3 Mar 2018

Germany: The membership vote and the war policy of the SPD

Ulrich Rippert

The Social Democratic Party (SPD) membership vote on a new edition of the grand coalition ended yesterday. Since February 20, 464,000 SPD party members have had the opportunity to vote by mail. On Sunday, the SPD executive will then announce the result.
The aim of the vote was not to ascertain the opinion of the SPD rank and file and then orientate the policy of the executive to the outcome of the membership vote. The broad rejection of the grand coalition in the population and among the SPD ranks has long been known. In the general election in September last year, all the parties of the outgoing grand coalition—the Christian Democrats (CDU/CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD)—were massively punished. As a pay-off for its right-wing, anti-social policies, the SPD vote slumped to 20.5 percent, its worst election result in 70 years. Since then, it has slipped by another 5 percent in voter surveys.
The real aim of the membership vote has been to provide a kind of pseudo-democratic cover for the continuation of the grand coalition, in order to realize a political programme that is even more right-wing than that of the last government, against the declared resistance of the population. To achieve this, the SPD executive has used the vote to conduct an intense propaganda campaign in support of the proposed coalition and has sought to intimidate all its opponents.
When the ballot papers were sent out 10 days ago, the SPD executive approved a three-page letter praising the coalition agreement to the heavens. It said, “The coalition agreement bears clear social democratic handwriting!” And further, “The bottom line is that our negotiation results [with the CDU/CSU] provide the basis for a government that puts people at the centre of its work—with all their hopes, desires, but also worries and fears. Only with the SPD is such a policy possible.” The arguments of the coalition’s opponents were completely hidden from sight.
At seven regional conferences, countless district assemblies and local organisation meetings, as well as in talk shows and media interviews, active and former executive members appeared and warned the membership of the consequences of a rejection. Former party leader Rudolf Scharping spoke for them all when he told the Rhein-Zeitung that new elections would be “a life-threatening risk for the SPD” and “bad for Germany.”
It is hard to better formulate the SPD leadership’s fears of the people and their determination to use brutal methods against any resistance.
This dictatorial demeanour emerges directly from the programme of the grand coalition, whose true core was covered up at all SPD events. Nowhere in the various conferences and meetings, and in the media reports, has there been any talk of what stands at the heart of the coalition agreement: the pursuit of great power politics, a doubling of military spending and preparations for war.
The word “Bundeswehr” (armed forces) appears more than three dozen times in the coalition agreement, and the decision on rearming the military permeates all policy areas. The entire thrust of the next government’s work is to be geared towards the return of Germany to aggressive foreign and great power policies.
The central chapter, “Germany’s Responsibility for Peace, Freedom and Security in the World,” comprises 20 pages and reads like a strategy document for a third grab for world power. The list of German areas of interests includes the Western Balkans, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Armaments production is to be massively expanded and specifically promoted. The coalition agreement states, “The Bundeswehr will procure what it needs, not what it is offered.” What is needed is “a transparent, effective and optimized armaments processes.” How the doubling of defence spending is to be financed along with simultaneous tax cuts for corporations and the rich, as well as a ban on new debt, is not explained. Clearly, a renewed policy of comprehensive social cuts was secretly agreed.
Following the monstrous crimes committed by the German army in two world wars, and in view of the massive popular resistance against rearmament, the Bundeswehr had to call itself a “parliamentary army” in the post-war years. This was supposed to ensure the strict subordination of the military to parliament and the elected government.
Now the coalition agreement turns this control into a “duty of care” towards the military. It states that the Bundestag (parliament) assumes a “special responsibility for our soldiers,” and, “So that the Bundeswehr can properly fulfil the orders given to it in all dimensions, we will provide the soldiers with the best possible equipment, training and support.”
To this end, the “trend reversals in personnel, material and finances” initiated are to be systematically continued, and “in addition to ensuring the sustainable financing of the Bundeswehr, the necessary conditions are to be guaranteed for planning and financing security investments over the years.” In the future, a “parliamentary army” means that parliament must ensure the implementation of the requirements of the army brass.
The massive pressure the SPD leadership has exerted on its own members over the past 10 days during the vote is part of a political conspiracy to implement this militaristic program.
The SPD leadership even wants to keep the counting of votes strictly under its control. Unlike the first SPD membership vote on the 2013 coalition agreement, which took place under notarial control, no premises have been hired for the count this time. The ballots are being transported by Post Office trucks to SPD headquarters at Willy Brandt Haus. There, 120 SPD volunteers will carry out the count under the eyes of the party executive.
Another element of this undemocratic process is the opposition campaign by Juso (Young Socialists) boss Kevin Kühnert, who parades in the media as a spokesman for the coalition opponents within the SPD. Kühnert himself is a member of the SPD executive committee and largely agrees with the content of the coalition agreement.
The 28-year-old son of a Berlin civil servant joined the SPD in 2005, the last year of the SPD-Green Party coalition under Gerhard Schröder and Joshka Fischer, as thousands of SPD members protested against Agenda 2010 and the Hartz laws—introducing massive attacks on welfare and labour rights—and the war policy, with thousands resigning from the party. For Kühnert, the Schröder SPD did not look repugnant, but appealing. He has worked systematically on his rise through the party ever since.
Even now, he constantly emphasizes that “regardless of the current differences,” the party must be united and strengthened after the vote. His nationwide  no-groko” tour (No Grand Coalition) is not designed to organize a political fight against the grand coalition, but serves above all to raise his own profile. Like the advocates of a grand coalition, his primary concern is rescuing the SPD, which has played the leading role in implementing social cuts and the return to militarism over the past two decades and has repressed all working class resistance in close collaboration with the unions.
The WSWS and the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party, SGP) advocate the opposite view. We welcome the growing opposition of many workers and young people against the SPD, which is also manifested in its loss of votes and the decline of the party in the polls. The claim that it is possible to renew or reform the SPD “in opposition” is wrong and a deliberate fraud. If the SPD were in opposition, it would protect the CDU/CSU government from the rear, suppress resistance against it, and prevent all socialist developments in the working class.
Ever since the SPD agreed to the Kaiser’s war credits in 1914 on the eve of the First World War and bloodily suppressed the November Revolution of 1918 a century ago, it has been one of the most important political pillars of German imperialism. Today it is trying to take the lead in advancing Germany’s great power politics, military rearmament and police state measures.
It is not the renewal of the SPD but the construction of the SGP that is the task of the hour. We call on workers to break with the SPD-controlled unions and to build workers’ committees that carefully study the coalition agreement and develop the growing opposition to redundancies and welfare cuts into a broad political movement for new elections and against the coming grand coalition.

