2 Jan 2018

Government of Flanders Mastermind Scholarships for Excellent International Students 2018/2019 – Belgium

Application Deadline: Varies by institution. Some institutions have as deadline 15th February 2018! Apply early!
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Various universities in Belgium
  • KU Leuven / University of Leuven
  • University of Antwerp
  • Ghent University
  • Hasselt University
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel
University colleges (Arts and Nautical Sciences)
  • Antwerp Maritime Academy
  • Artesis Plantijn University College Antwerp
  • Erasmus University College Brussels
  • Karel de Grote University College
  • LUCA School of Arts
  • University College Ghent
Eligible Field of Study: The program holds for all study areas.
About the Award: The programme aims to promote the internationalization of the Flemish Higher Education, as stated in the Action Plan for Student Mobility, Brains on the Move (September 2013).
Students cannot apply directly. Applications need to be submitted by the Flemish host institution.
Offered Since: 2015
Type: Masters
Eligibility: The Flemish host institution applies on behalf of the student.
General eligibility requirements
  • The applicant applies to take up a Master degree programme at a higher education institution in Flanders (hereafter ‘Flemish host institution’).
  • The applicant should have a high standard of academic performance and/or potential. He/she meets all academic entrance criteria, including relevant language requirements, for entering the Master programme in question offered by the Flemish host institution.
  • All nationalities can apply. The previous degree obtained should be from a higher education institution located outside Flanders.
  • Students who are already enrolled in a Flemish higher education institution cannot apply.
Selection: A Flemish selection committee awards the scholarships, in cooperation with the Flemish Department of Education and Training.
Number of Awardees: 30 to 40
Value of Scholarship: The incoming student is awarded a scholarship of maximum €8000,- per academic year.
Duration of Scholarship: The duration of mobility is minimum 1 academic year and maximum the full duration of the master programme. If the student obtains less than 45 ECTS in the first year, then he/she loses the scholarship in the second year.
How to Apply: 
  • You can find more information in the guidelines for application in the Scholarship Webpage link.
  • However, you need to contact the Flemish higher education institution to inquire about their internal selection procedures and deadline for submitting the application.
Award Provider: Flemish Government

300 Richard Stapley Educational Trust Scholarships for Second Degree in Medicine Fields & Postgraduate Studies in all Fields 2018/2019

Application Deadline: The deadline for submissions is either 31st March 2018, or the first 300 completed applications received, whichever comes first.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): UK
About the Award: Founded in 1919 by the businessman and philanthropist Sir Richard Stapley (1843-1920), the Sir Richard Stapley Educational Trust supports the work of mature students of proven academic merit, and in financial need, who are pursuing further degree qualifications at an institution in the UK. Open to students from all countries, applicants must be resident in the UK at the time of applying, as well as during their course of study.
The Trust funds students pursuing degrees in medicine, dentistry and veterinary studies and postgraduate degree students from all fields of study. Applications are welcome from students beginning their first year of study, as well as from those already embarked on their degree course.
Type: Undergraduate, Postgraduate
Eligibility: In order to be eligible to apply for a grant, you must be:
a) over the age of 24 on 01 October of the proposed year of study
b) either accepted on, or applying for a place on a degree course in medicine, dentistry or veterinary studies taken as a second degree, or accepted on, or applying for a full- or part-time place on a Masters or Doctoral degree programme in any discipline, at a UK university
c) already resident in the UK at the time of application, and resident in the UK during the course of study.
d) be facing demonstrable financial need in the academic year for which funding is applied (details about how this is calculated are in the application pack).
NB: if you are a postgraduate student, or applying for a place on a postgraduate degree course, you must hold a first- or strong 2.1 honours degree (at least 65%) from a UK institution (or its equivalent from a non-UK institution) or hold a Masters degree from a UK institution, or its overseas equivalent.
We do accept applications from final year BA/BSc students, but the awarding of any grant is contingent upon the outcome of their first degree.
Selection Criteria: Awards are competitive and made on the basis of academic merit and financial need.
Number of Awardees: 300
Value of Scholarship: Grants are normally from £400 to £1,200 in value. They are intended to cover the shortfall incurred by educational and subsistence expenses upon payment of tuition fees.
Duration of Scholarship: All grants are awarded for a full year of academic study and for one year only.  Applicants for full time postgraduate degree courses may be supported for up to a maximum of three years, but new applications must be submitted each year. Part-time postgraduate courses can be funded for a maximum of six years, but new applications have to be submitted each year.
How to Apply: The Trust encourages electronic application submissions, and an electronic pack can be requested from the administrator at mailto:admin@stapleytrust.org?subject=Query%20from%20Stapley%20Trust%20website. If you do not have regular access to the internet, you are still welcome to apply; please request a printed application pack from the following address:
The Stapley Trust
P. O. Box 839
Richmond
Surrey TW9 3AL
It is important to visit the Scholarship Webpage to go through requirements for application before applying for this scholarship.
Award Provider: Stapley Trust
Important Notes: Before award money can be released, applicants must confirm any other grants obtained, and their amounts. Should a successful applicant have received a major award, or additional money from other granting bodies equivalent to a major award, the grant awarded from the Stapley Trust may be reduced or withdrawn. Students already holding a major award cannot apply.

