4 Jul 2017

India and China trade war threats amid border stand-off

Wasantha Rupasinghe

India and China have rushed troops to a remote, disputed border region, in what is widely being described as the worst border stand-off between the two countries since they fought a brief border war in 1962.
The current dispute focuses on the Doklam or Donglang Plateau, a ridge in the Himalayan hills where the borders of India, China, and Bhutan, a tiny kingdom long under New Delhi’s thumb, meet.
India and China are both reported to have deployed some 3,000 troops to the area. They also have traded thinly veiled threats of military action, including through references to their 1962 war, which saw China bloody India’s nose, then declare a ceasefire.
The crisis erupted last week as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was visiting Washington to meet US President Donald Trump and further expand the anti-China alliance between the Indian bourgeoisie and American imperialism.
On June 26, Indian troops intervened to stop Chinese workers from building a road on the Doklam plateau. Initial Indian media reports claimed that the Chinese workers had intruded into territory that rightfully belongs to India under a boundary British colonial authorities imposed in 1914, the so-called McMahon line. But later New Delhi said its troops had acted to prevent the Chinese carrying out illegal construction on Bhutan territory.
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) responded to the Indian intervention by destroying two Indian bunkers in the area.
In a move meant to underline the gravity of the situation and India’s determination to stand its ground, Indian Army chief General Bipin Rawat flew last Thursday to the northeast Indian state of Sikkim to meet with commanders of the 17 Mountain Division. It is tasked with guarding the China-India border in the Doklam Plateau area.
Since assuming command of the Indian army last January, Rawat has raised Chinese hackles with bellicose remarks, including repeated vows that India is prepared to fight a two-front war against China and Pakistan simultaneously.
India is currently raising an 80,000-strong mountain strike corps and carrying out a massive infrastructure building plan along its nearly 3,500-kilometer border with China. It claims these actions are needed to counter a Chinese military build-up along the contested border.
The Chinese press has accused India of ratcheting up tensions over the disputed border in order to demonstrate to the Trump administration that it is ready to serve as Washington’s cat’s paw in its military-strategic offensive against China.
The government-controlled Global Times said Indian troops had crossed over from Sikkim into Chinese territory to show Washington that New Delhi can be counted on to “constrain China’s rise.”
The Indian media and government, meanwhile, are claiming that China is illegally trying to push the tri-junction of the Sino-Indian-Bhutanese border some 20 kilometers south, so as to place itself in an advantageous position to seize hold of the strategic Siliguri corridor in the event of a war. The corridor, sometime referred to as the “Chicken’s Neck,” is a narrow slice of Indian territory squeezed between Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and China. Just 17 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, the Siliguri corridor links West Bengal and the rest of India to the country’s seven northeastern states.
Relations between India and China have deteriorated sharply over the past three years. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government India has all but abandoned any pretense of “strategic autonomy” and transformed itself into a frontline state in the US drive against China.
New Delhi has agreed that the Pentagon can make routine use of Indian military bases and ports to refuel and resupply its warplanes and battleships. In return, the US has proclaimed India a Major Defense Partner giving its access to the advanced weapons Washington provides only to its most-trusted allies. India has also dramatically expanded bilateral and trilateral military-security ties with the US’s closest Pacific allies, that is the countries it will be principally relying on in a war with China—Australia and Japan. The head of the US Pacific Command Admiral Harry Harris recently revealed that the US and Indian militaries are sharing intelligence on Chinese submarine and ship movements in the Indian Ocean.
China has responded by expanding its longstanding partnership with India’s arch-enemy, Pakistan. This is exemplified by China’s plans to invest more than $50 billion in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). A key component of Beijing’s One Belt, One Road initiative, the CPEC will provide rail, road and pipeline links between western China and Pakistan’s Arabian Sea port, Gwadar, enabling China to partially circumvent the Pentagon’s plans to blockade China by seizing maritime chokepoints.
At the conclusion of their June 26 summit Modi and Trump vowed that they will further expand the Indo-US “global strategic partnership.” In a joint statement, India gave full-throated support to Washington’s provocative stances on the South China Sea dispute and North Korea, and the US signed on to unprecedentedly harsh language in demanding Pakistan prevent “terrorists” from using its territory. New Delhi touted the statement chastising Pakistan as an endorsement of its stance on Kashmir, that is, its claim that the mass opposition to Indian rule over disputed Jammu and Kashmir is entirely a result of Pakistani-exported terror.
Significantly, China sprang to Islamabad’s defense. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Pakistan stands at the “frontline” in the global fight against terrorism and “the international community should give full recognition and affirmation” to Islamabad’s “efforts in this regard.”
Both New Delhi and Beijing are saying that it is up to the other to stand down in the current border dispute and ruling out talks until the troops that have “illegally” occupied their territory are pulled back.
The Indian ruling elite has been tilting toward Washington since the beginning of the 21st century. Beijing long responded cautiously to the burgeoning Indo-US partnership, hoping to woo New Delhi through offers of economic collaboration and fearing a harsh response would only drive New Delhi into US imperialism’s eager embrace.
However, in response to Modi’s unstinting support for Washington’s campaign to strategically isolate and encircle China, Beijing has shifted course and is taking an increasingly aggressive line with New Delhi.
A June 27 Global Times op-ed, said China “must force the Indian troops to retreat to the Indian side by all means necessary.” It went on to warn New Delhi that it “cannot afford a showdown with China on border issues. … India’s GDP is only one-quarter of China’s and its annual defense budget is just one third.”
Two days later, senior PLA spokesman Colonel Wu Quian denounced Rawat’s statement about India’s readiness to fight a two-front war as “extremely irresponsible.” Then in a reference to the 1962 war, he declared he hoped Rawat, “could learn historical lessons and stop such clamoring for war.”
India’s Defence Minister Arun Jaitley quickly took issue with Wu’s remarks, saying “the situation in 1962 was different and (the) India of 2017 is different.” Jaitley didn’t go onto explain how India is “different,” but he was clearly referring both to its nuclear-weapons capability and its strategic partnership with Washington.
The reality is, due to US imperialism’s reckless drive to make India a linchpin of its anti-China offensive, the Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani conflicts have become inextricably entangled with the strategic confrontation between US imperialism and China. This has made them all even more volatile and incendiary, threatening the masses of South Asia and the world with a catastrophe.

