Signs of turbulence in stock markets

Nick Beams

Volatility appears to be returning to the US and global stock markets after rapid rises over the past month, with markets experiencing their best start to a new year since 1987.

There was a sell-off at the start of the week, with the US market recording its biggest two-day decline since September 2016. Markets finished up on Wednesday after ups and downs during the course of the day, but a downward movement could resume.

The main immediate factor in the fall appears to have been the decline in bond prices and the consequent rise in interest rates (bond prices and interest rates have an inverse relationship).

The yield on the benchmark 10-year US Treasury bond is around 2.7 percent, a level which had not been expected until later in the year, with the 3 percent level seen as a significant turning point for financial markets.

The rise in the Treasury bond yield is being driven by the expectation that the US Federal Reserve will continue its policy of lifting its base interest rate and that other major central banks will start to pull back on their quantitative easing policies, which have sent interest rates to record lows, during the course of the year.

On Wednesday, the Fed’s open market committee meeting, the last held under outgoing chairwoman Janet Yellen, kept its base interest rate at between 1.25 and 1.5 percent, as expected, but indicated in its statement that “further” interest rate rises lay ahead. At this point, the Fed is expected to raise rates three times during the course of the year, the first rise coming in March, with another increase possible in June.

Another factor working to push up interest rates in the longer term is the expected increase in the level of US debt, largely to pay for the massive tax cuts of the Trump administration, which could lift the annual growth in US debt from its present level of $700 billion towards the $1 trillion mark. More bonds on the market to finance the debt imply lower prices and a higher interest rate.

The major concern in financial markets is that a rise in bond yields could see an end to the rise in stock prices and even set off a major downturn.

As an article in Bloomberg noted: “For many, 3 percent is the breaking point at which corporate financing costs would get too expensive, the equity market would lose its luster and growth momentum would fade.”

A similar view was expressed in the Financial Times. “Some investors and analysts are now questioning how long bond yields can continue to rise without puncturing the euphoria in global stock markets,” it commented. Rising bond yield make borrowing more expensive, “potentially straining companies that have been relying on cheap money to grow.”

Since the global financial crisis of 2008, financial markets have been elevated to record highs by the injection of trillions of dollars by central banks—a policy which has seen the price of assets soaring, returning vast fortunes to the corporate and financial elites.

But there is a fear that if there is a rapid increase in rates as a result of the “normalisation” of monetary policy, then this financial house of cards could come crashing down.

This week Industry Super Australia, the peak body for the country’s industry superannuation funds, issued what could be described as something of a “canary in the coal mine” warning.

It said unsustainable house prices, which have been driven up by ultra-low interest rates, had put the country “at the precipice” of a once-in-a-century bust if global borrowing costs rose by more than 1.5 percentage points.

According to the ISA’s chief economist Stephen Anthony, house prices in the two main cities of Sydney and Melbourne rose to nearly seven times average weekly earnings last year from four times earnings in 2000. “In the 2000s it has gone ballistic, to a point where it looks unsustainable,” he told the Australian Financial Review .

Anthony noted that US long-term interest rates, as reflected in the bond markets, had risen by 40 basis points (a 0.4 percentage point increase) since Christmas and “once you start getting a 150 basis-point-plus” rate increase then “a lot of these highly-exposed households are in significant trouble.”

Such a rise would not only have a severe impact on families straining under huge mortgages—the median price for a house in Sydney is more than $1.1 million—but would hit investors who are dependent on cheap money.

Another factor which could lead to growing financial market instability is the outbreak of trade war, sparked by the aggressive “America First” policies of the Trump administration.

Trump did not say a great deal about trade in his State of the Union address delivered on Tuesday night, but what he did say was significant. Hailing a “New America Moment” he declared that the “era of economic surrender is over.”

The US had “finally turned the page on decades of unfair trade deals that sacrificed our prosperity and shipped away our companies, our jobs and our nation’s wealth.”

Much of Trump’s fire has been directed against China, but Trump used his speech to take a shot at Europe. “I’ve had a lot of problems with the European Union, and it may morph into something very big,” he said, “from a trade standpoint.”

A spokesman for the EU said on Monday it was ready to “react swiftly and appropriately in case our exports are affected by any restrictive trade measures from the United States.”

Last week, the US imposed major tariffs on the imports of solar panels and washing machines, prompting intense opposition from Chinese solar panel makers and South Korean washing machine manufacturers.

Further measures are in the pipeline, with the administration actively considering whether to impose protection for US aluminium and steel industries under national security legislation.

Currency movements may also lead to financial destabilisation. Last week European Central Bank President Mario Draghi took issue with comments by US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that a lower US dollar assisted American exporters. While not naming Mnuchin or the Trump administration, Draghi said such comments contravened agreements reached at the International Monetary Fund that countries should seek to avoid engaging in competitive devaluation of their currency.

Major global institutions, such as the IMF and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, have welcomed the upturn in global economic growth but have warned that it could be disrupted by conflicts over trade and currencies.

Russian-backed Syrian peace talks reach deal on constitution as US discusses escalating conflict

Jordan Shilton

At Russian-sponsored peace talks on the Syrian conflict held this week in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, participants reached a deal to negotiate a new constitution for the war-ravaged country. A day after the conclusion of the talks, which were boycotted by the United States, France and Britain, the Trump administration raised new and unsubstantiated claims that the Assad regime is developing chemical weapons, raising the prospect of yet another American military attack.

The agreement will give Russia, Turkey and Iran, the three countries backing the Sochi dialogue, significant influence in shaping the constitutional committee. The three countries will each provide a list of 50 nominees from which committee members will be selected. Syria’s High Negotiating Committee (HNC), the UN-recognised opposition group, will also have representation.