The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) Prizes for Individual Scientists from Developing Countries 2019

Application Deadline: 15th March 2018
Eligible Countries: Developing countries in the South
To Be Taken At (Country):
About the Award: The TWAS Prizes are awarded to individual scientists from developing countries in recognition of an outstanding contribution to scientific knowledge in nine fields of sciences and/or to the application of science and technology to sustainable development.
Fields of Study: Agricultural Sciences, Biology, Chemistry, Earth, Astronomy and Space Sciences, Engineering Sciences, Mathematics, Medical Sciences, Physics and Social Sciences*
Type: Award
Eligibility: 
  • Candidates for a TWAS Prize must be scientists who have been working and living in a developing country for at least ten years immediately prior to their nomination. They must meet at least one of the following qualifications:
    • Scientific research achievement of outstanding significance for the development of scientific thought.
    • Outstanding contribution to the application of science and technology to sustainable development.
  • Members of TWAS and candidates for TWAS membership are not eligible for TWAS Prizes.
  • Self-nominations will not be considered.
Nominations
  • TWAS is inviting nominations from all its members as well as science academies, national research councils, universities and scientific institutions in developing and developed countries.
  • Nominations must be made on the on-line nomination form and clearly state the contribution the candidate has made to the development of the particular field of science for which the prize would be awarded.
  • Nominations of women scientists and scientists from scientifically lagging countries are particularly encouraged.
  • The re-nomination of a previously declined candidate shall be accepted only if it bears substantially new elements for judgment.
Selection: Selection of the awardees is made on scientific merit and on the recommendations of the selection committees composed of TWAS members. The names of the winners will be announced on the first day of the TWAS 14th  General Conference and 28th General Meeting to be held in November 2018. The winners will be invited to receive their award and give a talk the following year.
Number of Awards: 9
Value of Award: USD 15,000
How to Apply: The 2019 ‘TWAS Prizes’ nominations can only be submitted electronically through the on-line platform by clicking on the “NEW NOMINATION” button at the bottom of this page.
It is important to go through all application details on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Award Providers: The World Academy of Sciences

1st Joint IMF-OECD-World Bank Conference on Structural Reforms (Funded to Paris, France) 2018

Application Deadline: 31st January 2018
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): OECD Headquarters, Paris, France
About the Award: The aim of the conference is to bring together policymakers and practitioners, international institutions, and leading academics to shed light on these issues from both practical and research perspectives, and draw robust and novel policy implications. Some of the key questions the conference will cover include:
  • How has product market competition including in key sectors changed since the 1990s?
  • What are the causes for the changes (e.g. disruptive technological change, network effects, globalization, product market regulatory reforms, anticompetitive behavior and strategic firm behavior)?
  • What are the consequences of changing product market competition for productivity growth, the wage share and income distribution? What are the implications for competition policy and market regulation?
  • What does the most recent research show on the micro- and macro-economic effects of product market reforms?
  • Are there differences in product market reform priorities between advanced and emerging-market countries? What criteria can be used to sequence reforms?
  • What are the complementary policy actions needed to maximize the impact of reforms on product market competition, innovation and inclusive growth?
  • What have we learned from past experiences with changes in regulation and from broader research about the political economy drivers of product market reforms? Who are the champions and supporters of these reforms?
The conference will feature a high-level policy panel and keynote speakers including Philippe Aghion (College de France and London School of Economics), Ufuk Akcigit (University of Chicago), and Alejandra Palacios (Chair of COFECE, the Competition Commission of Mexico).
Type: Call for Papers, Conference
Eligibility: Papers using macro-econometric, micro-econometric, case study and model-based analyses of the effects of product market reforms are welcome. Preference will be given to papers that have a significant empirical content and/or those with direct policy relevance.
Value of Award: Financial support will be provided to cover speakers’ travel and hotel expenses.
Duration of Program: 11th June 2018
How to Apply: Please submit papers to the organisers, copied to Patricia Neidlinger (pneidlinger@imf.org), Ivana Ticha (iticha@worldbank.org), and to Amelia Godber (pmr_conference@oecd.org) by 31 January 2018. Extended abstracts will also be accepted but preference will be given to full drafts.
Only authors of accepted papers will be notified of the decision, which will be communicated by 16 March 2018.
Final drafts will be due by 31 May 2018.
Award Providers: World Bank

