Posted on 03 January 2012 by Tea Server
The Department of mathematics at KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, invites applications for Postdoctoral Fellowships KTH in Stockholm is the largest and oldest technical university in Sweden. No less than one-third of Sweden’s technical research and engineering education capacity at university level … Continue reading
Posted on 03 January 2012 by Tea Server
Characterizing plant cell wall enzymes for potential use in biomass refining KTH in Stockholm is the largest and oldest technical university in Sweden. No less than one-third of Sweden’s technical research and engineering education capacity at university level is provided … Continue reading
Posted on 02 January 2012 by Tea Server
It seems that Indian airforce is more content with Rafale than the Eurofighter, As reported by Deccan Chronicles :
Just why has the Indian Air Force (IAF) short-listed the French
Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon ahead of four other contenders,
including the US F-16 and F/A-18 fighters, for the Rs 42, 000 crore
medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contract?
The down selection at the end of a prolonged evaluation of the six
fighter jets was evidently based on the fact that the Rafale and the
Typhoon were the most modern airframes and better equipped compared to
F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-16 IN of the US, MiG-35 of Russia, and JAS-39
Gripen of Sweden.
The Rafale and the Typhoon met most of the 630 technical attributes
mentioned in the request for proposal (RFP) by the ministry of defence,
while the others lacked either in performance or had limitations in
terms of future upgrades.
“Rafale figures a notch higher than Typhoon in terms of performance
and involves easier adaptability as it is logistically and operationally
similar to Mirage-2000, used extensively by our boys during the Kargil
conflict in 1999. The French government has also cleared the technology
transfer, including the AESA (active electronically scanned array)
radar,” sources in the IAF told Deccan Chronicle.
The other discreet offering by Dassault Aviation too made sense: save
on the $1.5 billion project to upgrade 52 Mirage-2000 jets by acquiring
the Rafale.
Interestingly, all six fighters were in the race till April 17, the
deadline for submission of modified offset proposals. The
representatives of these firms were informed of the Union government’s
decision to relax the offset policy mentioned in the request for
proposal (RFP).
The original rider that half the value of the $ 10.5 billion contract
be passed on to domestic firms was modified, fixing it at 30 per cent
of the deal. “We were all expecting a word on extension of commercial
proposals on the last day, April 28, but got to know that only Dassault
Aviation and Eurofighter have been invited for discussions,” said a
representative of Saab AB.
Those who lost out have made it known that they would raise issues
concerning the price and other attributes of Rafale and Typhoon. The two
aircraft are said to be the highest priced among those in the contest
when looked at from a unit price point of view. Second, the
Eurofighter’s AESA radar is still under development. Only the two US
fighters have operational AESA radars on them.
If India finally picks the Rafale, it would be only the second air
force after the French Air Force to induct these fighters into its
fleet.
India has asked Dassault SA and Eurofighter GmbH to hold their price
bids until the end of the year. The deal is expected to be signed by
March 2012.
The Final Two
Eurofighter Typhoon – Germany/Britain/Italy/Spain
Dassault Rafale — France
Out of the contest
Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN – USA
Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet – USA
SAAB’s Gripen JAS-39 – Sweden
Mikoyan-Gureywich’s MiG-35 – Russia
Posted on 02 January 2012 by Tea Server
Heis an industrialist and also patron of a large private hospital. Few weeks ago,he was diagnosed with a terminal illness. The doctors told him that he hadmaximum of 20 days left. But since then it has been almost 2 months and he is stillalive.
Holmes: Yes very much. I wear my watch on my right hand.
The grades and the result of those 15 attempts is an entirely different matter and should not be discussed in public )
Posted on 23 December 2011 by Tea Server
The CAWAT ranking revealed that Russia occupied the second position for
world arms sales in 2011 with $11.29 billion in revenues, which accounts
for 16.1 percent of all international arms supplies, Korotchenko said.
