3 Jul 2018

European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) Training Fellowship for Young Surgeons 2019

Application Deadline: 31st October, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries

To be taken at (country): The fellowship must take place in a country other than the applicant’s current place of training. European applicants may choose to visit European or non-European units, while non-European applicants must choose to visit a European center.

Eligible Field of Study: Fellowships are available for clinical training or research training to young surgeons in the field of Surgical Oncology.

About the Award: The aim of this Fellowship is to allow young surgeons to visit a specialist center outside of their own country and help them expand their experience and learn new techniques.
ESSO was founded in 1981 to advance the art, science and practice of surgery for the treatment of cancer. Central to achieving this objective is ESSO’s willingness to collaborate, interact and foster an open exchange with a range of other specialities.


Type: Fellowships

Eligibility: 
  • Applicants must be a specialist, trainee or junior doctor with a declared intention of specializing in a sub-specialty of surgical oncology (breast, upper GI,  hepatobiliary and pancreatic, colorectal, endocrine, head and neck, thoracic, skin cancer and melanoma, gynaecology, urology, sarcoma).
  • Applicants must be or become ESSO members before the start date of the award.
  • Applicants must be younger than 40 years of age or be in a training grade
  • Both European and non-European citizens can apply. European applicants may choose to visit European or non-European units, while non-European applicants must choose to visit a European center.
  • Previous Fellowship recipients will be ineligible to apply for a second award.
All successful fellows will be expected to write a report about their experience and provide a testimonial and pictures for publication on the ESSO website within 3 months of return from the fellowship.

Value of Scholarship: The Education and Training Committee grants two types of fellowships each year:
  • 8 standard training fellowships (value 1,500 EUR): from 1 to 3 months
  • 1 major training fellowship (value 6.000 EUR): from 4 to 12 months
How to Apply: Applications must be submitted in English only and include the following information:
  • A motivation letter describing the applicant’s area of interest, research plan and reasons behind the visit
  • A letter of support from their Head of Department
  • A letter of invitation from the Head of the Department they wish to visit
  • A proposal budget sheet estimating how the funds will be spent
  • CV including present and previous positions held (include dates from and to), relevant publications and presentations to learned societies
All documents must be sent to ESSO Secretariat in a single PDF document.

Apply here

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO).

Important Notes: All successful fellows will be expected to write a report about their experience and provide a testimonial and pictures for publication on the ESSO website within 3 months of return from the fellowship.
Please note you will need to download all documents in a single PDF document.

Government of Mexico Undergraduate and Graduate Scholarships for International Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 28th September 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: See list below

To be taken at (country): Mexico

Eligible Field of Study: Scholarships are provided to study any one of the courses available at participating Mexican institutions except Business administration, Plastic surgery, accounting, marketing, dentistry, Odontology and advertising.

About Scholarship: For decades, the Mexican cultural diplomacy has worked in different successful programs, such as the human capital training through scholarships for academic degrees awarding and research work performing in different areas of knowledge.
The Directorate-General for Educational and Cultural Cooperation, through the Academic Exchange Department, designs and manages the Ministry of Foreign Affairs´ Scholarship Program for Foreigners. The scholarships of the Mexican Government present two programs: the scholarship for academic studies and the scholarship for special programs.
The scholarships for academic studies are offered to take complete programs for Specialization, Master´s or PhD Degrees, and Postgraduate Researches. Likewise, the offer includes academic mobility for Bachelor´s and Postgraduate Degree. On the other hand, the scholarships for special programs are offered to take short-term fellowships addressed to Visiting Professors, Researchers in Mexico´s issues, Media Contributors, Art Production Fellowships, etc.

Type: Specialization, Bachelor’s, Master’s or PhD Degrees, and Postgraduate Researches including short-term fellowships

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: The scholarships will be awarded on academic excellence.

  • The scholarships for academic studies are offered to take complete programs for Specialization, Master’s or PhD Degrees, and Postgraduate Researches. Likewise, the offer includes academic mobility for Bachelor’s and Postgraduate Degree. On the other hand, the scholarships for special programs are offered Preferred to take short-term fellowships addressed to Visiting Professors, Researchers in Mexico’s issues, Media Contributors, Art Production Fellowships, etc.
  • Candidates cannot be living in Mexico at the time of application.
  • Except in special cases, scholarships cannot begin in November or December.
  • Requests for information and all scholarship applications must be submitted to the Mexican embassy or concurrent embassy of the applicant’s country or to the designated Mexican institution. Only applications that fulfill all of the requirements will be considered.
  • All documents and forms must be in Spanish or submitted with translations into Spanish.
  • Candidates will be informed of the results by the corresponding Mexican embassy or designated Mexican institution.
  • The scholarships are not transferable and cannot be deferred to future years.
Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: -Enrollment fees  and tuition
-Health Insurance
-Transportation from Mexico city to the Host Institution
-Monthly Stipend


Duration of Scholarship:
  • -Undergraduate and graduate academic mobility programs- one academic term (quarter, trimester or semester)
  • -Graduate research and postdoctoral fellowships-12 months (1 month minimum)
  • -Specialization-1 year
  • -Master’s degree- 2 Years
  • -Doctorate- 3 years
  • -Medical specialties and subspecialties- 3 Years
Eligible Countries
  • Africa: Algeria ,Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nambia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Saharawi, Arab Rep., Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe
  • North America: United States, Canada and Canada / Province of Quebec
  • Latin America: Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela)
  • Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Puerto Rico (Commonwealth), Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago
  • Europe: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine)
  • Asia: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Kingdom of China, People’s Rep., India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Democratic Rep., Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Islamic Rep. of Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Kingdom of Timor – Leste, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Socialist Rep. of
  • Pacific: Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Independent State, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu
  • Middle East: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian National Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, and
  • Non-self Governing Territories: American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands and United States Virgin Islands
How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details on how to apply and PDF

Sponsors: Mexican Government

Important Notes: Candidates will be informed of the results by the corresponding Mexican embassy or designated Mexican institution.

