At the top of the list would have to be Aisha, the widow of the Prophet Muhammad who was renowned for her learning and wit. The Prophet in fact is said to have counselled his followers to “take half of your religion” from Aisha – in recognition of her learning. After his death, she spent the rest of her life transmitting the sayings of her husband and commenting on the Qur’an. Her authoritative pronouncements have decisively shaped the later Islamic legal tradition. The early period of Islam in particular is peopled with such intelligent, assertive, and pious women. Another name that comes to mind is Umm Umara – although she was a prominent companion of the Prophet Muhammad, whom he regarded highly in her own time, she has become an obscure figure over the centuries. One possible reason for this is that Umm Umara was a “difficult” woman – that is to say, she was someone who asked a lot of questions and who protested loudly when she was faced with inequality, especially in regard to women’s rights. Her passion for justice and outspokenness, however, were hardly out of place in the first century of Islam. As historical records inform us, women in particular excelled in religious scholarship through the late Mamluk period, the 14th and 15th centuries of the common era. This should not be surprising since women’s right to education is firmly guaranteed by Islam. A well-known saying of the Prophet Muhammad asserts that knowledge is equally obligatory for males and females – which has allowed for considerable Muslim receptivity towards providing education for girls and women alongside their male counterparts through the centuries. As a result, women scholars dot the Islamic intellectual landscape. The famous 9th century Muslim jurist al-Shafii, widely regarded as the father of Islamic jurisprudence, studied with female teachers. Ibn Hajar, another prominent jurist from the 15th century, gratefully acknowledges his debt to a number of his female professors whose study circles he frequented. Ibn Hajar’s student, al-Sakhawi, dedicated one whole volume of his encyclopaedic biographical work on famous scholars from the Mamluk period to women alone. Among the 1,075 women listed in this volume, over 400 were active in scholarship. One such scholar is on record as having complained that she was not getting adequate compensation for her teaching (a complaint that may sound dismayingly familiar to contemporary professional women the world over today). Regrettably, the memory of these accomplished women has grown dim over time. As Muslim societies became more patriarchal after the first century of Islam, many of these women have been air-brushed out of the master narrative of Islamic history, leaving us with the impression that the Islamic tradition was shaped mainly by men. This erasure of women can lead to a dangerously mistaken belief that Islam itself mandates this marginalisation of women. The danger is real – as became recently evident in the Taliban’s brutal and misogynist vendetta against the indomitable 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai. A fearless warrior to promote education for females in her native Pakistan, Yousafzai has paid a huge price for her courageous stance, as she now struggles to recover after being shot by the Taliban. Yousafzai’s fate is a reminder that women’s historical roles in Islamic learning and scholarship need to become much better known among Muslims themselves. This is imperative so that in the future the Taliban’s grotesque interpretation of women’s rights can immediately be recognised for what it is – a violation of fundamental Islamic principles and one that should not be granted even the veneer of religious legitimacy. In her fearless insistence on the right to be educated and to be heard in public, Yousafzai is following in the footsteps of her illustrious female forebears from the first century of Islam. Learned, feisty and principled women have contributed much to the Islamic heritage. Her predicament reminds us why this history must be featured prominently in our own times and why women must be reinstated into the very mainstream of the Islamic intellectual tradition. It is the most effective way to keep religious obscurantism at bay in Muslim-majority societies, especially the kind that threatens the well-being of Muslim girls and women. ### * Asma Afsaruddin is a professor of Islamic Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, and a senior editor of the forthcoming Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women (2013). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews). Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 23 October 2012, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission is granted for publication. | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sunday 28 October 2012
Malala Yousafzai and the other half of Muslim history by Asma Afsaruddin - Common Ground News Service
Malala Yousafzai and the other half of Muslim history by Asma Afsaruddin - Common Ground News Service
Deepening the U.S.-India Partnership | Center for American Progress
Deepening the U.S.-India Partnership | Center for American Progress
U.S. policymakers working to advance American interests are currently confronted with profound political and economic volatility around the world. Since the 2011 Arab Spring, countries in the Middle East have been undergoing rapid political change. The European Union is grappling with an economic crisis whose resolution will have a significant impact on our own slow recovery. China has begun to flex its economic and military muscles outside its immediate region after three decades of sustained growth. And Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups continue to plan and conduct deadly attacks, particularly in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Now more than ever, the United States needs friends in order to effectively navigate and respond to these shifting dynamics.
The U.S. role as a world leader for more than half a century has been undergirded by established alliances with countries around the world. In the coming decade there is one partnership that may be more critical to U.S. economic and security interests than any other: the U.S-India alliance. India is a vitally important geo-strategic partner for the United States. India’s economy, democratic values, military capabilities, and technological prowess make it an indispensable ally now and in the future. As Vice President Joe Biden puts it, “My dream is that in 2020, the two closest nations in the world will be India and the United States. If that occurs, the world will be safer.”
Skeptics of this partnership, however, hold out little hope that the United States and India can bridge key differences or produce anything consequential for either U.S. or Indian interests. They point to many significant barriers that limit progress in the relationship, including India’s protectionist foreign investment policies, India’s military alliance with Russia, and an unwillingness in New Delhi to move on international trade and climate negotiations. These critics contend that at best this relationship has failed to produce anything of importance, and at worst India has proven to be an unreliable and even obstinate partner.
The recent record proves otherwise. The Obama administration has made slow and steady progress over the past four years in deepening the relationship with India and delivering important results. On trade and investment, for example, the Indian government has finally begun to open its market to U.S. investors with a series of reforms that, if fully implemented, could be some of the most significant Indian market liberalizations of the last decade. Once an off-shoring and out-sourcing destination for U.S. companies, Indian companies have turned the tables and are now investing heavily in the United States, with billions of dollars spent on information technology, manufacturing, and more. Indeed, bilateral investment and trade is likely to surpass $100 billion this year, a tenfold increase since 1995.
In the security sector, too, cooperation on counterterrorism and intelligence sharing has never been closer. Joint military exercises and training occur with increased frequency. India conducts more joint exercises with the United States than any other country. In addition, the Indian government has bought more than $8 billion in U.S. military goods, potentially signaling a move towards closer synchronization between our respective militaries.
With regard to recent diplomatic and security decision points, the United States and India have moved forward with a shared agenda to approach global challenges. Indian oil imports from Iran have been substantially reduced. The Indian military has begun training Afghan security forces. Indian officials have sought openings, where possible, to build stronger ties with Pakistan. The Indian government supported U.N. Security Council resolutions on both Iran and Libya. And India pledged economic assistance to the Burmese political transition despite their previous objections to U.S. sanctions on Burma’s military regime.
There is no question that many significant differences still remain between the two countries. But quietly and deliberately, President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have found ways to bring the two countries closer together in countering common threats and creating new economic opportunities.
The next administration, whether Democratic or Republican, can build on this progress. Three key areas are ripe for further development.
In addition, water has been critically depleted. Water tables, particularly in the North, are at a historic low. While India needs power for people to live their daily lives, significant energy resources will also be required to maintain the 8 percent annual economic growth needed to lift some 400 million people out of poverty over the next two decades. India’s energy production needs will quadruple over the next 20 years to expand access and reliability while powering India’s growing economy.
The consequences of climate change, meanwhile, have ravaged India, as hundreds of millions of Indians’ livelihoods are dependent on climate-sensitive sectors. Monsoon rains have been unpredictable, and when it does rain, it rains harder for shorter periods of time, increasing flooding but doing little to alleviate drought conditions. Temperatures have also climbed, shrinking Himalayan glaciers and creating shortages in the rivers below. Tensions over water between India and neighboring countries are on the rise. As a result of energy shortages and weak crop yields, India’s rural population has continued its migration into the cities, putting additional pressure on power, sanitation, and infrastructure resources in India’s already overtaxed urban areas.
A number of joint initiatives have been launched on clean energy, low carbon growth, climate, and a range of related topics. The U.S.-India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy is the umbrella initiative tying together U.S.-India cooperation on clean energy research and deployment. The United States and India are also collaborating with energy and environment ministers of the world’s major economies in the Clean Energy Ministerial to promote policies and programs that encourage low-carbon energy production and consumption.
While these collaborative efforts have contributed to a richer global discussion on climate issues, more can be done to strengthen this focus. The United States and India could further advance cooperation on climate and clean energy through the development of a joint U.S.-India platform for open innovation in clean energy. Open innovation involves using new strategies to link disparate research and thinkers through virtual collaboration platforms, innovation prizes, and intellectual property rights strategies. These strategies can be powerful tools in accelerating the adoption of clean energy technologies, as an upcoming report from the Center for American Progress by Andrew Light and Arpita Bhattacharyya details. They demonstrate how clean energy could use the same model that information and communication sectors used in the development of the Internet, computer operating systems, hardware, and software.
As a recent Council on Foreign Relations/Aspen Institute India report recommended, the United States could also provide greater support to India’s attempts to combat deforestation through the United Nations Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation; fund a joint U.S.-India innovation center to “provide clean energy services to the poor focused on creating a bottom-up framework for accommodating the local needs and conditions of Indian citizens”; and collaborate with India to pressure international organizations and forums to place a greater focus on financing for climate change.
The United States needs to build on its important clean energy work with India and make equally important commitments to work in related areas, particularly with regard to water security. Finding clean water is still a major challenge for much of India’s population. Water has become a regional security issue as well, as the need for access to clean water in India and neighboring countries grows more acute. Water security should be elevated within the U.S.-India strategic dialogue, and it should become a more prominent focus of foreign policy between our two countries.
