16 Jun 2018

German government rent by deepening crisis

Peter Schwarz

Just three months after taking office, the fourth government of Angela Merkel is facing possible dissolution. A fierce conflict over refugee policy between the conservative sister parties, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU), threatens to blow apart the Grand Coalition, which also includes the Social Democratic SPD. This could also mean the end of the chancellorship of Merkel, who has been German head of government since November 2005.
CSU chairman Horst Seehofer, the interior minister in Merkel’s cabinet, wants to refuse entry at the German border to refugees who have already been registered in another European Union country and whose fingerprints are stored in the Eurodac system. In the last year alone, this would have affected 60,000 people.
Merkel rejects this and instead is seeking a “European solution” to the refugee issue, which amounts to the hermetic sealing off of Europe’s external borders, standardized asylum procedures being carried out in special camps and the distribution of refugees by country quotas. Merkel fears that unilateral German action will trigger a Europe-wide chain reaction, leading to the collapse of the open borders of the Schengen system, which would have devastating economic consequences and blow apart the European Union.
The CDU and CSU are independent parties, but they do not compete against each other in elections. The CSU exists only in Bavaria, while the CDU is represented in all other federal states. At the federal level, the two parties traditionally work together and form a common faction in the Bundestag (parliament). But in the past week, the conflict between them has escalated rapidly. “The Chancellor’s fall, the end of the Grand Coalition, the end of the community of the CDU and CSU—everything is possible in the capital,” wrote Spiegel Online on Friday.
On Monday, Interior Minister Seehofer intended to present a master plan on asylum policy, on which he had not previously agreed with the Chancellor. Its 63 points also contained the controversial rejection of refugees directly at the German border. Pressured by Merkel, Seehofer finally canceled the planned press conference. Instead, he met with the Bundestag members of his party, who closed ranks behind him. The next day, several CDU deputies supported Seehofer’s position at a joint parliamentary group meeting between the CDU and CSU.
Then on Wednesday, Seehofer failed to appear at the regular integration summit with migrant associations and instead met with Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, a hardliner on refugee issues. Kurz was campaigning for an “axis of the willing” between Berlin, Vienna and Rome to ward off migrants. Seehofer provocatively invited Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, a right-wing extremist from the Lega, for a visit to Berlin. Salvini had recently refused to allow the Aquarius, with more than six hundred refugees on board, to land in Italy.
In the evening, the CDU and CSU party leaders tried in vain to reach a compromise in the Chancellery. Merkel’s proposal to take two weeks until the upcoming EU summit to strike bilateral agreements with countries directly affected by the deportations was rejected by Seehofer.
On Thursday, CSU and CDU Bundestag members debated for hours in separate sessions. While the CDU largely supported Merkel, the CSU delegates, as one participant noted, put themselves “three hundred percent” behind Seehofer. Panic also broke out among the parliamentary deputies. One compared the situation with the end of the Weimar Republic in the 1930s. From the CSU, the call sounded for a change of leadership in the CDU, in other words, for Merkel’s resignation.
A decision could come on Monday, when the CSU executive will meet. Seehofer wants to have his master plan for asylum policy approved by them. He has threatened to order the rejection of refugees at the border against Merkel’s will by ministerial decree. In this event, Merkel would have little choice but to sack Seehofer.
Efforts are still being undertaken to defuse the crisis. The CDU has asked the Bundestag President and former Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, who himself is close to the positions of the CSU on many issues, to mediate between the two parties.
The conflict between the CDU and the CSU has revealed contradictions that have been developing over a protracted period. There is agreement in ruling circles that Germany must respond to growing global conflicts by returning to a great power policy and militarism. “Germany is too big to comment on world politics only from the side lines,” the then Foreign Minister and today’s Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier declared four years ago.
But there are sharp differences regarding the way such a policy is to be carried out. Sections of the CDU, the SPD, the Greens and the majority of the Left Party believe that Germany can only muster the necessary economic and military weight to “stand eye to eye” with the US, China and Russia in the concert of world powers with the help of the European Union. They therefore advocate enhancing the EU’s military capacity, subordinating it to German interests, and subjecting the European working class to strict austerity measures. They support close collaboration with France, whose President Emmanuel Macron advocates similar ideas.
The CSU, a part of the CDU, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and a wing of the Left Party, however, believe that the EU is too cumbersome, too dependent on majority decisions and, above all, too expensive to serve the interests of German imperialism. They look to unilateral national actions that confront others with a fait accompli and force them to decide, for or against Germany. The CSU and Seehofer maintain close ties with nationalist forces in other European countries. For example, the ultra-nationalist Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is a regular guest at CSU party events.
When Austria’s Chancellor Kurz spoke with Seehofer of an “axis of the willing,” he was not merely referring to the rejection of refugees. The term “coalition of the willing” was originally coined by US President George W. Bush for the Iraq war, when he flouted international organizations such as the UN and even military alliances such as NATO and attacked Iraq in an ad hoc coalition.
Similar disputes not only divide the German, but also the European bourgeoisie. In the UK, the question of whether the country’s future lies inside or outside the EU has hopelessly divided both the Tories and Labour. In Eastern Europe, in Austria and now also in Italy, nationalist governments have come to power who are skeptical of or even hostile to the EU.
The escalation of conflicts with the US after the G7 summit—especially Trump’s trade-war measures, which hit Germany and Europe hard, and his threat of a war against Iran—have further exacerbated the conflict over these issues. The dispute in Germany revolves around how to best step up the country’s military capability, while placing the burden of rearmament on the working class.
On Wednesday, German foreign Minister Heiko Maas gave a keynote speech on foreign policy, demanding an independent German-European foreign and defense policy in response to “Donald Trump’s egotistic ‘America first’ policy, Russia’s attack on international law and the sovereignty of states and the expansion of the Chinese giant.” The German aspiration to fuse Europe together as a miltary bloc against the three major nuclear powers of the world strengthens extremely nationalistic and xenophobic tendencies.


