3 Apr 2018

African Changemakers Fellowship Cohort 2 for African Visionaries 2018

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: African Changemakers Fellowship Program continues to develop African leadership and entrepreneurial skills through training, mentorship, collaboration and a connected network to a global changemakers. You will learn a lot from us and we will learn a lot from you, African Changemakers Fellowship is through a selection application process; selected applicants are enrolled in FREE intensive 5 weeks online training to share, collaborate and learn everything on civic engagement, entrepreneurship, leadership, project management, social enterprise and mentorship.

Type: Fellowship (Professional/Career)

Eligibility: 
  • 25-40 years old
  • A citizen from any of the 54 African countries.
  • Fluent in English – can read and speak in English.
  • Have access to internet, computer, laptop or mobile device to connect to online program.
  • Able to commit a full 5 hours a week to the program.
  • Passionate about using their skills to make positive impact in their community and businesses.
  • Interested in leadership and social enterprise for Africa sustainable development.
  • Can demonstrate leadership and collaborative skills with people.
  • Can demonstrate initiative, self-direction, and a “can-do” attitude
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: African Changemakers Fellowship Program continues to develop African leadership and entrepreneurial skills through training, mentorship, collaboration and a connected network to a global changemakers.

Duration of Program:  August, 2018 – September, 2018

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: African Changemakers Fellowship

Microsoft Imagine Cup Global Student Contest (USD$100,000 prize money) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018 (31st May 2018 is the latest end date for all National Finals).

Eligible Countries: Global

About the Award: Incredible, world-changing software innovations often come from students. Social networks, music services, photo apps, games, gadgets and robotics – the list goes on. We’re looking for the next big thing and we know students like you are going to make it. Imagine Cup, Microsoft’s premier international competition for young developers, is your chance to show off your biggest, boldest software solution. Code with purpose and show the world what you’ve got.
This competition is the doorway to your success. If you can win here, you can win anywhere. If you’ve got a great idea, assemble a great team and work hard to bring that idea to life. Your project could be on devices all over the world, changing lives and giving people the thrill of seeing the future come to life right before their eyes.
Whatever your innovation, you can make an impact and win big – like, $100,000 big – with Imagine Cup. With prizing that includes mentorship opportunities with industry leaders, an Azure grant and cash, Imagine Cup can help you take your project to the next level.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: You are eligible to enter if you meet the following requirements at time of entry:
  • You are at least 16 years of age as of 24 October 2017 and are actively enrolled as a student at an accredited educational institution that grants high-school or college/university (or equivalent) degrees (including home schools) at any time between 24 October 2017 and 31 May 2018; and
    • If you are considered a minor in your place of residence, then you should ask your parent’s or legal guardian’s permission prior to submitting an entry into this Competition.
  • You are NOT a resident of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and the Region of Crimea; and
    • U.S. export regulations prohibit the export of goods and services to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and the Region of Crimea. Therefore, residents of these countries/regions are not eligible to participate.
  • You/your business has not received external funding more than $50,000 USD; and
  • You/your business has not used paid employees assistance in creating an Imagine Cup entry at any time between 24 October 2017 and 31 July 2018; and
  • You are not an employee or intern of Microsoft Corporation, or an employee of a Microsoft subsidiary, at any time between 24 October 2017 and 31 July 2018; and
  • You are not involved in any part of the execution or administration of this Competition; and
  • You are not an immediate family member of (parent, sibling, spouse/domestic partner, child) or household member of a Microsoft employee, an employee of a Microsoft subsidiary, or a person involved in any part of the administration and execution of this Competition between 24 October 2017 and 31 July 2018.
If you are a Microsoft campus representative (e.g. a Microsoft Student Partner https://imagine.microsoft.com/en-us/msp ) and you meet the eligibility criteria set forth above, you may enter the Competition, but you are prohibited from using Microsoft property, internal resources, and/or the work of Microsoft employees, in connection with the creation or execution of an entry. Very simply, you cannot use any resources which are not also broadly available to all
other students.

If you have previously competed in an Imagine Cup World Finals event as a World Finalist, you are eligible to enter but any entry submitted must be substantially new, unique, and different from anything you’ve brought to World Finals before.

Selection: Organized by Microsoft subsidiaries in those countries, the National Finals select the best teams from each participating country as they pitch and demo their ideas to experts to vie for a coveted spot at the Imagine Cup World Finals.

Number of Awards:  These are the awards to be received by participants:
  • First Place:
    • $85,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
    • Remote mentoring session with Satya Nadella
  • Second Place:
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the Team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Big Data Award
    • Required use of Azure Data + Analytics or IoT
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Artificial Intelligence Award
    • Required use of Azure Artificial Intelligence + Cognitive Services
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
  • Mixed Reality Award
    • Required use of HoloLens, Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality
    • $15,000 USD, to be divided equally among each officially registered member of the team
    • Microsoft Azure Grant
Value of Award:
  • Round 1: Each National Final competition may offer prizes at the discretion of the local Microsoft subsidiary operating that competition. The existence, nature, and conditions of such prizes are subject to the rules of each National Final. Every team who advances to round 2 will receive a trip to the Imagine Cup 2018 Worldwide Finals. Trip includes round trip coach airfare from a major airport closest to each competitor’s home, standard hotel accommodations, ground transportation, and select meals during the World Finals. Mentors to the team are not eligible for this travel prize.
  • Round 2: At the World Finals, there will be two winning teams selected, as well as the Imagine Cup Awards given to the top three teams that meet specific technology related criteria. Teams meeting the Award technology requirements may opt-in to one Imagine Cup Award at National Finals. At least one member of the team must be present to win. (Mentors and associates will not be awarded any portion of the monetary prize winnings.)
How to Apply: Register Now!