World Bank Conference on Africa (Funded) 2018 – Stanford University, USA

Application Deadline: 23rd February 2018
To Be Taken At (Country): USA
About the Award: The fifth Annual Bank Conference on Africa (ABCA) will be held at Stanford, California, on May 31- June 1, 2018. It will cover various topics pertinent to firms in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is being organized jointly by the World Bank (Office of the Chief Economist for the Africa Region), and the Stanford Center on Global Poverty and Development.
The conference will include a keynote address by David McKenzie of the World Bank and opening remarks by Makhtar Diop (World Bank Vice-President for the Africa Region), as well as invited contributions by senior scholars.
Type: Call for Papers, Conference
Eligibility: Submitted papers with a focus on Africa are now welcome on any of the following topics:
  • Technology, innovation and firm performance
  • Productivity and resource allocation
  • The role of firms in job creation
  • Worker productivity and incentives
  • Data and measurement issues pertinent to firms’ growth in Africa
  • High growth entrepreneurship, incubators, accelerators and start-ups.
As well as papers that examine the following in the context of firms: economic growth, conflict, resilience, input and output markets, gender, property rights, infrastructure, and financial constraints.
Value of Award: Limited funds to support travel for successful African presenters may be available.
Duration of Program: May 31- June 1, 2018.
How to Apply: Submissions should be e-mailed to abca@worldbank.org
Award Providers: World Bank

The “Merchants of Death” Survive and Prosper

Lawrence Wittner

During the mid-1930s, a best-selling exposé of the international arms trade, combined with a U.S. Congressional investigation of munitions-makers led by Senator Gerald Nye, had a major impact on American public opinion.  Convinced that military contractors were stirring up weapons sales and war for their own profit, many people grew critical of these “merchants of death.”
Today, some eight decades later, their successors, now more politely called “defense contractors,” are alive and well.  According to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, sales of weapons and military services by the world’s largest 100 corporate military purveyors in 2016 (the latest year for which figures are available) rose to $375 billion.  U.S. corporations increased their share of that total to almost 58 percent, supplying weapons to at least 100 nations around the world.
The dominant role played by U.S. corporations in the international arms trade owes a great deal to the efforts of U.S. government officials.  “Significant parts of the government,” notes military analyst William Hartung, “are intent on ensuring that American arms will flood the global market and companies like Lockheed and Boeing will live the good life.  From the president on his trips abroad to visit allied world leaders to the secretaries of state and defense to the staffs of U.S. embassies, American officials regularly act as salespeople for the arms firms.”  Furthermore, he notes, “the Pentagon is their enabler.  From brokering, facilitating, and literally banking the money from arms deals to transferring weapons to favored allies on the taxpayers’ dime, it is in essence the world’s largest arms dealer.”
In 2013, when Tom Kelly, the deputy assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Political Affairs was asked during a Congressional hearing about whether the Obama administration was doing enough to promote American weapons exports, he replied:  “[We are] advocating on behalf of our companies and doing everything we can to make sure that these sales go through. . . and that is something we are doing every day, basically [on] every continent in the world . . . and we’re constantly thinking of how we can do better.”  This proved a fair enough assessment, for during the first six years of the Obama administration, U.S. government officials secured agreements for U.S. weapons sales of more than $190 billion around the world, especially to the volatile Middle East.  Determined to outshine his predecessor, President Donald Trump, on his first overseas trip, bragged about a $110 billion arms deal (totaling $350 billion over the next decade) with Saudi Arabia.
The greatest single weapons market remains the United States, for this country ranks first among nations in military spending, with 36 percent of the global total.  Trump is a keen military enthusiast, as is the Republican Congress, which is currently in the process of approving a 13 percent increase in the already astronomical U.S. military budget.  Much of this future military spending will almost certainly be devoted to purchasing new and very expensive high-tech weapons, for the military contractors are adept at delivering millions of dollars in campaign contributions to needy politicians, employing 700 to 1,000 lobbyists to nudge them along, claiming that their military production facilities are necessary to create jobs, and mobilizing their corporate-funded think tanks to highlight ever-greater foreign “dangers.”
They can also count upon a friendly reception from their former executives now holding high-level posts in the Trump administration, including:  Secretary of Defense James Mattis (a former board member of General Dynamics); White House Chief of Staff John Kelly (previously employed by several military contractors); Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan (a former Boeing executive); Secretary of the Army Mark Esper (a former Raytheon vice president); Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson (a former consultant to Lockheed Martin); Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Ellen Lord (a former CEO of an aerospace company); and National Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg (a former employee of a major military and intelligence contractor).
This formula works very well for U.S. military contractors, as illustrated by the case of Lockheed Martin, the largest arms merchant in the world.  In 2016, Lockheed’s weapons sales rose by almost 11 percent to $41 billion, and the company is well on its way to even greater affluence thanks to its production of the F-35 fighter jet.  Lockheed began work on developing the technologically-advanced warplane in the 1980s and, since 2001, the U.S. government has expended over $100 billion for its production.  Today, estimates by military analysts as to the total cost to taxpayers of the 2,440 F-35s desired by Pentagon officials range from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, making it the most expensive procurement program in U.S. history.
The F-35’s enthusiasts have justified the enormous expense of the warplane by emphasizing its projected ability to make a quick liftoff and a vertical landing, as well as its adaptability for use by three different branches of the U.S. military.  And its popularity might also reflect their assumption that its raw destructive power will help them win future wars against Russia and China.  “We can’t get into those aircraft fast enough,” Lieutenant General Jon Davis, the Marine Corps’ aviation chief, told a House Armed Services subcommittee in early 2017.  “We have a game changer, a war winner, on our hands.”
Even so, aircraft specialists point out that the F-35 continues to have severe structural problems and that its high-tech computer command system is vulnerable to cyberattack.  “This plane has a long way to go before it’s combat-ready,” remarked a military analyst at the Project on Government Oversight.  “Given how long it’s been in development, you have to wonder whether it’ll ever be ready.”
Startled by the extraordinary expense of the F-35 project, Donald Trump initially derided the venture as “out of control.”  But, after meeting with Pentagon officials and Lockheed CEO Marilynn Hewson, the new president reversed course, praising “the fantastic” F-35 as a “great plane” and authorizing a multi-billion dollar contract for 90 more of them.
In retrospect, none of this is entirely surprising.  After all, other giant military contractors–for example, Nazi Germany’s Krupp and I.G. Farben and fascist Japan’s Mitsubishi and Sumitomo –prospered heavily by arming their nations for World War II and continued prospering in its aftermath.  As long as people retain their faith in the supreme value of military might, we can probably also expect Lockheed Martin and other “merchants of death” to continue profiting from war at the public’s expense.

