15 Jun 2018

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

World Bank Young Professionals Program (YPP) for Young Talent 2019

Application Timeline: 31st July, 2018 (midnight EST).

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: member countries of the World Bank Group

Eligible Field of Study: The Program is designed for  such as economics, finance, education, public health, social sciences, engineering, urban planning, agriculture, natural resources and others.

About the Award: For more than 50 years, the World Bank’s Young Professionals Program has been the preeminent program preparing global development leaders.
Placed directly with their respective hiring teams, Young Professionals are expected to make significant contributions towards the unit’s work program while they gain a broad overview of the WBG’s policies and work. As part of their two-year program and in line with their hiring units’ business needs and Young Professionals interests, they are expected to undertake a ‘stretch/exposure assignment’ where they will gain valuable on-the-job experience.

Type: Internships/Jobs

Eligibility: The following are the minimum requirements to be eligible for the Young Professionals Program:
  • Citizenship of a member country of the World Bank Group
  • Be born on or after October 1, 1986
  • A PhD or Master’s degree and relevant work experience
  • Fluency in English
  • Full proficiency in one or more of the WBG’s working languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish is desired but not required
  • Specialization in a field relevant to the WBG Technical/Operations such as economics, finance, education, public health, social sciences, engineering, urban planning, agriculture, natural resources, and others
  • At least three years of relevant professional experience related to development or continued academic study at the doctoral level
Additional Qualifications: To be competitive for the limited number of positions, a combination of the following credentials is highly desirable:
  • Display a commitment and passion for international development
  • Possess outstanding academic credentials
  • Exhibit excellent client engagement and team leadership skills
  • Have international development country experience
Selection Criteria: Candidates will be assessed based on three main competencies:
  • Client Orientation: Commitment to Clients, Results Orientation, Integrity and Ethics
  • Professional Experience: Technical Expertise (Depth & Breadth), Strategic Perspective, Problem Analysis
  • Team Leadership: Teamwork, Listening and Communication, Innovation, Negotiation
Number of Awardees: Forty (40)

Value of Programme: Young Professionals spend 24 months of Five years in a structured development program, and enjoy a ‘stretch/exposure assignment’ where they will gain valuable on-the-job experience.
Compensation and Benefits

Salary: As an entry-level professional in the WBG, Young Professionals are offered an internationally competitive salary, based on their education and professional experience.


Health, Life, Accident, and Other Insurance Programs: Young Professionals and their families (including declared domestic partners) may choose from three comprehensive medical/dental benefit plans. The WBG also provides basic life and accident insurance to all staff at no cost, and staff can elect optional life and accident insurance plans. The WBG provides disability and workers’ compensation coverage to staff at no cost.


Pension Plan: The WBG sponsors a comprehensive pension plan for eligible staff. Upon separation from the WBG, either a lump sum or a pension will become payable to the staff based on eligibility.


Relocation Benefits: These benefits are only applicable to staff who are not residents of the greater Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area at the time of appointment.


Relocation Travel: The World Bank will bear the cost of one-way transportation of staff and immediate dependent family from the staff member’s residence.


Relocation Shipment: You may choose to have the World Bank handle your shipping arrangements or you may elect the Optional Shipment Grant.


Relocation Grant: A one-time grant is included in the first paycheck to cover the cost of relocation.


Mobility Premium: A financial benefit is provided for a fixed period to cover expenses associated with being an expatriate staff member, based on family size and nationality. This benefit is not available for U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents who are based in Washington, DC.


Tax Allowance: U.S. staff receive an additional quarterly payment to cover the federal, state, and local income tax liabilities on their World Bank Group income. Expatriates and U.S. permanent residents do not incur U.S. income tax liability and are thus not eligible for this benefit.


Financial Assistance: The World Bank Group offers several financial assistance programs, including a two-year interest-free settling-in loan to those who relocate upon appointment.

Duration of Programme: Young Professionals are offered a 5-year term contract

How to Apply: Click here to apply

It is very important to go through the Application Process of the World Bank YPP in the Program Webpage (Link below) before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: World Bank Group

Biozentrum PhD Fellowships for International Young Scientists 2018 – Switzerland

Application Deadline: 20th June, 2018.