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Microsoft

Rethink Weapons Exports

Kristin Y. Christman

How do we treat opponents? In strong democracies, we engage them in cooperative dialogue. In weaker democracies, we exclude and overpower them. If we’re undemocratic, we might kill them.
So why has the United States, democracy’s alleged leader, become the world’s largest weapons exporter?
In 2016, U.S. government arms exports totaled $38 billion, more than a third of the $100 billion global arms trade. That includes only government-to-government foreign military sales, approved by the Defense Department. It doesn’t include the billions sold in direct commercial sales in which Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and other weapons firms receive State Department licenses to sell directly to foreign governments.
But the arms industry is deeply mired in the business of forever silencing opponents.
Some will protest: U.S. weapons safeguard innocent people from tyrannical aggressors. Oh, really? Where are the surveys of conflict participants to evaluate that fairytale assumption? Where are the social impact statements of arms exports? How many killed by U.S. arms deserved death?
What’s the use of all that science in developing weapons if there’s no science in evaluating the application of weapons to real world problems?
If we’re taking it on faith that weapons promote better societies, if we’re not interviewing communities affected by weapons, if we’re not comparing the benefit of $1 billion toward the arms industry or toward non-violent conflict resolution, then paying taxes to fund weapons manufacturing is equivalent to paying taxes to support a religion.
Yet nearly every U.S. president since the 1969 Nixon Doctrine has been a salesman for the arms industry: deregulating it, increasing public subsidies to it, receiving campaign contributions from it, and swamping at least 100 nations with its lethal products.
And being Number One Weapons Salesman isn’t enough. President Donald Trump claims the State and Defense Departments aren’t pushing weapon exports enough.
Having received $30 million from the NRA, Trump intends to transfer responsibility for assault rifle exports from the State Department, which considers weapon exports’ potential effects on violence, to the Commerce Department, which doesn’t.
Obama, a major arms industry beneficiary, had already begun loosening oversight, but further plans were stymied by American mass shootings, which made deregulating foreign sales of AR-15s seem way too stupid.
No matter who we elect, arms exports and foreign policy are propelled by the Iron Triangle — the collusion of those in government, military, and the arms industry obsessed with expanding weapons markets and installing threat-based “peace.”
Instead of resolving conflict, weapons dealers thrive within it, like parasites infesting a wound. As William Hartung describes in “Prophets of War,” Lockheed Martin has lobbied to drive foreign policy towards company goals of increasing foreign exports by 25 percent.
Lockheed pushed for NATO expansion to Russia’s doorstep to make billion dollar weapons deals with new members. The Project for the New American Century, an influential “think tank” with a Lockheed Martin executive as director, pushed to invade Iraq.
The arms industry baits support by spreading weapons contract jobs across congressional districts. Jobs evidently make the killing worthwhile. Bear in mind that 70 percent to 80 percent of U.S. weapons corporations’ revenues comes from the U.S. government. If we’re using taxes to fund jobs, why not jobs to fight forest fires? To go solar?
Pouring subsidies into the arms industry strangles civilian manufacturing and innovation. Your students dream of becoming scientists? Prepare them for the military straitjacket. It won’t be easy getting funding without it. The majority of federal research and development funding goes to military-related activities.
Significantly, spending on the defense sector with its unaudited Pentagon, overpriced items, massive cost overruns, and no-bid cost-plus contracts causes a nationwide net loss in jobs. Most other economic sectors generate more jobs per tax dollar.
Making the deal for U.S. taxpayers even worse are the industry’s campaign contributions, CEO salaries, environmental pollutants, massive bribes to foreign officials, and lobbying expenditures — $74 million in 2015. Unbelievably, our taxes even fund foreign purchasing of U.S. weapons — $6.04 billion in 2017.
Meanwhile, who listens to thousands of South Koreans demanding removal of Lockheed Martin’s Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system?
Who listens to parents of Mexican students murdered by Mexico’s army? They say U.S. weapons sold to Mexico are more destructive than Mexican drugs sold to Americans. How will Trump’s wall protect Mexicans from Weapons Pusher Number One?
The arms industry gets free handouts with no democratic input, no evaluation, no responsibility for consequences, and no expectations that weapons will solve causes of conflict. In terms of hitting the targets of social, political, economic, and environmental progress, weapons shoot nothing but blanks.
Like every organ in the body, the arms industry is valuable, but when its compulsive mission of self-aggrandizement displaces the body’s mission, deprives other organs of nutrients, and poisons the body, it’s time for surgery and healing.

