24 Sept 2016

ECB signals more austerity amid mounting economic divisions in Europe

Alex Lantier

Speaking yesterday in Frankfurt, European Central Bank (ECB) chief Mario Draghi signaled that the ECB would continue with austerity and massive handouts to the banks. Despite the deepening slump in Europe and internationally, he proposed no change in the financial aristocracy’s irrational, economically destructive policies.
A day before, the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) said they would continue similar policies of ultralow interest rates and so-called “quantitative easing” (QE). Under QE programs, the Fed, the BoJ, and the ECB printed trillions of dollars worth of their respective currencies. This money was handed to the banks, which bought up stocks, government bonds, and corporate debt, inflating the value of assets held by the super-rich and the top 10 percent of society, while masses of workers were plundered with austerity and social cuts.
Draghi’s announcement testifies to the perplexity and panic gripping the ruling class, faced with crises for which it has no solution. Before Draghi spoke, some expected that he would shift policies widely seen as having failed to revive Europe’s economy, and that face growing media criticism.
“The euro zone should have reached economic ‘escape velocity’ by now after a potent brew of stimulus starting last year,” wrote columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, citing cheaper oil, a lower euro, and the printing of €80 billion per month in ECB QE programs.
Despite this injection of financial steroids into the heart of Europe’s financial system, however, the continent’s economy is still flat lining, nearly a decade after the 2008 crash. The euro zone is growing at 0.3 percent per quarter, with France and Italy stagnant. Purchasing power is so low in Italy that prices for many consumer items are falling, threatening to trigger full-blown deflation.
Deutsche Bank chief economist David Folkerts-Landau attacked the ECB for undermining the euro currency: “Central bankers can lose the plot. When they do, their mistakes can be catastrophic. After seven years of ever-looser monetary policy, there is increasing evidence that following the current dogma risks the long-term stability of the euro zone.”
At yesterday’s European Systemic Risk Board (ERSB) meeting, Draghi responded with a blanket defense of low, even negative interest rates. That the ECB has had to resort to such policies testifies to the breakdown of the basic financial mechanism of capitalist production: the ability to invest capital, generate a profit, and from this profit pay a positive rate of interest to the original investor on his capital. Private banks have criticized the policy, moreover, for decimating their profits by keeping them from lending at high interest rates.
“A number of reasons have been mooted as the causes of this low profitability, including low interest rates,” Draghi said. “Long-term real interest rates have been falling in the major advanced economies for two decades. Technological change, demographics, income inequality and safe asset scarcity are just a few of the factors exerting downward pressure on long-term real rates.”
This appraisal of Europe’s problems constitutes a devastating self-indictment by financial officials. Rising inequality—that is, the impoverishment of the masses and the enrichment of a small layer at the top—like collapsing demographics, amid broad cuts to living standards and family benefits, are due to reactionary EU austerity policies. These have thrown tens of millions of workers out of work since 2008 and imposed deep wage cuts in country after country.
While the ECB pours cash into the financial markets, the underlying real economy is so depressed by austerity, with corporations and governments facing recurring debt crises, that Draghi admits bankers still cannot find “safe” financial assets to buy. The ECB increased its balance sheet from €1 trillion in 2005 to over €2.5 trillion in 2015, buying up various forms of debt. However, Draghi’s remarks show that it was just inflating other, even larger bubbles involving risky assets.
Nonetheless, Draghi stayed the course with the current policies, calling to boost bank profits by restructuring the financial industry to cut the number of large firms. “Overcapacity in some national banking sectors, and the ensuing intensity of competition, exacerbates this squeeze on margins,” he said, also calling for regulating “shadow banking” operations like hedge and money market funds.
He said that in this depressed environment, financial institutions should pay smaller rates of return to depositors: “banks will need to review their business models to bolster profitability. Other financial institutions also face challenges to their business models in this environment. In particular, institutions providing longer-term return guarantees—notably guaranteed-return life insurers—face a future of weak profitability unless they adapt their business models to a changing world.”
What is emerging is the failure of the capitalist system and of the European political establishment. None of the problems that led to the 2008 economic crisis have been resolved; indeed a decade of intense austerity has worsened them. Even as a new crisis builds, the ruling elite has nothing to propose except more attacks on the working class, and intensifying competition.
After the British vote to exit the EU underscored intractable international tensions building up inside Europe, moreover, the debate over Draghi’s policies is stoking conflicts that threaten to blow apart the euro currency and the EU.
German officials vocally criticized ECB policy, demanding higher interest rates to boost German bank profits. French, Italian, and other weaker southern European economies profited from Draghi’s looser monetary policies, however, and still support them—praising them cynically as pro-growth policies at an Athens summit this month to which German officials were pointedly not invited.
In April, after the IMF warned of the weakness of EU banks like Deutsche Bank and Crédit Suisse, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble denounced the ECB for damaging Germany’s economy. He said ultralow rates created a “gaping hole” in investors’ and pensioners’ finances. “It is indisputable that the policy of low interest rates is causing extraordinary problems for the banks and the whole financial sector in Germany,” he said. “That also applies for retirement provisions.”
Among the major powers and banks, the knives are out. As the Italian state and banks face financial collapse, with bad loans totaling €360 billion or 17 percent of total Italian bank assets, German officials are suing the ECB to cut off financing to indebted euro zone countries.
Yesterday, conservative German politicians spoke to the Financial Times to denounce QE policies. Peter Gauweiler said it “already violates rules on the prohibition of monetary financing [of euro zone governments] by the ECB,” adding that further loosening of QE rules would be “clearly incompatible with European law.”
While Germany’s Constitutional Court has not yet decided to hear his suit, Hans-Olaf Henkel of Germany’s Alfa party said, “If the ECB would blatantly and openly finance states such as Italy, it would provide us with additional ammunition in our court case… This the Court cannot ignore.”
Other officials retaliated, demanding that Germany cut its trade surplus and stimulate Europe’s economy by importing more goods from the rest of Europe. Speaking to L  Opinion on Wednesday, Belgian ECB board member Peter Praet said: “Germany’s enormous current account surplus, at almost 9 percent of Gross Domestic Product, is an anomaly. German growth is too dependent on external demand. Germany has the budgetary resources to develop its internal demand.”

