Bazaar merchants protest against government in Iran

Jean Shaoul 

Hundreds of traders in Tehran’s bazaar closed their shops for three days last week protesting the government’s economic measures and the plunging value of the Iranian rial, which has lost almost half its value in recent months. The strikes and protests spread to other cities.

Protesters demonstrated outside the parliament shouting, “Death to the dictator” and “Death to Khamenei and Rohani,” as they did six months ago. But unlike the wave of anti-government protests by unemployed youth and impoverished workers that swept across Iran beginning December 28, these recent and smaller protests were organised by the bazaaris—the wealthy merchant class that brought the bourgeois Islamic clerics to power and have been their main support base since 1979.

The regime has responded thus far with kid gloves, making few arrests. This is in sharp contrast to the earlier strikes when the regime mounted a brutal crackdown, killing more than 20 people and arresting hundreds more. Dozens of those arrested are still awaiting trial, while others have received heavy sentences.

The latest strikes reflect sharp tensions and divisions within the regime due to the developing economic crisis inside Iran. President Hassan Rohani, re-elected for a second term in May of last year on the basis of building relations with the US and Europe via the nuclear accord, faces furious opposition from the conservative faction of the ruling elite who had opposed the nuclear deal with the US.

His “reformist” supporters are no less frustrated with his failure to deliver the much-vaunted economic reforms and the promised prosperity after signing the nuclear deal in 2015 and releasing opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Zahra Rahnavard from house arrest.

Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed with the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, Tehran agreed to drastic curbs on its nuclear programmes in return for a step-by-step easing of international sanctions.

Since coming to power in August 2013, the Rouhani administration has accelerated privatisation and slashed social spending. The aim of these anti-working-class austerity policies was to woo European and hopefully US investment. To this end, it rewrote the rules governing investment in the oil sector to satisfy Total, Shell, Eni and other European energy giants.

This was set to continue with the further privatisation of education, the gutting of welfare support for the poorest Iranians, the increase in gasoline (petrol) prices by as much as 50 percent and a $3.1 billion reduction in infrastructure spending. However, the Rouhani government was forced to abandon some of these measures in the face of mass opposition by the working class. Rouhani and his First Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri have publicly criticised cabinet ministers to deflect public anger away from the government.

Any attempt to cut the defence budget or that of the Revolutionary Guards, who control a large part of the Iranian economy and whose budget has soared, would pit Rouhani against the military.

Industrial growth has been just 4 percent so far this year, down from 18 percent during the second half of 2017, and production levels have remained stagnant. Oil production is down from around 3,800 bpd in 2017 to 3,010 bpd this year, while the worst drought in 50 years is devastating agriculture and reducing the water flowing into the dams, leading to an expected 40 percent cut in Iran’s electricity production. In March, farmers in Isfahan Province began demonstrating over water shortages.

At the same time, the ever-widening class divide means Rouhani—like his counterparts in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and elsewhere in the region—confronts a working class, angry over poverty and social inequality. The official unemployment rate is 12 percent, a gross underestimate; 50 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, and millions have seen their entitlement to subsidies and welfare removed or slashed.

Even before US President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the nuclear deal, re-imposing punitive sanctions and secondary sanctions on countries trading with Iran, members of parliament were calling for Rouhani’s impeachment. Legislators have demanded he resign or dismiss his economy ministers and economic advisors.

There is even talk in media outlets supportive of the regime of calling for early presidential elections and/or installing a military man such as Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, as president, should strikes and protests get out of control.

While hardline forces initially organised the demonstrations that broke out in Mashhad in December, the protests quickly burst out of their control, and there are fears that this could happen again.

Washington’s plans to re-impose curbs on Iran’s ability to buy US dollars, along with any global trading in Iranian gold, coal, steel, cars, currency and debt, will hit every aspect of Iran’s economy, although agricultural products, medicines and medical devices are supposedly exempted.

The US announcements have pushed up world oil prices and hit the Iranian economy hard. Oil sales generate 60 percent of Iran’s export income and underpin the government’s finances. The rial fell to around 90,000 to the US dollar, forcing the government to take emergency measures. These include the allocation of hard currency at the preferential rate of 42,000 rials to the dollar largely to importers and basic commodities and bans on more than 1,400 imported goods, including cars.

Many importers have been selling their cut-price dollars on the domestic market rather than using them for imports, while others are selling their goods bought with subsidised dollars at inflated prices, provoking widespread anger on the part of shoppers.

According to Middle East Eye, journalists reported that several of the importing companies believed to be profiting illegally were behind the bazaaris’ strike and protests, sending agents to intimidate store owners to close.

Washington’s ostensible purpose is to put pressure on Iran to accept a far more stringent agreement that would curb not only Iran’s nuclear programme but also its broader political activities across the Middle East. But ultimately the US is seeking regime change, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hinting strongly last May that the Iranian public could take matters into their own hands. National Security Adviser John Bolton is reported to have told Trump that increased US pressure could lead to the regime’s collapse.

While the European powers party to the JCPOA are opposed to the US scuttling the nuclear deal, and the European Union is preparing to reactivate a law that would prevent European companies from complying with US sanctions against Iran, many firms that had signed deals with Iran, including Airbus, Boeing, Hyundai, Mazda, Peugeot, Citroen, Total and ENI, have already started pulling out.

Adding to the pressure, the Financial Action Task Force, a Paris-based global intergovernmental organisation linked to the OECD that focuses on anti-money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism, has demanded that Iran complete reforms by October to conform with global standards. Failure to do so would enable individual states or international institutions to impose sanctions.

Rouhani has sought to enhance Tehran’s links with China, Russia and India. Speaking at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit meeting held in Qingdoa in China’s eastern Shandong province in June, Rouhani said that Iran would like to become a full member. He called on its leaders to confront the US, saying, “The US efforts to impose its policies on others are expanding as a threat to all.”

