12 Oct 2019

African Peacebuilding Network (APN) Individual Research Grants 2020 for African Researchers

Application Deadline: 15th January 2020 11:59pm (EST)

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Research can be done about one or several African countries. Grant may support travel outside of Africa for research and conferences related to the specific project.

About the Award:

Field of Study: The fellowships support dissertations and research on peace, security and development topics.
Support is available for research and analysis on the following issues:
  • Root causes of, and emerging trajectories of violent conflict;
  • Natural Resource Conflict;
  • Geographies and histories of conflict and peace;
  • Theory and practice of conflict mediation;
  • Resilience, conflict prevention and transformation;
  • State and non-state armed actors, transnational crime, extremism, displacement and migration;
  • Post-conflict elections, democratization, governance and economic reconstruction;
  • Statebuilding, including state-society relations and state reconstruction;
  • Transitional justice, reconciliation, and peace;
  • The economic and financial dimensions of conflict, peacekeeping, and peace support operations;
  • Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and peacebuilding;
  • UN-AU-REC Partnerships and Peace Support Operations;
  • Digital media, technology, and peace;
  • Cultures, media, and art(s) of peace;
  • Gender, youth and peacebuilding;
  • Water conflict and peace;
  • Health, post-conflict development, peace, and security; and
  • Prevention of mass atrocities.
About the Fellowship: A core component of the APN, the Individual Research Fellowships program is a vehicle for enhancing the quality and visibility of independent African peacebuilding research both regionally and globally, while making peacebuilding knowledge accessible to key policymakers and research centers of excellence in Africa and around the world. Fellowship recipients produce research-based knowledge that is relevant to, and has a significant impact on, peacebuilding scholarship, policy, and practice on the continent. For its part, the APN works toward inserting the evidence-based knowledge that grant recipients produce into regional and global debates and policies focusing on peacebuilding.

Research Fellowships Proposals
The APN is interested in innovative field-based projects that demonstrate strong potential for high-quality research and analysis, which in turn can inform practical action on peacebuilding and/or facilitate inter-regional collaboration and networking among African researchers and practitioners.
Proposals should clearly describe research objectives and significance, with alignment between research questions and goals and research design/methods. Proposals should also demonstrate knowledge of the research subject and relevant literature, and address the feasibility of proposed research activities, including a timeline for project completion. Applicants should also discuss the likely relevance of the proposed research to current knowledge on peacebuilding practice and policy and situate it within existing literature. We strongly encourage the inclusion of a brief, but realistic, budget outline, keeping within the allotted amount for the grant and fitting appropriately within a six-month project and the page limit required.

Type: Research Grants

Eligibility: 
  • All applicants must be African citizens currently residing in an African country.
  • This competition is open to African academics, as well as policy analysts and practitioners.
  • Applicants applying as academics must hold a faculty or research position at an African university or research organization, and have a PhD obtained no earlier than January 2009.
  • Applicants applying as policy analysts or practitioners must be based in Africa at a regional or subregional institution; a government agency; or a nongovernmental, media, or civil society organization, and have at least a master’s degree obtained before January 2014, with at least five years of proven research and work experience in peacebuilding-related activities on the continent
Number of Awardees: 16

Value of Award: up to $15,000

Duration of Programme: Fellowships are awarded on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis and are intended to support six months of field-based research, from June 2020 to December 2021.

How to Apply: Apply here


Visit Research Webpage for details

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Scholarships 2020/2021 for Study in Europe

Application Deadline: Most consortia will require applications to be submitted between October and January, for courses starting the following academic year.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: EU and Non-EU Countries

To be taken at (country): European Universities/Institutions participating under approved Erasmus Mundus Action Joint Programmes.

Eligible Fields of Study: See links below

About the Award: About 116 Masters courses are supported by the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMDs) scholarships. The field(s) of study covered are usually: Agriculture and Veterinary, Engineering, Manufacture and Construction, Health and Welfare, Humanities and Arts, Science, Mathematics and Computing, Social Sciences, Business and Law.

Type: Masters (Joint Degree)

Eligibility: Erasmus Mundus Joint Programme defines its own selection criteria and admission procedures. Students or scholars should contact the Consortium offering the Masters Programmes for more information.

Number of Awardees: Not specified.

Value of Scholarship: The programme offers full-time scholarships and/or fellowships that cover monthly allowance, participation costs, travelling and insurance costs of the students.  Scholarship amounts can vary according to the level of studies, the duration of studies, and the scholar’s nationality (scholarships for non-EU students are higher than for EU students).

Duration of Scholarship: EMJMDs last between 12 and 24 months.

How to Apply: Students, doctoral candidates, teachers, researchers and other academic staff should address their applications directly to the selected Erasmus Mundus masters and doctoral programmes (Action 1) and to the selected Erasmus Mundus partnerships (Action 2), in accordance with the application conditions defined by the selected consortium/partnership

You are advised to consult in advance the websites of each of the Erasmus Mundus Joint Programmes that interest you. There you will find all necessary information concerning the content of the course, its structure, the scholarship amounts as well as the application and selection procedures. Deadline varies depending on the programme but falls around December to January.
It is important to visit the official website (link below) and an EMJMD site for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Award Provider: European Commission