EU threatens retaliation to Trump’s trade war measures

Peter Symonds

European leaders yesterday threatened trade retaliation after President Trump announced global tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on imports of aluminium. Trump, however, responded with a series of tweets making clear that he does not intend to back down on a move that could provoke an escalating trade war.
European Union (EU) trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström told the Financial Times that the EU would have little choice but to challenge US tariffs in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and impose its own tariffs and other retaliatory measures. Warning of the danger of a trade war, she said: “We risk seeing a dangerous domino effect.”
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker suggested in the German media that plans were being drawn up to tax American goods such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, Kentucky bourbon and blue jeans if the planned tariffs on steel and aluminium were implemented. The choice of goods was targeted at the home states of key US Republican leaders.
In a swipe directed against Trump and his administration, Juncker added: “None of this is reasonable, but reason is a sentiment that is very unevenly distributed in this world.” He said that European trade retaliation would conform with WTO rules.
Trump’s announcement triggered international criticism and warnings, including from US allies that will be among the hardest hit if the tariffs go through next week. While the Trump administration’s rhetoric has been directed against China and Russia, Russia is only the fifth-largest source of US steel imports, and China the eleventh-largest.
In Germany, Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for Chancellor Merkel, rejected the US tariffs, warning that they could lead to a global trade war that would not be in anyone’s interest. The president of the German Steel Federation, Hans Jürgen Kerkhoff, declared that the measures violated WTO rules and urged the EU to react.
France’s economy minister Bruno Le Maire said the US tariffs would have a major impact on the European economy and a number of French companies, including in steel and aluminium which were in a “particularly fragile” state. He warned that a trade war between Europe and the US “will only result in losers.”
American allies pointed to the hypocrisy of the Trump administration in invoking national security rules in trade legislation to implement the tariffs.
Canadian foreign minister Chrystia Freeland declared: “It is entirely inappropriate to view any trade with Canada as a national security threat to the United States.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau branded any tariffs on steel and aluminium as “absolutely unacceptable.”
Canada is the top supplier of steel to the US, accounting for about 17 percent of total American steel imports. “Canada will take responsive measures to defend its trade interests and workers,” Freeland warned.
Japanese trade minister Hiroshige Seko responded similarly, saying he saw “absolutely no impact on American security” from Japanese steel and aluminium imports. Shares in Japanese and South Korean steel and aluminium corporations, like their European counterparts, fell sharply yesterday.
Trump, however, responded to the international backlash with a belligerent tweet. “When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win,” he declared.
“Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore—we win big. It’s easy!”
Trump followed up hours later by repeating his protectionist credo: “We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!”
In reality, a downward spiral into full-blown trade war threatens a major contraction in world trade and the world economy and a further acceleration of geo-political tensions that are already driving the world towards war.
Within the United States, industry groups and economists are already warning that higher steel and aluminium prices in the US would make key manufacturing sectors such as auto, aerospace and whitegoods less competitive internationally. Amid the falls and volatility on Wall Street sparked by fears of trade conflict, these companies were the hardest hit.
Michael Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisers, told the Financial Times that auto manufactures faced increased costs for what were significant inputs. “They will have a choice whether to pass those costs along to consumers or become less profitable,” he said.
Trump’s announcement has sharpened divisions in US ruling circles and compounded the intense political crisis within his own administration. Hard-line advocates of protectionism such as Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross have vigorously defended the planned tariffs and dismissed the potential fallout.
Speaking on Bloomberg TV, Ross backed the imposition of the tariffs against all countries, rather than targeting particular exporters. “We have to deal with a global problem on a global basis,” he said, in order to stamp out exports being routed through third countries to evade trade restrictions.
Ross told CNBC that the Trump administration was “going to fight back,” adding, “In any war there may be a few casualties. That just comes with the nature of the beast.” He dismissed the concerns of manufacturers, declaring that the increased cost of a can of Campbell’s soup as a result of higher steel prices would be miniscule.
However, according to the Politico, Trump’s top economic adviser, Gary Cohn could be on the point of resigning over the tariff announcement. Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs executive and director of the National Economic Council, is a mouthpiece within the White House for the interests of finance capital and an opponent of protectionism.
Politico reported: “The tariff decision on Thursday capped several weeks of freewheeling and often caustic debates that one White House aide called ‘absolute chaos’ and featured loud disputes between Cohn and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, a leading advocate of tariffs.”
The article also noted that Cohn’s opposition to tariffs “was echoed by most of the members of Trump’s national security team, including national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary Jim Mattis.” They are concerned about alienating key allies in Asia and Europe right at the point that Washington is intensifying military operations in Syria and preparing for imminent war against North Korea.
Trade war and war are intimately interconnected as the US seeks to undermine its main rivals in its bid for global hegemony. It is no accident that propagandists for trade war such as Ross and Navarro are above all antagonistic to China, which Washington regards as its chief obstacle to world domination.