Austrofascism 2018

THOMAS KLIKAUER

Ever since 1934, the term “Austrofascism” has been used to describe Austria’s carbon-copy of Italy’s Fasci of Combat and Germany’s Nazis. Austrofascism describes a particular Austrian version of a fascistic-authoritarian rule that was installed in Austria in 1934. Historically, the brutal destruction of civil society in Austria was less idyllic as portrayed in the “Sound of Music”. It included Austrofascists murdering trade unionists, social-democrats, communists, Jews, etc. Much of this only intensified after Austria’s annexation by Nazi Germany in 1938 under the Nazi motto: “Heim ins Reich!” – fascists returning to the German Empire. With that, Austrofascism became a full-fledged Nazi regime as an Anti-Semitic, mythical, and ethnically cleansed Volksgemeinschaft was to be established. Austrofascism’s new regime was violently formed based on the Fatherland Front, a fascist paramilitary militia strongly believing in key Nazi ideologies such as ethnic cleansing, Anti-Semitism, militarism, and the Aryan Volksgemeinschaft. All this, however, is no longer just history. Elements of Austrofascism are still alive and well in today’s Austria.
In the recent federal elections in Austria, the deeply Catholic and arch-conservative ÖVP reached 31.5% while the even more right-wing and more xenophobic – some say the ideological successor of Austrofascism – FPÖ received 26%. Currently, both parties are in a coalition government and together they are getting dangerously close to holding a two-thirds majority, allowing both to change Austria’s constitution. With that, Austria’s new Austrofascism might join the extremely reactionary, Anti-Semitic, and George Soros obsessed Hungarian premier minister Victor Orban. This would allow for the extension of Orban’s xenophobic “migration-free zone”. What today is called “migration-free zone”, i.e. the removal of all non-Hungarians, non-Austrians, and non-Germans, used to be called “judenfrei”. “Judenfrei!” was the command given back to Nazi headquarters indicating the complete annihilation of Jewish people in a particular area – in which the Nazi dream of the total annihilation of the Jewish people had been achieved.
Beyond that, Austria’s new coalition might also translate Orban’s hallucinations of the existence of an “imperium of shadows secretly governing the European Union” into a real fight against anything foreign. Victor Orban already seeks closer ties to Austria to re-establish the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This right-wing new centre European empire is destined to fight those dark forces that, in Orban’s reactionary phantasms, follow a sinister plan to convert Europe into a multi-cultural state – a true horror for all those dreaming of racially pure people. Orban’s hideous plan might become reality as an extension of the anti-migrant Visegard countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. Orban and his Austrofascist counterparts have already started talking about creating a middle-European defence line against refugees – an imaginary flood that is besieging Europe.
The FPÖ’s recent electoral success might signify a re-awakening of Austrofascism that was forced into silence for decades during conservative and social-democratic rule in Austria. Austrofascism was suffering a sort of hibernation inside obscure organisations, fascist paramilitary, right wing student fraternities, and, more recently, murky internet groups. Today, much of their nationalistic and Anti-Semitic ideological repertoire is experiencing a renaissance. As much of Europe is steadily drifting to the extreme right, Anti-Semitic images of the “Eternal Jew” re-emerge. Meanwhile the racist “white-power knights” (another Austrofascist mirage) are called upon to defend Europe’s whiteness.
As in the case of Germany’s AfD, its Austrian sister, the FPÖ is deceptively labelled ‘far right’, ‘right-wing populism’ and ‘radical right’ by mainstream media. This camouflages the wolf in the sheep’s skin. Still, some have seen that the FPÖ has clear Nazi tendencies. Twenty of its thirty-three party executives show strong ‘völkische’ tendencies. Völkisch is a key Nazi term and core ideology of Nazism and Austrofascism. All this, however, never exists independent of real people. Within the FPÖ and in many of its leading party positions one finds many “subterranean-Nazis” [Keller-Nazis]. Ex-Neo-Nazi and now FPÖ boss Strache, for example, has a particular violent Neo-Nazi past.
One of Strache’s old Neo-Nazi friends and militia is Andreas Reichhardt. He is set to become a high ranking civil servant in the ministry of transport. Beyond its leader and his old Neo-Nazi mates, the FPÖ also has a strong internal group associated with extreme right-wing student fraternities dreaming of a Germanic imperium based on an Aryan Volksgemeinschaft, the mythical Nazi community. This is an extremely Anti-Semitic ideology. Many of its believers also believe that the EU is incapable to protect Europe’s borders against hordes of migrants and refugees. Therefore, Austrian solders will have to defend Austrian soil against perceived intruders. As a consequence, Austria’s new ÖVP/FPÖ coalition government seeks to double Austria’s defence budget. This will turn its militaristic and chauvinistic ideology into the reality of military hardware ready to fight men, women, and children on Austria’s borders. FPÖ-front woman Anneliese Kitzmüller agrees while jubilantly announcing, “Heil Moving” – moving into a leading position in Austria’s new coalition government. “Sieg Heil” is one of the most obvious Nazi terminologies. Kitzmüller has merged the Nazi “Heil” with the plan to move into a high-paid position in Austria’s state apparatus. Kitzmüller, who likes to replace Christmas with a mythical Germanic fest, also believes that Austria’s borders need to be protected otherwise refugee kids will flood Austrian childcare centres.