Inequality is Literally Killing Us

Sam Pizzigati

What do the folks at the U.S. Census Bureau do between the census they run every 10 years? All sorts of annual surveys, on everything from housing costs to retail sales.
The most depressing of these — at least this century — may be the sampling that looks at the incomes average Americans are earning.
The latest Census Bureau income stats, released in mid-September, show that most Americans are running on a treadmill, getting nowhere fast. The nation’s median households pocketed 2.3 percent fewer real dollars in 2018 than they earned in 2000.
America’s most affluent households have no such problem. Real incomes for the nation’s top 5 percent of earners have increased 13 percent since 2000, to an average $416,520.
The new Census numbers don’t tell us how much our top 1 percent is pulling down. But IRS tax return data shows that top 1 percenters are now pulling down over 20 percent of all household income — essentially triple their share from a half-century ago.
Should we care about any of this? Is increasing income at the top having an impact on ordinary Americans? You could say so, suggests a just-released Government Accountability Office study.
Rising inequality, this federal study makes clear, is killing us. Literally.
The disturbing new GAO research tracks how life has played out for Americans who happened to be between the ages of 51 and 61 in 1992. That cohort’s wealthiest 20 percent turned out to do fairly well. Over three-quarters of them — 75.5 percent — went on to find themselves still alive and kicking in 2014, the most recent year with full stats available.
At the other end of the economic spectrum, it’s a different story.
Among Americans in the poorest 20 percent of this age group, under half — 47.6 percent — were still waking up every morning in 2014. In other words, the poorest of the Americans the GAO studied had just a 50-50 chance of living into 2014. The most affluent had a three-in-four chance.
“The inequality of life expectancy,” as economist Gabriel Zucman puts it, “is exploding in the U.S.”
The new GAO numbers ought to surprise no one. Over recent decades, a steady stream of studies have shown consistent links between rising inequality and shorter lifespans.
The trends we see in the United States reflect similar dynamics worldwide, wherever income and wealth are concentrating. The more unequal a society becomes, the less healthy the society.
On the other hand, the nations with the narrowest gaps between rich and poor turn out to have the longest lifespans.
And the people living shorter lives don’t just include poorer people. Middle-income people in deeply unequal societies live shorter lives than middle-income people in more equal societies.
What can explain how inequality makes this deadly impact? We don’t know for sure. But many epidemiologists — scientists who study the health of populations — point to the greater levels of stress in deeply unequal societies. That stress wears down our immune systems and leaves us more vulnerable to a wide variety of medical maladies.
We have, of course, no pill we can take to eliminate inequality. But we can fight for public policies that more equally distribute America’s income and wealth. Other nations have figured out how to better share the wealth. Why can’t we?