The working class must counterpose its own independent policy to the sharp turn to the right of the ruling class. The only response to anti-refugee politics, welfare cuts, militarism and the stepping up of state powers is the international unity of the working class in the struggle for a socialist program.

15 Jun 2018

Cell Norbert Zongo Grants for Investigative Reporting in West Africa for African Journalists 2018

Application Deadline: 22nd June 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: The Norbert Zongo investigative grant is proud to announce the first round of their Sahel Program focusing in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso.
We believe good quality journalism is key to promoting transparency, impact positively on civil society and improve good governance, democracy and accountability in the sub-region of West Africa.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: The Award is looking for investigations with a unique angle powered by public interest and innovation, tackling issues in three different countries in the Sahel: Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso.
We are looking for stories that exposes bad governance, organised crime, corruption and human rights violation in the following areas:
  • Sanitation :
Health systems, Water, Food, Pollution, Illnesses, Medicines.
Crucial for development, we are looking for innovate stories that could help us raise awareness on issues, businesses or practices impacting health in West Africa.  The dimension of health is broad, it means water, access to hospitals, medicines, food, public contracts, traffick of medicines, problems in the health infrastructure, food, environmental issues, prostitution, drugs, unacceptable working conditions, pollution, etc.  If you have an investigation idea or lead where you think health of individuals can be compromised, let us know!
  •  Traffick and Illicit Transit:
The traffick and illicit transit poses a growing risk for the region, being key point from America, Europe and Middle East, West Africa is also a strategic area for illegal transit or traffick of humans, young girls or young boys specially, medicines, cigarettes, cash, minerals, drugs among many others. We believe these stories must be tell. We encourage you to apply.
  •  Open data, Transparency & Accountability:
We encourage applicants to send data-driven proposals, using open data to explore new angles of underreported issues. CENOZO could provide assistance for visual elements and data analysis. This category could mean land property, budget analysis, aid data, legal and procurement data available.

  • Terrorism and Extremism:
CENOZO is interested to raise awareness and understanding of terrorism and violent extremism in the region from a different and innovative way.   This problematic has been re-shaping in the last months in the borders, notably in Mali, Niger and Burkina. Does not mean you have to infiltrate a terrorist group! Think outside the box and surprise us.
If you have an impactful story idea that does not correspond with any of the categories above, don’t hesitate to send it through! We are open to receive stories with a public impact and innovative angles.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Small grants from (500 EUR) to bigger grants  (3500 EUR) are available for each category: Sanitation, Traffick and Illicit Transit, Open Data, Transparency & Accountability  and Terrorism and Extremism.

How to Apply:
  1. A pitch of maximum 250 words with the story idea specifying to which category are you applying for.
  2. A preliminary budget estimate with a detailed breakdown of costs (travel costs, etc). [link to doc]
  3. A confirmation the article could be published in the newspaper you work with.
  4. Specify how you plan to do it and if you have documents to prove your story.
  5. A sample of published work by you.
Fill out the application template and the proposed budget. And send it to.
Arnaud Ouedrago,  Programme Manager arnaud@cenozo.org 

Application template: https://goo.gl/rMuLvE
If you are working with other colleagues, choose a team leader and submit your proposal as detailed as possible.
Those stories with a proving documents that support the hypothesis will be privileged in the selection. Please make sure you have searched enough online to make sure your story hasn’t yet been covered the way you want to cover it!

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Cenozo

Important Note: We do not sponsor international flights! If you feel your story has a cross border angle we suggest you apply in collaboration with another journalist. Don’t stress if you don’t have a colleague yet, just let us know and we will be able to find a committed team member. That’s what our network is for! To connect us and make us stronger!

Abe Fellowship for Researchers in Developing Countries 2019

Application Deadline: 1st September, 2018.
Fellowship tenure must begin between April 1st and December 31st every year.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries

To be taken at (country): Japan and United States

Eligible Field of Study: Applications are welcome from scholars and nonacademic research professionals. The objectives of the program are to foster high quality research in the social sciences and related disciplines.

About the Award: The Abe Fellowship is designed to encourage international multidisciplinary research on topics of pressing global concern. The program seeks to foster the development of a new generation of researchers who are interested in policy-relevant topics of long-range importance and who are willing to become key members of a bilateral and global research network built around such topics. It strives especially to promote a new level of intellectual cooperation between the Japanese and American academic and professional communities committed to and trained for advancing global understanding and problem solving.

Programme Details: Applicants are invited to submit proposals for research in the social sciences and related disciplines relevant to any one or any combination of the four themes below. The themes are:
1) Threats to Personal, Societal, and International Security
Especially welcome topics include food, water, and energy insecurity; pandemics; climate change; disaster preparedness, prevention, and recovery; and conflict, terrorism, and cyber security.

2) Growth and Sustainable Development
Especially welcome topics include global financial stability, trade imbalances and agreements, adjustment to globalization, climate change and adaptation, and poverty and inequality.

3) Social, Scientific, and Cultural Trends and Transformations
Especially welcome topics include aging and other demographic change, benefits and dangers of reproductive genetics, gender and social exclusion, expansion of STEM education among women and under-represented populations, migration, rural depopulation and urbanization, impacts of automation on jobs, poverty and inequality, and community resilience.

4) Governance, Empowerment, and Participation
Especially welcome topics include challenges to democratic institutions, participatory governance, human rights, the changing role of NGO/NPOs, the rise of new media, and government roles in fostering innovation.


Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • This competition is open to citizens of the United States and Japan as well as to nationals of other countries who can demonstrate strong and serious long-term affiliations with research communities in Japan or the United States.
  • Applicants must hold a PhD or the terminal degree in their field, or have attained an equivalent level of professional experience at the time of application.
  • Previous language training is not a prerequisite for this fellowship. However, if the research project requires language ability, the applicant should provide evidence of adequate proficiency to complete the project.
  • Applications from researchers in professions other than academia are encouraged with the expectation that the product of the fellowship will contribute to the wider body of knowledge on the topic specified.
  • Projects proposing to address key policy issues or seeking to develop a concrete policy proposal must reflect nonpartisan positions.
Selection Criteria: Rather than seeking to promote greater understanding of a single country—Japan or the United States—the Abe Fellowship Program encourages research with a comparative or global perspective. The program promotes deeply contextualized cross-cultural research.
Successful applicants will be those individuals whose work and interests match these program goals. Abe Fellows are expected to demonstrate a long-term commitment to these goals by participating in program activities over the course of their careers.
All proposals are expected to directly address policy relevance in theme, project description, and project structure.

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Fellowship: 
  • The fellowship is intended to support an individual researcher totally, regardless of whether that individual is working alone or in collaboration with others.
  • Candidates should propose to spend at least one third of the fellowship tenure in residence abroad in Japan or the United States. In addition, the Abe Fellowship Committee reserves the right to recommend additional networking opportunities overseas.
  • Funds for language tutoring or refresher courses in the service of research goals will be included in the awards.
Duration of FellowshipThe program provides Abe Fellows with a minimum of 3 and maximum of 12 months of full-time support over a 24-month period

How to Apply: Visit Fellowship Webpage to apply

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP)

Important Notes: Please note that the purpose of this Fellowship is to support research activities. Therefore, projects whose sole aim is travel, cultural exchange, and/or language training will not be considered. However, funds for language tutoring or refresher courses in the service of research goals will be included in the award if the proposal includes explicit justification for such activities.

Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards for Women Entrepreneurs 2019 (USD100,000 to a winner from each region)

Application Deadline: 31st August, 2018 (Paris time)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Cartier reviews applications from 7 regions (Latin America, North America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Far East Asia, South-East Asia). One from each region wins this award.

To be taken at (country):exact location still TBC

About the Award: The Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards are an international business plan competition created in 2006 by Cartier, the Women’s Forum, McKinsey & Company and INSEAD business school to identify, support and encourage projects by women entrepreneurs. Previous laureates have included several whose work links to environment and related issues, e.g., product recycling, low-cost energy, water treatment, fair trade, and others.
The Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards aim to encourage inspirational women entrepreneurs worldwide to solve contemporary global challenges by:
• supporting and recognizing creative women who are making concrete contributions to finding solutions for the future of our planet,
• bringing these business solutions to the largest audience possible.
Since their inception in 2006, they have accompanied 162 promising female business-owners and recognized 58 Laureates.

Offered Since: 2006

Type: Entrepreneurship, contest

Eligibility: The Cartier Women’s Initiative Award is looking for committed female entrepreneurs heading initiatives with the potential to grow significantly in the years to come. The selection of the finalists and laureates of the competition is done by an independent international Jury of entrepreneurs, investors, business executives and other profiles engaged in the support of female entrepreneurship.
The project to be considered for the Cartier Women’s Initiative Awards must be an original for-profit business creation in its initial phase (2 to 3 years old) led by a woman:
  • The “for-profit” requirement: the business submitted for the Award must be designed to generate revenues. We do not accept non-profit project proposals.
  • The “originality” requirement: we want your project to be a new concept, conceived and imagined by the founder and her team and not a copy or subsidiary of an existing business.
  • The “initial phase” requirement: the project you submit should be in the first stages of its development meaning between 2 and 3 years old.
  • The main leadership position must be filled by a woman. A good command of English is required (both verbal and written) to take full advantage of the benefits the Award has to offer.
  • All entrants must be aged 18 or the age of legal majority in their respective countries or states of citizenship, whichever is older, on the day of the application deadline.
Selection Criteria: The Jury evaluates the projects based on criteria of creativity, sustainability (potential for growth) and impact.
  • The creativity criterion: the Jury looks at the degree of innovation shown by the overall business concept, the uniqueness of the project on the market or country where it is being developed.
  • The sustainability criterion: the Jury examines the financial impact of the business, its revenue model, development strategy and other aspects indicating its chances of long-term success and future growth.
  • The impact criterion: the Jury evaluates the effect of the business on society, in terms of jobs created or its effect on the immediate or broader environment.
  • The overall quality and clarity of the material presented: the Jury is looking for motivated and committed entrepreneurs who are passionate about their initiatives. Being clear and concise, organizing your ideas and not repeating yourself will show that you are serious about your application.
Selection Process: 
  • Round 1: The Jury selects 18 Finalists*, the top three projects of each of the 7 regions (Latin America, North America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Far East Asia, South-East Asia), on the basis of their short business plans. They receive coaching from experienced businesspeople to move to the next round.
  • Round 2: The Finalists are invited to the final round of competition which includes submitting a detailed business plan and presenting their projects in front of the Jury.
Number of Awardees: Based on the quality of the plan and the persuasiveness of the verbal presentation, one Laureate for each of the seven regions is selected

Value of Competition: The 21 finalists, representing the top 3 projects from each of the 7 regions, will receive:
    One-to-one personalized business coaching prior to the Awards weekA series of entrepreneurship workshops, knowledge sessions and networking events during the Awards weekMedia visibilityA scholarship to attend the INSEAD Social Entrepreneurship 6-Day Executive Programme (provided their business meets INSEAD’s eligibility criteria)Networking opportunities through the Cartier Awards community and beyond
Winning Package
First prize for the 7 laureates:
  • US$ 100 000 in prize money
  • One-to-one personalized business mentoring
Second prize for the 14 finalists:
  • US$ 30 000 in prize money
How to Apply: Go here to apply

