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.

Nestle Nutrition Postgraduate Fellowship Program for Young Professionals in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 1st March 2018. 

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Any scientific institution offering a program in the fields of Maternal and/or Child Health and Nutrition

Eligible Field of Study: Maternal and/or Child Health, Nutrition and any related field(s)

About the Award: The Fellowship offered by Nestle Nutrition Institute regularly offers young professionals from developing countries training in research skills and knowledge on Nutrition. Since 1981, more than five hundred (5oo) doctors and scientists have benefited from this fellowship and clinical grants in different ways, which have directly impacted the health sectors of Africa and other regions.

Offered Since: 1981

Type: Postgraduate

Eligibility: 

• Potential candidates should submit an application describing their interest in participating in the NNI Research training Fellowship.
• Priority consideration for this prestigious fellowship will be given to candidates in junior positions from emerging countries.
• The candidates’ history of previous or alternate grants will be taken into consideration.
• Candidates will be notified of their eligibility by letter.
• The application form must be accompanied by the following:
  1. Curriculum Vitae,
  2. A plan of the proposed training/activity clearly indicating its specific outcomes and
  3. Two letters of recommendation (1 from the institution where the candidate is working and 1 from the host institution*).
  4. Letter stating intent to return to the home country upon completion of the training program
  5. Details of their current level of training

Selection Criteria:

• Fellowships are available for post graduate qualifications only
• Applicant has to be affiliated with an academic/clinical institution
• Successful candidates will be required to start their training within 1 year of being notified of the fellowship award
• Duration of the support for the research training lasts for a maximum of 12 months
• Upon certification, fellowship awardees must return to their home countries.

The Panel will not accept applications, which are submitted by:

• Candidates who have already spent more than 12 months outside their home country during the 3 years preceding the application. Exceptions could be made if the applicant can justify how this additional training will supplement the one(s) already obtained
• Candidates who have already left their country at the time of applying for the fellowship
• Candidates who have completed more than one half of any training programme they may already be enrolled in
• Candidates who, at the time of submitting their application, already have a grant from any other training program
• Applications will not be entertained if the applicant’s home country law prohibits the nature of this activity.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship:  The grant includes learning a specific laboratory technique, statistics, nutrition, etc. The NNI grant up to 40’000 CHF can be used to pay course registration fees, round trip travel to the host institution, lodging and living expenses and health insurance coverage for the duration of the course.The grant offer of 40’000 CHF is also given and can be used to pay course registration fees, round trip travel to the host institution, lodging and living expenses and health insurance coverage for the duration of the course.

Duration of Scholarship: Maximum of twelve (12) months

How to Apply: 

• Applications should be sent by email to NNI@nestle.com or by fax to + 41 21 924 2836.
• Applicants should plan to start their program not sooner than 3 months after the application deadline to give time for approval process and administrative arrangements with a host institution.
• Applicants are urged to submit only one application and for a single programme. If you have more than one project, decide which is your best option and submit that one.
• Applications without all documentation, including a letter of acceptance by the faculty at the hosting institution will not be considered.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Nestle Nutrition Institute

Important Notes: The NNI grant will be given to the Host Institution which will disburse it to the fellow. In no case will any money be given directly from the NNI to the fellow.

Before any money can be allocated to the research training fellowship, applicants will need to produce proof of health insurance for the country they will be visiting for the whole duration of stay.

Tony Elumelu Entrepreneurship Programme 2018 – $100 million to create 10,000 African Entrepreneurs in 10 Years

Application Period: Interested entrepreneurs will be able to submit their applications to join the programme as from 1st January 2018 until Midnight WAT on March 1, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes. For a period of 10 years

Opportunity is open to: All citizens (18 and above) and legal residents of all African countries with businesses that operate in Africa.

About Entrepreneurship Programme: Nigerian billionaire investor and philanthropist Tony Elumelu has committed $100 million to create 10,000 entrepreneurs across Africa over the next 10 years. Elumelu made the commitment on Monday during a press conference in Lagos to announce the launch of The Tony Elumelu Foundation Entrepreneurship Programme (TEEP).

TEEP, a Pan-African entrepreneurship initiative of the Tony Elumelu Foundation, is a multi-year programme of training, funding, and mentoring, designed to empower the next generation of African entrepreneurs.