Right Kind of Green: Agroecology

Colin Todhunter

The globalised industrial food system that transnational agri-food conglomerates promote is failing to feed the world. It is responsible for some of the planet’s most pressing political, social and environmental crises.
Whether it involves the undermining or destruction of what were once largely self-sufficient agrarian economies in Africa or the devastating impacts of soy cultivation in Argentina, localised, traditional methods of food production have given way to global supply chains dominated by policies which favour agri-food giants, resulting in the destruction of habitat and peasant farmer livelihoods and the imposition of a model of agriculture that subjugates remaining farmers and regions to the needs and profit margins of these companies.
Many take as given that profit-driven transnational corporations have a legitimate claim to be custodians of natural assets. There is the premise that water, seeds, land, food, soil, forests and agriculture should be handed over to powerful, corrupt transnational corporations to milk for profit, under the pretence these entities are somehow serving the needs of humanity.
These natural assets (‘the commons’) belong to everyone and any stewardship should be carried out in the common interest by local people assisted by public institutions and governments acting on their behalf, not by private transnational corporations driven by self-interest and the maximization of profit by any means possible.
Common ownership and management of these assets embodies the notion of people working together for the public good. However, these resources have been appropriated by national states or private entities. For instance, Cargill captured the edible oils processing sector in India and in the process put many thousands of village-based workers out of work; Monsanto conspired to design a system of intellectual property rights that allowed it to patent seeds as if it had manufactured and invented them; and India’s indigenous peoples have been forcibly ejected from their ancient lands due to state collusion with mining companies.
Those who capture essential common resources seek to commodify them — whether trees for timber, land for real estate or agricultural seeds — create artificial scarcity and force everyone else to pay for access. Much of it involves eradicating self-sufficiency.
Traditional systems attacked
Researchers Marika Vicziany and Jagjit Plahe note that for thousands of years Indian farmers have experimented with different plant and animal specimens acquired through migration, trading networks, gift exchanges or accidental diffusion. They note the vital importance of traditional knowledge for food security in India and the evolution of such knowledge by learning and doing, trial and error. Farmers possess acute observation, good memory for detail and transmission through teaching and storytelling. The very farmers whose seeds and knowledge have been appropriated by corporations to be bred for proprietary chemical-dependent hybrids and now to be genetically engineered.
Large corporations with their seeds and synthetic chemical inputs have eradicated traditional systems of seed exchange. They have effectively hijacked seeds, pirated germ plasm that farmers developed over millennia and have ‘rented’ the seeds back to farmers. Genetic diversity among food crops has been drastically reduced. The eradication of seed diversity went much further than merely prioritising corporate seeds: the Green Revolution deliberately sidelined traditional seeds kept by farmers that were actually higher yielding and climate appropriate.
Across the world, we have witnessed a change in farming practices towards mechanised industrial-scale chemical-intensive monocropping, often for export or for far away cities rather than local communities, and ultimately the undermining or eradication of self-contained rural economies, traditions and cultures. We now see food surpluses in the West and food deficit areas in the Global South and a globalised geopoliticised system of food and agriculture.
A recent article on the People’s Archive of Rural India website highlights how the undermining of local economies continues. In a region of Odisha, farmers are being pushed towards a reliance on (illegal) expensive genetically modified herbicide tolerant cotton seeds and are replacing their traditional food crops.
The authors state that Southern Odisha’s strength lay in multiple cropping systems, but commercial cotton monoculture has altered crop diversity, soil structure, household income stability, farmers’ independence and, ultimately, food security. Farmers used to sow mixed plots of heirloom seeds, which had been saved from family harvests the previous year and would yield a basket of food crops. Cotton’s swift expansion is reshaping the land and people steeped in agroecological knowledge.
The article’s authors Chitrangada Choudhury and Aniket Aga note that cotton occupies roughly 5 per cent of India’s gross cropped area but consumes 36 to 50 per cent of the total quantum of agrochemicals applied nationally. They argue that the scenario here is reminiscent of Vidarbha between 1998 and 2002 – initial excitement over the new miracle (and then illegal) Bt cotton seeds and dreams of great profits, followed by the effects of their water-guzzling nature, the huge spike in expenses and debt and various ecological pressures. Vidarbha subsequently ended up as the epicentre of farmer suicides in the country for over a decade.
Choudhury and Aga echo many of the issues raised by Glenn Stone in his paper ‘Constructing Facts:Bt Cotton Narratives in India’. Farmers are attracted to GM cotton via glossy marketing and promises of big money and rely on what are regarded as authoritative (but compromised) local figures who steer them towards such seeds. There is little or no environmental learning by practice as has tended to happen in the past when adopting new seeds and cultivation practices. It has given way to ‘social learning’, a herd mentality and a treadmill of pesticides and debt. What is also worrying is that farmers are also being sold glyphosate to be used with HT cotton; they are unaware of the terrible history and reality of this ‘miracle’ herbicide, that it is banned or restricted in certain states in India and that it is currently at the centre of major lawsuits in the US.
All this when large agribusiness concerns wrongly insist that we need their seeds and proprietary chemicals if we are to feed a growing global population. There is no money for them in traditional food cropping systems but there is in undermining food security and food sovereignty by encouraging the use of GM cotton and glyphosate or, more generally, corporate seeds.
In India, Green Revolution technology and ideology has actually helped to fuel drought and degrade soils and has contributed towards illnesses and malnutrition. Sold under the guise of ‘feeding the world’, in India it merely led to more wheat in the diet, while food productivity per capita showed no increase or actually decreased. Nevertheless, there have been dire consequences for the Indian diet, the environment, farmers, rural communities and public health.
Across the world, the Green Revolution dovetailed with an international system of chemical-dependent, agro-export mono-cropping and big infrastructure projects (dams) linked to loans, sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF directives, the outcomes of which included a displacement of the peasantry, the consolidation of global agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries into food deficit regions.
Often regarded as Green Revolution 2.0, the ‘gene revolution’ is integral to the plan to ‘modernise’ Indian agriculture. This means the displacement of peasant farmers, further corporate consolidation and commercialisation based on industrial-scale monocrop farms incorporated into global supply chains dominated by transnational agribusiness and retail giants. If we take occurrences in Odisha as a microcosm, it would also mean the undermining of national food security.
Although traditional agroecological practices have been eradicated or are under threat, there is a global movement advocating a shift towards more organic-based systems of agriculture, which includes providing support to small farms and an agroecology movement that is empowering to people politically, socially and economically.
Agroecology
In his final report to the UN Human Rights Council after a six-year term as Special Rapporteur, in 2014 Olivier De Schutter called for the world’s food systems to be radically and democratically redesigned. His report was based on an extensive review of recent scientific literature. He concluded that by applying agroecological principles to the design of democratically controlled agricultural systems we can help to put an end to food crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. De Schutter argued that agroecological approaches could tackle food needs in critical regions and could double food production in 10 years. However, he stated that insufficient backing seriously hinders progress.
And this last point should not be understated. For instance, the success of the Green Revolution is often touted, but how can we really evaluate it? If alternatives had been invested in to the same extent, if similar powerful and influential interests had invested in organic-based models, would we now not be pointing to the runaway successes of organic-based agroecological farming and, importantly, without the massive external costs of a polluted environment, less diverse diets, degraded soils and nutrient deficient food, ill health and so on?
The corporations which promote chemical-intensive industrial agriculture have embedded themselves deeply within the policy-making machinery on both national and international levels. From the overall bogus narrative that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed the world to providing lavish research grants and the capture of important policy-making institutions, global agri-food conglomerates have secured a perceived thick legitimacy within policy makers’ mindsets and mainstream discourse. The integrity of society’s institutions have been eroded by corporate money, funding and influence, which is why agroecology as a credible alternative to corporate agriculture remains on the periphery.
But the erosion of that legitimacy is underway. In addition to De Schutter’s 2014 report, the 2009 IAASTD peer-reviewed report, produced by 400 scientists and supported by 60 countries, recommends agroecology to maintain and increase the productivity of global agriculture. Moreover, the recent UN FAO High Level Panel of Experts concludes that agroecology provides greatly improved food security and nutritional, gender, environmental and yield benefits compared to industrial agriculture.
Writer and academic Eric Holtz-Gimenez argues that agroecology offers concrete, practical solutions to many of the world’s problems that move beyond (but which are linked to) agriculture. In doing so, it challenges – and offers alternatives to – plunder which takes place under a prevailing system of doctrinaire neoliberal economics that in turn drives a failing model of industrial agriculture.
The scaling up of agroecology can tackle hunger, malnutrition, environmental degradation and climate change. By creating securely paid labour-intensive agricultural work, it can also address the interrelated links between labour offshoring by rich countries and the removal of rural populations elsewhere who end up in sweat shops to carry out the outsourced jobs: the two-pronged process of neoliberal globalisation that has devastated the economies of the US and UK and which is displacing existing indigenous food production systems and undermining the rural infrastructure in places like India to produce a reserve army of cheap labour.
The Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology by Nyeleni in 2015 argued for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on genuine agroecological food production. It went on to say that agroecology should not become a tool of the industrial food production model but as the essential alternative to that model. The Declaration stated that agroecology is political and requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world.
It involves prioritising localised rural and urban food economies and small farms and shielding them from the effects of rigged trade and international markets. It would mean that what ends up in our food and how it is grown is determined by the public good and not powerful private interests driven by commercial gain and the compulsion to subjugate farmers, consumers and entire regions.
There are enough examples from across the world that serve as models for transformation, from the Oakland Institute’s research in Africa and the Women’s Collective of Tamil Nadu to the scaling up of agroecological practices in Ethiopia.
Whether in Europe, Africa, India or the US, agroecology can protect and reassert the commons and is a force for grass-root change. This model of agriculture is already providing real solutions for sustainable, productive agriculture that prioritise the needs of farmers, citizens and the environment.

