to make the investigation public precisely because its findings could fuel public opposition and put the lucrative deal in jeopardy.
Both the Liberals and Conservatives exploited the lack of detail about the deal to lie to the public about the capabilities of the vehicles being sold. While former prime minister Stephen Harper absurdly described them as “trucks,” Trudeau no less disingenuously called them “jeeps.”
The documents obtained by CBC show that the 2014 agreement, to both Harper’s and Trudeau’s knowledge, called for the sale of 928 of the newly developed LAV 6s, including 119 with “heavy assault” 105-millimetre cannons. Another 119 are configured as “anti-tank” vehicles and a further 119 are designated as “direct fire” support, with a two-man turret and 30-millimetre chain gun. The remaining vehicles include ambulances, mobile command posts, VIP transports and recovery vehicles equipped with cranes. Almost 40 percent—354 of the total—are standard troop carriers.
According to the CBC , the documents also reveal that the contract goes far beyond the sale of the vehicles. It also includes “a 14-year support program that involves ammunition, crew ‘training in Canada/Europe’ and ‘embedded’ maintenance, with a fleet management team in 13 workshops located in Saudi Arabia.” The training of Saudi crews working on the gun system is supposed to take place in France.
Canada’s steadfast backing for the murderous Saudi regime is part of its efforts to aggressively pursue its predatory imperialist interests throughout the Middle East. In Syria, Canada is involved in providing support to the US-backed Islamist rebels engaged in a war for regime change against Bashar al-Assad. Trudeau rushed to applaud last month’s reckless missile strikes by the US, France and Britain on Douma, parroting the unsubstantiated claims that Assad used chemical weapons.
Canadian imperialist ambitions are closely bound up with the maintenance of the United States’ unchallenged hegemony over the strategically important Middle East. For this reason, the Trudeau government is fully behind Washington’s efforts to construct an anti-Iranian alliance in close collaboration with their regional allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, as part of advanced preparations for all-out war with Tehran. In Syria, this has seen US-backed rebels seize strategically-important areas in eastern Syria to prevent Iran establishing a land corridor to Damascus, while Israel has been given a free hand by Washington to target Iranian personnel in a series of air strikes that threaten to trigger a wider war.
The House of Saud has been the main pillar of US imperialist hegemony in the Arab world and, along with other reactionary Sunni sheikhdoms and Israel, has been massively financed and armed to fight Iranian influence over the Middle East. Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war in Yemen has claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives and left much of the country in ruins.
Despite the fact that the massacre of thousands of innocent civilians and the blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia on Yemen—which aims at starving its population and the Houthi rebels—has been broadly condemned as a major violation of human rights, the Trudeau government is proceeding with its arms deal undeterred.
There can be no doubt that the arms sold to Saudi Arabia will be used in Riyadh’s war against Yemen, one of the world’s poorest countries.
Canada’s backing for the brutal Saudi dictatorship is endorsed by the entire political establishment. During the 2015 election campaign, when New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair sought to feign outrage at the agreement so as to cynically appeal to popular anti-war sentiments, the Unifor trade union quickly brought him to heel and demanded that Canada’s social democrats avoid raising the Saudi arms deal for the rest of the campaign. The NDP, which has backed every Canadian imperialist military intervention since the bombing of Yugoslavia, duly obliged.
The Saudi arms deal provides yet another demonstration of the fact that, like its Conservative predecessors, Trudeau’s Liberals are determined to advance Canada’s imperialist interests through the deepening of Ottawa’s military-strategic partnership with US imperialism. The policies of the Trudeau government, which is committed to hike military spending by 70 percent over the next decade, are creating the conditions for more death and destruction in the Middle East and beyond.
Canada’s Armed Forces are already fully implicated with the US military in the Middle East. In addition to backing Jihadist forces in Syria against Assad, the Liberal government has tripled the deployment of Canadian Special Forces to Iraq to help maintain a pro-Western government after years of US-led war. Canada also played a major role in the 2011 regime-change operation in Libya, which killed thousands and left the country in ruins.
Ottawa is a strong backer of Israel in its repression of defenceless Palestinians. Trudeau has picked up from where Harper left off on his policy towards Israel, siding with the building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. The Liberal government also collaborates closely with the Egyptian dictatorship of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, whose regime has massacred and jailed thousands of political opponents.