G20 summit in Hamburg: A city in a state of siege

Sven Heymanns

The city of Hamburg, Germany, host to the G20 summit to be held July 7-8, is a city under siege. 15,000 police officers from every German state are practicing bringing a major city under state control. Tens of thousands of protesters are expected to take part in demonstrations during the summit.
A closer look at the planned measures makes clear that they are intended not just to protect the political elite attending the G20, but represent deliberate preparations for a civil war scenario that would not be possible under normal circumstances. The number of police and security forces involved is unprecedented, with camps set up to incarcerate G20 opponents.
These measures are accompanied by massive attacks on the basic rights of demonstrators and the city’s population. The German army (Bundeswehr) is also taking part in the siege of Hamburg—in part publicly, in part undercover. Even bourgeois media outlets such as the Huffington Post write of “a city in a state of war”.
Police are assembling from all of Germany’s 16 states, with several states dispatching special police units. GSG9, the special unit of the federal police, will take part.
It is “the biggest operation in the history of the Hamburg police,” declared police president Ralf Martin Meyer. The operation has been under way for several weeks, with civilian police posted to the most important points in the city center to conduct surveillance.
It is an unprecedented operation, and not just for the Hamburg police. The head of operations, Hartmut Dudde, told the press that “almost everything the German police has” will be in Hamburg.
Spiegel Online reported that every police officer will be equipped with a gun, a baton and teargas. The special units distributed throughout the city center have additional heavy armament, including “a variety of pistols and revolvers, glare grenades, battering rams and the sniper rifle PSG1”, one of the most precise weapons available.
The new police vehicle “Survivor R” will be also be used for the first time. The 15-ton behemoth resembles the vehicles used by the US army in Iraq, which were then turned into police cars and used against protesters during the police lockdown of Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. The vehicle is manned by ten policemen, including a commander, a gunner and two targeteers. The launching system can be used for tear gas or fog grenades. A blade to destroy blockades is also included.
At the presentation of the vehicle last summer, it was said that the “Survivor” was the only police truck that can withstand shots from an AK-47. It is also equipped with detectors that report the presence of nuclear, biological and chemical agents, and it has its own ventilation system to protect those inside the vehicle. A “Survivor” costs up to 500,000 euros, depending on the equipment.
The Hamburg police also have the “WaWe 10000”—“the most modern water cannon in the world,” Spiegel Online writes. The vehicle can shoot up to 3,200 litres of water within 60 seconds, with the water jet extending up to 65 meters. The WaWe can create an artificial wall of water allowing police and special units to advance on demonstrators. The vehicle is also equipped with gas tanks and corresponding admixing systems, which make it possible to spray tear gas along with the water.
In addition to the above-mentioned vehicles, which are clearly aimed for use against the population in a civil war type situation, the police are carrying out numerous other measures. This includes a permanent presence in the waters of the port city, which transports goods along the River Elbe. The river and port are to be watched over by a special unit of the Dutch police.
Stern magazine reports that “3,000 police vehicles, nearly 200 service dogs, eleven helicopters, around 50 police officers [...] and special units from several states” will be deployed. Special vehicles with translucent and bulletproof walls are due to be sent from France. They were previously deployed against demonstrators protesting the French Labor Market Act.
According to a report by the magazine Focus, the Bundeswehr is planning to use a maritime ship in the port of Hamburg as part of the G20 summit operation. The secret use of the ship, which is intended to rescue heads of state and government in the event of a terrorist attack, is clearly unconstitutional.
The ship could be sent at any time in the direction of the North Sea and has operating rooms on board. For camouflage, soldiers will wear civilian clothes. The pretext for the ship’s stay in the port is officially the procurement of missing spare parts. The federal criminal police office and the Ministry of Defence rejected the media reports. War ships were “not part of our deployment concept”, a police officer told the Hamburger Morgenpost.
In fact, according to the Morgenpost, the Bundeswehr is using the multi-purpose “Lachs” (Salmon) boat for so-called “administrative assistance.” It will be manned by personnel for various “security” tasks, as well as specialists for diving medicine. Finally, the German army is deploying an underwater drone to scan the Hamburg harbour basin for explosives.
The siege of the city is accompanied by a massive attack on the basic democratic rights of local residents and demonstrators.
A so-called general police decree enables the security forces to control the arrival and departure of the participants to the summit. The decree bans any demonstrations in a 38-square kilometre zone between the city’s airport and the Elbe, and roads can be blocked at any time. Another zone surrounding the hall where the summit takes place can only be entered by local residents.
Police have reacted to the plans for over two dozen demonstrations and protests by setting up a detention center, which could more accurately described as a temporary concentration camp.
Up to 400 people can be detained on the site of a former food market covering an area of 11,000 square meters. There will also be containers for lawyers as well as facilities for taking fingerprints and identifying personal data. A total of 70 collective and 50 individual cells are available, according to Spiegel Online.
An attempt by the city of Hamburg to ban the “Antikapitalistische Camp,” located in the city park, has failed temporarily. Following a ban order issued by the Hamburg Higher Administrative Court, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on Wednesday that such a ban was inadmissible because it prevented participants from exercising their right of assembly.
However, the city court and police have given sufficient scope to proceed against the camp by other means. The police can limit the size of the camp, impose various regulations and even move it to a different place in the city.
On Thursday evening Hamburg’s interior affairs senator, Andy Grote (SPD), announced that prohibitive measures would be taken against the organizers of the camp if they build it illegally. While the Constitutional Court lifted a ban on the camp, the city council has failed to give its permission for a camp to be erected.