Atmospheric Burnings: The Re-entry of China’s Tiangong-1

Binoy Kampmark

The precipitous demise of China’s prototype space station, Tiangong-1, was the sort of event that took earthbound discussions to more heavenly matters.  Human beings, as is their wont, tend to follow the rules of colonisation with a certain automatism.  In doing so, they have a distinct habit of leaving debris, a junking phenomenon that has seen space become a celestial dump.  In the earthly heavens lie a plenitude of detritus and artefacts that, should they continue to multiply, will result in regular crashes and mayhem.  But beyond the debris lie new worlds upon which to plant flags and forge troubled civilisations.
The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) has been keeping watch of the increasing number of objects that have found their way into space.  Just under 5,000 orbit the earth, while the number that have been launched into space stands at 8050.  That number, at least, has fallen by one.
Tiangong-1 was meant to be a signal that, what other sates can do, China can do just as well.  “To use a Chinese phrase,” suggested space boffin Brian Harvey in 2016, “I think they are wanting to bring their own mat to the table.”
The initial effort was experimentally modest relative to the International Space Station, but that hardly mattered. When it launched on September 29, 2011, the very statement of that fact was enough to pique broader space interest. In time, China’s astronauts, or taikonauts, would visit, but prior to that were successful orbital dockings and a visit from the Shenzhou-9 vehicle by three space flyers.
Where space stations are discussed, politics is bound to be an additive.  In March 2016, data transmission between the Tiangong-1 and its communicators ceased.  A fiery fate awaited the vehicle, though disputes invariably arose as to whether control was still maintained over the craft.  Dean Cheng, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, asserted that this loss of control, as with much else, is more than an irritant.  “The Chinese insist that it is controlled.  They’re very, very unhappy when you this term ‘uncontrolled’.”
Cheng, presumably showing his standing at a conservative US think-tank, pressed the view that control here was everything.  Terms needed to be clarified; positions sorted with definitive purpose.  “We should be diplomatically, and in the space-policy world, pushing China to accept a definition of ‘control’ that is comparable to the rest of the rules-based world. You don’t get your own definition”.
The issue about China’s handlers failing to assert sovereignty over Tiangong-1 in what would have otherwise been a controlled re-entry induced a good deal of speculative panic.  The Aerospace Corporation made a lukewarm effort to defuse fears.  “In the case of most re-entering objects, the uncertainty associated with predicting re-entry location is extremely large and precludes an accurate location prediction until shortly before the re-entry has occurred.”
The Aerospace Corporation added a tantalising touch.  “In general, it is much easier to predict an accurate re-entry time rather than an accurate re-entry location.”  Cue the suspense, though the analysts did note that the only known instance of a person being struck by space debris remains the unfortunate Ms. Lottie Williams of Tulsa, Oklahoma “who was struck by a small piece of space debris in 1996 but was not harmed in any significant way.” The odds then?  Less than 1-in-1 trillion.
Other concerns were also added to what had become something of an ensemble of worry.  “By the way,” sparkled Mike Wall of Space.com, “if you do manage to find a chunk of Tiangong-1, don’t pick it up or breathe in any fumes emanating from it.  The space junk may be contaminated with hydrazine, a toxic rocket fuel”.
The notification that hydrazine was present on the craft sent certain members of the press into a flutter.  Sebastian Kettley of The Express called the claim shocking, with the suitably hyperbolic statement that the “rogue Chinese space station” had a “toxic hazard aboard”.
Kettley placed reliance upon the announcement from the Aerospace Corporation, claiming that “there may be a highly toxic and corrosive substance called hydrazine on board the spacecraft that could survive re-entry.”  The consequences of short-term exposure could be dire: “seizures, coma, pulmonary edema as well as itchy airways, eyes and nose.  Long-term exposures have been linked to the development of cancer in humans.”
The disintegration of Tiangong-1 proved suitably anti-climactic, burning up in the atmosphere over the southern Pacific Ocean.  There were no casualties for the bloodthirsty, nor poisonings for the morbid.  But the incident had brought the Chinese space program a certain prominence.  Despite a space budget dwarfing that of China (coming in at $6 billion) and Russia (even less than China) the United States, with its $40 billion, managed a mere 19 successful space launches in 2013 compared with Russia’s 31 and China’s 14.
The deceptive impression left by the words of Maj. General Stephen Whiting, commander of the 14thUS Air Force and deputy commander of the Joint Force Space Component Command, is of a space environment of convivial efforts and undertakings.  “One of our missions, which we remain focused on, is to monitor space and the tens of thousands of pieces of debris that congest it, while at the same time working with allies and partners to enhance spaceflight safely and increase transparency in the space domain.”  Transparency, however, remains elusive in a celestial sense, as it always has in any colonial enterprise, however incipient.

Palantir Technologies: A “CIA-backed startup”