Starting From: 2015

Programme Type: Funding for African Entrepreneurs

Number of Entrepreneurs: There are 1,000 positions available annually for 10 years

Value of Programme: The 10,000 start-ups selected from a pool of applicants across Africa will participate in a comprehensive programme which will include;

• A customized 12-week business skills training course
• Start-Up Enterprise Toolkit
• Mentoring
• Resource Library
• 2-Day Boot Camp
• Seed Capital Funding
• Elumelu Forum
• Alumni Network

Duration of Programme: The programme will identify and help grow 10,000 start-ups and young businesses from across Africa over the next 10 years. These businesses will in turn create 1,000,000 new jobs and contribute $10 billion in annual revenues to Africa’s economy.

How to Apply: All applications must be submitted online through the TEEP Portal. Answer a series of mandatory questions and upload additional documents and identification materials. You will receive a confirmation email within 1 working day of submission.

More details about the program, including eligibility and the application and selection processes are available on the Tony Elumelu Foundation website at: www.tonyelumelufoundation.org/TEEP.

Sponsors: Tony Elumelu Foundation

Additional note:

• In 2015, TEEP empowered 1,000 African entrepreneurs, selected from over 20,000 applicants, with start-up investment, active mentoring, business training, an entrepreneurship boot camp and regional networking across Africa.

• Entrepreneurs, with an average age range of 21-40, from 51 African countries completed the programme and received $5,000 in seed capital for their start-up businesses.

• The Tony Elumelu Foundation invested a total of $4,860,000, including $1,405,000 in agriculture; $410,000 in education and training; and $365,000 in manufacturing.  The sector-agnostic programme funded start-ups across a further 20 industries, all based in Africa.

Higher Education Scholarships in Taiwan for Undergraduate, Masters and PhD International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: For 2018 Scholarship program, the application period runs from January 1 to 16th March, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: The students of eligible countries of the region of Asia Pacific, West Asia, Africa (Burkina Faso, Republic of Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, South Africa, Swaziland), Caribbean, Central America, South America, Europe can apply for this scholarship.

To be taken at (country): Universities in Taiwan

Accepted Subject Areas: For undergraduate, masters and PhD courses offered at any of the participating University in Taiwan

About Scholarship: International education and training has long been one of the TaiwanICDF’s core operations, among many others. Human resources development programs play a vital role in assisting partner countries achieve sustainable development, and education is a crucial mechanism for training workforces in developing countries.

The TaiwanICDF provides scholarships for higher education and has developed undergraduate, graduate and Ph.D. programs in cooperation with renowned partner universities in Taiwan.

The scholarship recipients gets a full scholarship, including return airfare, housing, tuition and credit fees, insurance, textbook costs and a monthly allowance.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters and PhD Scholarship

Who is eligible to apply? An applicant must:

• -Be a citizen of List of Countries Eligible (including select African countries) for TaiwanICDF Scholarship, and satisfy any specific criteria established by his or her country and/or government of citizenship.
• -Neither be a national of the Republic of China (Taiwan) nor an overseas compatriot student.
• -Satisfy the admission requirements of the partner university to which he or she has applied to study under a TaiwanICDF scholarship.
• -Be able to satisfy all requirements for a Resident Visa (Code: FS) set by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and an Alien Resident Certificate (ARC) set by the Ministry of the Interior, of the ROC (Taiwan) government (this means that the TaiwanICDF has the right to revoke a scholarship offered if an applicant cannot satisfy the visa requirements).
• -Upon accepting a TaiwanICDF scholarship, not hold any other ROC(Taiwan) government-sponsored scholarship (such as the Taiwan Scholarship) in the same academic year in which the TaiwanICDF scholarship would be due to commence.
• -Not be applying for a further TaiwanICDF scholarship in unbroken succession — applicants who have already held a TaiwanICDF scholarship must have returned to their home country for more than one year before re-applying (note: to apply for a 2014 scholarship, an applicant must have graduated and returned to his or her home country before July 31, 2013).
• -Have never had any scholarship revoked by any ROC (Taiwan)government agency or related institution, nor been expelled from any Taiwanese university.

Number of Scholarships: Not Specified

Scholarship Benefits and Duration: The TaiwanICDF provides each scholarship recipient with a full scholarship, including return airfare, housing, tuition and credit fees, insurance, textbook costs and a monthly allowance.

