Another US step toward trade war

Nick Beams

The United States has taken a further step toward trade war, with significant military overtones. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced last Friday that he has sent a range of options to President Donald Trump for the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on imports of steel and aluminium.

Ross released details of long-awaited investigations conducted under section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which allows the president to impose restrictions on imports deemed to impact on “national security” without congressional approval.

Ross said separate inquiries into both metals launched last year found that import surges in recent years “threaten to impair our national security.” He recommended global tariffs of 24 percent on steel and 7.7 percent on aluminium.

A large portion of steel comes from Canada and other strategic allies, which would be hit by a global tariff. So other options are being considered to target China and other countries, such as Brazil and Vietnam. The latter is regarded as a “third country” exporter of Chinese steel to the US. A third option being considered is to reduce imports of the metals from all countries to well below the levels reached in 2017.

The recommendations now go to the White House, with Trump having until April to make a final decision.

Ross last week suggested that Trump could adopt a more “surgical” approach, which would see a 53 percent levy introduced on steel from a list of 12 countries that includes China, Russia, India and South Korea, but would allow exemptions for close allies like Japan, Germany and Canada.

The imposition of trade restrictions is fraught with conflicts, not only with the exporting countries, but also with sections of industry in the US that use imports of aluminium and steel to keep their costs down.

Trump addressed this issue in a meeting with members of Congress last week. He claimed imposing tariffs would “create a lot of jobs,” brushing aside concerns that it would raise costs for many companies and cut jobs. At the same time, he pointed to the military implications of the move, especially as regards China.

“I want to keep prices down but I also want to make sure that we have a steel industry and an aluminium industry and we do need that for national defence,” Trump said. “If we ever have a conflict we don’t want to be buying steel [from] a country we are fighting.”

Although China is relatively well down the list of exporters of aluminium and steel to the US—fourth in the former and eleventh in the latter—the US commerce department maintains that China’s increased production of both metals in recent years has depressed international prices.

Trump’s strongest base of support in the US is drawn from the trade union bureaucracy and steel and aluminium companies that have been pushing for action—their shares rose sharply on Friday. US Steel shares rose by as much as 16 percent, the biggest jump since late 2016.

United Steelworkers union president Leo Gerard welcomed the move. “These recommendations have the potential to focus on the bad actors in the world that historically and systematically cheat in international trade,” he said. “We applaud that approach.”

However, other business groups are concerned that the measures will have an adverse impact, both because they will raise costs in the US and lead to retaliatory action by other countries.

According to National Trade Foreign Council president Rufus Yerxa, the tariff measures could be a “major problem for a lot of industries” and could set a dangerous precedent for other countries to impose trade restrictions in the name of “national security.”

The Financial Times quoted former senior US trade official John Veroneau who said the move was not about “national security.” Instead, “section 232 is simply being used as a pretext for good old-fashioned protectionism.”

Ross’s announcement saw a firm, but, so far measured, response from China. The director of the commerce ministry’s trade remedy and investigation bureau, Wang Hejun, said the US, the world’s biggest steel importer, was overprotective of its output. He warned of the implications of the latest moves.

“The spectrum of national security is very broad,” Wang said. “Without a clear definition, it could easily be abused. If every country followed the US on this, it would have serious ramifications on the international trading order. If the final decision from the US hurts China’s interests, we will certainly take necessary measures to protect our legitimate rights.”

Chinese retaliation could include action within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or specific measures directed against US exports of agricultural products to China.

Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation president Huo Jianguo said, although “broad trade war is unlikely,” China could make moves on single products.

Earlier this month, China launched an anti-dumping investigation into sorghum imports from the US, saying they were being sold at below market prices in order to undercut Chinese producers.

In a sign of growing tit-for-tat conflicts, the Chinese inquiry was launched after the Trump administration imposed new tariffs on solar panels made in China and on washing machines.

The Japanese authorities remained tight-lipped. Yasuki Komiyama, the director of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry metal industries division, said exports of steel and aluminium did not pose a threat to US national security. It was an issue within the US government, nothing had yet been decided and “therefore the Japanese government doesn’t have any further comment.”

However, Kobe Steel warned there could be ramifications. If the measures were enacted, “it would be difficult for the industry to avoid any impact,” according to a company official.

South Korea’s trade ministry met with steel industry officials the day after the announcement, issuing a statement saying it would reach out to the US before any final decision was made.

Announcing the move, Ross acknowledged that other nations could respond in kind, but this did not deter him. “We believe … that this is a perfectly valid interpretation of our national security,” he told reporters in a conference call.

“As to whether there will be a challenge, it wouldn’t surprise us of there were. Anytime you do something that affects a number of countries, the likelihood is that they will bring a WTO action or take other measures.”

Munich Security Conference threatens war on all fronts

Chris Marsden

The proceedings at the 54th Munich Security Conference, which took place in Germany over the weekend, make clear that the imperialist powers are once again collectively dragging humanity to the brink of disaster.

Overt threats of war centred immediately on Syria, Iran and North Korea. But the US, European and other powers made clear that their ultimate military targets are Russia and China. Moreover, in their supposedly collective struggle to secure global hegemony, the imperialist powers are themselves being pitted against one another in ways not seen since the Second World War.

Washington led the pack in bellicosity towards Syria and North Korea, tied to allegations of Russian and Chinese culpability.

