19 Oct 2018

Wall Street volatile as global economy becomes “fragile”

Nick Beams

Volatility has continued on Wall Street following two days of major falls last week. The Dow Jones index shot up by more than 500 points on Tuesday, followed by a more than 300-point decline during Wednesday before recovering to finish 80 points down.
Yesterday, after a global sell-off, the Dow finished down by 327 points, after dropping 470 points during the course of the day. In what was described as a “jittery session,” the S&P 500 was down 1.4 percent, its largest fall in a week, and has now experienced a decline in 10 out of the 14 trading sessions this month.
The immediate volatility is being driven by two conflicting tendencies. On the one hand, US markets are being pushed down by the further expected increases in the Federal Reserve’s base interest rate and the general tightening of monetary conditions expressed in the rise of the rate on the benchmark 10-year US Treasury bond, which is now hovering around 3.2 percent. Monetary conditions are also being made more restrictive by the Fed’s reduction of its assets holdings by $50 billion per month as part of its program to reduce its balance sheet. Its previous quantitative easing program saw Fed assets expand from less than $1 trillion to $4.5 trillion.
On the other hand, share prices are being boosted by the rise in profits being reported by banks and major companies. There is also an expectation that US growth will continue and that, while asset valuations may be “stretched,” there is still some way for the market to run and gains to be reaped.
The underlying instability and fears of a major sell-off were underscored by further comments by US President Donald Trump following his denunciation of the Fed’s interest rate rises as “crazy” and “loco” during last week’s sell-off. In an interview with the Fox Business News Network, he repeated his assertion that the Fed was raising interest rates too fast and described the central bank’s actions as “my biggest threat.”
Nominally adhering to the independence of the Fed, Trump said he had not spoken to its chairman Jerome Powell, whom he appointed last year. But he was “not happy” with what Powell was doing, “because it’s going too fast.” Powell, he asserted, was “being extremely conservative, to use a nice term.”
Former Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen weighed into the debate, saying she agreed with the Fed’s present policies and that there was a danger of the economy overheating. She said the present growth rate of 3 percent was “terrific” but cast doubt on whether it was sustainable in the longer term. The Fed would need to be “skilful and lucky” to achieve a soft landing after 2019.
It is a significant observation when a former Fed chief remarks that US growth needs “luck” to continue.
The minutes from the Fed’s interest-rate setting Open Market Committee of September 25-26, released on Wednesday, indicated that the central bank is still on course for another interest rate rise in December, with some participants wanting to tighten policy still further.
The minutes noted that some members thought it would be necessary to “temporarily raise the federal funds rate above their assessments of its longer-run level in order to reduce the risk of a sustained overshooting of the Committee’s two percent inflation objective or the risk posed by significant financial imbalances.”
The chief concern is not with inflation per se but whether the lowering of the unemployment rate and labour shortages lead to a significant push for increased wages, which the Fed is determined to suppress.
Market volatility is also being fuelled by the worsening global economic outlook resulting from the rise in US interest rates, the increasing value of the dollar, and the escalation of trade tensions between the US, China and other countries.
The dollar’s rising value has a major impact on emerging markets because it increases the real level of dollar-denominated loans, making the repayment of the interest and principal more expensive. The Financial Times has described the situation facing emerging markets as “ugly,” noting that the JPMorgan Chase EM currency index has fallen by 12 percent since April. Stock markets have also been hit, with the MSCI Emerging Markets Index down by more than 16 percent in the same period.
The elevated stock market values in the US stand in contrast to the rest of the world. While the S&P 500 index is up more than 4 percent for the year, the Stoxx Europe 600 index has experienced a 6.2 percent decline, Japan’s Nikkei 225 is down by 0.9 percent and the Shanghai Composite has fallen by 23 percent.
Trade tensions are continuing to rise. There was a sharp exchange at a World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting on Tuesday between the US representative Dennis Shea and his Chinese counterpart Zhang Xiangchen.
Shea demanded that the WTO confront China’s alleged trade abuses and remove its rights as a developing economy. Zhang countered that “no one can be singled out” and that efforts to undermine the basic principles of the organisation had to be opposed. But Shea insisted that the world body target China.
“Adequately responding to the challenges of non-market economies is nothing less than an existential matter for this institution,” Shea said.
This is a thinly-veiled threat that unless the WTO takes action over what the US calls China’s “market-distorting” policies, including subsidies for state-backed industries and its alleged acquisition of high-tech knowledge through forced technology transfers or outright theft, it will withdraw from the body.
The US has already significantly undermined the WTO by blocking the appointment of members to its appellate body, which has the final say on trade disputes. The Trump administration has refused for more than a year to consider new appointments because it says former members went beyond their mandate and took an “activist approach” detrimental to the US. The administration’s actions have reduced the normally seven-member body to just three and if the present stand-off continues it will not be able to function past December next year.
As part of its trade war against China, the US has been seeking to bring its “strategic allies” into its camp by opening up negotiations with them on bilateral trade deals. These moves, including the recently-concluded US Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) and agreements with the European Union and Japan for one-on-one negotiations, have been accompanied by threats of auto tariffs of up to 25 percent.
In addition, the USMCA contained what the US side characterised as a “poison pill.” If either of the other partners entered a free trade agreement with a “non-market” economy, namely China, the US could withdraw. US trade officials have made it clear they want to see this provision included in other bilateral deals.
Negotiations with Europe, agreed on at a meeting between Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker in July, have already produced conflict.
In talks on Wednesday each side accused the other of undermining the July agreement. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said of his EU counterpart Cecilia Malmstrom that it was “as though she was at a different meeting from the one that we attended.”
Ross said the purpose of the meeting was to get “near-term deliverables including both tariff relief and standards.” Trump’s “patience was not unlimited.”
Malmstrom said the EU had asked several times for a “scoping exercise”—the prelude to a full-scale trade deal—but the US had failed to respond. “So far,” she stated, “the US has not shown any big interest there, so the ball is in their court.”
Ross said the contention that the US was slowing things down was “simply inaccurate.” The US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, was even more blunt and implicitly raised the threat that auto tariffs could be put back on the agenda.
“If the president sees more quotes like the one that came out today his patience will come to an end,” Sondland said, attacking the “complete intransigence” of the EU and warning that any attempt to “wait out” Trump’s term as president was a “futile exercise.”
Warning that politics was putting the “skids under the bull market,” Financial Times economics commentator Martin Wolf wrote on Wednesday that, as the recent IMF meeting had made clear, reasons for concern “abound.” Above all, the “struggle between old and new superpowers” could “change everything.”
Wolf noted that the valuation of risky assets was “stretched” and just a small shift in global financial conditions could damage not only emerging markets. Wolf said the aggregate debt in countries “with systemically important financial sectors now stands at $167 trillion, or over 250 percent of aggregate gross domestic product,” compared with 210 percent in 2008.
The global economy and financial systems are “fragile,” Wolf concluded. “These are dangerous times—far more so than many now recognise. The IMF’s warnings are timely, but predictably understated. Our world is being turned upside down. The idea that the economy will motor on regardless while this happens is a fantasy.”