The Politics of Funding: Cash Crisis at the United Nations

Binoy Kampmark

It remains one of the more unusual arrangements in terms of funding. Like a club filled with members of erratic disposition, the United Nations can never count on all dues to come in on time.  Some members drag their feet.  The bill is often delayed.  In the United States, responsible for some 22 percent for the operating budget of the UN, payment only tends to come in after October, a matter put down to the nature of the fiscal year.
That, however, is only one aspect of the broader problem.  Withholding money is as much a political as it is a budgetary act, despite it being notionally a breach of Article 17 of the UN Charter.  The article is important for stipulating that the Organisation’s expenses “shall by borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly.”
Historically, foreign policy and matters of organisation reform have been cited as key matters to reduce or withhold membership dues.  The reason is simple: such “assessed dues” go to funding the official regular budget, which defrays administrative costs, peacekeeping operations and various programs.
For the United States, this has been a critical matter, given that some 40 percent of running costs for the organisation were initially borne by Washington.  It was therefore unsurprising that some pressure would come to bear upon the organisation.  In the mid-1980s, for instance, it became US policy to threaten the reduction of Washington’s “annual assessed contribution… by 8.34 percent for each month which United States is suspended” if Israel was “illegally expelled, suspended, denied its credentials or in any manner denied its right to participate.”
The funding issue has been a burning one for a US Congress mindful of the money bags.  Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms, the immoveable furniture of that committee for years, could claim to be the one deciding voice on whether the US would pay its UN dues either in full or on time.  (It often did neither.)  Along with Senator Joe Biden, a deal was struck in 1997 to pressure the UN to observe various “benchmarks” in order to receive full payments.  These included the necessary reduction of UN staff, appropriate reporting procedures between the Inspector General and the Secretary General, and a ban on funds to other organisations.
In January 2000, Senator Helms was given a chance to advise, poke and condescend to the body he had held in such deep suspicion for decades, this so-called shadow government in waiting.  The UN was greeted to the unusual spectacle of a Congressman addressing the UN Security Council, an event engineered by then US ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke.  Despite professing a degree of strained friendship for the organisation, his purpose was to rebuke those critics who had considered US contributions to the body those of a “deadbeat”.  As “the representative of the UN’s largest investors – the American people- we have not only a right, but a responsibility, to insist on specific reforms in exchange for their investment.”
President Donald Trump’s arrival was unlikely to start a new chapter of warm accommodation between US money and UN operating costs.  In September 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would cease US humanitarian aid contributions to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).  Despite threatening social services, healthcare and education, Jared Kushner was convinced by the wisdom of the move.  “This agency is corrupt, inefficient, and doesn’t help peace.”
The 2018 budget proposal also included slashing half of US funding to UN programs, with climate change being a particularly inviting target.  (Congress has relented on the issue of enforcing a cap on contributions to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.)  Such an example of hectoring, threatening UN agencies with a cessation of funding designed to induce changes of policy, remains a steadfast practice.
Of the current amount of some $1.3 billion owed to the UN by members, the US boasts the lion’s share of arrears at $1 billion.  This figure of imbalance has not prevented Trump, from venting about other members.  “So make all Member Countries pay, not just the United States!”
In June this year, Secretary-General António Guterres informed the budget overseers at the Fifth Committee that the UN faced catastrophe in terms of reputation and its ability to operate if payroll and supplies were not covered. “The solution lies not only in ensuring that all Member States pay in full and on time, but also in putting certain tools in place.”  By the end of May, the organisation was facing a deficit of $492 million.  Guterres could not help but sound apocalyptic.  “We are at a tipping point and what we do next will matter for years to come.”
The situation has duly worsened.  On Monday, Guterres suggested the possibility that the UN would run dry of cash reserves by the end of October.  In a letter to the 37,000 employees based at the UN secretariat, the secretary general explained that, “Member states have paid only 70 percent of the total amount needed for our regular budget operations in 2019. This translates into a cash shortage of $230 million at the end of September.  We run the risk of depleting our backup liquidity reserves by the end of the month.”
Belt tightening measure are being suggested.  Conferences and meetings are being postponed.  Non-essential travel is being stopped.  UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric is pressing member states, of whom 129 have paid their annual dues in full to date “to avoid a default that could risk disrupting operations globally.”  As the UN is only as relevant, and as effective, as its member states, failure to fill the coffers may well confirm Trump’s sentiment that the globalist is in retreat.  Behold the parochial patriot.