The conference was opened by chairman Wolfgang Ischinger warning that the world has moved too close to a “major interstate conflict.”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres followed with the declaration, “For the first time since the end of the Cold War, we are now facing a nuclear threat, a threat of a nuclear conflict.” This was not laid at the door of Washington, but to “the development in relation to nuclear weapons and long-range missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made a point of noting in his address Friday that Munich was closer to North Korea’s capital, Pyongyang, than to Washington, before focusing his ire on Russia. NATO was supposedly seeking to avoid a new arms race with Russia, but “Russia is modernizing its nuclear capabilities, developing new nuclear systems, and increasing the role of nuclear weapons in its military strategy. This is a cause for real concern.”

Stoltenberg boasted last week that non-US NATO defence spending grew by 5 percent in 2017, so that eight alliance members have reached the 2 percent of GDP commitment. This is expected to reach 15 member-states by 2024.

Speaking Saturday, US National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said, “We face a range of common threats. Rogue regimes that already imperil international security in the Middle East and northeast Asia.”

It was necessary to “act against Iran,” he insisted, which was cultivating a “network of proxies” and militias in Syria, Yemen and Iraq that were “becoming more and more capable, as Iran seeds more and more...destructive weapons into these networks.” Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad was still using chemical weapons against the US-backed Islamist insurgency, he also claimed, citing “public accounts and photos.”

Identifying Iran, but in a barely veiled reference to Russia and China, he added, “We know that Syria and North Korea are not the only rogue states developing, using, spreading dangerous weapons…”

Picking up the torch, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Sunday of Israeli readiness for a multi-front war with Iran. Holding aloft what he claimed was a piece of an Iranian drone shot down in Israeli airspace February 10, he delivered “a message to the tyrants of Tehran… Do not test Israel’s resolve.”

“Through its proxie Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza Iran is devouring huge swathes of the Middle East,” he said. “We will act without hesitation to defend ourselves. And we will act if necessary not just against Iran’s proxies that are attacking us, but against Iran itself.”

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel added that when it came to China and Russia, “the West does not have a new strategy to deal with these two powers.” Both China and Russia “constantly try to test and to undermine the [European Union’s] unity.” Through its Belt and Road Initiative, “China is developing a comprehensive alternative system; a system unlike ours that is not based on freedom, democracy, and individual human rights. China seems to have a real global strategic idea and they are pursuing this idea persistently.”

Just as striking as the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese rhetoric was the increasingly naked discussion of the gulf opening up between the US and the major European powers. The conference, which was to focus on Europe’s “contribution” to global security, was organised after repeated US demands for increased military spending, repeated this week by US Secretary of Defence James Mattis at a meeting of NATO. But Munich featured a running argument over the dangers of a breach in the NATO Alliance.

Stoltenberg spent much of his contribution warning that future EU defence cooperation—as laid down in last December’s Permanent Structured Cooperation agreement, PESCO—must not threaten NATO’s unity.

Strengthening “the European pillar within NATO” and “better burden sharing,” was fine. However, after the British exit from the EU is complete, some 80 percent of NATO’s funding would come from non-EU allies, he said. The risk “of weakening the trans-Atlantic bond, the risk of duplicating what NATO is already doing, and the risk of discriminating against non-EU members of the NATO alliance…must be avoided.”

“The EU cannot protect Europe by itself,” he added pointedly.

Last Tuesday, US envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison also warned that “we do not want [PESCO] to be a protectionist vehicle for the EU and we are going to watch carefully because, if that becomes the case, then it could splinter the strong security alliance that we have… We want the Europeans to have capabilities and strength, but not to fence off American products.”

Stoltenberg, who clearly spoke for Washington, was given short shrift by both Germany and France.

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said that Europe could no longer accept a situation in which they were stymied by the need to decide joint foreign policy approaches unanimously within NATO.

“Europe has to up its pace in the face of global challenges from terrorism, poverty and climate change,” she said. “Those who want to must be able to advance without being blocked by individual countries… We want to remain transatlantic but we want to become more European.”

“A start has been made,” she said. “Last December we finally launched plans for a European Defence Union. In a way we started out on the political path toward working on a European army.”

Speaking to France 24, von der Leyen went so far as to link “Brexit, the migrant crisis, a more assertive Russia and an unpredictable White House” as a collective “wake-up call we needed to understand that we had to change something and stand on our own two feet.”

France’s Foreign Secretary Florence Parly was equally dismissive of US concerns.

“When we are threatened in our own neighbourhood, particularly to the south, we have to be able to respond, even when the United States or the (NATO) alliance would like to be less implicated,” she said.

EU nations must be ready to act “without asking the United States to come to our aid, without asking them to divert their ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) capabilities or their supply craft from other missions.”

Both Germany and France have recently committed to increasing military spending—with France pledging to meet the NATO two percent target by pledging $370 billion of investments by 2025.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May sought to strengthen her hand in negotiations with the EU by focusing on the UK’s role in Europe’s collective military and security structures. May urged Europe’s leaders not to let Britain’s intention to leave the EU’s common foreign and security policy prevent agreement on a new security treaty that would have “damaging real-world consequences.”

May was fully backed by the US, which views the UK, which has the second biggest defence budget in NATO, as a valuable check on Germany and France.

Belt and Road and US-China Relations in 2018

Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy


In early February 2018, US forces conducted air operations targeting both the Taliban and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) in Afghanistan's north-eastern Badakshan province which shares a border with China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The US is visibly interested in co-opting China in the region rather than contesting it. And, in the backdrop of emerging regional developments, China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) may be poised to become key determinants in the Washington-Beijing relationship in South and Central Asia.

Timing and Context
Referring to the strikes, the Commander of the NATO Air Command Afghanistan Air Force Maj Gen James Hecker said, “The destruction of these training facilities prevents terrorists from planning any acts near the border with China and Tajikistan.” Responding to a question on the strikes, China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang said, "...We stand ready to continue strengthening pragmatic cooperation in fighting terrorism with all other parties based on the principle of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit so as to jointly maintain international and regional peace and stability." The operative words here are "pragmatic cooperation," "mutual benefit," and "jointly maintain."