18 Oct 2018

Africa Science Leadership Programme 2019 (Fully-funded to Pretoria, South Africa)

Application Deadline: 9th November 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Pretoria, South Africa

About the Award: The ASLP is an initiative of the University of Pretoria in partnership with the Global Young Academy, funded by the Robert Bosch Stiftung. It serves early- to mid-career researchers in basic and applied science, engineering, social sciences, arts and the humanities. The programme aims to grow mid-career African academics in the areas of thought leadership, team development, engagement and collaboration, with the intention of enabling them to solve the complex issues that face both Africa and the global community.
The leadership programme:
  • Identifies early- to mid-career academics who have demonstrated leadership potential and an interest in developing key leadership skills
  • Supports them to apply the acquired skills to projects that are relevant to the academic development on the continent and its impact on society
  • Creates a network of academic leaders on the continent, spanning not only across countries, but also across disciplinary boundaries
  • Advances a curriculum for academic leadership development, which can be utilised in institutions in Africa and beyond
Type: Training

Eligibility: To be selected, applicants need to display a compelling vision of their future involvement in the development of research projects, programmes, human capacity, specific policies or societal structures. The selection process will consider individual qualities but also focus on ensuring a diversity of culture, subject background (Natural and Social Sciences, Humanities) and gender among the fellows. Where possible the programme will also attempt to create small ‘cores’ of leadership; multiple strong applicants from the same centre or country will thus be considered.

Selection Criteria: The following criteria are used as a guide for the nomination and selection of fellows:
  • A PhD degree or equivalent qualification;
  • A faculty or a continuing research position at a research institution;
  • Active in research and teaching at an African institution of higher education or research;
  • A sustained record of outstanding scientific outputs;
  • Interest in translating and communicating the results of their work for impact in society;
  • Demonstrated leadership ability in research and beyond.
  • Interest in the role of research in addressing complex issues affecting society;
  • Interest in collaborations across disciplines and sectors (e.g. industry, government, etc.);
  • Commitment to participate in all the activities of the fellowship; and
  • Intent to share what is learned in the programme with their broader networks.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Program: The training will cover:
  • Core elements of collective leadership
  • Creative and systems thinking
  • Development of effective networks
  • Stakeholder engagement for change
  • Maximising the efficiency and impact of collaborative efforts
  • Advanced dialogue and communication skills
  • Effective problem solving and decision making
There will be some costs, which are not covered by the programme, such as visas, vaccinations or local transport expenses, for which you may need to seek support from your local institution or fund personally. You will also be required to provide us with your personal travel insurance details as a condition of participation.
Following the first training week, fellows will apply their skills to a project relevant to their context and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As described above, projects will aim to contribute to a new paradigm for Africa science. During the year, participants will continue to engage with the group and have access to professional support. The costs incurred during the workshop (training, relevant travel, meals and accommodation) will be covered by the programme. In March 2020, fellows will complete their projects and present them at the second in-person training, which will consist of 3 days.

How to Apply: All applicants have to provide two support letters by academic referees (details are provided in the application form). One of the two referees has to commit to be involved in future communications and mentorship in case of selection of the applicant into the programme. This referee will be informed about the progress of the fellow and should be willing to support the fellow if he or she requires it.
All applications will be reviewed and shortlisted by representatives of the University of Pretoria, the Global Young Academy, national young academies, and ASLP Management. The ASLP Management team will make the final selection of candidates

Apply here for ASLP 2019

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: The ASLP is an initiative of the University of Pretoria in partnership with the Global Young Academy, funded by the Robert Bosch Stiftung.