2 Mar 2018

Africa Scholarships at Macquarie University for Undergraduate & Postgraduate Students 2018/2019 – Australia

Application Deadline: 30th June 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Macquarie University Australia

Field of Study: courses offered at the university

About the Award: Under the Africa scholarships, Macquarie University will provide a specific amount annually to each successful student commencing in either 2017 or 2018. Payment of the scholarship will be applied equally towards your tuition fee for each session for the duration of your studies. As this scholarship is competitive, you are encouraged to accept your course and scholarship offers without delay to guarantee your eligibility to receive the scholarship.
The scholarship is for full time, on-campus study only.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters taught.

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: To be eligible for this scholarship, candidate must:
  • be a citizen of an African country.
  • have applied for undergraduate or postgraduate coursework through a registered Macquarie University agent or through our online application system.
  • have met the University’s academic and English requirements for the course offered at our North Ryde campus.
  • commence study in the session and year indicated in your scholarship letter of offer. Commencement may not be deferred.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The university of Macquarie provides AU$5000 annually towards your tuition fees for the length of the course (AU$2500 is credited against your tuition fees each semester).

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship is awarded annually for on-campus study only.

How to Apply: Applicants don’t need to apply directly to be considered for a country scholarship. Applicants who meet the criteria will be automatically advised of their eligibility in their Macquarie University course offer letter.
  • Details on how to apply to Macquarie University for a coursework degree are available on the website. Visit goto.mq/howtoapply
  • Applicants who meet the criteria will be automatically advised of their eligibility in their Macquarie University course offer letter sent via email.
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: Macquarie University, Australia

Important Notes:
  • Students who are on an English-packaged course are eligible for this scholarship if they commence their course in 2017 or 2018.
  • You’re not eligible if you have received any other Macquarie University scholarship (which may include the UAC Scholarship) for this course of study, unless you have been advised otherwise by a representative of the university.
  • To remain eligible for this scholarship, you must stay enrolled in your original approved course of study and pass all units within the course.
  • If you withdraw from your program before completion, you may be required to repay any scholarship previously awarded to you during your study period at Macquarie University based on the outcome as decided by the scholarships and grants committee.

MISF Du Pré Grants for Multiple Sclerosis Researchers from Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 30th June 2018

Eligible Countries: Emerging Countries

About the Award: MISF offers Du Pré Grants to MS researchers from emerging countries to enable them to make short visits to established MS research centres outside their own country, either to learn from each other or to carry out parts of joint research projects. The aim is to encourage cross-fertilisation of skills through collaborative research projects. Two of the annual awards are supported by Stichting MS Research (the Dutch MS Research Foundation).

Type: Research

Eligibility: All candidates must:
  • be educated to post graduate level in an area relevant to multiple sclerosis (MS)
  • be citizens of an emerging country (all countries with a low, lower middle or upper middle income as defined by the World Bank)
  • focus their research in an area relevant to MS
Before nomination, candidates need to have identified a suitable project and discussed their involvement with the project supervisor of the host institution outside their own country. Candidates are encouraged to identify a suitable host institute and supervisor to develop their project proposal before applying.

Candidates are expected to return to their own countries at the end of the study period where they will contribute to advancing care and research in MS.
The grant may also be used as a supplement for work related to MS by a candidate who has been accepted for training in a recognised institute (within the six months prior to nomination) but who doesn’t have enough money to cover the total cost.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Research: Each grant is likely to be between UK £2,000 and £4,000, to a maximum of £5,000. The funds are intended to go towards travel and living costs, or to top up an existing grant to extend a visit.