The timing of the strikes is important. They took place soon after reports emerged that China is in talks with the Afghan government to establish a military base for Afghan troops in Badakshan province (Kabul has confirmed but Beijing has officially denied it); a month after Beijing and Islamabad invited Kabul to join CPEC; and days before China's State Councillor Yang Jiechi visited Washington. This is at a time when Russia is mobilising the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation's Afghanistan Contact Group to address security issues along the Central Asian borders with Afghanistan.

Beijing is also actively engaged in various peace process formats in Afghanistan and has for long maintained a direct communication channel with the Taliban. Meanwhile, the US-backed Quadrilateral Coordination Group comprised of the US, China, Afghanistan and Pakistan has been rendered dead-on-arrival, and the Russia-backed process in which China is a major partner is broader and brings more regional countries to the table. China has initiated the Quadrilateral Cooperation and Coordination Mechanism, a security alliance on counter-terrorism involving intelligence-sharing and training with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan. It is is part of a trilateral arrangement with Islamabad and Kabul; and in the past, Chinese and Tajik troops have held joint drills in Ishkashim district in Tajikistan’s Gorno Badakhshan Autonomous Region bordering Afghanistan's Badakshan province.

This places Beijing in a unique position in the region. Although a China-built military base in Badakshan will have a bearing on US presence and influence in Afghanistan, Washington seems to view co-opting Beijing as more beneficial than contesting it. US actions suggest that it may be offering China a potential partnership role for closer alignment between the two. Beijing has long considered ETIM a threat, and cooperation on countering it—designated as a terrorist organisation by the US in September 2002—provides a "mutually beneficial" launch-pad for the US to enhance regional engagement with China.

Additionally, that the US strikes in Badakshan took place less than a month after Liu Jinsong took over as China's new ambassador to Afghanistan is telling. Liu's personal and professional background is fitting for promoting BRI objectives, especially CPEC. He was raised in Xinjiang; was the director of the Silk Road Fund in 2015 when Pakistan and China formally agreed to commence work on the US$ 46 billion CPEC project; was a deputy director in the Chinese foreign ministry's international economic cooperation office; and until recently, was the deputy chief of mission at the Chinese embassy in New Delhi.

US is likely to find CPEC non-problematic—perhaps even useful—provided China uses it as leverage to align Pakistani foreign policy towards the US' current objectives on transnational terrorism and Afghanistan's economic progress. Yet, it is certainly not lost on Washington that China could gain the capability to influence regional developments via CPEC - a component of BRI - as seen in the invitation to Afghanistan. Liu's appointment demonstrates that China is seeking increased engagement with Afghanistan, one directly aligned with BRI via CPEC.
If China were to actively compete with the US for a 'security provider' role in the region—which the BRI will enable it to—the US will not find it favourable. Thus, the US attempt to woo China could be viewed as a two-pronged approach: co-opting China (or at least decelerate its growing proximity to Russia); and ensuring that the Washington has more room to manoeuvre, possibly by aligning its hard power with Beijing's soft power as China makes inroads into Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Washington may be attempting to pragmatically employ the 'regionalise' component of its R4+S strategy by courting Beijing. However, it is unclear whether this approach is conditional on the US retaining its 'primacy' in the region. Nonetheless, despite rhetoric, the US seems sceptical of regional actors taking on more active roles in the region.

Looking Ahead
Washington's signalling has delivered Beijing's curiosity, but its willingness to "jointly maintain" regional peace and stability might ultimately determine the level and duration of Beijing's attention.

Suffice to say, in 2018, the US will demonstrate a lot more interest in CPEC. Additionally, BRI and Central Asia will likely be in focus throughout the year, particularly in the run up to the second US-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue, scheduled to take place before July 2018.

Fragility of the Process: Myanmar’s Long Road to Peace

Angshuman Choudhury

The third edition of Myanmar's flagship 21st Century Panglong Conference (21CPC) is scheduled to take place in February 2018. Originally slated for the end of January, the peace conference was postponed a week before the scheduled date. Naypyitaw said the postponement was to allow two new Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) who recently signed the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA)—the foundation of the ongoing peace process—to consult their people before they negotiated at the head table. 

However, today, Naypyitaw faces more serious problems in the peace process than mere delays.

Trouble in the North

Over the past two months, unusually intense flare-ups in fighting have occurred in northern Myanmar. In Kachin state, the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s military) has repeatedly clashed with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), a non-signatory to the NCA. The violence triggered large-scale displacement in the state, with approximately 1000 internally displaced persons re-displaced and 3000 civilians trapped in mines without access to basic humanitarian services.

The uptick in violence matches the pattern of the Tatmadaw’s annual winter offensive designs, undertaken to starve the KIA of critical resources. The fighting also comes months after the KIA joined the Federal Political Negotiations and Consultations Committee (FPNCC)—the newest grouping of non-signatory EAOs—led by the powerful United Wa State Army (UWSA).

Reportedly, KIA’s new Chairman, General N’Ban La, is closer to Beijing than his predecessor. According to Bertil Lintner, renewed engagement with the UWSA has allowed the KIA to procure Chinese arms more easily than earlier, facilitating a more aggressive response to the Tatmadaw. 

The fighting has significantly damaged whatever positive capital Naypyitaw had gained in its sporadic talks with the KIA and similar groups in the north. It has also visibly antagonised the Kachin population and widened the trust deficit between KIA’s ethnic constituency—whose support is crucial to any peace settlement—and Naypyitaw. On 5 February, thousands protested in Kachin's capital, Myitkyina, against the military’s disregard for civilian lives and the union government’s silence over the unfolding humanitarian situation.

