19 Oct 2018

The Ten Big Lies of Traditional Western Politics

Erik Molvar

Public lands managed by the federal government loom large in western politics, a defining topic dictating the political debate. Corporate interests – logging, grazing, and mineral extraction most prominently – have often succeeded in dominating that debate through their good-old-boy network of legislators, county commissioners, lobby groups, and captive agencies. This powerful group largely controls the imaginary “custom and culture” of the West, a myth which reflects an attitude of dominion over nature, an anti-regulation mindset, and an obsession with economic profit regardless of social or ecological consequences. But in reality, westerners in large numbers don’t actually share these values. With the influx of tech companies and professional workers from other regions, this extraction-centric worldview is becoming a tinier and tinier minority viewpoint in a West that increasingly prizes unspoiled scenery, abundant wildlife, and recreational values above extractive uses of public lands.
As they sense their deathgrip on the public debate slipping, those seeking to maximize exploitation and marginalize conservation on western public lands are becoming increasingly strident in their insistence on a variety of fictional assertions about the West. Here is a list of some of the most outrageous misinformation being peddled through the media and via political channels.
1) Industrial oil and gas drilling is compatible with healthy wildlife populations
Big Oil has been trying for decades to sell America on the idea that it is not a dirty industry, and that whatever its latest environmental disaster happened to be, it was a rare occurrence that will never happen again. Drilling rigs, pipelines, and the spiderweb of dusty access roads can exist side-by-side with abundant native wildlife, they assert. But we know better. An onslaught of scientific studies demonstrates conclusively that converting undeveloped habitats into industrial oil and gas fields decimates sage grouse and mule deer populations, interferes with pronghorn migrations, and harms native wildlife from the tiny sage sparrow to the majestic golden eagle. It no longer matters how many slick paid television ads show pumpjacks against the backdrop of purple mountains’ majesty, the public – from hunters to wildlife viewers to local westerners worried about their deteriorating quality of life – just aren’t buying it anymore. And this spatial incompatibility doesn’t even begin to address the broader problems of burning those fossil fuels and adding to climate change’s impacts on native wildlife species.
2) Nobody wants to see the sage grouse (or anything else) listed under the ESA
The Endangered Species Act is one of the nation’s most popular laws, enjoying 90% support from American voters, but that doesn’t seem to deter anti-environmental interests from claiming that nobody wants to see it used. Sen. Barrasso (R-WY) is currently pushing legislation to gut the ESA by turning over key decisions to states that don’t want the law enforced, while the Trump administration is trying to change the regulations to loosen protections for our rarest wildlife.
It just isn’t true that, “No one wants to see the sage grouse listed under the Endangered Species Act,” no matter how many politicians or bureaucrats say it. While it’s true that most sentient beings are opposed to extinction and don’t want to see species plummet to the level of ESA listing, the majority of westerners do want to see highly-imperiled species like sage-grouse gain federal protection under the law. A 2004 Central Colorado College survey found that on the conservative West Slope of Colorado, 68% thought the Gunnison sage grouse ought to be listed under the ESA. The Gunnison sage grouse was listed as a ‘threatened species’ in 2014, and a 2016 poll of West Slope voters found that 66% thought the bird should continue to be listed under the ESA until they are fully recovered. A 2014 poll commissioned by Defenders of Wildlife found that 67% of westerners supported listing the related greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act, including 57% in Wyoming, traditionally considered an anti-ESA state. So, when western good-old-boys say that nobody want to see endangered species listings, they’re speaking for themselves, not for westerners.
3) Logging, grazing, or fuelbreaks can stop big fires
This Big Lie started with Smokey the Bear and his Forest Service admonition, “Only YOU can prevent forest fires.” This myth, assuming all fires are human caused and unnatural, has been spreading from forests to deserts to grasslands ever since. The reality is that fire is often a natural event, and most western conifer forests naturally burn as hot, uncontrollable conflagrations every 200 to 700 years. Lodgepole pine – a colonizer forest type that the timber industry deliberately re-establishes for through clearcutting – is actually fire-dependent and burns even more frequently.
Out in the western deserts, overgrazing has created vast monocultures of cheatgrass, an invasive weed that destroys habitat values for wildlife and burns as often as every 5 years, and this is unnatural. In both forests and deserts, the really big fires happen during the driest, windiest weather, when wind can carry burning embers a quarter mile or more, and even interstate highways and the mighty Columbia River have been jumped by advancing flames. For both fires within their natural range of size and intensity, and those that are unnaturally large or frequent, it is foolish to think we can “control” them.