Electricite De France (EDF) Pulse Africa Awards for African Energy Start-ups 2018

Application Deadline: 9th July 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Paris, France on 22nd November 2018

About the Award: Wishing to contribute in facilitating access to energy alongside the agents of change in the
continent, EDF’s International Division initiates a call for projects and launches the “EDF Pulse Awards” in Africa (hereinafter referred to as ” EDF Pulse Africa), in order to be sustainable and effective as a development partner.
The contest is open to start-ups, micro-enterprises and small businesses in Africa that develop innovative solutions in the field of energy. Within the framework of this call for projects, a Grand Jury will award three (3) prize classes, known as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd prizes of the Jury, to the project winners in one of the following fields. EDF reserves the right to reward a favorite project with one (1) prize called “Special Prize”:

  • Off-grid electrical production: in this category, the Grand Jury may reward one innovative solution for the production and / or storage of electricity in off-grid area (solar, hydroelectric, wind, thermal, etc.)
  • Electrical uses and services : in this category, the Grand Jury may reward an innovative product or service with low power consumption or a common use of electrical services (Hardware ex: household appliances, tablets, fans, cooling systems … / Services eg mobile money, breakdown service …)
  • Access to water: in this category, the Grand Jury may reward one innovative solution to improve access to water through electricity (agriculture, domestic use, etc.)
Type: Award, Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Any participating structure must satisfy the following requirements:
  • Be a structure (start-up, micro-enterprise …) of less than 30 people.
  • Be domiciled in Africa.
  • Be established by July 9, 2017.
  • Introduce an innovation that uses or produces electricity, and falls within the scope of one of the 3 categories mentioned above.
  • Be the bearer of a project with an advanced stage of development:
    • Be in the pre-commercialization phase (or be marketed for less than one year).
    • Have a prototype by November 21, 2018, allowing the demonstration of the proposed solution to the general public, at the time of the Grand Jury.
Selection Criteria: Projects received will be assessed on the basis of the following selection criteria:
  • Clarity and understanding of the proposal
  • Innovative and differentiating features of the solution
  • Progress for the society brought by the solution
  • Relevance of the business model
  • Evaluation of the team (vision, complementarity, experiences, skills …)
These criteria will be taken into account at each stage of the selection process

Selection: Based on the candidatures selected by the selection panel, a jury composed of EDF Group managers and external experts will meet in October 2018 to select ten (10) finalists (all  domains). The finalists selected will be presented to the Grand Jury in November 2018.

Number of Awards: 3

Value of Award:
  • In preparation of the grand oral, the representatives will participate to three (3) day coaching session and support in order to the grand jury.
  • The costs of transport and accommodation in France of each finalist representative will be borne by the Organizer
  • The awards ceremony will be filmed and distributed or redisplayed on the Internet, especially on social networks.
  • Each winner will receive a trophy “EDF PULSE AFRICA 2018 PRIZE”
  • The three (3) laureates will receive from EDF an allocation for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd prizes: 15K €, 10K € and 5K € respectively. This allocation will contribute to the development of their projects. The endowment will be paid by bank transfer or check to the winning team structure.
  • The three (3) winners will benefit from easy access to financing and possible development of partnerships with EDF Group companies in Africa.
Participants must personally meet all costs related to the visa application process

Duration of Programme:  from May 23, to November 22, 2018

How to Apply: All participants must complete and submit an electronic file on the competition website https://africa-pulse.edf.com by July 09, 2018. The complete brief includes:
  • One (1) editable PDF application form (annexed to this regulation) presenting:
    • The structure, its team and its motivations;
    • The developed solution or product, as well as its market and economic model;
    • The stage of advancement: tests, prototypes, fund raising, commercial contacts, support and partners, awards…
  • One (1) project photo in high definition, JPEG or PNG format, 800 x 600 pixels minimum
  • One (1) team photo in high definition, JPEG or PNG format, 800 x 600 pixels minimum
The application form for the EDF Pulse Africa Prizes, duly completed, must be submitted by a legal representative or founder of the company on behalf of the latter.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: EDF