IBM Master the Mainframe Contest 2019 for Students in Middle East & Africa

Application Deadline: 31st December 2018

Eligible Regions: N. America, Latin America, S. Asia, APAC, MEA, and Europe

About the Award: This unique, virtual contest is open globally to high school and college students to progressively teach mainframe skills in a real-world enterprise computing environment. Employers from around the globe use this contest to seek out potential candidates for mainframe careers.
Part 1: Learn the Basics: Meet the IBM Z mainframe and acquaint yourself with the user interfaces, the basic concepts, and data structures. IBM will provide step by step instructions to complete the challenges and set you up for success in Part 2.
Part 2: Practice: Students will program (advanced commands, system setup, and system navigation), develop (C, JAVA, COBOL, assembler, and REXX) and experience operating systems challenges on IBM Z.
Part 3: Try Challenges: Dive deeper using real-life scenarios encountered by experienced systems programmers. Challenges will put contestants to the test and identify those with the most drive and determination to master the mainframe

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 
  • Anyone who is currently a student at the high school or university level can compete — no experience is necessary.
  • The contest teaches the skills you’ll need and the competition difficulty increases as you progress through the contest phases.
Number of Awards: Numerous

Value of Award: 
  • Part 1 “Learn the Basics” Prizes:
    • $25 gift card to 300 randomly chosen from first 2,000 completions
  • Part 2 “Practice” Prizes:
    • Cash Prizes
    • $100 gift card to first 150 to complete
    • Exclusive QTUM Computer Webinar and Q&A Invite
    • Invite to randomly chosen 25 from all those that finish Part 2 correctly
  • Part 3 “Real World Challenge” Prizes:
    • $2750 travel stipend & IBM Master the Mainframe Hoodie to the top 2 individuals from EACH region
  • Grand Prize
    • The top 3 individuals globally will receive a $1,000 USD prize pack
  • Besides the awesome prizes, you can get unprecedented exposure to a variety of systems, software, and products.
  • You can earn an Enterprise Computing Open Badge for your resume and social presences to impress potential employers. Yup, that’s right.
  • This competition can even land you a job!
How to Apply: REGISTER HERE

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: IBM

Google AI Residency Programme 2019 for Young STEM Graduates

Application Timeline:
  • Deadline: 28th January 2019
  • Google team will review applications on a rolling basis and interviews will begin in November 2018. It is in your best interest to submit your application early.
  • The Google AI Residency Program will have 3 start dates over the course of 5 months, from June to October 2019. Exact dates are yet to be determined.
Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: The Google AI Residency Program (formerly known as the Google Brain Residency Program) is a 12-month role designed to advance your career in machine learning research. Residents will work alongside distinguished scientists from various Research teams. The goal of the residency is to help residents become productive and successful AI researchers.
We created the Google Brain Residency Program in 2015, and we are now expanding it into a broader program that involves not just the Google Brain team, but a broader group of research teams doing machine learning research. Residents will have the opportunity to do everything from conducting fundamental research to contributing to products and services used by millions of people. We encourage our Residents to publish their work externally. Take a look at what some have done in previous years.
We are looking for people who want to learn to conduct machine learning research in collaboration with our researchers. You may have research experience in another field (e.g., mathematics, physics, bioinformatics, etc.) and want to apply machine learning to this area, or you may have limited research experience but, a desire to do more. Of course having machine learning research experience is great.
Current students will need to graduate from their current degree program before the residency begins. We encourage candidates from all over the world to apply. If a candidate requires a work visa, Google will explore what options are available on a case by case basis.

Type: Internships/Jobs

Eligibility: 
Minimum qualifications:
  • BA/BS degree in a STEM field such as Computer Science, Mathematics or Statistics, or equivalent practical experience.
  • Completed coursework in calculus, linear algebra, and probability, or their equivalent.
  • Experience with one or more general purpose programming languages, including but not limited to: C/C++ or Python
  • Experience with machine learning or deep learning, applications of machine learning to NLP, computer vision, speech, systems, robotics, algorithms, optimization, on-device learning, social networks, economics, information retrieval, journalism, or health care.
Preferred qualifications:
  • Research experience in machine learning or deep learning (e.g., links to open-source work or link to novel learning algorithms).
  • Strong open-source project experience that demonstrates programming, mathematical, and machine learning abilities and interest.
Selection Criteria: The research teams are looking for coding abilities in either Python or C++ and exposure to machine learning or deep learning; or applications of machine learning to NLP,  computer vision, speech, systems, robotics, algorithms, optimization, on-device learning, social networks, economics, information retrieval, journalism, or health care

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: All residents will be paid a competitive base salary and bonus.  If you need to relocate for the residency, Google will also provide a relocation bonus to assist you in the move to the Bay Area (or other location, if needed).

Duration of Program: 12 months

How to Apply: To apply, please read all instructions below and submit the following required materials:
  • Resume
  • Cover Letter
  • Transcript
Your application should show evidence of proficiency in programming and in prerequisite courses, notable performance in competitions, or links to an open-source project that demonstrates programming and mathematical ability. Your application should present a interest in the field. This can be demonstrated through links to publications and blog posts, or implementations of one or more (even slightly) learning algorithms, including an explanation for what makes it novel.