On arid rangelands, federal agencies and local conservation districts propose “greenstrips” a few hundred yards wide in the face of flying brands that carry for a quarter mile or more to start spot fires ahead of the flame front, in full knowledge that the “greenstrips” will be brown and combustible by the late-August peak of fire season. Federal and state agencies are fond of funneling millions in taxpayer dollars into fuel breaks in the backcountry despite science showing serious environmental impacts and a complete absence of reliable evidence that they work, for the political purpose of saying “we did all we could” and securing plausible deniability when uncontrolled fire inevitably burns into residential communities. The same is true for logging in forested backcountry – it just doesn’t work to stop or slow fires. Once a fire gets started and local topography and wind direction are understood, fuel breaks can be a very useful tactic. Instead of pretending they can control fire on the open range or in fire-adapted forests, officials would be better off focusing prevention efforts on defensible space immediately next to homes and communities, and educating the public on fire-wise methods to make homes as flame-resistant as possible.
4) Wild horses are the real threat to western rangeland health
Western public lands are so uniformly overgrazed that the degradation seems normal. The livestock industry likes to blame this abuse on wild horses. But in reality, most of the West has no wild horses at all. For example, only 12% of sage grouse habitats have any wild horses. Wild horses are a rare sight, so for the overwhelming majority of lands that are in poor condition, the domestic livestock are the cause when land health and wildlife suffer. Even where wild horses do occur, the impacts of horses are vastly outweighed by the damage caused by the domestic livestock that graze on public lands, which outnumber wild horses on the range by more than 36 to 1. Like any herbivore, wild horses can damage their habitats when overpopulated, but given the aggressive program of federal roundups, horses rarely reach these densities.
5) Ranchers are the real environmentalists
Ranchers vary in the degree to which they damage public lands and native ecosystems. The worst of the worst are fond of trumpeting the Big Lie that livestock are actually good for the environment. If the environmentalists would just leave ranchers alone, according to their logic, they would naturally do what is best for the lands and wildlife, forsaking their own profit motive. If ranchers were such great stewards, why are there so many endangered species on western public lands where cattle graze? Even the idea that ranchers protect open spaces is a myth: Virtually every rural subdivision ever built started with a rancher selling land to a developer. Yes, Virginia, there are real environmentalists: And they are not the commercial livestock operations pushing non-native invasive cattle and sheep into the remotest backcountry, but the nonprofit environmental professionals who enforce federal and state protections for lands and wildlife. These laws were written after over a century of abuse by the same industries and emerged in direct response to unmitigated disasters like the Dust Bowl and species extinction. Those who cannot learn from history….
6) Predators are killing our wild game (or our profits) and their numbers need to be “managed”
The eradication of native predators goes as far back as Manifest Destiny and the drive to tame the wilderness. The settlement of the West caused many species of native wildlife to become extinct, including big carnivores, as the West was domesticated into a landscape more suitable for “civilization.” Native wildlife incompatible with the livestock industry’s business model – from large predators that eat the occasional calf or sheep to prairie dogs, elk, and bison that compete with cattle for grass – were driven out. Today, large carnivores are making a comeback. They are territorial and occur at relatively sparse population levels, and there is little evidence that they limit or depress populations of elk and other hunted animals. Emerging science shows that the killing of predators in response to livestock losses may actually make those losses worse in the future. Today, more and more westerners are demanding healthy ecosystems in which native predators are a key component and in which ranchers are expected to coexist with native wildlife instead of wiping it out. The livestock industry’s war on native wildlife, led by the USDA’s cynically-named “Wildlife Services” (which killed 2.3 million animals last year, the majority of them native wildlife), is under increasing scrutiny, and the entire program is ripe for elimination.
7) When the next boom hits, the good times will return
Westerners have short memories when it comes to boom times. Oil and gas production runs in cycles of boom and bust driven by fluctuations in commodity prices. When prices are high, out-of-state corporations flood western states to make their millions, and then pull out when prices drop again. With booms come spectacular crime waves, social disruption, and financial stress as communities struggle to provide services and laborers to the temporarily ballooning population. As prices inevitably collapse, local governments are left holding the bag for pricey development projects, jobs disappearyoung people emigrate, and whole towns dry up and blow away. This cycle of boom and bust has led economists to label western states as resource colonies, akin to developing nations that are stripped of their natural wealth to enrich a handful of billionaires in faraway cities. Where economic diversification takes root, communities thrive. Communities that stake their existence on the economic scourge of natural resource exploitation are doomed to die out.
