The Petro-Yuan Bombshell

Pepe Escobar

The new 55-page “America First” National Security Strategy

(NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as “revisionist” powers, “rivals”, and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States.

The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an “attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries”. Still, Beijing qualified it as “reckless” and “irrational.” The Kremlin noted its “imperialist character” and “disregard for a multipolar world”. Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as “the world’s most significant state sponsor of terrorism.”

Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing geopolitical and geoeconomic process of Eurasia integration.

The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on “the BRIC countries’ concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies”, and stressed the need to “overcome the excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies”.

That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and strategic raw materials.

And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China “threat” to the US dollar.

The CIPS/SWIFT face-off

The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will also be in place in the near future.

Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone, bypassing the US dollar.

The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private, Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global transaction must transit.

What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets overseas as well as Tehran’s potential to export oil. In the event Washington might decide to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading mechanism.

Last March, Russia’s central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching its first $1 billion yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a long term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade, moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.

Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS are bound to focus on
trading physical gold.

Markets such as COMEX actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold. Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.

The ultimate politically charged dossier

Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as top reserve currency have been discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.

The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year what used to be a key, “secret” informal deal between the US and the House of Saud is firmly in the public domain.

Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries. Through this mechanism Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt – and counting.

Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened when Iraq’s Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to issue a pan-African gold dinar.

But now it’s China who’s entering the fray, following on plans set up way back in 2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.

The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were supposed to start at the end of 2017; but even if they start sometime in early 2018 the fundamentals are clear; this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The era of the petro-yuan is at hand.

Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark to Brent and WTI, or whether China’s capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.

What’s certain is that the BRICS supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times. Venezuela is also on board. It’s crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world’s Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China’s economy, they may soon be joined by other producers.

Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point, remarking how “this contract has the potential to greatly help China’s push for yuan internationalization.”

The hidden riches of “belt” and “road”

An extensive report by DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan with the expansion of BRI.

In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway, the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.

HSBC estimates that BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of new trade a year.

It’s important to keep in mind that the “belt” in BRI should be seen as a series of corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle East, while the “roads” soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with – what else – un-mined gold.

A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia’s lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.

Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.

Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.

A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share; “They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade.”

What’s clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top customers; it’s Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for Chinese participation in Aramco’s IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.

An independent European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card; “an authorization to issue treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia”; the creation of a Saudi investment fund; and the acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.

Nations under US sanctions such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela will be among the first to embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling oil/gas to China in yuan.

And if you don’t export oil but is part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently evaluating.

A key feature of the geoconomic heart of the world moving from the West to Asia is that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.

The NSS for its part promises to preserve “peace through strength”. As Washington currently deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than 149 nations in 2017 alone, it’s hard to argue the US is at “peace” – especially when the NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.

“Revisionist” Russia-China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition for the Global South. Their “threat” – under the framework of the BRICS as well as the SCO, which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.

It ain’t over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS counterpunch.

2018, America’s New Corporate Tax Cuts And Future Of The World

Jerome Irwin

It doesn’t take a mystic to look into a crystal ball to realize that America’s new draconian corporate tax cut scam now is not only the greatest financial heist and political con to be committed in recent modern history, that will make the 2008 so-called “bail-out’ of the banks, Wall Street and theft of the US Treasury look like paltry child’s play by comparison. One doesn’t also have to be a clairvoyant either to see how this scam will begin to shape the way humans of the future look, think and feel about themselves, one another and the kind of career paths they will ultimately choose for themselves, their wives, husbands and families.

As all the corks of the champagne bottles continue to pop for the prospects of what the new year holds for the ultra-rich .01% and the rest of us, what no doubt now will follow will be a rush amongst the world’s corporate/financial structure to either implement similar corporate tax cuts within their own countries or inspire a new “offshore rush” of the world’s corporate infrastructure to re-locate within the borders of the United States to stick their heads in the pig trough along with all the other greedy ones to partake in the financial feeding frenzy that will ensue.

The upshot of it all is that the democratic political process in the world will continue to be degraded to the point of being all but destroyed as enhanced austerity programmes for the masses continue to erode further still America and the rest of the world’s social safety nets and humanitarian standards. Yet the ultimate political con is that this all, somehow, is going to ultimately benefit the masses as one corporate giant after another passes on to its workers what amounts to a mere pittance of the obscenely-massive profits they now are about to realize. Boy, if the reader is inclined to believe this latest scam that declares the fat cats now are magically going to invest in the future well-being of the 99% anymore than they did in 2008, has this writer got another sure-fire ‘Bitcoin’ deal for you!

In the end, the world will see yet a further resurgence of scenarios spring off the pages of the 1920’s “Roaring Twenties”, 1930’s Fascism, 1940’s World War and cold, hard-hearted 1950’s “Organizational Man” that still dominates world politics and finances.