He also held meetings with the Indian and Russian presidents and later Chinese President Xi Jinping, signing four agreements including one involving Iran’s role in China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative. Last year, trade between the two countries reached a record $52 billion. China and India are already two of the biggest purchasers of Iranian oil and have indicated that that will not change even with the new US sanctions.

European defence ministers sign on to European Intervention Initiative

Peter Schwarz 

The defence ministers of nine European countries signed a letter of intent last week for a European Intervention Initiative (EI2). The initiative aims to enable the European powers to intervene militarily and wage wars with a “coalition of the willing.”

The initiative stems from a suggestion made by French President Emmanuel Macron in his Sorbonne speech last September. Macron referred to the lack of a “common strategic culture” as the main deficiency of European defence policy and offered cooperation to other European countries under the umbrella of the French armed forces. Macron demanded: “At the beginning of the next decade, Europe needs to establish a common intervention force, a common defence budget and a common doctrine for action.”

For a long time, Germany has been reluctant to become too militarily dependent on France, but it has now adopted Macron’s initiative, albeit in a somewhat weaker form. After signing the letter of intent, German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen declared that it intended to establish a “forum of like-minded countries,” which could jointly draw up situation reports and “are ready to discuss with each other at an early stage, when crises emerge in regions, and then also jointly develop political will.”

The EI2 differs in two ways from the existing plan to develop a European army, the Permanent Structured Cooperation (Pesco), which is currently being intensively pursued.

Firstly, the name makes clear what the signatories intend. For the first time they do without euphemisms such as “defence” and openly speak of intervention. The statement describes the objectives of the initiative as follows: “EI2 will enable better links and closer cooperation between the armed forces of European states that are willing and able to carry out international military missions and operations, throughout the spectrum of crises.”

Secondly, the EI2 is not bound to the EU, NATO and other existing structures. Although it provides for the possibility of acting within the framework of the EU, NATO and the United Nations, it also allows for the defence of “European security interests” through “ad hoc coalitions.” It is thus creating a mechanism for military cooperation with Britain outside of the US-dominated NATO. Britain signed the declaration although it is soon leaving the EU.

Denmark also signed the letter of intent. Although the country is a member of the EU, it does not traditionally participate in its common security and defence policy. The other signatories are Belgium, Estonia, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. The original plan also included Italy as a participant, but the new government in Rome has not yet made a decision.

The declaration, the text of which is only available in English, clearly shows that France, Germany and other European powers are creating a new instrument for imperialist intervention and neo-colonial warfare.

Already in the first paragraph, the statement refers to “a highly unstable and uncertain strategic environment, subject to sweeping changes” that confronts Europe with the “greatest concentration of challenges since the end of the Cold War.” Examples include “an increasing terrorist threat, major migration crises, persistent vulnerabilities in its Southern region, from the Mediterranean to the Sahel-Sahara region, enduring destabilisation in the Middle East, resumption of open warfare on its doorstep and displays of force on its territory, including stemming from intimidation strategy, on its Eastern Flank and increasing natural disasters.”

The letter of intent is expressly committed to “consolidate European strategic autonomy and freedom of decision and action.” For the time being, the defence ministers do not foresee providing the EI2 with troops of its own, instead relying on “existing standing rapid reaction/intervention forces” when necessary. A permanent secretariat in Paris will be formed, based on French staff and the existing network of international liaison officers.

However, as tensions grow with the US and inside the EU itself, it is clear that France and Germany are creating a command and infrastructure that will enable them to pursue their military interests independently of the US and against it when called for. French Defence Minister Florence Parly said last year that what was wanted was “a quick and manageable process to bring together European military forces when needed.”

Tensions deepen between Beijing and Taipei

Robert Campion

Tensions between mainland China and Taiwan have risen in recent weeks, driven in large part by the Trump administration, which is boosting relations with Taipei. This is an integral component of a concerted effort by Washington to undercut Beijing economically and militarily throughout Asia and internationally.

Last Friday, CNN reported that the US State Department has requested Marines be dispatched to Taipei to guard its de facto embassy, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). While the number will likely be less than ten, it would be the first time in nearly 40 years that armed troops have guarded a US diplomatic office in Taiwan. Typically US Marines are only stationed at embassies and offices where Washington has formal diplomatic relations.

The request follows the formal opening of a new, $255 million AIT building on June 12, attended by the US Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Marie Royce. The participation of a senior US official sparked concerns in Beijing.

Washington’s moves call into question the “One China” policy, under which the US recognises Beijing as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan. The US has no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but has maintained contact informally through the AIT and has continued to sell arms to the island.

Responding to the announcement that US Marines could be stationed on Taiwan, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang called on the US last Friday to “exercise caution” and to “[abide] by its ‘One China’ pledge and [refrain] from having any official exchanges or military contact with Taiwan.”

In fact, the US has been doing the exact opposite with support from both the Republicans and Democrats. The massive $716 billion military budget for 2019, which easily passed both houses of Congress, called for stepped up military cooperation with Taipei, including taking part in joint war games like the annual Han Kuang drills, the most important in Taiwan.

In April, Washington passed the Taiwan Travel Act allowing increased diplomatic visits between US and Taiwanese officials. The Financial Timesnoted in a June 9 article that the “period of relative calm [between Washington and Beijing] has been overturned by the passage of the Taiwan Travel Act,” as well as by the appointment of China-hawk John Bolton as Trump’s national security advisor and the imposition of massive US tariffs on Chinese goods.

Bolton has previously called for rethinking the “One China” policy. In 2017, before entering the Trump administration, he wrote: “Taiwan’s geographic location is closer to East Asia’s mainland and the South China Sea than either Okinawa or Guam, giving US forces greater flexibility for rapid deployment throughout the region should the need arise.”

The main island of Taiwan is about 100 kilometres from the mainland but it also maintains control of several small, highly fortified islands that are just kilometres from China’s shoreline. At the beginning of the Korean War in 1950, General Douglas MacArthur in highlighting the strategic significance of Taiwan in a US war with China described it as “an unsinkable aircraft carrier.”