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): University of Basel, Switzerland

About the Award: In contrast to many other PhD student programs that aim at a broad recruitment of many candidates, the “Biozentrum PhD Fellowships” are awarded on a competitive basis. As recipient of a fellowship, you have the unique chance to work in one or two different research groups of your choice, before deciding where to do your PhD. You will also receive a number of other incentives to foster your scientific excellence and career prospects.

Type: PhD, Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • You must either already hold or expect to soon receive a university degree that qualifies you for a PhD program at the University of Basel (MSc, Diploma, etc.).
  • In exceptional cases, outstanding students with a BSc (eg. USA, Canada, Singapore) degree are also eligible to apply to the fellowships program; they, however, will have to pass additional courses at the Biozentrum after acceptance.
  • If you have already enrolled at the Biozentrum or plan to start your PhD thesis before September 1, respectively March 1, of the same year as the open call, you are no longer eligible to apply.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: As a fellow, you have the unique opportunity to experience different research groups before deciding in which group to do your PhD. You are also offered a number of incentives to support your scientific growth. 
Currently, the following benefits are provided (annual changes may apply):
  • a personal, annual allowance to attend meetings, acquire books or a computer
  • an annual study trip to a city with ties to Siemens
  • scientific meetings and networking opportunities with current students and alumni of the “Biozentrum PhD Fellowships” program
  • a personal certificate of acceptance into the fellowship program
  • support for the preparation of the personal CV and postdoctoral application by Biozentrum faculty members in the Program Committee
  • financial support for travel to postdoctoral interviews at the end of the PhD thesis
Duration of Programme: You will get full financial support for your PhD thesis, typically 3 – 4 years including rotations.

How to Apply: Apply Here
Your application must include:
  • electronic copies of the diploma/MSc degree with grades and transcripts as pdf files
  • CV or scientific résumé (maximum one page, pdf format)
  • names and contact information of 2 referees from your previous academic environment (usually faculty members). The referees will be contacted automatically and will be asked for an online evaluation as well as a reference letter.
You will get further information about the application procedure as soon as you have submitted your application.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Biozentrum