8) Ranching is the cornerstone of western rural economies
Dating back to the 1800s, when big ranching operations were established by the second sons of British nobility who by law couldn’t inherit the family estate back home, the livestock industry has cultivated the self-serving mythos that it is the cornerstone of western economies. But if you run the numbers, you get a far different picture. University of Montana economist Thomas Powers did a West-wide assessment and found that the livestock industry accounted for only 0.1% of western economies. That’s not all that surprising when you consider that western state economies include metropolitan areas that are major engines of growth, including California’s Silicon Valley and its budding clones in other western states. Even in Wyoming, the least populated state in the West, all agriculture put together makes up only 1.5% of the gross domestic product, according to state statistics. Explorer John Wesley Powell called America west of the 100thmeridian “the Great American Desert,” and Powell had it right. Western mountains and basins are so arid and unproductive for cattle that only 1.9% of America’s beef ever sets foot on western public lands, despite the cowboy myth that pervades western culture. The biggest contributor to western local economies? Investment income, often from retirees, according to Headwaters Economics compilations of U.S. Census data.
9) The oil, timber, and livestock industries have the right to extract private profits from public lands
Back in the 1800s, the public domain was a free-for-all where anyone could mine, log, or graze their livestock on any lands they could control at the point of a gun. But local westerners grew frustrated with big corporations that logged off their mountains, grazed their basins down to dust, and polluted their water supplies with massive mining operations. Starting in the 1890s, westerners successfully lobbied for federal agencies to manage the public lands. By the 1950s, after prioritizing extractive uses for many decades, the public pressed Congress to enact a series of environmental laws to steer these agencies toward sound and sustainable land stewardship. Under these new laws, and the regulations developed to implement them, agencies were required to manage most public lands under a “multiple use” mandate that includes wildlife habitat, watersheds, historical features, and public recreation among the key uses. No longer would the almighty dollar rule the public lands, at least in theory. Agencies were granted the option (but not the obligation) to lease public lands for livestock grazing, to lease underground minerals for oil and gas extraction, and to contract with logging companies to cut down tracts of forest, as long as environmental standards are met. With some exceptions, these same agencies have full legal authority to halt granting these leases and sales of public resources at any time, for any reason. In reality, federal public lands are managed in trust by federal agencies for the landowners – all Americans – and with that responsibility comes the obligation to put the public interest writ large ahead of the profit interests of any one corporation or industrial sector.
10) Local control would result in better management of western public lands
Every time there is an election, you’ll hear more and more of these dishonest statements baked into the talking points of politicians hoping to sway enough votes to get elected. But this Big Lie isn’t told exclusively during limited to election season. It can be heard year-round from corporate lobbyists, county commissioners, Cliven Bundy and his ragtag band of armed militants, and sometimes even from well-intentioned conservationists who don’t know any better. But for the past century and a half, state and local governments have controlled the development of private land and the management of wildlife populations. If states and counties were so great at land stewardship, why is there urban sprawl in rural areas? Why are there so many endangered species? And when you look at the water and air pollution that dominated America in the 1950s and 1960s, it took federal laws and regulation to clean up the problem, after state and local governments failed to address the poisoning of their own residents. The fact of the matter is that state and local governments, due to their smaller size, are easier targets for big money interests and big polluting corporations to bully into submission. Many state governments have been captured by the industries that exploit public lands for their own private gain, and cannot be trusted to own or manage federal public lands.
Deconstructing the Big Lies
It would be easy to conclude that if you catch a politician, a community leader, or anyone else repeating one of these Big Lies, that makes them a liar. While that’s often true, it’s not always so simple. There are plenty of people out there who aren’t in a position to know any better, but are vocal with their opinions nonetheless. Repetition is the way the big lies are adopted as truths: Tell the same falsehood 26 times, according to advertising industry research, and the audience will accept it as common knowledge. Beware the Big Lie in western political discourse. Everyone in the West – and every owner of western public lands (in effect, each American citizen) – should do their part to bring daylight to these falsehoods and to ensure that political decisions that affect us all are driven by realities rather than distortions. 