“The forecast for 2012 is $11.3 billion or 17.3 percent of global arms
sales.”
The Unitied States, however, dominates world arms exports, with over 40 percent of trade globally, or $28.76 billion.
Korotchenko also said that Russia had scored high records on arms
exports despite the fact that it had lost the Iranian market because of
the arms embargos imposed on Tehran by Washington. Moscow also supported
arms sanctions against Libya, suspending all contracts for the supply
of military hardware to the country.
The top ten biggest arms suppliers include France, Germany, Britain,
Italy, Israel, Spain, Sweden and China, according to the CAWAT ranking.
Posted on 19 December 2011 by Tea Server
Can they stabilize the national debt? It's about growth, stupid!
The debt dynamics equation was in the past of interest only to sovereign credit analysts (such as this blogger) and macro policy wonks. Now, more people want to know about it. You can generate such an equation that is elaborate or not, but the gist is the following: The primary budget surplus, that is, government revenues minus expenditures — not including interest expenses and earnings, must be large enough to cover the excess of the interest cost on the national debt over GDP growth, or else the debt to GDP ratio will rise.
Primary surplus/GDP > Debt/GDP x (r – g)
…where r is the interest rate on the government debt and g is the rate of growth in GDP; r and g are either both expressed in real (inflation-adjusted) or nominal terms.
Many countries today have primary budget deficits, which means, unless GDP growth is stupendous, that is, in excess of the interest rate, then their debt to GDP is going to rise.
The debt to GDP ratio is a comparative measure of a country’s debt burden. Think of it this way — you have the amount of debt your government owes, and you divide it by GDP, which is a measure of the size of the economy. GDP, you may recall, is defined as the sum of the transactions (buying and selling) taking place in an economy in a given year. Debt is divided by GDP in order to measure the capacity of a country to handle its debt burden, because, after all, you could tax all those transactions in order to pay off the debt.
What the debt to GDP ratio does not tell you is how high taxes are. For example, in Sweden tax revenues (broadly defined) represent a whopping 52% of GDP; whereas in the US and Japan, they represent only 32% fo GDP. If you believe that high taxes squelch growth — and you don’t have to be in the Tea Party to do so — then you would be more optimistic about growth prospects in the US and Japan than in Scandinavia.
Now, it just so happens that Sweden’s GDP growth rate has not been consistently lower than that of the US or Japan in recent years; but you might think that over time, if US and Japanese politicians would stop ruining investor confidence with their antics, then these countries could grow more rapidly than Sweden. Furthermore, both the US and Japan, again if their politicians would behave better (and here you can blame the Tea Party), have greater scope to raise taxes to improve debt dynamics than does Sweden. It has been estimated that Japan, if it had a VAT tax as high as Europe’s, would balance its budget overnight.
So, growth matters, taxes matter, the interest rate matters, and the budget deficit matters. So, how do some of the sovereigns we see flash across our computer screens fare on the debt dynamics equation?
Even though Italy has a high debt to GDP ratio of 120%, analysts and euro-officials trumpet the country’s primary budget surplus as an argument for why the government is solvent. Well, that surplus has been squeezed down to near zero; and, given rising interest rates resulting from the euro zone crisis, an abysmal GDP growth record and poor growth prospects, the primary surplus would need to be between 1.5% and over 4% of GDP in order to stabilize government debt. Hence, the market’s concern about Italy.
Spain has a much lower debt to GDP ratio than Italy, at just over 60%; however, its primary balance is in deficit of about 4% of GDP. Yet Spain only needs its primary balance to be in balance, not surplus, to stabilize its debt to GDP ratio. But closing that 4% gap is still quite a feat. The new right of center government, with its majority in the legislature, may just be able to do this. But the market still has its doubts.
How about France, which the rating agencies still have at AAA but have placed on a negative outlook? Its primary balance is in deficit like Spain’s, but only to the tune of 2.5% of GDP. Yet its debt burden is higher, at 85% of GDP. France too needs a primary balance that is in balance, but has less distance to go than Spain. Still worries about France’s growth prospects — especially its international competitiveness — plague the markets.