Step 1
Prepare the following documents to complete your application:

  • Current CV (including links to GitHub, papers and/or blogs if applicable).
  • Cover letter including a statement on why you think you’d be great for the Google AI Residency Program.
  • Transcripts from your most recent degree.
Step 2
Click on the “Apply” button on the page in Link below to provide the above required materials in the appropriate sections (PDFs preferred):

  • In the “Resume Section:” attach an updated resume.
  • In the “Optional Section:” attach your cover letter that includes a statement on why you think you’d be great for the Google AI Residency Program. This section is mandatory for the program even though it is optional, as noted on the website, for other jobs at Google.
  • In the “Education Section:” attach a current unofficial or official transcript in English. (Under “Degree Status,” select “Now attending” to upload a transcript.)
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Google

Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology Fellowship 2019 for Developing Countries – USA

Application Deadline: 30th November, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Currently, The Borlaug Fellowship Programme are only accepting applications from citizens of the following African countries:
Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

To be taken at (country): USA

Field of Study: All topics related to agriculture (as defined by Title XII) and the Feed the Future initiative are admissible.
Agriculture, as defined by Title XII, includes the science and practice of activity related to food, feed, and fiber production, processing, marketing, distribution, utilization, and trade, and also includes family and consumer sciences, nutrition, food science and engineering, agricultural economics and other social sciences, forestry, wildlife, fisheries, aquaculture, floraculture, veterinary medicine, and other environmental and natural resources sciences.

About Fellowship:  The Borlaug Fellowship Programme promotes food security and economic growth by providing training and collaborative research opportunities to fellows from developing and middle-income countries.
Borlaug fellows are generally scientists, researchers or policymakers who are in the early or middle stages of their careers. Competitively selected fellows will work one-on-one with a U.S. mentor who will coordinate the training program.  After completion of the 10-12 week fellowship, the mentor will visit the fellow’s home institution to continue collaboration.  USDA will select U.S. host institutions and mentors for each fellow.  We will only accept applications on approved topics for each country.

Offered Since: 2004

Eligibility: To be considered for the Borlaug Fellowship Program, candidates must:
  • Be citizens of an eligible country
  • Be fluent in English
  • Have completed a Master’s or higher degree
  • Be in the early or middle stage of their career, with at least two (but not more than 10) years of practical experience
  • Be employed by a university, government agency or research entity in their home country
  • Demonstrate their intention to continue working in their home country after completing the fellowship
Selection Criteria: Applications will be judged on the following criteria:
  • academic and professional research interests and achievements
  • level of scientific competence
  • aptitude for scientific research
  • leadership potential
  • likelihood of bringing back new ideas to their home institution
  • flexibility and aptitude for success in a cross-cultural environment
  • Consideration is also given to the relevance of the applicant’s research area to the research topics highlighted in the application announcement and to global food security and trade.
Number of Awardees: not specified

Value of Scholarship: Each fellow works one-on-one with a mentor at a U.S. university, research center or government agency. The U.S. mentor will later visit the fellow’s home institution to continue collaboration. Fellows may also attend the annual World Food Prize Symposium, held each October in Des Moines, Iowa.

Duration of Fellowship: 6-12 weeks.

How to Apply: Candidates must apply via the online application system (link below). The following information will be required:
  • Completed application form
  • 2-3 page program proposal and action plan
  • Signed approval from applicant’s home institution
  • Two letters of recommendation
  • Official copy of transcript for college/university degree(s) received
  • Copy of passport identification page
Interested applicants can apply here

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Provider: Borlaug Fellowship Programme

DAAD Re-invitation Programme for Former Scholarship Holders 2019

Application Deadline: 
  • 31st October, 2018 for research stays starting from April 2019
  • 1st April, 2019 for Research stays starting from August 2019
Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Germany

Type: Research

Eligibility:
  • Former holders of DAAD research grants or study scholarships, who were funded for a period of over six months
  • Applicants must have returned to their home country at least three years previously.
  • The research or working project must be coordinated with a cooperation partner in Germany.

What can be funded?

  • Research and working projects at state or state-recognised institutions of higher education or non-university research institutes in Germany
  • Working stays at an institution in business, administration, culture or media for former scholarship holders who work outside the science sector.
  • A research or working visit can also take place at several host institutions.
  • Funding may only be claimed once within three years
Selection Criteria: An independent selection committee reviews applications.
The most important selection criteria are:
  • Academic achievements and, if applicable, publications, which must be documented in the curriculum vitae and a list of publications
  • A convincing and well-planned research or work project
  • In the case of working stays outside the science sector, particular attention is paid to the following questions:
    – Will the stay in Germany have a sustainable effect on your professional activity?
    – Can you expect it to have multiplier effects, for example, in the form of planned publications?
    – Will your stay in Germany promote existing cooperations?
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • Monthly payments of
    2,000 euros for assistant teachers, assistant professors and lecturers
    2,150 euros for professors
Monthly payments for former scholarship holders who work outside the science sector will be calculated based upon their qualifications accordingly.
  • Travel allowance, unless these expenses are covered by the home country or another source of funding.
  • Other payments cannot be made.
Duration of Programme: 
  • One to three months; the length of the grant is decided by a selection committee and depends on the project in question and the applicant’s work schedule.
  • The grant is non-renewable.
How to Apply: The application procedure occurs online through the DAAD portal. The access to the DAAD portal opens about 6 weeks before the application deadline (see above).