U.S. Crushes Europe

Eric Zuesse

On June 28th, PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) came out with their listing of Global Top 100 companies (2018): Ranking of the top 100 global companies by market capitalisation”, and reported: “The increase in China’s market capitalisation has been close to that of the US this year. … China’s contribution to the top 100 market capitalisation increased by 57%, to $2,822bn. … European companies have never fully recovered from the 2009 financial crisis. Europe is now represented by just 23 companies (down from 31 in 2009) and accounts for only 17% of the top 100 market capitalisation (compared to 27% in 2009).
How much more can Europe’s wealth shrink?
Europe is shrinking as an international place to invest, even while it is exploding as an international place to receive refugees from the nations where the U.S. regime bomb and destroy the infrastructure, and leave hell for the residents, who thus flee, mainly to nearby Europe, and so cause the refugee-crisis there. Usually, the U.S. isn’t the only invader: it solicits any allies it can muster — mainly fundamentalist-Sunni Arab regimes, plus the apartheid theocracy of Israel, but also a few regimes in Europe — to join in this creation of hell for the escapees, and of immigrants to Europe. But, as Barack Obama put it, “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.” The U.S. aristocracy intend to keep things that way, and their allies just tag along.
The U.S. regime is solidly neoconservative, or imperialistic; and the way that it grows its wealth and its power now is at Europe’s expense. The data show this.
During recent centuries, Europe had led the world, but now the U.S. does, and at Europe’s expense, but especially at the expense of the people who live where we bomb. This is just a fact, but what are Europeans doing about it? Thus far, nothing. Is that about to change? Maybe things are finally getting bad enough.
On page 31 of the PwC report, is shown that whereas in 2009 the U.S. had 42% of the “Top 100” companies, that figure in 2018 is 54% — 54 firms, instead of the previous 42.
China has 12 instead of the former 9.
But most of Europe has seen declines, instead of rises.
UK now has 5 instead of the former 9.
France now has 4 instead of the former 7.
Germany now has 4 instead of the former 5.
Russia has been hit particularly hard by U.S. sanctions; it now has 0, instead of the former 2.
Three European countries had 1 in 2009 and now have 0 — none at all — and these three are: Italy, Norway, Finland.
No one can reasonably deny, in light of these data, that the U.S. aristocracy — the individuals who control America’s international corporations and U.S. Government and America’s ‘news’media (to control the public) — have continued to win against Europe’s aristocracies (the U.S. counterparts in the European subcontinent). What’s amazing is that Europe’s aristocrats are not fighting back — except (some of them) against the refugees from America’s invasions and coups (and opposing those refugees isn’t dealing with the source of Europe’s economic problem). Even if the publics in Europe are powerless, the billionaires who still remain there are not. How much longer will they continue to be sitting ducks for America’s billionaires to target and eat?
Europe’s power in the world could shrink to almost nothing, unless foreign affairs in Europe soon reverse 180 degrees, and turn against the U.S. and its allies, instead of stay with those regime-change fanatics — and against themselves.
Europe is not declining on account of some failure by Europeans, except a failure to fight back in an intelligent way, which means, above all: against the real source of Europe’s decline. America, after all, definitely is not a democracy.

Bazaar merchants protest against government in Iran

Jean Shaoul 

Hundreds of traders in Tehran’s bazaar closed their shops for three days last week protesting the government’s economic measures and the plunging value of the Iranian rial, which has lost almost half its value in recent months. The strikes and protests spread to other cities.
Protesters demonstrated outside the parliament shouting, “Death to the dictator” and “Death to Khamenei and Rohani,” as they did six months ago. But unlike the wave of anti-government protests by unemployed youth and impoverished workers that swept across Iran beginning December 28, these recent and smaller protests were organised by the bazaaris—the wealthy merchant class that brought the bourgeois Islamic clerics to power and have been their main support base since 1979.
The regime has responded thus far with kid gloves, making few arrests. This is in sharp contrast to the earlier strikes when the regime mounted a brutal crackdown, killing more than 20 people and arresting hundreds more. Dozens of those arrested are still awaiting trial, while others have received heavy sentences.
The latest strikes reflect sharp tensions and divisions within the regime due to the developing economic crisis inside Iran. President Hassan Rohani, re-elected for a second term in May of last year on the basis of building relations with the US and Europe via the nuclear accord, faces furious opposition from the conservative faction of the ruling elite who had opposed the nuclear deal with the US.
His “reformist” supporters are no less frustrated with his failure to deliver the much-vaunted economic reforms and the promised prosperity after signing the nuclear deal in 2015 and releasing opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Zahra Rahnavard from house arrest.
Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed with the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, Tehran agreed to drastic curbs on its nuclear programmes in return for a step-by-step easing of international sanctions.
Since coming to power in August 2013, the Rouhani administration has accelerated privatisation and slashed social spending. The aim of these anti-working-class austerity policies was to woo European and hopefully US investment. To this end, it rewrote the rules governing investment in the oil sector to satisfy Total, Shell, Eni and other European energy giants.
This was set to continue with the further privatisation of education, the gutting of welfare support for the poorest Iranians, the increase in gasoline (petrol) prices by as much as 50 percent and a $3.1 billion reduction in infrastructure spending. However, the Rouhani government was forced to abandon some of these measures in the face of mass opposition by the working class. Rouhani and his First Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri have publicly criticised cabinet ministers to deflect public anger away from the government.
Any attempt to cut the defence budget or that of the Revolutionary Guards, who control a large part of the Iranian economy and whose budget has soared, would pit Rouhani against the military.
Industrial growth has been just 4 percent so far this year, down from 18 percent during the second half of 2017, and production levels have remained stagnant. Oil production is down from around 3,800 bpd in 2017 to 3,010 bpd this year, while the worst drought in 50 years is devastating agriculture and reducing the water flowing into the dams, leading to an expected 40 percent cut in Iran’s electricity production. In March, farmers in Isfahan Province began demonstrating over water shortages.
At the same time, the ever-widening class divide means Rouhani—like his counterparts in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and elsewhere in the region—confronts a working class, angry over poverty and social inequality. The official unemployment rate is 12 percent, a gross underestimate; 50 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, and millions have seen their entitlement to subsidies and welfare removed or slashed.
Even before US President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the nuclear deal, re-imposing punitive sanctions and secondary sanctions on countries trading with Iran, members of parliament were calling for Rouhani’s impeachment. Legislators have demanded he resign or dismiss his economy ministers and economic advisors.
There is even talk in media outlets supportive of the regime of calling for early presidential elections and/or installing a military man such as Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, as president, should strikes and protests get out of control.
While hardline forces initially organised the demonstrations that broke out in Mashhad in December, the protests quickly burst out of their control, and there are fears that this could happen again.
Washington’s plans to re-impose curbs on Iran’s ability to buy US dollars, along with any global trading in Iranian gold, coal, steel, cars, currency and debt, will hit every aspect of Iran’s economy, although agricultural products, medicines and medical devices are supposedly exempted.
The US announcements have pushed up world oil prices and hit the Iranian economy hard. Oil sales generate 60 percent of Iran’s export income and underpin the government’s finances. The rial fell to around 90,000 to the US dollar, forcing the government to take emergency measures. These include the allocation of hard currency at the preferential rate of 42,000 rials to the dollar largely to importers and basic commodities and bans on more than 1,400 imported goods, including cars.
Many importers have been selling their cut-price dollars on the domestic market rather than using them for imports, while others are selling their goods bought with subsidised dollars at inflated prices, provoking widespread anger on the part of shoppers.
According to Middle East Eye, journalists reported that several of the importing companies believed to be profiting illegally were behind the bazaaris’ strike and protests, sending agents to intimidate store owners to close.
Washington’s ostensible purpose is to put pressure on Iran to accept a far more stringent agreement that would curb not only Iran’s nuclear programme but also its broader political activities across the Middle East. But ultimately the US is seeking regime change, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hinting strongly last May that the Iranian public could take matters into their own hands. National Security Adviser John Bolton is reported to have told Trump that increased US pressure could lead to the regime’s collapse.
While the European powers party to the JCPOA are opposed to the US scuttling the nuclear deal, and the European Union is preparing to reactivate a law that would prevent European companies from complying with US sanctions against Iran, many firms that had signed deals with Iran, including Airbus, Boeing, Hyundai, Mazda, Peugeot, Citroen, Total and ENI, have already started pulling out.
Adding to the pressure, the Financial Action Task Force, a Paris-based global intergovernmental organisation linked to the OECD that focuses on anti-money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism, has demanded that Iran complete reforms by October to conform with global standards. Failure to do so would enable individual states or international institutions to impose sanctions.
Rouhani has sought to enhance Tehran’s links with China, Russia and India. Speaking at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit meeting held in Qingdoa in China’s eastern Shandong province in June, Rouhani said that Iran would like to become a full member. He called on its leaders to confront the US, saying, “The US efforts to impose its policies on others are expanding as a threat to all.”
He also held meetings with the Indian and Russian presidents and later Chinese President Xi Jinping, signing four agreements including one involving Iran’s role in China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative. Last year, trade between the two countries reached a record $52 billion. China and India are already two of the biggest purchasers of Iranian oil and have indicated that that will not change even with the new US sanctions.