Towards Normalcy in Ukraine

Rene Wadlow

For the first time in several years, there are realistic possibilities for a negotiated settlement of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian government and separatist forces backed by the Russian Federation in which an estimated 13,000 persons have been killed The Normandy Format gets its name when leaders from France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine met on 6 June 2014 on the margins of the 70th anniversary of the D-Day allied landings in Normandy.
The framework for the negotiations  has been called “the Steinmeier Formula.”  In the context of earlier negotiations held in Minsk, then Foreign Minister and now President of Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier proposed a compromise of returning control of the Ukraine frontier to the Ukrainian government, a withdrawal of troops and armament, elections under the supervision of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and a status of “self rule” in the  republics of Donbas and Luhansk.
Now, with a new President of Ukraine and a need to reduce Russian-Western European tensions, President Zelinsky has agreed in a general way to the Steinmeier Formula.  Serious negotiations are still needed.  It is hoped that the “Normandy Format” can be put into operation with a meeting in Paris within a month’s time.  President Macron and President Putin spoke briefly together in Paris on 30 September at the funeral for the former French President, Jacques Chirac.
Hard line nationalists and Right Wing political figures in Ukraine have attacked the agreement.  Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymeshenko said the agreement was a “direct threat to the national security, territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country.”  The Far Right National Corps leader Andrey Baletsky had even sharper terms.  However, the nationalist Right has never had realistic propositions for a governmental structure that would recognize the specific economic and cultural nature of eastern Ukraine without creating totally independent countries or integrating Donbas and Luhansk into the Russian Federation as Crimea has been integrated. Thus, the crucial question today is what is the nature of the proposed “self rule” which is to follow the elections.
The Association of World Citizens, which is concerned with the development of appropriate structures of government as an important element in the resolution of armed conflicts, had proposed the creation of a federal or con-federal Ukraine.  In a 14 April 2014 message to the Secretary General of the OSCE, the Association of World Citizens stressed that government structures should be as close as possible to the people so that their views can have a direct impact on government decisions.  Federalist and con-federalist forms of government can facilitate the balance between the need for larger governmental units for policy making and units close to the local communities so that those impacted are able to influence policy.
The Association stressed that federalism is not a first step to the disintegration of the Ukraine.  But it is not a “magic solution” either. Government structures are closely related to the aims which people wish to achieve.  The aims of the Ukrainians are multiple.  Dialogue and open discussion is needed so that these aims are seen more clearly, and then structures created to facilitate these aims.
In a follow up 3 May 2014 message, the Association stressed that there should be a link made between the proposed referendum in eastern Ukraine and the structure of the Ukrainian State.  The 11 May 2014 referendum was organized in only part of eastern Ukraine, in what was then newly proclaimed as the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic.  The question posed concerned “yes” or “no” on the Russian word samastoyatelnost” which can be translated as “self rule”.  Since there had been no real public discussion, the term could mean – and did mean – different things to different people.  People were discouraged from voting “no” and few did.
Today, there is a need for dialogue, trust-building, and reconciliation within the country.  The same issues as to what “self rule” means in practice is still the crucial issue.  Ultimately, all conflicts can end only when there is an agreement about the shape of government and the rules of law under which people agree to live.  While the discussions and compromises must be done among the Ukrainians themselves, persons in the other three States of the Normandy Format, Germany, France, Russia, familiar with con-federal structures may provide some guidelines. Negotiations are likely to be difficult, but an atmosphere for advancing conflict resolution can be created with active support of non-governmental organizations, who have not played a very active role on the issue in the near past.  There seem to be real possibilities for progress which must be acted upon.

The reality of lynchings

T Navin

The RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in recent Vijay Dashami speech pointed out that ‘Lynching’ is a ‘Western concept’ and alien to India. It has its origins in Bible and that ‘lynching’ is being used to defame India. He was in a denial mode for the criticism being raised on incidents of ‘lynchings’ in India.
It does not really matter whether the word ‘lynching’ originated in India. Its applicability in India is not dependent on geographies of its origin, but applicability of its attributes in different contexts including India.
Lynching refers to premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is used to characterize informal public executions by a mob to punish an alleged transgressor, convicted transgressor or to intimidate a group. It is a form of extreme form of informal group social control, and is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle for maximum intimidation. 
In United States, incidents of ‘lynchings’ have been recorded during the period of abolition of slavery and even thereafter. The incidents mostly involved African Americans. It is estimated that during the period 1868 to 1871 – 400 lynchings took place. Similarly during 1882 to 1968, 3,446 lynchings of blacks took place. Mob violence was seen as a way of establishing white supremacy. Incidents of lynchings have also been witnessed in Britain.
Attributes of ‘lynchings’ in the recent Indian context need to be delved into. They are triggered by attempts by RSS to establish ‘Hindu supremacy’ similar to other ‘western societies’ which intended at establishing ‘white supremacy’.
Firstly, these incidents are based on the primary ideological beliefs that India is a land of the Hindus. The existence of other religions is considered to be an aberration, where they have either been forcibly converted or lured to be converted. Hence the only way to exist in India is to undertake the process of ‘Ghar Whapsi’ by returning to their ‘original’ religion.
Secondly, ‘culture’is deterministic in its nature according to RSS and religion is the only basis through which it can be defined. Hence there are different cultures – Hindu culture, Muslim culture, Christian culture. India being the land of the Hindus, the other religions should either come back to ‘Hinduism’ or adopt their ‘culture’ what is defined as ‘Hindu culture’. The prevalence of diversity of ‘culture’ within a religion across regions and linguistic groups is ignored. The culture belonging to ‘Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan’ and upper caste is considered to be the mainstream cultures, to which others need to assimilate.
What is considered as ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ by ‘Hindus’ are to be adhered to by other religions, even if it means giving up their own cultural practices. Hence if cow is a sacred symbol for the Hindus, the other religions should give up the practice and not consume ‘beef’.
Thirdly, the supremacy of ‘Hindus’ over other religions need to be taken as given in India. Other religions can only live as second grade citizens. Two citizens of different religions are not equal, but are determined by the religion they belong to.
The equal citizenship rights provided to people based on the constitution does not really matter. Citizens are not equal. Hindus come at the top of the hierarchy and Christians and Muslims at the bottom. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are only considered to be variants of Hinduism and hence the reason they just follow below Hinduism.
Within the Hindus the practices followed by the upper castes is considered superior to others. Hence beef eating which is not prevalent among upper castes is considered normal. Those practicing beef eating such as ‘Dalits’ and ‘Adivasis’ hence need to give it up.
Fourthly, RSS is seen as the ‘authority’ that would define what it means to be a ‘Nation’, ‘Culture’, ‘Hindu’. In this definition there is uniformity of practices. Uniformity, Inequality, Hierarchy and common cultural practices need to be taken as given. Diversity and Equality are seen as a weakness.
Fifthly, to create a Hindu Rashtra it is absolutely fine to impose this ‘uniformity, inequality, hierarchy and common cultural practices’. It is only then India would acquire a ‘Nationhood’. Cow being a symbol of ‘cultural practice’ for this uniformity of practice – it is absolutely fine to impose the same even through a mob violence. Minorities need to be made to prove their nationalism by uttering ‘Jai Shriram’ and ‘Vandemataram’. It is only through these slogans, their nationalism can be tested. This needs to be enforced if necessary. Mob violence are only triggers of the ideological propaganda.
It can be seen that the recent lynching incidents are a direct result of the ideological propaganda carried out by RSS and its other Hindutva soldiers over the last many decades and particularly the last five years. Social media such as ‘whatsapp’, ‘facebook’, ‘twitter’ has been extensively used to mobilize the mobs against ‘minorities’ and ‘dalits’ whom it considered as going against the ‘norms’ set by the RSS defined Hindu culture. The attributes of lynching such as intimidating a group, exercising control over others, establishing superiority and carrying out premeditated attacks and executions are very much part of the incidents which occurred in India. Hence irrespective of its origin and how differently it could be defined, Lynchings are a reality and become a part of growing violence against minorities in India.

