Behind the political warfare in the US: Rising fears of financial collapse, social unrest

Nick Beams

There are growing concerns in US and global financial circles that the rise in the US stock market that accelerated with the election of Donald Trump is heading for a major downturn. These concerns shed a revealing light on some of the underlying forces driving the virtual civil war in the US political establishment.

The growing view among Wall Street speculators and corporate executives is that the “Trump trade”, which sent the Dow Jones and other market indexes to record highs, has run its course, with the president increasingly becoming an economic liability. The tipping point in business sentiment came in the wake of the conflict over the Charlottesville Nazi rampage. Trump’s remarks defending neo-Nazis were seen as undermining the interests of American imperialism internationally and threatening to unleash social and political instability at home.

However, concerns over the instability caused by Trump reflect deeper fears. The American ruling class confronts problems that extend far beyond the current occupant of the White House.

In a comment published yesterday, Ray Dalio, the head of Bridgewater, the world’s largest hedge fund, said that politics was now set to “probably play a greater role than we have experienced before in a manner that is broadly similar to 1937.” Whether the US was able to overcome political conflicts would have a greater effect on the economy than “classic monetary and fiscal policies.”

The reference to 1937 is significant. The first half of that year saw a major downturn in the US economy—the decline took place at an even faster rate than in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression. The year also saw the eruption of the class struggle in the auto and steel industries.

Dalio wrote that the economic and social divisions in the US are similar to the revolutionary upheavals of this previous period. “During such times conflicts (both internal and external) increase, populism emerges, democracies are threatened and wars can occur.” He added that he could not say how bad it would get, but he was not encouraged. “Conflicts have now intensified to the point that fighting to the death is probably more likely than reconciliation.”

Almost 170 years ago, in his work The Class Struggles in France, Marx noted that the eruption of the class struggle has a major impact on the financial system because it calls into question confidence in the very viability of the economic system over which the ruling class presides.

In his comment, Dalio wrote that, when one looked at average figures, “one might conclude that the United States economy is doing just fine, yet when one looks at the numbers that comprise those averages, it’s clear that some are doing extraordinarily well and others are doing terribly, with gaps in wealth and income being the greatest since the 1930s.”

Dalio and others couch references to the growing social and political divide in terms of “populism,” but their real fear is the emergence of overt class conflict. “The majority of Americans,” he wrote, “appear to be strongly and intransigently in disagreement about our leadership and the direction of our country” and were “more inclined to fight for what they believe in than to try to figure out how to get beyond their disagreements to work productively based on shared principles.”

In other words, the nostrums of the “American dream” and America as the “land of economic opportunity,” which functioned historically as a kind of political glue, have disintegrated. What terrifies the ruling class is that the working class will intervene, under conditions in which all signs point to a collapse of the financial bubble created by the world’s central banks since the financial crisis of 2008.

The complete disintegration of financial markets nine years ago was only prevented by the injection of trillions of dollars into the global financial system—the US Fed alone poured in more than $4 trillion. But the chief effect of these measures has not been to stimulate a significant recovery in the “real” economy—investment rates in the US and other major economies remain at historically low levels—but to facilitate a financial market boom.

The latest expression of the speculative mania is the rise of the crypto currency Bitcoin. After taking more than 3,000 days to reach a level of $2,000, the currency, which is used in Internet trading, went from $2,000 to more than $4,000 in just 85 days. The overall market valuation of Bitcoins has expanded to $140 billion, as major investors, including Goldman Sachs, move in.

This is only one expression of bubbles that have developed in virtually every financial asset.

With the provision of ultra-cheap money by the Fed and other central banks, one of the chief mechanisms by which companies have been able to maintain share values is by using borrowed funds to organise share buybacks. But this process is reaching its limit, as already over-leveraged companies cannot borrow more to sustain their share values.

As the Financial Times noted in a comment yesterday, based on longer term historical valuations, US stocks “appear more expensive than at any time bar the months before the great crash of 1929, and the bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2000.”

Under what were once considered to be “normal” circumstances, money would move into bond markets to take advantage of higher rates of return. However, bond markets are also in a bubble, trading at historical highs, with interest rates (which move in an inverse relationship to the price) at record lows.

In 2008, the American ruling class responded to the financial collapse through political and economic mechanisms. On the one hand, they installed Obama to the US presidency—proclaiming the “audacity of hope” and “change you can believe in”—with the support of the trade union bureaucracy and the various organisations of the privileged middle class, who hailed his election as a “transformative” moment.

On the other, they undertook the greatest injection of money into the financial system seen in economic history to finance an orgy of speculation and organize a massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich. Far from resolving the contradictions, these measures have reproduced them at a higher level.

While sections of the ruling class are terrified of the growth of class conflict, they can propose no measures to address the conditions that are leading inexorably toward social explosions. While Trump has pursued a policy of developing an extra-parliamentary movement of the extreme right, his critics within the ruling class are working to reorganize his administration to place it even more firmly under the direction of the military and the financial elite.

A new period of economic and political convulsion is emerging, for which the working class must prepare through the building of a revolutionary leadership, based on an internationalist and socialist program, to resolve the historic crisis of the capitalist profit system in its interests.

Stabilising Deterrence: Doctrines Score Over Numbers

Manpreet Sethi

In answer to the criticism from non-nuclear weapon states on lack of movement towards nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapon states, the latter often highlight the reductions in their stockpiles as one step showcasing their commitment to this objective. Indeed, nuclear weapon numbers have reduced significantly in the case of the US and Russia. However, fewer numbers do not signify disarmament and eve more importantly do not automatically translate into strategic stability between nuclear-armed states.

The three nuclear-armed countries of relevance to South Asia have declared 'minimum deterrence' as an attribute of their doctrines. This means that none is likely to build the kind of runaway stockpiles that the superpowers had. The arsenals would remain relatively low, though each is maintaining the number as a closely guarded secret based on its own determination of the threats. Do low numbers automatically help generate strategic stability? Or could they actually foster instability since with small nuclear forces, the temptation to launch a disarming first strike would be high because of ‘use them or lose them’ compulsions? 