Duration of Research: Visits generally last between two and six months.

How to Apply: Candidates must provide the following to apply: A letter from the candidate detailing their reasons for nomination and the requested grant amount. His or her curriculum vitae. Signed testimonies (references) from at least two people with whom the candidate has worked. A description of the field of research that the candidate wishes to be trained in or the research that he or she wishes to carry out A lay summary of the research proposal A letter of support from the supervisor of the host institution, indicating that appropriate facilities will be made available.

Click here to apply for a Du Pré Grant

Visit Research Webpage for details

Award Provider: MISF

British Ecological Society Grants for Ecologists in Africa 2018

Application Deadline: Monday 21st March 2018

Offered Annually? Twice in a Year

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: This grant provides support for ecologists in Africa to carry out innovative ecological research. We recognise that ecologists in Africa face unique challenges in carrying out research; our grant is designed support you to develop your skills, experience and knowledge base as well as making connections with ecologists in the developed world. We support excellent ecological science in Africa by funding services and equipment.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: Applicants should:
  • be a scientist and a citizen of a country in Africa or its associated islands, that is a ‘low-income economy’ or ‘lower-middle-income economy’ according to the World Bank categorisation
  • have at least an MSc or equivalent degree
  • be working for a university or research institution in Africa (including field centres, NGOs, museums etc.) that provides basic research facilities
  • carry out the research in a country in Africa or its associated islands
Selection Criteria: 
  • The application will be judged by a panel of reviewers on the basis of your personal qualifications, the scientific excellence, novelty and feasibility of the proposal, and the academic and non-academic impact of the planned research.
  • You should demonstrate that you have made connections with ecologists in a developed country that can provide advice during the proposed project. If international travel is part of the application, you should demonstrate close links with those they propose to visit.
  • Funding is available for any area of ecological science excluding research focused solely on agriculture, forestry and bioprospecting. Please note that neither purely descriptive work nor studies that might be considered incremental will be funded.
  • The proposed project could be part of an existing programme but the application should be for a clearly defined piece of research. Researchers must also show how their research will have a wider impact beyond academia.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • The maximum value of a grant is £8,000 for research.
  • An additional sum up to £2,000 may be requested to fund travel to help you develop connections with other ecologists outside your usual peer group.
  • Travel funds are available to spend time working with ecologists in developed countries where facilities and experience will help you on return to your own institution.
  • Successful applicants also receive two years of free BES membership and free online access to our journals.
Duration/Timeline of Program: The proposed work must be completed within 18 months.

Apply Online

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: British Ecological Society

Important Notes: Applicants are only able to submit one grant application per round, across all grant schemes.

Obama Foundation Scholars Program for Emerging Leaders to Study at University of Chicago 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 10th April 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): University of Chicago, USA

About the Award: The Obama Foundation Scholars Program is a new program from the Obama Foundation and the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy for rising leaders from around the world who are focused on an issue of global importance, have a track record and commitment to advancing the public good, and want to accelerate their impact. The Obama Foundation Scholars Program seeks a diverse cohort for our first class who represent a cross section of backgrounds including those working in government, the private sector, and NGOs and civil society organizations.
 The Obama Foundation Scholars Program will give rising young leaders around the world who are already making a difference in their communities the opportunity to take their work to the next level through a newly designed curriculum that brings together academic, skills-based, and hands-on learning. The Scholars Program empowers individuals with a proven commitment to service with the tools they need to make their efforts more effective, to identify innovative solutions to complex global problems, and promote change through values-based leadership.

Field of Study: Master of Arts in International Development and Policy

Type: Masters, Training

Eligibility: Rising leaders from around the world who meet the below criteria are encouraged to apply:
  • Significant work experience and professional accomplishments with a clear trajectory of increasing impact.
  • Demonstrated record of community service or working for the public good, either through a full-time professional role or significant engagement outside of primary employment.
  • Possess a clear focus on a globally applicable challenge.
  • A clear commitment to return to and reinvest your new skills in your community after the program concludes.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:  
  • Obama Foundation Scholars at the University of Chicago will receive a fully-funded scholarship to study a Master of Arts degree focused on International Development and Policy at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.
  • Any travel costs for these experiences will also be fully covered.
  • In addition to classroom studies, the Obama Foundation will offer a robust program of leadership development and service activities throughout the academic year to help Scholars gain the real-world skills, tools, and experiences to expand the impact of their work when they return home.  These may include leadership development convenings; program experiences in New York and Washington, DC; speaker series with innovators across a variety of sectors; individual and group service projects; mentorship through the Obama Foundation network; potential internship placements; and action plan development for post-program activities.
  • Some of these Foundation activities will include experiences throughout Chicago and the South Side. By engaging with the local community, students will have the opportunity to complement what they learn in the classroom and also to bring their unique perspectives to Chicago.
Duration of Program: 1 year

How to Apply: APPLY AT UCHICAGO
It is important to read through the Obama Foundation Scholars Webpage, the FAQ as well as the UChicago Webpage before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Obama Foundation