Visit Competition Webpage for details

Award Provider: Cartier

We’re the Wealthiest Country on Earth, But Over 40 Percent of Us Live in or Near Poverty

Mona Younis

Are we Americans unworthy? That’s certainly the message we’re getting from our government.
Over 40 percent of us are poor or low-income. How is that possible in the wealthiest country in history?
“The United States is alone among developed countries in insisting that while human rights are of fundamental importance,” explains UN rapporteur on poverty Philip Alston, “they do not include rights that guard against dying of hunger, dying from a lack of access to affordable health care, or growing up in a context of total deprivation.”
Alston says that “the persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power” — which means that “with political will, it could readily be eliminated.” Unfortunately, our government’s political will is increasingly exercised to make things more, not less, difficult for us.
Most Americans don’t know it, but in 1977 the U.S. actually signed an international treaty called the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which mandates government responsibility to ensure their citizens do more than merely survive. Unfortunately, one
U.S. administration after the other has completely disregarded it, and Congress never ratified it.
Our leaders have apparently judged that we either don’t need — or don’t deserve — things like an adequate standard of living and universal health care. As one dizzy U.S. congressman claims, “Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.”
164 countries have ratified the treaty, but ours won’t. Are their people more deserving than we are? Is it something we’ve done?
It can’t be because we’re doing fine without those rights.
I mean, look at our minimum wage. There isn’t a “single county or metropolitan area,” as a Guardian report put it, where a minimum wage can get you a “modest two-bedroom home, which the federal government defines as paying less than 30 percent of a household’s income for rent and utilities.”
The price we pay for this disregard for our fundamental human rights begins at the beginning of our lives. Indeed, many of us struggle to survive to our first birthday. Citing figures from the Centers for Disease Control, the Washington Post declared our infant mortality rate “a national embarrassment,” noting that it’s higher “than any of the other 27 wealthy countries.”
That’s painful enough. But they went on: “Despite health care spending levels that are significantly higher than any other country in the world, a baby born in the U.S. is less likely to see his first birthday than one born in Hungary, Poland, or Slovakia. Or in Belarus. Or in Cuba, for that matter.”
Sad!
And a recent UNICEF assessment of how children are faring found the U.S. near the bottom of 41 rich countries when it came to meeting goals on child poverty, hunger, health, and education.
Tragic!
Well, there’s an important difference between us and other prosperous countries: Their citizens expect and demand more of their governments than we do of ours. And governments do only as much as their citizens expect — not more! So why do we accept so little from ours? How have we come to deem ourselves less worthy than others?

North Korea Issue is Not De-nuclearization But De-Colonization

Ajamu Baraka

The critics had already signaled their strategy for derailing any meaningful move toward normalizing relations between the United States and North Korea. Right-wing neoliberals from CNN, MSNBC and NPR are in perfect alignment with the talking points issued by U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the Democrat Party that took the position that anything short of the North Koreans surrendering their national interests and national dignity to the United States was a win for North Korea.
For much of the foreign policy community, corporate media pundits and leaders of the two imperialist parties, the issue is North Korean de-nuclearization. But for the people in Korea and throughout the global South, the real issue has always been the unfinished business of ending the war and beginning the de-colonization of the Korean peninsula.
The interrelated issues of respecting the dignity and sovereignty of the North Korean nation and engaging in an authentic process of de-colonization are precisely why the U.S.-North Korean initiative will fail without a major intervention on the part of the people in the United States demanding that their leaders commit to diplomacy and peace.
There should be no illusions about U.S. intentions. If U.S. policymakers were really concerned with putting a brake on the North Korean nuclear-weapons program, they would have pursued a different set of policies. Such policies would have created the necessary security conditions to convince the North Koreans that a nuclear deterrence to the United States was unnecessary.
The fact that those conditions were not created were less a result of the evil intentions of the North Koreans. than it reflected the need to maintain the justification for continued U.S. military deployment in South Korea and in the region. Being able to point to North Korea as a threat to regional security has provided the justifications for U.S. power projection in the region and the ever-expanding U.S. military budget.
With the growing power of China over the last few decades, the threat of North Korea allowed the United States to continue a physical presence right at the underbelly of China. That is why the “agreed framework” under Clinton was not implemented and then jettisoned by the Bush administration. It is also why the Obama administration’s so-called strategic patience was really about a series of increasingly provocative military exercises and no negotiations.
Full Spectrum Dominance and the Psychopathology of White Supremacy
Korea has historically played a significant role for the U.S. imperial project since the end of the second World ar.The emergent forces U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower identified as the military/industrial/complex are still present, but are now exercising hegemonic power, along with the financial sector within the U.S. state. Those forces are not interested in a diplomatic resolution of the Korean colonial question because their interests are more focused on China and maintaining U.S. regional hegemony in East Asia. The tensions in Korea have not only provided them the rationale for increased expenditures for various missile defense systems but also for bolstering public support for the obscene military budgets that are largely transferred straight to their pockets.
That is why the historic record is replete with the United States sabotaging negotiated settlements with the North, but then pointing to North Korean responses to those efforts as evidence of North Korean duplicity.
In addition to the material interests and hegemonic geopolitical objectives, the social-psychological phenomenon of inculcated white supremacy is also a factor and has buttressed imperial policies toward that nation for years.
For example, the psychopathology of white supremacy invisibilizes the absurdity and illegitimacy of the United States being in a position to negotiate the fate of millions of Koreans. The great “white father” and savior complex is not even a point of contestation because it is not even perceived–the rule of whiteness through the dominance of the Western capitalist elite has been naturalized.
Therefore, it is quite understandable that for many, the summit is the space where the North Koreans are essentially supposed to surrender to the United States. It is beyond the comprehension of most policymakers and large sectors of the public that North Koreans would have ever concluded it is not in their national interest to give up their defenses to a reckless and dangerously violent rogue state that sees itself beyond the law.
And it is that strange white-supremacist consciousness that buys into the racist trope that it was Trump’s pressure that brought North Korea to the table. The white-supremacist colonial mentality believes the natives will only respond to force and violence.
As U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the good old boy from South Carolina, argues “The only way North Korea will give up their nuclear program is if they believe military option is real.”
But as Kim Kye Gwan, North Korea’s first vice minister for foreign affairs and former nuclear-program negotiator pointed out in relationship to the reasons why North Korea stayed with the process:
“The U.S. is miscalculating the magnanimity and broad-minded initiatives of the DPRK as signs of weakness and trying to embellish and advertise as if these are the product of its sanctions and pressure.”
Unfortunately, the white-supremacist world-view renders it almost impossible to apprehend reality in any other way. That is why it is inevitable that the Trump administration—like the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations—will mis-read the North Koreans.
The North Korea issue is a classic example of why it is impossible to separate a pro-peace, anti-war position from the issue of anti-imperialism. The concrete, geopolitical objectives of U.S. imperialist interests in the region drives the logic of regional dominance, which means peace, de-colonization and national reconciliation for Korea are counter to U.S. interests. And while we must support the U.S. state’s decision to halt military exercises, we must recognize that without vigorous pressure from the people to support an honest process, the possibility of conflict might be ever more alive now as a result of the purported attempt at diplomacy.
The nature of the North Korean state is not the issue. What is the issue is a process has begun between the two Korean nations that should be respected. Therefore, de-nuclearization should not be the focus—self-determination of the Korean peoples must be the center of our discussions. On that issue, it is time for activists in the United States to demand the United States get out of Korea. The peace and anti-war movement must support a process that will lead to the closure of U.S. military bases, the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the elimination of the nuclear threat.
In short, U.S. based activists must support an end to the Korean war and the start of the de-colonization of South Korea.