Moreover, Naypyitaw has not engaged with the northern non-signatories since the November 2017 meeting between government officials and two FPNCC members. There have also been unexpected skirmishes between NCA signatory Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) and the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA-Splinter)—a non-NCA signatory breakaway faction of the NCA signatory Democratic Karen Benevolent Army (DKBA). The DKBA-Splinter accused the KNLA of attacking them by teaming up with the Border Guards Force (BGF), a sub-divisional force of the Tatmadaw composed of former ethnic rebels.

Cancelled Participations, Delayed Dialogues 

At a 5 January meeting, the Karen National Union (KNU)—another NCA signatory and the KNLA's political wing—pulled out of the upcoming 21CPC. They cited the peace process' slow pace and incompatibility of the government’s peace agenda and its own aims as reasons for the withdrawal.

On 8 January, NCA signatory Restoration Council of Shan State (RCSS) was forced to indefinitely postpone its national-level dialogue (ND) after Tatmadaw forces stormed into its pre-ND public consultations to halt proceedings. Subsequently, the state government too revoked permission to hold any such meetings, even though the RCSS already had prior approval from the Joint Implementation Coordination Meeting (JICM). This is the second time the RCSS was prevented from exercising its due right under the NCA to host its ND. This will not just push the RCSS away from the NCA but also weaken the foundations of the ceasefire accord and set a negative precedent in the eyes of other negotiating parties. If Naypyitaw repeatedly fails to deliver on its own promises, there is little incentive left for the EAOs to disengage, reciprocate, or comply.

Evidently, both signatories and non-signatories to the NCA are facing similar issues. They are growing increasingly anxious of the military’s hostile behaviour, and more importantly, of the incapacity of State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi's government to revise the military-drafted 2008 constitution which limits ethnic autonomy and accords the Tatmadaw disproportionate power within the government.

Bright Spots?

Following months of negotiations, on 23 January, two non-signatory EAOs—the New Mon State Party (NMSP) and the Lahu Democratic Union (LDU)—agreed to sign the NCA. This is the first expansion of the ceasefire accord since its inception in 2015. Yet, less than two weeks after the announcement, the NMSP (which is still armed) stated that signing the NCA does not mean they will disarm, but that they will participate in the dialogue process as a core negotiating party. It remains to be seen how the government reconciles with this, since the NCA mandatorily entails disarming. Meanwhile, the LDU is a spent force and is often described as a ‘Thailand-based NGO’. The most influential and powerful EAOs still remain out of the NCA’s fold, and leagues away from any permanent settlement.

Difficult Times Ahead

At a time when the Myanmar government is facing its harshest criticism from the international community over the ongoing crisis in Rakhine State, the Suu Kyi government’s path to peace now looks longer and rockier. Bad press and pressure from advocacy groups might drive the peace process's international funders to reassess their donor agendas, thus hampering the critical financing of the massive peace bureaucracy that her government has erected.

Yet, the Tatmadaw remains the biggest spoiler. There can be no peace with the military violently targeting the EAOs at every step. Unless the civilian government intervenes to restore faith between Naypyitaw and the non-signatory EAOs and their ethnic constituencies, the 21CPC will remain reduced to a biannual carnival.

COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT) Scholarships for Mauritian Students in Pakistan 2018

Application Deadline: 10th March 2018

Eligible Countries: Mauritius

To Be Taken At (Country): Pakistan

About the Award: International students are the central point of focus of its internationalization policy and it welcomes international students from across the world. In order to attract international students and to provide opportunities to get quality higher education, CIIT offers scholarships to various foreign governments and organizations to enable their nominees to study at CIIT. International students are enrolled in different graduate and undergraduate degree programs. Currently more than 400 International Students from 18 countries are registered at various campuses of CIIT.

Fields of Study: The fields of studies are as follows:-

1. Computer Science
2. Mathematics
3. Management Sciences
4. Electrical Engineering
5. Physics
6. Project Management
7. Meteorology
8. Chemistry
9. Biosciences
10. Earth Sciences
11. International Relations
12. Development Studies
13. Environmental Science
14. Sustainable Water Sanitation

Type: Masters, PhD Program.

Eligibility: Applicants must be Mauritian Nationals.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Partial

How to Apply: Application forms may be downloaded from the International Students web portal here.
Application forms along with scanned copies of academic documents may be sent on the following email address:
int.admissions@comsats.edu.pk

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: COMSAT

Global Confederation of Higher Education Associations for the Agricultural and Life Sciences (GCHERA) World Agriculture Prize 2018 – China

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018

Eligible Countries: All. At least one Of these prizes will be dedicated to a candidate from a Developing Country.

To Be Taken At (Country): The 2018 GCHERA World Agriculture Prize Award Ceremony will be held on 28 October 2018 in Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China.

About the Award: The GCHERA WORLD AGRICULTURE PRIZE is the international award of the Global Confederation of Higher Education Associations for the Agricultural and Life Sciences (GCHERA). The Prize aims to encourage the development of the mission of higher education institutions in education, research, innovation and outreach in the agricultural and life sciences by recognizing the distinguished contribution of an individual to this mission. Two 100,000 USD prizes will be awarded in 2018 with at least one recipient NOT coming from a country classified as having a developed economy.

Type: Contest/Award

Eligibility: Each nominee will demonstrate exceptional and significant achievement in his or her engagement in the mission of higher education institutions in education, research, innovation and outreach relating to the agricultural and life sciences. The impact of these achievements will most likely be demonstrated in the work of the nominee in the development of the institution(s) in which the nominee has served, and in the local and wider geographical region of those institution(s), but not necessarily globally.