There are a range of other environmental challenges confronting India, including air pollution, sanitation, and rapid urbanization. Many of these problems can be partly addressed through increased investments in infrastructure.
Yet U.S. companies continue to be frustrated over India’s closed market, the byzantine regulatory system, and uncertain funding for high-risk ventures. Indeed, the Indian government has acknowledged it will not have the budget available to fund the available projects, and has pushed developers to explore “public-private partnerships” for funding—theoretically a good idea, but quite difficult to launch in practice.
Moreover, India’s federal system, which divides authority for procurement projects between national and state governments, has confused and frustrated U.S. firms attempting to navigate through India’s convoluted bureaucracy. India’s status as a global economic power will depend upon its ability to create a modern infrastructure, reduce the rural-urban divide and respond to the needs of its rapidly expanding population. Integrating U.S. companies into development projects will be in India’s interests but the barriers to investment and cooperation must come down.
But clearly work needs to be done. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to lead an export reform and defense procurement review to jump start U.S.-India defense trade. The Indians need to undertake a similar commitment at defense sector reform to open up the market to U.S. companies and loosen the restrictions related to foreign direct investment and defense offsets. Additionally, both countries should work toward the possibility of cooperative research and development, and co-production where possible.
Similar reforms in the homeland security sector are warranted as well, where the confusion and divisions between the federal and state governments, not to mention the stifling bureaucracy, has deterred U.S. homeland defense firms from fully competing there. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Carter said in India this past summer, “our shared challenge in the next year is to find concrete areas to step up our defense cooperation” and “to knock down any remaining bureaucratic barriers in our defense relationship and strip away the impediments.” That is the right challenge and it is one where progress can continue to be made.
As written in a previous paper from the Center for American Progress, there will likely be few home runs in the coming years in the U.S.-India relationship. Those waiting for another game-changing achievement like the civil nuclear agreement, for example, are likely to be disappointed. But this shouldn’t stop smaller and less public efforts where gains can be made. Again, while we highlight defense, environment, and infrastructure as three vital areas for focus, the next administration may find other sectors where progress can be made. The key is to continue making progress, even incremental, wherever and whenever possible.
Richard Verma and Caroline Wadhams are Senior Fellows at the Center for American Progress.
Deepening the U.S.-India Partnership
SOURCE: AP/Charles Dharapak
Members of the U.S. delegation stand during the playing of the U.S. national anthem during the state dinner for President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama hosted by India's President Prathiba Patil and her husband Devisingh Ramsingh Shekhawat at Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi, India, Monday, Nov. 8, 2010. From left are: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, speech writer Jon Favreau, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Ambassador to India Tim Roemer and wife Sally.
U.S. policymakers working to advance American interests are currently confronted with profound political and economic volatility around the world. Since the 2011 Arab Spring, countries in the Middle East have been undergoing rapid political change. The European Union is grappling with an economic crisis whose resolution will have a significant impact on our own slow recovery. China has begun to flex its economic and military muscles outside its immediate region after three decades of sustained growth. And Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups continue to plan and conduct deadly attacks, particularly in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Now more than ever, the United States needs friends in order to effectively navigate and respond to these shifting dynamics.
The U.S. role as a world leader for more than half a century has been undergirded by established alliances with countries around the world. In the coming decade there is one partnership that may be more critical to U.S. economic and security interests than any other: the U.S-India alliance. India is a vitally important geo-strategic partner for the United States. India’s economy, democratic values, military capabilities, and technological prowess make it an indispensable ally now and in the future. As Vice President Joe Biden puts it, “My dream is that in 2020, the two closest nations in the world will be India and the United States. If that occurs, the world will be safer.”
Skeptics of this partnership, however, hold out little hope that the United States and India can bridge key differences or produce anything consequential for either U.S. or Indian interests. They point to many significant barriers that limit progress in the relationship, including India’s protectionist foreign investment policies, India’s military alliance with Russia, and an unwillingness in New Delhi to move on international trade and climate negotiations. These critics contend that at best this relationship has failed to produce anything of importance, and at worst India has proven to be an unreliable and even obstinate partner.
The recent record proves otherwise. The Obama administration has made slow and steady progress over the past four years in deepening the relationship with India and delivering important results. On trade and investment, for example, the Indian government has finally begun to open its market to U.S. investors with a series of reforms that, if fully implemented, could be some of the most significant Indian market liberalizations of the last decade. Once an off-shoring and out-sourcing destination for U.S. companies, Indian companies have turned the tables and are now investing heavily in the United States, with billions of dollars spent on information technology, manufacturing, and more. Indeed, bilateral investment and trade is likely to surpass $100 billion this year, a tenfold increase since 1995.
In the security sector, too, cooperation on counterterrorism and intelligence sharing has never been closer. Joint military exercises and training occur with increased frequency. India conducts more joint exercises with the United States than any other country. In addition, the Indian government has bought more than $8 billion in U.S. military goods, potentially signaling a move towards closer synchronization between our respective militaries.
With regard to recent diplomatic and security decision points, the United States and India have moved forward with a shared agenda to approach global challenges. Indian oil imports from Iran have been substantially reduced. The Indian military has begun training Afghan security forces. Indian officials have sought openings, where possible, to build stronger ties with Pakistan. The Indian government supported U.N. Security Council resolutions on both Iran and Libya. And India pledged economic assistance to the Burmese political transition despite their previous objections to U.S. sanctions on Burma’s military regime.
There is no question that many significant differences still remain between the two countries. But quietly and deliberately, President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have found ways to bring the two countries closer together in countering common threats and creating new economic opportunities.
The next administration, whether Democratic or Republican, can build on this progress. Three key areas are ripe for further development.
- Energy and the environment
- Infrastructure development and investment
- Defense and homeland security
Energy and the environment
India is starved for energy, made acutely clear when nearly 700 million people were recently sent into darkness for almost 48 hours after large portions of the country’s energy grid experienced cascading failures earlier this summer. Burdened with shortages in available coal and gas, India has been forced to import energy at high prices.In addition, water has been critically depleted. Water tables, particularly in the North, are at a historic low. While India needs power for people to live their daily lives, significant energy resources will also be required to maintain the 8 percent annual economic growth needed to lift some 400 million people out of poverty over the next two decades. India’s energy production needs will quadruple over the next 20 years to expand access and reliability while powering India’s growing economy.
The consequences of climate change, meanwhile, have ravaged India, as hundreds of millions of Indians’ livelihoods are dependent on climate-sensitive sectors. Monsoon rains have been unpredictable, and when it does rain, it rains harder for shorter periods of time, increasing flooding but doing little to alleviate drought conditions. Temperatures have also climbed, shrinking Himalayan glaciers and creating shortages in the rivers below. Tensions over water between India and neighboring countries are on the rise. As a result of energy shortages and weak crop yields, India’s rural population has continued its migration into the cities, putting additional pressure on power, sanitation, and infrastructure resources in India’s already overtaxed urban areas.
A number of joint initiatives have been launched on clean energy, low carbon growth, climate, and a range of related topics. The U.S.-India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy is the umbrella initiative tying together U.S.-India cooperation on clean energy research and deployment. The United States and India are also collaborating with energy and environment ministers of the world’s major economies in the Clean Energy Ministerial to promote policies and programs that encourage low-carbon energy production and consumption.
While these collaborative efforts have contributed to a richer global discussion on climate issues, more can be done to strengthen this focus. The United States and India could further advance cooperation on climate and clean energy through the development of a joint U.S.-India platform for open innovation in clean energy. Open innovation involves using new strategies to link disparate research and thinkers through virtual collaboration platforms, innovation prizes, and intellectual property rights strategies. These strategies can be powerful tools in accelerating the adoption of clean energy technologies, as an upcoming report from the Center for American Progress by Andrew Light and Arpita Bhattacharyya details. They demonstrate how clean energy could use the same model that information and communication sectors used in the development of the Internet, computer operating systems, hardware, and software.
As a recent Council on Foreign Relations/Aspen Institute India report recommended, the United States could also provide greater support to India’s attempts to combat deforestation through the United Nations Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation; fund a joint U.S.-India innovation center to “provide clean energy services to the poor focused on creating a bottom-up framework for accommodating the local needs and conditions of Indian citizens”; and collaborate with India to pressure international organizations and forums to place a greater focus on financing for climate change.
The United States needs to build on its important clean energy work with India and make equally important commitments to work in related areas, particularly with regard to water security. Finding clean water is still a major challenge for much of India’s population. Water has become a regional security issue as well, as the need for access to clean water in India and neighboring countries grows more acute. Water security should be elevated within the U.S.-India strategic dialogue, and it should become a more prominent focus of foreign policy between our two countries.
There are a range of other environmental challenges confronting India, including air pollution, sanitation, and rapid urbanization. Many of these problems can be partly addressed through increased investments in infrastructure.
Infrastructure investment
Indian leaders have announced that as much as $1 trillion in new infrastructure would be needed over the next five years to accommodate the demands of what will soon be the most populous country on the planet. Virtually every sector—transportation, sanitation, telecommunications, education, and housing—requires significant additional resources and attention. New cities must be built, and some 600 new universities are required. Airports, subways, highways, and ports all must be constructed or renovated to accommodate the growing population.Yet U.S. companies continue to be frustrated over India’s closed market, the byzantine regulatory system, and uncertain funding for high-risk ventures. Indeed, the Indian government has acknowledged it will not have the budget available to fund the available projects, and has pushed developers to explore “public-private partnerships” for funding—theoretically a good idea, but quite difficult to launch in practice.