Robert F. Kennedy Civic Space Litigation Surgery for Lawyers and Civil Society Organizations in Africa (Fully-funded to Dakar, Senegal) 2018

Application Deadline: 16th March 2018.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Dakar, Senegal

About the Award: All applicants are required to submit a current or potential case involving the protection of civic space for discussion and workshopping.
Objectives of the litigation surgery:
  • To identify high-impact cases to submit before the African human rights system (i.e. the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, and East African Court of Justice) to address key areas in the protection of civic space.
  • To confidentially workshop cases among participants and experienced litigants in the African and Inter-American Human Rights System, receiving feedback and cross-regional advice on litigation and advocacy strategies.
  • To identify resources, partnerships, and ongoing support needed to facilitate the filing of cases and accompanying advocacy strategies.

Type: Training, Workshop

Eligibility: 
  • The litigation surgery is open to lawyers and civil society representatives from African Union member states, with a demonstrated commitment to addressing threats to civic space in their home country through regional human rights litigation.
  • The participants must be involved in, or considering, litigating a case or cases that address the suppression of civic space involving a violation of the rights to freedoms of expression, assembly, and/or association. With their application, they must submit a case that they are litigating or intend to litigate before an African human rights body that could be discussed and workshopped during the litigation surgery.
  • The following non-exhaustive list of themes are a guide for the types of cases that could be submitted with the application:
    • Suppression of peaceful protests — e.g. through excessive use of force against protesters; criminalization of protestors and organizers; legal frameworks that either prevent, restrict and/or chill protest;
    • Burdensome regulatory restrictions on civil society organizations — e.g. constraints on access to foreign funding and foreign partnerships; obstacles in registering or maintaining registration;
    • Suppression of the media and access to information — e.g. misuse of criminal defamation laws; restricted access to the internet and social media; abuse of cyber-crimes laws; other violations that produce a chilling effect on the media, citizen journalism, or access to information;
    • Abuse of laws or policies in the context of countering terrorism — e.g. misuse of broad counter-terrorism laws to criminalize and/or chill legitimate activities of civic actors;
    • Impunity for threats, violence, and arbitrary detention against human rights defenders, activists, journalists, and other civic actors.
  • While all civic space cases will be considered, we encourage cases that touch on an intersectionality of issues and/or address untested or developing areas of regional human rights jurisprudence including:
    • Cases that highlight the role of multinational corporations and the suppression of civic space;
    • Cases that link the suppression of civic space to economic, social, and cultural rights — in particular environmental rights;
    • Cases that demonstrate how the suppression of civic space uniquely affects women, sexual minorities, persons with disabilities, or refugees and internally displaced persons;
    • Cases that address the link between the suppression of civic space and corruption.
Number of Awards: 8

Value of Award: Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights will cover the costs of airfare, visas, transportation, accommodations, and a reasonable per diem for expenses not otherwise covered for up to 8 selected participants.

Duration of Program: 10 – 11 May 2018

How to Apply: Please be sure to apply by 16 March 2018 here. If you have any questions regarding the litigation surgery or the application process, please email sheff@rfkhumanrights.org.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Robert F. Kennedy

UNU-WIDER Visiting PhD Fellowship for International Researchers (Funded to Helsinki, Finland) 2018

Application Deadlines:
  • 31st March 2018
  • 30th September 2018
Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Helsinki, Finland

About the Award: Visiting PhD fellows typically spend three consecutive months at UNU-WIDER before returning to their home institution. During their time in Helsinki, fellows prepare one or more research papers and present a seminar on their research findings. They may also have the opportunity to publish their research in the WIDER Working Paper Series.

Type: Fellowship, PhD

Selection Criteria: 
  1. Applicants must be enrolled in a PhD programme and have shown ability to conduct research on developing economies.
  2. Candidates working in other social sciences may apply but should keep in mind that UNU-WIDER is an economics-focused institute.
  3. Candidates should be fluent in oral and written English and possess good quantitative and/or qualitative analytical skills.
  4. Applications from suitably qualified early-career, female, and developing country researchers are particularly encouraged.
  5. The programme is especially addressed at researchers at later stages of their PhD.
Number of Awards: The Visiting PhD Fellowship Programme is highly competitive and only a limited number of fellows can be accepted. In recent years, one percent of all applications have been successful.

Value of Award: UNU-WIDER provides a travel grant to cover the costs of travel to and from the location of your PhD granting institution, medical insurance (for medical and hospital services resulting from sickness and accident during your stay at UNU-WIDER), and a monthly stipend of EUR 1,600 to cover living expenses in Helsinki during the period of their fellowship. The programme does not cover expenses related to dependents.