Interestingly, as important as nuclear arsenals are for deterrence, numbers of nuclear weapons alone do not have a significant impact on strategic stability. This is, in fact, more a function of four other criteria:

• Role ascribed to nuclear weapons in national security strategy: Does a state perceive the utility of its nuclear weapons to undertake offensive revisionist actions, or in a defensive deterrent role narrowly defined against an adversary’s nuclear weapons?

• Modus of imposing deterrence: Does a state seek to achieve deterrence through projection of high or low nuclear thresholds? This, then, reflects in the desire - or lack thereof - for instruments to establish deterrence stability. For instance, since Pakistan derives its deterrence from projecting a low threshold and instability in use of nuclear weapons, it has little interest in strong instruments that promote deterrence stability.

• Nature of doctrine: Does a state prefer a doctrine that seeks enhancement of deterrence through ambiguity or clarity? Further, is it interested in projecting an offensive/first use or defensive/no first use doctrine as a means of deterrence?

• Nature of command and control: Does a state have a centralised or delegative system of command and control? Projection of battlefield use of nuclear weapons presupposes a delegative command and control in order to establish the credibility of first use a means of deterrence.

The primary objective that a state seeks from its nuclear weapons determines the kind of doctrine it articulates and the kind of command and control it establishes for credible deterrence. These manifestations allow for, or inhibit strategic stability in a nuclear dyad. For instance, a state that hopes to alter the status quo with a nuclear-armed adversary is prone to use its nuclear weapons to guard against a response by indicating a quick propensity to use nuclear weapons. It, therefore, can afford only a first use doctrine. If the other side, too, has a similar approach and doctrine, then crisis instability is inevitable. In South Asia, Pakistan is the only one of the three countries to profess such a doctrine. India and China share a greater sense of nuclear stability owing to the doctrinal consonance of their no first use (NFU) doctrines. In fact, the India-Pakistan dyad, too, is granted a certain level of stability because of India's commitment to NFU. 

Doctrines, therefore, have a huge impact on strategic stability and this is best exemplified by the NFU - a concept that is inadequately understood or accepted in the West and inadequately explained by the two countries that do profess it. In modern times, every nuclear-armed state has a secure second strike capability that rules out the possibility of a decapitating or a disarming first strike. In such a situation, then, the first user cannot hope to escape nuclear retaliation, and it certainly cannot hope to come out looking better after its first use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, first use may actually turn out to be suicidal. NFU, on the contrary, has the potential to lessen inter-state tensions, increase mutual confidence, and thus reinforce a cycle of positives. In fact, NFU allows even the first user to have a relatively relaxed posture since it is not under pressure to use nuclear weapons early lest it was to lose them to preemption. At low nuclear numbers, in fact, an NFU is even more relevant to avoid any temptations for oneself and for the adversary.

Stability at low numbers, therefore, also requires that are suited to stability. An NFU doctrine is one such candidate. If all nuclear-armed states were to accept this, it would over time lead to a fall in the value of nuclear weapons. Who would want to retain or obtain a weapon that was under a universal NFU norm/treaty? This decrease in salience of the weapon could then enable its elimination. In fact, a focus on numbers alone would mean little unless the overall salience of nuclear weapons is addressed, too. 

Trump's Afghanistan Strategy

Rana Banerji


After procrastinating for almost five months, US President Donald Trump chose the symbolically significant platform of Fort Myers, Arlington to announce a shift from a “time-based to a conditions-based” strategy to support the Ashraf Ghani government in Afghanistan. No additional troop numbers have been specified though it is expected that Trump would endorse the consensus figure of roughly around 4,000 more as suggested by his generals on the field, to supplement their “train, assist and advise” role in support of the Afghan National Army (ANA). These numbers could provide more teeth in terms of artillery and air support to drive back the Afghan Taliban from newly gained territories around district centres like Sangin and Lashkargah in Helmand and other areas near Kunduz.

Trump justified the turnaround from his election campaign stance favouring early and complete withdrawal of US troops by indirectly blaming his predecessor, President Obama, for setting a timetable for their withdrawal, which enabled “the enemy to wait us out.” Instead, the expectation would be to move to a position of strength before holding out hope for “a political settlement, someday” when Afghans could themselves deal with this thorny issue of reconciliation.

Trump talked of integrating all elements of US power - military, diplomatic and economic - to help the existing Afghan government to deal with the Taliban. He did qualify, though, that the US’ “commitment was not unlimited,” “not a blank cheque,” and the Afghan government would have to undertake its share of the burden and reform. The US military would “no longer be responsible for building democracies abroad.”

There also appears to be a change of approach towards Pakistan. While acknowledging Pakistan as a valuable US partner in the past and noting that Pakistanis have suffered from the scourge of terrorism, Trump said that the US could no longer remain silent on Pakistan continuing to shelter the same terrorists killing US forces while "we have been paying them billions." He said that this would "have to change immediately" and it was "time for Pakistan to demonstrate" their willingness to be in the same fight and against the same enemy. Trump added that it was time to "further develop" the strategic partnership with India but expected India "to do more for the economic development of Afghanistan." He mentioned that the possibility of a confrontation between the two nuclear-armed powers in South Asia remained a US concern.

In effect, Trump has chosen to depend on the advice of his military experts to opt for the 'containment' or 'stabilising' option in Afghanistan without going into the nitty-gritty of how, eventually, political reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban would be approached. Earlier, speaking at the Stimson Centre in Washington, DC, in April 2017, former Special Envoy and Ambassador to Pakistan, Richard Olson had suggested opening a line to the Taliban through their office in Doha. Taking note of increasing Taliban fragmentation lately, with commanders like Mullah Rahim not taking orders from the anointed leader, Haibatullah Akhund, other Western commentators like Theo Farell and Michael Semple have suggested sending out peace feelers to individual commanders but the current US administration has chosen to be silent in this regard.