Moreover, India’s federal system, which divides authority for procurement projects between national and state governments, has confused and frustrated U.S. firms attempting to navigate through India’s convoluted bureaucracy. India’s status as a global economic power will depend upon its ability to create a modern infrastructure, reduce the rural-urban divide and respond to the needs of its rapidly expanding population. Integrating U.S. companies into development projects will be in India’s interests but the barriers to investment and cooperation must come down.
Defense and homeland security
Indian restrictions on U.S. defense and homeland security investments remain too strict, inhibiting trade, investment and joint manufacturing between U.S. and Indian companies and keeping many U.S. companies on the sidelines. But some progress has been made, and the trend line is moving in a good direction. After being denied the contract for India’s advanced fighter aircraft in 2011, U.S. aerospace and defense companies are making some gains in this sector. The Indian government has purchased more than $8 billion in military equipment from U.S. companies in the past decade, more than $5.3 billion of which took place in the past two years alone.But clearly work needs to be done. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to lead an export reform and defense procurement review to jump start U.S.-India defense trade. The Indians need to undertake a similar commitment at defense sector reform to open up the market to U.S. companies and loosen the restrictions related to foreign direct investment and defense offsets. Additionally, both countries should work toward the possibility of cooperative research and development, and co-production where possible.
Similar reforms in the homeland security sector are warranted as well, where the confusion and divisions between the federal and state governments, not to mention the stifling bureaucracy, has deterred U.S. homeland defense firms from fully competing there. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Carter said in India this past summer, “our shared challenge in the next year is to find concrete areas to step up our defense cooperation” and “to knock down any remaining bureaucratic barriers in our defense relationship and strip away the impediments.” That is the right challenge and it is one where progress can continue to be made.
Conclusion
Clearly there is a wide range of areas in which the U.S.-India partnership can be advanced. These three areas presented here are worthy of further development. But it is important to keep in mind that the bilateral relationship has quietly, steadily, and carefully been built up over the past four years by like-minded leaders who recognize the critical nature of this alliance. Engagement at the top levels of government have set in motion the painstaking work by diplomats, development specialists, military officials, and civilian experts of all stripes to make the necessary linkages that pull two nations together (not to mention the millions of people-to-people relationships that have brought our nations closer and have delivered huge benefits for each country).As written in a previous paper from the Center for American Progress, there will likely be few home runs in the coming years in the U.S.-India relationship. Those waiting for another game-changing achievement like the civil nuclear agreement, for example, are likely to be disappointed. But this shouldn’t stop smaller and less public efforts where gains can be made. Again, while we highlight defense, environment, and infrastructure as three vital areas for focus, the next administration may find other sectors where progress can be made. The key is to continue making progress, even incremental, wherever and whenever possible.
Richard Verma and Caroline Wadhams are Senior Fellows at the Center for American Progress.
Friday 26 October 2012
PTA notification : LHC scraps overseas phone call tax
PTA notification : LHC scraps overseas phone call tax
The court issued a restraining order on a petition of a company, m/s Brain Telecommunication Company.
The petitioner submitted that PTA had unlawfully imposed the additional tax. He said that PTA had also violated competition commission’s rules. He said that overseas Pakistanis faced difficulties due to the implementation of this tax.
He requested the court to declare it unlawful and restrain the PTA from charging additional taxes.
While opposing the petition, the PTA said it was not an unlawful move and the additional tax was being collected in the better interest of the country.
PTA notification : LHC scraps overseas phone call tax
Government’s move to impose hefty tax on incoming calls from overseas termed unconstitutional by petitioner.
LAHORE:
Justice Ijazul Ahsan of the Lahore High Court on Thursday
cancelled the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s (PTA) notification
to impose additional tax on incoming international phone calls.
The judge also ordered the PTA chairman to submit a reply against the levy by November 5, the next date of hearing.The court issued a restraining order on a petition of a company, m/s Brain Telecommunication Company.
The petitioner submitted that PTA had unlawfully imposed the additional tax. He said that PTA had also violated competition commission’s rules. He said that overseas Pakistanis faced difficulties due to the implementation of this tax.
He requested the court to declare it unlawful and restrain the PTA from charging additional taxes.
While opposing the petition, the PTA said it was not an unlawful move and the additional tax was being collected in the better interest of the country.
Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor’s International Scholarships | Scholarships Today | College Scholarships and Grants Info
Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor’s International Scholarships | Scholarships Today | College Scholarships and Grants Info
Description Download the scholarship details in PDF file
Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor’s International Scholarships
The competition for Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships is currently open for entry in season 2013.
Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships are created accessible for many outstanding international PhD candidates. Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships Awards created for entry in season 2013 might embody either or each of the subsequent, reckoning on the ranking of the application:
A maintenance regular payment in line with RCUK rates (worth £13,590 at 12/13 rates)
Eligibility Applicants for a Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarship should even be applying for a PhD at the University of solon to start in october 2013;
Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships Applicants should expect to be 'overseas' students for fees functions, however there's no different position criteria;
Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships Applicants is also from any discipline at solon.
Please note that not like Chancellor's Scholarships (formerly WPRS), Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships aren't hospitable current 1st year PhD students, however solely to candidates for a PhD.
Application point in time
Deadline for Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships applications is eleventh Jan 2013.
Doctoral awards are going to be awarded through a combined Chancellor's/Chancellor's International Scholarship/AHRC student Awards/ Wolfson Foundation Scholarships competition. candidates are going to be thought-about for all scholarships that they're eligible.
There is one form required: Applications for the combined competition area unit created through one combined form for postgraduate admission and for the scholarships. this manner is just accessible inside the desired open amount.
No late applications are going to be accepted.
How to apply
The application method are going to be altogether combined with the applications for Chancellor's Scholarships and every one candidates for a Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarship can mechanically even be thought-about for a Chancellor's Scholarship.
Thursday 25 October 2012
Einstein was right
Einstein was right
Having a Coffee...
Get together in a restaurant...
Enjoying the beauty in a Museum...
Pleasantly Chatting in a cafe' ...
Enjoying a day at the Beach...
At the Stadium supporting the team...
Having fun with the girlfriend...
Appreciating the Town in a convertible ..
Einstein was right
Einstein was right
Albert Einstein:
"I fear the day when the technology overlaps with our humanity. The world will only have a generation of idiots."
Albert Einstein:
"I fear the day when the technology overlaps with our humanity. The world will only have a generation of idiots."
Having a Coffee...
Get together in a restaurant...
Enjoying the beauty in a Museum...
Pleasantly Chatting in a cafe' ...
Enjoying a day at the Beach...
At the Stadium supporting the team...
Having fun with the girlfriend...
Appreciating the Town in a convertible ..
Continued detention of Masarrat Aalam Butt denounced
Continued detention of Masarrat Aalam Butt denounced
The JKML General Secretary, Abdul Ahad Parah in a statement in Srinagar said that Udhampur Jail Superintendent in defiance of the quashing orders of Masarrat Aalam Butt had refused to release the jailed Hurriyat leader.
Abdul Ahad Parah has appealed to the international human rights organisations to take a notice of blatant human rights violations, particularly the plight of detained Hurriyat leaders and activists languishing in different jails of India and occupied Kashmir.
--
Continued detention of Masarrat Aalam Butt denounced
Srinagar, MTT News Desk: In Occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir (OSJK), the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim League denouncing continued illegal detention of Hurriyat leader Masarrat Aalam Butt despite the quashing of draconian Public Safety Act against him said that Indian armed forces were flouting the court orders in the territory.The JKML General Secretary, Abdul Ahad Parah in a statement in Srinagar said that Udhampur Jail Superintendent in defiance of the quashing orders of Masarrat Aalam Butt had refused to release the jailed Hurriyat leader.
Abdul Ahad Parah has appealed to the international human rights organisations to take a notice of blatant human rights violations, particularly the plight of detained Hurriyat leaders and activists languishing in different jails of India and occupied Kashmir.
Tuesday 23 October 2012
Analysis: US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas create backlash
Analysis: US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas create backlash
Pir Zubair ShahOctober 10, 2012 09:35 specific evidence of known individuals or enemy combatants but rather on general information about “military-age males.” Such strikes were initiated under Bush in 2008, according to the Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko, who has researched them extensively.
“In an effort to reduce the Pakistani safe haven that was being used to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan, President Bush authorized drone strikes against anonymous militants whose behavior – based on signals intelligence, human agents and drone surveillance – resembles that of Taliban or Al Qaeda leaders,” said Zenko.
“Signature strikes are problematic because they are not carefully vetted by the inter-agency process and they are often less precise and less discriminate,” Zenko told GlobalPost, adding that there also appears to be a pattern in the CIA tactic which includes staggered, follow-on strikes to kill rescuers of initial victims known as “double taps.”
The United States has never issued any statement of apology for the March 17 attack, not has any US government official ever acknowledged nor defended the practice of these “signature strikes” or “crowd kills.” In fact, the mere mention of signature strikes has left US officials stumbling and evasive.
In April, John Brennan, Obama’s National Security Advisor, was asked at the Woodrow Wilson Center, “If you could address the issue of signature strikes, which I guess aren’t necessarily targeted against specific individuals?”
Brennan replied: “You make reference to signature strikes that are frequently reported in the press. I was speaking here specifically about targeted strikes against individuals who are involved.”
The US government declines to make any recognition of nor comment on such strikes, but as journalist and author Daniel Klaidman uncovered in his new book, Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, Obama was uncomfortable enough with the term “crowd kill” that he changed the name, if not the tactic. These attacks, as Klaidman revealed, are now referred to as “TADS,” an acronym for a Terrorist Attack Disruption Strike. And these tactics are being employed not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, according to Klaidman’s research.