Brexit impasse at European Union summit

Robert Stevens

British Prime Minister Theresa May held a further round of talks with European Union leaders in Brussels Thursday, after the deal she agreed with her cabinet in July was formally rejected Wednesday night.
Talks on the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU broke down—primarily over the status of Northern Ireland during and after the transitional period to full Brexit beginning on March 29 next year.
In what has now become a routine humiliation, May was allowed just 15 minutes to speak Wednesday night before the EU-27 broke for dinner and more internal talks on Brexit. Prior to May’s arrival, the EU had already said not enough progress had been made to warrant calling an extraordinary summit slated for November 17 and 18 to finalise a deal.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that the talks had reached a deadlock and May had to come back with “new ideas.” A diplomatic source said that she had insisted that the EU “hold firm” against the UK in the coming weeks. Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz declared that any progress could take “weeks or months.”
May is running out of time. A final meeting in December is possible, but if that is ruled out, the deadline for a March exit is impossible, as any deal has to be signed off by the 27 EU member parliaments.
There is open discussion that Britain’s post-Brexit transition period, planned for 21 months ending December 31, 2020, will be extended by a year. In a desperate attempt to placate the Tory “hard-Brexiteers”, who reject such moves, May said, “It would be for only a matter of months, but the point is this is not expected to be used, because we are working to ensure that we have that future relationship in place by the end of 2020.”
A hard-Brexit outcome in which the UK stands to lose all access to the Single Market and Customs Union is opposed by the dominant sections of business. The Confederation of Business Institute employers’ organisation said, “The need for compromise on both sides to agree the withdrawal agreement and secure the transition period is long overdue... If extending the transition period makes the withdrawal agreement easier to agree it should be welcomed.”
May’s backers presented the possible extension as a concession by the EU, but it is a poisoned chalice. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the former euro group president, this week advocated an extension on the basis that the political divisions within May’s ruling Conservatives are intractable. His call was explicitly linked to the prospect of allowing “for new elections or a second referendum [in Britain] if the deal gets rejected in the medium term, which still seems pretty likely.”
Phillip Stephens wrote in the Financial Times, “[T]he threat of a no-agreement, cliff-edge Brexit might well see parliament force the prime minister’s hand. An extension would also be needed were paralysis to result in Mrs May’s departure and/or a general election. That, in turn, would open the possibility of a second referendum.”
Six of the most prominent Brexiteers—former Brexit Secretary David Davis, former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, and backbenchers Jacob Rees Mogg, Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Paterson and Priti Patel, signed an open letter to May opposing any concessions:
“We were all elected on a manifesto to gain full independence by leaving the customs union and single market,” they insisted. Northern Ireland and the UK could not remain in any transitional “backstop” arrangement based around regulatory alignment with the EU. Instead, a “super Canada free trade deal” should be negotiated for “the whole of the UK... Only by doing this can we seize the prize of the wide range of trading opportunities available outside the EU and free ourselves from the EU’s regulatory burden.”
Intervening on behalf of the Remain wing of the Tories, Father of the House Ken Clarke warned that due to divisions in parliament, “you can’t get an agreement in Brussels which can get a majority in the Cabinet or can shut up the Brexiteers... Both parties [Tories and Labour] are shattered and hopelessly divided—they can’t agree even among themselves.”
Wednesday saw the publication in German daily Die Welt of a joint appeal by former Labour leader Tony Blair, former Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg and pro-EU Conservative Lord Michael Heseltine for the EU to stand its ground against May.The joint statement declared: “Our domestic debate is far from over and, even at this late hour, many of us are continuing to make the case that the British public need to make the final decision once we are in possession of all the relevant facts.”
In January, Blair advocated, via the same newspaper, that a second referendum be held. This time Blair and his Tory and Liberal Democrat allies wrote three days before a planned rally in London in support of a second referendum, or “People’s Vote.”
Blair was also answering Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal for unity with the Labour right based on securing a Brexit deal that will maintain access to the Single European Market and customs union.