Julie Hyland 

Statements by whistleblower Christopher Wylie to the parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on alleged activities by Cambridge Analytica were given wide coverage in the British media, especially the Guardian.
Allegations that Cambridge Analytica—which backed Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential election—received Facebook data collected without users’ consent raise serious democratic issues. The campaign against it, however, has nothing to do with redressing these concerns.
This is made clear by the far more damaging allegation made by Wylie to the select committee that has largely been passed over to date.
The WSWS has reported on the real pedigree of Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, the behavioural research and strategic communication company, SCL.
Asked by the parliamentary select committee if there were other data companies operating similarly to Cambridge Analytica, Wylie specifically cited the data analysis giant Palantir Technologies.
“We actually had several meetings with Palantir,” Wylie said. “There were senior Palantir employees that were also working on the Facebook data. That was not an official contract between Palantir and CA, but there were Palantir staff who would come into the office and work on the data. And we would go and meet with Palantir staff at Palantir.”
To the extent that his statement received coverage, it is due to the fact that Palantir was founded by another pro-Trump oligarch, Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal and a member of Facebook’s board of directors.
But the relations between Palantir—as with other social media corporations—and the US deep state have largely been passed over in silence.
So close are the connections between the data firm and the US state that in July 2017, the Guardian itself described Palantir as a “CIA-backed startup.”
The CIA’s venture capital branch, In-Q-Tel, was one of the first investors in the company when it was launched by Thiel in 2004. This was one year after the illegal invasion of Iraq, and Palantir played a major role in the so-called “counterterror” strategies employed by the Pentagon to occupy the country and quash opposition.
Palantir’s clients include a disproportionate number of US military, state and intelligence agencies. They include the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI, Homeland Security, the Defence Intelligence Agency and National Counterterrorism Centre, through to various police departments.
In 2013, Forbes listed Palantir’s advisers as including Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and former CIA Director George Tenet.
According to documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, Palantir was instrumental in the mass illegal spying activities undertaken by Washington’s global surveillance network, Prism.
Palantir’s data-gathering services were also retained by Britain’s GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) spying agency as well as the Five Eyes intelligence alliance between the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Claims by Cambridge Analytica whistleblower used for new electoral investigation into Brexit

Julie Hyland

Lawyers acting on behalf of whistleblowers have called for the Electoral Commission to investigate if Vote Leave broke spending rules in the 2016 referendum on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU).
Vote Leave was the official representative of those advocating withdrawal. Its leading members included Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Now foreign secretary and environment minister, respectively, they are the lead proponents of a “hard-Brexit” policy in Theresa May’s Conservative government.
The Electoral Commission has already conducted two investigations into claims of Vote Leave wrongdoing and cleared the group. Under pressure from anti-Brexit groups, including the Good Law Project, it has opened a third investigation.
The latest accusations are based on statements by former Cambridge Analytica employee Chris Wylie and Shahmir Sanni, a volunteer with the pro-Brexit student group BeLeave.
Tamsin Allen, from legal firm Bindmans, said, “[T]here is a strong suspicion that the campaigns were very closely linked and coordinated, in which case it may be that Vote Leave spent huge sums unlawfully and its declaration of expenses is incorrect.”
The allegation is that Vote Leave circumvented electoral spending limits by donating £625,000 to BeLeave, which is said to be essentially part of the same campaign group. If this can be established, it would take Vote Leave spending over the £7 million legal limit.
Allen said there was ground to accuse Vote Leave’s campaign director, Dominic Cummings, “of having conspired to break the law,” due to discussions he had with BeLeave about its activities. It is also argued that Vote Leave and BeLeave shared the same office and retained the services of Canadian-based Aggregate IQ (AIQ).
AIQ is accused of being part of efforts by Cambridge Analytica to harvest Facebook profiles with the aim of influencing both the 2016 US Presidential election and the Brexit referendum the same year.
Allen said there are also “grounds to investigate” Vote Leave’s national organiser, Stephen Parkinson, and Vote Leave’s head of outreach, Cleo Watson, who are both now advisers to the government.
Vote Leave has rejected any wrongdoing, with Cummings stating that he will file formal complaints to the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office against spending by the Remain campaign.
The Electoral Commission’s latest investigation testifies to the deep tensions within the British bourgeoisie over Brexit. The referendum itself was conceived by then-Prime Minister David Cameron as a means of settling the faction fight within the Tory Party over UK relations with the EU, which, in turn, are bound up with broader foreign policy considerations.
The majority of the British bourgeoisie—including its financial and military/intelligence sectors—were in favour of a Remain vote. However, the Leave campaign—led by the Tory right and the UK Independence Party—was able to successfully exploit hostility to the EU, and the British establishment, to secure 51 percent in favour of Leave.
Last week Wylie, a Canadian citizen, gave evidence before Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Ostensibly set up in January 2017 to investigate “fake news,” its real purpose is to manufacture a pretext for British and US imperialism’s provocations against Russia, while censoring and closing down alternative media sources that would expose its plans.
Wylie began work for SCL Group 2013—the parent company of Cambridge Analytica—in London. He says that as research director he helped establish Cambridge Analytica, with funds from Robert Mercer, the billionaire hedge fund manager and Donald Trump supporter. He left Cambridge Analytica in 2014 and told the select committee he felt “shock” and “horror” at Trump’s win in 2016.
Soon after Trump’s inauguration, he began working with the Guardian and Observer newspapers on exposures of Cambridge Analytica’s data-gathering programme that included harvesting the Facebook profiles of 50 million people.
Wylie told the select committee that such activities may have altered the outcome of both the US presidential election and the Brexit referendum.
Claims by AIQ that it is a separate entity from SCL and Cambridge Analytica are “weasel words,” he said. There was a “common plan and common purpose” between AIQ and the Leave campaigns, said Wylie.
Describing AIQ as a “proxy money-laundering vehicle,” Wylie said that “Cummings…just went round and found places he could launder money through to give it to AIQ so they could overspend. And that is my genuinely held belief.”
An AIQ employee had told him that the relationship between Vote Leave and BeLeave was “totally illegal” because “you are not allowed to coordinate between different campaigns and not declare it.” He said, “I don’t feel confident in the result [of the referendum]” as a result.
Wylie presented no evidence to back up his claims. Asked directly if he could supply any, he replied, “[N]ot in the form of documentation.”
Challenged as to whether £625,000 could really have decided the outcome of the referendum, Wylie argued that just 600,000 people decided the referendum between Leave and Remain, and it was “incredibly reasonable” to say it had.
Wylie has been denounced as a charlatan and a liar. Cambridge Analytica denied the allegations and said that Wylie had been a “part-time contractor” who left the organisation in 2014 and would not have knowledge of the company’s workings beyond that date. It was also pointed out that, while Wylie says his accusations are motivated by objections to data harvesting techniques, the whistleblower had offered to supply his own services to Vote Leave in January 2016 for the referendum but was turned down.
Simultaneous with Wylie’s statements, BeLeave whistleblower Shahmir Sanni told the Observer that he had passed information to the Electoral Commission that lead figures in the Vote Leave campaign violated referendum spending rules and attempted to destroy the evidence.
Sanni, formerly secretary of BeLeave and now employed by the right-wing TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group, alleges that the £625,000 donation Vote Leave made to BeLeave was not a genuine donation and that it was channelled to AIQ as part of a coordinated operation. He also alleges leading Vote Leave personnel—including Cummings—tried to destroy evidence of this coordination by removing themselves from the Google Drive both campaign groups shared. Cummings said this was “factually wrong and libellous.”
Wylie also claimed that Facebook was aware of the large-scale harvesting of users’ data. His allegations were used by the select committee to repeat its demand that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg answer the charges in person.
The serious questions raised about the vast amounts of data at the unchecked disposal of Google, Facebook and Twitter are being used to bring the corporate giants into even closer alignment with the demands of the US and British intelligence agencies for sweeping Internet censorship measures.
At the forefront of this campaign are the GuardianObserver and New York Times in alignment with the Democratic Party in the US and the Blairite Labour right in Britain.
As Wylie finished his testimony, it was reported that Zuckerberg had finally agreed to demands by leading Democrats to testify before Congress.