A self-inflicted wound: Trump surrenders the West’s moral high ground

James M. Dorsey

For the better part of a century, the United States could claim the moral high ground despite allegations of hypocrisy because its policies continuously contradicted its proclaimed propagation of democracy and human rights. Under President Donald J. Trump, the US has lost that moral high ground.
This week’s US sanctioning of 28 Chinese government entities and companies for their involvement in China’s brutal clampdown on Turkic Muslims in its troubled north-western province of Xinjiang, the first such measure by any country since the crackdown began, is a case in point.
So is the imposition of visa restrictions on Chinese officials suspected of being involved in the detention and human rights abuses of millions of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.
The irony is that the Trump administration has for the first time elevated human rights to a US foreign policy goal in export control policy despite its overall lack of concern for such rights.
The sanctions should put the Muslim world, always the first to ring the alarm bell when Muslims rights are trampled upon, on the spot.
It probably won’t even though Muslim nations are out on a limb, having remained conspicuously silent in a bid not to damage relations with China, and in some cases even having endorsed the Chinese campaign, the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history.
This week’s seeming endorsement by Mr. Trump of Turkey’s military offensive against Syrian Kurds, who backed by the United States, fought the Islamic State and were guarding its captured fighters and their families drove the final nail into the coffin of US moral claims.
The endorsement came on the back of Mr. Trump’s transactional approach towards foreign policy and relations with America’s allies, his hesitancy to respond robustly to last month’s missile and drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, his refusal to ensure Saudi transparency on the killing a year ago of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and his perceived empathy for illiberals and authoritarians symbolized by his reference to Egyptian field marshal-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as “my favourite dictator.”
Rejecting Saudi and Egyptian criticism of his intervention in Syria, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave the United States and Mr. Trump a blunt preview of what they can expect next time they come calling, whether it is for support of their holding China to account for its actions in Xinjiang, issues of religious freedom that are dear to the Trump administration’s heart, or specific infractions on human rights that the US opportunistically wishes to emphasize.
“Let me start with Saudi Arabia,” Mr. Erdogan said in blistering remarks to members of his Justice and Development Party (AKP). “Look in the mirror first. Who brought Yemen to this state? Did tens of thousands of people not die in Yemen?” he asked, referring to the kingdom’s disastrous military intervention in Yemen’s ruinous civil war.
Addressing Mr. Al-Sisi, Mr. Erdogan charged: “Egypt, you can’t talk at all. You are a country with a democracy killer.” The Turkish leader asserted that Mr. Al-Sisi had “held a meeting with some others and condemned the (Turkish) operation – so what if you do?”
The fact that the United States is likely to encounter similar responses, even if they are less belligerent in tone, as well as the fact that Mr. Trump’s sanctioning of Chinese entities is unlikely to shame the Muslim world into action, signals a far more fundamental paradigm shift:  the loss of the US and Western moral high ground that gave them an undisputed advantage in the battle of ideas, a key battleground in the struggle to shape a new world order.
China, Russia, Middle Eastern autocrats and other authoritarians and illiberals have no credible response to notions of personal and political freedom, human rights and the rule of law.
As a result, they countered the ideational appeal of greater freedoms by going through the motions. They often maintained or erected democratic facades and payed lip service to democratic concepts while cloaking their repression in terms employed by the West like the fight against terrorism.
By surrendering the West’s ideological edge, Mr. Trump reduced the shaping of the new world order to a competition in which the power with the deeper pockets had the upper hand.
Former US national security advisor John Bolton admitted as much when he identified in late 2018 Africa as a new battleground and unveiled a new strategy focused on commercial ties, counterterrorism, and better-targeted U.S. foreign aid.
Said international affairs scholar Keren Yarhi-Milo: “The United States has already paid a significant price for Trump’s behaviour: the president is no longer considered the ultimate voice on foreign policy. Foreign leaders are turning elsewhere to gauge American intentions… With Trump’s reputation compromised, the price tag on U.S. deterrence, coercion, and reassurance has risen, along with the probability of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation.”