On a lighter more humerous note, the world may even see a resurgence of world leader’s like President Trump and their administration’s taking a page out of a 1971 Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) news report about Australia’s one-time “Finishing School for Executives’ Wives”. To take a peek at the kind of mindless brainwashing that world political leaders once proposed for the ideal wives of the ideal male executives of the future, that may yet be suggestive of how humans of the future will be duly programmed, go to:

www.newslocker.com/en-au/news/news-videos/finishing-school-for-executives-wives-1971/view/

For an additional view go to the archives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission:

Only 2018 and The Shadow really knows what the crystal ball’s vision of humankind’s future has yet to reveal.

Rohingyas Trapped In Cob-Web Of Dirty Politics

Badrul Islam

The Rohingya crisis reflects intention of the Myanmar government to forcibly oust the Muslims from Rakhine State. The brutal attack on unarmed civilians and placing of landmines along its border by Military in coordination with Border Guard Police and armed Rakhine Buddhists is the proof. Coastal area in Rakhine state is clearly of strategic importance to both China (0ne Belt 0ne Road Policy) and India (Look East Policy).Myanmar government has vested interest in clearing land for development projects that brings oil and gas revenues, transit fees, employment for its citizen- that boost economic growth. In such situations human costs are terribly high.

Myanmar Military and its elected, State Counsellor denies the mayhem but Amnesty International Director says “Given their ongoing denials Myanmar authorities may have thought they would literally get away with murder on massive scale. But modern technology coupled with rigorous human rights research have tipped the scale against them”. BBC’s South East Asia correspondent on a government organised media trip says “on September 7,2017, at Alel Than Kyaw, we heard automatic weapons fire at in distant and saw four large columns of of smoke indicating villages burned. Rohingya village at Gaw Du Thar Ya,was being set alight by Rakhine Buddhist men in front of armed police.” Both these statements confirms that “huge iceberg of misinformation” come from Myanmar itself.

Myanmar has a military dominated government, wherein, only the Bamar Buddhist group, forms the government, the police and army. In the Parliament the Military has 25% reserved seats. None from the 135 recognised ethnic groups are represented in any of these positions. The present elected representatives, including Aung San Suu Kyi, role is to play second fiddle to the Military regime.

The Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar(2008),The Land Acquisition Act(1894),The Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Act(2012), Economic Zone Law(2011), Farm Act(2012 and The Foreign Investment(2012) gives the government the full authority to (A) adopt “Burmanisation”,( implemented since military junta came to power in 1962) and (B) to protect, control and utilize the country’s natural resources. Thus “Burmanisation” and inability to find a formula for sharing the country’s natural resources between Bamar Buddhists majority and 135 Ethnic groups became the main reason for conflict between them. However, as they are not Muslims, they are not affected by the Citizen Law of 1982. They retain their Citizenship, but since the assassination of late Gen Aung San voided the Panglong agreement (1947), conflicts with government continued to bedevil the country.

Rohingyas, not part of 135 Ethnic group, but as they are Muslims, are eyed with suspicion, and since Gen Ne Win’s junta rule(1962) it became a part of the national policy, to plan their living in squalid ghettos and apartheid conditions with severe restrictions on movement, family life, employment, healthcare and education for their children .Discriminated and persecuted, they also became victim of religious hatred led by Ashin Wirathu, branded by Time Magazine as “Face of Buddhist Terror”, is leader of 969 Movement and Ma Ba Tha. Wikepedia reports, in 2012 Ashin led a rally of monks to promote President Thein Sein’s controversial plan to send Rohingya Muslims to third countries. His 969 movement is related to boycott of Muslim owned business. Additionally he has been vocal in citing examples of neighboring countries(Indonesia and Philippines)that Muslims will overtake,dominate and get rid of Buddhists- though there is no such concrete proof specially when demography confirms that Muslims are 4% while Bamar Buddhists are over 89%.To “add salt to their wound,” the Citizen Law of 1982, robs them of their Citizenship and right to vote.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and United Nations Satellite Application Program have captured the images and shared it with international Media(print and electronics),international organizations and international community that prompted action by United Nations Secretary General, UN Security Council, Heads of different UN Agencies and its Special Rapporteurs, European Union, US State Department officials, and 27 eminent personalities that includes 12 Nobel Laureates. Their coordinated efforts brought the following positive results:(A)quick supply from different countries of food, essential medicines and vaccinations, emergency shelter, blankets, other essentials, to immediately rehabilitate the Rohingya Refugees;(B) the pledging by Donor countries of US$434 million for continued relief programmes for Rohingyas and support to host communities in Bangladesh; (C) condemnation of Myanmar Military’s excessive force and urging them to stop further violence; (D) urging Myanmar government to take steps to implement the Kofi Annan Commission Report so than an environment is created to rehabilitate the repatriated Rohingyas from Bangladesh under UN Supervision; (E) to allow a UN Fact Finding Team to visit Rakhine state.