T-Mobile and Sprint agree to $146 billion mega-merger

Gabriel Black

T-Mobile and Sprint announced a deal Sunday to combine their companies, the third and fourth largest US phone carriers, to form a new conglomerate valued at $146 billion, including debt. Under the agreement, T-Mobile’s parent firm, Deutsche Telekom, will acquire Sprint, which is owned by Japan’s SoftBank group, for $26 billion.
The merger, if allowed by the US Justice Department, will leave the US wireless market monopolized by three national carriers. The new company would have a combined subscriber base of 127 million, bringing it closer to Verizon’s 150 million and AT&T’s 141 million.
The announcement is the latest in a flurry of proposed or implemented mega-mergers between the largest media and telecommunications companies. The past few years have seen merger deals involving Disney and Fox, AT&T and Time Warner, and 12 separate acquisitions by Verizon, including AOL and Yahoo.
It is unclear whether the Trump administration’s Justice Department will allow the merger to occur. Currently, the administration is suing AT&T to prevent its merger with Time Warner.
The T-Mobile/Sprint merger deal reflects two interconnected processes. On the one hand, all major corporations are under intense pressure from their investors to combine and consolidate, slashing jobs and cutting costs, so as to weather permanently reduced growth rates. On the other hand, there is intense pressure between companies and countries, especially in high-tech, to make the necessary investments in the newest stage of development—in this case, 5G networks. Both the massive investments required and the pressure to reduce costs fuel the drive to consolidate.
In this merger, T-Mobile CEO John Legere and Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure have emphasized the geopolitical “criticality” of the consolidation in addition to its financial benefits.
“All roads lead to Washington,” Legere explained to CNBC on Monday. “We are behind. It’s the early innovation cycle of 5G. We are behind China. This is not something we can allow.”
Claure added, “The US needs to lead in 5G. The only way to lead 5G is by combining Sprint and T-Mobile.”
5G refers to the fifth generation of mobile Internet speeds. It will provide download speeds averaging at 3.5 gbps—sufficiently fast to download a high definition movie in a few seconds and ten times faster than current LTE networks. 5G speeds are necessary for developing the so-called “Internet of Things,” or IoT, connecting a multitude of everyday and industrial items, whether it be a car, a coffee pot or an oil rig, to the Internet, primarily to enhance automation.
Legere and Claure’s depiction of the merger as a question of national security is meant to increase the chances that the Trump Justice Department will approve the agreement. As the United States prepares for a confrontation with China, the financial, intelligence and military elites see 5G speeds as critical to maintaining an economic and military edge. As Aimen Mir, deputy assistant secretary for investment security at the US Treasury Department, wrote to US lawmakers last month, “a shift to Chinese dominance in 5G would have substantial negative national security consequences for the United States.”
US lawmakers have already prevented Huawei, China’s largest phone manufacturer and the third-largest in the world, from launching its new flagship phone with a major US carrier. At the end of last year, Huawei was finalizing deals to sell the Mate 10 Pro via AT&T and Verizon. However, congressmen proposed a law that would ban government business on any US carrier that used Huawei. Lawmakers also pressured AT&T to stop working on a 5G network with the Chinese company. This broke up Huawei’s contracts.
In March, the New York Times wrote an article, “China’s Huawei Is at Center of Fight Over 5G’s Future,” in which it warned that the company had been “pouring money into research on 5G,” and had “hired experts from foreign rivals and pushed them to guide international groups that are deciding the technical standards for tomorrow’s wireless gear.”
Earlier this year, President Trump vetoed Broadcom’s bid for Qualcomm, again with the issue of 5G front and center. Although Broadcom is a US company, albeit based in Singapore, the basis for the decision was that if the takeover went ahead, Broadcom would cut back on research and development expenditure in order to finance the deal, and this would advantage Huawei in the race to develop 5G phone technology.
These moves come as the US prepares to impose unprecedented tariffs against $150 billion worth of Chinese imports at the end of this month.
Legere, Claure and the investors they represent, while playing off of the threat of Chinese supremacy, are chiefly concerned with the financial windfall they will reap from the merger. Speaking on the New York Stock Exchange trading floor Monday, Legere said that the gains for investors through the merger were “off the charts.” He added that there would be $43 billion in “synergies.” The Communications Workers of America announced that at least 20,000 jobs could be lost from the merger.
Both T-Mobile and Sprint have huge quantities of debt, $29.7 billion and $32.5 billion respectively. Sprint’s debt surpasses its stock value. In the words of the Financial Times, Sprint is a “subscale operator that would benefit from huge synergies.”
Whichever company or country succeeds in developing and building the first 5G network will have definite advantages over its rivals. As Chris Lane, a telecom analyst, told the New York Times, “It’s hard to argue that 5G is not key to the next five to 10 years. Strategically, if you’re the US and you’re trying to plan industrial policy, this deal makes sense.”
This year, the United States government will auction off positions for two bands of next-generation wireless spectrum (24 GHz and 28 GHz). Both T-Mobile and Sprint worry that unless they combine their financial forces, they will not be able to effectively compete in these bids. As Sprint CEO Claure told The Streeton Monday, “We’ve looked at our spectrum positions and decided that this was the right time to put these companies together.”
The irrationality of bidding off spectrums of wireless frequencies to companies that will build identical expensive infrastructure to compete with each other cannot be overstated. A rational approach to the development of 5G would see Chinese and American inventors working together in a unified international effort to produce a technology with profound capacities to improve life for human beings. Instead, under private ownership and the system of competing nation-states, the drive for 5G is subsumed by the American ruling class’s war aims against China, dominated by the drive to improve cruise missiles, guidance systems and drones.