No matter what name it goes by, the attack in North Waziristan has hurt US efforts in Pakistan, according to Pakistani as well as Western diplomats and security analysts. The March 17 strike was a dramatic stain on the record of US drone policy. When mistakes like this are made, they exact a great toll on US interests as well as Pakistani lives. In addition to killing tens of civilians, the strike alienated and enraged not only victims’ relatives like Noor Khan, but the broader group of tribal citizens in the region, some of whom actually had a previously favorable view of discriminate drone strikes as an effective means of eliminating their Taliban enemies while sparing civilian lives.
The United States simply cannot afford any more faulty strikes like this, which are more impactful than the effective strikes. The strike gave further ammunition to the forces which are exploiting the issue for political reasons, and also provided Pakistan with political capital to use as a leverage in its tense relationship with the US. Even 18 months after this attack, litigation remains, victims’ relatives and locals are still angry and political groups (and terrorist organizations) seize upon that energy to keep up the drum beat against America.
“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and such attacks will result in the increase of hatred for the US,” said Noor Khan. “We have gone to the court to know who has allowed these attacks and on what legal ground,” Khan said about the petition which he, along with other relatives of the victims, have filed in a Pakistani court.
Just last week a march in Waziristan was led by the once-great Pakistani cricket star turned maverick populist political leader, Imran Khan. He gathered thousands of demonstrators, hailing from cities and villages across Pakistan and from other countries, including several dozen activists who traveled from America, to protest the US use of weaponized drones and the way in which their proliferation worldwide is against international law and basic human rights. Their march
Analysis: US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas create backlash
American approach to deadly attacks proves overly blunt, says journalist and Waziristan native Pir Shah.
Pir Zubair ShahOctober 10, 2012 09:35 American approach to deadly attacks proves overly blunt, says journalist and Waziristan native Pir Shah.
“In an effort to reduce the Pakistani safe haven that was being used to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan, President Bush authorized drone strikes against anonymous militants whose behavior – based on signals intelligence, human agents and drone surveillance – resembles that of Taliban or Al Qaeda leaders,” said Zenko.
 |
| Noor Khan. (Haji Mutaba/Courtesy) |
The United States has never issued any statement of apology for the March 17 attack, not has any US government official ever acknowledged nor defended the practice of these “signature strikes” or “crowd kills.” In fact, the mere mention of signature strikes has left US officials stumbling and evasive.
In April, John Brennan, Obama’s National Security Advisor, was asked at the Woodrow Wilson Center, “If you could address the issue of signature strikes, which I guess aren’t necessarily targeted against specific individuals?”
Brennan replied: “You make reference to signature strikes that are frequently reported in the press. I was speaking here specifically about targeted strikes against individuals who are involved.”
The US government declines to make any recognition of nor comment on such strikes, but as journalist and author Daniel Klaidman uncovered in his new book, Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, Obama was uncomfortable enough with the term “crowd kill” that he changed the name, if not the tactic. These attacks, as Klaidman revealed, are now referred to as “TADS,” an acronym for a Terrorist Attack Disruption Strike. And these tactics are being employed not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, according to Klaidman’s research.
No matter what name it goes by, the attack in North Waziristan has hurt US efforts in Pakistan, according to Pakistani as well as Western diplomats and security analysts. The March 17 strike was a dramatic stain on the record of US drone policy. When mistakes like this are made, they exact a great toll on US interests as well as Pakistani lives. In addition to killing tens of civilians, the strike alienated and enraged not only victims’ relatives like Noor Khan, but the broader group of tribal citizens in the region, some of whom actually had a previously favorable view of discriminate drone strikes as an effective means of eliminating their Taliban enemies while sparing civilian lives.
The United States simply cannot afford any more faulty strikes like this, which are more impactful than the effective strikes. The strike gave further ammunition to the forces which are exploiting the issue for political reasons, and also provided Pakistan with political capital to use as a leverage in its tense relationship with the US. Even 18 months after this attack, litigation remains, victims’ relatives and locals are still angry and political groups (and terrorist organizations) seize upon that energy to keep up the drum beat against America.
“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and such attacks will result in the increase of hatred for the US,” said Noor Khan. “We have gone to the court to know who has allowed these attacks and on what legal ground,” Khan said about the petition which he, along with other relatives of the victims, have filed in a Pakistani court.
Just last week a march in Waziristan was led by the once-great Pakistani cricket star turned maverick populist political leader, Imran Khan. He gathered thousands of demonstrators, hailing from cities and villages across Pakistan and from other countries, including several dozen activists who traveled from America, to protest the US use of weaponized drones and the way in which their proliferation worldwide is against international law and basic human rights. Their march
2013 AAUW International Fellowships for Women in USA
2013 AAUW International Fellowships for Women in USA
2013 Master’s, Doctoral and Postdoctoral Fellowships for non US Women at the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in USA
Study Subject(s): The Scholarship is provided to learn any of the courses offered by the universities.Course Level: The Scholarship is for pursing Master’s and Doctoral level.
Scholarship Provider: AAUW
Scholarship can be taken at: Students will get their studies in USA.
Eligibility:
- International Fellowships are awarded for full-time study or research in the United States to women who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
- Both graduate and postgraduate studies at accredited U.S. institutions are supported.
- Applicants must have earned the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree by September 30, 2012 and must have applied to their proposed institutions of study by the time of the application. Up to five fellowships are renewable for a second year.
Scholarship Open for International Students: The International Student can apply for this Fellowship.
Scholarship Description: AAUW has a long and distinguished history of advancing educational and professional opportunities for women in the United States and around the globe. One of the world’s largest sources of funding for graduate women.Fellowship and grant recipients perform research in a wide range of disciplines and work to improve their schools and communities. Their intellect, dedication, imagination, and effort promise to forge new paths in scholarship, improve the quality of life for all, and tackle the educational and social barriers facing women in the United States and around the globe.
Number of awards offered: Not known
Tenure of awards: Not Known
Value:
Master’s/First Professional Degree Fellowship: $18,000
Doctoral Fellowship: $20,000
Postdoctoral Fellowship: $30,000
Other Benefits: Not Known
Selection Criteria: Not Known
Notification: Not Known
How to Apply: The mode of applying is by online.
Scholarship Application Deadline: Do submit your application till December 1, 2012
Further Scholarship Information and Application
Read more: 2013 AAUW International Fellowships for Women in USA : 2012 2013 College Scholarships, PhD Scholarships, Postdoctoral, Graduate International Scholarships Fellowships
http://scholarship-positions.com
Drone Wars: How Russia and Georgia's 'little war' started a drone arms race
How Russia and Georgia's 'little war' started a drone arms race
Nicholas ClaytonOctober 23, 2012 06:15 Hermes-450 is similar in size and capabilities to the US military’s Predator, which has been heavily used for missions across the Middle East.
Russian officials later disclosed that the only drones it operated during the war were outdated domestic models developed in the late 1970s-early 1980s and several were lost. Furthermore, even the most advanced Russian-designed drone in the air at the time, “demonstrated many problems, among them a distinct acoustic signature audible from a long distance, which, coupled with its low [flight] ceiling, yielded high vulnerability to ground fire,” said Vladimir Popovkin, head of the Defense Ministry’s procurement wing.
However, if Russia was drone-poor and Georgia drone-rich before the conflict, everything changed when Israel switched sides.
Less than a year after the war, Russia announced it had bought 12 drones of varying sophistication for $53 million from state defense contractor Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), and in October 2010, the two sides agreed to a $400 million joint venture agreement to produce dozens more. Jamestown Foundation Russia expert Pavel Felgenhauer called the deal “the biggest defense technology transfer deal between Russia and a Western nation since 1945.”
Russia is expected to continue to expand its drone arsenal, although its attempts at producing quality drones domestically have been largely fruitless and hardliners in Moscow have strongly resisted the military’s limited foreign purchases. Nonetheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin specifically underlined the development of Russia’s drone capabilities as a priority in a campaign essay ahead of his election in March and has said that Russia intends to spend $13 billion on drones by 2020 as a part of its military modernization.
Meanwhile, the fate of the drone deals between Georgia and Israel played a major factor in the quick deterioration of what Caucasus expert Michael Cecire described as a “love affair” turned “messy divorce.” Pre-2008, Israel enjoyed arguably its strongest ties in the region with the pro-Western government of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Israel sold Georgia 40 drones, anti-aircraft equipment, and trained Georgian infantry through private defense firms.
In the run-up to the war, however, Russia put heavy pressure on Israel to cancel its arms deals with Georgia, and publicly implied it would consider selling advanced equipment to Israel’s enemies if it did not give in. Israel acquiesced two days before the start of the conflict, a move that Georgian Minister for Reintegration Temur Yakobashvili, now ambassador to the US, slammed as “a disgrace.”
"Israel did it at the Russians' behest. It aided the terrorists, the Russians. It's a disgrace. I don't know what it received in return, I only see that Hezbollah continues to get Russian arms, and plenty of [them],” Yakobashvili told Haaretz at the time.
In April 2011, Israeli private defense contractor Elbit Systems, which supplied Georgia’s Hermes-450s and other drones, sued the country for $100 million for allegedly failing to pay for equipment. The two sides later settled the dispute with Georgia paying Elbit $35 million and returning “certain equipment and subsystems.”
Furthermore, in emails from private intelligence firm Stratfor leaked by WikiLeaks earlier this year, a Mexican source alleged that the Georgian government believed that Israel had also provided Moscow with the “data link codes” for its Hermes-450 drones, allowing Russian forces to hack them and force them to crash. This came supposedly in return for intelligence on air defense systems Russia had sold Iran.