The Honourable Prime Minister of Bangladesh has received accolades from,United Nations and leaders of the world for accommodating the victimised Rohingyas, and in her speech, at the 72nd UN General Assembly, she said “0ur humanity compels us to stand by them”. She placed her proposals for solutions to the crisis ,the most significant being, implementation of Kofi Anan Commission Report and creating a “Safe Zone” in Rakhine State.

However,”Safe Zone”, similar to one made at Srebrenica (Bosnia’s eastern border with Serbia) by UN and defended by UN Peacekeeping Force, or the recently signed agreement between Myanmar and Bangladesh for repatriation, will not solve the crisis or confirm repatriation, because Military and Bamar Buddhists still vehemently hate the Muslims; and this attitude must change. The First priority of Military Junta and the State Counsellor, is to take lessons from Singapore, which is predominantly ethnic Chinese.The new president elect is from minority Malay. After being sworn in, Ms Halima Yacob in her speech said “Although this is a reserved election, I am not a reserved president. I am a president for everyone regardless of race, language, religion or creed. I represent everyone”. Myanmar must have this spirit.

Secondly, U KO NI, constitutional expert and legal adviser of State Counselor, had initiated a dialogue with the Military for some amendments to the constitution that would clip some powers of the Tatmadaw and help Rohingya to get citizenship. Unfortunately he was shot and killed at the Yangon airport. But the government can still discuss with the authorities of USA, UK, Germany ,Canada, Australia and Sweden as to how their constitution have accommodated, both, democracy and immigrants in their country. Suu Kyi had studied in UK and lived long enough to see how immigrants have merged with British citizen, have a secured life and contributes towards national development.
Now Aung San Suu Kyi, should be to reminded of some lines from her Noble Lecture, that she delivered in 2012 “For me receiving the Noble Peace Prize means personally extending my concern for democracy and human rights…..War is not the only arena where peace is done to death. Wherever sufferings are ignored there will be seeds of conflict, for suffering degrades and embitters and enrages.”

There are 646,000(and more are still fleeing) Rohingya Muslims, who fled from Myanmar because of atrocities by your military, and they are terribly suffering in different refugee camps in Bangladesh. What can you as Noble Laureate do to alleviate their sufferings? Will the Myanmar government act positively to solve this humanitarian crisis? The world is waiting to see.

Sanctions Fever: The Trump Administration And Human Rights

Binoy Kampmark

It’s the season to be jolly, and the Trump administration has been busy doling out gifts.  Sanctions seem to be top of the pile, derived from that trove of options outlined in the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.  The law, initially introduced in 2012, targets the bank assets of those unfortunate enough to make it to the US Treasurer’s list.

“Today,” went the US Treasury press release, “the Trump administration launched a new sanctions regime targeting human rights abusers and corrupt actors around the world.”  As is the nature of Trumpist language, every executive order to expand existing legislation resembles a grand proclamation, an event of momentous significance.  At the very least, the president insists that he is coping with a “national emergency”, a good cover for mere flatulence.

Secretary of Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin was trying to get comfortable on his high horse.  “Today, the United States is taking a strong stand against human rights abuse and corruption globally by shutting these bad actors out of the US financial system.” Assets were being frozen; names were being shamed for “the egregious acts they’ve committed”.

Thirteen individuals were singled out in the Annex to the December 21 Executive Order. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sprigged the order with an additional 39 associated individuals and entities to the sanctions list.

Many of the names are hard to defend as subjects of human kindness.  There is Yahya Jammed, former President of Gambia, the man behind an assassination squad known as the Junglers.  There is Maung Maung Soe, formerly chief of the Burmese Army’s Western command, instrumental in cleansing Rakhine State of its Rohingya population.  But then come more problematic characters, largely on the basis that they resemble, in its most direct way, the American way of life: loot, extend, expand.

There is Slobodan Tesic, notorious dealer of arms and munitions in the Balkans known for his power to persuade. (A large bank balance helps with clients actual and potential.)  There is the ruthless Dan Gertler, who made a bundle in oil and mining deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Most of all, such an approach, combining sanctions with supposedly moral rectitude, seems mismatched.  This is a point that has riled Beijing in particular.  Gao Yan, director of the Beijing Public Security Bureau Chaoyang Branch, is singled out for his mistreatment of human rights activist Cao Shunli.  Cao’s tragic demise from organ failure whilst being detained at the bureau is grim, but hardly presents a case for US authorities to gloat.  The US record on its own prisoners is, by whatever standard, fairly atrocious.

The Chinese approach to the matter of human rights resembles a dodderer in search of a cane, a case of pure gradualism.  We will eventually make to the venue, but we will take time.  “We urge the United States,” came the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Hua Chunying, “to impartially and objectively look upon China’s human-rights development and to stop acting as a so-called human-rights judge.”  Do not, she suggested, use domestic jurisprudence to determine how best to sanction foreign nationals.