The harder line against Pakistan, though expected, has not really been spelt out. Constraints remain obviously due to dependence on the ground lines of communication (GLOC) to send supplies to US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, mainly through Pakistan. The leverage that Pakistan enjoys in this regard was used for bargaining in the past. Simultaneous increase of pressure on Pakistan could lead Islamabad to block transit again. The US risks provoking a blockade of its own forces, though there is some thinking in the Pentagon about exploring alternate routes such as the 'Lapis Lazuli corridor' through Central Asia. However, continuing sanctions against Russia and Iran limit US' manoeuvrability.

Though curtailment of US financial support especially for the Coalition Support Funds (CSF) may hurt, Pakistanis are likely to take in their stride this renewed US pressure 'to do more' against elements like the Haqqani network. Pakistan remains obsessed with Indian influence in Afghanistan. Some time ago, in a jointly authored article for The New York Times, Dr Moeed Yusuf, a Pakistani analyst at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington, DC, and former US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley stressed that "the Pakistani security establishment sees the Taliban as a check on Indian activity in Afghanistan and has doubled down on its efforts to counter deepening Afghan-India ties." They suggested an approach that links efforts to enlist Pakistan’s support in Afghanistan to a strategy aimed at improving India-Pakistan ties. When American analyst Dr C Christine Fair cried foul, stating that "Pakistan’s anxieties are incurable, so stop trying to cure them," Dr Yusuf took a softer line, asking Pakistan to come to terms with the reality of continuing Indian presence.

Trump’s speech at Arlington did not elaborate on the role of other regional stakeholders in Afghanistan or the need to explore joint approaches to reconciliation with Russia, Iran or China. These powers may continue to play spoilers to prevent lasting peace or stability in Afghanistan.

China’s Nuclear Programme: Modernising or Multiplying?

Allyson Rimmer

China, one of five countries allowed to possess nuclear weapons by the Treaty for the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has been accused of expanding the number of nuclear warheads at its disposal. It is believed to be the only NPT Nuclear Weapon State (NWS) that is doing so. In contrast, some analysts claim that China is not expanding its nuclear arsenal but rather modernising it. If the latter is the case, then there is nothing unique about China’s actions. The US, Russia, France and the UK are all engaging in qualitative upgrades to both warheads and their delivery systems in response to technological advances and changing operational requirements.

Currently, it is estimated that China has a nuclear stockpile of approximately 270 warheads. It is believed by some to be in the process of fabricating more. With such advancements, China's proliferation pattern is more akin to what other Asian nuclear states (India, Pakistan and North Korea) are doing. Unlike these non-NPT nuclear weapons possessors, China is obligated under the NPT to reduce its nuclear weapons. Accusations concerning China’s expansion, if true, mean that China’s nuclear strategy is in direct conflict with the goals of nuclear abolition. An article published in 2014 by the South China Morning Post claimed that a Chinese military document had announced an increase in the number of warheads in their arsenal, both nuclear and conventional. Other reputable sources - Carnegie Endowment, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative expressed similar opinions about China’s nuclear weapons, though all contend that accretions to the warhead stockpile are happening at an extremely slow pace. These assertions are based largely on China’s known ability to generate nuclear weapons due to their domestic access to fissile material. Although these claims do have circumstantial basis, they are still inference.

Though the aforementioned sources appear to be confident of China’s vertical proliferation, others hesitate to make such a claim outright. The US government adheres to a more conservative approach. The 2017 Annual Report to Congress pertaining to Chinese security developments discusses China’s shifting nuclear policy, the expansion of such weapons' delivery systems, and their desire to bolster a nuclear triad to ensure a successful land, air and sea-based nuclear strategy. There is no mention of nuclear warhead expansion, only reference to what equates to nuclear modernisation. Similar assessments conducted by third party experts come to the same conclusion. However, this cautious approach could have more to do with avoiding diplomatic confrontation than with a realistic assessment of nuclear proliferation. The US has a history of underplaying such issues. Throughout the late 1970s, the US willingly turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons in order to focus its attention on Afghanistan, and, therefore, global non-proliferation concerns took a backseat to US Cold War imperatives. Similarly, in the case of present-day China, UN reports accusing the state of facilitating nuclear collaboration between North Korea, Pakistan and Iran have not generated any follow-up. China’s “grandfathering” of nuclear plants in Pakistan, too, has gone uncontested. This denial of the likely increase in Chinese nuclear warheads may be another instance of politics trumping non-proliferation.
.
Though the conversation is certainly nuanced, there is general agreement surrounding China's shifting nuclear posture, which focuses aggressively on bolstering its triad capabilities. With its ever-increasing naval presence, China has made it no secret that it plans to alter and strengthen its nuclear doctrine through significant investment in its naval nuclear strike capabilities. China has also dedicated vast resources to the deployment of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) in response to advances in US and Indian missile defences. China’s increased naval focus reportedly faces continued setbacks concerning the reliability of its Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM). Despite these technical difficulties, there is little doubt surrounding China’s end goal of reinforcing all facets of its nuclear capability.

In its 2017 White Paper, China reaffirmed its commitment to non-proliferation, conflict de-escalation, and also stressed the importance of Beijing’s continuing role in regional and global efforts towards peace. The state professes, “China...takes an active part in international arms control...non-proliferation efforts, and stands for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons.” Considering this statement and the inferential nature of the data surrounding Chinese nuclear expansion, concern over such claims may seem hyperbolic. However, if assertions regarding increased Chinese nuclear warheads are correct, any sense of hyperbole quickly shifts to hypocrisy. Regardless of disagreement regarding vertical proliferation, China is undoubtedly modernising its nuclear arsenal.

HEC Paris-Forté Foundation for International Women Scholars 2017/2018

Application Deadline: Ongoing.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): France

About the Award: As part of the school’s partnership with the Forté Foundation, the HEC Paris MBA Program will offer exceptional women significant scholarships per graduating class. By opening educational pathways, the HEC Forté scholarships will help improve leadership opportunities for women in business.