Duration of Program: 3 months

How to Apply:  
  • If you are interested in participating in this programme you should complete and submit the application form.
  • As part of your application, you will be asked to upload your curriculum vitae. Your PhD supervisor will need to provide UNU-WIDER with a letter of reference, which should be emailed (by your supervisor) to the following address: phdreference(at)wider.unu.edu. The reference letter will also be used to certify that you are enrolled in a PhD programme at your university.
  • Please note we do not receive applications by email or post.
  • UNU-WIDER only receives online applications for the Visiting PhD Fellowship Programme twice each year. Deadlines for submission of applications are 31 March and 30 September 23:59 UTC+3 each year.
  • When applying in September, you would be visiting UNU-WIDER in the period of February-June of the following year.
  • When applying in March, you would be visiting UNU-WIDER in the period of August-November of the same year.
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: UNU-WIDER

Important Notes: Please note that the link to the online application form will only become active one month prior to the submission deadline (e.g., application procedures start on 1 March and 1 September of each year). 

University of Bonn BIGS-DR Doctoral Scholarship Program for Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

About the Award: The Bonn International Graduate School for Development Research (BIGS-DR) is the doctoral program at ZEF. BIGS-DR is part of a group of international graduate programs at the University of Bonn, a graduate framework that maintains the highest level of academic quality.
Applicants with a citizenship from a developing country or emerging economy can apply for a DAAD scholarship directly from ZEF.

Type: PhD

Eligibility: 
  • A prerequisite for applying for this DAAD scholarship is having at least two years of relevant professional experience.
  • Only applicants who have not lived in Germany yet or have been a resident in Germany for less than 15 months at the time of application can apply for this DAAD scholarship.
  • When filling in the DAAD form, select “Scholarship for a postgraduate course with relevance to developing countries”.
  • Please make sure that you send one copy of the DAAD scholarship form and one copy of the BIGS-DR application form to BIGS-DR. It is not necessary to send additional copies to DAAD.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarship provides monthly allowance, living costs, study fees, health insurance, travel costs and German language courses for the whole course (24 months).

How to Apply:
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: DAAD

Education First Speech International Competition for Students and Teachers (Fully-funded to New York, USA) 2018

Application Deadline: 15th April 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): New York, USA

About the Award: The EF Youth Leadership Forum brings together outstanding students from all over the world and gives them an opportunity to become better global leaders.
With the help of their teachers, the EF Challenge participants will write and record a short speech that inspires the audience and convinces the jury: both students and teachers have the chance to win amazing prizes – from trips to dream-destinations to study abroad courses and online English lessons.

Type: Contest

Eligibility:
  • All speeches must be in English
  • Students between 15 and 19 years can participate
  • The speeches must be between 2 to 5 minutes long
  • All speeches must be recorded and uploaded to YouTube or a similar platform
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Program: 
  • Win a two-week study abroad course to a destination of your choice
  • Win a trip to the EF Youth Leadership Forum at the EF New York
  • Win a spot for an EF Teacher Training Course
How to Apply: All students and teachers must be registered and will receive an email with instructions on how to submit the speeches.
It is important to go through the Application requirements before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Education First

The Tax Scam is Starting to Sink In

Josh Hoxie

It’s no fun being scammed.
I distinctly remember looking for my first big city apartment and finding an ad that looked perfect. Beautiful picture, cheap rent, great location. It sounded too good to be true and, sadly, it was.
Just send a check in the mail, and don’t forget to send over your Social Security number, they said. We’ll mail you a key.
Fortunately, I didn’t take the bait. I’ve also managed to dodge the countless “Nigerian royalty” looking to make me rich via e-mail, and the endless robo-calls about lowering my utility bills.
Not everyone is so lucky. If there’s one constant of scams, it’s that given enough opportunities, they’ll get somebody to give up the goods.
Today, that somebody is the United States.
As their W-2s arrive in the mail, U.S. workers are starting to see the minimal impact of the new tax changes passed by Congress late last year. While the budget-busting package was a boon for millionaires, it means next to nothing for ordinary people.
Still, there’s a massive public relations campaign being waged right now by Republican donors backing the Trump tax cuts. Make the rich richer, they say, and we’ll all benefit.
And while you’re at it, they’ve got some swampland in Florida for sale.
The Koch Brothers alone will spend $20 million on ads selling the tax bill. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the $1.4 billion they stand to gain every year in tax breaks. It’s also a tiny fraction of their overall campaign spending on the 2018 midterms elections, which is projected to reach $400 million.
The Kochs have their work cut out for them. A new poll from Politico shows most workers report seeing no increase in their take home pay after the new tax laws took effect.
This is important.
The whole premise behind adding $1.5 trillion to the debt, giving massive handouts to the ultra-wealthy, and giving a tax break to the nation’s most profitable corporations was that working folks would also get a bit of cash.
Turns out, they’re not seeing that money. But the PR push is having an impact.
While majority of the American people never supported the bill, most polls have shown an uptick in support since December. The most recent poll — from GBA Strategies — found that 44 percent of voters oppose the law, compared to just 40 percent who support it.
The GBA study had another interesting finding: Voters are incredibly susceptible to messaging on this issue. That’s why the GOP donor class is spending unprecedented sums on ads.
The tax law is also getting a boost from corporations’ public relations departments, who are making splashy announcements about bonuses for their workers.
Many of those bonuses, it turns out, are being doled out to garner political support for the tax bill, not for the benefit of the business or as a thank you to workers. They’re also supposed to distract the public from the massive onslaught of layoffs that came in the wake of the tax cuts — from Walmart to Coca-Cola to Comcast and many more.
The Trump tax cuts are a scam, benefiting the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. If you happened to find yourself caught up in the scam, don’t blame yourself. The sales pitch was mighty impressive.
But also, don’t get scammed twice.