The new ÖVP/FPÖ coalition will find a state apparatus already well covered with its people. Based on an earlier ÖVP/FPÖ coalition government (2000 to 2005), the FPÖ was able to infiltrate the Austrian state with its henchmen and women. During those years, Austria’s civil services were deeply penetrated by FPÖ apparatchiks especially in institutions related to the economic governance of Austria as well as those running health and education. FPÖ subversion also extended deep into Austria’s police and military – the FPÖ’s more traditional playground. Much of this textbook-style takeover occurred with Stalinist precision. FPÖ cadres have not only undermined Austria’s state but they also believe in irrational conspiracy theories – a rather common theme in right wing circles reinforced through right-wing internet echo-chambers such as, for example, www.unzensuriert.at. One of such reinforced self-delusions is the silly belief that their right wing idol and, according to Wikipedia, “leader of a homoerotic men’s club” – Jörg Haider – did not die during a car crash but was murdered by Mossad.
Unlike Germany where Merkel’s well established conservatism is “still”(!) shying away from a coalition government with its new Nazis, the AfD, Austria is already one step ahead. Austria’s establishment sees the FPÖ not as Nazis but as a legitimate political party. Still, just as Germany’s AfD, Austria’s FPÖ has very clear Nazi tendencies. As mainstream-corporate media avoids calling a spate a spate, they might inadvertently or deliberately assist in legitimising Germany’s Nazism and Austria’s Austrofascism. Just as in the 1930s, Austria’s bourgeois-conservative parties today are paving the way for crypto-Nazi parties and the rise of Austrofascism. Nowadays these are not called Nazis but euphemistically FPÖ and AfD.
Austro-German fascism was and is different from any other right-wing group or self-appointed crypto-Nazis. It was Austrofascism and German Nazism that made Auschwitz possible. For years if not decades, the press, right-wing media commentators, and conservative parties have cultivated xenophobia and racism in the heart of Europe, secretly assisting the rise of the FPÖ in Austria and the AfD in Germany. Today, Europe’s new Nazi parties can harvest what has been sown for years, if not decades.
After the recent election in Austria, the country seems to be on a path towards crypto-Austrofascism turbocharged by the FPÖ. With the deliberately engineered demise of Europe’s communists (first) and social-democratic parties (later), the new political landscape seems to offer the infamous “less of two evils” choice. It is an engineered choice between neoliberalism and globalisation represented through traditional conservative parties on the one hand and xenophobic nationalism represented through new Neo-Nazi parties on the other hand. These are the realities in central Europe in 2018.
Chauvinism’s march into Austrian state institutions includes the FPÖ’s classical nationalistic demand to leave international organisations, targeting especially those institutions committed to human rights. It includes not just a plan to leave the European Human Rights Convention but also United Nations human rights conventions. This plan exists despite the fact that the European Human Rights Convention is anchored in Austria’s constitution. Soon the constitutional protection might be removed. Austria’s new FPÖ/ÖVP coalition plans to hook up with Austria’s neoliberals – the “Neos” – currently holding 5.3%. Together with the coalition’s 31.5% and 26%, this would secure a two-thirds majority and the ability to change Austria’s constitution. With that, one of Austrofascism’s core dreams might come true.
For many inside the Austrofascist camp, human rights are alien to a country based on homeland, nationalism, race, blood and soil as well as the always dreamed about racist Volksgemeinschaft. In the Volksgemeinschaft, the fasci decides your place in society based on a völkisch-Aryan belonging to the Austro-Germanic community of pure blood. In sharp contrast, Human Rights are seen as simply irrelevant for those believing their life is shaped by national (soil) and racial (blood) forces. Human Rights remain alien to the völkische homeland and to those who love their homeland, their blood and their soil. Today, Austria’s homeland party is the party FPÖ.
Taking a look at the FPÖ’s party programme, a rather different picture from the fasci-idyllic Volksgemeinschaft emerges. What is served up is a skilful assortment of nationalism and neoliberalism. This includes the traditional ideological programme of Austro-Hungarian demagogue, aristocrat and Pinochet supporter Friedrich August von Hayek (“von” indicates royalty). The programme features well-known elements such as reducing the state, lowering taxes for the rich and corporations, cutting welfare provisions, fighting trade unions, and so on. The FPÖ sells its party programme as an “optimisation” of Austria’s welfare state targeting the poor and the illusive “other”.
Traditionally, Nazism, Fascism, and Austrofascism acted strongly, violently, brutally, and quite often rather sadistically against the “other” – the left, the social-democrats, communists, trade unions and so on. Long and behold, the FPÖ’s Austrofascism includes a fight against collective agreements signed between trade unions and employers. Currently, about 98% of all Austrian workers are covered by collective agreements. Since a long time, Austria’s employers have sought to destroy this. A newly empowered Austrofascist party may well support it. Austrofascism and capitalism may just be reflections of what the philosopher Horkheimer said in 1939, “if you don’t want to talk about capitalism then you had better keep quiet about fascism.” Supporting capitalism, the FPÖ’s party programme does not include minimum wage provisions. Why should it? The Anti-Semitic Volksgemeinschaft will take care of those capitalism does not need. Fascism always includes labour camps.