The Chinese record on human rights is bloodied and spotty, but the US has afforded ample ammunition to those keen on shifting the focus from Beijing to the ailing nature of the American Republic.

China’s State Council has been particularly florid on this score.  “With the gunshots lingering in people’s ears behind the Statue of Liberty, worsening racial discrimination and the election farce dominated by money politics, the self-proclaimed human rights defender has exposed its human rights ‘myth’ with its own deeds.”

A Trump White House is essentially the last thing compatible with a human rights agenda.  Its enthusiastic brown nosing with members of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, notably in terms of its own foreign policy forays, would make the most reserved of activists redden with fury.

Then come the domestic abuses that have become routine.  Be it Muslims, Mexicans or migrants in general, Trump has made such subjects the capital of political gain.  Denigration sits poorly with human rights protections, but the transactional nature of Trump’s policy will always evaluate such rights in the context of gain rather than actual value.

The one thing that gives cold comfort here is the transparency of such exercises. Trump has overturned a longstanding US hypocrisy on the subject of human rights, a form of weaponized hypocrisy that ignores its own failings.  “The United States,” went the council report, “repeatedly trampled on human rights in other countries and wilfully slaughtered innocent victims.” That’s what having a drone fleet is bound to do.

The true harm being done in such skirmishes is to human rights itself.  These actions, faux recriminations and fabricated moments of fury, testify to the essential irrelevance of human rights in the international system.  Power remains the currency that makes the relevant sounds, and this tailors well with President Trump’s real estate brutishness.

Then there is the necessity of appearance.  Slapping sanctions on the notorious and criminal gives the impression of progress, indignation via executive order.  Reports condemning the record of abuses of a country seek to stimulate domestic interest and satisfy the rights lobbies. In truth, Beijing and Washington have little appetite for moralising in substance.  There are deals to be done, and competition to be engaged in.

Let Yemenis Live

Kathy Kelly

On May 2, 2017, before becoming Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, as Minister of Defense, spoke about the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen, a war he orchestrated since March of 2015. “A long war is in our interest,” he said, explaining that the Houthi rebels would eventually run out of cash, lack external supplies and break apart. Conversely, the Saudis could count on a steady flow of cash and weapons. “Time is on our side,” he concluded.

Powerful people in the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Senegal and Jordan have colluded with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince to prolong the war against Yemen. The Saudis have employed Sudanese fighters from the terrifying Janjaweed militias to fight in small cities along Yemen’s coast line. The seeming objective is to gain ground control leading to the vital Port of Hodeidah. UAE military are reported to operate a network of secret prisons where Yemenis disappear and are tortured, deterring people from speaking up about human rights violations lest they land in one of these dreaded prisons.

Among the most powerful warlords participating in the war are the U.S. and the UK.

Despite the recent publicity for stern words from Donald Trump and Theresa May, urging Saudi Arabia to lift its blockade of Yemen, both countries continue to pocket billions of dollars selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. President Trump swiftly condemned the Houthi fighters for firing several rockets at Saudi Arabia and the UAE. But the Houthis could claim to be using these weapons in self-defense after Saudi and UAE jets have dropped tons of bombs, purchased from the U.S. and the UK, on Yemeni cities and civilians. Observers say if the U.S. stopped its midair refueling of Saudi bomber planes, the war would end shortly thereafter. Yet, the U.S continues these military operations. The UK still supplies the Saudis with surveillance, and both countries work to maintain a comfortable relationship with the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Just over 1,000 days of Saudi-led coalition war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen has been deadly and devastating for Yemeni civilians.

Mark Lowcock, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Yemen, says that 7 – 8 million Yemenis are one step away from starvation. The BBC reports that more than 80% of Yemenis lack food, fuel, water and access to health care.

The number of suspected cholera cases in Yemen has reached one million, according to the International Commission of the Red Cross.

1.8 million children in Yemen are acutely malnourished, including 400,000 under the age of five who suffer from severe acute malnutrition. Malnourished children are also at increased risk of dying from infectious diseases.

Like the children of Iraq who perished by the hundreds of thousands during U.S. led economic war against Iraq, these little ones in Yemen mean harm to no one. They’ve done nothing to deserve punishment. Yet, they will pay the price for abysmally failed policies. The food and clean water they hunger and thirst for could reach them, but not if powerful elites decide it’s acceptable to blockade Yemen’s ports, bomb roadways, destroy sewage and sanitation systems, attack fishermen and farmers, and even kill participants at a wedding celebration.

After dancing in Saudi Arabia with Mohammed bin Salman and other Saudi princes, President Trump set in motion a $110 billion-dollar weapons deal.