Essay – “Please explain in 1,500 words why you should be the Forté Scholar at the HEC MBA Program”.

Type: MBA

Eligibility: 

• Only admitted candidates can apply for this scholarship. 
• Candidates should have demonstrated a commitment to women via personal mentorship or community involvement.
• Candidates should please note that unfortunately, they cannot apply for this scholarship if admitted after June 15th for the September intake, and after November 26th for the January intake.

Selection Criteria:  Recipients of the Forté Scholarship are high-quality candidates who meet the school’s standard selection criteria and have demonstrated exemplary leadership skills in:

• Academics
• Team building
• Community work
• Creative activity

Amount of Award: Variable, up to €15,000

Number of Awardees: A minimum of 3 scholarships for the September intake, a minimum of 1 for the January intake.

How to Apply: Once admitted into the HEC Paris MBA Program, candidates will have the opportunity to apply for HEC MBA Scholarships. Candidates will receive guidance in applying for a scholarship from the Admissions Officer

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: HEC MBA School

UNESCO Travelling to Learn Arts and Crafts Scholarships+Internships for Students 2017

Application Deadline: 20th October 2017

Eligible Countries: France and Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): France and Developing Countries

About the Award: The programme aims to enable arts and crafts students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds to complete a study tour abroad. It allows young French scholarship students nearing the end of their studies to discover the know-how of craftspeople in developing countries; and it allows students from developing countries to discover the know-how of French craftspeople.

This programme helps students launch their professional career by enabling them to work in a professional environment; acquire new skills and cultural experiences abroad; design and create innovative products; develop a professional network; and participate and present their work at international fairs.

Type: Training/Short courses

Eligibility: Applicants must meet all the following criteria:

• Level of study of at least 2 years equivalent to an Arts & Crafts Diploma,
• Enrolled in Arts & Crafts schools/institutes/universities,
• Recipient of scholarships and awards (and being able to give proof of it)
• Speaking French and English

Applicants must be students and not senior artists

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Applicant’s round-trip plane ticket; logistic support as well as a monthly financial support  covering all the expenses relative to the four months stay in France, the journeys and the purchase of material linked to the study tour will be covered.
• An internship agreement will be signed between the student, the school and the hosting professional organization.
• A scholarship agreement will be signed between the student and the Fondation Culture & Diversité.

Duration of Program: 4 months. Feb-June

• December 2017: Selection of the laureates and communication of results.
• From February 2018: Study tours in France.
• June-July 2018: Certificate Presentation.

How to Apply: Application Form.  

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: UNESCO

Get 3 million naira for your Business – Apply for Diamond Bank’s Building Entrepreneurs 2017 (BET7) Business Grant Today

Application Deadline: 29th September 2017

Offered Annually? Yes

About the Award: BET – Building Entrepreneurs Today – marks another great opportunity for entrepreneurs all over Nigeria in education, health and agriculture to present their businesses and innovation and have the opportunity of being selected as one of the top 50 businesses that will be provided with extensive training, mentoring and advisory by the Enterprise Development Centre with the top 5 businesses winning 3 Million naira each.

The first phase of the BET programme commenced in 2010 with Diamond Bank empowering 5 entrepreneur with growth capital of N3 million each after they emerged the top 5 from rigorous business training at the Enterprise Development Centre (EDC) of the Pan African University.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Selection Criteria

• Applicant must have a fully functional business (at least 3months in operations)
• Applicant MUST not have attended any entrepreneurial Management program at EDC.
• The business must have high growth potential.

How to Apply:

Create and upload your 60 secs video
Fill your BET online application and include your YouTube link
Once you have successfully submitted your entry, get all your friends to vote.
The top 300 entries will be contacted.

How to Apply: Interested and qualified candidates should Click Here to Apply

Visit Program Webpage for details

University of Michigan Society of Fellows International Fellowship for Early Career Researchers 2018

Application Deadline: 26th September, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): USA

Eligible Field of Study: Social, physical, and life sciences, the humanities, and in the professional schools.

About the Award: Each Fellow has a three-year appointment as Assistant Professor in an affiliated department of the University and a three-year appointment as a Postdoctoral Scholar in the Society of Fellows. This appointment is not tenure-track.  Each fellow is expected to teach the equivalent of one academic year, i.e., a total of two terms during the period of the fellowship. Any subsequent appointment of a Fellow to a position at the University of Michigan would be subject to the rules governing new appointments.

Fellows are expected to be in residence in Ann Arbor for the academic years of appointment (September to May) and to participate in the activities of the Society of Fellows. Off-campus research leave during academic terms will be permitted only in rare cases, only for brief periods of time, and only upon written application to the Chair of the Society well in advance of the proposed leave. Any leave granted will count as part of the fellowship tenure.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• The Society invites applications from qualified candidates who are at the beginning of their academic careers, having received the Ph.D. or comparable professional or artistic degree between June 1, 2015 and September 1, 2018.
• Applications from degree candidates and recipients of the Ph.D. from the University of Michigan will not be considered.
• Non-US citizens may apply.
• Only online applications will be considered.
• It is not necessary to send a transcript of graduate courses or grades.
• Applicants who have previously applied for the Society of Fellows’ postdoctoral fellowships may re-apply but must complete a new application.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: The current annual stipend is $60,000. Fellows are eligible for participation in the University health, dental, and life insurance programs.

Duration of Program: Each Fellow has a three-year appointment as Assistant Professor in an affiliated department of the University and a three-year appointment as a Postdoctoral Scholar in the Society of Fellows.

Apply for the Fellowship

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Michigan

Important Notes: At the end of each fellowship year, Fellows are asked to submit a written report on their activities and accomplishments during the year.