US-backed war in Yemen sparks deadly cholera outbreak

Niles Niemuth

According to the latest figures from the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 1,500 Yemenis have died in a deadly cholera epidemic which has infected some 250,000 people since April. Children account for a quarter of the deaths and half of all infections.
The deadly outbreak is the direct result of the criminal Saudi-led, US-backed war to reinstate the puppet government of President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who was ousted in 2015 by an alliance of Houthi militias and forces loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh.
The Saudi-led assault on Yemen is a war crime of immense proportions, rivaling the US proxy war for regime change in Syria that has killed or displaced millions and the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of more than a million people.
The war has been justified by Saudi Arabia with unsubstantiated accusations that the Houthis are being supported and financed by Iran. First under former president Barack Obama and now under President Donald Trump, the effort to dominate Yemen, which borders the key oil transit point of the Bab el Mandeb strait, is a major component of the effort to block Iran’s development as a regional power capable of impeding the predations of American imperialism in the Middle East.
Supplied with bombs and missiles, aerial refueling and vital logistical and intelligence support from the US government, Saudi Arabia and its allies have deliberately and ruthlessly carried out air strikes on food markets, schools, residential neighborhoods, hospitals and other critical infrastructure. Washington has supplied cluster bombs, illegal under international law, which have been used repeatedly.
The UN estimates that more than 16,000 people have been killed by airstrikes and ground fighting; nearly two-thirds of the fatalities have been civilians. As many as 17 million Yemenis, out of a pre-war population of 27 million, are in need of food aid, and of these 7 million are on the brink of dying from famine. Every hour, six children under the age of five die of preventable causes including starvation and malnourishment. More than three million Yemenis have been displaced from their homes.
A crippling naval blockade of the country by the US has been key to the unrelenting onslaught and has resulted in a complete breakdown in Yemen’s physical and social infrastructure, creating the conditions for the outbreak of a cholera epidemic and its rapid spread through the population.
Medical staff, sanitation workers and other civil servants have gone unpaid for months. Basic necessities, including electricity and clean water for drinking and bathing, have become luxuries. In the blockaded port city of Hudaydah, which has been without electricity for two years, residents have resorted to digging wells in the streets after the main water supplier ran out of the diesel fuel necessary to pump water to residents.
Garbage has piled up in the streets of the capital city, Sanaa, creating a breeding ground for disease. The current cholera outbreak, which began in October 2016 before temporarily subsiding, resurged earlier this year after the sewers in Sanaa became blocked and stopped functioning.
Simultaneously with the unrelenting war against the Houthis, the Trump administration has ramped up the pace of the undeclared war begun by Obama in 2009, targeting militants purportedly aligned with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula for death with Hellfire missiles fired from remotely operated drones. More than a thousand Yemenis have been killed in eight years, including more than 200 civilians, among them children and pregnant women.
There have been at least 90 US drone strikes in Yemen since January, with as many as 120 people reported killed; at least one-third of the fatalities have been civilians. Fifty drone strikes were carried out in March, dwarfing any of the monthly totals during Obama’s tenure. Two successive attacks on Friday and Saturday reportedly killed four suspected members of AQAP.
As part of the war against AQAP US special forces troops have also operated at will in the country, carrying out a raid a January in which they killed as many as 30 civilians, including 8-year-old Nawar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. Nawar was the daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen who was targeted for death by Obama and assassinated with a drone strike in 2011.
Reports surfaced last month revealing that the US and the United Arab Emirates are collaborating in the operation of a network of torture chambers in Yemen into which hundreds of men and boys allegedly tied to AQAP have been swept up and brutally abused. Victims report being crammed into shipping containers smeared with human feces, blindfolded for weeks at a time, beaten with wires, sexually assaulted, and tied to a spit and spun in a circle of fire.
The torture regime, which began under Obama, also reportedly involves the use of interrogations by American “experts” on ships just off the coast of Yemen.
While the undeniable humanitarian crisis ravaging Yemen grows worse by the day, it has been met with a criminal silence in the mainstream media and among the pseudo-left press.
Predictably, those who demand the overthrow of Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin, ultimately for standing in the way of the interests of American imperialism, have nothing to say about the monstrous crimes of Obama, Trump and King Salman of Saudi Arabia in Yemen. The tear ducts of the humanitarians at the New York TimesWashington Post and their pseudo-left adjuncts, which gushed over the Russian assault on Aleppo in Syria last year, have run dry when it comes to the millions of imperialism’s Yemeni victims.