European defence ministers sign on to European Intervention Initiative

Peter Schwarz 

The defence ministers of nine European countries signed a letter of intent last week for a European Intervention Initiative (EI2). The initiative aims to enable the European powers to intervene militarily and wage wars with a “coalition of the willing.”
The initiative stems from a suggestion made by French President Emmanuel Macron in his Sorbonne speech last September. Macron referred to the lack of a “common strategic culture” as the main deficiency of European defence policy and offered cooperation to other European countries under the umbrella of the French armed forces. Macron demanded: “At the beginning of the next decade, Europe needs to establish a common intervention force, a common defence budget and a common doctrine for action.”
For a long time, Germany has been reluctant to become too militarily dependent on France, but it has now adopted Macron’s initiative, albeit in a somewhat weaker form. After signing the letter of intent, German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen declared that it intended to establish a “forum of like-minded countries,” which could jointly draw up situation reports and “are ready to discuss with each other at an early stage, when crises emerge in regions, and then also jointly develop political will.”
The EI2 differs in two ways from the existing plan to develop a European army, the Permanent Structured Cooperation (Pesco), which is currently being intensively pursued.
Firstly, the name makes clear what the signatories intend. For the first time they do without euphemisms such as “defence” and openly speak of intervention. The statement describes the objectives of the initiative as follows: “EI2 will enable better links and closer cooperation between the armed forces of European states that are willing and able to carry out international military missions and operations, throughout the spectrum of crises.”
Secondly, the EI2 is not bound to the EU, NATO and other existing structures. Although it provides for the possibility of acting within the framework of the EU, NATO and the United Nations, it also allows for the defence of “European security interests” through “ad hoc coalitions.” It is thus creating a mechanism for military cooperation with Britain outside of the US-dominated NATO. Britain signed the declaration although it is soon leaving the EU.
Denmark also signed the letter of intent. Although the country is a member of the EU, it does not traditionally participate in its common security and defence policy. The other signatories are Belgium, Estonia, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. The original plan also included Italy as a participant, but the new government in Rome has not yet made a decision.
The declaration, the text of which is only available in English, clearly shows that France, Germany and other European powers are creating a new instrument for imperialist intervention and neo-colonial warfare.
Already in the first paragraph, the statement refers to “a highly unstable and uncertain strategic environment, subject to sweeping changes” that confronts Europe with the “greatest concentration of challenges since the end of the Cold War.” Examples include “an increasing terrorist threat, major migration crises, persistent vulnerabilities in its Southern region, from the Mediterranean to the Sahel-Sahara region, enduring destabilisation in the Middle East, resumption of open warfare on its doorstep and displays of force on its territory, including stemming from intimidation strategy, on its Eastern Flank and increasing natural disasters.”
The letter of intent is expressly committed to “consolidate European strategic autonomy and freedom of decision and action.” For the time being, the defence ministers do not foresee providing the EI2 with troops of its own, instead relying on “existing standing rapid reaction/intervention forces” when necessary. A permanent secretariat in Paris will be formed, based on French staff and the existing network of international liaison officers.
However, as tensions grow with the US and inside the EU itself, it is clear that France and Germany are creating a command and infrastructure that will enable them to pursue their military interests independently of the US and against it when called for. French Defence Minister Florence Parly said last year that what was wanted was “a quick and manageable process to bring together European military forces when needed.”