Selection Criteria: The nominee will demonstrate exceptional and significant achievement in his or her engagement in the mission of higher education institutions relating to the agricultural and life sciences. This impact will most likely be demonstrated in the work of nominee in the development of higher education in the institution(s) in which the nominee has served, and in the wider geographical region of the institution(s). This engagement in the mission of higher education institutions will most likely have changed in emphasis, scope and the level of achievement as the nominee’s career has progressed.
To be more specific, as indicated in the Introduction above, the nomination will demonstrate the extent to which the nominee has:

• provided innovation and leadership in the education programmes of students at the Bachelor and Master levels, and in the delivery of life long learning,
• engaged in research for the advancement of science for the benefit of society, working with colleagues, and mentoring PhD Students and Post Doctorate staff
• provided leadership in the strategic development of the institution(s) in which the s/he has worked, not necessarily only his/her home institution but other institutions regionally or internationally
• engaged with the higher education institutions’ stakeholders, enterprises, government, NGOs and civil society in the immediate locality, regionally and internationally to strengthen knowledge transfer, innovation initiatives, and outreach ventures which have led to the enhancement of society’s well being
• been an inspiration to students, to colleagues at all levels and to leaders in the wider regional and international community.

The five bullet points above will act as prompts to assist the nominator completing the online nomination form for the GCHERA World Agriculture Prize.

Number of Awards: 2

Value of Award: Prizes to be awarded include 100,000 USD each.

How to Apply: You can register to make a nomination on this page. You will then receive a password by email to allow you to log on to the online nomination form. You can update your nomination form at any time until the closing date of 17.00 GMT on 30 April 2018.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Global Confederation of Higher Education Associations for the Agricultural and Life Sciences (GCHERA).

DW Akademie Journalism Masters Scholarships for Journalism Students and Professionals in Developing Countries 2018 – Germany

Application Deadline: 31st March 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

About the Award: The program is targeted at students from around the world that want to work in a position of responsibility in journalism or the communications sector. It especially addresses journalists-in-training, media representatives from radio, TV, online and print and communication experts. Those interested must have completed an academic program (bachelor’s degree or equivalent) and have acquired at least one year of professional experience in a media-related field after their first degree. The program is bilingual (English and German), whereby English is the prevalent course language.
Full Scholarship: We are granting full scholarship to up to 10 applicants each year. Prospective students from developing countries can apply for the full scholarship. The scholarship is 750 EUR per month covering costs for living and accommodation. The tuition fee and the flight will be also reimbursed. A committee will decide which applicants are to receive a scholarship after the application deadline has expired.
Partial Scholarship: Prospective students from developing countries and countries in transition who do not meet the requirements for the full scholarship, may apply for a partial scholarship. This will cover the costs of the tuition fees of 6,000 EUR. The expenses for travelling, accommodation and living will have to be paid by yourself.

Type: Masters, Training

Eligibility: Especially targeted at:
• Media representatives from radio, TV, online and print
• Journalists-in-training, especially from electronic media
• Journalists and management from community radio stations
• Communication experts
• NGO employees
• Employees from ministries
• Employees from cooperative development groups and projects
• Representatives from regional working groups and national broadcasters
• Media association representatives

For the Master’s Program, applicants must have a bachelor’s degree, at least one year of professional experience in a media-related field and advanced skills in German and English.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Full and Partial scholarships are available.

Duration of Program: Four semesters

How to Apply: Applications must be made online.
Before you begin filling out the online application form make sure you have all the required documents:
• Letter of motivation (signed and dated)
• Current Curriculum Vitae (Europass format, signed and dated)
• Certificate of your first academic degree (including ALL transcripts)
• Evidence of at least one year’s professional experience in a media-related field AFTER obtaining your first academic degree (for a full scholarship you must give evidence for at least one additional year of professional experience)
• Certificate of APS (for applicants who completed their first degree in China, Vietnam or Mongolia)
• Evidence of sufficient English language skills (TOEFL IBT: score of 83 or higher, IELTS: score of 6.0 or higher, BULATS: score of 70 or higher, LCCI: level 3) – English language certificates are valid for two years from the date of issue
• Evidence of sufficient German language skills (TestDaF at least level TDN 3 in all four parts of the examination, Goethe Zertifikat at least level B2 or DSH at least level 1)
• Copy of your passport.
If you would like to apply for a full scholarship, you will be required to submit some additional documents:
• Recent recommendation letter from a University (with letterhead, official University stamp, signature and date)
• Recent recommendation letter from your employer (with letterhead, official company stamp, signature and date)
• DAAD application form
• High school diploma
Please sign the documents where required, scan them and upload them. You will need to bring the originals with you in case you are accepted to the program.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: DW Akademie

Research for Development (R4D) Visiting Scientist Grant for Developing Countries at ETH Zurich 2018 – Switzerland

Application Deadlines:

• 31st March 2018
• 31st August 2018
• 30th November 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Switzerland

About the Award: ETH Global provides grants for visiting scientists, belonging to an academic institution in developing countries. The visiting scientist may visit ETH Zurich to:
1. Conduct a short research stay at an ETH Zurich chair or laboratory.
2. To attend a conference or workshop organized by ETH Zurich scientists.
ETH Global provides a variety of funding instruments to support scientists from from ETH Zurich and colleagues from developing countries to initiate new projects or foster collaboration.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: Senior scientists including post-doc scientists of ETH Zurich are eligible to apply for a visiting scientist grant to invite their partners from an institution in a developing country. To be eligible, the invited candidate has to fulfil the following requirements:

• Employed at a partner institution of the ETH Zurich in a developing country
• Proven academic qualifications

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 10’000 CHF (maximum sum)

Application Form Visiting Scientist (DOC, 80 KB)

• Send the completed application form to Patricia Heuberger (patricia.heuberger@sl.ethz.ch).
• Please use the provided application form to submit your application.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: ETH Zurich

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Champions of the Earth Internship for Young Leaders 2018 – Nairobi, Kenya

Application Deadline: 2nd March 2018

To Be Taken At (Country): Nairobi, Kenya

About the Award: The United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) is the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda, promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development within the United Nations system and serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment.
UN Environment has a partnership with Covestro to run the Young Champions of the Earth, a multi-year challenge to help get big ideas off the ground with seed funding, mentoring, training, global publicity and access to influential networks.
Daily responsibilities will depend on the individual’s background. Under the direct supervision of the Communication Deputy Director, the intern will:
•Respond to email inquiries relating to application and nomination processes;
•Support the organization in reviewing submissions and provide regional and global juries with information and guidance;
•Liaise with UN Environment’s regional communication staff to shortlist applicants for the Young Champions of the Earth prize;
•Coordinate a knowledge and data repository of nominations and applications;
•Contribute to the development of outreach materials, update website pages and work with social media teams and translators to co-produce content;
•Help with the organization and logistics of the award ceremony;
•Maintain strict confidentiality in all aspects of the work;
•Provide technical support to the Coordinator and other staff, and undertake other tasks as needed.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: 

Core Competencies:

Communication:
-Speaks and writes clearly and effectively
-Listens to others, correctly interprets messages from others and responds appropriately
-Asks questions to clarify, and exhibits interest in having two-way communication
-Tailors language, tone, style and format to match the audience
-Demonstrates openness in sharing information and keeping people informed

Teamwork:
-Works collaboratively with colleagues to achieve organizational goals
-Solicits input by genuinely valuing others’ ideas and expertise; is willing to learn from others
-Places team agenda before personal agenda
-Supports and acts in accordance with final group decision, even when such decisions may not entirely reflect own position
-Shares credit for team accomplishments and accepts joint responsibility for team shortcomings

Client Orientation:
-Considers all those to whom services are provided to be “clients ” and seeks to see things from clients’ point of view
-Establishes and maintains productive partnerships with clients by gaining their trust and respect
-Identifies clients’ needs and matches them to appropriate solutions
-Monitors ongoing developments inside and outside the clients’ environment to keep informed and anticipate problems
-Keeps clients informed of progress or setbacks in projects
-Meets timeline for delivery of products or services to client

Education: Applicants must at the time of application meet one of the following requirements:
a. Be enrolled in a graduate school programme (second university degree or equivalent, or higher);
b. Be enrolled in the final academic year of a first university degree program (minimum Bachelor’s level or equivalent);
c. Have graduated with a university degree and, if selected, must commence the internship within a one-year period of graduation.

• Be computer literate in standard software applications.
• Have demonstrated keen interest in the work of the United Nations and have a personal commitment to the ideals of the Charter; 
• Have a demonstrated ability to successfully interact with individuals of different cultural backgrounds and beliefs, which include willingness to try and understand and be tolerant of differing opinions and views.
• Studies in communication, journalism, science, environment, marketing, business or any related field preferred.
• Work Experience: Applicants are not required to have professional work experience for participation in the programme.
• Languages: English and French are the working languages of the United Nations Secretariat. For this internship, fluency in oral and written English is required. Knowledge of another UN Language is desirable.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• The internship is UNPAID and full-time.
• However, each year, six or seven Young Champions will receive the full life-changing support package, and about 30 will receive expert mentoring.

Duration of Program: 6 months.

How to Apply: Apply Now
It is important to note the required application documents on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: United Nations.

Sickening Relations: The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector

Colin Todhunter

The Royal Society in the UK is a self-governing fellowship of distinguished scientists. Its purpose is reflected in its founding charters of the 1660s: to recognise, promote and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity. Its motto, nullius in verba, is taken to mean ‘take nobody’s word for it’. It is an expression of the determination to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts based on experiment.

In 2015, Steven Druker challenged the Royal Society to justify its outspoken and partisan support of genetically modified (GM) crops and to correct any errors of fact in his book ‘Altered Genes,Twisted Truth’. Not long after the book’s release, he wrote an open letter to the Society calling on it to acknowledge and correct the misleading and exaggerated statements that is has used to actively promote genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and in effect convey false impressions.

Druker cited specific instances where members of the Royal Society have at various times made false statements and the Society’s actions were not objective or based on scientific reasoning but biased and stridently pro-GMO. He argued that the Royal Society has misrepresented the case for GMOs and has effectively engaged in a campaign of disinformation.

Almost three years later, from what we can gather, the Royal Society has not responded to Druker.

In August 2017, Druker wrote:

“For more than 20 years, many eminent scientists and scientific institutions have routinely claimed that genetically modified foods are safe. And because of the perceived authority of their pronouncements, most government officials and members of the media have believed them. But when the arguments these scientists employ to support their claims are subjected to scrutiny, it becomes clear that important facts have invariably been misrepresented — either deliberately or through substantial negligence. And when these facts are fairly considered, the arguments collapse.”

He goes on to discuss an inaccurate publication on GM foods issued by the Royal Society in May 2016, GMO Plants: Questions and Answers, which claims to provide “unbiased” and “reliable” answers to peoples’ most pressing questions.

In his analysis of the document, Druker reveals that it displays a strong pro-GMO bias and that several of its assertions are demonstrably false. He says that his analysis has major implications:

“If the world’s oldest and most respected scientific institution cannot argue for the safety of GM foods without systematically distorting the facts, it indicates that such distortion is essential to the argument.”