China imposes tariffs as trade war hots up

Nick Beams

China has imposed tariffs on a range of US imports, making good on its commitment of two weeks ago to retaliate for the imposition of tariffs by the US on steel and aluminium. The tariffs, which appear to target areas where US President Donald Trump has enjoyed political support, cover a range of agricultural products.
Imports of American pork will be hit by a tariff of 25 percent, along with eight other products, while a 15 percent tariff will apply to fruit and 120 commodities. The total value of the products to be hit is around $3 billion per year.
China criticised the steel and aluminium tariffs, imposed under section 232 of a 1962 US trade act on “national security” grounds, as causing “severe damage to our country’s interests.” The finance ministry said the counter-measures were intended to “protect our country’s interests and balance the damage created by the US’s 232 measures.”
Trump has not commented so far on the Chinese moves but they appear to have had an impact on the stock market. Yesterday’s fall on Wall Street left the Dow Jones index down by more than 450 points at end of the day, after falling at one stage by more than 750 points.
According to the Wall Street Journal, stocks “tumbled” as “sliding technology shares and rising global tensions dragged major indexes lower.” The Financial Times said US markets had “tumbled into correction territory … as deepening declines for technology companies and rising trade tensions unnerved investors.”
The S&P 500 index fell by 2.2 percent, leaving it more than 10 percent below its high in January—a fall defined as a “correction”—and below the 200-day moving average that is regarded as key market indicator.
In and of themselves, the Chinese tariffs, while dealing a blow to agricultural producers, may not have a broader impact, but the concern is over what could follow. The Trump administration is in the process of deciding on imposing tariffs on up to $60 billion worth of Chinese goods in response to what it alleges are violations by China of American intellectual property rights.
China has yet to respond directly to the US threat and is waiting for the outcome of negotiations on the issue with members of the Trump administration. However, Beijing is reported to be preparing tariffs on imports of US sorghum and possibly soybeans if the measures go ahead.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer indicated during a Senate finance committee hearing on March 22 that the US would not be deterred from the imposition of tariffs by the threat of Chinese retaliation.
He said it was “not possible to take the position that because of soybean farmers we’re not going to stick up for our rights in a whole variety of ways, and have hundreds of billions of dollars with the other exporters and domestic producers be punished because of unfair trade.”
The US treasury department is preparing a response to the alleged infringements by China on technology, with indications that the list of potential targets will come within the next few days.
“Senior administration officials” told the Wall Street Journal they are looking at 1,300 different product categories covering high-tech areas, including semi-conductors, communications and aerospace.
After the list is announced, US industry will have 30 days in which to comment before the administration decides which products to hit.
Key sections of the Trump administration regard the Chinese regime’s “Made in China 2025” plan, aimed at moving into hi-tech products, as a long-term threat to the US domination in these areas.
So far, the Chinese measures have been relatively restrained, indicating its reluctance to escalate the developing trade war with the United States. A major consideration in this response has been to cultivate its relations with Europe and, if possible, form a common front against the US measures, or at least prevent Europe and Japan joining the US in trade disputes.
According to a comment by Arthur Kroeber of Gavekal Dragonomics, a Beijing-based research group cited by the Financial Times, this is a key aspect of Chinese policy. “China knows it can hold its own in a commercial conflict with any individual rival, including the US. But a concerted effort by the industrial democracies to constrain China’s mercantilist development program would cause it much more pain,” he wrote.
The Xi Jinping regime is under internal pressure to step up its actions. The Financial Times reported that “some influential commentators in China have called for a more robust response to the US’s next set of tariffs” aimed at technology.
For its part, the US is seeking to win Europe to its side by offering to hold talks until the beginning of May to secure permanent European exemptions from the steel and aluminium tariffs. The Trump administration has been somewhat vague about the talks, which will not only cover overcapacity in steel, which the US regards as emanating from China. They will also probe whether the European Union will side with the US on the issue of technology and China’s alleged theft of intellectual property rights.
Recent events, beginning on March 1 when the Trump administration announced the steel and aluminium tariffs, followed by the threats over technology three weeks later, point to the accelerating speed of the trade conflicts.
A year ago, the meeting of G20 finance ministers in Germany received a shock when the Trump administration vetoed a reference to “resisting protectionism” being included in the final communiqué.
Today, trade war has broken out. The major combatants are engaging in the initial manoeuvres of a global conflict that has the potential to repeat the disasters of the 1930s on even-wider scale.