A Need For Reliable Micropension

Moin Qazi

India is home to one-fifth of the world’s population which includes a third of the world’s poor and one-eighth of the world’s elderly. Most of them spend their whole lives as informal workers and have no retirement security other than the hope that their children will care for them in their old age. This arrangement worked well as long as the joint family structure was the dominant characteristic of the Indian society. However, with new social norms eroding the family-based system of support, old-age care for low-income citizens has become a critical challenge. With underdeveloped annuity markets and poor financial literacy, these people face considerable challenges in planning their retirement security. Many elderly citizens are stuck with lives of never-ending work—a fate that may befall millions in coming decades.  We can s India ee a worrying preview for those who don’t have the pensions that previous generations of workers enjoyed.
India Is experiencing a demographic transition leading to lower fertility, increased life expectancy, and a consequent increase in the proportion of the elderly. Families are shrinking and transforming into nuclear units. Individualistic attitudes and rising aspirations with the accompanying changes in lifestyles are widening the generation gap. According to the India Human Development Survey (IHDS) of the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), 45 percent of elderly males and 75 percent of elderly females are currently fully dependent on others.
India’s ageing population is expected to grow at more than double the rate of the general population. A study released by the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) predicts that India’s elderly population is expected to triple from 104 million in 2011 to 300 million in 2050, accounting for 18% of the total population. To put it in perspective, it says, India’s population of 60+ is already equal to the entire population of Mexico and Russia and by 2050 it will be close to the entire population of the United States. The population of seniors in the 80+ age group will itself be equal to the population of Belgium, Greece, or Cuba at 12 million persons.
With a breakdown of the joint family support in old age, rising life expectancy, negligible lifetime savings and pension exclusion, the elderly face the grim prospect of living in poverty after they are too old to work. Women are further disadvantaged due to lower incomes, a relatively higher life expectancy than men, frequent employment interruptions at younger working age and lower access to formal finance.
The main issues that characterise old age security are:
  • Traditional systems of inter-generational care are either breaking down or are no longer perceived as reliable.
  • Assets, especially land and property, are seen as the best way to guarantee old-age security but seem to be out of reach for many poor people.
  • Poor people usually have a low estimate of and little experience with their capacity to use savings as a route to old-age security.
There is an immediate need for a reliable and convenient pension scheme.  A pension is a financial tool that is generally defined as a long-term voluntary savings plan by an individual during his working life to yield returns living post-retirement to enable her/him to maintain a decent standard of living.
For the poor and vulnerable, two types of pension could be provided. The first is a public or social pension, where the state raises the revenue and redistributes to the citizens when they reach a stipulated age, in order to guarantee them a dignified life. The second is a personal retirement savings plan. People save a small part of their income individually during their working life that is invested collectively to generate periodical returns. When people retire, their accumulated capital is paid out in monthly amounts. The first one has issues of viability. A possible solution could be a universal social pension with a fairly high retirement age so that expenditure is contained.
The daily wage workers live on a day-to-day basis and as a result, their immediate financial needs take priority over their future needs. They are not able to plan for their long-term future and as a result, they have to work through their entire life. At the national level, they are not covered under any pension suitable to them. Neither their own financial attitude nor any formal financial scheme or state’s safety nets enable them to secure their old age years.
Though informal sector workers may not “retire” in the formal sense like employees in the organised sector, they do need to prepare for the eventual reduction in earning capacity that will occur during old age, especially on account of ill health. Micro-pension, therefore, aims to provide an income stream to coincide with this decline in earning capacity.
Several studies have established that India has a very young and immature pension industry and a population that is not particularly keen to secure its retirement. A mere 7.4 percent of the total Indian population is covered under any form of pension plans, which is an alarming figure in itself. India spends 1.45 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on social protection, among the lowest in Asia, far lower than China, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and even Nepal.
The well-known micro-finance expert Stuart Rutherford succinctly sums up the dilemma of the poor when it comes to micro-pension: “Poor people understand the purpose and value of saving. They sense that there may be a savings route to old-age security, and grab opportunities when they come their way. But they are beset by many difficulties, both in their own circumstances and in the financial services available to them, so that in practice success remains the exception rather than the rule.”
The pension system of the country has to evolve quickly, or else the economy will be left in a dire state.  There are numerous government-supported micro-pension schemes but also several mounting challenges. The reluctance of people towards investing any part of their income over a large period of time, an absence of regular income for clients, poor infrastructure/connectivity and remotely spread clientele. The Indian government doesn’t seem to have much appetite for social protection programmes and its efforts in evolving a relevant pension model have been patchy.
Micro-pension has low-ticket, high-volume transactions which make it unviable. With a small corpus, high transaction costs and wafer-thin margins (or even losses), the viability of micro-pension is a big issue. Another challenge is getting the agents to sell the scheme, as commissions are small. Premature withdrawal and closure are also a serious problem.
For micro-pensions to succeed, a delicate balance between economic viability, generation of adequate returns and customised features for the participants is required. As the income flow of low-income communities is uncertain or volatile, they should be offered a degree of financial flexibility providing for low or no minimum contribution requirements in order to encourage membership.
However, contributions that are set too low or which are paid very unevenly may not provide sufficient income security. Experience with savings-based pension plans indicates that low-income groups prefer lower-value and frequent deposits rather than infrequent larger-value deposits. As there are competing demands on their resources, it is difficult for them to accumulate large amounts. In order to facilitate the making of frequent deposits, convenient door-to-door deposit collection has to be organised. Mobile phones have transformed the landscape in a revolutionary way and this may not be such a tall order.
An ideal micro-pension plan needs to address governance, design, administrative and efficiency issues to succeed and requires a multi-model implementation   in addition to a separate set of regulations on account of the complex nature of the Indian employment profile.