The Hackneyed Imperialist Tool of Demonization

Manuel E. Yepe

The systematic dehumanization of the leaders of other countries; the routine exaggeration of their military capabilities; the monotonous falsification of the nature and attitudes of other peoples; the reckless application of double standards in comparing the conduct of others with our own, as well as the inability to recognize the common character of many problems of others with our own, and the consequent tendency to see all aspects of the relationship with others in terms of a total and irreconcilable conflict of concerns and purposes. These, I believe, are not signs of the maturity and discernment that can be expected in the diplomacy of a great power…
Although the above description may seem applicable to Washington’s current foreign policy, it is a warning that George Frost Kennan (1904-2005), a long-serving diplomat and American historian, reminds us of the fact that it was Kennan who formulated and advocated a “policy of containment” against alleged Soviet expansionism, but later changed his theory.
Kennan enunciated his “containment policy” in February 1946 in a text that is remembered as the long message (“the Long Telegram”) he sent from Moscow in 1946 against so-called Soviet expansionism at the end of World War II. The text, signed with just one “X”, appeared in the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, intended to analyze the structure and psychology of Soviet diplomacy at that time. It was widely disseminated by Washington and brought Kennan a lot of popularity in the academic world.
Shortly after that same year, he was appointed director of policy planning at the State Department and, in 1949, advisor to that department. He returned to Moscow in 1952 as his country’s ambassador and in the following year, he had to return to the United States after being declared persona non grata by the Soviet government.
In the late 1950s, Kennan revised his views on “containment” and began advocating a program of “disengagement” from areas of conflict with the Soviet Union. He later emphatically denied that containment was applicable tp situations in other areas of the world, such as Vietnam.
Kennan is identified as one of the architects of the Cold War. His postwar writings about the supposed Soviet threat nurtured the U. S. policy of containment that led to the devastating arms race that still threatens the world with utter destruction.
But the development of events and variables in Washington’s foreign policy led Kennan to reconsider his initial views and to formulate those with which he begins this article.
Kennan then suggests that, although the Russians were still fundamentally opposed to peaceful coexistence with the West and inclined to achieve the extension of the Soviet socialist system around the world, they were particularly sensitive to the logic of military force and will respond or retreat in the face of skillful and determined resistance to their wishes for expansion.
Thus, Kennan goes on to advocate a policy of “counter-pressure” where the Soviets threatened or it could be predicted that such counter-pressure could lead to the Soviets being willing to cooperate with the US or, eventually, be seen to lead to an internal collapse of the Soviet government. This point of view would eventually become the focus of US policy towards Russia.
It is remarkable how much the imprint of Kennan’s policy of containment has influenced U. S. imperial policy, despite its belated retraction. It is something that can be noticed in the current stage of Washington’s hegemonic decline with an almost identical performance in the manner of demonizing its enemies or those who do not agree with its designs.
It is as if the complacent media and the two political parties that govern alternatively could only agree to attack their opponents when they have fabricated an image that fits into certain diabolical and perverse preconceived patterns.
In Latin America, the current U. S. offensive against dissident governments in its hegemonic area goes through a period of great intensity in which Bolivarian leader Nicolás Maduro Moro, president of Venezuela, occupies the prominent place that for half a century had Cuba sitting in the chair of the accused. The head of the Caracas government has reached, if not surpassed, the level of gossip that Fidel and Raúl Castro used to have, although the latter do not escape today from the diarrhea of lies and dehumanizing insults of Donald Trump.