Boeing, Raytheon, and other military contractors already benefiting from this deal will likely agree with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman: a long war is in their best interests.

But, ordinary people who prefer not to be represented by vicious warlords and who face no risk of torture, disappearance or other frightening punishments (people like me for instance) have a responsibility to speak up visibly and clearly. Time is running out for the children of Yemen. The Crown Prince is mistaken. Any war, long or short, may seem to favor the perpetrators, but in the long run wars sow seeds of revenge, retaliation, hatred and death. Real courage requires control over our fears and mutual agreements to protect the most vulnerable among us. Especially the children.

Anita Borg Systers Pass-It-On (PIO) Awards for Women in the Fields of Technology 2018

Application Deadline: 28th March, 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Online

Eligible Field of Study: Fields of technology

About the Award: The cash awards, funded by donations from the Systers Online Community and others, are intended as means for women established in technological fields to support women seeking their place in the fields of technology. The program is called “Pass-It-On” because it comes with the moral obligation to “pass on” the benefits gained from the award.

Type: Awards

Eligibility: 

• Pass-it-on Award applications are open to any woman over 18 years old in or aspiring to be in the fields of computing.
• Awards are open to women in all countries

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Award: Awards are open to women in all countries and range from $500.00 to $1000.00 USD. Applications covering a wide variety of needs and projects are encouraged, such as:

• Small amount to help with studies, job transfers or other transitions in life.
• A broader project that benefits girls and women.
• Projects that seek to inspire more girls and women to go into the computing field.
• Assistance with educational fees and materials.
• Partial funding source for larger scholarship.
• Mentoring and other supportive groups for women in technology or computing.

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: Anita Borg Institute

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Masters Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019 – Sweden

Application Deadline: 15th January, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Sweden

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To be eligible to apply you

• must be a tuition-fee paying student
• must have applied for a Master’s programme at KTH as your first priority.
• Students with a conditional eligibility are eligible to apply for a scholarship.
• KTH Scholarships are not available for applicants to Erasmus Mundus and EIT Master’s programmes.

Selection Criteria: The selection process will be undertaken in parallel with the selection process for admission to the programme. The scholarship will be granted primarily on the basis of academic excellence. Only applicants who fulfil the eligibility requirements of the programme applied for will be considered for a scholarship. After each of the applicants has been assessed in accordance to the selection process for their respective programmes, an overall assessment of all recommended applicants for the KTH Scholarships will be made based on the following criteria:

• The applicant’s grades (GPA or equivalent)
• The ranking of the university where the applicant’s Bachelor’s degree was awarded
• The selection process and the recommendation of the Director of the applied Master’s programme
• The applicant’s motivation, relevant work experience and extra-curricular activities

Number of Awardees: 30

Value of Scholarship: 100% tuition fee waiver. The scholarship is applied to the tuition fee at KTH and does not include a cost of living allowance.

Duration of Scholarship: 2 years

How to Apply: Apply for KTH Scholarship

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm

Important Notes: If you are applying to the following joint programmes you must apply for the scholarship here according to the same instructions as for the KTH Scholarship.

• Master’s Programme in Molecular Techniques in Life Science
• Master’s Programme in Turbomachinery Aeromechanical University Training (THRUST)

King Baudouin African Development Prize for African Individuals and Organisations (€200.000 prize money) 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st March 2018

Offered Annually? Every 2 years

Eligible Countries: African countries

Type: Award

Eligibility: 

• The submission of a candidate’s file may only be undertaken by a nominator. The selection committee will not consider applications by individuals who are applying for the Prize themselves or for an organization within which they are active.
• The Prize will be awarded to Africans or organisations which are founded or led by Africans.

Selection Criteria: 

• Does the candidate have concrete realizations under his belt?
• Are they innovative and exemplary?
• Are they capable of being duplicated elsewhere on the continent?
• Is there a long-term vision?
• Is the financial management healthy and transparent?
• Are the initiatives embedded at local level ?
• Do they take into account the gender perspective?
• Are the initiatives directed at all actors of society (inclusiveness)?

Value of Award: € 200.000

How to Apply: 

COMPLETE YOUR APPLICATION FORM ONLINE

• How to submit an application form online? View video

• If you are not very familiar with computers: 02-500 4 555 or proj@kbs-frb.be.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers:  King Baudouin African Development Prize

Penn-UNESCO Fellowships for Developing Country Scholars 2018

Application Deadline: 1st April 2018

Eligible Countries: Low-income and Lower-middle-income countries. See List below

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

About the Award: This Fellowship, under the auspices of the International Educational Development Program (IEDP), is the first of its kind in the U.S., and is designed to support promising professionals devoted to international education in the developing world. A first Fellow was accepted for the Fall 2011 cohort.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Priority will be given to applicants who are citizens of countries defined by the World Bank as low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Naturalized US citizens and permanent residents who originate from low-income and lower-middle-income countries (i.e., were born in one of these countries and whose parents are not US citizens) may also apply.