The New York bombings: Feeding the “war on terror”

Bill Van Auken

Ahmad Khan Rahami was charged Tuesday night with nine counts of attempted murder and using weapons of mass destruction in connection with last weekend’s terror bombings in New York City and New Jersey,
As more details emerge, it is becoming clear that these bombings are part of a disturbing and ever more familiar pattern that dates back at least to the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington in 2001. In virtually every terrorist act carried out on US soil, the perpetrator is someone who is known by and previously identified to the FBI or other US police and intelligence agencies.
On the other hand, with those “terrorist plots” that are “foiled,” also almost invariably, those charged are patsies, set up in sting operations by federal agents who in many cases provide weapons, money and targets to individuals who would never have embarked on such operations on their own.
Rahami, a naturalized American citizen who immigrated to the US with his family from Afghanistan at the age of seven, is charged with planting explosive devices—pipe bombs and pressure cooker bombs—one of which injured 31 people on a street in Manhattan. He was arrested after being shot in a gunfight with police that also left two cops wounded.
In the immediate aftermath of the bombings, authorities issued statements declaring that there was no link between the attacks and “international terrorism.” It would now appear that this story was floated by officials who were well aware of such connections and concerned about the record of their own decisions to ignore them.
The New York Times revealed Thursday that Rahami’s father, Mohammad Rahami, gave a detailed warning to the FBI in 2014, saying that his son represented a threat and was increasingly attracted to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Federal agents spoke to the elder Rahami during a police investigation following his son’s stabbing of a sibling in a domestic dispute.
“I told the FBI to keep an eye on him,” he told the Times. “They said, ‘Is he a terrorist?’ I said: ‘I don’t know. I can’t guarantee you 100 percent if he is a terrorist. I don’t know which groups he is in. I can’t tell you.’”
The father added that the FBI never followed up by interviewing his son.
This contact was not the only one between Rahami and federal intelligence agencies. Only five months before his father’s discussions with the FBI, Rahami returned from a yearlong visit to Pakistan, where he visited Quetta, the capital of Pakistani Baluchistan, which is the headquarters of various Islamist factions. The trip prompted a secondary screening by customs officials, who were concerned enough to notify the National Targeting Center, a division of the Homeland Security Department that is supposed to assess potential terrorist threats. This prompted a notification to the FBI and other agencies.
It has further emerged since the bombings that federal officials were aware that Rahami may have made another trip to Ankara, Turkey, apparently with the aim of joining the Islamic State (ISIS) or one of the militias connected to Al Qaeda that are engaged in the US-backed war for regime change in Syria.
Finally, federal authorities were informed of Rahami’s purchase last July of a Glock 9mm handgun, the weapon he is charged with using in shooting two Linden, New Jersey policemen as they tried to take him into custody.
Once again, the refrain made famous in the wake of 9/11is being heard again: there was a failure to “connect the dots.”
In some cases, the similarities to previous incidents are stark. As in Rahami’s case, the father of Nigerian student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to bring down a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Eve 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underwear, also warned US authorities of his son’s terrorist ties, but was ignored.
Then there was the case of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, in which the principal organizer was Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Russian intelligence had identified Tsarnaev to US authorities in 2011 as a suspected radical Islamist who was seeking to link up with armed groups in the Northern Caucasus. He was subsequently interviewed by the FBI and then allowed to travel to the Caucasus and return, with no questions asked.
Given the vast intelligence apparatus maintained by the US state and the sweeping mass surveillance it conducts, the failure to pursue such leads does not lend itself to innocent interpretation or a mere failure to “connect the dots.”
On the one hand, the decision not to impede the travel of individuals identified as “terrorists” stems from the fact that the US government is utilizing such elements in pursuit of its foreign policy aims. It has done so at least since the late 1980s, when Rahami’s father fought with the Afghan mujahedeen in the CIA-orchestrated war against the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan. Foreign Islamists have been the backbone of the proxy forces fighting the US war for regime change in Syria, as they were in Libya, and US intelligence has long had relations with similar forces in both Russia and China.
On the other hand, giving a free rein to those identified as potential terrorists and letting nature take its course serves a definite political agenda, providing grist for the mill of the “global war on terror.” This “war” has provided the pretext for both unending bombings and invasions to further the strategic interests of US imperialism, and the escalating repression within the US itself.
Terrorist acts are also magnified and endlessly sensationalized by the corporate media as a means of undermining the broad popular opposition to war.
Finally, such acts can be exploited to further the aims of one faction within the state apparatus against another. The bombings in New York and New Jersey coincided with evidence of just such divisions within the Obama administration, as sections of the military brass have recently made statements approaching insubordination in relation to the abortive ceasefire deal in Syria.
It is impossible to say at this early stage what relation these bombings have to the murky and sinister world in which US intelligence agencies and Islamist terrorist groups intersect.
Nor are the precise motivations of Rahami known. Sections of a notebook in his possession at the time of his arrest include praise for Osama bin Laden; Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born, Al Qaeda-linked cleric assassinated in a US drone strike; as well as an ISIS leader.
Rahami’s alleged act may have been the product of his own emotional or mental distress, or psychological factors combined with what the state and the media habitually refer to as “homegrown terrorism” or “self-radicalization.” Whatever the case, the state of American society on the eve of the 2016 elections provides fertile ground for such violence.
Over 15 years of uninterrupted US wars, with over a million killed, many millions more driven from their homes and entire societies left in shreds, cannot help but produce deadly consequences within the US itself. Bloodshed abroad is combined with the ceaseless brutalization of society at home. Rahami grew up in Union County, New Jersey, where the poverty rate is over 27 percent and the social inequality between its working-class residents and the concentration of billionaires and multimillionaires in nearby New York City could not be starker. The pervasive social alienation among broad layers of society is intensified by the continuous demonization of Muslims.
The existing political setup, moreover, provides no progressive outlet for the increasingly explosive buildup of social discontent. The pseudo-left elements who, in an earlier period, protested against US wars are now to be found among their most enthusiastic supporters.
Less than seven weeks before the election, these latest bombings are being utilized to shift the political debate within the two major parties even further to the right, with the fascistic Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democratic favorite of the military and intelligence apparatus Hillary Clinton vying with each other over who is best prepared as “commander-in-chief” to escalate war abroad and intensify repression at home.
The reactionary and noxious atmosphere of American politics will only ensure further attacks like that which occurred last weekend.