Racing Towards a Low-Yield Armageddon

Brian Cloughley

On February 3 the Washington Post observed that “the United States can deliver a [nuclear] strike anywhere in the world in 30 minutes with astounding accuracy” and questioned the need for “a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons,” quoting the commander of the strategic force, General John Hyten, as saying “I’m very comfortable today with the flexibility of our response options.”  But it appears that no matter the quantity and world-destroying capability of the US nuclear arsenal, there is always room for more — and more devastating — weapons of mass annihilation.
General James Mattis, the US Secretary of Defence, discussed Washington’s recently composed Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) with the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives on February 6.  He was attempting to justify the upgrading and huge expansion of the US nuclear arsenal which the Congressional Budget Office has estimated  will cost some 1.2 trillion dollars over the next 30 years, and described in detail some of the projects that have been planned. The entire exercise does not fit well with the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in which it is agreed by almost every country in the world that the nuclear arms race should be halted and that all possible measures should be taken towards achievement of nuclear disarmament.
But Washington’s notions of global nuclear disarmament are curiously ambivalent, as there is unconditional support for Israel’s highly developed nuclear weapons’ capabilities, yet obsessive criticism of North Korea’s program to arm itself with nuclear missiles.  Nobody can defend or approve of North Korea’s wild nuclear fandangos which are beggaring an already downtrodden and poverty-stricken population on the verge of starvation, but Pyongyang’s rationale is that its policy “is the best way to respond with powerful nuclear deterrent to the US imperialists who are violent toward the weak and subservient to the strong.”
The language is straight out of a 1950s propaganda textbook, although the North Koreans are perfectly serious about their perception of US intentions. The Pyongyang government’s perception of the Nuclear Posture Review may be less measured than those of other nations, but there was no mistaking the disapproval of China, Germany, Iran and Russia, all of which condemned it in no uncertain terms. Germany’s then foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel (moved in the recent political reshuffle) reflected the stance of much of Europe when he said the NPR indicated that “the spiral of a new nuclear arms race is already underway,” but France and Britain, with their irrelevant but proudly brandished nuclear weapons capabilities, were non-committal, although the UK’s policy apparently remains  that “we’ve made it very clear that you can’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike.”
As to the body of the Review, one analyst wrote that “the 2018 NPR fully supports the retention and modernization of the current triad of delivery systems; emphasizes the importance of a modernized and strengthened nuclear command, control, and communications system; and reiterates the need to invest in US nuclear weapons infrastructure, primarily in the national laboratories,” which sums up the overall intention to expand the entire systems of procurement and delivery. The BBC noted that the NPR “Low-yield weapons with a strength of under 20 kilotons are less powerful but are still devastating,” and that other proposals include  update of land-based ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and air-delivered weapons, modification of some submarine-launched nuclear warheads to give a lower-yield or less powerful detonation, and reinstitution of sea-based nuclear cruise missiles. Armageddon here we come.
The NPR is an extension of the US National Defense Strategy which advises vast military expansion to supposedly counter “growing threat from revisionist powers” such as China and Russia. The Cold War is back with a nuclear rush, and the US Military-Industrial complex has been given a major boost, with the Review making 62 references to North Korea, 47 to China, 39 to Iraq and — leaving no doubt where it wants to strike first —  naming Russia 127 times, which makes nonsense of the claim by the State Department that “we do not want to consider Russia an adversary . . . This not a Russia-centric NPR.”
Washington now rejects the policies of “sole purpose” (nuclear weapons to be used to deter only nuclear attacks) and “no first use” (nuclear weapons only to be used if another state uses such weapons first). The message to China and Russia is that if the US considers there is a non-nuclear threat to its interests, then there could be a Pentagon nuclear strike.  The example set to nuclear-armed nations such as India, Israel  and Pakistan is unambiguous, in that the deterrence aspect of nuclear weapons has been superseded by what might be called “First Threat”, meaning that the more nuclear weapons that can be deployed by a country, the more assured will be its dominance. In the words of the State Department, “the declaratory policy of the United States [is] that we would consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances.”
The Pentagon has gone right back to the dark days described by Daniel Ellsberg in his memoir The Doomsday Machine. The Financial Times review summed up the threat of apocalypse by observing that “Most terrifying of all, Ellsberg discovered, any US attack, whether prompted by the outbreak of a real war or a malfunctioning system, would follow a stunningly inflexible plan. It would result in the indiscriminate obliteration of not only the Soviet Union but also China.”  And now the inflexibility is the Pentagon’s intention to develop and employ “low-yield” nuclear weapons in the utterly mistaken belief that in some weird way an enemy against whom they are directed will refrain from taking maximum retaliatory action.  “Low yield” weapons do not contribute to deterrence. They add to the probability of worldwide fire and fury.
A nuke is a nuke is a nuke.  No country in the world is going to lie back and do nothing when a US bomber drops a “low-yield” weapon.  How could it possibly know that the attack is not part of a wider foray?  Or that it will not be followed up by, say, a submarine-launched onslaught by mega-nukes directed at its cities?  Ellsberg makes the point that nothing should be taken for granted.  To make this a fundamental part of nuclear policy is lunacy.
The Pentagon and the State Department, abetted by a compliant Congress, try to portray the United States as a peace-loving defender of “vital interests” but when global military spending is examined it is obvious that even without the massive increase in financial allocations for development of yet more nuclear weapons, the US is outlaying staggering sums on maintaining and expanding its military bases and operations around the world.  The military spending increases approved by Congress are astounding, and go well beyond what even Trump wanted. He had asked for 603 billion dollars for “normal” expenditure and 65 billion for the various wars being fought by the US round the world, but Congress allocated 716 billion, and shares in military equipment producers took an upward leap.
The threat to world peace from intensifying US military operations and confrontational nuclear scheming is increasing day by day. The New Cold War emphasis on massive destruction has brought the world closer to Doomsday, as noted by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists which states that “nuclear weapons are poised to become more rather than less usable because of nations’ investments in their nuclear arsenals.”  Since that was written the threat has been increased by Washington’s intentions as laid out in its Nuclear Posture Review.
We are racing towards a low-yield Armageddon.