Number of Awards: 2

Value of Award: The Fellowship covers all Penn tuition (up to 10 course units) associated with the IEDP Masters Degree program of study. The Fellowship does not cover other costs associated with attending graduate school, such as room and board, books, health insurance, travel, etc.

Duration of Program: 1 year

How to Apply: Application will be open soon.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education

Shanghai Government Scholarship for Bachelors, Masters and PhD International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 30th April, 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): China

Eligible Field of Study:

1. Bachelor’s degree programs
2. Master’s degree programs (except MBA and MTCSOL*)
   • Note: MBA is short for Master of Business Administration;
   • MTCSOL refers to Master of Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages.
3. Doctoral degree programs

Type: Bachelors, Masters and PhD

Eligibility: 

1. Be a non-Chinese citizen in good health.
2. Not be an enrolled degree student in Chinese universities at the time of application.
3. Be a high school graduate under the age of 25 when applying for the undergraduate programs;
4. Be a master’s degree holder under the age of 40 when applying for doctoral programs.
5. Be a bachelor’s degree holder under the age of 35 when applying for master’s programs.
6. Be excellent in academic and extra-curricular performance and yet not be rewarded any other scholarships offered by Chinese govern

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship covers tuition waiver and comprehensive medical insurance for bachelor’s students; it covers tuition waiver, accommodation, stipend, and comprehensive medical insurance for master’s students and doctoral students.

Duration of Scholarship: 

1. Bachelor’s Degree Program: 4 to 5 years
2. Master’s degree programs: 2 to 3 years
3. Doctoral degree programs: 3 to 4 years

How to Apply: 

• 1. Application Form for Shanghai Government Scholarship: Please visit http://www.study-shanghai.org/ and click“Application Online” to log in, submit online the completed “Application Form for Shanghai Government Scholarship” and print a hard copy.
• 2. Application Form for Enrollment: Please visit http://ao.sufe.edu.cn/ and click“Application Online” to log in, submit online the completed “Application Form for Enrollment” and print a hard copy.
• 3. Notarized highest diploma: Prospective diploma recipients must submit official document issued by your current school to prove your current student status or expected graduation date. Documents in languages other than Chinese or English must be attached with notarized Chinese or English translations.
• 4. Academic transcripts (written in Chinese or English): Transcripts in languages other than Chinese or English must be attached with notarized Chinese or English translations.
• 5. A Study Plan or Research Proposal (written inChinese): This should be aminimum of 800 words.
• 6. Two Recommendation Letters (written in Chinese orEnglish): Applicants must submit two recommendation letters signed by a professor or an associate professor.
• 7. Foreigner Physical Examination Form (photocopy) The physical examinations must cover all of the items listed in the Foreigner Physical Examination Form.pdf. Incomplete forms or forms without the signature of the attending physician, or the official stamp of the hospital, or a sealed photograph of the applicant are considered as invalid. Please carefully plan your physical examination schedule as the result is valid for only 6 months.
• 8. The copy of valid HSK level 5 or 6 Certificate
• 9. The copy of your valid passport
• 10. Application Fee: 415 yuan for bachelor’s students; 830 yuan for master’s students and doctoral students (Fees paid are not refundable).

You should send a set of bound application documents to Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (SUFE) by post before April 30th,2018. No application documents will be returned.

If you have further questions, please contact us by email: ices@mail.sufe.edu.cn

mailing address:

Room 102, Admission Office ICES SUFE

No.369 Zhongshan Beiyi Road, Shanghai, China

Post code: 200083

TEL: +86-21-65361944; +86-65360382

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Shanghai government

The War on Iraq’s Children

Cesar Chelala

Iraqi children have been the victims of the country’s dire political situation even before the start of the war led by the U.S. The negative effects on children started with the harsh United Nations sanctions against the regime of Saddam Hussein, and were considerably aggravated by the war, whose consequences are still felt.

Even now, hardly a week passes in Iraq without signs of violence leaving both children and adults with permanent physical and mental scars. Experts such as Dr. Haithi Al Sady from the Psychological Research Center at Baghdad University have warned of the high number of children suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

PTSD can have devastating effects on children’s brains, negatively affecting their development. It can lead to a decrease in the area of the brain known as hippocampus, which is critical for memory processing and emotion. In addition, if not treated, PTSD can lead to a wide variety of mental health problems later in life.

Most Iraqi children with mental health problems will be untreated, since the number of child psychiatrists in the country is insufficient to deal with those who need assistance. Dr. Haidr al-Maliki, who was an army psychiatrist during Saddam Hussein’s regime, now works as a child psychiatrist at Ab Ibn Rushed Hospital in Baghdad. He is one of the very few remaining child psychiatrists in the country.