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

When Saudi Arabia’s Credibility is Damaged, So is America’s

Patrick Cockburn

The Khashoggi affair has weakened President Trump’s campaign to impose stringent economic sanctions on Iran aimed at reducing its influence or forcing regime change. Saudi Arabia is America’s main ally in the Arab world so when its credibility is damaged so is that of the US.
On 5 November the US will impose tough restrictions on Iranian oil exports which have already been cut by more than half since Mr Trump announced the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement.
Other signatories, who disagree with him, are seeking to keep the nuclear deal afloat, but the threat of secondary sanctions on oil companies, banks and commercial companies for doing business with Iran is too great a risk for them to resist.
Iran is facing economic isolation but the US will find it more difficult to maintain a tight economic siege of the country without the sort of international cooperation it enjoyed before 2015 when sanctions were lifted as part of the nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
For sanctions to put irresistible pressure on Iran, they would need to be in place for years and to be enforced by many other nations. Paradoxically, the successful implementation of sanctions requires just the sort of international collaboration that Mr Trump has repeatedly denounced as being against American interests.
Mr Trump can scarcely back away from his confrontation with Iran because he has made it the principle test case for making America great again; or, in other words, the unilateral exercise of US power.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are exceptions but few other countries have a genuine interest in Mr Trump succeeding here even if they do not care much about what happens to Iran.
How has the prospect for sanctions succeeding been affected since dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi walked into the Saudi embassy in Istanbul on 2 October and failed to re-emerge?
Saudi Arabia has certainly been weakened by turning a minor critic and dissident into a martyr and cause célèbre, a mistake that is convincing many US foreign policy and intelligence experts that the operational capacity of the kingdom is even more limited than they had imagined.
The alleged murder of Mr Khashoggi is only the latest of a series of Saudi ventures since 2015 that have failed to turn out as planned. The list includes a stalemated war in Yemen that has almost provoked a famine; escalation in Syria that provoked Russian military intervention; the blockade of Qatar; and the detention of Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri.
For the first time, the US media is giving wall-to-wall coverage to negative stories about Saudi Arabia. One effect of this is to undermine Mr Trump’s effort to sell his confrontational policy towards Iran by demonising it as a uniquely criminal and terrorist regime. These denunciations are now being undercut by the drip-drip of allegations about the fate of Mr Khashoggi with even the case for the defence apparently resting on the claim that he was accidentally tortured to death by an overly enthusiastic security officer.
The importance of all this is that the essential political underpinnings of sanctions are being eroded.
The Iranian leadership is probably enjoying the Khashoggi scandal and wondering how it affects their long-term interests. The Iranians have a well-established reputation in the region for political cunning, but this often amounts to no more than patiently waiting for their enemies to make a mistake. They like to avoid direct confrontations and prefer long drawn out messy situations in which they can gradually outmanoeuvre their opponents.
The evidence so far is that Iran is choosing an unconfrontational response to impending sanctions. In Iraq, it has helped orchestrate the formation of a government that will once again balance between the US and Iran, but will not be vastly more pro-Iranian than its predecessor.
“It looks to me as if the Iranians were making a sort of peace offer to the Americans,” said one Iraqi politician who asked to remain anonymous.
Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent MindsIran will need to make sure Iraq remains one of the many breaches in the wall of sanctions that the US is trying to build. It will probably arrange barter deals that avoid cash transactions in which, for instance, Iranian gas is exchanged for pharmaceuticals, vehicles and other imports from Iraq.
Another channel for Iranian sanction busting under Mr Obama was Turkey, so Iran will be pleased by anything that worsens US and Saudi relations with Ankara.
If sanctions fail, could Washington decide that military action might be a better option? For all his verbal belligerence, Mr Trump has yet to start a war anywhere and sounds as if he intends to force Iran to negotiate by using economic pressure alone. On the other hand, as the Khashoggi affair has demonstrated, almost anything could happen and not everybody acts in their own best interests.

Peru: Fujimori and other right-wing politicians detained for links to Odebrecht scandal