The Regression of Nuclear Policy

Vijay Shankar


Contemporary trends positing the reversibility of a nuclear exchange presupposes that the antagonists are able to understand mutual aims, objectives and have unimpeachable knowledge of boundaries within which the conflict is to be played out. In turn, these settings demand unambiguous appreciation of and total knowledge of decisions that will be taken by leadership on all sides. The act of trust that such a relationship rests upon is predicated upon crisis-proofed rapport. At any rate, in such a velvet-lined relationship the question that begs to be asked is: why on earth did one of the parties take recourse to nuclear weapons in the first instance? Awkwardly, this aberrant trend is gaining currency amongst states in possession of nuclear weapons.

A state inducting tactical nuclear weapons into its arsenal will in fact have aligned its nuclear doctrine for first use, incentivised proliferation, and blurred the lines between conventional and nuclear weapons. This in turn lowers the threshold of a nuclear response whose yield, magnitude and targets remain a choice made by the adversary. Delegation of authority to tactical commanders (which must follow) for release of low-yield nuclear weapons by nature of the tactical environment runs the peril of being governed for deployment by principles more appropriate for conventional warfare. The posture indulges in the preposterous illusion that the adversary will discern between tactical and strategic yields and suitably moderate his response in the midst of a nuclear exchange, while desisting from escalating and retaliating in a manner of choosing. The irrationality of it all is that some states in possession of nuclear weapons have displayed a ready acceptance of nuclear war-fighting, rather than reconsider their nuclear doctrines, postures, and capabilities towards strategic deterrence. The latter ought to be the hallmark of an evolved nuclear system with seven decades of maturity in approach to its superintendence and of styling policy.

Today, the US counter to a Russian “escalate-to-de-escalate” policy remains “to conduct nuclear strike operations below the strategic level.” All such doctrines have ever done is to push adversaries into a perilous corner of uncertainty where alternatives to the nuclear trigger rapidly fade away. The French nuclear force de frappe and the British deterrent, both ‘declaredly’ independent, have neither abnegated first use nor have they made any bones of targeting enemy value or population centres without ever disturbing themselves of the conditions of use, suggesting a certain heedlessness of policy.