• Undergraduate Program (maximum four years): Each student receives NT$12,000 per month (NT$144,000 per year) as an allowance for food and miscellaneous living expenses.
• Master’s Program (maximum two years): Each student receives NT$15,000 per month (NT$180,000 per year) as an allowance for food and miscellaneous living expenses.
• PhD Program (maximum four years; four-year PhD programs start from 2012): Each students receives NT$17,000 per month (NT$204,000 per year) as an allowance for food and miscellaneous living expenses.

How to Apply: Applicants must complete an online application (found in Program Webpage link below). Then submit a signed, printed copy along with all other application documents to the ROC (Taiwan) Embassy/ Consulate (General)/ Representative Office/ Taiwan Technical Mission or project representative in their country.

Please note that each applicant can only apply for one program at a time. The applicant also needs to submit a separate program application to his/her chosen universities.

Visit Program Webpage for the Online Application System and more details about this scholarship.

Sponsors: Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (TaiwanICDF)

Trump, The UN, And The Future Of Jerusalem

Richard Falk

[Prefatory Note: This post is the modified text of an interview on behalf of the Tasnim News Agency in Iran as conducted by Mohammed Hassani. It tries to assess the wider implications of the UN reaction to Trump’s December 6th decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and to follow this by relocating the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.]

Q1: As you know, nearly 130 countries recently voted in favor of a United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning the US decision to recognize Jerusalem (al-Quds) as the capital of the Israeli regime. What message does the vote signal to the world’ public opinion?

The main message of this overwhelming rejection of the Trump recognition of al-Quds as the capital of Israel by the UN General Assembly is to disclose that the Palestinian national movement continues to enjoy strong support from each and every important country in the world, thereby rejecting the current Israeli approach, supported by the United States, to impose unilaterally a solution of the long struggle over land and rights on the Palestinian people. Such a solution would foreclose both a sovereign Palestine, deny the Palestinian people the most fundamental of all rights, that of self-determination, and preclude any fair and just arrangement of shared sovereignty between the two people.

A secondary message was the consensus in the General Assembly that on this issue of Jerusalem matters of global justice take precedence over geopolitical maneuvers. There can also be read into the vote the growing erosion of global leadership that had been exercised by Washington since the end of World War II. This erosion reflects the rise of China, and its advocacy, along with that of Russia, and maybe also even leading countries in Europe, of a multipolar approach to the formation and implementation of global policy with respect to security issues, environmental policies, and economic governance. The fact that America’s closest allies, including France, United Kingdom, and Japan voted for the resolution condemning the effort of the U.S. Government to legitimize the establishment of Jerusalem (al-Quds) as Israel’s capital is also of considerable significance. What remains to be seen is how the future of Jerusalem will unfold in light of these dramatic developments. There are currently visible two tendencies—first, the handful of negative votes by tiny island countries and a few minor and dependent Central American countries to follow the lead of the U.S. and move their embassy to Jerusalem; secondly, the counter-initiative of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, given concrete expression by the Turkish decision to establish its embassy for Palestine in East Jerusalem.

What remains to be seen is whether the Trump presidency softens its stand on these issues or doubles or even triples down by defiantly moving its embassy to Jerusalem, withholding economic assistance from countries that voted for the resolution, and reducing its financial contributions to the UN in a vindictive display of hostility at the various actors viewed as responsible for humiliating the U.S. Government, thereby pleasing those pro-Israeli forces that insist that the UN is primarily a venue for Israel-bashing.

Q2: Prior to the UN vote on Jerusalem, US President Donald Trump had threatened to cut off financial aid to countries that voted in favor of the resolution. It seems that his warning has been ineffective. What do you think?