Cesar Uco & Armando Cruz

While Peru has yet to be rocked by the double digits interest rates, inflation and currency devaluations as seen in Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil, the world capitalist crisis is manifesting itself in the Latin American country through a continuous escalation of the internecine warfare within the political establishment.
Longtime leader of the right-wing opposition party Fuerza Popular (FP) Keiko Fujimori was arrested last Wednesday October 10, along with 19 other FP members, under the order of Judge Richard Concepción Carhuancho. They are being held under a 10-day “preventive detention”, i.e., to preclude the risk of their fleeing the country to escape charges related to their alleged participation in the massive fraud scandal involving the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht.
All of the detained are accused of being part of a “criminal organization”—with Fujimori identified as its leader—that laundered money provided by Odebrecht for the FP’s campaign in the 2011 elections. This was part of Odebrecht’s buying of the whole Peruvian political establishment so that it could reap immense profits through the overpricing of its massive construction projects in Peru.
Following the arrest, FP followers went to the streets in protest. They were joined by several FP congressmen and former senior leaders such as Martha Chavez, Miguel Torres, Hector Becerril and Luis Galarreta. Many of them are also accused of being involved in corruption scandals. According to charges leveled by the prosecution, Fujimori’s alleged criminal organization included at least 114 people.
According to the judges and prosecuting attorneys, the FP’s modus operandi in laundering the money (according to Concepcion, US$649,573.64) was presenting it as money obtained through parties and lotteries—organized to raise campaign funding—as well from the personal contributions of individual FP members. The fact that most of the individual contributions—which were recorded as totaling US$731,388.80—supposedly came from people in Tarapoto, a poor neglected city in the Peruvian jungle, led to the investigation and the subsequent detentions.
Fujimori’s detention is significant because until now, with the FP’s extensive tentacles in the judiciary and its connections with powerful business interests, she had been seen as an “untouchable”.
Following her arrest, El Comercio reported that: 75 percent of Peruvians consider her guilty of money laundering as well as leading the criminal group; 71 percent approve of the detentions; and 38 percent declare that they had voted for her in the 2016 in the first and second rounds of the presidential elections, a significant fact that indicates Keiko’s loss of popularity.
For more than 12 years, Odebrecht through its main representative in Peru, Jorge Barata, won contracts and projects between 2001 and 2016, allegedly by paying off Peruvian officials and businessmen. In January, Barata became an “effective collaborator” with the prosecution, along with 77 other former directors in Brazil.
Since then, virtually all former Peruvian presidents over the course of the last two decades have been named by Barata and other Odebrecht officers as accomplices in their corrupt bribery and kickback schemes.
The same Judge Concepción ordered the “preventive detention” of former presidents Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006)—who fled to the US and lives under apparent protection by US authorities—and Ollanta Humala (2011-2016), along with his wife and accomplice, Nadine Heredia. The same FP members and congressmen who are denouncing the arrests of Fujimori and co. as “political persecution” had applauded Concepción when he sent Humala to prison for months while he was being investigated.
Keiko Fujimori’s detention came just one week after the Supreme Court issued a ruling annulling the pardon granted to her father, former president Alberto Fujimori, last December. Fujimori father was serving a 25-year prison sentence after an historic trial sentenced him in 2009 for human rights abuses—including death squad massacres—and corruption committed under his authoritarian government (1990-2000). He was pardoned by then-President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski in a filthy quid pro quo in which Kuczynski exchanged Fujimori’s freedom for the votes of a dissenting fujimorista congressional faction—led by Keiko’s brother Kenji—in order to avoid impeachment over his own corrupt involvement with Odebrecht when he served under former president Toledo.
The 80-year-old Alberto Fujimori refused to turn himself in to the authorities and instead went immediately to a private clinic, arguing that the news that he would be sent back to prison had dealt a terrible blow to his health. “If I return to prison my heart won’t take it. It’s too weak to pass through this again. Please don’t condemn me to die,” declared the former president in an impromptu video filmed as he lay in bed, in apparent agony. He appealed to the President and the Supreme Court for “mercy”. He has remained in the clinic since, protected by his followers and private doctors.
While the news that he would return to prison may have shocked Fujimori, he has feigned health problems before to evade punishment. The judge who ordered the pardon annulled declared that the main reason for his decision was the dubiousness of the initial report about Fujimori’s supposedly extremely ill health, which was elaborated by a medical team that included Fujimori’s own physician (in Peru, pardons are allowed under the law for health reasons).
For his part, Kuczynski—who renounced his presidency last March amidst another scandal over vote-buying to avoid a second impeachment—cannot leave the country because he’s still being investigated. He has declared that he does not regret granting the pardon to Fujimori.
These developments have dealt a major blow to the fujimorista movement in Peru. They take place amidst sharply declining popular support for FP: Keiko Fujimori’s approval rating has plummeted to 15 percent, while her disapproval rating has shot up to 80 percent.
She is considered guilty by 89 percent in sector A (the highest income bracket), 81 percent in B, 78 percent in C, and 70 and 75 percent in sectors D and E (those with the lowest income). During the last presidential election, Keiko enjoyed a much higher approval rating across all five income sectors.
The likelihood that Keiko could stand as a credible contender for the presidency in the next general elections in 2021 has all but vanished thanks to her detention.
The main reason for the sudden rejection of the once popular politician has been the performance of the FP caucus in Congress. Ever since the beginning of the Kuczynski government, the FP, which enjoys an absolute majority in Congress, became a staunch rival of the president and the executive power and obstructed and isolated it to the point that the ability of the former Wall Street banker’s government to rule was called into question.
Millions of Peruvians, including many fujimoristas, became disgusted with not only the obstructionist attitude by Congress—seemingly fueled by Keiko’s own revanchist attitude for losing the elections to Kuczynski by a small margin—but also the endless stream of corruption scandals involving FP congress members, many of them former officers and beneficiaries of the corrupt Fujimori government of the 1990s.
In response to the rescinding of Fujimori’s pardon, the FP caucus in Congress—with the help of the other right-wing APRA and APP caucuses—approved in record time legislation providing for freedom under electronic surveillance for imprisoned men above the age of 60. The bill was widely criticized as being tailored specifically for Alberto Fujimori so that he can spend the rest of his sentence in his comfortable home in Lima. This is exactly the kind of brazen political actions that have cost FP its popularity with most of its followers and Peruvian society in general.
Political analysts have pointed out that, with FP disappearing from the political map in Peru, there is now a political vacuum to be filled among the social layers that provided a base of support for the FP, particularly among the poorest sections of Peruvian society, where the FP’s populist message and tough-on-crime stance gained a hearing. They argue that these layers could turn once again to “left-wing” politicians such as Veronika Mendoza or Marco Arana.
For Mendoza, leader of the bourgeois left Nuevo Peru party, the arrest of Keiko represents an advance for democracy. She has issued what amounts to a second endorsement of the current capitalist government of President Martin Vizcarra, whom she had supported for calling for a popular referendum aimed at preventing the collapse of the Peruvian bourgeois state:
“In Peru there were always powerful untouchables who never were held accountable for their crimes. Is it that justice finally begins to measure everyone with the same yardstick, regardless of the charge, the size of their wallet or their last name? Hopefully,” she told America Noticias .
Mendoza, who currently ranks second in the polls for the 2021 presidential elections, with Keiko Fujimori in third place, sees the FP leader as her main rival.
This week marked the deadline to register political parties for the next presidential elections. Nuevo Peru gathered only 10 percent of the required signatures (close to 750,000), which means that it will have to seek alliances with other established political organizations if Mendoza is to launch a bid for the presidency in 2021. Such pacts will undoubtedly entail her further lurch to the right.