That too must apply to individual members of the Royal Society. For example, during his recent visits to India, Sir Richard John Roberts has consistently lobbied for GMO agriculture, regardless of the fact that five high-level official reports state it is inappropriate for India.

The most recent report states that unless the bio-safety and socioeconomic desirability is evaluated by a participatory, independent and transparent process and a retrieval and accountability regime is put in place, no GM crop should be introduced in the country.

And who could argue with that given the story of GMOs in India has thus far been that of “blatant violations of biosafety norms, disregarding of federal polity, unscientific protocol, hasty approvals, lack of monitoring abilities, general apathy towards the hazards of contamination and other issues, lack of institutional oversight mechanisms…”

This doesn’t matter to Roberts though, who deems it necessary to lobby for GM by relying on claims about the benefits of GM that do not stack up under scrutiny and spends a good deal of time launching emotionally-driven attacks on critics. He fails to appreciate where science ends and spin begins.

His claims are not just outrageous but wholly irresponsible given the outright regulatory delinquency and scientific fraud that dogs GM in India as well as the latest stories about the failure of GM cotton (India’s only GM crop) and the dire consequences for over four million farmers and 20 million more who rely on them.

Roberts must feel his distortions and inflammatory statements about critics are, as Druker says, essential to his argument.

Are we dealing with a scientific priesthood whose authority is meant to trump reason?

Royal Society accused of collusion with agrochemical industry

In a new, fully-referenced 45-page open letter, environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason is strident in her criticism of the Royal Society:

“The Royal Society of London has thrown its hand in with the agrochemical industry, has received funding from it and accepted its word that GM crops are safe. The scientists who founded The Royal Society (Wren, Boyle, Wilkins and Newton) would turn in their graves.”

Rosemary Mason’s letter is addressed to Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society. She sets out in some detail the disturbing effects of the rising use of agrochemicals on human health, the environment, biodiversity and ecology in the UK and beyond.

As she notes, many have sounded the alarm over global mass poisoning as a result of tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals entering world markets with no evidence of safety. It has reached the point where we now have an ‘ecological Armageddon’ after a dramatic plunge in insect numbers.

Given Mason’s concerns about the Royal Society’s collusion with corporate interests, she refers Ramakrishnan to the reputation of Monsanto and the findings of the Monsanto Tribunal, the Monsanto Papers and the dozens of lawsuits in the US involving that company.

Aside from engaging in practices that have impinged on the basic human right to a healthy environment, the right to food and the right to health, the Monsanto Tribunal also found that the company has had a negative impact on the right of scientists to freely conduct indispensable research. The Monsanto Papers are based on a release of internal emails which revealed that the company manipulated studies of the company’s herbicide, Roundup. And the lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto covered up the risks.

In accusing the Royal Society of collusion, Mason quotes Dr Brian John’s open letter to Ramakrishnan’s predecessor Sir Paul Nurse in 2012:

“Why do you see it as part of your job to promote the interests of the GM industry? That industry, whose sole interest in feeding the world is linked to its own desire for total control of both the seed supply and the agrichemical supply, needs no help from anybody – and anybody who has eyes to see must realise that corporations like Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta fully deserve their black reputations… they have long histories of involvement in scientific fraud, bribery, the vilification of independent scientists and other deeply unpleasant activities…  they are actively seeking to dismantle the regulatory system… You may not count these corporations among your friends, but if you are promoting GMOs you are also promoting their interests – and it would be disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.”

Mason mentions specific Royal Society members and organisations that have facilitated the needs of agritech/agrochemicals sector, not least the late Sir Richard Doll who was found after his death to have been paid by Monsanto for 20 years to deny that PCBs and Agent Orange caused cancer.

She quotes another extract from Dr Brian John’s letter to Ramakrishnan:

“… scientists working in the GM field have mounted vicious personal attacks… upon serious scientists who have had the temerity to discover ‘uncomfortable things about GM crops and foods.’ This trend started with the vitriolic treatment meted out (with the Royal Society in the vanguard) on Arpad Pusztai and Stanley Ewen a decade ago, and continued with the crucifixion of Ignacio Chapela and David Quist, Angelika Hilbeck, Mae-wan Ho, Judy Carman, Gilles-Eric Séralini, Andrès Carrasco, Manuela Malatesta, Christian Velot, Irina Ermakova and many others.”

Whether it involves the Oxford Martin Commission for Future Generations or individual members of the Royal Society, Mason takes aim and highlights statements and actions from fellows of the Society that have less to do with science or factual evidence and more to do with spinning on behalf of corporate interests. The general theme of Mason’s letter is that of the Royal Society or its individual members colluding with industry and throwing the public under the bus of corporate profit.

Mason’s letter is full of highly pertinent points, none more so when she asks Ramakrishnan why Patrick Vallance, head of research and development at British pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 2017. His election to the Royal Society was in preparation for his appointment as Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government.

Referred to by Mason in her letter, the former editor of the New England Journal of MedicineMarcia Angell reported in 2008 that:

“… over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has gained unprecedented control over its own products. Drug companies now finance most clinical research over prescription drugs and there is mounting evidence they often skew the research they sponsor to make their drugs look better and safer.”

On 2 July 2012, GSK pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to a $3 billion settlement of the largest health-care fraud case in the US, the largest ever payment by a drug company. The settlement is related to the company’s illegal promotion of prescription drugs, its failure to report safety data, bribing doctors and promoting medicines for uses for which they were not licensed.