Sri Lanka: Fault-lines in the Transitional Justice Process

Aaranya Rajasingam



Sri Lanka is ranked 43rd (out of 178 countries) in the 2016 annual Fragile States Index, pointing to an improving trend in the country. The country has been moved from the “Alert” category to “High Warning” – a welcome improvement for people recovering from a three-decade long war. How much of this, however, is substantial and sustainable change, is yet to be seen.
 
It is one of the 78 countries to show improvement and the most improved country in 2015-2016. These uplifting numbers, however, belie the actual changes taking place within the country. As demonstrated by the graphs, group grievances remain largely unchanged and political elites are still old wine in new bottles.
 
Given that these factors are recognised by many analysts as the main sources of the conflict, it is difficult to begin celebrating immediately. Additionally, the rising brain drain from the country will continue to have significant adverse impacts on the overall growth in Sri Lanka.
 
In its brief analysis, the Index does acknowledge that though political and economic stability has improved the country’s ratings, “deep schisms within society, remain perilously high.” This schism is especially relevant when observing the ongoing reconciliation process in the country. The new government has been on a fast-track for Transitional Justice. The troubling methodology and the short time frame indicate that there are many reasons to remain cautious while welcoming this process.
 
At the core of these doubts lies the fact the Government of Sri Lanka has so far not undertaken meaningful steps to outline a coherent policy for Transitional Justice. On the one hand, while Tamil and Muslim minorities remain doubtful regarding any tangible outcomes (given failures of past processes), the Sinhala majority community identifies the process itself as an initiative for Tamils and not a process that affects the whole country. This has serious consequences for the legitimacy of the process. While the Public Representations Committee made commendable efforts to reflect the desires of the Sri Lankan polity within a short time-frame, the subsequent rush to bring out a new constitution indicates that it may not be as inclusive as Sri Lankans would have wanted it to be.
 
The lack of institutional will is further revealed when critiques of the constitutional process are warned that trying to change structural issues of governance or justice will jeopardise the passing of a constitution of the country. Statements by executives in their refusal to make linkages between transitional justice mechanisms and judicial mechanisms (such as showing linkages between the Office of Missing Persons with criminal proceedings) results in the creation of a false dichotomy between justice and peace. As the Bill for the controversial Office of Missing Persons was being passed, the independent Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms was still in the process of getting community feedback on what they thought of the bill. These contradictions are certainly not promising. Furthermore, many submissions to the Task Force had criticised the title that refused to encompass the reality of enforced disappearances or bother to consult families of those disappeared, before it was passed. Such instances continue to alienate those most affected by the war and reveals that perhaps the process itself has become more of a foreign policy tool rather than a significant step towards reconciliation.
 
According to the IMF and the World Bank, Sri Lanka has recently reached the “middle-income country” status. While this may encourage investment, it cannot hide the challenges the country faces in – on one hand, providing basic services to marginalised communities and regions; and on the other, in curbing corruption and strengthening governance institutions. These are challenges that are not new in any way for the island state. While the end of military conflict provides opportunities, we certainly do not want it to be termed as “missed opportunities” after ten years.
 
In Sri Lanka, the drive for development, particularly the increase in infrastructure development, at the cost of forming a consensus – on how economic benefits can be equally divided between different groups and communities – is a serious problem. Additionally, Sri Lanka has still not devised a clear long term economic development strategy that takes into account the failed aspects of Western financial models (post the financial crisis in 2008). The FSI states that “weak and failing states” pose a serious challenge to the international community. Perhaps what the FSI fails to mention is that sometimes, standards imposed by the global community and financial instruments can seriously undermine small, developing states. Sri Lankans are at present only more in debt, and government deficits are continuing to increase (as more loans need to be paid back and grace periods end) – a fact that is only too apparent for its citizens in the form of growing taxation in the country.
 