The joint statement decried “unrealistic hopes in Britain of not just a ‘last minute’ major concession by the EU side in the current negotiations, but of something even more delusional: that once the UK has left and is in the transition period, the 27 remaining member states will capitulate on the principles of the Single Market and give Britain access to the Market without abiding by its rules.”
Corbyn framed his appeal to Labour MPs this week as a rejection of May’s assertion that the only choices on offer were her negotiated deal or a no-deal hard Brexit—which she has made the basis of an appeal for Labour MPs to defy the party whip and back her. Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab warned that that there would be no opposition amendments allowed in the promised “meaningful” parliamentary vote on a Brexit deal. MPs would have to vote for her deal or against it and therefore for a hard Brexit. There will be no second referendum, May insisted.
Appealing directly to UK big business and the EU, Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell declared that it was in the national interest and that of the EU powers to work towards a Labour government, as “We think we can get a [Brexit] deal done fairly quickly” that would “transform the atmosphere, and it would be on the basis of mutual benefit and mutual interest…”
The failure to reach any agreement over Brexit is the product of escalating national antagonisms. This accounts for the EU’s hard-line stance on the issue of the post-Brexit Irish border and the advanced plans made for the UK crashing out of the EU by Germany and France. On Wednesday, Merkel warned German deputies, “It is only fitting as a responsible and forward-thinking government leadership that we prepare for every scenario—that includes the possibility of Great Britain leaving the European Union without an agreement.”
The Trump administration made a direct intervention, seeking to exacerbate divisions within the EU. Yesterday US trade representative Robert Lighthizer wrote to Congress, “We intend to initiate negotiations with the United Kingdom as soon as it is ready after it exits the European Union on March 29, 2019.”
The working class must oppose the Remain and Leave factions of the ruling class. Neither offers any alternative to a future of escalating national tensions and the danger of trade and military conflicts. They envision only a ramping up of the exploitation of working people and deeper austerity in order that the corporations can compete internationally. Workers and young people must oppose to the plans of the ruling elite their own strategy, based on the unification of workers across borders through the United Socialist States of Europe.

Wall Street volatile as global economy becomes “fragile”

Nick Beams

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

18 Oct 2018

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

Application Deadline: 9th November 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apply here for ASLP 2019

Visit Program Webpage for details

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

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

Application Deadline: 31st December 2018

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

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

Type: Contest

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

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

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: IBM

Google AI Residency Programme 2019 for Young STEM Graduates

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

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

Type: Internships/Jobs

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

Number of Awards: Not specified

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

Duration of Program: 12 months

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

Step 1
Prepare the following documents to complete your application:

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

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

Award Providers: Google

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

Application Deadline: 30th November, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

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

To be taken at (country): USA

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

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

Offered Since: 2004

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

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

Duration of Fellowship: 6-12 weeks.

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

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Provider: Borlaug Fellowship Programme

DAAD Re-invitation Programme for Former Scholarship Holders 2019

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

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Germany

Type: Research

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

What can be funded?

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

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

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

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

Patrick Cockburn

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