The source, which Stratfor described as close to Mexican defense contractor Hydra Technologies, said Georgian officials were “frantically” looking for drones to replace its Israeli fleet, which they believed had been “compromised.”
Several defense industry sources told GlobalPost that it was extremely unlikely Israel would agree to such an intel exchange and doubted the credibility of Stratfor overall. Furthermore, Nick Turse, author of the ebook “Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050,” said that there are a number of things that could bring down drones in a conventional warfare scenario, and drones are not particularly difficult to hack even without data link codes.
“Even Iraqi insurgents were able to hack drone feeds. So, we’re not talking about sophisticated military technology here,” he said. “In a traditional air war, drones would be decimated by conventional piloted aircraft, and modern air defense systems would make minced meat out of Predator and Reaper [type drones].”
Nonetheless, while unveiling what he said were a new line of Georgian-designed-and-produced drones in April, President Saakashvili implied he believed Israel had given Russia the codes.
“When you procure from abroad, a seller may not give you a full technology or may share technology [bought] by you to your adversary,” Saakashvili said, as cited by news website Civil.ge. “No one will share this [pointing to the Georgian-made drone] with others.”
A month earlier he was quoted as saying it was important Georgia was producing its own drones because “someone may cheat you or share data to others or refuse [to sell weapons] at a decisive moment.”
Contrary to Saakashvili’s claims, however, Georgia is still not fully self-sufficient in its drone technology. Shortly after the president presented the drones, military bloggers noted that the supposedly Georgian-designed drones bore a strong resemblance to the Swan, a small drone produced by private Estonian defense contractor ELI.
Estonian defense attaché to Georgia Riho Uhtegi confirmed to GlobalPost that the drones were designed by ELI and licensed to Georgia for production. Since the war, Georgia has complained of being under an unofficial arms embargo, even from its Western partners and has publicly demanded weapons systems to replace equipment it lost during the war — specifically drones, air defense and anti-tank weapons.
The Estonian drone contract was the biggest arms deal Georgia has made, albeit secretly, since the conflict and Uhtegi said it was necessary for Estonia to gain approval from other NATO member countries before making the sale.
Still, drone industry experts also emphasized that the Estonian Swans are a big step down from the medium-sized Israeli Hermes-450. The Swan has limited range and altitude and must be launched by a mobile catapult while only being able to land via parachute.
“It’s sort of like comparing a Yugo to a Honda. They’re both cars, they both carry people, but they’re not in the same class,” one expert said.
Nonetheless, Irakli Aladashvili, editor-in-chief of the Georgian military journal Arsenali, said that drones continue to be essential for Georgia because they offer the cheapest way for a small country to scout enemy territory.
“Drones are the best intelligence devices after satellite surveillance. Obviously, the small countries of the South Caucasus can’t afford to put satellites into space, so [drones] are important,” he said.
The first drone war showed that drones can have a major impact on combat, but Turse said they are not necessarily a game-changer on the battlefield.
“For the last 100 years or so, there’ve been these wonder weapons that come around that are supposed to revolutionize warfare and give one nation a tremendous advantage — from tanks to machine guns. But whenever wonder weapons appear, countermeasures develop. War always seems to find a way,” he said.
However, even if drones do not prove to be crucial in winning conventional wars, Turse says they are likely to help start some new conflicts as international law has been slow to adapt to the new realities and the US has “written the rulebook” on their usage. Those “rules,” he said, include the mentality that violating another country’s territory with a robot isn’t a violation at all.
“I think this is embedded in the thinking on this. The US has been violating the sovereignty and airspace of countries for decades now with airplanes and the fact that there are no pilots in these things, the leadership feels like that gives them license to do it, even though there is no fundamental difference between violating it with a piloted plane or a robot plane,” he said.
The legality of such actions is even less clear amid territorial disputes, and, the de facto government of South Ossetia announced in September that it was working on measures to shoot down the Georgian drones it frequently spots in what it considers to be its sovereign territory, leading to fears that an escalation similar to 2008 could repeat itself.
How Russia and Georgia's 'little war' started a drone arms race
The legacy of the world's first drone war is shaped in part by US precedent.
Nicholas ClaytonOctober 23, 2012 06:15 The legacy of the world's first drone war is shaped in part by US precedent.
Russian officials later disclosed that the only drones it operated during the war were outdated domestic models developed in the late 1970s-early 1980s and several were lost. Furthermore, even the most advanced Russian-designed drone in the air at the time, “demonstrated many problems, among them a distinct acoustic signature audible from a long distance, which, coupled with its low [flight] ceiling, yielded high vulnerability to ground fire,” said Vladimir Popovkin, head of the Defense Ministry’s procurement wing.
However, if Russia was drone-poor and Georgia drone-rich before the conflict, everything changed when Israel switched sides.
Less than a year after the war, Russia announced it had bought 12 drones of varying sophistication for $53 million from state defense contractor Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), and in October 2010, the two sides agreed to a $400 million joint venture agreement to produce dozens more. Jamestown Foundation Russia expert Pavel Felgenhauer called the deal “the biggest defense technology transfer deal between Russia and a Western nation since 1945.”
Russia is expected to continue to expand its drone arsenal, although its attempts at producing quality drones domestically have been largely fruitless and hardliners in Moscow have strongly resisted the military’s limited foreign purchases. Nonetheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin specifically underlined the development of Russia’s drone capabilities as a priority in a campaign essay ahead of his election in March and has said that Russia intends to spend $13 billion on drones by 2020 as a part of its military modernization.
Meanwhile, the fate of the drone deals between Georgia and Israel played a major factor in the quick deterioration of what Caucasus expert Michael Cecire described as a “love affair” turned “messy divorce.” Pre-2008, Israel enjoyed arguably its strongest ties in the region with the pro-Western government of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Israel sold Georgia 40 drones, anti-aircraft equipment, and trained Georgian infantry through private defense firms.
In the run-up to the war, however, Russia put heavy pressure on Israel to cancel its arms deals with Georgia, and publicly implied it would consider selling advanced equipment to Israel’s enemies if it did not give in. Israel acquiesced two days before the start of the conflict, a move that Georgian Minister for Reintegration Temur Yakobashvili, now ambassador to the US, slammed as “a disgrace.”
"Israel did it at the Russians' behest. It aided the terrorists, the Russians. It's a disgrace. I don't know what it received in return, I only see that Hezbollah continues to get Russian arms, and plenty of [them],” Yakobashvili told Haaretz at the time.
In April 2011, Israeli private defense contractor Elbit Systems, which supplied Georgia’s Hermes-450s and other drones, sued the country for $100 million for allegedly failing to pay for equipment. The two sides later settled the dispute with Georgia paying Elbit $35 million and returning “certain equipment and subsystems.”
Furthermore, in emails from private intelligence firm Stratfor leaked by WikiLeaks earlier this year, a Mexican source alleged that the Georgian government believed that Israel had also provided Moscow with the “data link codes” for its Hermes-450 drones, allowing Russian forces to hack them and force them to crash. This came supposedly in return for intelligence on air defense systems Russia had sold Iran.
The source, which Stratfor described as close to Mexican defense contractor Hydra Technologies, said Georgian officials were “frantically” looking for drones to replace its Israeli fleet, which they believed had been “compromised.”
Several defense industry sources told GlobalPost that it was extremely unlikely Israel would agree to such an intel exchange and doubted the credibility of Stratfor overall. Furthermore, Nick Turse, author of the ebook “Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050,” said that there are a number of things that could bring down drones in a conventional warfare scenario, and drones are not particularly difficult to hack even without data link codes.
“Even Iraqi insurgents were able to hack drone feeds. So, we’re not talking about sophisticated military technology here,” he said. “In a traditional air war, drones would be decimated by conventional piloted aircraft, and modern air defense systems would make minced meat out of Predator and Reaper [type drones].”
Nonetheless, while unveiling what he said were a new line of Georgian-designed-and-produced drones in April, President Saakashvili implied he believed Israel had given Russia the codes.
“When you procure from abroad, a seller may not give you a full technology or may share technology [bought] by you to your adversary,” Saakashvili said, as cited by news website Civil.ge. “No one will share this [pointing to the Georgian-made drone] with others.”
A month earlier he was quoted as saying it was important Georgia was producing its own drones because “someone may cheat you or share data to others or refuse [to sell weapons] at a decisive moment.”
Contrary to Saakashvili’s claims, however, Georgia is still not fully self-sufficient in its drone technology. Shortly after the president presented the drones, military bloggers noted that the supposedly Georgian-designed drones bore a strong resemblance to the Swan, a small drone produced by private Estonian defense contractor ELI.
Estonian defense attaché to Georgia Riho Uhtegi confirmed to GlobalPost that the drones were designed by ELI and licensed to Georgia for production. Since the war, Georgia has complained of being under an unofficial arms embargo, even from its Western partners and has publicly demanded weapons systems to replace equipment it lost during the war — specifically drones, air defense and anti-tank weapons.
The Estonian drone contract was the biggest arms deal Georgia has made, albeit secretly, since the conflict and Uhtegi said it was necessary for Estonia to gain approval from other NATO member countries before making the sale.
Still, drone industry experts also emphasized that the Estonian Swans are a big step down from the medium-sized Israeli Hermes-450. The Swan has limited range and altitude and must be launched by a mobile catapult while only being able to land via parachute.
“It’s sort of like comparing a Yugo to a Honda. They’re both cars, they both carry people, but they’re not in the same class,” one expert said.