A UNICEF report, “Nowhere to Go,” details the effects of continuing violence on Iraqi children. According to this report, 5 million children out of a total child population of 20 million are in need of humanitarian assistance. One in five children have stunted growth  and over 7 percent of children under 5-years-old suffer from wasting, a disease which causes muscle and fat tissue to “waste” away.

Children are exposed to heavy metals and neurotoxins resulting from bomb explosions and other ammunition, since those weapons affect not only those targeted but all those living nearby. In addition, contamination from Depleted Uranium and other military-related pollution is probably the cause of the rise in congenital birth defects and cancer. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, an Iranian toxicologist, has found “alarming” levels of lead in the “baby” or “deciduous” teeth of Iraqi children with birth defects

War and continuing violence in the country have had a serious impact on children’s education. According to UNICEF studies, 3 million children do not attend school on a regular basis, and 1.2 million children are out of school. In addition, half of all schools in Iraq are in need of urgent repairs.

The water and sanitation infrastructure, damaged by heavy bombings and not yet repaired has led to a weakened health care system that puts children’s health and survival into jeopardy. At least 70 percent of displaced children (from a total 1.5 million displaced children) have missed a full year of school. Children with disabilities do not have access to education.

Between January 2014 and May 2017 1,075 children were killed and 1,130 were maimed or injured. In addition, 231 children were recruited into the fighting. Despite laws against child labor, large numbers of children are compelled to work to be able to fulfill their own basic needs and to help their families.

The US-British occupying forces and the Iraqi government have failed to fulfill their most basic duties towards the children of Iraq, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Iraq, Great Britain and the US have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, although the US is the only stable country in the world that has not ratified it The other two countries are Somalia and South Sudan.

There is a moral imperative to help Iraqi children lead normal lives. The US-led war has caused tremendous damage to the public health infrastructure and to the social fabric in the country. Although the war against Iraq has ended, the ruthless attack against Iraqi children continues.

Nuclear Betrayal in the UK

Oliver Tickell

It seems like a long time ago now: the Conservative party’s catastrophic 2017 election manifesto. Yes, the one that promised a new care home tax on the elderly, and an end to the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. And that went on to turn Teresa May’s repeated mantra of ‘strong and stable’ government into hubris of the first order as she lost her overall majority in Parliament.

But not everything in the manifesto was a disaster. Indeed it contained one excellent policy – on energy. Remarkably – given the long-standing Tory obsession with nuclear power – the word ‘nuclear’ did not appear once in the entire document.

Solar auction

Instead the manifesto insists that a future Tory government would remain utterly indifferent to how electricity is generated, so long as it’s reliable, cheap and low carbon. “Above all, we believe that energy policy should be focused on outcomes rather than the means by which we reach our objectives,” it read.

“So, after we have left the European Union, we will form our energy policy based not on the way energy is generated but on the ends we desire – reliable and affordable energy, seizing the industrial opportunity that new technology presents and meeting our global commitments on climate change …

“We want to make sure that the cost of energy in Britain is internationally competitive, both for businesses and households … Our ambition is that the UK should have the lowest energy costs in Europe, both for households and businesses. So as we upgrade our energy infrastructure, we will do it in an affordable way, consistent with that ambition.”

This sounded good to the green brigade because renewable energy prices, in the UK and elsewhere, have been hitting new lows. In a September 2017 contract auction, two offshore wind projects came in at a record low price of £57.50 / megawatt hour (MWh).

Onshore wind costs even less: contracts awarded in Germany in May went as low as €42.80 / MWh (£38.24) – less than the UK’s wholesale power market price. And in October, Germany’s solar auction delivered bids as low as €42.90 / MWh – just a few pence higher than onshore wind.

Reactor designs

It is also clear that new nuclear plants are an incredibly costly way of generating power. Hinkley C, now under construction at Hinkley Point in Somerset, is set to receive a guaranteed £92.50 / MWh, for 35 years. That’s in 2013 money, so is now worth around £100.

With current wholesale power prices around £40-45 per MWh, that’s one hell of a deal for its developers, France’s EDF and its Chinese partner, CGN. But even at this price, many analysts think EDF should walk away from the project, such are its technical and financial risks.

So now we have power from onshore wind, solar and offshore wind all much cheaper than new nuclear. So we can safely assume that the UK government has seen the writing on the wall and dumped hyper-costly nuclear power in favour of increasingly low-cost renewables, can’t we?

No: its nuclear obsession continues unabated. The Tories’ election manifesto – which some old-fashioned ‘my word is my bond’ types might view as part of a binding covenant between government and electorate – is clearly only so much chip paper to the incumbent technocrats.

Instead, we see a renewed determination to press ahead with massive nuclear power construction no matter what the cost. In addition to the twin EPR’s at Hinkley Point C, the government is pushing ahead with plans to build reactors at Moorside in Cumbria, at Wylfa on Anglesey, at Bradwell on the Essex coast, at Oldfield in Gloucestershire, at Sizewell on the Suffolk coast – employing surprisingly diverse reactor designs.