We can’t keep on neglecting the future and survive

Lionel Anet

The eighteenth century was the start of the end of civilisation. That was due to burning fossil fuels to power society’s energy needs instead of using muscle, and renewable power. Now our end is near and we are speeding it up. Our hopes are fading as fast as we try to grow our economy. So we flutter about in the hope of finding that “Magic Pudding” that will give us everlasting energy and resources.
In the late 18th century the world population was less than 1 billion people. Coal doubled that, and oil has managed to increase it to 7.7 billion. That’s 8 times more people on a planet, which is now showing the strain due to depleting resources and degradation of the biosphere. We have achieved that by burning fossil fuels, which is now involved in all aspects of our life. Although coal produces 38% of world energy, it, like all other energy sources it relies on oil to maintain it’s output. Therefore without that fuel there would be very little coal or any other source of energy including solar and wind. Oil has become our primary and essential source of energy for 60 years and is the only thing that can support an increasing population.
We need to understand how we got into this fine mess. It wasn’t planned we just muddled along trying to get an advantage over other social groups and dominate nature. So we still tended to see forests as a resource if they can be used for timber, but if those trees are on a possible agriculture site or over a mineral deposit then that is seen as a waste of good land. Contrasted to that, when we lived as hunter-gatherers we saw ourselves as a part of nature; therefore there was no attempt to use it as our exclusive pantry.
Our pre-agriculture life styleHuman nature, at its best, will naturally occur when people live in small intimate bands. Studies by anthropologists reveal that our natural social life for nearly all human existence occurred when we lived in groups of no larger than our ability to know everyone’s character. In the last few hundred thousand years we humans showed that we have outstanding abilities that enabled our ancestors to live in all mammalian-liveable parts of the planet, and also we were able to cross short distances of sea as hunter-gathers. (Our hand has made us the most wonderful life that ever lived.)
Those studies also showed that hunter-gatherers had practically no personal belongings. Parents did not own their children as they are a part of their band and young children up to 5 years old would suckle from any lactating woman and may not know their mother or father until much older, which gave all individuals a secure life. Furthermore, in that band it’s unlikely that a child has siblings of near the same age but they all have older and younger ones so there’s no hierarchy or competition. This equalises everyone for their whole life, but that doesn’t mean they were evaluated as having or required to have the same ability, temperament, and interest.
Consequently hunter-gatherers weren’t competitive or demanding. Also sharing was their natural way of life not only within one’s band but between bands and other life. They saw themselves as a part of life, one of many living things spending most of their lives socializing. Hunting and gathering for their food was a relatively small part of their life, and it was also a social affair as it might still be today in a few workplaces. People in small communities who had very few tools or things to look after weren’t motivated by greed and therefore individuals who had little feeling for others had no opportunities to express greed or to dominate.
However, when bands grew well beyond a hundred individuals, it started to become unwieldy and chaotic therefore one would welcome a leader to maintain order. But large social groups have to increasingly rely on agriculture and that was the creation of work, which was an opportunity for private property within a social setting which is for the most social life a contradiction. Also leaders tend to lose their concerns for their fellows and with ambitions they will want a larger domain creating disputes within and between different social groups.
Due to population growth leaders were then seen as a different class able to control their community and to satisfy their egoism it results in conquest and oppression. Large populations opened up opportunities for “psychopaths” (those that have ability but little to no feelings for others) to use the crowd as a way to get whatever they wanted. The end result is civilisation with its violent ways to exploit whoever and whatever is vulnerable in conflicts that are overt and covert.
However, societies must maintain themselves, so we need food, shelter and all the services to sustain a healthy happy life with the least stress on individuals and our planet. To achieve that, we need a different life-style, not because it would be better for us at this stage, but for our offspring survival.
Past global temperature rises were due to planetary causes. But temperature rise now is due to burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Scientists in that discipline estimate we have a decade to become sustainable or our offspring will suffer a horrible demise.
We are losing the ice and snow cover from the arctic it is changing the albedo thus it accelerates the rate our planet warms making it vulnerable to uncontrollable forest fires. They now occur simultaneously on the northern and southern hemispheres, it never happened before nor has Alaska and Siberia had forest fires. So now we already have out-of-control bush fires as predicted 20 years ago. I remember in the 1990’s reading in the New Scientist that there will be uncontrollable fires within the first half of this century. That then was a problem for someone in the future, which is as yet ours to deal with today.
At present we are fulfilling the needs of an economy that demands continual growth that can only be temporally powered with fossil fuels that are polluting and insulating the biosphere raising temperatures to perilous levels. To survive we will need to live a peaceful cooperative life, centred on helping each other, which will also satisfy our psychological nature. However, due to the irresponsibility of civilised leaders our survival is at stake. Life will be difficult until we can stabilise living conditions back to pre-fossil fuels days. And with a bit of luck we can make it.
To have a better happier life we need to have fewer activities, reduce our population, and enjoy life instead of competing to have more and dominate whoever and whatever we can. We need to use the least amount of stuff, and live within the planet’s resources by being a part of its life. That means abandoning the civilised hierarchical control that evolved to a wealth dominated civilisation.
The beginning of the end for civilisation started when James Watt’s steam engine replaced water, wind and animal power as that new power could be used where, when and how much of it is needed. But it did a lot more besides; it introduced the new science of thermodynamics as that understanding is the main reason the planet can temporally support our 7.7 billion people. Oil is involved in all aspects of our life and is essential for our present way of living, but if we use it for much longer it will make our children’s life a nightmare to their bitter end.