In her numerous documents and letters to high-level officials, Mason has noted the all-too-cosy relationships between government, the pharmaceuticals sector and the agrochemical industry. These corporate interests have embedded themselves within the heart of government and research institutes to establish a very profitable relationship.

In effect, corporate money and influence have eroded the integrity of many key institutions. The subversion of public need in favour of private profit has become institutionalised. That much is clear. What is also clear are the devastating consequences on human health, the environment and ecology, which Mason has been describing over the years.

Mason suggests that Ramakrishnan should send her letter to the 1,646 fellows of The Royal Society. They should examine their consciences and decide what should be done to inform British citizens who have a right to know that global mass poisoning with chemicals is why they are so sick and getting progressively sicker.

It would be laudable if this were to happen and Mason were to also receive a proper reply to the issues set out in her letter. But let’s not hold our breath.

Three years down the line, Steven Druker is still waiting for his response!

Scientists produce new treatment to block the development of breast cancer

Benjamin Mateus

The Medical College of Georgia last month said that a team of researchers had successfully used an inhibitor called HET0016 to block a chemical known as 20-HETE, which can promote the growth of breast cancer cells. The research was funded in part by the American Cancer Society and the National Institutes of Health.

Under normal conditions, 20-HETE metabolizes arachidonic acid, a polyunsaturated fatty acid that is present in cell membranes in the brain, muscles and liver. This reaction also helps regulate blood flow, blood pressure and inflammation and produces a host of different biologically active chemicals and metabolites necessary for proper cellular physiology and concerted signaling with other organ systems in our bodies.

Breast cancer cell (yellow) as viewed through an electron microscope. Photo by Kristian Pfaller.

For instance, our neurological health is dependent on sufficient levels of arachidonic acid. It helps protect the brain from oxidative stress by activating proteins involved in growth and repair of neurons. During tissue injury, the acid is released from cell membranes, leading to important inflammatory mediators that help repair the damage. Conditions such as diabetes and obesity may lead to aberrations in these chemical processes.

The catch is that while 20-HETE and arachidonic acid stimulate various necessary intracellular pathways necessary for the proliferation, migration and survival of healthy cells, it seems that cancer also uses these mechanisms to protect itself.

Not all breast cancer is the same. There are four subtypes that demonstrate distinct morphology and have different clinical implications. They are designated by their molecular categories according to their steroid hormone receptor status, estrogen and progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. The differences account for different mortality rates and different required treatments.

The most common type of breast cancer, known as Luminal A, accounts for 30-70 percent of breast cancer and has the best prognosis, with high survival rates and low recurrence rates. The other three types—known as Luminal B, HER2-enriched and triple-negative breast cancer—all have lower survival rates, tending to grow in lymph nodes and exhibit more aggressive behaviors.

In general, the more aggressive types of breast cancer have a higher propensity for spreading to the bones, liver, lungs and brain. Patients with breast cancer in their bones have a median survival rate of between two and five years, while those diagnosed with brain cancer have the worst prognosis, with an approximate survival period of four to seven months. The current research is looking at ways to inhibit these more deadly cancers.

Primary Tumor Microenvironment: The tumor cells are surrounded by the normal epithelial cells including support cells such as Epithelial Progenitor cells (EPC), Bone Marrow Derived Cells (BMDC), and a host of white blood and mesenchymal cells that allow the cancer cells to thrive.

These particular tumor cells thrive in what are known as tumor microenvironments. Essentially the breast cancer cell is able to communicate with its surroundings and recruit tumor-associated cells, reprogram them to create new blood supplies for its growth and suppress immune cells from targeting it. This allows the breast cancer cell to reproduce and metastasize in a protected sanctuary.

By using HET0016, the authors were able to slow the growth of these tumors in animal models. They were then able to demonstrate decreased tumor volume, migration and invasion by the breast cancer cells which led to increased survival time. They also observed a synergistic reduction of the immune cell populations used by the cancer to protect itself, as well as a decrease in factors that promote the growth and development of new blood vessels. They were also able to demonstrate that HET0016 was able to decrease myelodysplastic cells, which are thought to diminish the immune system’s ability to attack the tumor cells.

The hypothesis that tumors need to grow new blood vessels in order to develop and expand was first proposed in 1971 by Judah Folkman. Since then cancer research has turned away from the concept of the tumor cells operating autonomously to meet their metabolic and nutritional needs and focused on understanding the interactions in the “tumor microenvironment,” which is comprised of normal support cells (called stromal), endothelial cells which line the interior of blood and lymphatic vessels, and immune cells of the individual which are reprogrammed to aid the tumor cells in surviving, growing and spreading.

Cancer death rates from 1975-2020 for breast cancer from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, showing a decrease in rates as treatments have become more advanced and more available.

These findings have considerable social implications. Globally, breast cancer is the most common malignancy and the leading cause of death from cancer in women. Age, time to first menses, age at first live birth and age at menopause are known risk factors. Ten percent of breast cancer is attributable to hereditary factors. Modifiable risks such as demographics, lifestyle and environmental factors have not as yet been studied closely to determine the associations with breast cancer risk.

For instance, the incidence of breast cancer is higher in white women compared to black women, though black women more commonly present with regional or advanced disease than white women and have a higher breast cancer-specific mortality rate. Belying these figures are unmeasured factors such as access to health care or facility expertise that can detect these malignancies at much earlier stages. And yet in light of these and many other factors that deserve to be explored, there are very few studies exploring the role of 20-HETE inhibition in the treatment of malignancies.

Studies and research like this one not only offer insight into new treatment options for breast cancer but also highlight the complex interaction between external factors that promote inflammation caused by early life exposures, obesity, diabetes and ongoing social life stresses to include substance abuse and internal processes that promote the development of aggressive malignant cancers.