3 Jul 2017

Princeton University Hodder Fellowship for Artists and Writers of Exceptional Promise 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 19th September 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): USA
About the Award: Hodder Fellows spend an academic year at Princeton, but no formal teaching is involved. An $81,000 stipend is provided for this 10-month appointment as a Visiting Fellow. Fellowships are not intended to fund work leading to an advanced degree. One need not be a U.S. citizen to apply.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Potential Hodder Fellows are composers, choreographers, performance artists, visual artists, writers or other kinds of artists or humanists who have “much more than ordinary intellectual and literary gifts”; they are selected more “for promise than for performance.”
  • Given the strength of the applicant pool, most successful Fellows have published a first book or have similar achievements in their own fields;
  • Advanced degrees preferred, although not required.
  • Non-US citizens are welcome to apply.
  • This fellowship cannot be used to fund work leading to a Ph.D. or any other advanced degree.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: $81,000. The Hodder is designed to provide Fellows with a year of “studious leisure” to undertake significant new work.
Duration of Program: 10 months. Hodder Fellows spend an academic year at Princeton.
How to Apply: APPLY HERE

Princeton Arts Fellowships for Early-Career Artist(e)s 2017/2019

Application Deadline: 19th September 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): USA
About the Award: The PAF is a two-year fellowship that includes teaching one course or leading a project each semester.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Artists whose achievements have been recognized as demonstrating extraordinary promise in any area of artistic practice and teaching.
  • Applicants should be early career composers, conductors, musicians, choreographers, visual artists, filmmakers, poets, novelists, playwrights, designers, directors and performance artists–this list is not meant to be exhaustive–who would find it beneficial to spend two years teaching and working in an artistically vibrant university community.
  • One need not be a U.S. citizen to apply.
  • Holders of Ph.D. degrees from Princeton are not eligible to apply.
  • This fellowship cannot be used to fund work leading to a Ph.D. or any other advanced degree.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: An $81,000 a year stipend is provided.
Duration of Program: 2 years
How to Apply: All applicants must submit a resume or curriculum vitae, a personal statement of 500 words about how you would hope to use the two years of the fellowship at this moment in your career, and contact information for three references. In addition, work samples are requested to be submitted online (i.e., writing sample, images of your work, video links to performances, etc.)
Applicants can only apply for the Princeton Arts Fellowship twice in a lifetime.
Award Providers: Princeton University, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

INSEAD Olam MBA Scholarships for sub-Saharan Africa Students 2018/2019

Application Timeline: 
  • Applications Open: 17th July 2017
  • Deadline: 31st July 2017
  • Decision Notifiication: 15th September 2017
Essay Questions:
 1).Describe (a) why you wish to undertake the INSEAD MBA (b) How you envisage contributing to the future development of your country or region (c) Why you should be selected for the INSEAD Olam International MBA Scholarships for Change Catalysts in African Markets. (Max 400 words for all the questions)
2).Provide a concise but accurate description of your financial circumstances as well as a cash flow forecast for the year at INSEAD (details of income set against all expenditures). Explain how you expect to finance your studies if you do not obtain this scholarship (200 words).
Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa countries
To be taken at (country): France
About the Award: Olam recognises the need to foster leadership and governance in Sub Saharan Africa by supporting aspiring and capable students to pursue higher education at international centres of excellence. Through the INSEAD MBA scholarship and Olam mentoring, we hope to play our part in developing the necessary skills and knowledge in a highly talented select group of change agents. They in turn will then have the opportunity to contribute towards economic transformation and catalyse change in their community.
Type: MBA
Eligibility: The INSEAD Olam International MBA Scholarships for Change Catalysts in African Markets will be open to meritorious candidates who are nationals of Sub-Saharan Africa, regardless of their current country of residence, but who are committed to working in their home country or region. Only candidates admitted to INSEAD’s full-time MBA programme will be considered (December 16 and July 17 Classes) .
Selection Criteria: Candidates for this scholarship will need to demonstrate:
  • academic achievement and promise
  • teamwork as well as personal ownership to deliver
  • leadership potential and entrepreneurial spirit
  • a commitment to contributing to their country or region at the end of the course.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship:  73000 EUR
How to Apply: To access the scholarship application form on-line, you will first need to register (important : your name should be indicated exactly as on your admission application).
Upon registering, you will receive your personal login ID and password to navigate through the scholarship website.   You will first need to answer all the profile questions (personal contact details, educational and professional information).  This will serve as a background for all applications.  Thereafter, you will have the option to apply for different scholarships.
Throughout the period that the on-line application is available, you can modify or withdraw your scholarship applications as you please. You can track the status of your on-line application with the help of your scholarship login ID and password. Please note that the scholarship portal is not part of the platform for the admitted candidates and therefore you will need to register for it separately.
You can access the scholarship application form on Monday 24th October.  To submit an application, first go through the Scholarship Application Guide and then register yourself.
Award Provider: INSEAD  Business School