Explosive social conditions in Spain behind moves toward police state

Vicky Short

The arrest and detention of former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont in Germany, on the request of Spanish authorities, represents a sinister attack on political opposition. It marks another step toward police-state rule in Europe.
Behind this development lie economic, political and social tensions now finding expression in a growing movement of the European working class. This is especially the case in Spain, which in the last weeks has seen strikes by Amazon workers and mass demonstrations by pensioners to demand decent pensions and social security.
Despite the boast by the ruling right-wing Popular Party (PP) government and the European Union (EU) that Spain’s economy has survived the 2008 economic crisis that crippled the country for almost a decade and is well on the road to recovery, working people—whether Catalan, Basque or Spanish-speaking—confront appalling and worsening social conditions.
Nearly three and a half million Spanish people are unemployed. Although the headline figure of 16.5 percent unemployed is down from 26.3 percent in 2013, this is small comfort, as a high number are in temporary, low-paid employment. According to official statistics, 21.5 million contracts were signed in 2017, of which 90 percent were temporary.
Oxfam Intercom ranks Spain as having experienced the third-highest growth of inequality in the EU since 2007. The organisation notes that the richest 1 percent of the Spanish population accounts for a quarter of the national wealth. It reports that 7,000 new millionaires were created in 2017. The fortunes of Spain’s top three richest people are equivalent to the wealth of the poorest 30 percent, i.e., over 14 million people.
Meanwhile, the exploitation of the Spanish working class has intensified. While hourly productivity has increased by 6 percent since 2012, wage costs have only increased by 0.6 percent. A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of Spanish people think that it is difficult or impossible for the average worker to increase their savings, no matter how hard they work.
Ten and a quarter million people live below the official poverty line. This is a poverty rate of 22.3 percent, the third highest in the EU. An estimated 27.9 percent of the population—nearly 13 million—are at risk of poverty and social exclusion; 22.3 percent, or 9 million families, are living on less than €684 [$US841] per month and more than 1 million subsist on barely €342.
The European Network against Poverty and Social Exclusion’s 7th Report (“The State of Poverty Following the Risk Indicator of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Spain--2008-2016”), reveals that a significant portion of the Spanish poor consists of adults with a medium or high level of education, working and with small children in their charge.
Up to 27 percent of poor Spaniards live in homes without lighting, with water leaks, rot on walls and floors and dirty surroundings.
The number of food banks, particularly in the big cities, is on the increase, where people using them include not only the homeless but a large number of the working poor. One of every three children in Spain today is at risk of poverty and social exclusion.
After coming to power in 2011, the PP’s government imposed tough austerity measures and was strongly criticised for raiding a €66.8 billion pension reserve fund.
This latter development explains the mass demonstrations by retirees last month. Tens of thousands rallied in Madrid, as well as Barcelona, Bilbao, Seville and Granada, to denounce the government’s 0.25 percent increase in pensions as inadequate.
“The 0.25 percent increase is shameful,” said former waiter Jose Maria Elias, 66, to the AFP news agency. He was one of the thousands demonstrating in Madrid. “Let all the corrupt people return what they stole and put it in the pension fund,” he said, referring to the numerous corruption scandals of affecting the ruling PP. “They have demolished our public pension system,” said Josefa Albala, 77, who added that she uses her retirement money to help feed her unemployed daughter.
In the Basque region in northern Spain, where nationalism has been heavily promoted in an attempt to divide the Spanish working class, tens of thousands took to the streets without national flags. Many of those protesting have a militant history of struggle in major working class battles, including the Bilbao shipyards and Bizkaia steel mills, decimated by the Socialist Party government in the 1980s.
Young people are hit hardest by unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. The jobless rate for those between the ages of 16 and 19 is as high as 60 percent. It is more than 40 percent for those aged between 20 and 24, and 25.6 percent for those between 25 and 29.
Tens of thousands of young people have left Spain, seeking work elsewhere. A recent report from the Consejo de la Juventud de España (Council of Spanish Youth) portrays a generation marked by unemployment, precariousness and emigration.
Since 2012, over 1 million well-educated young adults have left the country. “We do not go voluntarily, they throw us out,” is their slogan. Many of them are nurses, doctors and scientists. Where they are able to find employment it is usually at lower rates of pay. Those less fortunate eke out a living in restaurants, cafes and hotels on low wages.
Those who remain in Spain are either dependent on family members, on very small welfare benefits when they can get them, or move from temporary job to temporary job. These contracts do not include paid leave or sick pay and offer little protection for workers, who can be fired without explanation or notice.
Most are unable to afford their own accommodation and so must continue to live with parents or family. The average age at which Spaniards leave the family home is now 29.
If the ruling class has been able to implement these levels of misery and poverty, it is due above all to the role of pseudo-left political forces.
This year marks the seventh anniversary of the 15-M Movement or Indignados (“angry ones”), which arose against unemployment, economic hardship and the austerity measures imposed by the widely despised 2004-2011 Socialist Party government. The main leaders and spokespersons of the movement then made careers out of these protests, emerging as the new leaders of the pseudo-left parties and “social movements.”
Alberto Garzón, for example, once a spokesperson for the Indignados in Malaga, is now general coordinator of the United Left. Ada Colau, the former leader of the anti-evictions platform PAH, is now mayor of Barcelona, busy breaking strikes and persecuting migrant street vendors. The once angry university professors, Pablo Iglesias and Iñigo Erejón, now lead the pseudo-left Podemos, whose main role is to block the development of an independent programme, perspective and political leadership in opposition to capitalism.
Such is the rotten role of these forces that since Podemos’ founding the number of demonstrations, rallies and other spontaneous actions has plummeted. Now, a movement of the working class and youth is starting to re-emerge once again after having experienced first-hand the austerity imposed by Podemos-led local and regional governments and their close relations with the Socialist Party.