Responding to the Travel Act, Beijing has increased military exercises around Taiwan, including naval drills last week in the Taiwan Strait and Bashi Channel, as a warning to Taipei and Washington.

In response, the US and Taiwan have accused China of being the main aggressor. In an interview with the Agence France-Presse (AFP) on June 25, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen denounced China as a threat to regional stability and called on major powers to “constrain” Beijing.

“This is not just Taiwan’s challenge, it is a challenge for the region and the world as a whole, because today it’s Taiwan, but tomorrow it may be any other country that will have to face the expansion of China’s influence,” Tsai claimed.

Tsai is a member of the Democratic Progressive Party, which cautiously advocates a more independent position for Taiwan, without publically repudiating the “One China” policy. As a result, relations have soured between the two sides since she came to office in 2016. A declaration of independence could lead quickly to war as Beijing has previously declared it will use force to prevent such a move. China is unwilling to allow Taiwan to become a staging ground for the US military.

Washington exploits Beijing’s military exercises as well as its territorial claims to islands in the South China Sea to justify further militarizing the region. Defence Secretary James Mattis, who recently visited Beijing where the topic of Taiwan was discussed, stated in May that the US will continue “a steady drumbeat” of naval exercises to challenge China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Last month, Reuters reported that the Pentagon was discussing sending warships through the Taiwan Strait. Under consideration was sending an aircraft carrier group through the Strait for the first time since 2007 and making naval port calls to Taiwan. Such a step would be highly provocative and heighten the danger of an incident or accident leading to clashes.

The US and its allies claim such military operations are to defend “freedom of navigation.” Writing in the Guardian, the Chinese ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming, pointed to the hypocrisy of the US position. “Is there any problem with freedom of navigation in the South China Sea? The reality is that more than 100,000 merchant ships pass through these waters every year and none has ever run into any difficulty with freedom of navigation,” he stated.

Washington’s goal is not to defend “freedom of navigation” or “democracy” in the Asia Pacific but to step up its war preparations aimed at China and any other potential rivals.

Escalating trade war starts to make economic impact

Nick Beams

With the US and China set to impose tariffs on each others’ goods on Friday, there are signs that the growing trade war is starting to show up in economic data. Purchasing managers’ index figures for Chinese exports released on the weekend show that the index for new export orders fell to 49.8 last month, down from 51.2. A level of below 50 indicates a contraction.

Yesterday, Chinese stock markets continued the fall that has taken place over the first six months of the year. A key index of large stocks traded on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges fell by 2.9 percent, its fifth largest daily decline this year.

Losses in the Chinese stock markets have been more than $2 trillion over the past six months, with the Shanghai Composite index down by more than 20 percent, making it the world’s second worst performing market this year after Argentina.

The fall in the market has been set off by moves by Chinese financial authorities to cut back on credit expansion in order to try to rein in the growth of Chinese debt. However, the escalating trade war is now adding to market instability.

“Sentiment will remain bad in the near term,” David Qu, an economist at the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group in Shanghai told Bloomberg. “The market doesn’t hold out high hopes that China and the US will find a way out before tariffs are imposed.”

The increase in financial turbulence, which is being fuelled at least in part by the rising trade war tensions, is also reflected in the fall of the value of the Chinese currency, the renminbi, also known as the yuan.

In June, the renminbi suffered its largest ever monthly fall against the US dollar since China established a foreign exchange market in 1994—down by 3.3 percent. The renminbi dropped by 1.9 percent last week, its second biggest weekly decline—only exceeded by a fall of 2.8 percent in August 2015 that sent a shock wave through global markets.

Further falls could spark a reaction from the US accusing China of seeking to “weaponise” its currency in response to the imposition of US tariffs. China has in the past been denounced by the US as a “currency manipulator.” But at this point, the fall appears to be largely a response to market forces.

Chinese authorities would be wary of forcing down its value because of the impact this would have on financial markets. Any fall in the currency increases the interest and debt repayments that Chinese corporations and financial institutions have to make on loans taken out in US dollars.

Bo Zhuang, chief economist at TS Lombard, a research group, told the Financial Times that while the Peoples Bank of China, which intervenes in market to regulate the currency, may allow a tactical devaluation to send a signal to Washington, a large fall would be counter-productive.

“Any benefit from a major renminbi devaluation would be far outweighed by the negative consequences: accelerated capital flight, domestic liquidity tightening and the possibility of increased credit stress,” he said.

Even apart from the trade war issue, there are concerns in Chinese financial circles of major instability ahead. Bloomberg cited an Internet posting from the government-backed National Institution for Finance and Development (NIFD) which warned that China is “likely to see a financial panic.”

The posting appeared only briefly and was then removed, but Bloomberg said it had been confirmed by an NIFD official. The Chinese think tank warned that share purchases financed by debt had reached levels last seen in 2015 when a market crash wiped out $5 trillion in share values.

More broadly, the trade war being waged by the US is starting to escalate, with Canada imposing tariffs of $12 billion worth of US exports at the weekend, in retaliation for the Trump administration’s tariffs on steel and aluminium. The products targeted by Canada range from steel and aluminium to tomato ketchup and beer. In total, they amount to 3-4 times the tariffs imposed by the European Union in response to the US measures.

The EU has responded to the threatened imposition of tariffs of up to 25 percent on its auto exports by sending a submission to the US Commerce Department warning it could target almost $300 billion worth of exports if the US goes ahead.

There are now growing fears that medium-sized and smaller economies are going to be severely impacted by US trade war measures as many of them are dependent on Chinese markets.

A report issued by the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science said that “trade tensions between the US and its major trading partners have the potential to undermine confidence and hinder global economic output.”