World Bank Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) Preventing Gender-Based Violence Innovation Grants in Developing Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 6th October 2017

Eligible Countries: Low- and middle-income countries

About the Award: SVRI and the World Bank Group will disburse more than US$1 million to advance evidence-based interventions to prevent gender-based violence (GBV) in low- and middle-income countries.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates 35% of women worldwide have experienced physical or sexual partner violence or non-partner sexual violence, or roughly 938 million women.

The costs of gender-based violence are substantial. Violence against women and girls impedes their full participation in society, limits access to education and economic participation, and hinders efforts to achieve gender equality broadly. Selected country estimates suggest that in out-of-pocket expenditures, lost income, and reduced productivity, intimate partner violence alone can cost up to 4% of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP)—more than many governments spend on primary education.

In April 2017, the Bank Group and SVRI awarded 10 teams from around the world a total of US$1.14 million. The winners, chosen from more than 200 submissions by research institutions, NGOs, and aid and other organizations, were from Jordan, Egypt, Peru, Solomon Islands, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Swaziland, Uganda and Dollo Ado Refugee Camp in Ethiopia.

Type: Grants

Selection Criteria: An expert panel will select winners engaged in research, interventions, or other activities related to GBV prevention based on overall merit, research/project design and methods, significance, project manager/team, and ethical considerations.

Number of Awards: Not specified

How to Apply: Applications must be received here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: World Bank Group, Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI)

The Woman Question in South Asia

Nyla Ali Khan

As I contemplate the significance of International Women’s Day, I wonder about the plight of women, not just in the developing world but in the developed world as well, who have been socialized to play second fiddle, demure, passive, and not seek either political or cultural empowerment.

I ask myself and my readers the following questions:

Can women play an important role in establishing a more inclusive democracy and new forums for citizen cooperation? Can female leaders lead the way by offering new ideas, building broad-based political coalitions, and working to bridge organizational divides? Should women active in politics must aim not just to improve the position of their particular organizations but also to forge connections between the group’s agendas for revival of democracy and reconstruction of society with the strategies and agendas of other groups in the population, who have also been deprived of empowerment? Can women’s groups, in this way, pave the way for sustainable peace, universal human rights, and security from violent threats of all kinds?

It is the peripheralized, of whom women form a large portion, that are concerned about structural changes that would enable transformations within entrenched structures and appropriate the peace building mission from the elitist national security constituency.

In contemporary Kashmiri society, the question of the role of women in the nationalist scenario remains a vexed one. Women, as evidenced by the work of constructive and rehabilitative work undertaken by political and social women activists in the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir during both turbulent and peaceful times, have more or less power depending on their specific situation, and they can be relatively submissive in one situation and relatively assertive in another. Assessing women’s agency requires identifying and mapping power relations, the room to maneuver within each pigeonhole and the intransigence of boundaries (Hayward 1998: 29).

The level of a woman’s empowerment also varies according to factors such as class, caste, ethnicity, economic status, age, family position, etc. Also, structural supports that some women have access to bolster their commitment to action. In 1950, the government of J & K developed educational institutions for women on a large scale, including the first Government College for Women. This institution provided an emancipatory forum for the women of Kashmir, broadening their horizons and opportunities within established political and social spheres. Higher education in the state received a greater impetus with the establishment of the Jammu and Kashmir University (Misri 2002: 25–26). The mobilization of women from various socioeconomic classes meant that they could avail themselves of educational opportunities, enhance their professional skills, and attempt to reform existing structures so as to accommodate more women. The educational methods employed in these institutions were revisionist in nature, not revolutionary. But the militarization of the political and cultural discourse in the state in 1989–90 marginalized developmental issues and negated the plurality of ideologies through a non-negotiable value system.

I reinforce that in Kashmir there has been a dearth of secular women’s organizations working toward structural change that would enable gender equity.

Why is gender violence such a consistent feature of the insurgency and counterinsurgency that have wrenched apart the Indian subcontinent for decades? The equation of the native woman to the motherland in nationalist rhetoric has, in recent times, become more forceful. In effect, the native woman is constructed as a trough within which male aspirations are nurtured, and the most barbaric acts are justified as means to restore the lost dignity of women.

In one instance, the crime of a boy from a lower social caste against a woman from a higher upper caste in Meerawala village in the central province of Punjab, Pakistan, in 2002, was punished in a revealing way by the “sagacious” tribal jury. After days of thoughtful consideration, the jury gave the verdict that the culprit’s teenage sister, Mai, should be gang-raped by goons from the wronged social group. The tribal jury ruled that to save the honor of the upper-caste Mastoi clan, Mai’s brother, Shakoor, should marry the woman with whom he was accused of having an illicit relationship, while Mai was to be given away in marriage to a Mastoi man. The prosecution said that when she rejected the decision she was gang-raped by four Mastoi men and made to walk home semi-naked in front of hundreds of people. The lawyer for one of the accused argued the rape charge was invalid because Mai was technically married to the defendant at the time of the incident (“Pakistan Court Expected to Rule on Gang-Rape Case,” Khaleej Times, 27 August 2002).

Such acts of violence that occur on the Indian subcontinent bear testimony to the intersecting notions of nation, family and community. The horrific stories of women, in most instances attributed to folklore, underscore the complicity of official and nationalist historiography in perpetuating these notions. I might add that the feminization of the “homeland” as the “motherland,” for which Indian soldiers, Kashmiri nationalists in Indian-administered Kashmir and in Pakistan-administered Kashmir are willing to lay down their lives, serves in effect to preserve the native woman in pristine retardation. Although this essentialist portrayal of the Kashmiri woman in J & K is clearly suspect, it is embedded more deeply in quasi-feudal cultures of South Asia. Such cultures have been fiefdom of feudal lords whose only concern is with the impregnability of their authority and the replenishment of their coffers. Women in the quasi-feudal cultures and societies of South Asia are still confined within the parameters created by the paternalistic feudal culture that disallows the creation of a space for distinct subjectivities.