Yes, the ineffectiveness of such an unprecedented overt threat at the UN, abetted by back channel pressures, is definitely a sign that U.S. soft power leadership in the world is experiencing a sharp decline if measured against its reality in the years after World War II, and extending throughout the Cold War Era. More generally, the failure of Haley’s threats to influence the vote of a single country of stature in the world is also indicative of a parallel decline of geopolitical capabilities to control global policy at least on the key issue of the rights of the Palestinian people, particularly in the context of Jerusalem, which has a strong symbolic significance for many countries. What is unclear is whether this vote exhibits a broader trend among states to pursue foreign policies that exhibit their sovereign independence and distinct views of global policy, rather than as in the past, displaying a strong tendency to defer to the views of a globally dominant state(s). In this context, the radical character of Trump’s presidency may be having the effect of fracturing hegemonic structures of control in contemporary world order that were in any event faced with accumulating skepticism since the end of the Cold War, and the breakdown of the bipolar structure that had shaped much of global policy between 1945 and 1992. What Trump has done is to intensify pre-existing pressures for global restructuring, a dynamic also reinforced by the rejectionist approach taken by the United States on other key issues of global concern, including climate change, the Iran Nuclear Program (5 + 1) Agreement, global migration, ad international trade. The Trump slogan of ‘America, First’ has to be coupled with ‘World, Last,’ to grasp the extent to which the United States invites by its own initiatives a reaction against its outlier policies at odds with strong countervailing views of the international community of states as to desirable forms of global cooperation for the public good. At the very historical moment when the future of humanity depends on unprecedented action on behalf of human, habitat, and global wellbeing, the leading political actor not only withdraws from the effort, but does its best to obstruct constructive behavior. It is as if the United States Government has become a deadly virus attacking the fabric of the global body politic.

Q3: In a speech at the White House on December 6, Trump said his administration would also begin a years-long process of moving the American embassy in Tel Aviv to the holy city of Jerusalem. Do you see any chance that Trump would press ahead with his plan to relocate the embassy given the widespread international opposition?

My guess at this point is that the U.S. Government will definitely implement its decision to relocate the embassy, but will probably do so in a gradual manner that does not provoke a major subsequent reaction, especially if implementation is entrusted to the State Department. Of course, any steps taken to relocate the American Embassy in Jerusalem will be correctly perceived as a defiant and provocative rejection of the conclusions set forth in the GA Resolution. In this sense, the quality and impact of reactions will depend on the political will of the Palestinian Authority, the OIC, the UN, and world public opinion. At stake, is whether the United States further produces an adverse international reaction to its behavior and whether governments seek to engage further on the issue to preserve the rights of the Palestinian people with respect to Jerusalem. The future interaction with respect to Jerusalem will be very revealing as to both the responsiveness of the United States to the rejection of its approach to the recognition of the Israeli capital at this time and as to the energy of those that supported the resolution to take further steps in the direction of achieving compliance. There is little doubt that a test of wills is likely to emerge in the months ahead that will reveal whether the Jerusalem resolution was a mere gesture or a tipping point.

The fact that the al-Quds resolution was itself based on The Uniting for Peace Resolution (GA Res. 377 A (V), 1950) gives its text a special status, both as the outcome of a rare Emergency Session of the General Assembly and as a truly responsible reaction on behalf of peace and security to an irresponsible use of the veto in the Security Council to block its decision of condemnation backed by a 14-1 vote, that is, all other members. This status gives the General Assembly response on Jerusalem an authoritativeness that should extend far beyond its normal recommendatory capabilities, but as earlier indicated there are few guidelines as to how such an initiative will be implemented if defied.

At stake is the larger issue of whether this path taken to circumvent a P-5 veto in the Security Council might produce a shift in UN authority to the more representative General Assembly.

In any event, it may well be that whatever course of action ensues will exert an important influence on how well the UN in the future can serve the human and global interest, as well as take account of distinct and aggregate national interests as opportunities present themselves. The Trump phenomenon gives a pointedness to fundamental issues of world order viability, especially a capacity to address challenges of global scope in the course of the first biopolitical moment, confronting humanity as such with a prospect of its own mortality.

No Responsible Steward of Nuclear Weapons

Vijay Shankar


Two seemingly disparate incidents in recent days hold the portents for unsettling times. The first was the 'absconder General' and erstwhile Pakistan President Musharraf’s declaration on 5 December 2017, of not only his cosy ties with Hafiz Sayeed, the proscribed head of the terror organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT); but more worrisome, the open invitation to the latter’s political party, the Milli Muslim League, to join Musharraf’s Pakistan Awami Ittehad (PAI). The second was President Trump's assertion, while launching his administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS), “Pakistan  must demonstrate it is a responsible steward of its nuclear assets…while taking decisive action against terrorist groups operating on their territory.” The NSS, it will be remembered, provides strategic guidance to US security agencies for developing policies and implementing them.

Rationally, no nuclear policy, by nature of the weapon involved, can conceivably be inclusive of terror groups. And yet the strategic predicament posed by Pakistan is perverse, for their policy on select terror groups such as the LeT has always been that they are instruments of state policy. The absurd reason proffered is their zeal to fight the external enemies of Pakistan while undermining fissiparous religious elements within.