The warning was underscored by Australian Trade Minister Steven Ciobo. Speaking in Tokyo, he said: “Escalating trade tensions, potentially, will harm global growth: of course, there’s a correlation between global growth and trade volumes.”

He expressed the vain hope, articulated by the EU and other major trading partners of the US, that Washington would act in a way consistent with the rules of the World Trade Organisation.

Australian capitalism is dependent on the growth of the Chinese economy for its key exports of iron ore, coal and other raw materials.

In a report issued last week, Morgan Stanley issued a warning particularly relevant for Australia and other raw material exporters, saying that rising trade tensions “bring the risk of demand destruction across commodity markets.”

The former trade minister in the Australian government, Andrew Robb, entered the fray in a speech last night. Speaking at the annual dinner of the Mineral Council of Australia, he said US efforts to contain the rise of China were “futile” and “counter-productive.” China and India were emerging as major players in Asia and would “share” power with the US over the course of the next century.

“Unfortunately, the United States appears yet to accept this inevitability, with both sides of the political aisle in Washington endlessly focusing on ‘containment’ of China,” Robb stated.

Robb said the mining industry was most exposed to the changing geo-political environment and should try to navigate “this increasingly tense power struggle.”

“The alternative of leaving two bulls in a paddock to fight it out is no answer,” he said.

But neither is the perspective advanced by Robb that countries such as Australia should try to navigate their way through the conflict until the US accepts the “inevitability” of the rise of China or any other power that in any way challenges its dominance.

The growth of China, as Robb pointed out, is regarded by both sides of the political establishment in the US as an existential threat to its position. It is determined to counter that threat by trade war and other economic measures, and, if necessary, by resorting to military means.

Iran, North Korea, and Disarmament: Some Questions

Sheel Kant Sharma


These recent weeks have shown extraordinary results in the Korean Peninsula. There is an interesting ring in President Trump announcing that DPRK was “no longer a nuclear threat” with what President Reagan had declared at the height of Cold War tensions in the mid-1990s, that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” 

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was leading a fairly enduring campaign about the Reagan administration pushing the planet to the nuclear brink. Reagan’s declaration signified assurance and calmed anxiety among the allies. Trump's line also sets at rest the fears sparked by the tit-for-tat nuclear war talk. Between these two statements by Reagan and Trump, the latter is indeed the subject of far greater scrutiny and scepticism. Nonetheless, no one has questioned its positive impact, no matter how unpredictable the praxis of the Singapore Summit may turn out to be.

There is an underlying leitmotif, despite the lapse of decades of tumult and massive transformations, in these two historically separate assurances. This leitmotif is that nuclear weapons, despite their dangers, might not in the final analysis figure centrally in shaping relations between adversaries. Nuclear weapons in the control of Moscow and Washington even today remain menacingly huge. However, Reagan and Gorbachev had removed the overpowering angst by opening vistas of political transformation. The political 'horse' pulled the disarmament cart, not the other way around.

The political atmosphere in the Korean Peninsula has changed so substantially that disarmament appears to be relegated to more as an act of faith than a detailed step-by-step mutual accord. And, all the protagonists are none too worried even as many might harbour doubt. So long as Kim plays ball and the two Koreas keep moving toward rapid normalisation, US statements would seem to show no disruptive trend, while China and Russia express satisfaction.

Contrast this with developments in West Asia, i.e. Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal, which was feared to have grave implications for the Korean Peninsula. In the end, however, it did not particularly spike North Korea’s anxiety. Moreover, The New York Times has since come out with an extensive account detailing how, since summer 2017, “secret spy meetings, talks between entrepreneurs and an unreported role for President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner” might have laid the ground work for the Trump-Kim Summit. These meetings, initiated by high-level official on behalf of Kim, also likely involved business deals. There could be some correlation between such speculation and the invocation in various ways in President Trump’s commentaries, including a video shown in Singapore about the bright future that awaits North Korea. This analysis might spur queries then as to the avowed purpose of the nuclear war talk in 2017. One answer may be that though great power diplomacy has by now perfected the art of drawing global attention through scary talk about nuclear weapons, beneath it, there might be a political train that both sides steer to their advantage. One side might hold the reigns of global markets, sanctions and ‘maximum pressure’, while the other side might reinforce national consolidation, albeit at great cost. 

Trump perhaps hinted in his Singapore press conference that Iran too ought to take a leaf out of Kim's playbook. The rising tide of public sentiment in Iran and the rapid descent of the Iranian Riyal to 90,000 to US$ 1 might tighten pressure on Tehran. Although Tehran’s official stance remains resolute, is it time to imagine - perhaps counter-intuitively - that in the success so far of Trump’s diplomacy, there may be a message from North Korea to Iran? If the pressure of greater sanctions were to make a dent in Iran’s position – although that is a remote possibility given the realities of the region – would it mark another diplomatic success for Trump? 

A weightier question is whether in the new international order being shaped by right-wing ascendancy, the painstaking work of disarmament-type minutiae that figure in the JCPOA would have any relevance? The sparse texts that have emerged from the excellent atmospherics witnessed in Singapore give different signals. The Summit was an unqualified success of high-level diplomacy, and the Iran deal, according to its critics, an utter disaster despite its elaborate implementation. What does that signify for prospects of old-fashioned disarmament today?

Chinese, Russian, South Korean and Japanese statements welcoming the Trump-Kim Summit also delicately point to more arduous work towards accomplishing denuclearisation. Conflicting nuances about what comprises denuclearisation, extensive, inter-related steps involved in such a process, insistence on the give-and-take by all sides, and the potential for huge gains for the protagonists – these were the stuff of the six-party talks, too, which led nowhere. Would these inconvenient realities return to haunt the negotiators again? In Chinese statements issued during Kim's visit last week, there is substantial throwback to the hard issues. Going by Trump’s tweets, however, one should not overly worry since the big step has been taken. The rest should fall in place in due course, while maximum pressure and sanctions endure. In this context, the US decision to extend the 2008 emergency provisions about North Korea to maintain sanctions should not be seen as a contradiction. The 2008 situation was very different from today - North Korea then had defiantly conducted nuclear tests but posed no direct threat to the US mainland.