An increase in female representation, not just token women, in the Parliament, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council, and Judiciary would facilitate a cultural shift in terms of gender role expectations, legitimizing a defiance of the normative structure. The intrusion of women into traditionally male domains would cause a perceptible erosion in the structural determinants of gender violence. Such a form of empowerment would “frame and facilitate the struggle for social justice and women’s equality through a transformation of economic, social and political structures” (Bisnath and Elson, “Women’s Empowerment Revisited”).

In the present scenario in Jammu and Kashmir, no thought is given either by the state authorities or by the insurgent groups to the pain of women who have been victims of the paramilitary forces and/or militant organizations.

The Lies on Afghanistan

Matthew Hoh

There has never been progress by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, unless you are asking the U.S. military contractors or the Afghan drug barons, of whom an extremely large share are our allies in the Afghan government, militias and security forces, there has only been suffering and destruction. American politicians, pundits and generals will speak about “progress” made by the 70,000 American troops put into Afghanistan by President Obama beginning in 2009, along with an additional 30,000 European troops and 100,000 private contractors, however the hard and awful true reality is that the war in Afghanistan has only escalated since 2009, never stabilizing or deescalating; the Taliban has increased in strength by tens of thousands, despite tens of thousands of casualties and prisoners; and American and Afghan casualties have continued to grow every year of the conflict, with U.S. casualties declining only when U.S. forces began to withdraw in mass numbers from parts of Afghanistan in 2011, while Afghan security forces and civilians have experienced record casualties every year since those numbers began to be kept by the UN.

Similarly, any progress in reconstructing or developing Afghanistan has been found to be near existent despite the more than $100 billion spent by the United States on such efforts by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR). $100 billion, by the way, is more money than was spent on the Marshall Plan when that post-WWII reconstruction plan is put into inflation adjusted dollars. Oft repeated claims, such as millions of Afghan school girls going to school, millions of Afghans having access to improved health care and Afghan life expectancy dramatically increasing, and the construction of an Afghan job building economy have been exposed as nothing more than public relations lies. Often displayed as modern Potemkin Villages to visiting journalists and congressional delegations and utilized to justify continued budgets for the Pentagon and USAID, and, so, to allow for more killing, like America’s reconstruction program in Iraq, the reconstruction program in Afghanistan has proven to be a failure and its supposed achievements shown to be virtually non-existent, as documented by multiple investigations by SIGAR, as well as by investigators and researchers from organizations such as the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank, etc.

Tonight, the American people will hear again the great lie about the progress the American military once made in Afghanistan after “the Afghan Surge”, just as we often hear the lie about how the American military had “won” in Iraq. In Iraq it was a political compromise that brought about a cessation of hostilities for a few short years and it was the collapse of the political balance that had been struck that led to the return to the violence of the last several years. In Afghanistan there has never even been an attempt at such a political solution and all the Afghan people have seen in the last eight years, every year, has been a worsening of the violence.

Americans will also hear tonight how the U.S. military has done great things for the Afghan people. You would be hard pressed to find many Afghans outside of the incredibly corrupt and illegitimate government, a better definition of a kleptocracy you will not find, that the U.S. keeps in power with its soldiers and $35 billion a year, who would agree with the statements of the American politicians, the American generals and the pundits, the latter of which are mostly funded, directly or indirectly, by the military companies. It is important to remember that for three straight elections in Afghanistan the United States government has supported shockingly fraudulent elections, allowing American soldiers to kill and die while presidential and parliamentary elections were brazenly stolen. It is also important to remember that many members of the Afghan government are themselves warlords and drug barons, many of them guilty of some of the worst human rights abuses and war crimes, the same abuses of which the Taliban are guilty, while the current Ghani government, and the previous Karzai government, have allowed egregious crimes to continue against women, including laws that allow men to legally rape their wives.

Whatever President Trump announces tonight about Afghanistan, a decision he teased on Twitter, as if the announcement were a new retail product launch or television show episode, as opposed to the somber and painful reality of war, we can be assured the lies about American progress in Afghanistan will continue, the lies about America’s commitment to human rights and democratic values will continue, the profits of the military companies and drug barons will also continue, and of course the suffering of the Afghan people will surely continue.

The Dilemma Of A Muslim In India

Moin Qazi

The increasing tendency towards seeing people in terms of one dominant ‘identity’ (‘this is your duty as an American’, ‘you must commit these acts as a Muslim’, or ‘as a Chinese you should give priority to this national engagement’) is not only an imposition of an external and arbitrary priority, but also the denial of an important liberty of a person who can decide on their respective loyalties to different groups (to all of which he or she belongs)

― Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice

A common Muslim in India is in a bind; he is torn between finding the right balance between loyalty to his faith and adherence to the new tests of patriotism being imposed by certain intolerant groups. The high voltage saffronisation wave that is demonising Muslims has broken the resistance of even strong neutral and secular groups who are now inclined to go with the official tide. The centuries old secular souls is slowly being ruptured. India has suddenly become deaf to its minorities who are shuddering with muteness at the growing intolerance of saffron hordes. Mocking and ridiculing of Muslims is now rife in public spaces.

India’s once cherished and internationally lauded secular values have been drowned in the sea of primitive majoritarian politics which is driven more by uncontrollable rage than by sensible reason. Not just Hindutva foot soldiers but democratic institutions and spaces are being used to suppress religious freedom. We are fast seeing a potential breakdown of what was a flourishing multicultural society. Muslims are made to routinely confront a culture of fear which sees everything Muslim as pure evil.

Currently, there are people within the community arguing for civil rights of Muslims, and also those who want to smear their faith and assert that Islam is an inherently violent religion and the nationalism of Muslims is not pure and fully unvarnished.
A sense of despair runs through the entire Muslim community and they are passing through the most horrific phase post Partition.

Continuing inebriation on account of political popularity has emboldened the intolerant elements in the ruling party, who are now openly imposing their own moral benchmarks with regard to diet, dress, faith and patriotism totally overlooking the cultural sentiments of others. This rhetoric is injecting anti-Muslim sentiments in a climate when Muslims are already feeling alienated and marginalised. The political and social environment has never been so hostile. An ordinary Muslim is being hissed and snarled with vileness by all and sundry in full glare of the law.