The question now remains: when militants fundamentally inimical to the Indian state (Israel and the US, too) shed the need for subterfuge and quite openly enter Pakistan national politics, is “responsible nuclear stewardship” a prospect at all? Rather, does not this new dimension of political cosiness make for a nuclear nightmare, where an opaque nuclear arsenal under military control is guided by a strategy that not only finds unity with state-licensed terror groups but has now unveiled a future for terrorists in politics? Indeed, the nuclear nightmare has moved that much closer.

Now, consider this: Pakistan promotes a terrorist strike in India and in order to counter conventional retaliation, uses tactical nuclear weapons, and then in order to degrade nuclear retaliation, launches a full blown counter-force or counter-value strike. This is an awkward but realistic recognition of the logic that drives Pakistan’s nuclear policy.

Cyril Almeida, a columnist with Pakistan's Dawn newspaper, commenting on the reason why the army will not clamp down on terror groups that hurt India, suggested that the problem was “the boys" (meaning the army) "wouldn’t agree. You could see why: you can’t squeeze your asset at the behest of the enemy the asset was recruited to fight against."

What if the political mainstreaming of jihadists enlarges and gains nation-wide acceptance and, while doing so, creates a state and movement largely motivated by fundamental politico-religious ideology? The Taliban and its five-year rule in Afghanistan attempted precisely this and failed because a creed that sought a particular kind of Islamic revival through suppression of all else was but a return to medievalism. A regime of this nature quite wontedly spewed elements that saw salvation only in the destruction of contemporary order. The image of Mullah Omar appearing on the roof of a building in Kandhar, 1996, shrouded in the relic of “the cloak of the Prophet Mohammed,” while other mullahs proclaimed him Amir-ul Momineen - the Commander of the Faithful - will remain a watershed moment for the ideology. It placed in perspective the unquestionable authority of the Amir as the people’s voice was made increasingly irreconcilable with Sharia, as was regard for human rights and the rule of law. In this ‘divinely ordained’ disposition, the savage destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas as a symbol of an end to idolatry came as no surprise. As events unfolded it also brought to the fore how modernity and the political mainstreaming of jihadists is a doomed enterprise.

And, what of “responsible stewardship” of nuclear assets? The hazards of a political future for terrorists in Pakistan have thus far been argued. In this reality, given access to a nuclear arsenal, is its utilisation to prosecute jihadi objectives not perceived? The Pakistan military hardly minces its words on the use of jihadists and the latter’s correlation with their nuclear policy (Pakistan Army Green Book 2004-2015). What is the Pakistan-sponsored terror objective other than to weaken the secular fabric of the Indian state, subvert society, and bring about enabling conditions for secession of Kashmir? It is not a coincidence that these very same objectives find recurring mention in the strategic aims of the military in Pakistan.

In the nine years after 26/11, terror attacks in India originating from across its western borders persist, however with a difference: that principal control from Pakistan has devolved to decentralised and often scattered control. Targets are relatively less sensational, albeit these attacks are executed with no less brutality or with diminished politically motivation. Musharraf’s invitation to militant groups such as the LeT to join the political mainstream in Pakistan will have changed all that for the worse.

Pakistan, decidedly, has legitimate security interests, but when these interests are revisionist in nature - be it an aggressive quest for strategic depth in Afghanistan or attempting to destabilise India through the use of state-sponsored terrorists or even to suggest that there is a nuclear dimension to these dynamics - is to plead a stimulus much deeper than a politico-ideological pledge. For to challenge India, or in Afghanistan, the US, is to withdraw from what makes for contemporary order. What is emerging and must be recognised is that with Pakistan there is a virulence that ought not to be allowed to thrive under the duplicitous belief that it can be both legatee of international largesse and continue to cavort with jihadists.

2017: Dreaded Year For Journalists In India

Nava Thakuria

As the year 2017 sets to bid adieu, India finds itself in an embracing situation with the annual statistics of 12 journalists either murdered or died in suspicious situations. The populous country, better known as the largest democracy in the globe, thus emerges as one of the hazardous place for media persons across the world after Mexico, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia etc.