New Zealand Labour government to extend bans on strikes

John Braddock

New Zealand’s Labour Party-led government is preparing to overhaul the country’s industrial laws, further restricting the right to strike for broad sections of workers.
The creation of new “Fair Pay Agreements” (FPAs) was the cornerstone of Labour’s industrial policy during last September’s national election. It was fraudulently promoted as a measure designed “to give power back to workers.”
Labour’s election advertising highlighted the fact that 40 percent of children in poverty live in working households, and that in real terms, wages had declined for two-thirds of workers over the previous year.
The FPAs, established through negotiations between unions and employers, overseen by the government authorities, will purportedly provide minimum terms and conditions of employment for all workers in an industry or occupation. Labour claims FPAs will improve pay and conditions by preventing a “race to the bottom” caused by employers competing with each other to lower wages.
This is a fraud. The real role of the FPAs will be to establish a corporatist framework of employer-union-government wage setting, while outlawing industrial action. This process will entrench low pay across entire industries, enforced by draconian legislation. The unions, as they have done for decades, will impose the deals and suppress resistance from workers.
Workplace Relations Minister Iain Lees-Galloway announced on June 5 that a 10-person working group, led by former National Party Prime Minister Jim Bolger, would design the FPAs. Details of how the agreements will be established, negotiated and enforced are all to be decided by the group, which will report back later this year.
In appointing Bolger, a hardened reactionary, Lees-Galloway said he hoped for an “enduring” framework that will “cross the political divide.” The move was described by media commentators as a “master stroke” that would help ensure “buy-in” from big business.
As prime minister from 1990–97, Bolger deepened a sweeping assault on the working class, begun by his Labour predecessors, which sharply increased poverty and inequality.
Among other measures, the 1991 Employment Contracts Act (ECA) reduced legislative backing for the unions and resulted in a dramatic fall in multi-employer collective contracts. “Flexible” work practices were introduced, along with individual employment agreements, contracting, performance pay and the wholesale elimination of overtime and penalty rates.
The onslaught was abetted by the trade union bureaucracy, then controlled by the Stalinist Socialist Unity Party, which suppressed widespread opposition and demands in the working class for a general strike against the ECA.
Labour has turned to Bolger now because he has voiced concern over the subsequent fate of the unions, and their vastly reduced ability to police the working class.
In a Radio New Zealand interview in April 2017, Bolger declared that “neoliberal” economic policies had “absolutely failed,” benefiting only “the few at the top.” The unions had become too “weak,” Bolger declared, and should have “a stronger voice.”
The FPA legislation is being brought forward to divert and suppress a new eruption of working-class militancy. Tens of thousands of nurses, teachers, transport workers and retail workers are joining their class brothers and sisters internationally in emerging struggles against low pay, poor working conditions and attacks on public services. As elsewhere, the upsurge is taking the form of an incipient rebellion against the pro-capitalist trade unions.
Some business spokesmen have denounced the FPAs as foreshadowing a return to “1970s-style” compulsory unionism and national strikes. Prime Minister Jacinta Ardern denied this, declaring that employers approached the government seeking sector-wide agreements, because they wanted a “level playing field” when bidding against competitors that have lower labour costs.
The government has repeatedly insisted that strikes and lockouts will be banned across entire industries during FPA bargaining. Under draconian provisions in the Labour Relations Act, passed by the Helen Clark-led Labour Party government in 2000, strikes are already illegal, except when employment contracts are being re-negotiated or for health and safety reasons. These repressive provisions will now be expanded.
The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU) actively supports the FPA plan. Before the election, CTU President Richard Wagstaff rebuffed suggestions that strikes, which are at an all-time low, would be revived with the introduction of FPAs. “There’s no prospect, zero prospect of industrial action from this,” Wagstaff declared.
Wagstaff, who is a member of the Bolger panel, wrote in the Dominion Post on June 8 that FPAs would be “good for business and for workers” and support “home-grown business, and small communities sustained by Kiwi industries.”
Employers, Wagstaff stated, “can plan to increase their productivity over the medium and long term.” Underlining the unions’ xenophobic hostility to “foreign” workers, Wagstaff declared FPAs will do away with “competition for migrant labour to fill jobs that just don’t pay enough to live properly in New Zealand.”
The FPA working group includes E Tu union secretary John Ryall, Business New Zealand chief executive Kirk Hope, Hospitality New Zealand head Vicki Lee, academics and an employment lawyer.
The pseudo-left International Socialist Organisation (ISO), which supported Labour in the 2017 election as a “progressive” alternative to National, has endorsed the FPAs.
On June 6, the ISO’s Martin Gregory wrote that against the current “bleak background of non-negotiation on terms and conditions within the private sector,” FPAs “can only be a good thing, and an opportunity for unions to get stuck in and recruit.”
Gregory complained only that “without the threat of industrial action in the background” businesses will not be pressured into reaching “fair” agreements. According to the ISO, the FPAs’ “good proposed reforms” can be advanced if “the left and trade unionist activists” defend the right to strike. “Pressure from below is needed to push the union leaderships into demanding our rights,” the article concluded.
In every country pseudo-left groups like the ISO, which have close ties to the union bureaucracy, bear direct responsibility for ongoing betrayals of the working class by promoting the lie that union leaderships can be “pressured” to the left. In fact, the unions are an industrial police force of governments and the corporations. They defend capitalism and have for decades imposed attacks on jobs, wages and conditions.
The upper-middle class layer for which the ISO and other pseudo-left organisations speak fear any action by the working class that threatens to break free from the unions’ control. Hence their slavish promotion of Labour’s corporatist industrial policy, and the role of the unions within it.