The takeaway from Singapore may have more to do with the direct threat to the US which appears to have abated, according to Trump. As to the other ramifications of North Korean nuclear capability and the threat it poses - these will persist, pending the promised follow-up to Singapore (and the Summit Declaration by the two Koreas in March 2017). That North Korea may carry on still with nuclear research or further uranium enrichment may then just be a matter of detail. 

Morland Writing Scholarship for African Writers (£18,000 Cash Prize) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th September, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: The Scholarships are open to anyone writing in the English language who was born in an African country or both of whose parents were born in Africa.

To be taken at (country): Candidate’s home country

Eligible Works: The Scholarships are meant for full length works of adult fiction or non-fiction. Poetry, plays, film scripts, children’s books, and short story collections do not qualify.

About the Award: It can be difficult for writers, before they become established, to write while simultaneously earning a living. To help meet this need the MMF annually awards a small number of Morland Writing Scholarships, with the aim being to allow each Scholar the time to produce the first draft of a completed book. 
At the end of each month scholars must send the Foundation 10,000 new words that they will have written over the course of the month. Scholars are also asked to donate to the MMF 20% of whatever they subsequently receive from what they write during the period of their Scholarship. This includes revenues as a result of film rights, serialisations or other ancillary revenues arising from the book written during the Scholarship period. These funds will be used to support other promising writers. The 20% return obligation should be considered a debt of honour rather than a legally binding obligation.

The Foundation will not review or comment on the monthly submissions as they come in. However, each Scholar will be offered the opportunity to be mentored by an established author or publisher. In most cases the mentorship will begin after the book has been finished and the Scholarship period has ended. At the discretion of the Foundation, the cost of the mentorship will be borne by the MMF. It is not the intention of the MMF to act as editor or a publisher. Scholars will need to find their own agents and publishers although the MMF is happy to offer advice.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The only condition imposed on the Scholars during the year of their Scholarship is that they must write. They will be asked to submit by e-mail at least 10,000 new words every month until they have finished their book or their Scholarship term has ended. If the first draft of the book is completed before the year is up, payments will continue while the Scholar edits and refines their work. 

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholars writing fiction will receive a grant of £18,000, paid monthly over the course of twelve months. At the discretion of the Foundation, Scholars writing non-fiction may receive a grant of up to £27,000, paid over a period  of up to eighteen months.

Duration of Scholarship: The Scholars may elect to start at any time between January and June in the year following the Scholarship Award. Their payments and the 10,000 word monthly submission requirement will start at the same time. The Foundation may exercise its discretion to offer non-fiction writers a longer Scholarship period of up to 18 months.

How to Apply: To qualify for the Scholarship a candidate must submit an excerpt from a piece of work of between 2,000 – 5,000 words written in English that has been published and offered for sale,. This will be evaluated by a panel of readers and judges set up by the MMF. The work submitted will be judged purely on literary merit. It is not the purpose of the Scholarships to support academic or scientific research, or works of special interest such as religious or political writings. Submissions or proposals of this nature do not qualify.

They should be sent by e-mail to scholarships@milesmorlandfoundation.com Please do not submit anything in hard copy or by terrestrial post.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Miles Morland Foundation

Important Notes: Before submitting an application, candidates should please read two things:

1. The FAQs which set out in detail the requirements for entering the Scholarship.
2. The Checklist which tells the five things candidates must include with their entry or it will not be considered.

The candidates should submit a description of up to 1,000 words of the work they intend to write. The proposal must be for a full length book of no fewer than 80,000 words. The MMF does not accept proposals for collaborative writing or short story collections. The proposal should be for a completely new work, not a work in progress, and must be in English.

Please note that this is not a residential Scholarship. It is up to the Scholars what their living arrangements are during their Scholarship year.

Africa Fact-Checking Awards for African Journalists 2018

Application Deadline: 15th August, 2018 (midnight)

Offered annually?  Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Kenya

About the Award: After receiving entries from journalists in just a handful of countries in the first year, Africa check is raising the ante by including entries from journalists in 20 countries, and created awards for reports published in English and in French.
So interested applicants who are working as reporters for Africa-based media organisations, should get in touch if they have published or broadcast a report between 1 September 2017 and 15 August this year, exposing a false claim on an important topic made by a public figure or institution in Africa.

Offered Since: 2013

Type: Journalism contest

Eligibility: 

• To be eligible for the award, the entry must be an original piece of fact-checking journalism first published or broadcast between 1 September 2017 and 15 August 2018, by a media house based in Africa.
• The work may be published in print or online, broadcast on the radio or television or published in a blog.
• Reports published by Africa Check are not eligible for the competition.
• Candidates may enter more than one report if they so choose.

Selection Criteria: A six-member jury of eminent journalists from across Africa will be announced in July.
All entries sent into the competition before midnight on 15 August 2018 will be judged on the following four criteria.

• The significance for wider society of the claim investigated
• How the claim was tested against the available evidence
• How well the piece presented the evidence for and against the claim
• The impact that the publication had on public debate on the topic

Number of Awardees: Three (3)

Value of Award: The winner of the awards for best fact-checking report by a journalist working in English, and best fact-checking report by a journalist working in French, will each take away a prize of $2,000. And two overall runners-up will take away prizes of $1,000 each.

How to Apply: Interested participants should visit the award webpage to apply

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: Africa Fact in partnership with the African Media Initiative

Important Notes: The names of the winners and runners-up will be announced at a ceremony to be held in Nairobi in October.