HNC representatives refused to attend the conference, claiming they were being excluded from the process. They remained at the airport in protest after being confronted with the use of the current Syrian flag and other symbols of the Assad regime in advertising for the gathering. There were even divisions at the gathering itself, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov being heckled during his remarks.

The presence at the talks of the UN’s Syria envoy, Staffan de Mistura, was an acknowledgement of the weakened position of the US and its Western allies in Syria, where the Assad regime has relied on support from Russia and Iran to remain in power. If the next round of UN talks in Geneva accepts the proposal to negotiate a new constitution, it will be interpreted as a victory for Moscow at Washington’s expense, since the future of the Assad regime will be deferred until a later date.

But whatever the result of future talks, it will do nothing to resolve the rapidly intensifying imperialist and great power rivalries that are intertwined with the Syrian conflict and stretch across the entire Middle East region. The US, under Obama, incited the Syrian civil war in 2011, which has claimed over half a million lives, with the aim of bringing about regime change in Damascus. This was part of a longer-term strategy, launched with the first Gulf War over a quarter century ago, to consolidate its unchallenged control over the energy-rich and strategically important Middle East against its main competitors, Russia and China. The US-instigated wars have claimed the lives of millions of people and forced millions more from their homes.

The Trump administration acknowledged the true character of the Syrian intervention with last month’s National Defence Strategy, which openly proclaimed the chief threat to US imperialist interests not to be the bogus “war on terror,” which has been used to justify a series of criminal wars since 9/11, but the growing danger of great power conflicts.

Washington has manifestly failed to achieve its goals in Syria and throughout the Middle East. Not only has Russia, determined to prevent the collapse of its chief Middle East ally, expanded its presence in Syria, but Iran has also broadened its regional influence and come close to opening up a land bridge from Tehran to Lebanon. In addition, divisions have sharpened between the US and its erstwhile European allies, which, led by Germany, are ever more openly advancing their own imperialist ambitions in the Middle East independently of the US.

A breach has also opened between the US and its ostensible NATO ally Turkey. As talks opened in Sochi, fighting continued to rage throughout the Kurdish enclave of Afrin in northern Syria, close to Turkey’s border. Last month, President Recip Tayyip Erdogan ordered Turkish forces into Syria to force Kurdish units aligned with the Democratic Unity Party (PYD) out of Afrin and the border areas. Turkey views the PYD fighters as the Syrian section of the Kurdistan Workers Party, against which Ankara has waged a bloody crackdown for over three decades.

The fighting is increasingly pitting Turkish forces and their Free Syrian Army allies against the Kurdish militants, who have been trained and supplied by US troops. Although Washington attempted to avoid a direct clash between NATO allies by cynically declaring that the Kurdish fighters in Afrin are not US allies, it warned Turkey not to attack Kurdish forces in the city of Manbij to the east, where US special forces are stationed. Erdogan has repeatedly indicated his intention to move Turkish forces to Manbij as part of a push to clear the PYD fighters out of the border region and prevent the establishment of a Kurdish-controlled zone on Ankara’s doorstep.

Assad’s forces are also carrying out an onslaught on Islamist militants in Idlib province that has claimed an estimated 200 civilian lives over recent weeks.

Under these highly volatile conditions, which even the New York Timesadmitted in a January 31 editorial could trigger a wider regional war, the US ruling elite is discussing ways to further escalate the conflict in order to prevent Washington from being side-lined. Last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson delivered remarks in which he committed the US to permanently stationing military personnel in Syria.

Casting aside the fraudulent pretext for the US presence in Syria—to combat ISIS—Tillerson denounced Iran and Russia for expanding their influence in the country. He also vowed that the US would rely on Islamist proxies, including remnants of ISIS, in the east of the country to block Iranian expansion.

In what amounts to a deliberate provocation, and an attempt to scuttle the Russian-backed talks, anonymous Trump administration officials briefed the media Thursday with unverified claims that the Assad regime is developing a new chemical weapons arsenal. They also accused Syria of producing new weapons to escape international regulations.

Allegations of chemical weapons production or use have invariably been employed by Washington to ratchet up war tensions and launch military strikes. Last April, Trump seized on reports of an alleged chemical weapons attack by the regime, an incident which remains shrouded in mystery, to justify the raining down of 55 cruise missiles on a military base.

That a similar or even more deadly attack could well be in the works was indicated by the remarks of one of the officials, who said, “It will spread if we don’t do something.”

Moreover, the latest unproven allegations come as substantial sections of the ruling elite are urging the Trump administration to adopt an even more aggressive line towards the Syria conflict and the wider Middle East.

The Times ’ January 31 editorial attacked the Trump administration’s Syria policy, proclaiming in the arrogant tone of imperialist conquerors that the US is “shirking its responsibility for Syria’s political future.” “As the Turks and Kurds face off, Mr. Assad is pushing to reassert control over Syria, while Russia and Iran maneuver to ensure they will have a permanent presence and influence in the country,” the Times concluded.

In other words, if the US continues to “shirk its responsibility,” i.e., fail to deploy a military force large enough to secure Washington’s neo-colonial domination over the region and, if necessary, go to war with Russia and Iran, other powers will take advantage of the power vacuum that will emerge in the Middle East to push back American imperialism.

An article published in Politico Magazine by Charles Lister and William Wechsler, both senior fellows at the Washington-based Middle East Institute think tank, argued along similar lines. The real issue, they bluntly declared, was not so much Syria but control over the wider region and the exclusion of potential rivals.