The far right determine Europe’s refugee policy

Peter Schwarz

The European Union (EU) Commission plans to nearly treble its spending on migration in the next six-year financial period, from 13 to 35 billion euros ($US 15 to 40.5 billion).
This money will not be spent on supporting and integrating refugees, but rather on sealing off Europe’s external borders, deporting refugees en masse, as well as on other measures aimed at deterring refugees from entering. The EU border protection authority Frontex is to be increased from its present staff of 1,000 to 10,000 officials and expanded into a high-tech, up-to-date, military-style border police.
With its plans, the EU Commission is reacting to the failure of its previous efforts to distribute refugees through the 28 member European states based on a quota system. Right-wing, nationalist governments—such as the Hungarian, Polish and Czech—had refused to accept even a single refugee. The dispute over the refugees and the sealing off of internal European borders threatened to blow up the EU.
Now the crisis is to be solved by the entire EU adopting the policies of the extreme right and hermetically sealing off external borders, while ruthlessly harassing, imprisoning and deporting refugees. Brussels has the full support of the German chancellor Angela Merkel, France’s president Emmanuel Macron and other European heads of state.
In Berlin on Wednesday, Merkel met with Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz, who governs in Vienna in an alliance with the right-wing extremist Freedom Party (FPÖ). Kurz himself is the pioneer of a brutal anti-refugee policy.
Austria, which is due to take over the presidency of the European Union for six months in July, will focus “deliberately on the issue of security,” Kurz said at the subsequent press conference. In addition to “greater cooperation in security and defense policy,” this also included “a solution to the migration issue in order to ensure internal security in our European Union.” Austria will “focus on external border protection” and “pursue one goal,” namely “to stop the influx of illegal migration, refugee and migration flows to Europe.”
Kurz was supported by Merkel. Asked whether his views on immigration were “more of a role model or deterrent,” the German chancellor responded by saying she agreed “we need to strengthen the external border guard.” To this end she relied upon the “activities of the Austrian [EU] presidency.” As a role model, she cited the migrant deal struck with Turkey, which has pledged to ensure that no more refugees enter Europe.
The adoption of the policies of the far right by the EU encourages them to demand more.
After visiting the German chancellor, Kurz met with Germany’s interior minister, Horst Seehofer, the following day. Seehofer is also chairman of the conservative Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) and has repeatedly criticised Merkel’s refugee policy from the right. Currently, Merkel and Seehofer are sharply divided, because he wants to stop refugees at the border who have registered in another EU country. Merkel rejects this measure because she fears it will split the EU.
Kurz and Seehofer showered each other with compliments, declaring they looked forward to working closely with the Italian interior minister, Matteo Salvini, on issues of security, terrorism and immigration. Salvini, leader of the Lega, is a right-wing extremist and racist. Just three days earlier, he had fueled popular outrage across Europe by refusing to allow the rescue ship Aquarius, with 629 refugees on board, to dock in Italy.
The Austrian interior minister, Herbert Kickl (FPÖ), is also a self-confessed ultra-rightist. He is infamous for his racist, anti-Muslim campaign slogans. In January this year, he announced that asylum seekers must be kept “concentrated in one place”—a clear allusion to Nazi concentration camps.
Kurz described the planned collaboration against refugees in terms reminiscent of the military alliances of the First and Second World Wars. He hoped for an “axis of the willing,” he said. He was pleased with the “good cooperation between Rome, Vienna and Berlin, which we want to build upon to make a good contribution to better managing immigration.”
Seehofer was visibly pleased. Officially, the CSU and Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have distanced themselves from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which sits in the German parliament. In reality, Seehofer works very closely at a European level with parties affiliated to the AfD. It is only a matter of time before the latter is accepted into government in Germany. “There used to be a lot of opposition to our positions in Europe, but now the group that supports us has grown a lot bigger,” Kurz said.
Support for the refugee policies of the far right is not limited to the CSU and the right wing of the CDU. Andrea Nahles, the leader of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), recently demanded that the Maghreb [North African] states be declared safe countries of origin. With the provocative sentence, “We cannot accept everyone,” she opened the floodgates to all those witch-hunting refugees. As coalition partner of the CDU and CSU in the national government, the SPD fully supports Merkel’s refugee policy.
As far as the so-called opposition parties are concerned, they also back the right-wing refugee policies. The propaganda of the Free Democratic Party hardly differs from that of the AfD. Writing in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Green Party mayor of Tübingen, Boris Palmer, recently demanded a harsher response against “criminal aliens.” As for the Left Party, the main concern at its congress last weekend was to call for unity with party leader Sahra Wagenknecht, who shares the stance of the AfD on refugee policy.
The current developments take place against the background of a xenophobic campaign in the German media that has been raging for weeks. Even supposedly reputable journalists have ditched any adherence to the basic principles of truthful and conscientious reporting. The tragic murder of a 14-year-old girl is being exploited, along with alleged improper and criminal asylum decisions made by the Bremen branch of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bamf). It has now turned out that these allegations were wrong and deceitful.
These attacks are not only directed against refugees. They are part of a systematic campaign to abolish democratic rights, build up the intelligence and police services and strengthen right-wing extremist forces. As was the case in the last century, the ruling class is once again preparing to try and crush the growing resistance to social inequality and militarism.