Trump’s Jerusalem Decision and Ongoing U.S. Decline

Gary Leupp

The world, to say nothing of two-thirds of the people in this country, deplores Donald Trump. It rejects his racist, sexist rhetoric, his wild and foolish pronouncements, his arrogance, his abundant manifestations of malignant narcissism. The world deplores his withdrawal from the Paris Accord, his rejection of the painstakingly negotiated Iran nuclear agreement, and now his decision—opposed by his leading advisors (except for his son-in-law Jared Kushner)—to recognize, as no other nation save the occupying power Israel ever has, occupied Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The recent UN General Assembly vote implicitly condemning Trump’s decision—which so infuriated the clueless U.S. UN ambassador, Nikki Haley—was a harsh rebuke to Trump. But did it not reflect a broader repudiation of the contemporary U.S.A.? A recent Pew poll, taken before the Jerusalem announcement, showed that only 49% of the world’s people now see the U.S. favorably.
Trump argues validly that he has simply made official what has been U.S. policy since 1995, when Congress, pressured by the Israel Lobby, passed the “Jerusalem Embassy Act.” The move was politically unproblematic within the U.S.; at the time nearly 50% of U.S. residents told pollsters they believed that “God gave Israel to the Jews.” The mix of Lobby influence, Christian Evangelical credence to biblical myth (Genesis 12:3), general historical ignorance and racist indifference to the plight of a cruelly oppressed and humiliated people produced that vote (of 374 to 37 in the House and 93 to 5 in the Senate).
That is to say: this preposterous recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem, including—as it necessarily does—an open attack on Palestinian rights, is not merely another eccentric work of Trump. It is a natural emanation of U.S. imperialist culture.
The Obama presidency showed how a leader continuing and expanding on his predecessor’s assault on the Middle East could maintain high domestic ratings; enjoy the respect of the leaders of allied states, such as the UK, France and Germany; and if we can believe the polls even receive a generally positive reception from the world’s people.
But the Trump presidency shows how a leader staying his predecessors’ course on Afghanistan, Iraq and even to a considerable extent Syria (these involvements, and U.S. knee-jerk support for Israel, being the key source of global hatred for the U.S.) can only retain the support of one-third of the U.S. population. This is due to his manifest ignorance, bigotry and general buffoonery. It shows too that there are limits to western allies’ deference. Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Emmanuel Marcon have all had harsh words for Trump on climate, Iran, trade, immigration, Islam, Korea threats, and now Jerusalem.
This is good. Fractures in the unholy alliance called NATO, the anti-Russian alliance which successive U.S. administrations have sought to expand, and which under Trump’s watch has now included Montenegro, can only be positive.
Let Washington’s current imperialist partners conclude that the U.S. cannot lead the world in a direction that advantages them. Let them conclude that the preposterous Jerusalem decision, which can only produce more violence, is the last straw. Let the European masses realize that Europe’s refugee crisis is the fruit of U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya that made no sense. Let them realize that Washington’s drive to include Ukraine in NATO through the February 2014 putsch led to Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and the U.S.-mandated sanctions on Russia damaging European economies. Let them realize that U.S.-directed military drills in east Europe are needless, expensive provocations. Let them rethink the whole relationship with the bloodiest power in the contemporary world, which virtually celebrates Israeli bloodlust with no thought for the consequences.
Let the Russians and Chinese, India and Brazil, everybody everywhere understand that the U.S. is not, should not, and cannot be what it so arrogantly pretends to be: world leader and moral exemplar. It is rather a behemoth in steep decline, hopelessly corrupt and fundamentally unjust, despite its vast wealth and ferocious martial might unable to control the course of global events or even bully its closest allies into obedience.
The 128-9 vote on Jerusalem at the UN General Assembly Dec. 21 is not just a response to one man’s stupid announcement on Dec. 7 but a belated reply to all too much terror, inflicted by what Martin Luther King in 1967 called the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” That world was dominated by the contention of two superpowers with firm alliances behind them. This world is dominated by a chaos produced by a would-be hegemon alienating allies, quasi-allies, friendly non-allies and declared foes alike.
The president is, by his own secretary of state’s assessment, a moron; he knows nothing about history. While indifferent to details about foreign and domestic policy he stands squarely with Israel, blissfully heedless of the consequences. Under his administration, as long as it lasts, the U.S. can only decline further as a world power. America will be “great” again, through economic growth bypassing the masses, and military expansion accomplishing nothing but further global outrage. Then, like Spain, the Netherlands, the U.K. and Japan before it, it will shrivel up as China’s economy relentlessly expands and as Eurasia ultimately emerges as the world’s most dynamic common market.
Trump’s unwitting historical role is to positively abet this decline. What the president announced as a “new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians” and “a long-overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement” is in fact another step down the slope.