While they praised Trump and Tillerson for permanently deploying American military might to Syria, Lister and Wechsler warned, “As with Obama—who declared in 2011 that Assad must go yet consistently rejected calls for a more assertive approach—there is no indication that Trump’s team has developed or begun to implement a strategy to match its grand goals, nor that it plans to deploy the resources necessary to accomplish them.”

What Lister and Wechsler are calling for is the all-out mobilisation of the US war machine for a conflict which would not only engulf the long-suffering Middle East in a new conflagration, but rapidly draw in Washington’s imperialist and regional rivals into a catastrophic war that would dwarf the two world wars of the last century.

Washington prepares new escalation as Afghanistan unravels

Bill Van Auken

The Trump administration is preparing to deploy at least 1,000 more US troops to Afghanistan over the coming months amid mounting signs that the 16-year-old US war and occupation is confronting its gravest crisis since the invasion of October 2001.

In his first State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, US President Donald Trump boasted of having given “our warriors in Afghanistan ... new rules of engagement.” He continued, “Along with their heroic Afghan partners, our military is no longer undermined by artificial timelines, and we no longer tell our enemies our plans.”

To put it more bluntly, with the Afghanistan war now in its 17th year, there is no end in sight. The “new rules of engagement” have included a tripling of the number of US airstrikes against the country in 2017 compared to the previous year, leading to a sharp increase in civilian casualties, most of them women and children. The number of US troops, including “advisers” operating with Afghan units and special forces units participating in search and destroy operations against insurgents, is increasing from approximately 11,000 to over 15,000.

The increased carnage, however, has done nothing to stabilize Afghanistan’s corrupt and impotent government or to reverse the territorial gains made by the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

The inability of Afghan security forces and their US “advisers” to secure even the most heavily guarded zones of the capital of Kabul has been underscored over the past two weeks in a series of spectacular attacks. These included a January 21 assault on the luxury Intercontinental Hotel that killed 22 people, including 14 foreigners, a suicide bombing last weekend that claimed the lives of 103 people and wounded another 200 at a police checkpoint near foreign diplomatic missions and government buildings and an armed assault on Monday against Afghanistan's military academy in Kabul in which at least a dozen soldiers died.

As for Trump’s assertion that “we no longer tell our enemies our plans,” this policy found its genuine expression with the release Tuesday of the latest quarterly report of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), which said that the Pentagon had refused to provide key data on the war. The agency reported that it had been “informed that DOD [Department of Defense] has determined that although the most recent numbers are unclassified, they are not releasable to the public.”

Withheld were both estimates as to the extent of control exercised by government forces and the Taliban over Afghan territory and the casualty figures for the Afghan security forces.

SIGAR was formed by an act of Congress and is mandated to produce the quarterly reports on the progress of the war, which has to date cost over $1 trillion, and killed at least 120,000 Afghans and 2,269 American military and civilian personnel, while turning millions of Afghan civilians into refugees.

The withholding of such information, the SIGAR report commented, was “troubling.” The figures on government versus insurgent control of territory “had been one of the last remaining publicly available indicators for members of Congress ... and for the American public of how the 16-year-long U.S. effort to secure Afghanistan is faring,” the report stated.

It added that “the number of districts controlled or influenced by the government has been falling since SIGAR began reporting on it, while the number controlled or influenced by the insurgents has been rising—a fact that should cause even more concern about its disappearance from public disclosure and discussion.”

The Pentagon has also barred SIGAR from reporting data on the attrition of Afghan security forces as a result of casualties and desertions last year. In its last quarterly report it described “historic losses” but could not give any specific number. It had noted earlier in 2017 that a total of 2,531 Afghan security forces were killed and 4,238 wounded in the first four months of the year, which would translate into some 20,000 casualties on an annual basis, losses which US commanders have described as “unsustainable.”

Following the release of the SIGAR report, the Pentagon backtracked on its attempt to censor the data on territorial control, with a US military spokesman claiming that it had been the result of “a human error in labeling.”

The previously censored figures provided by the Pentagon showed the US-backed Afghan regime in control of just 56 percent of the country, the lowest amount since the US war began. It claimed insurgents held sway over 14 percent of Afghan territory, also a record, while 30 percent was “contested”.

Earlier, the BBC issued its own findings based on an extensive investigation, reporting that the Taliban and other insurgents were contesting the government for control in up to 70 percent of Afghanistan.

A statement released by the White House on Tuesday night included a threat to further extend the US war into Pakistan. The statement said: “President Trump’s conditions-based South Asia Strategy provides commanders with the authority and resources needed to deny terrorists the safe haven they seek in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Earlier this month, Washington cut off virtually all military and security aid to Pakistan, worth roughly $1 billion annually, with Trump claiming in a tweet that Islamabad had given “safe haven to the terrorist we hunt in Afghanistan.”

The virulent turn by the US against Pakistan found direct expression in the response of the US puppet regime in Kabul, which publicly blamed all of the attacks this month on the Pakistani government and its military intelligence service the ISI.

On Wednesday, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani refused to accept a condolence call from Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. Later, however, he did accept one from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the leader of Pakistan's regional rival, India, saying the two discussed “the need for an end to terrorist sanctuaries in our neighborhood.”

The grinding war in Afghanistan has become increasingly bound up with the US attempt to forge an Indo-Pacific anti-China bloc that includes India, as well as Japan and Australia. Washington’s backing has encouraged the Indian government to pursue a more aggressive policy against Pakistan, heightening tensions between the two nuclear-armed regional rivals.