India must not forget that it has an entire generation of young Muslims who are born into a turbulent era, and whose mindset and identity is being nurtured in an environment where they apprehend being suspected as ‘disloyal others’. Some of them are highly talented and are in the vanguard of the nation’s new development revolution.

The negative profiling of Muslims can cause alienation among the Muslim community; and as a result of this alienation, there will be enough space for fissiparous tendencies leading to long term fissures. Studies have shown that one of the factors underpinning radicalisation is a sense of loss of belonging and identity.

An analysis of 198 countries by the Pew Research Centre finds India is the fourth-worst country in the world for religious intolerance and violence. Only three countries — Syria, Nigeria and Iraq — are before India in this name-and-shame list, and even Pakistan fares much better than India on this front, being in the tenth position.

A study by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, India to probe ‘society and politics between elections’ highlights what it calls ‘isolation of Muslims’ across four Indian states of Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka and Odisha where the survey was carried out..While only 13 per cent Indian Hindus think of Muslims as ‘highly patriotic’, the figure is slightly better at 20 per cent Hindus favouring Christians in the similar category and the percentage is 47 per cent for Sikhs. At least 77 per cent Indian Muslims consider their own community as ‘highly patriotic’ but just 26 per cent Indian Christians see Muslims in the same light on this sensitive scale and the number is much lower at 11 per cent among Sikhs. Interestingly, only 66 percent Indian Sikhs consider Hindus to be ‘highly patriotic.’

Muslims have been forced to think deeply about their role in present day political climate in India. It isn’t so much a battle of what it means to be a Muslim in India. It’s a greater battle between broader India, of how tolerant and open-minded it will be about minorities, about Indian values of democracy and secularism, about recognising how true they want to be to the Indian values of openness and freedom for all.

The distorted images of Islam stem partly from a lack of understanding of Islam among non-Muslims and partly from the failure by Muslims to explain themselves. The results are predictable: hatred feeds on hatred.

Ignorance of Islam exists both among Muslims and non-Muslims. Non-Muslims, misunderstanding Islam, fear it. They believe it threatens their basic values. Fantasy, conjecture and stereotypes replace fact and reality.

Similarly, Muslims have their own misconceptions. They, reacting to the hate and fear of non-Muslims, create a kind of defensive posture within their societies and a combative environment built on militant rhetoric.

Of late, the Indian secular fabric is increasingly becoming fragile. Many on either side don’t believe in either tolerance or moderation and are determined to follow the age old adage ‘paying them in their own coin’ too literally. The official machinery which had earlier been by and large very subtle in it communal agenda is now baring its fangs brazenly.

Religion is often portrayed simply as a social or political construct, although for millions of people, religion is a daily practice, and the very real framework of an understanding that connects human lives to a spiritual reality. For the laity, faith is the prism through which they view the world, and their religious communities are their central environments. For them it is a benign force, shorn of the political sentiments which are manipulated into an ideological construct by ideological groups for their election algorithms.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of faith in the lives of people for whom it is a creed of peace and love. It is evident that most people would prefer to live in peace than in conflict. At their very core, all religions espouse peace, tolerance and compassion. Yet, often the only religious voices on the front pages are those speaking messages of hatred or violence, especially in stories about conflict or social tensions. One of the best ways of breaking down barriers between faiths is building relationships and getting to know each other. It’s not just a platitude but it actually is a verse from the Q’uran where the Lord says, ‘He made us different so we can get to know each other.’
Taking that verse to heart and getting to know other people and coming together on issues that are common to all of us can synergise a new spirit of bonhomie. We’re all concerned with education and poverty, growing inflation, surging unemployment and taxes, where we can find common ground and work towards a better world and better future for all of us.

There is much in common among people irrespective of the faith they profess. It is this which needs to be explored. We need to be able to see the other and say ‘we understand you are different, but we also understand the difference’.

There is ample scope for reconciliation if only we are willing to avail of the myriad opportunities staring at us. Despite the many superficial differences, all our deeper and more permanent values are similar. The respect for knowledge, justice, truth, compassion towards the less privileged commitment for healthy family life, and the striving to improve our world and make it a better place for everyone are commonalities to people of all faiths. A more sobering reflection can help us smoothen the ridges that keep straining our relationships.

The majority must realise that the minorities face a severe emotional complex. An ordinary Muslim carries a lot of weight on his shoulders; having a lot of responsibility. Having responsibility to his own community and responsibility to his fellow Indians to not only convey the right impression of Islam but embody the principles of nationalism deemed correct by the majority. You have to be an exemplary, upright and righteous individual; people are going to look at you and judge other Muslims based on your conduct. I have to be on my guard all the time because I know people are looking and they generally are going to associate any actions I do as representative of my religion.
We’re all ambassadors of whatever we are. You’re an ambassador to your faith and society as you live your lives. It is not what you profess or preach that matters; it is finally your actions that define you and your thoughts. Your public perception is built over a period of time and is shaped by the uniformity in your speech and behaviour.

A dichotomous behaviour is bound to erode your credibility and your loyalty to your faith can very well be misperceived as disloyalty to national values. The cardinal values that underpin your faith and your patriotism are normally shared by each other: ethical conduct and pluralist character.
The new challenges demand that Muslims take a larger role in calling out the media when the anti-Islam campaign is at its crescendo. We have to start engaging with the media. Similarly the media must also start looking at its role in how it’s perpetuating the anti-Islam bogey.

Free speech comes with responsibility. Indians need to start asking more questions. They need to talk to Muslims who are practising the religion and not to self-styled ‘leaders’ of the community. It is not the Muslim clergy that has to be the centrepiece of Muslim aspirations or their concerns; every common Muslim is a stakeholder and his voice must come on the discussion table.
Muslims need to reach out to their neighbours, but they also have to reach out to their own people so that mutual interactions and introspection can help refine their own perceptions of other communities.