As early as 1946, Bernard Brodie argued that “nuclear weapons were too powerful to use. Vastly more lethal than all previous arms, the grotesque scale of nuclear destruction overwhelmed any conceivable policy goal.” The other school of thought, made up largely of the military and policy-makers, argued that nuclear weapons could be used like any weapon that was a product of technology. The latter school either deliberately, or for motivated reasons, chose not to reveal the scale and absoluteness of destruction that potentially could eclipse populations (both friend and foe) through blast, radiation, firestorms, fallout, and the slower, yet assured death, of a nuclear winter. So, if nuclear weapons fail as instruments that win political objectives, then why is it that the logic that remains elusive to the mind of nuclear decision-makers is that a nuclear exchange cannot be the accepted normal?

The Cuban Missile Crisis drew the two superpowers to the nuclear brink and the hapless rest-of-the-world closer to mass calamity. Inexorably, through a train of uncontrolled political and military actions - beginning with the induction into Cuba of over 40,000 Soviet troops armed with pre-delegated tactical nuclear weapons in addition to surface-to-air-missiles and nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles; US naval blockade; downing of a US U2 reconnaissance aircraft; action against Soviet submarines poised to release nuclear weapons to the ready amphibious force threatening invasion of Cuba - each event brought nuclear conflict closer. Today, analysts and records of participants suggest that the chance of a nuclear conflagration was extremely high as blunders followed miscalculations. That a nuclear exchange did not occur is what remains remarkable. The improbable factor that drove strategic decision-making was the nature of leadership image being projected to alliance partners and loss of face, rather than hard political considerations and their baneful consequences. Kennedy's perceived timidity was contrasted with Khrushchev’s boldness in the backdrop of the Berlin stand-off and the incentive the latter saw in Cuba to not just redress the strategic balance of power, but also to tighten Soviet hold on the country. Significantly, throughout the crisis, the inability to either control or recognise the impact and hazards of escalation was pivotal to precipitating the crisis. As the then Secretary for Defence McNamara put it rather obscurely 30 years later, “No one should believe that a US force could have been attacked by tactical nuclear warheads without responding with nuclear warheads. And where would it have ended? In utter disaster.”

Pakistan and North Korea are two states that have adopted a policy that challenges common sense; both possess strategic nuclear weapons with a doctrine that blurs the lines between the nuclear and the conventional and advocates nuclear war fighting, neither have abjured first use nor have they made any moves to proscribe tactical nuclear weapons. From a policy point of view, such a protocol strikes a discordant note at a time when efforts to avert a nuclear exchange or at least make an exchange improbable ought to be the norm.

The eighth decade of the evolution of strategic nuclear systems is witness to the perspective that a first step to preventing a nuclear exchange is necessarily a universal declaration of 'no use' (an NFU doctrine such as China and India’s, unfortunately, remains a halfway house). None of the states in possession of nuclear weapons have enunciated a strategic doctrine that is both mutually credible and acceptable, making such policy catastrophic if implemented. Experience today confirms that the danger of mass nuclear destruction does not rest even partly on proliferation to non-state and rogue actors, but squarely on the shoulders of leadership whose doctrines of use represent an enduring danger to humanity.

1 May 2018

Women in Engineering (WomEng) Fellowship for Female Students (Fully-funded to South Africa) 2018

Application Deadline:  12th May 2018, 23h59 SAST.

To Be Taken At (Country): Johannesburg, South Africa

About the Award: Fellowship is the flagship annual entrepreneurship-focused, technical innovation challenge and employability programme for the best and brightest female engineering, technology and built environment students to find solutions to global challenges and develop and prepare for the industry.
Through Fellowship, WomEng is raising the profile of the engineering sector. WomEng Fellows are equipped with highly desirable scarce employability skills and the knowledge and skills to start-up their own business. WomEng is creating diversity in the engineering industry.
The theme of the Fellowship Technovation Challenge is “Engineering Technology to Meet the Sustainable Development Goals”. In 2015, the United Nations signed into order the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), more commonly known as “The Global Goals” – 17 Goals to be achieved by 2030. In 2017, we are challenging WomEng Fellows to come up with new business ideas and innovations that will contribute to the realization of one or more of the Global Goals.