Nonetheless, Irakli Aladashvili, editor-in-chief of the Georgian military journal Arsenali, said that drones continue to be essential for Georgia because they offer the cheapest way for a small country to scout enemy territory.
“Drones are the best intelligence devices after satellite surveillance. Obviously, the small countries of the South Caucasus can’t afford to put satellites into space, so [drones] are important,” he said.
The first drone war showed that drones can have a major impact on combat, but Turse said they are not necessarily a game-changer on the battlefield.
“For the last 100 years or so, there’ve been these wonder weapons that come around that are supposed to revolutionize warfare and give one nation a tremendous advantage — from tanks to machine guns. But whenever wonder weapons appear, countermeasures develop. War always seems to find a way,” he said.
However, even if drones do not prove to be crucial in winning conventional wars, Turse says they are likely to help start some new conflicts as international law has been slow to adapt to the new realities and the US has “written the rulebook” on their usage. Those “rules,” he said, include the mentality that violating another country’s territory with a robot isn’t a violation at all.
“I think this is embedded in the thinking on this. The US has been violating the sovereignty and airspace of countries for decades now with airplanes and the fact that there are no pilots in these things, the leadership feels like that gives them license to do it, even though there is no fundamental difference between violating it with a piloted plane or a robot plane,” he said.
The legality of such actions is even less clear amid territorial disputes, and, the de facto government of South Ossetia announced in September that it was working on measures to shoot down the Georgian drones it frequently spots in what it considers to be its sovereign territory, leading to fears that an escalation similar to 2008 could repeat itself.
Rebalancing China: China's consumer-led growth
Free exchange
Rebalancing China
Economics
China's consumer-led growth
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/10/rebalancing-china?fsrc=nlw|newe|10-22-2012|3861440|106923250|AP
Oct 20th 2012, 12:11 by S.C. | The Economist
CHINA, you may have heard, announced its latest growth figures on Thursday. The speed of growth attracted most of the attention, but the source of growth is perhaps more striking. At a press conference (in Chinese; see an FT report here), the National Bureau of Statistics pointed out that in the first three quarters of this year consumption* contributed over half (55%) of China's growth, exceeding the contribution from investment. If that pattern holds, China's growth this year will not be investment-led (let alone export-led), but consumption-led.**
That hasn't happened for over a decade. Or so I thought. Until recently, the official statistics showed that investment made the biggest contribution to China's growth in every year since 2001. But earlier this week the new edition of the China Statistical Yearbook arrived on my desk with a thud. Its revised figures show that consumption contributed 55.5% of China's growth in 2011; investment contributed only 48.8%. (Net exports subtracted 4.3%.) In other words, China's growth was consumption-led last year as well.
So far, this revision seems to have passed largely unnoticed by China-watchers. (Andy Rothman of CLSA is one notable exception. See also the FT's Lex column.) People are accustomed to the idea that investment is the principal engine of China's extraordinary expansion. That notion is one of the most familiar "stylised facts" about its economy. But this revision of the figures suggests a restyling of the facts is now due.
* Consumption includes government consumption as well as household consumption.
** These calculations refer not to consumption's share of GDP (C/GDP), but to its share of GDP growth (ΔC / ΔGDP). Consumption is still unusually low (and investment unusually high) as a share of China's GDP. But as long as consumption's contribution to growth exceeds its share of GDP, that share will rise.
2012-2013 COMSATS Scholarships for Graduate Students in Pakistan
2012-2013 COMSATS Scholarships for Graduate Students in Pakistan
COMSATS offers Graduate Scholarships for MS and PhD Students from OIC Member Countries and COMSATS Member Countries in Pakistan 2012-2013Study Subject(s): The scholarship is provided to learn Physics, Mathematics, Biosciences ,Management Sciences, Meteorology, Computer Science,Electrical Engineering.Course Level: This scholarship is for pursuing MS and PhD level.
Scholarship Provider: COMSATS, Institute of Information Technology.
Scholarship can be taken at: Students will get their studies in Pakistan.
Eligibility:-For MS admission: A 16 years degree in the relevant field from an accredited educational institution with first division (annual system) or CGPA 2.5/4.0 (semester system) with no third division or D grade throughout the academic career. or NTS GAT (General) with 50 % marks.
-PhD Admission: An MS/M-Phil with Thesis/Research Project of 06 credit hours or its equivalent degree with Thesis/Research Project of 06 credit hours in the relevant field from an accredited educational institution with minimum CGPA of 3.0/4.0 or 70% marks with no third division or D grade through out the academic career.
-GRE Requirement: GRE (subject) as per HEC policy or NTS GAT (subject) with 60% marks.
-For admission in PhD Electrical Engineering Program, any one of the existing GAT (subject) tests in Electrical, Computer, Telecom or Electronics will be acceptable with a minimum score of 60%.
Scholarship Open for International Students: Students of Bangladesh, Jordan, Sri Lanka, China, Kazakhstan, Sudan, Colombia, Korea (DPR), Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ghana, Pakistan, Tunisia, Iran, Philippines, Uganda, Jamaica, Senegal and Zimbabwe can apply for this scholarship.
Scholarship Description: The Graduate Prospectus of the COMSATS Institute of Information Technology is in your hands. We hope it will bring out the unique and distinctive features that CIIT offers to its graduate students as an institution of higher learning and research. Our aim is to provide you state of the art knowledge, develop your skills and create in you an enthusiasm that will propel you to meet the challenges that lie ahead, and enable you to effectively contribute towards progress and future development of our country in particular and the world in general.
Number of Awards: Not Known
Tenure of award:
-This scholarship award shall be initially valid for one year and may be renewed up to a maximum total duration of [12 or] 24 months, (duration of MS Scholarship for UK is 12 months only), unless otherwise expressly allowed by CIIT, towards MS degree subject to satisfactory academic performance of the Scholar.
-For PhD: This scholarship award shall be initially valid for one year and may be renewed up to a maximum total duration of [48 or 36] months, unless otherwise expressly allowed by CIIT, towards [MS leading to] Ph.D. degree subject to satisfactory academic performance of the Scholar.
Value: The payment of allowances admissible under the scholarship program shall be made subject to the complete adherence to all rules and regulations governing the scholarship program as well as satisfactory performance in the authorized field of study.
Other Benefits: Not Known
Selection Criteria: Not Known
Notification: Not Known
How to Apply: The mode of applying is by post.
Scholarship Application Deadline: Contact Employer
Further Scholarship Information and Application
2013 Monbukagakusho Scholarships for International Students at Ritsumeikan University in Japan
2013 Monbukagakusho Scholarships for International Students at Ritsumeikan University in Japan
October 19, 2012Study Subject(s): The scholarship is provided to learn any of the course offered by the university.
Course Level: This scholarship is for pursuing Master’s and PhD level.
Scholarship Provider: Ritsumeikan University
Scholarship can be taken at: Students will get their studies in Japan.
Eligibility:
-Persons who have completed a 16-year education program outside of
Japan or who are expected to complete such a program before being
enrolled in the graduate school.-Persons who have graduated from a Japanese university.
-Persons who have completed a 15-year education program in a country outside Japan where the bachelor’s degree program is a three-year degree, or who are expected to complete such a program before being enrolled; who have demonstrated exceptional academic achievement as demonstrated by course grades; and who have received individual permission to apply by Ritsumeikan’s graduate schools prior to the application period (*1).
-Persons who have been recognized as having an academic ability equal to or higher than university graduates by Ritsumeikan University’s graduate schools as a result of an individual preliminary screening and who have reached 22 years of age or who will reach 22 years of age before being enrolled in the graduate school.
Scholarship Open for International Students: The students of any nationality can apply.
Scholarship Description: The following outlines Ritsumeikan University’s recruiting and application procedures for 2013 University-Recommended Monbukagakusho International Student Scholarships. International Research Students are students who do not intend to acquire academic credits or a degree, but rather intend to conduct research at Ritsumeikan University’s professors and receive research guidance from its professors.
Number of awards offered: Not Known
Tenure of award: Not Known
Value: Not Known
Other Benefits: Not Known
Selection criteria: Not Known
Notification: Mid-July, 2013
How to Apply:The mode of applying is by Electronically.
Scholarship Application Deadline: Do submit your applications till 5 November 2012.
Further Scholarship Information and Application
Fellowship on social media in public affairs reporting open [Worldwide] | IJNet
Fellowship on social media in public affairs reporting open [Worldwide] | IJNet
Journalists worldwide interested in using social media to report on public affairs can participate in this program.
The Kiplinger Program in Public Affairs Journalism at Ohio State University invites journalists to apply for the 2013 Kiplinger Fellowship.
Participants will explore creative reporting uses of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media sites. Training sessions will showcase strategies for backgrounding individuals and companies, as well as building an online following. Fellows will learn the latest tactics for effective public affairs reporting, including the retrieval of public records, documents and data.
Print, broadcast and online journalists with five or more years of experience and strong English skills are eligible to apply.
The fellowship includes accommodation and a travel stipend, and will take place April 7 - 12, 2013 in in Columbus, Ohio.
The deadline is November 30.
For more information, click here.
Fellowship on social media in public affairs reporting open [Worldwide]
11/30/12
The Kiplinger Program in Public Affairs Journalism at Ohio State University invites journalists to apply for the 2013 Kiplinger Fellowship.
Participants will explore creative reporting uses of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media sites. Training sessions will showcase strategies for backgrounding individuals and companies, as well as building an online following. Fellows will learn the latest tactics for effective public affairs reporting, including the retrieval of public records, documents and data.
Print, broadcast and online journalists with five or more years of experience and strong English skills are eligible to apply.