Tensions deepen between Beijing and Taipei

Robert Campion

Tensions between mainland China and Taiwan have risen in recent weeks, driven in large part by the Trump administration, which is boosting relations with Taipei. This is an integral component of a concerted effort by Washington to undercut Beijing economically and militarily throughout Asia and internationally.
Last Friday, CNN reported that the US State Department has requested Marines be dispatched to Taipei to guard its de facto embassy, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). While the number will likely be less than ten, it would be the first time in nearly 40 years that armed troops have guarded a US diplomatic office in Taiwan. Typically US Marines are only stationed at embassies and offices where Washington has formal diplomatic relations.
The request follows the formal opening of a new, $255 million AIT building on June 12, attended by the US Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Marie Royce. The participation of a senior US official sparked concerns in Beijing.
Washington’s moves call into question the “One China” policy, under which the US recognises Beijing as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan. The US has no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but has maintained contact informally through the AIT and has continued to sell arms to the island.
Responding to the announcement that US Marines could be stationed on Taiwan, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang called on the US last Friday to “exercise caution” and to “[abide] by its ‘One China’ pledge and [refrain] from having any official exchanges or military contact with Taiwan.”
In fact, the US has been doing the exact opposite with support from both the Republicans and Democrats. The massive $716 billion military budget for 2019, which easily passed both houses of Congress, called for stepped up military cooperation with Taipei, including taking part in joint war games like the annual Han Kuang drills, the most important in Taiwan.
In April, Washington passed the Taiwan Travel Act allowing increased diplomatic visits between US and Taiwanese officials. The Financial Timesnoted in a June 9 article that the “period of relative calm [between Washington and Beijing] has been overturned by the passage of the Taiwan Travel Act,” as well as by the appointment of China-hawk John Bolton as Trump’s national security advisor and the imposition of massive US tariffs on Chinese goods.
Bolton has previously called for rethinking the “One China” policy. In 2017, before entering the Trump administration, he wrote: “Taiwan’s geographic location is closer to East Asia’s mainland and the South China Sea than either Okinawa or Guam, giving US forces greater flexibility for rapid deployment throughout the region should the need arise.”
The main island of Taiwan is about 100 kilometres from the mainland but it also maintains control of several small, highly fortified islands that are just kilometres from China’s shoreline. At the beginning of the Korean War in 1950, General Douglas MacArthur in highlighting the strategic significance of Taiwan in a US war with China described it as “an unsinkable aircraft carrier.”
Responding to the Travel Act, Beijing has increased military exercises around Taiwan, including naval drills last week in the Taiwan Strait and Bashi Channel, as a warning to Taipei and Washington.
In response, the US and Taiwan have accused China of being the main aggressor. In an interview with the Agence France-Presse (AFP) on June 25, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen denounced China as a threat to regional stability and called on major powers to “constrain” Beijing.
“This is not just Taiwan’s challenge, it is a challenge for the region and the world as a whole, because today it’s Taiwan, but tomorrow it may be any other country that will have to face the expansion of China’s influence,” Tsai claimed.
Tsai is a member of the Democratic Progressive Party, which cautiously advocates a more independent position for Taiwan, without publically repudiating the “One China” policy. As a result, relations have soured between the two sides since she came to office in 2016. A declaration of independence could lead quickly to war as Beijing has previously declared it will use force to prevent such a move. China is unwilling to allow Taiwan to become a staging ground for the US military.
Washington exploits Beijing’s military exercises as well as its territorial claims to islands in the South China Sea to justify further militarizing the region. Defence Secretary James Mattis, who recently visited Beijing where the topic of Taiwan was discussed, stated in May that the US will continue “a steady drumbeat” of naval exercises to challenge China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.
Last month, Reuters reported that the Pentagon was discussing sending warships through the Taiwan Strait. Under consideration was sending an aircraft carrier group through the Strait for the first time since 2007 and making naval port calls to Taiwan. Such a step would be highly provocative and heighten the danger of an incident or accident leading to clashes.
The US and its allies claim such military operations are to defend “freedom of navigation.” Writing in the Guardian, the Chinese ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming, pointed to the hypocrisy of the US position. “Is there any problem with freedom of navigation in the South China Sea? The reality is that more than 100,000 merchant ships pass through these waters every year and none has ever run into any difficulty with freedom of navigation,” he stated.


Washington’s goal is not to defend “freedom of navigation” or “democracy” in the Asia Pacific but to step up its war preparations aimed at China and any other potential rivals.