Climate Tracker Fellowship for Young Citizen Journalists (Fully-funded to COP24 in Poland) 2018

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018

Eligible Countries:

• We do have one special set of Countries, and we will DEFINITELY SELECT at least ONE PERSON from the following Countries:
• Indonesia | The Philippines | India | Ethiopia | Nigeria | Egypt | Bangladesh | Peru | Pakistan | Turkey
• 4 other spots are available for anyone in the world (except Arab region, from Latinoamerica or Central Europe)

To Be Taken At (Country): Katowice, Poland

About the Award: Win a fully funded fellowship to the climate negotiations in Poland
The global community agreed in Paris to limit climate change in a way that protects people and the planet. Three years later, we still see countries giving large sums of money to fossil fuels, or planning to expand new coal and gas projects.
But we don’t have time to wait, the latest science tells us that we need rapid and far-reaching changes to a more sustainable future if we want to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
It is time to pressure our governments to stop developing new fossil fuel projects, and stop funding them, transitioning to a renewable energy and more fair economy.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Young writers from around the world (like yourself) are invited to write inspiring stories and to publish them in media.
• Whether you are a first time writer or a seasoned journalist, this app, is your chance to join this movement.

Do you want to participate? Follow these steps:
Between the 23rd of July and the 31st of August you have to write at least 2 articles about the 2 topics we are giving you.

• 1st topic (23rd July – 10th August): Stop new fossil fuel projects! Write about a fossil fuel project your Government is planning to implement, why they should stop it
• 2nd topic (13th August -31st August): Fund the transition! Write on how your government should stop subsidising/giving money to fossil fuel projects, and transition to a renewable energy model

Then you have to publish the articles in media in your country or region. It can be a newspaper, a magazine, an online news site, etc. Once your article is published, you have to submit the link to us through our Climate Tracker app (here: app.climatetracker.org). You may be asked to submit an extra article to finalise the selection process if it is too difficult to make a decision!
Climate Tracker will revise the articles submitted through the app, give you feedback and tips, and select the best writers. To help you write about these issues, we will prepare information toolkits, webinars with experts and give you help and feedback on how to pitch to editors, get an article published or learn more about climate in your region. To be up to date with the details of the program, check the app regularly, and contact us whenever you need!

Number of Awards: 5

Value of Award: Fully-funded. We will be covering your flight, accommodation, entry into the COP and guidance by the Climate Tracker team. Other prices to win include online writing fellowships, for which you receive a stipend and personal guidance from Climate Tracker to write about climate change issues in your region.

Duration of Program: 2 weeks in December 2018

How to Apply: The best writers will be chosen among the applicants by analysing their outreach and writing skills. You can check the rating system for articles here. Writers with the best general score make a chance to one of 5 fully funded fellowships to join us at COP24 in Katowice, Poland, in December.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Climate Trackers

Diet, Ignorance and the Environmental Catastrophe

Graham Peebles

Climate Change sounds vast and impersonal, but it’s really a very personal matter; a global crisis caused by the individual actions humanity has collectively taken. All too often such actions proceed from a position of ignorance selfishness and habit, and are undertaken with little or no understanding of the effects on the natural environment.

The debate around climate change commonly focuses on transportation, deforestation, and energy – replacing fossil fuels with renewables. This is right and urgent, and some countries are taking steps; however, what is not tackled at all is the devastating impact of a meat/dairy diet, – common to 97% of humanity. According to Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts Through Producers and Consumers (RFEI), a detailed report published in the journal Science, consumption of animal produce is “degrading terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, depleting water resources, and driving climate change.”

Industrial farming of cows, pigs, sheep and chickens, plus harvesting fish, for human consumption is the single greatest cause of the interconnected environmental catastrophe; unless urgent substantive change takes place this could single-handedly lead to a polluting point beyond redemption. Misinformed, irresponsible lifestyle choices are behind the environmental crisis. The vast majority of people are unaware of the devastating effects of our collective eating habits, and from this position of uninformed ignorance disaster flows; the earth is poisoned, the climate disrupted and all manner of lives are lost.

Animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions (GGE), according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). This is more than any other sector, including manufacturing and transportation. The principal climate change contaminate is methane (44%), which comes mainly from rearing cattle – the source of 65% of all livestock GGE’s. While methane’s atmospheric life is only decades compared to centuries/millennia for carbon-dioxide (Co2) Scientific American reports that it “warms the planet by 86 times as much as CO2,” before degrading to become CO2: So it’s a double whammy, an intensely damaging one.

In addition to high levels of GGE’s the meat and dairy industry is responsible for a range of environmental ills: Colossal amounts of both land and water are used to produce meat and dairy for the dinner plate – a third of all the Earths fresh water is soaked up by the industry, according to PNAS, and Waterfootprint relate that over 15,000 litres of water are required to produce a kilogram of beef, compared to the 322 litres of water needed for a kilo of vegetables. In America, 55% of total water usage goes to animal agriculture, compared to 5% for domestic use.

Globally the human population drinks around 5.2 billion gallons of water and eats 21 billion pounds of food daily, the documentary Conspiracy states. Though a lot, this pales into insignificance compared to the 45 billion gallons of water the world’s 1.5 billion cows drink daily and the 135 billion pounds of food they consume.

Land: use and degradation

The demand livestock farming makes on worldwide land resources is equally alarming. Between 25% and 30% of all (ice-free) land is utilized for grazing (up to 60 times more than the combined urban conurbations of the world); add in land used to grow feed crops and the figure leaps to 45% the International Livestock Research Institute state. This voracious appetite for land is the primary cause of rainforest deforestation (which generates 10% of global GGE, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists) as huge tracts of land are cleared to graze cattle and grow genetically manipulated soya beans and maize, which are used in animal feed.

The World Resource Institute estimates that only 15% of the world’s rain forests remain, the other 85% has been leveled, badly degraded or broken up, destroying ancient ecosystems and displacing hundreds of thousands of indigenous people; and 91% of the lost rainforest is due to farming livestock to feed human beings with meat and dairy.