Austria closes mosques and deports imams

Markus Salzmann

The right-wing conservative government in Austria is closing seven mosques and deporting up to 60 Turkish imams. The measure is a fundamental attack on the freedom of religion and expression and serves to stir up anti-Islamic and xenophobic sentiments. Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (Austrian Peoples Party, ÖVP), his deputy Heinz-Christian Strache (Austrian Freedom Party, FPÖ) as well as two other ministers announced the measures in person on Friday in Vienna at a press conference.
The government of Kurz’s right-wing conservative ÖVP and the far-right FPÖ justified the closure of the mosques with violations of Austria’s “Islam Act.” They do not want parallel societies and radicalizing tendencies in Austria, Kurz explained.
The government's action shows that it has now completely adopted the far-right programme of the FPÖ. Their reasoning is reminiscent of the propaganda used to persecute Jews and other minorities 80 years ago, following the “Anschluss” (annexation) of Austria to Nazi Germany.
The basis of the measures is the so-called Islam Act. The Muslim clerics are accused of violating the ban on foreign financing. The government is focusing on the “Turkish-Islamic Union for Cultural and Social Cooperation in Austria” (ATIB), an umbrella organization that represents over 60 Islamic associations in Austria with more than 100,000 members. It belongs to the Turkish religious authority Diyanet and thus stands under the control of the Turkish government. The supposed reason for the charge against the association is that it does not work towards “integration” and builds “parallel societies.”
The undemocratic nature of this accusation is shown by a comparison with the Catholic Church, which is dependent on a “foreign power” (the Vatican) to a much greater degree than is the case with ATIB with regard to Turkey. The same accusation could even be levelled against Jewish communities that have relations with the Israeli government.
With the imams, their families are also to be taken into custody. In two cases, it is already clear that imams are to be expelled and five others have been denied a residence permit. The authorities are currently examining 60 of the 260 imams in Austria. They could lose their residence permits and must then leave the country together with their relatives, affecting a total of 150 people.
Already in April, the Austrian government had announced an examination of the mosques, after children in a Viennese mosque had re-enacted the Battle of Gallipoli from the First World War. In this battle, which saw 350,000 dead and wounded, the Turkish army repulsed an invasion attempt by the Entente Powers. It is therefore still commemorated in Turkey as the “Day of the Fallen.”
The absurdity of the allegation against the mosque is illustrated by a glimpse at Australia and New Zealand, where the anniversary of the same battle is commemorated each year as ANZAC Day and even glorified in elementary schools. Both countries had suffered high losses as allies of the British invaders.
The Turkish government has sharply criticized the action against ATIB and spoke of a “crusade” against Muslims. The Muslim religious community IGGÖ also criticized the Austrian government and announced it was launching a legal action.
With the attacks on Muslims, the government’s right-wing course has reached a new stage. The government is making it clear that the closure of the mosques and the expulsion of the imams was just the beginning. Chancellor Kurz has threatened that there will be “zero tolerance,” and even mooted the dissolution of ATIB. Vice-Chancellor Strache (FPÖ) said, “We are just beginning.”
Kurz and Strache have been ruling since last December. The crackdown on Muslims is part of a systematic attack on refugees and migrants. During the election campaign last year, they demanded harsher immigration controls, the swift removal of rejected asylum seekers, and taking up the fight against radical Islam.
Kurz has recently announced that he will make the payment of social benefits dependent on language skills. “We have to create a system that has one goal in particular, to combat immigration into our social system,” he declared. Strache added, “If you immigrate to Austria, you cannot collect the full minimum income payment from the first day.”
In future, the full amount of the minimum income should only be paid to those who have obtained an Austrian school certificate or equivalent German language skills and can demonstrate they are participating in “integration services,” such as a course on so-called Austrian “values.” Kurz explained, “German becomes the key to access the full minimum income.” In this way, the attacks on migrants also serve to prepare social cuts for all.
The Austrian government, which will take over the presidency of the EU from July, is also endeavouring to further seal off the EU's external borders. If things go according to Kurz, the EU border agency Frontex should intervene more quickly and receive more staff and money.
The so-called Islam Act was introduced by Kurz in 2015, when he worked in the Ministry of the Interior, together with the Austrian Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) coalition partner. It is therefore hardly surprising that not only FPÖ-affiliated right-wing circles welcome the measures. Spiegel Online hailed the attack on Muslims as “a step against the enemies of democracy and freedom.”
SPÖ federal manager Max Lercher even tried to claim the attacks on Muslims for the Social Democrats. The SPÖ had reported “incidents” in the mosques to the then ÖVP-led Interior Ministry in October 2017, he said. According to Lercher, the closure of the mosques was “the first smart measure of this government.”


The party founded by the former Pabloite Peter Pilz is also completely on the FPÖ line. It regards the measure as a first step, however, it does not tackle the “problem of radicalization at its root,” according to Alma Zadic, a National Council member of the Pilz list. Peter Pilz had long demanded the dissolution of ATIB, but the then ÖVP Minister of the Interior Wolfgang Sobotka had not met this demand, complained Zadic.