L’Oréal-UNESCO Maghreb Fellowships for African Women in Science 2017

Application Deadline: 28th July 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya.
Fields of Award:
  • Sciences of Life: Biology, Biochemistry, Genetics, Physiology, Biotechnology, Ecology and Chemistry.
  • Sciences of matter: such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, information sciences, earth and universe sciences.
About the Award: The Maghreb Fellowships L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science aim at promoting the participation of young women in science. This program determines and rewards young talented female researchers in the following fields (Biology, Biochemistry, Gene@cs, Physiology, Biotechnology, Ecology and Chemistry applied to life). Like those of Sciences of the matter (such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, information sciences, earth and universe sciences).
Founded in 2007, the L’Oréal-UNESCO Fellowships aim to distinguish young female researchers for the quality of their works and to encourage them to pursue a brilliant career in science. The fellowship is within the framework of a partnership between the L’Oréal Foundation and the National Boards for UNESCO in the 4 previously-named countries.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Eligible for the fellowship applicants who are:
• Applying for a PhD or a post-doctoral fellowship.
• Not working permanently in 2017.
• Working on your PhD or having obtained it and willing to pursue research in one of the fields cited above
• African, working in one of the 4 countries listed above.
• Being aged at most 35 years at the closing date of the call for applications.
Selection Criteria: Selection criteria of the applicants as established by the jury are the following:
• Excellence of the applicant’s academic portfolio (including number, quality and impact of their publications, conference presentations, patents …).
• The scientific quality of the research project.
• The innovative and promising character of their research works (relevant, original, unique …) and its implementation in science.
• The socio-economic impact of the project/ research.
• The path of the candidate (career…).
Scholarships must be devoted exclusively to the promo@on and development of research and should in no way substitute the responsibilities of laboratory towards its researchers (Displacement, work tools, equipment, and participation in congress…).
Scholarships are neither renewable nor combined with other research grants.
Number of Awards: 5
Value of Award: 10 000 €. Cost of traveling and accommodation for Fellows non-residents in Morocco will be provided by the L’Oréal Maroc.
Duration of Program:
How to Apply: Applications can only be made through the online platform: www.fwis.fr by the applicants themselves.
An application is considered complete when it contains all of the following parts, in English or in French:
• A detailed resume (Curriculum Vitae) filled directly in the website www.fwis.fr.
• Copies of diplomas obtained starting from the BS.
• A copy of an official transcript of undergraduate and graduate studies.
• A detailed abstract / description of the research project of a maximum 2 pages
• Including research projects in progress
• A suggested project of the grant’s use supporting the application and inclusive to some budgetary indications
• The list of publications and patents.
• Recommendation letters from supervisor and / or director of the scientific institute or school where the thesis has been carried.
• Letter of acceptance from the host laboratory for post-doctoral studies.
Incomplete applications or those received after the deadline as well as applications that do not fulfill the above conditions will not be considered.
Award Providers:  L’Oréal Maroc

Government of Austria IPT Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 31st July 2017
Eligible Countries: OECD Countries (incl. Austria)
To Be Taken At (Country): Austria
About the Award: The International Civilian Peacekeeping and Peace-building Training Programme (IPT) is a practically oriented training programme for experts of various professional backgrounds who work – or aim to work – as civilians in crisis management and conflict prevention.
Type: Training
Eligibility: 
For the Program
  • Applicants should be motivated and willing to engage in peacekeeping and peace-building activities in crisis regions.
  • Precondition to attend a specialisation course is to have participated in one of our Core Courses or similar basic mission preparation training. Sufficient work experience in crisis management missions can be considered in lieu of a Core Course.
  • Applicants must have good command of the English language.
  • Applicants should be in a good state of physical and mental health. This is not only necessary for later deployment, but also for some of the outdoor training activities.
Taking into account recruitment standards of international organisations, participants should
  • be aged preferably between 25 and 60
  • have expertise and relevant work experience in their respective areas of professional competence
  • have at least a first level university degree or equivalent professional experience
  • be able and willing to work in a team and within a multicultural environment
  • have a valid driving license
  • be computer literate
For the Scholarship
  • Applicants must be from OECD Countries (incl. Austria)
  • Applicants from OECD or non-OECD countries already employed by international organisations – at headquarters or in field missions (e.g. Asian Development Bank, OSCE, UN) – are in principle not eligible for scholarships and are advised to ask their organisation for support.
Number of Awards: Limited
Value of Award: Scholarships cover, in part or fully, tuition fees and full board accommodation during the training.
Duration of Program: 
How to Apply: Applicants must fill in an online application form and upload supporting documents in one file. To apply for such support, candidates have to indicate this in the relevant section of the application form and give reasons for their request in a scholarship essay. To complete the application, students will be asked to upload:
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • A recent photograph
  • A scan of the data page of your passport
Applicants will be informed about the outcome of the scholarship application in the letter of invitation.
Award Providers: Government of Austria