Tropical rainforests are the lungs of the planet, but an acre of this most precious land is being cleared every second, and it’s increasing: In the world’s largest rainforest, the Brazilian Amazon, from August 2015 to July 2016 deforestation rose sharply, to, The New York Times (NYT) reported “nearly two million acres…. that’s a jump from about 1.5 million acres a year earlier.” In neighboring Bolivia, the Bolivia Documentation and Information Center say that 865,000 acres of land have been cleared every year since 2011 – a huge increase on the 366,000 acres a year during the 1990’s and the 667,000 acres a year in the early 2000’s. The reason for the increase is “a strategy by multinational food companies to source their agricultural commodities from ever more remote areas around the world.” Areas where law is weak and corporations can do as they like – all in the name of profit.

Deforestation and soil degradation/erosion leading to desertification are closely connected. The UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification), records that “12 million hectares of arable land, enough to grow 20 tonnes of grain, are lost to desertification annually. With over 70% of the global arable land being used to grow crops for livestock, its clear that “animal agriculture is the leading driver for approximately 1/3 of the land lost on earth due to desertification.”

Animal agriculture is also the principal cause behind the unprecedented level of species extinction, and this because of a variety of factors: Clearing forests destroys natural habitat; wild animals are hunted to protect livestock; pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers used in the production of feed crops “interferes with the reproductive systems of animals and poison water supplies.” Together with the broader impact animal agriculture is having on climate change, this all contributes, Conspiracy relates “to global depletion of species and resources.”

The industrial farming of livestock is a multi-layered environmental disaster, a global industry worth an estimated 3.178 $Trillions per year according to the World Bank that is growing at a phenomenal rate. Over the past 50 years global meat production increased fourfold. In 1963 it was 78 million tonnes, now, Global Agriculture records that it’s around 308 million tonnes per year. It’s expected to rise a further 75% by 2050 and demand for dairy to increase by 65%. If this trend continues, research published in Nature shows that by 2050 agricultural emissions will take up the entire world’s carbon budget, with livestock a major contributor. This would “mean every other sector, including energy, industry and transport, would have to be zero carbon, which is described as ‘impossible’.”

The enormous rise in production, of cheap low-quality food stuff is being generated through large-scale factory farming; it is how 70% of all farm animals are now reared, is the biggest cause of animal cruelty, and the source of many of the health pandemics in recent years. Livestock is regarded as human property – living commodities within a world of commodification to be used and profited from with no concern for the well-being of the animals.

Regionally, Asia produces almost half of the total meat production, Europe and America account for 19 and 15% respectively. The countries that consume most are currently the industrialized nations, Australia tops the chart of meat eaters, with, Forbe tells us, an average Australian eating “205 lbs. of beef and veal, poultry, pork and sheep meat a year”. America follows with 200 lbs. a year, then comes Israel at 189 lbs. It’s interesting to note that these countries also lead the world in wealth and income inequality.

Some will argue that even more livestock is needed to feed a growing global population. This claim is totally unfounded. Whilst the world is certainly overpopulated (7.6 billion), enough food is being produced to feed an estimated 10–12 billion people, but as FAO relates, “an estimated one-third of all food produced for human use, valued at $1 trillion, is lost or wasted each year.” In full sight of this criminal act almost a billion people are starving, whilst 1.9 billion are overweight. As the Meat Atlas makes clear, the global system for producing food is totally broken, it is a failed industry controlled by a handful of multinational corporations sitting within a dysfunctional economic system that places profit before people and the planet.

Change of Lifestyle

If humanity is to overcome the environmental crisis, a major shift in behavior is needed, including a change in diet. The RFEI report reveals that adopting diets which exclude animal products “has [enormous] transformative potential: reducing food’s land use by 2.8-3.3 billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 49%; acidification by between 45-54%; eutrophication [excessive richness of nutrients in a body of water] by up to 56%.” In large meat eating societies like America, where meat consumption is three times the global average and a mere 3.5% are vegetarian, changing diet “has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by up to 73%.”

Awareness is the critical ingredient in change, individually and collectively. In order to raise awareness of the impact of meat/dairy production and create a well-informed society, information needs to be widely available. The lead researcher on RFEI, Joseph Poore from the University of Oxford, proposes labeling which reveals product impact should be made available. Such a step should be compulsory, so “consumers could choose the least damaging options.” In addition, Poore suggests governments subsidize “sustainable and healthy foods” while “reallocating agricultural subsidies that now exceed half a trillion dollars a year worldwide.”

These measures would greatly help, but changing behavior is extremely difficult, particularly on the scale and within the time-frame required, and it won’t happen without incentives. In 2013 a group of scientists proposed “implementing a tax or emission trading scheme on livestock’s greenhouse gas emissions”, this “economically sound policy would modify consumer prices and affect consumption patterns.” Such a common-sense scheme should be implemented throughout the world as part of a set of global policies, consistently enforced, designed to change harmful behaviour and encourage responsible action. We all have a duty to do everything we can to restore the Earth to health and safeguard it for future generations and the most effective way to do this, as the RFEI study shows, is to stop eating animal produce.

The Middle East: History threatens to repeat itself

James M. Dorsey

If the notion that history repeats itself is accurate, it is nowhere truer than in the Middle East where the international community, caught by surprise by the 2011 popular Arab revolts, has reverted to opting for political stability as opposed to sustainability, ignoring the undercurrents of change wracking the Middle East. Major powers do so at their peril.

The failure of the United States, Europe, China and Russia to recognize key drivers of fundamental societal change and revisit the underpinnings of their policies towards the Middle East and beyond threatens to nullify professed aims of wanting to end bloodshed, curb extremism, stabilize the region and protect their interests.

In a just published study, Jose Antonio Sabadell, a former Spanish and European Union diplomat, argues that the narrow focus of the West, and by extension of China and Russia, on countering extremism, stemming the flood of refugees, and securing economic interests, blinds major powers from recognizing tectonic social and political shifts that are likely to reshape a region embroiled in volatile, often violent transition.