Game-changing Technologies for Future Naval Operations

Vijay Sakhuja 


Two new weapon technologies - Solid State Lasers (SSLs) and Electromagnetic Railgun (EMRG) - can augment ship defence against incoming missiles, high speed projectiles and unmanned vehicles/drones. Experts argue that if these are successfully deployed, surface warfare could witness a ‘revolution’. Further, these technologies can potentially overcome the limitations of onboard stowage of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and material efficiency of ‘multiple-barrel, rotary rapid-fire cannons’ or the Close-in Weapon System (CIWS), that may necessitate withdrawal from combat for reloading or repairs. These technologies are currently at various stages of development and deployment, and China and the US have either showcased some of them or made the development status public. 

Early this year, photographs of a Chinese Type 072III-class landing ship, Haiyang Shan, berthed at the Wuchang Shipyard in Wuhan and fitted with an EMRG went viral. This was perhaps the first time naval-watchers were seeing an EMRG on a Chinese warship. By March, China’s official military website carried a picture of Zhang Xiao, of the PLA Navy’s University of Engineering, receiving a National March 8 Red Banner for her work in electromagnetic launching technology. 

The Chinese EMRG project is being developed under the leadership of Rear Admiral Ma Weiming of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Zhang Xiao is a core member of the team. She was quoted as saying that after "hundreds of failures and more than 50,000 tests" the technology was ready for use. The associated power supply system also underwent repeated tests. According to Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, the Chinese EMRG "has a more stable and [provides] continuous power supply" than the US’ EMRG. The US began work on the EMRG earlier than China and has conducted more experiments.

The US Navy has an active EMRG programme and the last known test was in 2008. Two key technological challenges associated with this US$ 500 million programme involve engineering and metal for the barrel, and supply of high electromagnetic charge for the gun, which only new Zumwalt class of mega-destroyers can provide. 

However, the US Navy is a leader in the use of directed energy weapons at sea. USS Ponce, while on deployment in West Asia in 2014, had tested a 30-kilowatt first generation SSL, the Laser Weapon System (LaWS). This US$ 40 million system is considered value-for-money given that the cost of a missile is in millions of dollars when compared with a single shot from a directed energy weapon like the LaWS. It is capable of "frying drones in midair and burning out the motors of helicopters and small watercraft," "without endangering the lives of any onboard personnel," which is in accordance with the US Naval Handbook (2007) that states, “US military forces will not employ laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness.”

The US Navy plans to install an advanced version of the LaWS (more powerful and with greater range) onboard USS Portland, the latest landing platform dock ship of the San Antonio-class. The ship will enter service in April and is programmed to take part in the 2018 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises.

The US Navy is also seeking funding support of US$ 300 million in the financial year 2019 budget for the Navy Laser Family of Systems (NLFoS). Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has awarded Lockheed Martin a US$ 150 million contract for two prototypes of “high energy laser with integrated optical dazzler and surveillance,” or HELIOS, which will be installed on USS Arleigh Burke fitted with Aegis Combat System and AN/SPY-1 targeting radar for ballistic missile defence.