The effect of using fossil fuels (particularly oil) had on our planet is still largely ignored by world leaders, for their moment is all important. Oil is involved in all aspects of our lives, it has shaped our cities, our economy is totally dependent on it, and it will destroy us and maybe life if we keep using it. Many of our present activities are dependent on oil as the only source of energy to be viable, such as air and sea travel and long distance roads and rail transport; it has become the linchpin for the primary industries.
The outlandish use of air transport is our most dishonest activity as flying at 10 km high the burned fuel is about 5 times more effective as a global warming gas than at sea level; plus planes use about 20 times more oil per km than trains do. That is grossly unfair. We cannot survive with such unfairness, plus our increasing population will boost that disparity and reduce our ability to cooperate for our survival. All competitive activities are antisocial and wasteful, they also open up opportunities for deceitful interactions in all fields the ultimate being warfare an integral aspect of civilisation. We must stop competing as soon as we can and encourage cooperative and compassionate interaction.
We are on an extinction course and our leaders can only take us to our demise in a faster or a slower way. That is due to the indoctrination we all received during our formative years; that is education, which is tuned to increase our activities in as many domains possible. That education, if maintained will end life. However, due to intense competition and specialisation we cannot be as well aware of other fields’ activities to be concerned and understand the significance of the whole as it appears just a distraction.
We are now close to the end of economic growth, as we see interest rates going down towards negative and the cost of living going up due to deteriorating climate and rising the cost of energy. Sadly there’s no other way of living that current leaders can contemplate.  Nevertheless, most of us are not so fixed mentally on an economy that must grow. Whiles our survival as individuals and for our offspring is paramount there is hope for life.
Our dependence on fossil fuels is terminal and without it our planet can’t sustain our present population for much longer even on a survival course. Therefore we have a multitask effort to drastically reduce our birth rate and stop working on non-essential matters, and with a bit of luck we might be able to save ourselves by also changing from a growth to a minimal economy.
Presently the physical effort we exert doing our work, is negligible as nearly all of it is done by machines using mainly fossil fuels. But to keep fit one pays to exercise at a gymnasium, fulfilling one need, then drive our car to work and back home. It is obvious by just walking to where we need to go; we can solve many problems with that action. Plus, when walking we can talk to people and observe one’s community in safety. Those attributes will be enhanced by living in a more compact way without parking space, wide roads, and traffic noise. This will make light rail the ideal way to get around in towns as they are the most energy efficient transport. Unfortunately most of outer city areas were built to satisfy the needs of cars but those cars have and are playing a devastating part against our survival.
Indoctrination, but we call it education, is really our biggest problem that fixes our mindset, which under extreme situations can be impossible to change. The prime purpose of education in any civilisation is to justify its way of life; therefore, truth is subjugated to the needs of the system in control at the time. Reality is distorted to fit the needs of those who are dominant during that period, such as the geocentric view of the universe by the church of that time. Honesty in civilisation is subjugated to the needs of the few who control and dominate.
Historian’s version of capitalism is centred on a growing political-economic system that has supposedly produced its amazing growth due to its system ignoring the role played by fossil fuels and the devastation it is leaving our planet in. As resources are used they diminish requiring more energy to extract and process the less easy ones to obtain, however, cheap world energy is declining effecting world economy.
Oil has replaced gold and fiat money as a regulator of activities and a gauge of prosperity. The energy used is hardly noticed by historians and economists; they see it as a side issue. However, there is no life without energy. That is nothing happen unless there is energy in the system, and oil is a very concentrated and near-universal in supplying capitalisms ravenous needs. There is no other. Politicians are good at expressing their lack of understanding without knowing it.
We need a new non-competitive holistic education that’s base on cooperativeness to enjoy life and know and understand it. The motivation is the pleasure in seeing everyone achieving a satisfying life within a pleasant and vibrant environment.
I’m always amazed how we can do so many things so easily yet even climate scientists using their reductionist way of investigation misunderstood the speed of the change. They estimate the present climate would have taken a further 30 to 40 years to be what we are experiencing now. The error is due to their reductionist investigative method which can give spectacular information but it sacrifices a little understanding.
Everything we do requires energy, whatever moves and changes does so because energy is used. Therefore energy must be present for any substances to be known to exist. So a state of no energy does not exist, it’s the end of matter, as it no longer matters.
To illustrate the difference between knowing and understanding as I see it for this piece is, knowing is like the information my computer can give me, which is vast, but understanding that data is up to me, to understand its significance for it to have much value. For most of us it is much easier to know than have an understanding and this is so for examiners to evaluate people’s ability. Exams are centred on knowing as gauging understanding is more involved. From what I have been told even PHD students may have little understanding of their subject yet remember well the information but in a superficial way. This is one of many outcomes of competition.
Knowing relevant information gives an advantage in a competitive situation, but understanding that information needs knowing other relevant associated information and need much more time, requiring considerably more effort, placing those who search for an understanding at a disadvantage in a competitive setting. So we know a great deal about the physical world but little about human societies and how best to live in harmony due to that competitiveness.
There’s no need to take away affluent people’s wealth, as all we need to do is take their power to use it as they feel. They can have whatever they have but wouldn’t have free use of it as we must have rationing as we had during WWII but more comprehensive to suit the dire situation. Billionaires can keep their wealth and accumulate and increase it as long as society determines where and how it will be spent. To maintain honesty in allocating resources we must ditch democracy, as that is a competitive activity and we need a collaborative life style to be honest. There are better ways a society of multi-interest can represent its self ((Wikipedia sortition (also known as selection by lotallotment, or demarchy) is the selection of political officials as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates,[1] a system intended to ensure that all competent and interested parties have an equal chance of holding public office.)
But soon, it may be obvious to one and all, that we have one overwhelming interest of survival.