The fellowship includes accommodation and a travel stipend, and will take place April 7 - 12, 2013 in in Columbus, Ohio.
The deadline is November 30.
For more information, click here.
Media training workshop open to Arab journalists | IJNet
Media training workshop open to Arab journalists | IJNet
Journalists from one of the 22 Arab countries with at least 10 years of experience can apply for a spot in this workshop.
The Doha Centre for Media Freedom (DCMF invites Arab journalists working for print, radio, television or online media outlets to participate in a five-day workshop, “Train the Trainers” December 16 - 20 in Doha.
Experienced journalists wishing to become media trainers must acquire knowledge in designing relevant curricula and adopt up-to-date teaching techniques within the context of a fast-changing media industry. Regardless of their competency and experience, many journalists lack skills in imparting knowledge and know-how to others through formal training.
The goal of the workshop is to empower future media trainers to acquire new knowledge and skills in the design, delivery and evaluation of core competency media development programs.
Applicants must possess an excellent command of the Arabic language. Proficiency in English is a plus.
DCMF will cover all travel and accommodation expenses. Each participant will receive a per diem for the period of the training (including two travel days).
The application deadline is November 4.
For more information, click here.
Media training workshop open to Arab journalists
Deadline:
11/4/12
The Doha Centre for Media Freedom (DCMF invites Arab journalists working for print, radio, television or online media outlets to participate in a five-day workshop, “Train the Trainers” December 16 - 20 in Doha.
Experienced journalists wishing to become media trainers must acquire knowledge in designing relevant curricula and adopt up-to-date teaching techniques within the context of a fast-changing media industry. Regardless of their competency and experience, many journalists lack skills in imparting knowledge and know-how to others through formal training.
The goal of the workshop is to empower future media trainers to acquire new knowledge and skills in the design, delivery and evaluation of core competency media development programs.
Applicants must possess an excellent command of the Arabic language. Proficiency in English is a plus.
DCMF will cover all travel and accommodation expenses. Each participant will receive a per diem for the period of the training (including two travel days).
The application deadline is November 4.
For more information, click here.
Eight ways journalists can use SoundCloud | IJNet
Eight ways journalists can use SoundCloud | IJNet
by Jessica Weiss 
Audio is an engaging way to bring readers and listeners deeper into a story, and it’s never been easier to tell stories with sound on the Web.
The best part: You don't need prior radio experience or access to expensive tools. SoundCloud, a Web-based audio program that allows users to create, share and collect audio clips, lets journalists and news organizations post, share and comment on audio with its free, user-friendly tools.
Launched in 2007 as a musician's resource, SoundCloud now has 20 million registered users, and is increasingly used for the spoken word. ReadWriteWeb recently described it as “a hub for radio-style journalism and commentary with an interactive twist.”
Here are some of the ways SoundCloud is being used around the world:
1. To post news programming
Traditional news outlets such as France 24 post their regular radio news programming on SoundCloud. This makes the news ripe for social sharing and available to a new audience. Listeners can also submit comments directly onto the audio track. The site lets users upload a total of 120 minutes of audio at any one time, but yearly subscriptions with more space are available for a fee.
2. To report from the field and post audio from interviews
A word or time limit in traditional media often forces reporters to leave out valuable quotes and material. SoundCloud is a place to post it all. As ReadWriteWeb notes, social media blogger and Columbia University's chief digital officer Sree Sreenivasan uses SoundCloud to post audio from the interviews he conducts with business and tech experts.
This feature can be especially useful during major events, such as elections, because it lets the storyteller include a number of voices and opinions. During the French presidential elections earlier this year, Al Jazeera reporters asked people which candidate they would vote for and why. In the U.S., California’s KQED public radio created “Voices of Young Voters” to explore youth views of the upcoming presidential election.
3. Record, edit and upload a recording from an iPhone
Reporters in the field can use the SoundCloud record feature on the iPhone for simple audio. The site also recently added trim and edit features to its mobile apps.
To edit more complicated audio packages using multitrack recording, you can use VC Audio Pro, which allows you to record, edit and post directly to SoundCloud. Other apps with edit features include FiRe 2 – Field Recorder and iRig Recorder.
Using these more complex tools, The Times (UK) uses SoundCloud to produce short audio dispatches and interviews, such as these clips from the Olympic Torch relay.
4. Embed audio onto your news site or blog
SoundCloud allows audio clips to be embedded onto other sites as well. CNN embeds SoundCloud clips on its CNN Radio Soundwaves blog. It includes some that were produced by other news organizations. PRI’s The World, too, embeds audio on its story pages, such as this one on the sound of Earth's "security blanket".
5. Invite listeners to talk
In 2011, National Public Radio encouraged its listeners to submit audio recordings about summer music memories. They embedded the SoundCloud dropbox widget on the NPR site, which allowed users to upload their own audio.
6. Produce a daily or weekly audio roundup
International tech news site The Next Web produces a daily roundup of the previous day’s top tech stories and delivers them to followers via a short morning update called the TNW Daily Dose.
7. Search for sources
Journalism.co.uk recommends that journalists use SoundCloud to look for quotes or audio from a news event to supplement reporting. To do so, you can use the site’s advanced search function. There is also an option to search for content licensed under Creative Commons. For instance, here are the search results for "Arab Spring".
8. Post other audio that might interest your audience
PBS NewsHour recently posted the entire audio clip of Bill Clinton addressing the Democratic National Convention. Do you have audio that users might enjoy or find interesting?
How are you using SoundCloud? Please share and post your links in the comments.
Image provided by SoundCloud
Eight ways journalists can use SoundCloud
The best part: You don't need prior radio experience or access to expensive tools. SoundCloud, a Web-based audio program that allows users to create, share and collect audio clips, lets journalists and news organizations post, share and comment on audio with its free, user-friendly tools.
Launched in 2007 as a musician's resource, SoundCloud now has 20 million registered users, and is increasingly used for the spoken word. ReadWriteWeb recently described it as “a hub for radio-style journalism and commentary with an interactive twist.”
Here are some of the ways SoundCloud is being used around the world:
1. To post news programming
Traditional news outlets such as France 24 post their regular radio news programming on SoundCloud. This makes the news ripe for social sharing and available to a new audience. Listeners can also submit comments directly onto the audio track. The site lets users upload a total of 120 minutes of audio at any one time, but yearly subscriptions with more space are available for a fee.
2. To report from the field and post audio from interviews
A word or time limit in traditional media often forces reporters to leave out valuable quotes and material. SoundCloud is a place to post it all. As ReadWriteWeb notes, social media blogger and Columbia University's chief digital officer Sree Sreenivasan uses SoundCloud to post audio from the interviews he conducts with business and tech experts.
This feature can be especially useful during major events, such as elections, because it lets the storyteller include a number of voices and opinions. During the French presidential elections earlier this year, Al Jazeera reporters asked people which candidate they would vote for and why. In the U.S., California’s KQED public radio created “Voices of Young Voters” to explore youth views of the upcoming presidential election.
3. Record, edit and upload a recording from an iPhone
Reporters in the field can use the SoundCloud record feature on the iPhone for simple audio. The site also recently added trim and edit features to its mobile apps.
To edit more complicated audio packages using multitrack recording, you can use VC Audio Pro, which allows you to record, edit and post directly to SoundCloud. Other apps with edit features include FiRe 2 – Field Recorder and iRig Recorder.
Using these more complex tools, The Times (UK) uses SoundCloud to produce short audio dispatches and interviews, such as these clips from the Olympic Torch relay.
4. Embed audio onto your news site or blog
SoundCloud allows audio clips to be embedded onto other sites as well. CNN embeds SoundCloud clips on its CNN Radio Soundwaves blog. It includes some that were produced by other news organizations. PRI’s The World, too, embeds audio on its story pages, such as this one on the sound of Earth's "security blanket".
5. Invite listeners to talk
In 2011, National Public Radio encouraged its listeners to submit audio recordings about summer music memories. They embedded the SoundCloud dropbox widget on the NPR site, which allowed users to upload their own audio.
6. Produce a daily or weekly audio roundup
International tech news site The Next Web produces a daily roundup of the previous day’s top tech stories and delivers them to followers via a short morning update called the TNW Daily Dose.
7. Search for sources
Journalism.co.uk recommends that journalists use SoundCloud to look for quotes or audio from a news event to supplement reporting. To do so, you can use the site’s advanced search function. There is also an option to search for content licensed under Creative Commons. For instance, here are the search results for "Arab Spring".
8. Post other audio that might interest your audience
PBS NewsHour recently posted the entire audio clip of Bill Clinton addressing the Democratic National Convention. Do you have audio that users might enjoy or find interesting?
How are you using SoundCloud? Please share and post your links in the comments.
Image provided by SoundCloud
Saturday 20 October 2012
Scotland independence movement sends dangerous message
Scotland independence movement sends dangerous message
The question of Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom is currently the single most pressing issue in British politics and a point of growing concern across Europe. On Monday, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and British Prime Minister David Cameron signed what has been dubbed the “Edinburgh deal” – allowing Scotland to hold a referendum vote on independence in 2014.
As Europe faces a dire fiscal crisis, and some within Britain call for an exit from the European Union, the push for Scottish independence sends a dangerous “go it alone” message. Europe’s – and Britain’s – problems require unity. Now is a time when bonds must be strengthened and perfected, not broken.
Secessionist movements were once seen as the last option for embattled ethnic minorities or struggling democrats lodged inside brutal autocracies. But the Scottish deal represents the first wave in a new tide of independence claims in some of Europe's most stable democracies, from Spain to Belgium. The success of the Scottish independence movement in persuading London to accede to a referendum serves as a warning to Europe's democracies on how calculating politicians can undermine the very institutions most in need of preserving.