Other than weaknesses in institutions and the prevalent political culture, another important determinant of struggles of the country is the inability to channel a wide scale grassroots movement for good governance and accountability. A meaningful, open and inclusive conversation between all parties is the first step towards this. In the Transitional Justice and Reconciliation environment, the trend towards consultations has certainly begun to provide space for this shift. More Commissions and Tasks Forces have helped bring stakeholders together to have this critical conversation.
 
It is now left to be seen whether the people’s voices are heard.

Encirclement of the Arctic Circle: The Russian Military Buildup

Adarsh Vijay



The equations of geopolitical rivalry in the Arctic region are undergoing a paradigm shift with the ongoing military buildup by Russia. The Arctic has been accorded due importance as per the revised doctrine of the Russian Navy and Moscow is eyeing a permanent presence in the region to reclaim its historical dominance in the Arctic.  Russia’s ongoing attempts in this direction have become a cause for friction among the other stakeholders in the North Pole. The pressing issues that need to be addressed are: Why is Russia heading to the Arctic? How do the other players view the Kremlin’s move? Is the strategy restricted to regional implications or does it go beyond them? 

What’s in the Arctic?
Russia is one of the eight countries, along with the US, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland, to have territory in the Arctic Circle. They are also the members of the Arctic Council, which was formed in 1996 as per the Ottawa Declaration. The oil and mineral resources under the seabed and the strategic importance of the region has so far guided the Kremlin’s policy in the Arctic. The race for the control of oceanic resources necessitates a strong military backing to guard the maritime interests in the northern waters. Moscow had already established the 45th Air Force and Air Defense Army for its Northern Fleet by the end of 2015. However, the present military outreach that gained momentum in the far north is a response to the increasing defense modernisation by the US and the Scandinavian countries in the recent past. The Kremlin seeks to have a strong foothold in the North Pole with a permanent military base name Arktichesky Trilistnik (Arctic Trefoil), which was set up in 2015. The base, which can house approximately 150 military personnel, is situated at the 80th parallel. They have also built another base named Northern Shamrock on the Kotelny Island in the East Siberian Sea at the 75th parallel. Besides the construction of new military infrastructures, the reopening of the various abandoned air strips and bases across the Franz Josef Land, New Siberian Islands, Novaya Zemlya and Severnaya Zemlya archipelagos is also underway.
 
Arctic: A Grand Strategy
What makes the Arctic region strategically important for Russia is primarily its geographical proximity to the North American continent. It ensures Moscow within a short-distance and an early strike capacity against the West and this strengthens its nuclear deterrence at large. The Kremlin is also enjoying better operational autonomy in the High North as compared to the fleets stationed at the Black and Baltic Seas as the maneuver of the Northern Fleet is undisturbed by the NATO members. Russia is currently focusing on the deployment of nuclear-powered icebreakers, additional submarines, patrol vessels, military aircrafts, anti-aircraft systems and intends to conduct unannounced military exercises in the Arctic Ocean. The secondary factor that pushes the Russians to the Arctic waters is the promising oil and mineral resources. Due to climate change there is expected to be a continuing retreat of ice from the ocean, which would make the seabed mining viable and cost-effective in due course.
Norway, a NATO member and a neighbor of Russia in the north-western border, is cautious of Russian advancements in the Arctic sphere. Besides Norway, other members of the Arctic Council also perceive Russia’s activities in the North Pole as a threat. Washington's reaction was predominantly naval oriented in terms of the dispatch of submarines and icebreakers across the Arctic. An exclusive stealth-aircraft fleet is also under process for the High North in order to meet the challenges of the prevailing geopolitical conundrum.
 
The Road Ahead
The Kremlin intends to take the Arctic policy forward as a global strategy. The regional repercussions, as projected by Russia, are just a cover to hide the grand reverberations that are yet to unfold. Hence, an analysis of Moscow’s actions in the Arctic is just the tip of the iceberg. The High North is a significant element of Russia’s foreign and security complex, which is being built upon the Cold War legacy. Russia’s traditional need for superiority in the international system with immense control over natural resources, supported by an unparalleled military supremacy, lies behind the whole game. Thus, the Arctic Circle is a great catalyst for Moscow to alter and tilt the balance of power in its favor. Nevertheless, the escalating US presence in the Arctic acts as a deterrent against the Russian aggressions and neither does Russia seem interested in engaging in a direct confrontation in the near future. Though cooperation in place of competition is an option that can be explored, however, pragmatism is far more distant than dreams. The emerging trends in the Arctic are highly unpredictable which make a strategic forecast difficult, if not impossible. However, the only optimism that remains at the core of the dynamics in the region is the sustaining self-restraint in terms of abstinence from an armed rivalry at present.