14 Jun 2018

United Nations Young Professionals Programme (YPP) for Talented Individuals 2018

Application Deadline: 9th August 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Each year, countries that are un- or under-represented in the United Nations, are invited to take part in the United Nations Young Professionals Programme. See list below

To Be Taken At (Country): Various UN Duty stations

Fields of Study: Depending on the staffing needs of the United Nations, applicants are invited to apply for different exam subjects. Descriptions of responsibilities, expected competencies and education requirements differ depending on the area.

About the Award: The United Nations Young Professionals Programme (YPP) is a recruitment initiative for talented, highly qualified professionals to start a career as an international civil servant with the United Nations Secretariat. It consists of an entrance examination and professional development programmes once successful candidates start their career with the UN.
The United Nations Young Professionals Programme examination is held once a year and is open to nationals of countries participating in the annual recruitment exercise. The list of participating countries is published annually and varies from year to year.

Type: Internships/Job

Eligibility: Interested candidates
  • must have the nationality of a participating country.
  • must hold at least a first-level university degree relevant for the exam subject you are applying for.
  • must be 32 or younger in the year of the examination.
  • must be fluent in either English or French.
Staff members of the United Nations Secretariat who work within the General Service and other related categories and aspire to a career within the Professional and higher categories, are encouraged to apply.

Selection Criteria: 
  • Your application will be screened to determine if you are eligible for the examination in the exam subject you applied for.
  • If more than 40 applicants from the same country apply for the same exam area, those applicants will be further screened and ranked by a Human Resources Officer according to points given for the following additional qualifications: highest level of education completed, knowledge of official UN languages, and relevant work experience.
  • Please be aware that many potential applicants do not pass the screening stage due to incomplete or inaccurate applications.
  • If your application was successful, you will be informed that you are convoked to the examination.
  • If determined that you are not eligible to apply or if your application was unsuccessful, you will be informed that you have not been convoked to the examination.
  • You will be able to check the status of your application by typing your application number in the search section on the Convocation status & Examination centre page (See link in Application Process in Program Webpage Link below).
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • Salary and Post adjustments
  • Rental subsidy if newly arrived at the duty station your rent represents too high proportion of the total remuneration.
  • Dependency allowances if you have an eligible dependent spouse and/or child(ren).
  • Under certain conditions an education grant if you have eligible children in school.
  • Travel and shipping expenses when you are moving from one duty station to another.
  • Assignment grant to assist you in meeting initial extraordinary costs when arriving at or relocating to a new duty station.
  • At some duty stations, a hardship allowance linked to living and working conditions is paid and where there are restrictions on bringing family members, a non-family hardship allowance is also paid.
  • Hazard pay and rest and recuperation break when you serve in locations where the conditions are particularly hazardous, stressful and difficult.
  • Many more benefits.
Duration of Program: 2 years. After two years and subject to satisfactory performance, successful candidates may be granted a continuing contract.

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belarus, Belize, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Mozambique, Nauru, Norway, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, United States, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam

How to Apply: See in Program Webpage (Link below)

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The United Nations (UN)

Important Notes: THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION ON APPLICANTS’ BANK ACCOUNTS.

Wells Fargo Accelerator Programme for FinTech Startups 2018

Application Deadline:  30th June, 2018

Offered annually? Semi-annual (Twice in a year)

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): United States

About the Award: The Wells Fargo Startup Accelerator is a hands-on program focused on startups that create solutions for financial institutions and enterprise customers. The semiannual boot camp is for innovators who seek to shape the future of financial services. Companies join Wells Fargo’s accelerator to refine their potential breakthrough technologies for financial services and other applications.

Offered Since: 2014

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Entrepreneurs from around the globe who have innovative ideas can apply. Ideally, you should be a startup targeting large enterprises as your ultimate customer.