US hostility has driven Pakistan into closer alignment with China. In light of Washington’s actions, Pakistani Defense Minister Khurram Dastgir Khan told Bloomberg on Wednesday that his country would begin seeking arms purchases from China, as well as Russia and Eastern European countries.

Meanwhile, China has announced tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure projects in Pakistan, including the building of an off-shore naval base near the strategic Gwadar Port in the Pakistani province of Balochistan. The facility would be the second Chinese overseas military base after its installation in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa.

Washington is above all determined to prevent Pakistan, China and Russia from brokering any peace agreement that would end the protracted bloodletting in Afghanistan. After the recent attacks in Kabul, Trump declared that talks with the Taliban were off the table.

“So we don’t want to talk with the Taliban. There may be a time, but it’s going to be a long time,” Trump said on Monday. “We’re going to finish what we have to finish. What nobody else has been able to finish, we’re going to be able to do it.”

What the Obama administration failed to achieve with over 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan will not be accomplished by Trump with 15,000. What is threatened is a massive US escalation and with it the danger of a wider war that could draw in the region’s three nuclear powers, China, India and Pakistan.

From Facebook to Policebook

Andre Damon

On Wednesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a notice outlining extraordinary plans by the social media company to monitor all the postings and messages of its users, censor independent journalism, and use artificial intelligence (AI) to report users to the police and intelligence agencies.

Zuckerberg began his post, released in conjunction with the company’s quarterly earnings report, by declaring that 2017 was a “hard year” for Facebook. “The world feels anxious and divided—and that played out on Facebook. We’ve seen abuse on our platform, including interference from nation states, the spread of news that is false, sensational and polarizing, and debate about the utility of social media.” Facebook, he writes, has the responsibility to “amplify the good and prevent harm. That is my personal challenge for 2018.”

In Facebook’s “newspeak,” this means that the company will act aggressively this year to suppress the spread of information online and censor content, under the guise of combatting “fake news” and “Russian meddling.”

The truly ominous implications of this project are outlined in Zuckerberg’s post. Among Facebook’s initiatives, he writes, is “new technology to detect suicidal posts that has helped first responders reach more than 100 people who needed help quickly, and we’ve built AI systems to flag suspicious behavior around elections in real time and remove terrorist content.”

In other words, Facebook has introduced AI systems to collect, monitor and interpret all the information posted on its social media platform. As always, the introduction of such a sweeping system of mass surveillance is justified with seemingly praiseworthy motivations. After all, who could object to measures aimed at stopping suicides or terrorist attacks? The actual purpose of the new systems, however, is very different.

Zuckerberg points to the sweeping scope of the company’s artificial intelligence plans later: “Our goal with AI is to understand the meaning of all the content on Facebook.” Every single post, photo, video, message, comment, reaction and share will be fed into the company’s increasingly powerful computer systems to be analyzed for “harmful” content, and reported to the police and intelligence agencies as deemed necessary.

The real—and sinister—aim of Facebook’s actions is also made clear by the other initiatives that the company is taking. Most significantly, Zuckerberg stressed the company’s determination to make sure that “the information you see on Facebook comes from broadly trusted and high-quality sources, in order to counter misinformation and polarization.”

What are these “broadly trusted” sources? “For example, take the Wall Street Journal or New York Times,” wrote the multibillionaire CEO. “Even if you don’t read them or don’t agree with everything they write, most people have confidence that they’re high quality journalism. On the flip side, there are blogs that have intense followings but are not widely trusted beyond their core audience. We will show those publications somewhat less.”

In other words, corporate media sources will be promoted, while other publications, even those that “have intense followings,” will be demoted. As for being “shown somewhat less,” what Zuckerberg means is that they will be blocked from reaching a broader audience. More simply, they will be censored.

In addition to censoring news from alternative sources, Zuckerberg states at the beginning of his post that Facebook is working to “show fewer viral videos” because such content is not “good for people’s well-being and for society.”

The viral videos Zuckerberg is referring to include footage of police violence, social exposures like reporting on last year’s Grenfell Tower inferno that exposed social inequality in London, and documentation of the war crimes carried out by the US military. Any such content will be “demoted,” which Zuckerberg later notes “reduces an article’s traffic by 80 percent.”

Zuckerberg’s central pretense—that Facebook will promote sources that “people have confidence” in—is a fraud. In fact, according to a Gallup poll published last year, Americans’ trust in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” reached its lowest level in poling history, with only 32 percent of participants saying they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust. At the same time, the use of social media to read news has been growing exponentially, reaching two-thirds of the US population according to a poll by the Pew Research Center.

The growth in the popularity of Facebook and other social media networks was in large measure due to the fact that they allowed their users access to information and viewpoints unavailable through mainstream media outlets. Now, Facebook has reversed course and declared that its intention is to promote the official narrative and block independent news sources that question it.

Facebook, Google, Twitter and other giant social media companies—working closely with intelligence agencies and governments—are seeking to leverage their role as mechanisms of communication to become instruments of censorship and repression. In the process, they are turning one of the most important and liberating technological advances of the 21st century, the growth and expansion of artificial intelligence, into a mechanism for police control and dictatorship.

The fight against Internet censorship is an urgent task facing workers all over the world. The World Socialist Web Site is leading the fight against the greatest threat to free speech since the Second World War. On January 23, it published an open letter calling for an international coalition of socialist, antiwar, left-wing and progressive websites, organizations and activists to fight Internet censorship.

The principles for this coalition are:

• Safeguarding the Internet as a platform for political organization and the free exchange of information, culture and diverse viewpoints, guided by the principle that access to the Internet is a right and must be free and equally available for all.

• Uncompromising insistence on the complete independence of the Internet from control by governments and private corporations.