Dodgy Prophecy and American Foreign Policy

Steve Cooper

Aside from the profound irony of a US spokesperson accusing another country of not being capable of good-faith negotiations, Nikki Haley’s recent comparison of Iran to the scorpion in the frog-and-scorpion fable is the latest example of overt racism being used to channel public support in favour of a war of aggression.
Full of righteous fervour for God and country (Ms. Haley is a Sikh who converted to Christianity, and a first generation immigrant from India), she appears to believe that Iran is evil, and that it is America’s responsibility to punish it regardless of 1) the consequences for Iranian civilian populations or 2) the hypocrisy of the US accusing Iran of supporting terrorism when US use of terrorists as proxies in the Middle East is a long-standing matter of record (there’s something about this rhetorical judo of accusing your opponent of what you are most guilty that seems to have massive appeal for a certain type of smug jackass).
But the bottom line remains for Ms. Haley that America is good, and any country that crosses her is evil.  We can recognise in this tribal identification a vestigial genetic survival mechanism which, for Haley, transcends any consideration of racism, morality, or good taste.  In our modern, enlightened times we can also recognise the danger inherent in this atavistic ‘survival mechanism’ which is why we label it ‘fanaticism’.  But when we look closely at recent American history we realise that Haley’s fanaticism fits in perfectly with a curious Biblical interpretation conflating patriotism and religion whose principle tenet is an ultimate battle between good and evil, in the form of Gog and Magog:
While the Bible was a source of morality for Jimmy Carter, for Ronald Reagan it was a source of prophecy.  Israel’s redemption was a critical element of God’s divine plan as Reagan understood it, and this was intimately tied with his belief in Armageddon.  In 1971, as governor of California, he spoke at a banquet:
“Biblical scholars have been saying for generations that Gog must be Russia.  What other powerful nation is to the north of Israel?  None.  But it didn’t seem to make sense before the Russian Revolution when Russia was Christian.  Now it does, now that Russia has become communistic and atheistic, now that Russia has set itself against God.  Now it fits the description of Gog perfectly… Everything is falling into place.  It can’t be long now.  Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God’s people.  That must mean they’ll be destroyed by nuclear weapons.”  (Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands)
Reagan’s reference to the Old Testament book of Ezekiel is significant since this book represents a Biblical foundation for American Christians’ unquestioning support for Israel.
In 1984, worry over President Reagan’s frequent suggestions that the end of the world may be coming soon caused a group of about 100 Christian and Jewish religious leaders to sign a statement of concern saying that Armageddon theology is a false reading of the Bible and that belief in it diminishes concern about the possibility of nuclear war.  (NYT, Oct 21, 1984).
While Reagan agonised over the geopolitical manifestations of Biblical events and characters, his successor, George Bush Sr, decided to take matters in his own hands by assuming the nickname ‘Magog’ himself in his Skull and Bones boy’s club.  But it was his evangelical son, Bush Jr, who took things to the next level and actually waged war on a country based on this Armageddon theology.  In 2003 when he was trying to sell the Iraq invasion to French President, Jacques Chirac; Bush told Chirac that when he looked at the Middle East, he saw “Gog and Magog at work” and the Biblical prophecies unfolding.  This was his overriding argument for the invasion, and it was thankfully not enough to convince Chirac.
This is pretty hair-raising stuff if you don’t necessarily believe that the Bible provides a roadmap for the future that man is able to unerringly interpret.  But worse yet, it’s only a partial picture of what the Bible has to say about Gog and Magog’s adventures.  What about their appearance in the book of Revelation in the New Testament?
In many ways Ezekiel provides the foundational material for Revelation (see Sverre Bøe, Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38-39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19,17-21 and 20,7-10).  But rather than present Gog as the earthly personification of Israel’s enemies, Revelation portrays Gog and Magog as both being deceived by Satan into warring against each other:
“Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall come forth to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to the war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven, and devoured them”
In fact, for American Christians who follow Armageddon theology, Revelation presents several serious challenges to the idea of a final battle between good and evil where Americans are the good guys.  Its author, John of Patmos, was a Jew who followed Jesus and was forced into exile by the war the Roman empire waged against the Jews.  John began writing Revelation barely 20 years after the Romans had desecrated and burned the Great Temple and left the inner city of Jerusalem in ruins.  So when Revelation is analysed, one should not be surprised at the pronounced anti-empire message running throughout it.
After providing advice to each of the seven early Christian churches, Revelation describes a future time where massive numbers of the faithful are being persecuted and killed because of their belief in God.  The prayers of these faithful mount until God finally decides to react in one of the wildest and most bizarre flights of revenge fantasy known to literature.  At one point, the one responsible for the martyrdoms – the whore Babylon, a city which represents for John the Roman empire and its culture – is consumed by fire.  (see Elaine Pagels – Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation)
So if you’re a modern believer in Armageddon theology, like Ronald Reagan, trying to determine who are the good and bad guys today that Revelation was referring to, you may not like what you find.  The good guys are the ones who have been the most persecuted and killed because of their faith in God.  If we look around the world today, the people who most closely correspond to them are not the ones American Christians might have thought.  And when we try to identify the corrupt empire responsible for all the persecution and killing, the most likely suspect might give today’s Christians reason for pause…
For those of us who regard Revelation as any other story, but with profound religious and historical resonance; this New Testament book teaches that resistance to earthly authority becomes our duty when it infringes on individuals’ beliefs.  But for Americans like Reagan, Bush père et fils, and now Nikki Haley, who use appeals to to their country’s intrinsic ‘goodness’ to justify its actions around the world, interpreting Revelation in a modern context cannot be acceptable.  These are the kinds of people who will use Ezekiel to explain unquestioning alliance with the state of Israel, but will tell us that it’s impossible to know what Revelation is really referring to.
Fanatics come in all shapes and sizes.  But the ones responsible for American foreign policy today might do us all a favour by giving Revelation a critical read and asking themselves where they and their country fit in.

Where Did Britain’s Racists Go?