Welcome To Kabul

Ken Hannaford-Ricardi

December 31, 2017: It is a dream come true being back among friends in Kabul! Streams of dented Toyotas (They are all Toyotas!) with windscreens cracked like bolts of lightning still jockey for position on roads where traffic lights and common sense hold little sway. Carts of vegetables drawn by donkeys or dragged by men without dreams continue clotting the already stuttering traffic, forcing it almost to a standstill. Stucco houses remain stapled to mountainsides, one tripping over the other as they race to the top. And smog, as thick and foul-smelling as only winter in Kabul can conjure up. It felt wonderful being home!
As a team-building exercise, three of us chose this afternoon to clean the chimney of one of our wood stoves. Four lengths of sooty pipe and two elbow joints later, the stove was ready to refire and all three of us needed a good bath. We laughed (mostly young ones) and swore (mostly me) in almost equal proportions.
As we got ready for bed last night, we heard a sustained series of what most of us thought was gunfire. The wail of a siren followed shortly thereafter and caused us to wonder if we should head to the basement for a bit. We waited it out on the second floor. We were brave, or not.
This morning brought rumors of three explosions nearby. We scrambled for information, but little was forthcoming. Later, we were forwarded an email from a friend working near us. The attack, it appeared, had centered on a Shia mosque. “It is more than sad,” our friend said. “Latest update showed 45 people killed and 85 wounded. Going to the scene, there is nothing more than blood, flesh, meat, dust, and fear. We again see Afghans die for nothing and families lose their loved ones because of ongoing US-backed war.” My young co-workers are physically okay.
Tonight, after dinner, I had the chance to talk with a young Afghan friend about his family. Married for just a brief period, his wife conceived. They were happy. Their families rejoiced. One night during their son’s fourth month, he woke up sick enough to be taken to the doctor’s. After an examination, the doctor gave the boy a number of injections, and the family was sent home. Later that same evening, the child’s condition worsened, and the parents took him to a hospital, where he died. My friend and his wife still do not know what claimed their son’s life.
Welcome to Kabul.

'Comfort Women' and the Japan-South Korea Relationship

Sandip Kumar Mishra



Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe might not participate in the inaugural ceremony of the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics because a South Korean task force has stated that the agreement with Japan on the ‘comfort women’ issue, signed in December 2015, has serious flaws. This will be an undesirable start in the new year for Japan-South Korea relations. Abe’s decision will definitely impact his proposal for a Japan-South Korea-Japan trilateral summit meet in April 2018 as Seoul may retaliate with a similar gesture. The trilateral meeting, scheduled to be held in Japan over the past two years, was postponed each time. 

If Japan and South Korea are unable to reach an understanding and decline participation at the highest levels at bilateral and multilateral platforms, it would further widen misperception and increase the bilateral trust deficit. This, in turn, will have implications for regional politics as well as US policy in the region, for which both Japan and South Korea, as the US' closest allies in the region, will have to coordinate their positions on. Their bilateral disagreements will weaken a collective approach towards not only China but also an imminent crisis on the Korean peninsula. 

The agreement reached between South Korea and Japan on the 'comfort women' issue was contested within the former right from the beginning. It was said that rather than genuinely deliberating on the specifics of the agreement in consultation with all stakeholders in a comprehensive manner, both South Korea and Japan hurriedly arrived at the deal under pressure from the US. Also, the previous South Korean President Park Geun-hye in the beginning of her term over-emphasised the ‘comfort women’ issue, and thus put most of the other exchanges with Japan hostage to its resolution. She even avoided meeting the Japanese prime minister on multilateral platforms in the third countries. When the fallout of this approach began having an impact on South Korea’s economic and other exchanges with Japan, Park Geun-hye moved to reach an agreement at the earliest and instructed her officials to conclude a deal with Japan as soon as possible. Similarly, Japan also showed its eagerness to reach a quick settlement as that meant only a roughly US$ 8.8 million Japanese compensation to be deposited in a fund established for the surviving ‘comfort women’. 