Macron organises French cabinet reshuffle to pursue austerity and militarism

Francis Dubois

Two weeks after the departure of Interior Minister Gérard Collomb and after several failed attempts to assemble a cabinet, French president Emmanuel Macron finally presented his reworked government on Tuesday. He had pledged to reshuffle the government to give a “second wind” to his programmeme of austerity and militarism, but he presented only modest changes, designed to allow him to pursue his widely hated agenda.
Collomb was replaced by one of Macron’s close associates, the former Minister of Relations with Parliament and government spokesman, Christophe Castaner. He will be assisted by a junior minister, the former chief of domestic intelligence (DGSI), Laurent Nuñez.
Eight new ministers and secretaries of state have joined the Philippe government to replace four outgoing ministers, and a number of portfolios have changed hands or have been enlarged within the executive. But the main ministerial portfolios did not change, except for the Interior Ministry which was at the centre of the crisis that led to the reshuffle.
Jean-Yves Le Drian remains at Foreign Affairs, Bruno Le Maire at Economy and Finance, Nicole Belloubet at Justice, Florence Parly at the Ministry of the Armed Forces and Gérald Darmanin at Public Accounts. Contrary to the expectations raised by the government itself, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe has not resigned to lead a new government. The goal, according to the executive, was to “consolidate” the previous government.
The politicians who have agreed to join the government are not new supporters of Macron, but individuals allied to him prior to his election: Didier Guillaume, leader of the Socialist Party (PS) group in the Senate, who is taking over Agriculture, and Franck Riester, expelled from the right-wing The Republicans party, is to be Minister of Culture. The other ministers come from big business, finance or are top-level state functionaries.
In a televised speech, Macron made clear the purpose of his government would be to intensify the government’s right-wing agenda. He said there would be “neither a change of orientation, nor a change of course,” and that he would “pursue deep change,” stressing continuity with the attacks he has made against the social and democratic rights of the working class.
Faced with the enormous unpopularity of his policies, the reshuffle confirmed that he could only offer more of the same, in line with his deep contempt for working people.
Playing musical chairs in the cabinet will not solve the crisis of the government, which is rooted in the enormous popular hostility to its programme, growing opposition to the government in the police forces and the increasing feeling in the political establishment that Macron’s government is close to falling. This is reflected in the many refusals by established bourgeois politicians to accept ministerial positions in Macron’s cabinet.
Castaner is neither the leading politician desired by Macron and Philippe, nor a political alternative to Collomb. This mediocre figure from La République En Marche! (LRM, Macron’s party—The Republic on the Move!) was chosen because he threatened to leave the government, and no one else acceptable to the LRM would take the job. This reshuffle will not solve persistent police protests against the government and the presidency.
Before joining Macron, Castaner made a career in the Socialist Party, in the political entourage of figures like Michel Rocard, François Mitterrand’s prime minister from 1988 to 1991, and PS politician Michel Sapin, who was economy minister under François Hollande. He was also close to Hollande’s prime minister, Manuel Valls, and his repressive security agenda, and to criminologist Alain Bauer, Grand Master of the Masonic Lodge of the Grand Orient of France, who also has strong ties to police.
As the class struggle has intensified, the social base that Macron claimed to have found in the middle class, while he dealt the working class and poorer layers of the petty bourgeoisie the blows demanded by the financial aristocracy and the European Union, has disintegrated or proved to be non-existent.
The “isolation” of Macron, which the media and his political opponents treat as a personal fault of the president, is nothing more than the realisation that he no longer has any social base in the population outside the super-rich and the most affluent upper-middle class layers. Now even the police, who were a key base of Hollande’s government, are rebelling against him.
Sensing that the government’s days are numbered, and reflecting the feeling of part of the ruling class that the crisis of the Macron government can quickly lead to a crisis of rule, Unsubmissive France (LFI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon on October 14 floated the idea of dissolving the National Assembly after the May 2019 European elections. This would trigger new parliamentary elections.
“We can imagine that if we reach our goals” in the European election with “for us a national score, for him the minimum score, he will find himself facing a crisis of authority that his predecessors have never known,” said Melenchon, adding “the political crisis born inside Macron’s party is spreading and becoming a crisis of rule.”
Mélenchon is a hardened defender of the bourgeois state and does not want to overthrow the government nor endanger it while it launches its attacks. He is advocating new elections in eight months, above all, to discourage workers from mobilizing against Macron right now. Nonetheless, it is far from certain that the Assembly will not be dissolved sooner.
One thing is clear: this government intends to survive only by a police repression of political opposition and mass intimidation. This is shown by the searches carried out at Mélenchon’s home, the homes of his former collaborators and the headquarters of the LFI and those of the Left Party. The searches took place only two days after Mélenchon publicly discussed a dissolution of the Assembly, and on the day of the cabinet reshuffle.
The operation conducted by the Paris prosecutor’s office under the authority of the Ministry of Justice is a clear political signal from the government to the police and a no less clear message aimed at intimidating Mélenchon voters.