Number of Awardees: 6 Investments in 5 Companies

Duration of Programme: 6 months

Value of Scholarship:  Up to $1,000,000 in investment along with support in the following areas
  • Accelerator: We aim to be a valued resource no matter where you are in your business cycle. Whether early in your company’s development or you are fully operational, we support our selected startups in a variety of ways.
  • Resources: More than money, our experienced team will lend you a hand. We’ll test your concept to help validate its technology and market direction. In addition, we will help make your product enterprise ready.
  • Network: Your participation in Wells Fargo Startup Accelerator opens up a world of diverse perspectives from industry experts, mentors, venture capitalists, and senior executives within Wells Fargo.
Application Process: 
  • Apply: Interested startups should apply here
  • Review and Decision: The review process includes technical and executive reviews. First stage review results are typically emailed 5-10 days after an application period ends.
  • Programme Start:After a company is selected, one or more advisors will be assigned to collaborate on developing the partnering strategy with Wells Fargo and if applicable, assist in the execution of proof of concept projects.
  • Leverage Networking Opportunities: Let us connect you with industry leading experts, mentors, executives, and venture capitalists.
Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: Wells Fargo

Sony World Photography Awards Competition for Student and Professional Photographers Worldwide (USD30,000 Prize Money) 2019

Application Deadlines: 
  • Professional: 11th January, 2019 – 1300 GMT
  • Youth & Open: 4th January, 2019 – 1300 GMT
  • Student Focus: 30th November, 2018 – 1300 GMT
Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): The hugely popular Sony World Photography Awards Exhibition, featuring a selection of winning, shortlisted and commended images, is curated at the prestigious Somerset House, London each Spring.

Fields of Competition:
  • Professional – 10 categories, judged on a body of work
  • Open – 10 categories, rewarding the best single images
    ○ National Awards – Entries submitted to the Open competition are automatically entered into the National Awards based on nationality (please check if your individual country is participating).
  • Youth – for all photographers aged 12-19, a single image responding to one brief
  • Student Focus – for those studying photography
About the Award: Open to all photographers, the Awards are an authoritative voice in the photographic industry that has the power to shape the careers of its winning and short-listed photographers. Each year the competition attracts both emerging talent and established artists and presents the world’s best photography from the last 12 months to a global audience.
The World Photography Organisation is a global platform for photography initiatives. Working across more than 180 countries, their aim is to raise the level of conversation around photography by celebrating the best imagery and photographers on the planet.
The Sony World Photography Awards has four competitions:
  • Professional – Recognising outstanding bodies of work​
  • Open – Rewarding the world’s best single images ​
  • Youth – Best single images by photographers aged 12-19
  • Student – For photography students worldwide
Type: Competition

Eligibility: All submitted images must have been taken in 2016.
View individual eligibility, selection criteria and procedure for each competition on the Competition Webpage (Right-Hand Corner)

Value of Competition: Global exposure is given to not only to the overall winners, but also to shortlisted and commended photographers.
Recognised photographers can receive:
  • Exhibition at Somerset House, London
  • Potential to be included in international exhibitions
  • Inclusion in the annual Sony World Photography Awards book
  • Potential to work with Sony and other partners on a variety of projects
How to Apply:

Visit Competition Webpage for details

Award Provider: World Photography Organisation

Important Note: You can only enter one of the following competitions: Professional, Open or Youth.

TWAS-ICCBS Postgraduate Fellowship in Chemical and Biological Sciences for Students from Developing Countries 2018 – Pakistan

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries other than Pakistan

To Be Taken At (Country): Pakistan

About the Award: TWAS-ICCBS Postgraduate Fellowships are tenable at the International Center for Chemical and Biological Sciences (ICCBS) – comprising the H.E.J. Research Institute of Chemistry and the Dr. Panjwani Center for Molecular and Drug Research – for a period of up to four years for studies leading to a PhD degree in the following fields: organic chemistry, biochemistry, biotechnology, molecular medicine, pharmacology, physical chemistry or analytical chemistry.
Applicants may be registered for a PhD degree in their home country (SANDWICH option), or may enrol in a PhD course at ICCBS (FULL-TIME option).
  • SANDWICH Fellowships (for those registered for a PhD in their home country): The Fellowship may be granted for a minimum period of 6 months and a maximum period to be decided with ICCBS. Under the sandwich option, TWAS covers only one return journey to the host country.
  • FULL-TIME Fellowships (for those willing to register for a PhD in Pakistan)
Fields of Study: 
01-Agricultural Sciences
02-Structural, Cell and Molecular Biology
03-Biological Systems and Organisms
04-Medical and Health Sciences incl. Neurosciences
05-Chemical Sciences


Type: PhD, Research, Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants for these fellowships must meet the following criteria:
  • be a maximum age of 35 years on 31 December of the year of application,
  • hold a Master’s degree in a field of natural sciences;
  • be nationals of a developing country (other than Pakistan);
  • must not hold any visa for temporary or permanent residency in Pakistan or any developed country;
  • provide a certificate of good health from a qualified medical doctor;
  • for SANDWICH Fellowships: be registered PhD students in their home country and provide the “Registration and No Objection Certificate” from the HOME university (see sample on page 6) OR
  • FULL-TIME Fellowships:  be willing to register at the University of Karachi (Pakistan);
  • provide an official Acceptance Letter from the supervisor or head of department at ICCBS. Requests for acceptance must be directed to the Director of ICCBS (Prof. M.I. Choudhary at hej@cyber.net.pk or pcmd@cyber.net.pk) who will facilitate assignment of a host supervisor. In contacting Prof. Choudhary, applicants must accompany their request for a preliminary acceptance letter with copy of their CV and a research proposal outline and two reference letters;
  • provide evidence of proficiency in English, if medium of education was not English;
  • provide evidence that s/he will return to her/his home country on completion of the fellowship;
  • not take up other assignments during the period of her/his fellowship;
  • be financially responsible for any accompanying family members.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: ICCBS will provide a monthly stipend which should be used to cover living costs, such as food, accommodation, local transportation and incidental minor illness. The monthly stipend will not be convertible into foreign currency.

Duration of Programme: 4 years

How to Apply: 
  • Applicants must submit an Acceptance Letter from ICCBS when applying, or by the deadline at the latest. Without preliminary acceptance the application will not be considered for selection
  • Reference letters must be on letter-headed paper and SIGNED.
  • Applicants should be aware that they can apply for only one fellowship per year. With the exception of the Visiting Scientists programme, all other fellowship programmes offered by TWAS and OWSD are mutually exclusive.
Apply Now

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: ICCBS