Religious belief is often portrayed as the inevitable enemy of tolerance. But if rightly understood, this caricature is deeply mistaken. Tolerance is a virtue that requires deep religious or moral conviction. Moreover, it is rooted in a conception of the self that is rich enough to ground respect among diverse people.

The virtue of tolerance leads to a type of behaviour that is conducive to cohabitation with people of deeply different beliefs and practices. This disposition requires nurturing of a healthy worldview through exposure to various scriptures in order to moderate our natural inclination to view and reject the other as a threat. To use the words of Mahatma Gandhi, ‘I believe that if only we could, all of us, read the scriptures of the different faiths from the stand-point of the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the bottom, all one and were all helpful to one another…’

Skeptical accounts of religious diversity undermine this religious grounding of tolerance and threaten the very diversity they wish to preserve. The Judaeo-Christian-Muslim conception of creation in the image of God is a powerful catalyst for shaping a mindset that is conceptually very essential for tolerance. The same pluralistic approach of the Abrahamic faiths should be reciprocated by other communities.

It is worth quoting Dr S Radhakrishnan, the philosopher president of India, ‘What counts is not creed but conduct. By their fruits ye shall know them and not by their beliefs. Religion is not correct belief but righteous living. The Hindu view that every method of spiritual growth, every path to the Truth is worthy of reverence has much to commend itself (The Hindu View of Life, 1962).’

There’s always a certain level of bias initially when people meet you. I think that the main challenge is having those conversations and getting people to a level where they stop seeing you just as a Muslim, but a fellow Indian and person of faith. It is equally true that in recent times the highly volatile and hostile environment has made the situation very complicated. Proffering advices is easier said than done.

Being Muslim and being Indian are compatible and go hand-in-hand. You don’t need to compromise your faith to prove your patriotism; real patriotism is demonstrated through the timeless values of Indian civilisation — fairness, justice, tolerance and pluralism.

What is the path ahead? By spreading information and having difficult conversations. In my life I’ve had people say to me, ‘I don’t know any Muslims but I’ll remember you when I see the news.’ I hope that people realise Muslim Indians are very patriotic and love India; we see it as our home.
I’ve spent my life in public sector service because I believe in the values of this country. I hope people know that there are many Muslim Indians that feel that way. They have to be given an opportunity and to be trusted. They will always redeem this trust as they have done all these ages.
Muslims are faced in a dilemma of dichotomous loyalties and the best inspiration for them in these trying times is of Maulana Azad who was the president of Indian National Congress during the negotiation of independence and was a key ally of Gandhi and Nehru.

‘I am a Musalman and am proud of that fact. Islam’s splendid traditions of 1,300 years are my inheritance. I am unwilling to lose even the smallest part of this inheritance. The teaching and history of Islam, its arts and letters and civilisation, are my wealth and my fortune. It is my duty to protect them.

‘As a Musalman I have a special interest in Islamic religion and culture, and I cannot tolerate any interference with them. But in addition to these sentiments, I have others also which the realities and conditions of my life have forced upon me. The spirit of Islam does not come in the way of these sentiments; it guides and helps me forward.

‘I am proud of being an Indian. I am part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice, and without me this splendid structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to build India. I can never surrender this claim.
‘It was India’s historic destiny that many human races and cultures and religions should flow to her, finding a home in her hospitable soil, and that many a caravan should find rest here. Even before the dawn of history, these caravans trekked into India and wave after wave of newcomers followed. This vast and fertile land gave welcome to all, and took them to her bosom. One of the last of these caravans, following the footsteps of its predecessors, was that of the followers of Islam.

‘They came here and settled here for good.’

India has been a flag bearer of pluralism and has always held the candle of tolerance, mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. Muslims have time again responded to the challenges of the nation and facts and history attest to their role in building this great nation. Alienating one fifth of this population will not help the country and will be against the spirit of its centuries’ old ethos.

An Open Letter To Jews Worldwide From A Palestinian Arab

Rima Najjar

Look at me. Look at me as I am — a fellow human being. Look at me independently from your Jewish identity and your Jewish suffering.

Are you offended? Does your worldview need wrenching out of a life-long schooling in a painful collective memory? Does it need, as a Jewish friend explained, an “internal revolution” to coax you out into a full awareness of my suffering, utterly independent of a Jewish perspective?

Am I not allowed to mention my suffering until I mention yours first?

What must I do to make you look at me? I have plastered my family’s history of ethnic cleansing all over the Internet — pictures of my great grandfather sitting on the veranda of his house in Lifta, al-Quds (Jerusalem), juxtaposed against the Jews who now live there. I caught them on film, hastily emerging from a religious meeting in the garden behind the house where he is buried, self-absorbed with not even a glance in my direction.

Like the Ancient Mariner in Coleridge’s poem, I have cornered people to tell my story, shouted from the rooftops, exposed the horrors of Jewish supremacy in Palestine; all those children — yes, Palestinian Arab children. I have assaulted your eyes and ears with graphic pictures and soundtracks. I have humanized Palestinian Arabs for you.

But my voice, hoarse now after decades of shouting, has failed to reach you — yes, you. You, the Jew who believes my Palestinian heritage (Arab and all that came before that) is not mine, but yours — a French Jew, a Brazilian Jew, an American Jew — wherever you may be and however you identify as a Jew with the “right” to steal from me and abuse me.

You, the Jew who is complicit, who says, “yes, but”, who says nothing, who is blind to my reality. Stand with me against the stain of the Zionist Jewish state in Palestine.

As a people, we Palestinians are remarkable for our long and uncompromising stand in the face of injustice and oppression, especially in the light of what our enemy planned for us — total despair, as David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister put it: “For only after total despair on the part of the [Palestinian] Arabs, despair that will come not only from the failure of disturbances and the attempt at rebellion, but also as a consequence of our growth in the country, may the Arabs possibly acquiesce in a Jewish Eretz Israel.”

Stand with me; we need your help against those who continue to inflict an abomination on us in your name.