It is interesting to note that after the agreement, the South Korean government and media highlighted Japan’s acceptance of its war-time mistakes; the Japanese government and media, however, were more keen on reporting that the agreement was ‘final and irreversible’. Any agreement that is arrived at by following a just and inclusive process becomes ‘final,’ even though it keeps a provision of non-finality. An agreement becomes ‘final’ not by having it in writing, in black and white, but rather by being fair, and genuine in being open to further additions. Unfortunately, this deal cannot be said to have been signed in good faith, given as it was reached without enough domestic consultation in either country. It was almost certain from the very beginning that a change of government in South Korea would lead to its review and that is what is happening now.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, after coming to power in May 2017, sent his special envoy to Japan to discuss a plethora of mutual concerns and to indicate to Japan that they would be happy to work together to tackle them. However, problematic issues of history, territory and even ‘comfort women’ must be discussed without prioritising the speed at which they ought to be settled. The two-pronged approach to cooperate with Japan on certain issues while with maintaining principled differences on other issues appears to be a mature response which both countries would be best advised to follow. In fact, the spectrum of issues common to the Japan-South Korea bilateral us varied and huge.  After the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1965, both countries have taken huge leaps in bilateral exchanges in economic, educational, cultural, and people-to-people domains. Both are the US' security allies, and share common challenges in the form of North Korea and China. Japan and South Korea, with the US, established a Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group (TCOG) in 1999 to deal with security and strategic issues. 

In this context, both the former South Korean President Park Geun-hye and now Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have made a bad call in reducing their multifaceted relations to cherry-picked issues that are the cause of bilateral friction.

Doklam and the India-US Strategic Relationship

Pieter-Jan Dockx



A widely debated aspect of the Doklam standoff was the US’ apparent lack of support for India during the impasse. Considering the alleged strengthened ties between both countries and their 2015 Joint Strategic Vision for the region, analysts expected Washington to firmly back New Delhi. However, apart from a negligible remark calling for a peaceful resolution to the standoff, no statements in support of New Delhi were issued. Based on interview data, this article demonstrates that the various arguments that seek to explain this lack of support are inconclusive, and suffer from an implicit overestimation of the US-India strategic partnership. The standoff has shown that despite President Trump’s discourse of a strengthened strategic connection with India, the US administration still gives precedence to its interests with regard to China, and prioritises regional partners like Japan. India is much lower on the order of priorities than popularly understood.
The US’ failure to explicitly support India has been explained in a number of ways. One argument suggests that the lack of a statement can be explained through a combination of factors like the Trump administration’s preoccupation with domestic politics, and the absence of a US ambassador to India at the time. However, this seems rather unlikely given that the US is always quick to point out others’ misconduct, especially the Trump administration and the President's Twitter diplomacy. It is hard to believe that the absence of an ambassador would stop the US president from taking a dig at China as he continuously did during the election campaign.
Another argument suggests that the US did not want to antagonise China because it needs the country to pressure North Korea to end its nuclear ambitions. However, this hypothesis also lacks cogency in some ways. The current North Korea episode started in January 2017, and in February, President Trump extended support to Japan’s claims over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, a move not received well in Beijing. Even in August during the Doklam standoff, the US administration stepped up its naval campaign in the South China Sea, again angering China. Thus, Washington’s Korea policy has not stopped them from provoking Beijing in the recent past.
Then there is also an explanation that suggests that India asked the US not to issue any statements, fearing that the country’s involvement would lead to an escalation of tension, which New Delhi wanted to avoid. The US' point of view was that while Washington was eager to comment, India did not ask the US to issue a statement, and thus they refrained from doing so. While some experts agreed with this analysis, most expressed serious doubt about the justification. They stated that India should not have to ask the US to comment; the US was at liberty to support India, and they chose not to.
Further evidence seems to support this analysis. The Japanese Ambassador to India firmly backed New Delhi in the conflict. Considering Japan’s troublesome relationship with China, their expression of support could equally antagonise China and escalate the conflict. Going by the argument that India should have asked partners for support, the events still do not match up. Japan voiced support and the US did not – indicating then that India asked only Japan to offer its backing. This scenario seems highly unlikely. On the other hand is the argument that India asked the US not to comment. Again, this would lead to the assumption that India either forgot to inform Japan to also not comment, or Japan blatantly rejected said request. Given the strong ties between both countries, a Japanese rejection seems improbable.
As no existing argument offers a conclusive answer, a more plausible explanation of this lack of support is that despite President Trump’s emphasis on the importance of the US-India strategic relationship, the ties are not as robust as suggested. The relationship is not yet comparable to those with other partners like Japan, and US' interest in China still trumps the New Delhi-Washington relationship. Hence, all the aforementioned arguments mistakenly tap into the US narrative of an enhanced strategic partnership between both countries. While sceptics of the US-India strategic partnership in India’s policy circles had been fading into the background, the Doklam crisis, reaffirmed by President Trump’s recent China visit, has brought these unconvinced voices back to the fore.
Finally, although it is impossible to accurately determine China's motives behind the road construction, some analysts have suggested that China sought to test the allegedly improving US-India strategic relationship. If that was the case, Beijing achieved its objective and was able to sow doubt in Indian strategic circles. However, this goal could come at a high cost as China’s assertiveness may ironically have the unintended consequence of driving New Delhi closer to Washington.