Without saying so explicitly, Mr. Sabadell harks back more than a decade to the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when Western leaders, including then US President George. W. Bush recognized that Western support for Middle Eastern autocracy that failed to address widespread popular grievances and perceptions of Western policy had created the feeding ground for jihadist groups focused on striking at Western targets.

That recognition produced an expectation that the Arab street would assert itself, neutralize breeding grounds of extremism, and counter radicalism by pushing for political and economic change.

When the Arab street did not immediately revolt, government officials, analysts and journalists wrote it off. The widespread discontent continued to simmer at the surface. It was palpable if one put one’s ear to the ground and finally exploded a decade later in 2011.

That pattern hasn’t changed despite a brutal counterrevolution that reversed the achievements of the revolt in Egypt and produced civil and covert wars and/or overt military interventions in Libya, Syria and Yemen.

Just how little has changed is evident in the continued validity of Egyptian-born political scientist Nazih Ayubi’s assertion 22 years ago that the Arab world is populated by hard rather than strong states whose power is rooted in bureaucracies, militaries and security forces.

Mr. Ayubi noted that these states were “lamentably feeble when it comes to collecting taxes, winning wars or forging a really ‘hegemonic’ power bloc or an ideology that can carry the state beyond the coercive and ‘corporate’ level and into the moral and intellectual sphere.”

Recent protests, often innovative in their manifestations, in Morocco, Egypt and Iran prove the point.

“The Arab world is in the middle of a process of deep social and political change… The emergence of Arab peoples as key political actors, in combination with widespread, profound and mounting popular frustration, is a game changer. What Arab populations think and crucially how they feel, will determine the future evolution of their countries,” Mr. Sabadell predicted.

Historical record backs up his assertion that fundamental change is a process rather than an event. The era of the 2011 revolts and their counterrevolutionary aftermath may be reminiscent of the 1789 French revolutionary wave that was countered by powerful conservative forces that ultimately failed to avert the 1848 revolution.

A renewed failure to recognize the social psychological, emotional, social, economic and political underpinnings of simmering discontent suggests that the international community’s focus on migration and extremism could boomerang by further antagonizing significant sectors of societies in a swath of land that stretches from Africa to China.

It is likely to impact stability in a region that borders on Europe, constitutes Russia’s backyard and soft underbelly and stretches into China’s strategic north-western province of Xinjiang. It also risks fuelling rather than countering extremism that feeds on its understanding and exploitation of the emotions, social psychology and identity politics of deep-seated grievances.

“We are at a crossroads… Vital interests are at stake…. These developments will define…interaction with 400 million people living in Europe’s immediate neighbourhood, and shape relations with the wider Middle East and North Africa region… This can have profound geopolitical implications, influence the global scenario for the foreseeable future and maybe change the nature of international politics,” Mr. Sabadell said.

Demonization of Islam in the West and major Asian nations as well as political Islam that is encouraged by autocrats in countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates despite the fact that religion is often the only permissible language in public discourse, and Islamophobia, magnify the risk and exacerbate the problem.

The centrality of Islam in Middle Eastern identity coupled with widespread anti-Western sentiment that is reinforced by the Trump administration’s immigration policy and anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe strengthens a belief that the West, and eventually China with its repressive policy in Xinjiang, is hostile to Islam. It’s a belief that hands opportunity to extremists on a silver platter.

It is also a belief that intrinsically links social and economic grievances with perceived threats to collective national, regional and religious identities, a pillar of populism on both sides of the Atlantic as well as the Mediterranean in what Indian essayist and novelist Pankaj Mishra dubbed “the flourishing international economy of disaffection.”

The key popular demand for dignity that characterized the 2011 revolts as well subsequent protests related as much to calls for clean, non-corrupt governance and efficient delivery of public goods and services as it did for acknowledgement of a proper place for Arab and Muslim states in the international system.

A key issue that world powers turn a blind eye to is the fact that even if religion constitutes the bedrock of autocratic legitimacy and frames public discourse, religiosity is in flux with youth increasingly embracing the notion that faith is a private affair rather than a ritualistic adherence to laws and a set of ironclad beliefs.

Closely related is the failure to realize that the gap between the Middle East and the West and potentially with China and Russia is not one that is rooted in values but in policies.

As a result, anti-immigrant sentiment coupled with Islamophobia, reducing the Middle East to concerns of migration and extremism, support for autocratic regimes, indifference towards the worsening plights of huge population groups, and the lack of even-handed policies towards key conflicts like Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute threatens to turn the fictional value gap into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is a prophecy that is exploited by extremists who unlike world powers understand the power of and beneficial focus on emotions.

The self-fulfilling prophecy is underwritten by decades of failed policy in which military interventions, debilitating attempts at regime change, misconceived notions of nation building and misconstrued calls for reform of Islam have fuelled mayhem and crisis.

“What the Arab world may need is not a religious leader but rather a social leader; not someone who wants to reform religion, but who wants to reform society…one who uses the popular legitimacy and the authority of religion to promote social and political change. Islam may need a Martin Luther King Jr. more than a Martin Luther,” Mr. Sabadell said.

Stopping failed policies from cementing false perceptions in a self-fulfilling prophecy will take more than counter narratives, political messaging and promotion of ‘moderate’ Islam. It will require fundamentally revisiting the notion that support for self-serving autocrats whose policies contribute to the threat of the prophecy is part of the solution.

The crisis in the Middle East offers the West a historic opportunity in the far larger struggle with China and Russia for a future international order. It is where the West has a strategic advantage that it can exploit if it is capable of dropping its horse claps that allow it to see primarily only the threats of migration and extremism.

Said Mr. Sabadell: “The way the West handles its relations with the region can and should make a significant difference. What it does and says will be the key; what it does not do and does not say will be equally important. How it acts, or not, and speaks up or remains silent will define its position and determine its effectiveness.”