Preparing for Radiological Emergencies and Terrorism

Manpreet Sethi



India is still coming to terms with the aftermath of the terrorist attack on an army camp at Uri. More names have been added to the long list of Indians who have died in incidents that have been conceived and executed with the support of elements in the ‘deep state’ of Pakistan. Given that Rawalpindi shows no inclination to abandon its strategy of inflicting terror on India, one cannot but be prepared to handle acts of terrorism that may breach new thresholds in the future. Preparedness and response for a radiological emergency is, therefore, a task that the country must plan for.
A news item in the Times of India of 22 August 2016 reported the conduct of a mock drill to rehearse Indian preparedness for a radiological emergency at an airport. The news was welcome for two reasons. Firstly, reportage of such exercises helps reassure the public that the relevant agencies are duly practicing preparedness to handle such emergencies. This also has an impact on restoring public confidence in nuclear power in general, which was badly shaken by the Fukushima episode of 2011. Secondly, the handling of an off-site radiological emergency involves the coordinated participation of a number of stakeholders. 20 agencies reportedly participated in the exercise. It is only through periodically repeated drills that requisite rapport and confidence in joint operations of this nature can be built.
It is natural that emergency preparedness and response strategies (EPRs) are relatively better evolved and comparatively easier to execute when a nuclear emergency is confined to the nuclear plant or site. Such crises primarily involve quick handling by the operating staff who are better equipped with technical knowledge and also more familiar with and better trained to abide by stringent standard operating procedures (SOPs) that must be followed in crisis. It is only in case of a severe accident at plant site that other civilian agencies need to be included in consequence management.
In contrast, in case of off-site, radiological emergencies that could happen anywhere, the involvement of the public necessarily requires the participation of many governmental and non-governmental agencies for crisis management. Some places likely to face such events are predictable, such as where radiological sources are in use – hospitals, industries, etc. But, discovery of stolen or maliciously use of orphan sources or acts of radiological terrorism through dirty bombs could occur anywhere. Emergency preparedness in such cases requires a very high level of quick detection, assessment and response from both nuclear and non-nuclear administrations.
Cooperation among many national and international stakeholders is a necessity in case of a radiological emergency. Law and order agencies, fire fighting and medical services, traffic officials and first responders designated by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) must all be part of the team to quickly bring the situation under control. Above all, an effective public communication strategy must be available to use the media as a friend rather than letting it give its own spin to the crisis. Relationships built with press and local populace during moments of quiet would go a long way in communicating credibly and with confidence in times of crisis.
Over the years, India has judiciously invested in building organisational and technological expertise in EPR. The NDMA has published elaborate and precise guidelines for dealing with such emergencies. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has developed and employs sophisticated tools to cater for quick detection, impact assessment and response. BARC has developed special mobile and fixed monitoring equipment that can be used for detection of radioactivity and identification of contaminated areas which can assist in correct movement of the responders and evacuees. At the second level, integrated assessment software is able to predict a rapid evaluation of damage from blast, fires etc and thereby help allocate medical, fire-fighting facilities etc. Most importantly, a software tool such as the geographical information system (GIS) provides maps of areas with location of roads, buildings, hospitals, etc in order to help plan routes of evacuation or influx of responders.
However, even the best laid out plans and available technological tools can be stymied if a few common-sense issues are not adequately addressed. The first of these is the prime requirement of inter-agency cooperation. Given the involvement of varied types of responders, not all of whom have radiological emergency as their daily top-most priority, it is quite likely that each would have a different understanding or level of commitment to participation in collaborative mock drills. Caught with usual manpower and resource shortages, over-burdened services are likely to accord less priority to an event that is seen as of low probability. However, the high consequence potential of such an occurrence is the precise reason that demands the highest attention. Conduct of mock drills must be undertaken in the spirit of joint planning for an operation and there should be adequate mechanisms for feedback assimilation to effectuate improvements.
2016 has seen a rise in terrorist incidents across the world. Vulnerabilities of regions once thought to be immune to such risks stand exposed as the US and countries in Europe and Asia have undergone such strikes. Each has struggled to minimise risks as well as improve consequence mitigation. Fortunately, no act of nuclear or radiological terrorism has yet been experienced. But there is no doubt that a radiological emergency would be a mammoth operation of managing not only the physical safety and movement of the public but also involve dealing with many psychosomatic issues.
The psychological impact of an act of radiological terrorism would in fact invoke greater damage than any real threat from radioactivity. It is for this reason that dirty bombs are described as weapons of mass disruption since they would cause greater panic, at the physical, socio-economic and psychological levels. Being neighbours with a country which is not only the fountainhead of terrorism but is also flush with fissile material, a radiological emergency is a threat for India. Well planned and regularly rehearsed EPR strategies, which include education of the public, must be accorded due priority as one important plank of addressing this threat perception.