Aidan O’Brien

Dublin.
A year ago Britain voted to exit the European Union. And many progressives failed to understand it. They castigated the British – in particular the English and Welsh working classes. Progressives vilified those who had the temerity to reject Brussels. Anyone who wanted to leave the EU was deemed to be a racist, a caveman, an irrational nationalist and even a drunk fool.
However today – exactly one year later – after the performance of Jeremy Corbyn in the recent British election, progressives everywhere are excited and optimistic about the British voters. Some are even talking about a “soft” Brexit or even no Brexit. But does this mood swing among progressives – one year they see Hitler and the next they see Jesus – make sense? Has Britain changed so much in a year? Or are progressives completely misreading Britain’s electorate? Did all those immigrant-haters suddenly disappear or were they even there in the first place?
Britain didn’t change itself in the last year. The recent election which unexpectedly halted the march of the Tories complemented rather than contradicted the vote to leave the European Union. Corbyn’s success was based upon an anti-austerity argument. He was giving the British an alternative not just to the Tory vision of society but also to the EU vision of Europe. He was explicitly trying to end the neoliberal nonsense which has traumatised the many and enriched the few. And by doing so he was moving Britain further away from the EU – rather than closer to it.
If the British grasped the horror of austerity this year, isn’t it possible that they grasped the horror of austerity last year when they voted for Brexit? Considering the fact that “the EU” is short hand for “fanatical austerity”, it’s reasonable to assume that the British rejection of the EU last year was based on the fear of austerity rather than on the fear of immigrants.
If the hatred of immigration was the driving force of the Brexit vote last year then it would have manifested itself again in this year’s general election. But it didn’t. On the contrary it disappeared from view. The only political party that made immigration a big issue in recent years – UKIP (the United Kingdom Independence Party) – was destroyed in the recent election. This suggests that immigration was and is a superficial issue amongst the British electorate.
In hindsight it’s fair to conclude that the real issue last year was not immigrants but the EU itself – in particular it’s brutal austerity policies – policies which the British Tories have embraced wholeheartedly for years. The British voters responded negatively to these policies not just this year but also last year. That’s the only realistic lesson we can draw from these two dramatic British votes. The common thread is the rational dislike of the austerity practiced both in the EU and UK.
Progressives were therefore wrong to viciously criticise the vote for Brexit last year. They were fooled by a mainstream media that downplayed the austerity policies of the EU – which they (the media) agreed with – while exaggerating the fear of immigrants. Progressives completely missed the positive left wing meaning of the Brexit vote (John Pilger and Tariq Ali are the exceptions) – something which can be clearly discerned today.
And what about the British youth – the ones who love Corbyn and at the same time supposedly love the EU? After the vote for Brexit, it was argued that Britain’s old fashioned elders had betrayed Britain’s young Europhiles. However in the general election the youth voted overwhelmingly for an end to austerity. Again – how can it be claimed that a youth which objects to austerity in the UK wants to belong -at the same time – to a European organisation that celebrates permanent austerity? Either the youth are mad or their political desire has been consistently misrepresented in the mainstream media (like everything else) and is only now clearly asserting itself.
The derailment of the Tory bandwagon doesn’t mean the derailment of Brexit but the derailment of austerity in Britain. This rightly encourages progressives everywhere yet some of these progressives continue paradoxically to support a European Union which has locked itself into a neoliberal-austerity straightjacket. This contradiction within the progressive mind is masked by the belief that the EU is a barrier to racism or what some misleadingly call “nationalism”. And so anyone who opposes the EU is seen as a racist or a narrow minded right wing “nationalist” even though the EU itself is deepening inequality and therefore social and national hatred throughout the continent.
Blinded by this fake fight (fake because the fight isn’t fought) against “nazi race-hatred”, progressives can’t see the all encompassing class-hatred that forms the essential core of the EU and which actually spawns – among other hellish things – racism. The irony is that those who love the EU because of it’s “anti-racist” (“anti-nazi” or “anti-nationalist”) credentials have ended up supporting a fanatically austere regime that promotes the social divisions (as well as the international divisions) that are the foundation stone of racism. And war.
The votes for Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn were both positively anti-systemic. Progressives got the meaning of the second vote but misunderstood the first. In general that misunderstanding was a case of the people or the working classes being way ahead of the political class. No sign of this has been greater than the gap between the people and the mainstream media. After ridiculing Brexit and Corbyn the media – in the light of the results of the last year – now barely have any ground to stand on. That’s because the media represent the “politically correct neoliberal class” and nothing more. The battle lines are clear and solid for the people however. And they’re on the terrain of class rather than race.
Britain’s racists do exist nonetheless.
And at this moment they’re propping up Theresa May’s minority government. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) from the north east of Ireland are “Ireland’s Israelis”. And now they’re Britain’s kingmakers. For a long time the British habit has been to export it’s troublemaking racists. It’s gunmen and colonisers have traveled and settled all over the world and many only got as far as Ireland. And now – irony of ironies- they’re settling into 10 Downing Street for what looks like a last stand.
The DUP actually did vote for Brexit for racist reasons (they hate the Irish). This is what Ireland has to live with. The question now is: will Corbyn and Britain’s youth live with it? If they’re both serious about beating austerity Corbyn and his youthful army will beat the racist DUP too. Brexit will make Corbyn’s fight easier because he will not have to feign unity with colonial racists. The ambiguous progressives though are another matter.