• Unconditional defense of net neutrality and free, unfettered and equal access to the Internet.

• The banning and illegalization of government and corporate manipulation of search algorithms and procedures, including the use of human evaluators, that restrict and block public visibility of websites.

• Irreconcilable opposition to the use of the Internet and artificial intelligence technologies to carry out surveillance of web users.

• Demanding the end to the persecution of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and the complete restoration of their personal freedom.

• Advocating the transformation of the corporate Internet monopolies into public utilities, under internationally coordinated democratic control, to provide the highest quality service, not private profit.

• The fight against Internet censorship and the defense of democratic rights cannot be conducted through appeals to capitalist governments and the parties and politicians who serve their interests, but only in uncompromising struggle against them. Moreover, this struggle is international in scope and totally opposed to every form and manifestation of national chauvinism, racism and imperialist militarism. Therefore, those who are truly committed to the defense of democratic rights must direct their efforts to the mobilization of the working class of all countries.

Thomson Reuters Foundation Africa Rising Reporting for African Journalists 2018

Application Deadline: 23rd February 2018

Eligible Countries: East African and Southern African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Nairobi, Kenya

About the Award: Increasingly African business and social leaders are emphasising that the future of the continent lies in its own hands. But, are we adequately reporting this and giving sufficient media attention to the strengthening entrepreneurial and innovative spirit? While analysing the challenges facing development, this intensive 3-day course explores the opportunities being seized by businesses and individuals in Africa, as well as the costs and benefits of foreign investment. The workshop aims to equip journalists with the skills necessary to cover the economic and business trends. Led by seasoned Reuters’ journalists with deep experience, the course will show you how to make the link between money and people; and where to find new stories and sources.

Type: Workshop, Training

Eligibility: 

• Applicants must be African (East Africa and Southern Africa) full-time journalists or regular contributors to broadcast media organisations in Africa.
• Applicants must be able to demonstrate a commitment to a career in journalism in their country, must be a senior journalist with a minimum of three years’ professional experience and have a good level in spoken and written English.
• If you have been on a Thomson Reuters Foundation training programme within the last two years you will not be eligible to apply.

Before attending this course participants:
Should be able to demonstrate a solid understanding of financial journalism.
Will be able to structure a news story, including writing leads, interviewing sources, and producing accurate copy.
Must have a good level of spoken and written English.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Thomson Reuters Foundation can fund travel expenses and accommodation for participants travelling from outside Nairobi.

Duration of Program: 3 days (19 March to 21 March)

How to Apply: When applying you will be asked to upload the following documents – please have these ready:

• 2 relevant work samples (maximum file size 5 MB) – in English if possible. For stories not in English, please include a 250-word English summary about the story.
• A letter from your editor consenting to your participation in the programme

If you have any difficulties applying, please email trfmedia@thomsonreuters.com.

APPLY

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Business and Financial Reporting programme of Thomson Reuters

Important Notes: This arrangement is subject to variation. If you have any questions please email: TRFMedia@thomsonreuters.com

Coimbra Group Short-Term Scholarship Program for Young Researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 16th March 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All African countries except Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia (applicants from these countries are eligible under the Scholarship Programme for Young Researchers from the European Neighbourhood).

To be taken at (Country): The following Coimbra Group universities are participating in the 2018 edition of the scheme:

• University of Barcelona (Spain)
• Eötvös Loránd University Budapest (Hungary)
• University of Coimbra (Portugal)
• University of Granada (Spain)
• University of Graz (Austria)
• University of Groningen (The Netherlands)
• KU Leuven (Belgium)
• University of Padova (Italy)
• University of Pavia (Italy)
• University of Poitiers (France)
• University of Salamanca (Spain)
• University of Würzburg (Germany)

About the Award: Universities of the Coimbra Group offer short-term visits (generally 1 to maximum 3 months) to young African researchers from higher education institutions from Sub-Saharan Africa. The main aim of this scholarship programme is to enable scholars to undertake research in which they are engaged in their home institution and to help them to establish academic and research contacts. The scholarships are financially supported by the Coimbra Group member universities participating in this programme, while the Coimbra Group Office is in charge of the administrative management of the applications.

Type: Research

Eligibility: Applicants should be:

• born on or after 1 January 1973
• nationals of and current residents in a country in Sub-Saharan Africa
• current staff members of a university or an equivalent higher education institution in Sub-Saharan Africa
• of doctoral/postdoctoral or equivalent status although some universities offer grants for Master’s level students (please see details in the table in the Link below).

Female candidates are encouraged to apply and will be prioritised.

Selection: The administrative check of applications will be undertaken by the Coimbra Group Office in order to select candidates who meet the eligibility criteria. The selection of candidates will be undertaken by the host universities. When selection has been agreed upon, the host university may send a letter of invitation directly to the successful candidate. The Coimbra Group Office will contact all candidates and inform them about the result of their application. Successful candidates currently employed by a University are responsible for ensuring that their home institution will grant them leave of absence to undertake the proposed visit.

Number of Awardees: Limited

Value of Award: Successful candidates will have access to excellent academic knowledge in quality facilities. The scholarships include financial support for tuition, living costs, airfares etc.

Duration of Program: From 1 to maximum 3 months. The dates of candidate’s stay should be agreed upon between the candidate and the academic supervisor at the Coimbra Group University. Typically this will be during the academic year 2018/2019.

SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION HERE

It is important to go through the Application instructions on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Coimbra Group

Important Notes: Candidates will be able to select one university only. Multiple applications will not be considered valid.