US, Mexican and Guatemalan governments harass caravan of Honduran refugees

Andrea Lobo

Last Saturday, almost 2,000 people from all over Honduras gathered in the northwestern city of San Pedro Sula in order to travel together northward to reach the United States and Canada. The migrants and refugees are escaping generalized conditions of violence and poverty, which were imposed by a century and more of imperialist plundering by US corporations of the region’s natural resources and cheap labor, enforced through military invasions, occupations, CIA-backed coups and other forms of political meddling.
The caravan has been faced with an ongoing and increasingly brutal crackdown against immigrants by Mexican and Central American authorities at the behest of the US government.
The Thursday prior to their departure, a security summit took place with Central American and Mexican officials, along with the US vice president, secretary of state and secretary of homeland security as part of the second conference of the Obama-era Alliance for Prosperity of the Northern Triangle, which includes Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
At the meeting, US Vice President Mike Pence demanded governments “stem the flow of illegal immigration and drugs. He referred angrily to the fact that over the last year 225,000 migrants from the Northern Triangle traveled northward, making up most apprehensions at the US-Mexico border. This figure is a 61 percent increase from Honduras and 75 percent from Guatemala over the last year.
Pence threatened migrants not to “put your families at risk by taking the dangerous journey north,” adding later: “We will confront those who would do us harm through drug trafficking and gang violence.”
The US officials also used the meeting to threaten Central America against building closer economic ties with China, considered by Washington as its main geopolitical rival, while making clear that the “national security” framework for the attacks on immigrants across the region is an integral part of the militarization and other preparations for war against major powers.
By Monday, about 1,000 more migrants, carrying backpacks along with children and infants, joined the caravan within the initial 110 miles before reaching the border crossing point with Guatemala at Agua Caliente.
The Guatemalan government deployed about 100 anti-riot police to block the highway to meet the caravan. According to El Periódico, a military helicopter even flew close to the caravan.
However, the intimidation tactics didn’t work against the enormous mass of thousands of migrants. After some hours of waiting and confusion, with children hungry and some fainting, humanitarian groups from Guatemala arrived with food and water. Eventually, as it was clear that the migrants were being illegally halted, as Northern Triangle citizens only need their national ID card to each other’s cross-borders, the caravan was allowed to march into Guatemala chanting “Sí se pudo!” (Yes, we could!), despite the continuous harassment of the armed forces.
Many speaking to reporters about why they are leaving speak of the gang violence, lack of health care for serious conditions, and how “the rich have all the money.” One mother carrying her daughter told reporters: “What happens is that the sons and daughters of politicians get jobs, but there are no jobs for the poor.” A man told the Honduran HCH Noticias “It’s not the president and his ‘zero poverty’ promises. No, we are the ones that will avoid this poverty by sending remittances to our families back there. … And we are no single country, we are Central America, we are united.”
After the successful crossing, the group advanced 58 miles to the city of Esquipulas with the help of buses and trailer trucks provided by pro-immigrant groups.
There, the police arrested Bartolo Fuentes, a journalist and former deputy of the LIBRE coalition, who had become one of the spokesmen of the caravan. He was also one of the organizers of the caravan, which was largely put together through social media.
Fuentes was quickly sent to the capital, Guatemala City, where he was fraudulently accused of “illegally entering the country” and sentenced for deportation back to Honduras. Using the relationship between some organizers and the official opposition parties, the Honduran Foreign Ministry justified the arrest and urged Hondurans in a statement not to “take part in this irregular mobilization by a movement that is clearly political.”
A reporter of HCH Noticias in the shelter in Chiquimula was quickly surrounded by migrants hoping to send “I-miss-you” greetings to their loved ones, to thank Guatemalans for the warm welcome, and call for international support. One explained that salaries are only $4-$5 per day in Honduras and are not enough to pay for food and utilities for his family. A youth said: “I want to say hi to my mom, Reina Hilda Hernández, to my friends, brothers, my girlfriend—the love of my life who decided to stay. I’m doing well, it has been ‘yuca’ [tough], but ‘there are no spikes.’”
The plan of these migrants is to reach the Mexican and US ports of entry and to apply for asylum. Although the Trump administration officially ended the policy of separating families in late June—with many separated children never to be reunited with their parents, already deported— applicants continue to be sent into detention camps in record numbers, but now as “family units.”
Moreover, the end of the summer has seen a new surge in immigration to record levels, with US Customs and Border Protection reporting a jump in border arrests of 43 percent between June and September. According to Trump aides, speaking anonymously to the Washington Post, this surge, a few weeks away from the US mid-term elections, has made the president “furious.”
Back in April, Trump used a slightly smaller caravan of Central American migrants as a pretext to deploy the National Guard to the US-Mexico border with the cooperation of the Democratic Party.
Now, under advice by his fascist aide Stephen Miller, Trump has been pushing to rapidly re-instate family separation in some other form. On Tuesday he told AP, “The one thing I will also say is that when a person thinks they will not be separated, our borders become overrun with people coming in.”
He has reportedly also given orders to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to push Mexico to carry out more aggressive measures, to round up and deport Central American immigrants, including stopping the caravan. On Tuesday, Trump fired off a tweet against Honduras: “If the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!”
The Mexican government has responded by mobilizing hundreds of police, military and migration officials to Tapachula, Chiapas, according to several local reports, with the National Migration Institute announcing that it will inspect each case individually, requiring visas for entry and will deport those not qualifying for refugee status. As evidenced by the experience at the Honduras-Guatemala border, such a detention of the caravan at the heavily militarized Guatemala-Mexico border could quickly turn into a humanitarian disaster for the migrants.
This militarized assault on immigrants by the Mexican authorities, acting as an extension of the US deportation forces, is expected to escalate during the incoming Mexican government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
While demagogically promising during the campaign that he will not do the “dirty work” of US immigration policy, once elected he immediately adopted a tone of subservience to US imperialism. In a press conference yesterday, referring to a vague plan to reduce immigration by increasing US-Mexican capital investments in the Northern Triangle, López Obrador still stated with deference “I exposed this to president Donald Trump; he’ll accept our proposal.” When asked specifically by reporters whether the caravan should be allowed to enter Mexico, he evaded the question—“There are options, there are alternatives. It isn’t only about that.”