The Fall of Mosul is a Defeat for Isis, But It Remains a Deadly Force

Patrick Cockburn

The battle for Mosul is a ferocious struggle that has now been going on for 256 days, or two months longer than the battle of Stalingrad. The fighting between Iraqi government forces and Isis is much smaller in scale than in Russia 75 years ago, but is comparable in its savagery and the importance with which both sides regard the outcome of the battle.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is declaring “the end of the Isis state-let” as Iraqi forces capture the ruins of the al-Nuri mosque where Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who may himself be dead, declared the caliphate three years ago. Isis wanted to avoid the humiliation of seeing the Iraqi flag replacing their own colours on the top of the famous minaret.
Wars in Iraq have seen many exaggerated declarations of victory since the US-led invasion in 2003, but this one has more substance than most, even if it is a little premature. Isis fighters still hold part of the Old City of Mosul where the ancient close-packed housing and narrow alleyways are ideal for their style of making war.
Whatever the precise moment when the last Isis resistance is extinguished in the city, the Islamic State as a geographical unit in northern Iraq and western Syria is being smashed up. It still holds some big enclaves in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, but it has lost almost its urban centres aside from Raqqa in Syria and Tal Afar west of Mosul. Isis is rooted in the five or six million strong Sunni Arab community in Iraq which has endured devastating losses since it lost power with the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
There is no doubt about the importance of the victory won by the Iraqi government forces. It could not have happened without the devastating US-led air strikes, but it was Iraqi ground troops which were decisive in defeating a fanatical but militarily skilful enemy which inflicted heavy losses on them.
The symbolic significance of recapturing Mosul is simple, but far-reaching. Isis strode onto the world stage in June 2014 when a few thousand of its fighters captured the city, which, with a population of two million, was the second largest in Iraq, after four days fighting against an Iraqi garrison supposedly numbering 60,000 men. It was a victory so astonishing that Isis believed that it could only have been won with divine assistance. Defeat for Isis in Mosul and failure on every other battlefront damages the claim for divine sanction for its rule.
The foundering of Isis is being lauded in Baghdad and by relieved government leaders around the world. But it may be that the enemies of Isis are being a little too speedy in dividing up the lion’s skin before checking that the animal has really expired. Looking back at history of the epic battle for Mosul, there are some conclusions that are less than comforting.
Denunciations of Isis as a murderous death cult are not far off the mark, but understandable revulsion at its atrocities tends to obscure the fact that its commanders are experienced military experts. The movement has been written off previously by overconfident adversaries, such as during the period between 2007 and 2011 when it was hard hit by a reinforced US army in Iraq and the hostility of much of the Sunni Arab community. It survived by lying low and waiting for the circumstances to turn once again in its favour, as with the start of the uprising in Syria.
As regards to developments in Iraq and Syria after the impending fall of Mosul, keep in mind the old military adage: “The enemy also has a plan.” Isis has always known that it could not hold Mosul or any other stronghold in the face of air strikes called in by enemy ground forces. In battling for cities like Tikrit, Baiji, Ramadi and Fallujah over the past two years, it did not fight to the last man, leaving detachments behind to inflict maximum casualties on Iraqi forces before slipping away. Isis may be merciless in expending the lives of its militarily untrained followers as suicide bombers, but it is careful in conserving a core of veteran fighters who cannot  easily be replaced.
In fighting in east Mosul, the city being split in two by the Tigris river, Isis fielded less than 1,000 combatants in the front line and the true figure is probably less than half that number. They adopted a tactical system of fluid defence in which two or three snipers with back-up teams could hold back Iraqi government forces from entering a neighbourhood for days. Suicide bombers, frequently driving vehicles full of explosives, would wait for targets to get close in narrow streets before attacking them. Swiftly moving from house to house through holes cut in walls or through streets with tarpaulins draped overhead to prevent observation by aircraft and drones, Isis squads hoped to avoid being detected from above and destroyed by planes or artillery fire.
Isis is inevitably going to lose Mosul, but the eight long months it has taken for this to happen is impressive. It may have as few as 350 fighters in the Old City presently, but these cannot be entirely fought out as was illustrated by a well-planned counter-attack a week ago. Overall, the way in which Isis has fought to hold Mosul for so long is even more impressive than its surprising capture of the city three years ago.
The prolonged fightback may be an ominous sign of what is to come. Isis commanders had evidently thought hard on how to postpone the fall of Mosul and they will have given similar thought to staying in business afterwards. They control some large towns like Tal Afar and others in western Anbar province, though these will fall in due course. Less easy to subdue are their rural enclaves like Hawaijah in Kirkuk province and vast  tracts of desert and semi-desert where Isis had its base and hideouts before it expanded explosively in 2014.
The systematic spreading of fear through terrorism is an integral part of the way Isis conducts warfare. It involves assassinations and suicide bombing to show strength and dominate the news agenda at home and abroad. There are strong signs of these tactics being already at work in 11 cities and towns in Iraq and five in Syria, which Isis has lost, according to the Combating Terrorism Centre at West Point. It says there have been 1,468 attacks between the day of liberation of these places and April 2017, though some of these involved only a few shots or rockets fired by Isis.
Isis know it made a comeback before and will try to resurrect itself again, though this will not be so easy the second time round because opponents are forewarned. Much of the Sunni Arab community is displaced, its cities, towns and villages wrecked or abandoned. Isis will hope to exploit the Iraqi government’s lack of troops to occupy effectively places it has recaptured. The return of government rule in Iraq and Syria often alienates local people because it almost always means corruption and racketeering. Isis is badly wounded, but it is still a long way from being dead.