Design enhancements

These include the Westinghouse’s AP1000, Hitachi’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR), China General Nuclear’s Hualong HPR1000, and South Korean group Kepco’s APR1400.

In total, the government wants to procure 19GW of new nuclear power, much of it to be operational by 2030 as the UK prepares to close some 10 gigawatts (GW = 1,000 MW) of existing nuclear capacity. But that’s not the limit of its nuclear ambitions.

Business Secretary Greg Clarke recently announced that the winner of a competion for a new generation of ‘small modular reactors’ (SMRs), an industrial consortium led by Rolls Royce, will receive an initial £100 million from taxpayers to progress its project to design and manufacture reactors around a tenth the size of the 1.2GW behemoths to be deployed at Hinkley Point.

The idea is that these SMRs will be built by the hundreds on production lines, and installed in urban fringes across the UK, achieving ‘process engineering’ improvements and enormous economies of scale. But the policy suggests the triumph of hope over experience.

The first SMRs were built in the 1950 and hundreds have been installed in nuclear powered submarines and other ships since. If there were huge cost savings available from design enhancements and production-line construction, why have the last 65 years of nuclear engineering enhancements failed to deliver them already?

New nuclear

The truth is that nuclear reactors have got ever bigger for a very simple reason – that it’s cheaper that way, a fact recently confirmed in a July 2016 analysis by Atkins consultants for Clarke’s BEIS Department which revealed that the first SMRs would probably cost 30 percent more to build than existing large nuclear designs.

Only after 5-8 GW – that’s 50 – 80 100 MW units – had been deployed might the price finally be competitive with the large reactor designs that are already way too expensive. “SMRs could become cost competitive against large nuclear after 5-8 GWe of global deployment of a single design”, states the report.

The report goes on to estimate a ‘net present value’ (NPV) of a 2 GW UK SMR programme, compared to large nuclear, of minus £4.8 billion – indicating a likely thumping loss of taxpayers funds. And even that strongly negative assessment depends on generating improbably high SMR exports of 300MW to 750MW per year.

The same volume of offshore wind – even based on 2015/16 prices of around £100 / MWh, almost double the lowest achieved in 2017 – delivered a plus £400 million NPV.

So what’s the likely bill to tax payers and energy users of all this new nuclear power? Assuming an average 2030 wholesale power price (constrained by zero marginal cost wind and solar) at roughly today’s level of £40, an average nuclear power price of £100 (both in today’s money), new nuclear will need a subsidy of £60 / MWh.

Jobs and pensions

Assuming the nuclear plants work flat out for 90% of the time, 19GW will deliver 150 million MWh of power per year, earning £9 billion in support payments. Split over Britain’s 25 million homes, that comes to about £360 extra on energy bills each per year.

Assuming 35 year contracts for nuclear (as at Hinkley C) rather than the 15 year contracts given to most renewables generators, the bill comes to a total £315 billion ‘nuclear tax’ to be paid by British power users. That’s a massive £12,600 per household.

So here’s the key question: how can a government that has declared in its election manifesto its commitment to delivering the lowest cost power in Europe, and its utter impartiality in deciding between any one power generation technology over any other, justify an obsessively pro-nuclear energy policy that could land every household in Britain with a £12,600 ‘nuclear tax’?

No less pertinent a question is: where is the political opposition to this nuclear madness? Despite a stinging critique of Hinkley C from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee last month, The Labour party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn have been notably silent on the issue, apparently under the influence of the big nuclear sector unions, GMB and Unite.

But at least that’s consistent with its manifesto statement, which states that: “The UK has the world’s oldest nuclear industry, and nuclear will continue to be part of the UK energy supply. We will support further nuclear projects and protect nuclear workers’ jobs and pensions. There are considerable opportunities for nuclear power and decommissioning both internationally and domestically.”

Democratic process

The LibDems, who were strongly against nuclear power until they joined the Tories in coalition government in 2010, were then hugely for it in office. Now it appears the party has turned against it again.

Its manifesto promised to “accept that new nuclear power stations can play a role in electricity supply provided concerns about safety, disposal of waste and cost are adequately addressed, new technology is incorporated, and there is no public subsidy for new build.”

And since the public subsidies are enormous, that means the LibDems should be fiercely opposing the government’s plans. But – with the recent exception of former energy secretary Ed Davey MP, talking good sense this week on Greenpeace’s Unearthed – they too are keeping quiet about the monstrous subsidies the Tories are ready to throw at nuclear power.

This leaves the UK is now suffering something arguably even worse than a disastrously ill-judged energy policy: a total failure of democratic process and governance that will cost us this country dear for half a century or more to come.