Escalating trade war starts to make economic impact

Nick Beams

With the US and China set to impose tariffs on each others’ goods on Friday, there are signs that the growing trade war is starting to show up in economic data. Purchasing managers’ index figures for Chinese exports released on the weekend show that the index for new export orders fell to 49.8 last month, down from 51.2. A level of below 50 indicates a contraction.
Yesterday, Chinese stock markets continued the fall that has taken place over the first six months of the year. A key index of large stocks traded on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges fell by 2.9 percent, its fifth largest daily decline this year.
Losses in the Chinese stock markets have been more than $2 trillion over the past six months, with the Shanghai Composite index down by more than 20 percent, making it the world’s second worst performing market this year after Argentina.
The fall in the market has been set off by moves by Chinese financial authorities to cut back on credit expansion in order to try to rein in the growth of Chinese debt. However, the escalating trade war is now adding to market instability.
“Sentiment will remain bad in the near term,” David Qu, an economist at the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group in Shanghai told Bloomberg. “The market doesn’t hold out high hopes that China and the US will find a way out before tariffs are imposed.”
The increase in financial turbulence, which is being fuelled at least in part by the rising trade war tensions, is also reflected in the fall of the value of the Chinese currency, the renminbi, also known as the yuan.
In June, the renminbi suffered its largest ever monthly fall against the US dollar since China established a foreign exchange market in 1994—down by 3.3 percent. The renminbi dropped by 1.9 percent last week, its second biggest weekly decline—only exceeded by a fall of 2.8 percent in August 2015 that sent a shock wave through global markets.
Further falls could spark a reaction from the US accusing China of seeking to “weaponise” its currency in response to the imposition of US tariffs. China has in the past been denounced by the US as a “currency manipulator.” But at this point, the fall appears to be largely a response to market forces.
Chinese authorities would be wary of forcing down its value because of the impact this would have on financial markets. Any fall in the currency increases the interest and debt repayments that Chinese corporations and financial institutions have to make on loans taken out in US dollars.
Bo Zhuang, chief economist at TS Lombard, a research group, told the Financial Times that while the Peoples Bank of China, which intervenes in market to regulate the currency, may allow a tactical devaluation to send a signal to Washington, a large fall would be counter-productive.
“Any benefit from a major renminbi devaluation would be far outweighed by the negative consequences: accelerated capital flight, domestic liquidity tightening and the possibility of increased credit stress,” he said.
Even apart from the trade war issue, there are concerns in Chinese financial circles of major instability ahead. Bloomberg cited an Internet posting from the government-backed National Institution for Finance and Development (NIFD) which warned that China is “likely to see a financial panic.”
The posting appeared only briefly and was then removed, but Bloomberg said it had been confirmed by an NIFD official. The Chinese think tank warned that share purchases financed by debt had reached levels last seen in 2015 when a market crash wiped out $5 trillion in share values.
More broadly, the trade war being waged by the US is starting to escalate, with Canada imposing tariffs of $12 billion worth of US exports at the weekend, in retaliation for the Trump administration’s tariffs on steel and aluminium. The products targeted by Canada range from steel and aluminium to tomato ketchup and beer. In total, they amount to 3-4 times the tariffs imposed by the European Union in response to the US measures.
The EU has responded to the threatened imposition of tariffs of up to 25 percent on its auto exports by sending a submission to the US Commerce Department warning it could target almost $300 billion worth of exports if the US goes ahead.
There are now growing fears that medium-sized and smaller economies are going to be severely impacted by US trade war measures as many of them are dependent on Chinese markets.
A report issued by the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said that “trade tensions between the US and its major trading partners have the potential to undermine confidence and hinder global economic output.”
The warning was underscored by Australian Trade Minister Steven Ciobo. Speaking in Tokyo, he said: “Escalating trade tensions, potentially, will harm global growth: of course, there’s a correlation between global growth and trade volumes.”
He expressed the vain hope, articulated by the EU and other major trading partners of the US, that Washington would act in a way consistent with the rules of the World Trade Organisation.
Australian capitalism is dependent on the growth of the Chinese economy for its key exports of iron ore, coal and other raw materials.
In a report issued last week, Morgan Stanley issued a warning particularly relevant for Australia and other raw material exporters, saying that rising trade tensions “bring the risk of demand destruction across commodity markets.”
The former trade minister in the Australian government, Andrew Robb, entered the fray in a speech last night. Speaking at the annual dinner of the Mineral Council of Australia, he said US efforts to contain the rise of China were “futile” and “counter-productive.” China and India were emerging as major players in Asia and would “share” power with the US over the course of the next century.
“Unfortunately, the United States appears yet to accept this inevitability, with both sides of the political aisle in Washington endlessly focusing on ‘containment’ of China,” Robb stated.
Robb said the mining industry was most exposed to the changing geo-political environment and should try to navigate “this increasingly tense power struggle.”
“The alternative of leaving two bulls in a paddock to fight it out is no answer,” he said.
But neither is the perspective advanced by Robb that countries such as Australia should try to navigate their way through the conflict until the US accepts the “inevitability” of the rise of China or any other power that in any way challenges its dominance.
The growth of China, as Robb pointed out, is regarded by both sides of the political establishment in the US as an existential threat to its position. It is determined to counter that threat by trade war and other economic measures, and, if necessary, by resorting to military means.

Iran, North Korea, and Disarmament: Some Questions

Sheel Kant Sharma


These recent weeks have shown extraordinary results in the Korean Peninsula. There is an interesting ring in President Trump announcing that DPRK was “no longer a nuclear threat” with what President Reagan had declared at the height of Cold War tensions in the mid-1990s, that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” 

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was leading a fairly enduring campaign about the Reagan administration pushing the planet to the nuclear brink. Reagan’s declaration signified assurance and calmed anxiety among the allies. Trump's line also sets at rest the fears sparked by the tit-for-tat nuclear war talk. Between these two statements by Reagan and Trump, the latter is indeed the subject of far greater scrutiny and scepticism. Nonetheless, no one has questioned its positive impact, no matter how unpredictable the praxis of the Singapore Summit may turn out to be.

There is an underlying leitmotif, despite the lapse of decades of tumult and massive transformations, in these two historically separate assurances. This leitmotif is that nuclear weapons, despite their dangers, might not in the final analysis figure centrally in shaping relations between adversaries. Nuclear weapons in the control of Moscow and Washington even today remain menacingly huge. However, Reagan and Gorbachev had removed the overpowering angst by opening vistas of political transformation. The political 'horse' pulled the disarmament cart, not the other way around.

The political atmosphere in the Korean Peninsula has changed so substantially that disarmament appears to be relegated to more as an act of faith than a detailed step-by-step mutual accord. And, all the protagonists are none too worried even as many might harbour doubt. So long as Kim plays ball and the two Koreas keep moving toward rapid normalisation, US statements would seem to show no disruptive trend, while China and Russia express satisfaction.