India’s troubled neighbor Pakistan lost six professional journalists and a media student to assailants in the year. On the other hand, its other neighbours namely Bangladesh, Myanmar and Maldives witnessed the murder of one scribe each in the last 12 months. However the tiny neighbours like Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet (now under Chinese occupation) evaded journo-killing incidents during the period.

The killing spree of media persons in India began with Hari Prakash (killed on January 2) to continue with Brajesh Kumar Singh (January 3), Shyam Sharma (May 15), Kamlesh Jain (May 31), Surender Singh Rana (July 29), Gauri Lankesh (September 5), Shantanu Bhowmik (September 20), KJ Singh (September 23), Rajesh Mishra (October 21), Sudip Datta Bhaumik (November 21), Naveen Gupta (November 30) and Rajesh Sheoran (December 21).

On an average the South Asian nation loses five to six journalists to assailants annually, but the public angers against those killings remained lukewarm. However the murder of Kannada editor-journalist Ms Gauri at her Bangaluru (earlier known as Bangalore) residence sparked massive protests across the country. As the news of Gauri’s murder by unidentified gunmen spread, it immediately caught the attention of various national and international media rights organizations. Even the Communist leader and Tripura chief minister Manik Sarkar was also influenced by the protest-demonstrations.

He personally joined in a rally at Agartala demanding justice over Gauri’s brutal killing, but when the young television reporter from his State fall prey to a mob violence, he preferred to remain silent. The Tripura based journalists, while strongly condemning the murder of Shantanu, had to demand a response from Sarkar. Later one more journalist’s (Sudip Datta) murder, also by a trooper belonged to the State police forces put Sarkar in an uncomfortable position. The otherwise popular chief minister, who also holds the State home portfolio, was accorded with blames that Tripura had earlier witnessed the murder of three media employees Sujit Bhattacharya, Ranjit Chowdhury and Balaram Ghosh together in 2013. India is ranked 136th among 180 countries in RSF’s World Press Freedom Index (2017) and it is just ahead of its neighbours Pakistan (139th position), Sri Lanka (141) and Bangladesh (146). Norway tops the list of media freedom index, where as one party-ruled North Korea (180) is placed at its bottom. India’s other neighbours namely Bhutan (84), Nepal (100), Maldives (117), Afghanistan (120) and Myanmar (131) ensure better press freedom.

Pakistan lost six journalists namely Muhammad Jan (January 12), Abdul Razzaque (May 17), Bakshish Ellahi (June 11), Haroon Khan (October 12), Samar Abbas & Utpal Das (untraced for weeks now) along with Mashal Khan (April 22), a novice scribe to assailants, whereas Bangladesh witnessed the murder of rural reporter Abdul Hakim Shimul on February 2.

Relatively peaceful Myanmar reported one journo-murder (Wai Yan Heinn) on April 16 and Maldives drew the attention of international media with the sensational killing of Yameen Rasheed, a journalist & human rights defender on April 23. According various international agencies over 95 media persons spread in 28 countries were killed in connection with their works since the beginning of 2017. The statistics were however more dangerous in previous years (120 fatalities in 2016, 125 killed in 2015, 135 in 2014, 129 in 2013, 141 in 2012, 107 in 2011, 110 in 2010, 122 in 2009, 91 in 2008 etc).

The situation this year deteriorated in Mexico (14 incidents of journo-killings), Syria (12), Iraq (9), Afghanistan (8), Yemen (8), the Philippines (6), Somalia (5), Honduras (4), Honduras (4), Nigeria (3), Russia (3), Turkey (3), Yemen (3), Guatemala (2), Peru (2), Dominican Republic (2), Colombia (2) etc emerged as the most dangerous countries for professional journalists in the bygone year. India lost six journalists to assailants in 2016, which was preceded by five cases in 2015. The country witnessed the murders of two scribes in 2014, but the year 2013 reported the killings of as many as 11 journalists.

The vibrant Indian media fraternity observed an unusual Gandhi Jayanti (birthday of India’s Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi) on October 2 this year to raise voices for ensuring safety, security and justice for working journalists across the country. Different press clubs, media bodies and civil society organisations also organized various demonstrations in support of their demands.

The vulnerable media community of the one-billion nation continues pursuing for a national action plan to safeguard the media persons in the line of military, police and doctors on duty. Their arguments are loud & clear, if the nation wants the journalists to do the risky jobs for the greater interest always, their security along with justice must also be ensured.