Coimbra Group Short-Term Scholarship Program for Young Researchers from European Neighbouring Countries (Fully-funded for MENA Countries to apply) 2018

Application Deadline: 16th March 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries:  Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Serbia, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

To Be Taken At (Country): The following Coimbra Group Universities are participating in the 2018 edition of the Coimbra Group Scholarship Programme:

• Eötvös Loránd University Budapest (Hungary)
• University of Granada (Spain)
• Karl-Franzens University of Graz (Austria)
• University of Heidelberg (Germany)
• Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi (Romania)
• KU Leuven (Belgium)
• University of Padova (Italy)
• University of Poitiers (France)
• University of Salamanca (Spain)

About the Award: Universities of the Coimbra Group offer short-term visits to young researchers from higher education institutions from countries in the European Neighbourhood. The main aim of this scholarship programme is to enable scholars to undertake research in which they are engaged in their home institution and to help them to establish academic and research contacts. The scholarships are financially supported by the Coimbra Group member universities participating
in this programme, while the Coimbra Group Office is in charge of the administrative management of the applications.

Type: Research

Eligibility: Applicants must fulfil all the following criteria:

• be born on or after 1 January 1983
• be nationals of and current residents in one of the above-listed countries
• be current academic staff members of a university or an equivalent higher education institution located in one of the above-listed countries and be of postdoctoral or equivalent status, although some institutions may offer opportunities to doctoral students

Selection: The administrative check of applications will be undertaken by the Coimbra Group Office in order to select candidates who meet the eligibility criteria. The selection of candidates will be undertaken by the host universities. When selection has been agreed upon, the host university may send a letter of invitation directly to the successful candidate. The Coimbra Group Office will contact all candidates and inform them about the result of their application. Successful
candidates currently employed by a University are responsible for ensuring that their home institution will grant them leave of absence to undertake the proposed visit.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Successful candidates will have access to excellent academic knowledge in quality facilities. The scholarships include financial support for tuition, living costs, airfares etc.

Duration of Program:  The dates of your stay should be agreed upon between the applicant and the academic supervisor at the Coimbra Group University. Typically this will be during the academic year 2018/2019

How to Apply: APPLY HERE

It is important to go through the Application instructions on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Coimbra Group

Important Notes: 

1. Applicants must provide the name and contact details of an academic supervisor in the receiving Coimbra Group University who will supervise their work during their stay abroad. If you do not have any contacts, we suggest you visit the website of your chosen institution or get in touch with the contact person whose email address is indicated in the brochure. The Coimbra Group Office is not in the position to provide assistance in this.
2. All applicants must provide a letter of acceptance (to be submitted together with your application) written by the academic supervisor or administrative unit of the host university where you would like to carry out the proposed working plan. The letter should state that the supervisor is willing to work with you in case you obtain a Coimbra Group Scholarship.
3. Applicants can select one institution only. Multiple applications from the same candidate will be rejected.
4. Please fill in your application form only when you have all the data available (i.e. name of and letter of acceptance by supervisor at Coimbra Group University, etc.). Incomplete applications will be rejected, no exceptions will be made.

Is the US Really That Much Different Than Haiti?

Lee Ballinger

A good friend of mine recently visited Haiti. This got me to thinking about why the poverty in Haiti is so severe and intractable.

Consider Haiti. Once slaves freed themselves and took over the island, their French tormentors threatened to invade with a massive force if the struggling society did not pay for its freedom. France wanted an amount equal to all former plantation property, including the lost value of the people themselves. France enforced this indemnity between 1825 and 2010, declaring it void only after an earthquake killed thousands in Port-au-Prince. The total amount charged against the country would be worth somewhere between $20 billion and $40 billion today. It sapped Haiti’s national income and stifled its development.

From Ramp Hollow by Steven Stoll

It might seem that poverty-stricken Haiti has nothing in common with the wealthy United States of America. Let’s examine that. In 2008-2009, the U.S. government gave the banks a $13 trillion bailout which, among other things, allowed the banks to continue to push countless people into the streets through foreclosure. At this moment in Los Angeles alone there are 1,400 homeless encampments. They bear a striking resemblance to the poorest neighborhoods in Haiti.

Give us back our thirteen trillion dollars or give us back our homes.

Is the Left Pro-Islamic?

L. Ali Khan

Many well-meaning people wonder whether the left is pro-Islamic. The left has been a vociferous critic of Middle Eastern wars, American hegemony, settler colonialism, and social conservatism that endorses narrow nationalism and overbudgeted militaries. Though skeptical of religion, in theory, the left seems much more tolerant of Islam than it has been of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, or any other religion.

The left is tolerant of Islam not because of Islamic sacraments but because of Islamic resistance to oppression. Islamic antiestablishmentism, an ideology that unhooks the entrenched pivots of power, resonates with the left. As corresponding ideologies, the left and Islamic antiestablishmentism, each in its own ways, challenges money cartels, power establishments, military occupations, environmental degradation, settlements, drone assassinations, corporate abuse, and the extreme forms of racism, including casteism and apartheid.

As has been evident in Afghanistan during the Soviet and American invasions, Islamic antiestablishmentism defies superpowers, and Muslim militants are prepared to sacrifice life, liberty, and family to fight and defeat occupation and hegemony. The left admires the way Muslim militants resist the formidable military machinery that invades Muslim lands. Denoting Muslim resistance as terrorism is discounted in the left circles, while it is inflated among right-wingers.

Right-Wingers

The right-wingers in Europe, India, and the United States abhor Islam, openly and forcefully. Obsessed with “clean ethnicity,” the European right-wingers highlight the dangers of Islam to nationalism. Across Europe, the right-wing parties speak with one voice against the undesirable presence of Muslim immigrants. The 21^st century Islamophobia has replaced the 20^th century anti-Semitism.