Contrast this with developments in West Asia, i.e. Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal, which was feared to have grave implications for the Korean Peninsula. In the end, however, it did not particularly spike North Korea’s anxiety. Moreover, The New York Times has since come out with an extensive account detailing how, since summer 2017, “secret spy meetings, talks between entrepreneurs and an unreported role for President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner” might have laid the ground work for the Trump-Kim Summit. These meetings, initiated by high-level official on behalf of Kim, also likely involved business deals. There could be some correlation between such speculation and the invocation in various ways in President Trump’s commentaries, including a video shown in Singapore about the bright future that awaits North Korea. This analysis might spur queries then as to the avowed purpose of the nuclear war talk in 2017. One answer may be that though great power diplomacy has by now perfected the art of drawing global attention through scary talk about nuclear weapons, beneath it, there might be a political train that both sides steer to their advantage. One side might hold the reigns of global markets, sanctions and ‘maximum pressure’, while the other side might reinforce national consolidation, albeit at great cost. 

Trump perhaps hinted in his Singapore press conference that Iran too ought to take a leaf out of Kim's playbook. The rising tide of public sentiment in Iran and the rapid descent of the Iranian Riyal to 90,000 to US$ 1 might tighten pressure on Tehran. Although Tehran’s official stance remains resolute, is it time to imagine - perhaps counter-intuitively - that in the success so far of Trump’s diplomacy, there may be a message from North Korea to Iran? If the pressure of greater sanctions were to make a dent in Iran’s position – although that is a remote possibility given the realities of the region – would it mark another diplomatic success for Trump? 

A weightier question is whether in the new international order being shaped by right-wing ascendancy, the painstaking work of disarmament-type minutiae that figure in the JCPOA would have any relevance? The sparse texts that have emerged from the excellent atmospherics witnessed in Singapore give different signals. The Summit was an unqualified success of high-level diplomacy, and the Iran deal, according to its critics, an utter disaster despite its elaborate implementation. What does that signify for prospects of old-fashioned disarmament today?

Chinese, Russian, South Korean and Japanese statements welcoming the Trump-Kim Summit also delicately point to more arduous work towards accomplishing denuclearisation. Conflicting nuances about what comprises denuclearisation, extensive, inter-related steps involved in such a process, insistence on the give-and-take by all sides, and the potential for huge gains for the protagonists – these were the stuff of the six-party talks, too, which led nowhere. Would these inconvenient realities return to haunt the negotiators again? In Chinese statements issued during Kim's visit last week, there is substantial throwback to the hard issues. Going by Trump’s tweets, however, one should not overly worry since the big step has been taken. The rest should fall in place in due course, while maximum pressure and sanctions endure. In this context, the US decision to extend the 2008 emergency provisions about North Korea to maintain sanctions should not be seen as a contradiction. The 2008 situation was very different from today - North Korea then had defiantly conducted nuclear tests but posed no direct threat to the US mainland.

The takeaway from Singapore may have more to do with the direct threat to the US which appears to have abated, according to Trump. As to the other ramifications of North Korean nuclear capability and the threat it poses - these will persist, pending the promised follow-up to Singapore (and the Summit Declaration by the two Koreas in March 2017). That North Korea may carry on still with nuclear research or further uranium enrichment may then just be a matter of detail. 

2 Jul 2018

Morland Writing Scholarship for African Writers (£18,000 Cash Prize) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th September, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: The Scholarships are open to anyone writing in the English language who was born in an African country or both of whose parents were born in Africa.

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

Eligible Works: The Scholarships are meant for full length works of adult fiction or non-fiction. Poetry, plays, film scripts, children’s books, and short story collections do not qualify.

About the Award: It can be difficult for writers, before they become established, to write while simultaneously earning a living. To help meet this need the MMF annually awards a small number of Morland Writing Scholarships, with the aim being to allow each Scholar the time to produce the first draft of a completed book. 
At the end of each month scholars must send the Foundation 10,000 new words that they will have written over the course of the month. Scholars are also asked to donate to the MMF 20% of whatever they subsequently receive from what they write during the period of their Scholarship. This includes revenues as a result of film rights, serialisations or other ancillary revenues arising from the book written during the Scholarship period. These funds will be used to support other promising writers. The 20% return obligation should be considered a debt of honour rather than a legally binding obligation.
The Foundation will not review or comment on the monthly submissions as they come in. However, each Scholar will be offered the opportunity to be mentored by an established author or publisher. In most cases the mentorship will begin after the book has been finished and the Scholarship period has ended. At the discretion of the Foundation, the cost of the mentorship will be borne by the MMF. It is not the intention of the MMF to act as editor or a publisher. Scholars will need to find their own agents and publishers although the MMF is happy to offer advice.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The only condition imposed on the Scholars during the year of their Scholarship is that they must write. They will be asked to submit by e-mail at least 10,000 new words every month until they have finished their book or their Scholarship term has ended. If the first draft of the book is completed before the year is up, payments will continue while the Scholar edits and refines their work. 

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholars writing fiction will receive a grant of £18,000, paid monthly over the course of twelve months. At the discretion of the Foundation, Scholars writing non-fiction may receive a grant of up to £27,000, paid over a period  of up to eighteen months.

Duration of Scholarship: The Scholars may elect to start at any time between January and June in the year following the Scholarship Award. Their payments and the 10,000 word monthly submission requirement will start at the same time. The Foundation may exercise its discretion to offer non-fiction writers a longer Scholarship period of up to 18 months.