Type: Fellowship (Career)

Eligibility: 
  1. Applications are open to female engineering, technology, and built environment students currently studying full-time at a South African University or University of Technology.
  2. Applicants must be in their penultimate to final year (e.g 4th year at university) of undergraduate or full-time postgraduate studies.
  3. Applicants must commit to attending the full programme from 03 – 06 July 2018.
  4. Ex-fellows are not eligible to apply.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: WomEng covers all costs related to participation in the programme including travel to Johannesburg, accommodation, food, and facilitation. You will be requested to pay a fee of R725 to avoid “no-shows”.
  1. Develop a business idea that can be scaled through incubation.
  2. Develop leadership and employability skills.
  3. Grow your professional network
  4. Access to mentorship opportunities
Duration of Programme: 3-6 July 2018

How to Apply: APPLY NOW

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: WomEng

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) Internship Programme 2018

Application Deadline: 6th May 2018 (23:59 Central European Time)

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Geneva, Switzerland

About the Award: The internship will include preparing final publications for a research project on the Politics of Domestic Resource Mobilization for Social Development; assistance with organizing the upcoming UNRISD Call for Papers Conference, Overcoming Inequalities in a Fractured World: Between Elite Power and Social Mobilization; and research and outreach activities related to a forthcoming research project on the same subject.
While at UNRISD, the intern will be asked to:
  • assist with copyediting and formatting publications, in particular for the PDRM project;
  • provide research assistance for ongoing work in the programme, and conduct library and Internet searches, in particular for the Overcoming Inequalities project;
  • contribute to ongoing tasks related to project management, fundraising, external relations, and event organization;
  • produce a short paper, literature review, article or similar output, on a subject related to the Social Policy and Development programme.
Type: Internship

Eligibility: At the time of application, applicants must meet one of the following requirements (as per UN Secretariat rules regarding interns);
  • be enrolled in a graduate school programme (second university degree or equivalent, or higher);
  • be enrolled in the final academic year of a first university degree programme (minimum Bachelor’s level or equivalent) or;
  • have graduated with a university degree (as defined in (i) and (ii) above) and, if selected, commence the internship within a one-year period of graduation;
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • Interns are not financially remunerated;
  • UNRISD is not responsible for interns’ travel expenses to and from Geneva, or for mandatory medical insurance during the period of the internship.
Duration of Programme: 3 months. A start date in June 2018 to be mutually agreed upon. The usual duration of the internship is three months, with the possibility of extension.

How to Apply: APPLY

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: UNRISD

Young Water Fellowship for Young Leaders from Developing Countries (Funded to CEWAS, Switzerland) 2018

Application Deadline: 16th May 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All low and middle-income countries

To be taken at (country): Training provided in cooperation with Cewas Switzerland with in-country project implementation

About the Award: The Young Water Fellowship Program aims to empower young leaders from low and middle income countries to implement projects to tackle water, sanitation & hygiene (WASH), water pollution and water scarcity issues, by offering them an intensive training program, seed funding grants for their projects, and mentoring support by senior level experts during one year.
Each year, this program brings about 10 young community leaders capable of successfully designing and implementing sustainable and inclusive water initiatives that significantly improve living conditions in their communities, while contributing to the achievement of SDG #6 (water and sanitation for all).
The YWF 2018 will focus on social entrepreneurship. Young people with social businesses ideas (or projects that can be turned into social businesses) that address water-related issues are welcome to apply.

Type: Entrepreneurship, Training, Fellowship (Professional)

Eligibility:
  • Be 18 to 30 years old at the time of the application
  • Be the founder or co-founder of an initiative that contributes to the solution of a well-defined water problem in your country. The initiative should be in its initial stages and have the ability to be turned into a social enterprise (i.e have a long-term sustainability component or business model).
  • Be a resident from the list of low and middle-income countries.
  • Have a valid passport and be available to attend a workshop in Europe from August 13th to September 14th 2018 (note that these dates might be subject to change),
  • Be able to communicate in English (intermediate level at least).
Number of Awards: 10