It’s no secret that right-wingers have a pathological need for producing hatred. In France, a nation with the largest Muslim population in Europe, Le Pen’s National Front paints Islam as a mortal threat to secular values. In Germany, the AfD advocates that “Islam does not belong in Germany” and supports a ban on the construction of mosques. In the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom smears Islam as an inherently violent religion.

In India, a nation with the second largest Muslim population in the world, the Bhartiya Janata Party is rewriting history to malign Muslim rulers and berate Mughal monuments, including the Taj Mahal. Cow vigilantism incites Hindu extremists to murder Muslims found to be selling or eating beef.

In the United States, the Republican Party has shifted to the extreme right in matters of Islam, highlighting the perils of “creeping Shariah.” The Neocons, a vile congregation of Islamophobes, are leading the charge against Islam and are dead set to make America intolerable for Muslim immigrants and the world difficult for Muslim nations.

American Left

While the left across the world shows empathies for Muslims fighting invasions, settlements, and hatred, the American left is most clear-headed in renouncing the animus against Muslims at home and abroad. In fact, the American left forcefully rejects Islamophobia, Muslim ban on immigration, physical attacks on Muslim women wearing hijab, and the sequential destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and a war brewing against Iran.

Prominent left-leaning intellectuals mince no words in siding with Muslim militants fighting on various fronts under the ubiquitous burden of terrorism.  Susan Sontag (1933-2004), for example, examines the notion of “cowardice” pinned on Muslim terrorists asking who is more coward: “those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, or those willing to die themselves in order to kill” the invaders and occupiers.

Noam Chomsky points out that the denigration of Muslims in America follows a familiar pattern of demonization. “The typical history of scapegoating is to pick vulnerable people and find something that is not totally false about them – because you have to have some element of truth – and then build it up into a colossus which is about to overcome you,” The proponents of “creeping Shariah” are building a colossus, says Chomsky, to portray Islam as a menace to civil liberties and cultural freedoms in America.

For sure, there are critics of the left supporting Muslim causes. Michael Walzer, the author of Just and Unjust Wars, laments that the American left does not see the unique threats that “Islamic zealotry” poses to universal values. Speaking more like a condescending Neocon than a measured philosopher that he thinks he is, Walzer exclaims: “many leftists are so irrationally afraid of an irrational fear of Islam that they haven’t been able to consider the very good reasons for fearing Islamist zealots—and so they have difficulty explaining what’s going on in the world.” This pompous comment leaking from the pen of an unjustly inflated intellectual is not only disrespectful but smells like a quack psychoanalysis of “many leftists.”

Frustrating Walzer and others even more ridiculous, the American left sees clearly the mechanisms of oppression. It opposes odious policies of warfare against nations, including Muslim nations. It exposes hateful mutterings whether they are shouted at Fox News through the putrid mouths of still-active Sean Hannity and now-defunct Bill O’ Riley, whether they are fermented in the intellectualized dung of bankrolled scholars, or whether they are disseminated through the rancid op-eds at the “fake-left” New York Times.

The American left, composed of educators, public scholars, and counterpunchers, will continue to condemn what it sees fit to condemn, even if such condemnation turns out to be pro-Islamic.

Ireland’s Pink and Yellow Imperialism

Aidan O’Brien

You may have missed it but Ireland’s gay icon kicked the prospect of world peace in the balls recently. Last December 6, Leo Varadkar – the Irish leader – argued for Ireland to be a member of the incipient army that’s beating within the heart of the European Union.

And so the Irish parliament – convinced by Varadkar’s gay blarney – voted yes to Ireland becoming a part of the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation “on defence” (PESCO). “Structured” being apparently the European code-word for “military”.

Ireland’s very conscious LGBT crowd however didn’t get it or didn’t want to get it. And why should they? Now that they have their piece of bourgeois respectability in their pocket (the marriage certificate) – why should they care about world peace? Why should they object to their hero leading Ireland into present and future wars? We can only conclude that the LGBT lifestyle – in Ireland at least – is now a firm part of the structure.

And the structure is imperialism – the western kind – the never ending, “permanently structured” kind. The western war against the world – for economic gain – that has lasted for centuries and which destroyed Ireland – now has Ireland’s backing. It now has a fig leaf shaped like a shamrock and colored like a rainbow.

Varadkar didn’t phrase it like this. In his deceitful words: “a Europe worth building is a Europe worth defending”. And in doublespeak Orwell would be proud of – he sold the the concept of a European “army” as being anti-American. He argued:

“Rather than relying on the United States to defend Europe and pay for European defence, Europe should provide its own defence and pay for its own defence and not be dependent on the United States in the way it has been since 1945.”

And to cap off this brazen argument for structural militarism (at home and abroad) – Varadkar audaciously claimed that it didn’t interfere with the neutrality of Ireland in international affairs – something which has been a “sacrosanct” part of Ireland’s identity since World War Two.

Each of these key points in the argument for Ireland’s membership of Europe’s military structure (PESCO) is though a nefarious deception.

Firstly: Europe (the “European Union”) doesn’t defend – it attack’s. And it has been doing so for centuries. In the last 2000 years Europe as a whole was only seriously threatened twice from external armies. And so had to defend itself. In the 8th century the armies of North Africa (the Muslims) got as far as Poitiers in France. And in the 13th century the armies from Central Asia (the Mongols) penetrated East Europe.

It could be argued that in the 16th and 17th centuries the armies of the Ottoman Empire forced Europe to defend itself around Vienna. But Istanbul – the Ottoman Capital – was and still is more European than, for example, Dublin.