22 Sept 2016

Microsoft WINsiders4Good Nigeria Fellowship for Nigerian Entrepreneurs 2016

Application Deadline: 
Round 1 Application Opens: 21st September, 2016
Round 1 Application Closes: 10th October, 2016
Round 2 Application Opens: 17th October, 2016
Round 2 Application Closes: 24th October, 2016
Fellows Announced: 16th November, 2016
Fellowship Bootcamp: 16th – 22nd November, 2016
Mentorship Program: 4th January – 30th June 2017
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Nigeria
About the Award: We belong to the Windows Insiders, the greatest community of people in the world who use the Windows technology we love to eradicate the problems we hate. We are thrilled to announce the WINsiders4Good Nigeria Fellowship.
We are looking for people like you, Nigerian entrepreneurs who can’t stop thinking of that idea you have that will solve a local problem as well as improve the lives of your fellow Nigerians.
We would like to build a fellowship of 20 Nigerian entrepreneurs to become our first ever, inaugural class of #WINsider4Good Fellows. If chosen, you will receive hardware and software along with 6 months of tailored technical and strategic mentorship from local and international leaders to help bring your unique idea to life.
Offered Since:
Type:
Eligibility: Candidate eligible to participate in the #WINSiders4Good Nigeria Fellowship program must:
  • be a member of the Windows Insider Program (apply in link below)
  • be a legal resident of Nigeria;
  • be 18 or older;
  • have an original idea for a product or service that improves the lives of fellow Nigerians;
  • not be (or have a family members who is) an employee of Microsoft;
  • not be government employee.
Selection Criteria:  The WINSiders4Good Nigeria Fellowship will select 20 candidates based on the following criteria:
  • Social Impact
    • Addresses a common issue affecting a clearly identified segment of the Nigerian population and provides a clear benefit to the potential customers in addressing this issue
  • Market Viability
    • The product or service has a clearly defined market that is willing and able to pay for the services to address the issue, the paying customer does not always be the end user
  • Innovation
    • The product or service provides a unique approach to the issues faced by the Nigerian people through a net new innovation the market has yet seen; an improvement on existing solutions; or a combination of multiple solutions for more effective and efficient intervention
  • Scalability
    • The business has the potential to serve customers across the geographic region where the entrepreneur is based, or across all of Nigeria
Number of Awardees: 20
Value of Fellowship: To help develop a product or service, Fellows will receive Microsoft hardware and software, including Windows 10, Office 365 and Azure credits.  Fellows will also receive technical and strategic mentorship from Microsoft staff, local and international experts. We want to learn more about the specific needs of the Fellows and their solutions to tailor an engagement that will most benefit them.
How to Apply: Please ensure you go through the application guidelines and Scholarship Webpage before applying.
Award Provider: Microsoft

Stanford University Draper Hills Summer Fellowship Programme 2017. Funded to Attend

Application Timeline:
  • Deadline: Wednesday, 16th November, 2016.
  • Programme Date: July 16- Friday, August 4, 2017
  • Applicants will be informed of their selection to the program by April 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Transitioning countries
To be taken at (country): Stanford University, California, USA
About the Award: Launched in 2005, the Draper Hills Summer Fellowship on Democracy and Development Program (DHSFDD) is a three-week academic training program that is hosted annually at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.  This training program provides a unique forum for emerging leaders to connect, exchange experiences, and receive academic training to enrich their knowledge and advance their work.
For three weeks during the summer, fellows participate in academic seminars that expose them to the theory and practice of democracy, development, and the rule of law. Delivered by leading Stanford faculty from the Stanford Law School, the Graduate School of Business, and the departments of economics and political science, these seminars allow emerging leaders to explore new institutional models and frameworks to enhance their ability to promote democratic change in their home countries.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • This program is aimed at mid-career practitioners working actively in the fields of democracy, development, and the rule of law. Applicants can be working as policy-makers, academics, legal professionals, social entrepreneurs, business entrepreneurs, and leaders of civil society organizations (such as representatives of trade unions, nongovernmental organizations, the media, business and professional associations).
  • In their present capacity, applicants should play important and influential roles in their country’s political, economic, and social development. Participants should have demonstrated professional and personal achievements in a relevant sector of democracy, development, and the rule of law.
  • Successful applicants will have academic credentials necessary to participate and contribute to the six-hour seminars each day, and tackle advanced academic readings to complement the classroom-based curriculum.
  • A working knowledge of English is an important prerequisite for participation in the program. It is expected that each fellow have a solid command of written and spoken English to fully benefit and participate in the program.
  • The ideal participant will have extraordinary motivation and a keen interest in learning as well as sharing knowledge and experiences to help build and enrich the alumni community.
Selection Criteria: Due to the large volume of applications for the Draper Hills fellowship received each year to the fellowship program, we take our selection criteria very seriously. Please review the criteria below very carefully before submitting your application to the program. If you do not meet these criteria your application will not be reviewed.
  • This is not an academic fellowship but meant for practitioners only. We value practical experience over academic credentials, and we admit scholars only to the extent that they are active in government, public policy, civil society, economic development and rule of law. They should hold leadership roles in their respective sector.
  • Applicants must be mid-career practitioners and have at least ten to 12 years of experience to qualify for the fellowship. Those with more experience are much more competitive in the selection process.
  • Candidates must be from and currently reside in a country where democracy is not well entrenched. Candidates residing outside their home country due to war or conflict may be granted exceptions. Applicants will not be accepted from countries such as: the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, and member states of the European Union.
  • Candidates must be at least 28 years of age at the start of the fellowship in July 2017. The average age of our fellows at the time of the program is 38.
  • Candidates must be actively working in the field of democracy, development, and the rule of law. We do not accept candidates who are in the midst of full-time university degree programs.
  • Candidates must have a solid command of written and spoken English. All program materials and sessions are in English. Participants will also be required to give 9-minute TED-style talks throughout the three-week program regarding their work and motivation. English language proficiency is very important in order to benefit and contribute to the program dialogue.
Number of Awardees: 25 to 30
Value of Fellowship: Stanford asks all applicants to be prepared to contribute towards the cost of their participation in the fellowship, if they are selected. Typically this comes in the form of a fellow covering round-trip airfare to the Program. Stanford will pay for accommodations, meals, and transportation costs during the duration of the Program. In the past, some fellows have asked their employers to subsidize their travel to Stanford based on the benefits that the training will contribute towards their professional and organizational advancement. They may also choose to fundraise for these costs after selection decisions are issued in April 2017. A small travel fund is available for fellows who under no circumstances can support their travel or need to apply for a partial subsidy. Priority for accessing the travel fund will be given based on need, and destinations where airline fares to California are exorbitant.
How to Apply: In order to apply to the Draper Hills Summer Fellows Program please create an account through the online portal. The application form is available once you login and will be available through the deadline, Wednesday, November 16, 2016. Due to the volume of applications, we strongly suggest that you submit the application form as soon as possible. You will be asked to contact two references to furnish letters of recommendation to support your candidacy to the program. A complete application package will be due no later than Wednesday, November 16, 2016.
Please ensure you go through the Application Guidelines and Scholarship Webpage before applying.
Award Provider:  Stanford University
Important Notes: Applicants are required to participate the entire duration of the Draper Hills fellowship program at Stanford University. They must be sure that they can be absent from their professional obligations during that time and must make a commitment to attend the full program upon acceptance.