Unlike China and the US who are competing for technological superiority in the naval domain, the Russians have chosen to focus on land-based transport trailers fitted with lasers, and there are plans for fitting laser systems on aircraft. Russia is fielding a laser weapon system called Peresvet, named after the 13th century monk who died in battle against the Mongol army. According to Russian Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov, Russia is ahead of its competitor, the US. President Putin told Russian lawmakers that Russia has "achieved significant progress in laser weapons" and had gone past the stage of "a concept or a plan," and that Russian troops have been "armed with laser weapons." Russia is also known to have developed an aircraft-mounted laser system that can hit satellites and will be "fitted aboard a brand-new, as-yet-unnamed aircraft, as part of a new anti-satellite “complex” that will likely involve ground and radar elements as well."

The battlefield environment at sea is becoming more ‘complex and murky’ with a variety of classic munitions such as missiles and projectiles in the inventory of both medium and small-size navies, and “pesky” threats from unmanned aerial vehicles and ships, and armed speed boats, and now, swarm drones carrying ordnance. Naval planners may have to develop new strategies and fleet architecture that relies on emerging technologies of the kind discussed above. These plans are sure to impact budgets and shipbuilding expenditures.

2 Apr 2018

EDCTP Grant Proposal Writing Workshop for French-speaking Scientists from sub-Saharan Africa (Funded to Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) 2018

Application Deadline: 22nd April 2018

Eligible Countries: Countries in sub-Saharan Africa

To Be Taken At (Country): Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire

About the Award: The objectives of the workshop are to inform researchers about the main EDCTP funding mechanisms, its grant review process and the eligibility criteria through hands-on and practical sessions on grant proposal writing.
The workshop will be hosted by the Institut Pasteur de Côte d’Ivoire (ITPC) in Abidjan from 30 May to 01 June 2018.

Type: Workshop

Eligibility: The workshop will be conducted in French and is aimed at French-speaking scientists from sub-Saharan Africa in early stages of their career.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Participants will be selected as part of a procedure open application and will benefit from free training. Priority will be given to candidates who have received their diplomas in the last five years, and those from organizations that have not yet received EDCTP funding.

Duration of Program: 30 may-1 june 2018

How to Apply: Applications should be submitted in French via email to weinberg[at]edctp.org no later than
22 April 2018 at 18:00 CEST. Late submissions will not be considered.


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: EDCTP

Important Notes: Please note that participation at this workshop is independent from any EDCTP call for proposals and does not guarantee funding from EDCTP at a later stage.

Transparency International School on Integrity Anti-Corruption Training for Future Leaders (Fully-funded to Lituania) 2018

Application Deadline: 1st May 2018

Eligible Countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Turkey and Ukraine.

To Be Taken At (Country): Mykolas Romeris University student campus in Vilnius, Lithuania

Type: Training                                                                                                                                                                    
Eligibility: 
  • The Transparency School is open to senior students, graduates and young professionals under the age of 35.
  • We welcome individuals from public, private, non-governmental and academic sectors, from all academic backgrounds.
  • Transparency School does not discriminate its applicants on the grounds of race, color, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, political beliefs, marital, familial or parental status, sexual orientation or any other basis.
Number of Awards: limited

Value of Award: Full scholarships cover international travel, tuition and accommodation expenses.

Duration of Program: 2nd – 8th July 2018

How to Apply: 
  • Students seeking to receive full scholarships are encouraged to apply as soon as the application process opens.
  • If you wish to apply for a scholarship, make sure to fill out the appropriate section in the online application form, stating your reasons for applying.
  • Submit all required documents
Apply now

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Transparency School is organized in cooperation with Mykolas Romeris University in Vilnius.

Hong Kong Jockey Club Fellowships for Association of Commonwealth Universities 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 6th May 2018

Eligible Institutions: ACU member institutions

To Be Taken At (Country): Hong Kong and any ACU member institution in a country other than Hong Kong.

About the Award: Fellowships are not intended for degree courses, or for postdocs. The ACU cannot arrange fellows’ attachments, travel or accommodation, nor can it work out itineraries for them. Applicants should be aware that ACU Fellowships allow for small scale conference or course attendance within a wider fellowship programme, but applications where the primary or sole purpose is the attendance of a conference or course will not be considered.
Two types of fellowships are available
  • Inward fellowship – Tenable at The Chinese University of Hong Kong or The University of Hong Kong.
  • Outward fellowship – Tenable at any ACU member institution in a country other than Hong Kong.
Both fellowships can be used for either a collaborative academic research visit, or a collaborative fact-finding visit.

Fields of Study: Awarded for any of the priority subject areas:
  • Education
  • Health and related social sciences
  • Information technology
  • Information management
  • STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects
  • Sustainable development
  • University development and management
Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • Inward fellowship – Applicants must be professional or academic staff of, or a nominee of, an ACU member university in a country other than Hong Kong.
  • Outward fellowship – Applicants must be professional or academic staff of, or a nominee of, The Chinese University of Hong Kong or The University of Hong Kong.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Up to GBP £5000 and intended to cover:
  • international economy return airfare and other travel costs
  • medical insurance and visa fees
  • board and lodging fees
  • research costs
Duration of Program: The tenure of the fellowship must be for a period of less than six months, and travel must take place between 1 August 2018 and 31 July 2019.

How to Apply: Fellows are required to submit a 1000-2500 word report within two months of the end of the fellowship.
Applicants must submit a proposal for their fellowship and provide proof of support for their fellowship from their host institution, as well as from their head of department at their home institution.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Association of Commonwealth Universities