Value of Award:
  • Training: Fellows will attend a one-week workshop in Brussels and will be trained by experts in: IWRM | Project management | Monitoring and evaluation tools | Leadership | Water and gender | Social entrepreneurship | SDG 6
  • Mentorship: Fellows will be assigned a mentor according to their needs, who will provide technical support throughout the whole life-cycle of the project.
  • Project Implementation: Fellows will be provided with opportunities for seed funding up to €5000 to implement their projects.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year

How to Apply: Apply HERE
Interested applicants may go through the terms and conditions before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Young Water Solutions

Japanese Government (MEXT) College of Technology Scholarships for International Students 2019

Application Deadline: April – July 2018 (Deadline is determined by individual Japanese diplomatic missions)

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Japan

About the Award: DEFINITION OF “COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS”: Those who are enrolled in a course of study or in an advanced course at a college of technology, or who are receiving preparatory education in the Japanese language and other subjects prior to placement at the college of technology.
MEXT Scholarship will be granted those who are willing to contribute to mutual understanding between Japan and their home country by participating in activities at schools and communities during their study in Japan while contributing to the internationalization of Japan.
They shall also make efforts to promote relations between the home country and Japan by maintaining close relations with the university attended after graduation, cooperating with the conducting of surveys and questionnaires, and cooperating with relevant projects and events conducted by Japanese diplomatic missions after they return to their home countries.

Fields of Study: Those who apply for a college of technology student must choose a field of study in accordance with the following procedure and fill in “Preferred field of study and majors elements” on the application form.
  1. Choose preferred field(s) of study from among (A) to (H) below.  Applicants may enter a first, second and third choice.
    (A) Mechanical Engineering (B) Electrical and Electronic Engineering (C) Information, Communication and Network Engineering (D) Materials Engineering (E) Architecture (F) Civil Engineering (G) Maritime Engineering (H) Other Fields
  2. Choose preferred majors element(s) from the “Name of Majors Elements” listed in the chosen field(s) of study on the Annex “Majors and Related Key Terms for Fields of Study”.
    (Note 1) Applicants who apply for “(D) Materials Engineering” may not choose it in combination with other fields of study. Applicants wishing to choose more than one Majors Elements, should select their first, second and third choice of the Elements from ones under “(D) Materials Engineering.”
    (Note 2) An Applicant who applies for “(G) Maritime Engineering” must have vision of 0.5 or more in either eye with or without glasses, and no color-blindness.
    (Note 3) Applicants who choose “(H) Other Fields” (International Communication or Management Information
    Engineering) may have difficulties in finding colleges of technology capable of accepting them.
Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: 
  • Nationality: Applicants must have the nationality of a country that has diplomatic relations with Japan. An applicant who has Japanese nationality at the time of application is not eligible. However, persons with dual nationality who hold Japanese nationality and whose place of residence at the time of application is outside of Japan are eligible to apply as long as they choose the nationality of the other country and renounce their Japanese nationality by the date of their arrival in Japan.
  • Age: Applicants, in principle, must be born between April 2, 1994 and April 1, 2002. Exceptions are limited to cases in which MEXT deems that the applicant cloud not apply within the eligible age limit due to the situation or circumstances of the applicant’s country (military service obligation, loss of educational opportunities due to disturbances of war, etc.)
  • Academic Background: Applicants must satisfy any one of the following conditions.
    1. Applicants who have completed 11 years of schooling in countries other than Japan. (Applicants who will
      meet the above qualifications by March 2019 are eligible.)
    2. Applicants who have completed studies at a school equivalent to a Japanese upper secondary school in
      countries other than Japan. (Applicants who will meet the above qualifications by March 2019 are eligible.)
    3. Other than the above ① and ② conditions, applicants who are eligible for transfer admission to a thirdyear
      course at a college of technology at the time of application.
  • Japanese Language: Applicants must be willing to learn Japanese. Applicants must be interested in Japan and be willing to deepen their understanding of Japan before and after arriving in Japan. In addition, in principle,
    applicants must be willing to receive college of technology education in Japanese.
  • Health: Applicants must submit a health certificate in the prescribed format signed by a physician attesting that the applicant has no physical or mental conditions hindering the applicant’s study in Japan.
  • Arrival in Japan: In principle, the selected applicants must be able to arrive in Japan between the 1st and 7th of April 2019. Departure from the home residence should be on or after 1 April. If the applicant arrives in Japan before the specified period above for personal reasons, travel expenses to Japan will not be paid.
  • Visa Requirement: An applicant shall, in principle, obtain a “Student” visa at the Japanese diplomatic mission
    located in the applicant’s country of nationality, and enter Japan with the residence status of “Student.”
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • Allowance: 117,000 yen per month. A supplemental regional allowance of 2,000 or 3,000 yen per month will be added to the monthly scholarship amount for the grantees studying or conducting research in specially designated regions. .
  • Education Fees: Fees for the entrance examination, matriculation, and tuition at colleges of technology and a
    preparatory educational institution will be paid by MEXT.
  • Traveling Expenses.
Duration of Programme:  The scholarship period will last for four years from April 2019 to March 2023, including one-year preparatory education in the Japanese language and other subjects due to be provided upon arrival in Japan. For
scholarship grantees majoring in maritime engineering, the scholarship period will be four and a half years, lasting up to September 2023.