British High Commission Cameroon Women Scholarship 2016/2017 for Masters Programmes

Application Deadline: 30th November 2016
Eligible Countries: Cameroon
To be taken at (country): Cameroon
Eligible Fields of Study: The areas of studies in which candidates are sought for 2016-17 are as follows:
  • Human Rights
  • Rule of Law /Governance
  • Information and Communication Technology
  • Science and Technology
  • Development studies
  • Media Management and Legislation
  • Security (International Security/Security Management/Terrorism/Regional Development/Conflict Resolution/Peace Studies.
  • Public Health
About the Award: The British High Commission in Yaounde- Cameroon, is announcing to the general public that the 2016/2017 edition of the Cameroon Women’s Scholarship has now been launched.
The Cameroon Women’s Scholarship targets women with strong leadership potential, who possess the academic excellence to pursue a Master’s degree, but face a significant financial barrier to continuing their studies.
The Scholarship is funded by the British High Commission in Cameroon which also manages the scheme in partnership with the Cameroon Women’s Scholarship Alumni and the Cameroon Chevening Alumni Association.
Type: master’s degree course
Eligibility: The Cameroon Women Scholarship is open to those who meet the following criteria:
  1. must have secured an admission for the 2015/2016 academic year in any higher education institution of learning in Cameroon by 31st January 2016. Failure in securing admission by this date will lead to the withdrawal of scholarship.
  2. the start date of the applicants’ chosen course must fall within the first half of the 2016/2017 academic year.
  3. must be a national of Cameroon
  4. must hold an undergraduate degree (an equivalent of 3 – 4 years undergraduate studies) in any field with grade of at least a Second Class-upper (Hons)
  5. must have at least two (2) years work experience by 30 September 2016
There is no age limit for Cameroon Women’s Scholarship.
Selection Criteria: Candidates are to be assessed against the following criteria:
  1. have the personal, intellectual and interpersonal qualities necessary for leadership in their home country
  2. be motivated to make a career leading to a position of leadership in their own countries within 10 years of their Scholarship
  3. be committed to networking to find global solutions to key development issues
  4. be able to use their studies and experience to benefit themselves, their country and the FCO
  5. be capable of successfully undertaking and completing their proposed course
Number of Awardees: twenty (20)
Value of Scholarship: one million francs (FCFA 1 MILLION) and two mandatory leadership training for all laureates.
How to Apply: To apply, provide the following:
  1. A completed scholarship application form (see in link below)
  2. A personal statement – a one-page statement/essay about yourself, your leadership potential, accomplishments and career goals (maximum of 800 words.)
  3. An updated CV (include contact details of two referees maximum of 2 pages using font 12 Times New Roman.) You will be disqualified if you do not stick to the guidance.
NB: Only the above three documents are needed at the first stage. Candidates shortlisted for interview will be required to submit copies of university level transcripts and all academic certificates.
Submit your documents as an attachment to camwomenscholarship@gmail.com.
You can only apply via email. Your three files should be named as follows:
  • appNAME for the application form
  • personalNAME for the personal statement
  • cvNAME for the CV
E.g.: candidate named Fouda Pauletta would have her files as:
  • appFOUDA
  • personalFOUDA
  • cvFOUDA
Award Provider: British High Commission
Important Notes: Application and personal statements MUST be in English Language irrespective of the language of instruction of the candidate and the school she will be attending.
Not following all the application guidelines for the Cameroon Women Scholarship will result to disqualification.