And to would-be secessionists in other countries, it is a lesson about the uses of quiet maximalism – the way in which astute regional parties can dismantle a workable country while no one seems to be looking.
Scotland joined its royal house with that of England in 1603; the countries' two parliaments were merged in 1707. Afterward, Scots retained many of their ancient institutions, such as a separate legal system, and Scots spread throughout the British Empire – from America to India – as soldiers, administrators, and merchants. In 1998, the Scottish Parliament was restored in Edinburgh, giving Scots much greater control over local governance and eventually even significant tax-raising powers.
Rather than staking their claim on ancient heritage or minority rights, modern Scottish nationalists offer a novel argument for independence: that the people of Scotland embrace political and social values that set them apart from the inhabitants of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. A preference for social democratic policies such as free higher education and generous pensions, as well as a pan-European orientation on foreign and defense policy distinguishes Scots from other Britons, says the SNP. Now, the "Edinburgh deal" envisions a single, up-or-down vote on secession and will allow voters as young as 16 years old to cast a ballot.
Mr. Cameron has promised not to block independence if the referendum succeeds, but he will also probably move to grant even more powers to Edinburgh as a way of buying off Scottish voters – a policy known as maximum devolution, or “devo-max." However, over the next two years, the SNP, led by the gifted strategist Mr. Salmond, will counter those efforts with an energetic campaign to convince Scots that building a new and independent country is in their best interest.
As they make their case for independence, SNP leaders have found themselves in the difficult position of talking up the importance of a referendum while also downplaying the significance of the result they hope to attain. Salmond has repeatedly affirmed the right of the people of Scotland to determine their own fate. But he has insisted that the social union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom – ties of history, language, and culture – would endure long after the political union vanishes. Moreover, with a sovereign Scotland still firmly planted in the European Union and presumably NATO, he argues, the costs of splitting off from the United Kingdom would be small.
Building what the SNP calls “a culture of independence” has defined its behavior as a governing party, and the next two years will be spent in permanent campaign mode. Such determined advocacy will cloud the ability of Scots to make a clear-eyed assessment of the costs and benefits of leaving the union.The SNP paints a vision of an independent Scotland that would be fairer, greener, and more progressive, yet still integrated with its neighbors, with Scots sharing the crown, a currency, and a common defense with the rump union of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But this outcome is still more fantasy than assured reality.
Much depends on the complex negotiations that would follow a successful referendum. The disposition of North Sea oil reserves, for example, would be one of the bargaining points, as would the apportionment of the British national debt. The status of British nuclear weapons currently stationed in Scotland would also come into question, given the SNP's desire for a nuclear-free country.
Scotland's independence bid, like all nationalist movements, is the product of calculated moves by political elites within existing institutions. Independence movements come about not because every member of an ethnic minority wakes up one day and decides to wave a flag or, worse, shoulder a rifle.
Instead, they usually begin with the simple assertion that local laws should take precedence over those devised by distant legislators. They progress toward more radical demands for control over local natural resources or an end to military service beyond one’s own frontiers. Their culmination is marked not by the roar of celebration, but by the whimpering realization in the capital that the benefits of staying together are just no longer worth the costs.
A nationalist movement seeks its own country. A nationalist party seeks a country that will keep electing it. The SNP has structured the debate over Scottish independence in ways that make it difficult for voters to distinguish these two demands. The SNP’s nationalism is certainly more palatable than the blood-and-soil variety. But its example is politically self-serving and ultimately harmful to Scotland's – and even Europe’s – long-term well-being.
To restive regionalists, the SNP provides a tutorial in how a secessionist party can win ground by understanding existing institutions better than the people who should have been most committed to preserving them. The SNP has astutely transformed the policy of devolution – a set of concessions designed to empower local government while strengthening the sense of common cause between Scots and other Britons – into a prelude to possible independence.
To the rest of Europe and the world, Scotland once embodied the belief that local distinctiveness, united governance, and democratic practice were mutually reinforcing. It would be a shame if the Scottish model became something else: a handbook for transforming muscular regionalism into territorial separatism.
Charles King is professor of international affairs and government at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center. His essay “The Scottish Play,” from which this article is adapted, appears in the Sept-Oct issue of Foreign Affairs.
Scotland independence movement sends dangerous message
Scotland's Alex Salmond and British Prime Minister David Cameron signed the 'Edinburgh deal' – allowing Scotland to hold a referendum vote on independence in 2014. As Europe's bonds are tested, the push for Scottish independence sends a dangerous 'go it alone' message.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, right, and Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond sign an agreement in Edinburgh, Oct. 15 that allows Scotland to hold a 2014 referendum vote on Scottish independence. Op-ed contributor Charles King writes: 'Now is a time when bonds must be strengthened and perfected, not broken....The success of the Scottish independence movement in persuading London to accede to a referendum serves as a warning to Europe's democracies on how calculating politicians can undermine the very institutions most in need of preserving.'
Gordon Terris/AP
Washington and London
Secessionist movements were once seen as the last option for embattled ethnic minorities or struggling democrats lodged inside brutal autocracies. But the Scottish deal represents the first wave in a new tide of independence claims in some of Europe's most stable democracies, from Spain to Belgium. The success of the Scottish independence movement in persuading London to accede to a referendum serves as a warning to Europe's democracies on how calculating politicians can undermine the very institutions most in need of preserving.
And to would-be secessionists in other countries, it is a lesson about the uses of quiet maximalism – the way in which astute regional parties can dismantle a workable country while no one seems to be looking.
Scotland joined its royal house with that of England in 1603; the countries' two parliaments were merged in 1707. Afterward, Scots retained many of their ancient institutions, such as a separate legal system, and Scots spread throughout the British Empire – from America to India – as soldiers, administrators, and merchants. In 1998, the Scottish Parliament was restored in Edinburgh, giving Scots much greater control over local governance and eventually even significant tax-raising powers.
Rather than staking their claim on ancient heritage or minority rights, modern Scottish nationalists offer a novel argument for independence: that the people of Scotland embrace political and social values that set them apart from the inhabitants of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. A preference for social democratic policies such as free higher education and generous pensions, as well as a pan-European orientation on foreign and defense policy distinguishes Scots from other Britons, says the SNP. Now, the "Edinburgh deal" envisions a single, up-or-down vote on secession and will allow voters as young as 16 years old to cast a ballot.
Mr. Cameron has promised not to block independence if the referendum succeeds, but he will also probably move to grant even more powers to Edinburgh as a way of buying off Scottish voters – a policy known as maximum devolution, or “devo-max." However, over the next two years, the SNP, led by the gifted strategist Mr. Salmond, will counter those efforts with an energetic campaign to convince Scots that building a new and independent country is in their best interest.
As they make their case for independence, SNP leaders have found themselves in the difficult position of talking up the importance of a referendum while also downplaying the significance of the result they hope to attain. Salmond has repeatedly affirmed the right of the people of Scotland to determine their own fate. But he has insisted that the social union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom – ties of history, language, and culture – would endure long after the political union vanishes. Moreover, with a sovereign Scotland still firmly planted in the European Union and presumably NATO, he argues, the costs of splitting off from the United Kingdom would be small.
Building what the SNP calls “a culture of independence” has defined its behavior as a governing party, and the next two years will be spent in permanent campaign mode. Such determined advocacy will cloud the ability of Scots to make a clear-eyed assessment of the costs and benefits of leaving the union.The SNP paints a vision of an independent Scotland that would be fairer, greener, and more progressive, yet still integrated with its neighbors, with Scots sharing the crown, a currency, and a common defense with the rump union of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But this outcome is still more fantasy than assured reality.
Much depends on the complex negotiations that would follow a successful referendum. The disposition of North Sea oil reserves, for example, would be one of the bargaining points, as would the apportionment of the British national debt. The status of British nuclear weapons currently stationed in Scotland would also come into question, given the SNP's desire for a nuclear-free country.
Scotland's independence bid, like all nationalist movements, is the product of calculated moves by political elites within existing institutions. Independence movements come about not because every member of an ethnic minority wakes up one day and decides to wave a flag or, worse, shoulder a rifle.
Instead, they usually begin with the simple assertion that local laws should take precedence over those devised by distant legislators. They progress toward more radical demands for control over local natural resources or an end to military service beyond one’s own frontiers. Their culmination is marked not by the roar of celebration, but by the whimpering realization in the capital that the benefits of staying together are just no longer worth the costs.
A nationalist movement seeks its own country. A nationalist party seeks a country that will keep electing it. The SNP has structured the debate over Scottish independence in ways that make it difficult for voters to distinguish these two demands. The SNP’s nationalism is certainly more palatable than the blood-and-soil variety. But its example is politically self-serving and ultimately harmful to Scotland's – and even Europe’s – long-term well-being.
To restive regionalists, the SNP provides a tutorial in how a secessionist party can win ground by understanding existing institutions better than the people who should have been most committed to preserving them. The SNP has astutely transformed the policy of devolution – a set of concessions designed to empower local government while strengthening the sense of common cause between Scots and other Britons – into a prelude to possible independence.
To the rest of Europe and the world, Scotland once embodied the belief that local distinctiveness, united governance, and democratic practice were mutually reinforcing. It would be a shame if the Scottish model became something else: a handbook for transforming muscular regionalism into territorial separatism.
Charles King is professor of international affairs and government at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center. His essay “The Scottish Play,” from which this article is adapted, appears in the Sept-Oct issue of Foreign Affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)