Excluding these rare exceptions – it’s safe to say that Europe qua Europe has had no need to defend itself in the last 2000 years. On the contrary, it has been the world outside of Europe that has needed and continues to need a defence pact against European aggression. So to argue that “Europe” needs to “defend” itself today requires a head full of amnesia. Or a fist full of fascism.

Indeed the mountains of violence which make up the internal history of Europe have been caused by Europe itself. That’s to say that Europe is Europe’s greatest danger. Not outsiders but insiders are the ones which have regularly destroyed Europe.

And they’ve done it for a reason: imperialism – the endless “capitalist” desire to grow the domestic base or core. Whether it be Ancient Rome or Europe’s modern nation states the end result  of imperialism has been the same: war and societal destruction throughout Europe.

And the main culprits of this endless aggression against Europe in modern times has been Ireland’s European “partners”: Britain, France and Germany. And it’s precisely these powers – powers that have so much European blood on their hands -which Ireland now lines up with in order to “defend” Europe.

But don’t tell the Irish leader that defence is attack. Don’t tell him that in the history of the world Europe has been the greatest purveyor of violence. Don’t mention the fact that west European imperialists – the folks that gave us World Wars One and Two – are now jockeying for World War Three.

And don’t bother to tell him that his “anti-American” hard sell is really pro-American drivel. The LGBT frontman wouldn’t understand all this because he’s a structured puppet. He does what his imperialist bosses tell him to do.

And ironically the most important of these bosses is not European but American. The second chunk of his argument for European militarism – the desire to be independent of America – sounds radically left. However the politics of the Irish leader is radically right.

It doesn’t fit until we realize that the right wing US President last May told Europe to be more “independent” as regards “defence” spending (not independence per se – just a demand for more money up front). And like automatons the European right does what the American right was says.

The European Union though dresses this extortion and obedience up in the clothes of “independence”. The rhetoric is that Europe is preparing to defend itself. The reality however is that America has Europe in its pocket. The proof of this isn’t NATO – although this is an American attack-dog. The proof is the United States European Command (EUCOM) – the progenitor of America’s African Command (AFRICOM).

EUCOM is an integral part of America’s Empire of bases – that global military structure that covers the world. As such EUCOM isn’t going away without a serious anti-imperialist struggle within Europe. And LGBT leadership – least of all in Ireland – ain’t going to lead this struggle. And neither is the European Union.

In fact: EUCOM, the LGBT crowd and Ireland are embedded in the right wing European Union. And the purpose of the first (EUCOM) is not the defence of Europe but the occupation of Europe. And the purpose of the second (the Pink) and third (the Green) is cover. The Irish LGBT leader may sing the song of “independence from America” but he as well as Merkel, Macron and May know that the only show in town for the European status quo is “America first and Europe second”. And for he or them to suggest otherwise is a lie.

This is tragically familiar territory for Ireland. In the long history of Europe occupation emanating from outside may be something new. In Ireland though its the norm (the British thing). That’s why sacrosanct concepts like “independence” and “neutrality” in the case of Ireland are laughable. And as a consequence Leo Varadkar’s attempt to lead a “sovereign and neutral Irish nation” into PESCO is a pathetic illusion because Ireland is already drowning in imperial slime and the servility which goes with it.

Ireland’s “official” role in geopolitics is to carry water for the Empire. It did it for the British. And now it does it for the Corporate Americans. PESCO’s originality is that it will require Ireland to carry water for America’s European proxies – France and Germany.

In practice “official” Ireland is the worst kind of imperialist – the yellow kind – the cowardly type that facilitates the crimes of the Empire yet hides behind a benign image of “neutrality”. Think of the sly way Ireland facilitates tax avoidance for corporate America yet denies that it is a tax haven. In geopolitical terms Ireland works the same sly way.

For example: Shannon airport in the west of Ireland has been and is a staging post for the US military and the CIA while they commit the most heinous crimes in the Middle East. And “official” Ireland feigns ignorance.

Another example of yellow Irish imperialism is the behind the scenes support the Irish army gives to the French occupation of Mali. And another recent example is the same sly – on the ground – support it gave to the NATO invasion of Afghanistan (instructors, etc.).

In the struggle to rebuild the West’s Empire (this is what PESCO is all about) the gay icon has promised that Ireland will not go to war. But he quickly emphasized that it will assist indirectly the West’s dogs of war. So after the US Marines, the French Foreign Legion and the Wehrmacht do their bloody work around the world – the Irish will follow up behind to put a positive spin on it (the keywords being “democracy-building” and “the fight against terrorism”).

So as regards the West’s war against the rest, it’s a case of plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. That which looks like a schism between America and Europe (PESCO) is anything but. As it reshuffles the pack the West’s intention remains the same: to screw the rest.

Water carriers are always needed for this so the Irish government has updated it’s “foreign policy” – read “doing whatever the imperialists tell it to do”. This is no exaggeration since the militarism at the core of PESCO is rooted in the Lisbon Treaty which the Irish public rejected in 2008. But were forced to accept in 2009 after the EU refused to take no for an answer.

Europe remains it’s own worst enemy. Locked into a 2000 year old narrative of Empire – it sees nothing but competition and war on the horizon. The fact that this is all generated within and nowhere else is ignored. It feels like the economic stakes are now too high to change direction. Indeed contemporary Europe is even willing to accept a foreign occupation (EUCOM) to “guarantee” its first world status. In this madhouse Ireland is afraid to say basta! It just follows imperialism blindly. And so it gayly digs it’s own grave one more time.