The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Programme 2017

Application Deadline: 1st December, 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): United States of America
About the Award: The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program supports independent research and study related to Smithsonian facilities, experts, or collection for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.
Program Description:
Smithsonian Institution Fellows conduct independent study and research related to SI collections, experts, or facilities in cooperation with at least one Smithsonian advisor.JessicaLindsay with Michael Wise
The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program is administered through the Smithsonian Office of Fellowships and Internships (OFI).
The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program is open to:
  1. Graduate Students
  2. Predoctoral Students
  3. Postdoctoral Researchers and
  4. Senior Researchers
Graduate Student Fellowships: Graduate Student Fellowships are typically 10 weeks in length. Students must be formally enrolled in a graduate program of study at a degree granting institution. Before the appointment begins fellows must still be enrolled and must have completed at least one full time semester or its equivalent. Graduate Student Fellowships are usually intended for students who have not yet been advanced to candidacy if in a doctoral program. Graduate student fellowships are offered for ten weeks and are not available for periods of less or more than ten weeks.
Predoctoral Student Fellowships: Predoctoral Student Fellowships are typically (pls see below for exceptions) 3 to 12 months in length. Students must be enrolled in a university as a candidate for the Ph.D. or equivalent. By the time the appointment begins the university must approve the undertaking of dissertation research at the Smithsonian Institution and certify that requirements for the doctorate, other than the dissertation, have been met.
Postdoctoral Researcher Fellowships: Postdoctoral Student Fellowships are typically (pls see below for exceptions) 3 to 12 months in length. The doctorate degree must be completed by the time the fellowship begins.
Senior Researcher Fellowships: Senior Fellowships are typically 3 to 12 months in length. Applicants must have held a Ph.D. or equivalent for at least 7 years.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • The program is open to US citizens and Non-US citizens. Applicants whose native language is not English are expected to have the ability to write and converse fluently in English. All application materials must be presented in English (foreign transcripts may be translated, see below).
  • Past or current fellowship recipients are eligible to apply for another award.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship award amounts are as follows:
  • Graduate Student Fellowship**: $7000.00 for 10 weeks
  • Predoctoral Student Fellowship: $32,700 annually; research allowance up to $4,000 total.
  • Postdoctoral Researcher Fellowship: $48,000 annually; research allowance up to $4,000 total.
  • Senior Researcher Fellowship: $48,000 annually; research allowance up to $4,000 total.
Fellows in earth/planetary sciences and conservatory sciences are eligible to receive up to $5,000.00 over the amounts above.
How to Apply: Apply Through: SOLAA
Please ensure you go through the application guidelines and Scholarship Webpage before applying.
Award Provider: The Smithsonian Institute

Goodbye To The World Of The Single Superpower

Arshad M Khan


China and Russia conducted joint naval exercises in the South China Sea last week. Five Russian and ten Chinese ships participated in eight days of drills covering joint air defense, anti-submarine operations, landing, island-seizing, search and rescue operations, and weapons use. In the single largest naval exercise undertaken by the two, the Russian fleet comprised an Udaloy class anti-submarine destroyer, the Admiral Tributs, while the Chinese supplied surface ships, including landing craft, and submarines. The message, in the wake of the international tribunal’s ruling against China’s claims in the South China Sea, is crystal clear.
Even more important is the trade offensive as outlined at the recent G-20 meeting in Hangzhou. Their vision affords a new template for an all inclusive plus-sum game that was clearly directed against TPP, seen by China as antagonistic to its interests, and an attempt by the US to call the shots on Pacific trade.
Chinese influence in Europe is exemplified by the huge UK contract to build two and possibly three nuclear power plants in England in conjunction with EDF of France. The deal was given the go ahead by Prime Minister Theresa May the week after the G20 meeting.
The Chinese multi-polar view also embraces trade in currencies other than the dollar, particularly in the case of Russo-Chinese trade. A starting point is the joint Russian Far East and Chinese Northeast initiative. Rivals in the past, U.S. policies directed against both countries have boomeranged bringing them closer together.
Who is responsible for this policy? Or perhaps it is just hubris — the false security of being labeled the world’s only superpower. Well, welcome to the multi-polar world again — and perhaps not a bad thing given the humanitarian disasters wreaked upon the world in the last decade and a half. As a balancing polarity, Russian military power, including 7300 nuclear warheads, combined with Chinese economic strength could well be a stabilizing force. Worth noting that on a Purchasing Power Parity basis, China is already the world’s largest economy.
Also on the dollar front — or rather omission thereof — Russia and Iran announced last week that trade between the two countries will henceforth not be in dollars. It is a natural outcome of the U.S. seizing foreign assets at will, a constant threatening posture, and the my-way-or-the-highway attitude to sovereign nations. Many countries have waited patiently for alternatives, and now China is making such available.
Other long time U.S. allies have been emboldened by China’s open outreach. Rodrigo R. Duterte, the newly elected president of the Philippines, aside from lacking basic diplomatic courtesy, has declared his intention to follow an independent (from the U.S. that is) foreign policy. He wants to end joint U.S.- Philippine naval patrols west of the country in the South China Sea; acquire weaponry from China and Russia also; and develop economic and trade relations with the same.
One wonders if the CIA is now busy hatching a coup plot to send him scurrying and bring the Philippines back into the fold. President Duterte would do well to remember another loquacious president, Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, also elected but then swiftly dispatched into exile through a coup within six months of excessive verbiage.
There was a time when the U.S. was a good friend of Pakistan, a country now used and discarded to suffer on its own the aftereffects of the war on terror. The latter starting with an Afghan war on a country that was not involved in any way with 9/11 except that it offered a place to stay to a mujahedin commander, who had assisted with CIA help in getting rid of the Soviets. The man’s name was Osama bin Laden. The Afghan government wanted proof of his involvement; George W. Bush was not prepared to wait. A trillion and more dollars later, after 2325 soldiers are dead and 20,083 wounded, the U.S. is still there. In a related scandal, an average of 22 American veterans commit suicide each day. Might it have been better to have offered proof of bin Laden’s involvement? The obvious question, ‘what has been gained by making enemies out of most Afghans who were once friends’ betrays the folly.
In the history of the world, the downfall of great powers often begins with overreaching leading to a fed-up citizenry. That the U.S. has begun its downward slide is confirmed by a demagogue like Trump now having an even chance of becoming president.