How to Apply: All applicants are required to submit the relevant documents (including Application FormMajors and Related Key Terms for Fields of StudyRecommendation Letter and Certificate of health,) to the Japanese diplomatic mission in the applicant’s country by the designated deadline. The submitted documents will not be returned.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Japanese Government

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) Fellowship for Journalists in Southern Africa and India 2018

Application Deadline: 16th May 2018

Eligible Countries: Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Swaziland, South Africa and India

To Be Taken At (Country): Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Swaziland, South Africa and India

About the Award: Doctors Without Borders / Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international, independent, medical humanitarian organisation that delivers emergency aid to people affected by armed conflict, epidemics, natural and man-made disasters and exclusion from healthcare in more than 65 countries.
For the first time, MSF Southern Africa and MSF India are inviting applications for the “MSF Media Fellowship”. The fellowship will fully fund reporting assignments for one South African and one Indian journalist who can demonstrate the potential for incisive and original reporting.
The MSF Media Fellowship aims at building or strengthening rapport with the media stakeholders in South Africa and to promote a greater practical understanding of issues surrounding access to essential medicines related to ongoing reforms in intellectual property legislation.  It also provides journalists access to MSF field projects locally and internationally as well as research and civil society partners for a deeper understanding of the issues.

Type: Fellowship (Professional)

Eligibility: 
  • Professional journalists, including freelancers, working in print, television or online media in South Africa.
  • Applicants must demonstrate a minimum of three to four years of professional experience of covering health, business, the pharmaceutical industry, intellectual property related issues, public policy and/or related issues.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The fellowship programme will cover international and local travel costs, accommodation, interpreters, daily support expenses as well as production costs. The funds will either be disbursed in weekly instalments or once off. It is mandatory to produce and submit actual bills and invoices for all the expenditure incurred.

Duration of Programme: 4 weeks

How to Apply: Interested journalists should send the following the documents with their application
  • 2-page Curriculum Vitae along with a cover letter
  • Copies of the previous reporting on health or IP issues
  • Crucially, applicants have to deliver a strong proposal demonstrating some initial research and story angles outlining their possible focus area while in India and how it is linked to the in South Africa (700-word proposal)
  • Letter of recommendation from the professional referee (other than the editor) detailing the applicant’s journalistic abilities and aptitude for the fellowship.
  • Applicants must provide a ‘letter of support’ from the editor of their current employer/editor assuring Fellows time/leave for 4 weeks and agreeing to publish the articles written by the Fellows in their publication. Freelancers must also provide a supporting letter from the editor of a publication agreeing to use the articles
  • Applicants must have at least a national diploma or degree in Journalism, media or communications
  • Applicants should have a valid passport
Please submit your cover note, proposals and scan the documents to the attention of Angela Makamure

Email: DL-JNB-Joburg-Press@joburg.msf.org not later than 16 May 2018

Visit the Programme Webpages for Details. Click here or here.

Award Providers: Doctors Without Borders (MSF)