How to Apply: To qualify for the Scholarship a candidate must submit an excerpt from a piece of work of between 2,000 – 5,000 words written in English that has been published and offered for sale,. This will be evaluated by a panel of readers and judges set up by the MMF. The work submitted will be judged purely on literary merit. It is not the purpose of the Scholarships to support academic or scientific research, or works of special interest such as religious or political writings. Submissions or proposals of this nature do not qualify.
They should be sent by e-mail to scholarships@milesmorlandfoundation.com Please do not submit anything in hard copy or by terrestrial post.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Miles Morland Foundation

Important Notes: Before submitting an application, candidates should please read two things:
  1. The FAQs which set out in detail the requirements for entering the Scholarship.
  2. The Checklist which tells the five things candidates must include with their entry or it will not be considered.
The candidates should submit a description of up to 1,000 words of the work they intend to write. The proposal must be for a full length book of no fewer than 80,000 words. The MMF does not accept proposals for collaborative writing or short story collections. The proposal should be for a completely new work, not a work in progress, and must be in English.

Please note that this is not a residential Scholarship. It is up to the Scholars what their living arrangements are during their Scholarship year.

Africa Fact-Checking Awards for African Journalists 2018

Application Deadline: 15th August, 2018 (midnight)

Offered annually?  Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Kenya

About the Award: After receiving entries from journalists in just a handful of countries in the first year, Africa check is raising the ante by including entries from journalists in 20 countries, and created awards for reports published in English and in French.
So interested applicants who are working as reporters for Africa-based media organisations, should get in touch if they have published or broadcast a report between 1 September 2017 and 15 August this year, exposing a false claim on an important topic made by a public figure or institution in Africa.

Offered Since: 2013

Type: Journalism contest

Eligibility: 
  • To be eligible for the award, the entry must be an original piece of fact-checking journalism first published or broadcast between 1 September 2017 and 15 August 2018, by a media house based in Africa.
  • The work may be published in print or online, broadcast on the radio or television or published in a blog.
  • Reports published by Africa Check are not eligible for the competition.
  • Candidates may enter more than one report if they so choose.
Selection Criteria: A six-member jury of eminent journalists from across Africa will be announced in July.
All entries sent into the competition before midnight on 15 August 2018 will be judged on the following four criteria.
  • The significance for wider society of the claim investigated
  • How the claim was tested against the available evidence
  • How well the piece presented the evidence for and against the claim
  • The impact that the publication had on public debate on the topic
Number of Awardees: Three (3)

Value of Award: The winner of the awards for best fact-checking report by a journalist working in English, and best fact-checking report by a journalist working in French, will each take away a prize of $2,000. And two overall runners-up will take away prizes of $1,000 each.

How to Apply: Interested participants should visit the award webpage to apply

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: Africa Fact in partnership with the African Media Initiative

Important Notes: The names of the winners and runners-up will be announced at a ceremony to be held in Nairobi in October.

Climate Tracker Fellowship for Young Citizen Journalists (Fully-funded to COP24 in Poland) 2018

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018

Eligible Countries:
  • We do have one special set of Countries, and we will DEFINITELY SELECT at least ONE PERSON from the following Countries:
  • Indonesia | The Philippines | India | Ethiopia | Nigeria | Egypt | Bangladesh | Peru | Pakistan | Turkey
  • 4 other spots are available for anyone in the world (except Arab region, from Latinoamerica or Central Europe)
To Be Taken At (Country): Katowice, Poland

About the Award: Win a fully funded fellowship to the climate negotiations in Poland
The global community agreed in Paris to limit climate change in a way that protects people and the planet. Three years later, we still see countries giving large sums of money to fossil fuels, or planning to expand new coal and gas projects.
But we don’t have time to wait, the latest science tells us that we need rapid and far-reaching changes to a more sustainable future if we want to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
It is time to pressure our governments to stop developing new fossil fuel projects, and stop funding them, transitioning to a renewable energy and more fair economy.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • Young writers from around the world (like yourself) are invited to write inspiring stories and to publish them in media.
  • Whether you are a first time writer or a seasoned journalist, this app, is your chance to join this movement.
Do you want to participate? Follow these steps:
Between the 23rd of July and the 31st of August you have to write at least 2 articles about the 2 topics we are giving you.
  • 1st topic (23rd July – 10th August): Stop new fossil fuel projects! Write about a fossil fuel project your Government is planning to implement, why they should stop it
  • 2nd topic (13th August -31st August): Fund the transition! Write on how your government should stop subsidising/giving money to fossil fuel projects, and transition to a renewable energy model
Then you have to publish the articles in media in your country or region. It can be a newspaper, a magazine, an online news site, etc. Once your article is published, you have to submit the link to us through our Climate Tracker app (here: app.climatetracker.org). You may be asked to submit an extra article to finalise the selection process if it is too difficult to make a decision!
Climate Tracker will revise the articles submitted through the app, give you feedback and tips, and select the best writers. To help you write about these issues, we will prepare information toolkits, webinars with experts and give you help and feedback on how to pitch to editors, get an article published or learn more about climate in your region. To be up to date with the details of the program, check the app regularly, and contact us whenever you need!

Number of Awards: 5

Value of Award: Fully-funded. We will be covering your flight, accommodation, entry into the COP and guidance by the Climate Tracker team. Other prices to win include online writing fellowships, for which you receive a stipend and personal guidance from Climate Tracker to write about climate change issues in your region.

Duration of Program: 2 weeks in December 2018

How to Apply: The best writers will be chosen among the applicants by analysing their outreach and writing skills. You can check the rating system for articles here. Writers with the best general score make a chance to one of 5 fully funded fellowships to join us at COP24 in Katowice, Poland, in December.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Climate Trackers