And then there is Germany, which has a sizable government debt burden of close to 80% of GDP, worse than Spain’s. Those pesky German states (lander) love to borrow. Germany too requires a primary balance to stabilize government debt, but AAA Germany’s primary balance is currently nearly in balance, and its GDP growth track record has been impressive of late. We’ll see if that continues.
The problem here is growth, stupid! With high tax burdens, an ideological vice grip on the ECB, poor political leadership at the European and national levels, a lack of structural reforms, and a currency in grave doubt, prospects for GDP growth in the euro zone that would support virtuous debt dynamics are dim.
The UK, which thumbed its nose at greater European oversight of its budget, has a primary deficit of 3.5%, debt to GDP like France’s, and requires balance in order to stabilize government debt. Yet the UK has the flexibility of its exchange rate and monetary policy to support GDP growth, which euro zone countries lack; however, the UK sends 40% of its exports to the euro zone, so its “splendid isolation” is a mere pipe dream.
Leaving the shores of Europe, we find the US and Japan with woeful primary deficits of 6% and 8% of GDP respectively, suggesting explosive deterioration in sovereign debt dynamics. US debt to GDP is approaching 95% this year, and Japan’s, get ready for this, is crossing 225% of GDP! However, given very, very low interest rates in both countries — how long they can get away with this is another story, but most believe they have at least a few years — and possibly better growth prospects than in Europe, both the US and Japan can stabilize government debt with a primary deficit of 1% or so of GDP.
Japan of course needs much more than debt stabilization; it needs sharp debt reduction. The other side of the coin for Japan and the US (and to a lesser extent the UK, where tax revenues represent around 40% of GDP, lower than most European countries) is that, should the Tea Party in the US and the factions in the Japanese diet allow some tax increase, then these countries could dramatically improve their debt dynamics. Europe, on the other hand, can’t really afford to raise taxes, even though some countries are going ahead and doing it anyway.
Posted on 17 December 2011 by Tea Server
Please note, the names on the signatories list will be updated as more endorsements are coming in.
PRESS RELEASE
Civil society terms “memogate” scandal an attempt to thwart democracy; Says threatening the representative system tantamount to attack on sovereignty of people.
December 17, 2011
We, the representatives of the Civil Society including non-governmental organisations, labour organisations, academia, women’s rights bodies, and media persons express deep concern over the current political situation in the country where a crisis is being manufactured on frivolous grounds, and is being referred as the so-called “memogate”. This has the potential of subverting democratically elected Parliament and the Constitution.
It is time all conspirators against democracy and the sovereignty of the people be called to account. Sovereignty belongs to the people who have agreed to exercise it through their representatives in a federal, parliamentary, and a democratic system. Any attempt at arbitrarily altering this arrangement is tantamount to an attack on the sovereignty of the people. Various institutions of the state are supposed to function within their defined constitutional parameters and complement each other but they seem to be working at cross-purposes, to the determent of public interest.
We emphasise that the role of political parties and political leaders is to represent their constituents’ interests and arrive at negotiated agreements to differences in agreed political forums.
The role of state’s security organizations is to serve the people through stipulated constitutional arrangements, under the command of the executive, and not to define what is or is not in the national interest.
The role of the judiciary is to protect the rights of the citizens from arbitrary abuse of executive power, and not to itself become a source of arbitrary executive power.
The role of the mass media is to help citizens hold powerful interests groups within and outside the state to promote their legitimate interests and hold violators of rights accountable, and not to itself act as an unaccountable interest group.
In our opinion, parliament is the appropriate forum to discuss and investigate this issue and come up with findings.
We believe that any attack on the sovereignty of the people will be unjust. It will necessarily lead to conflict and must be resisted.
We appeal to the people of Pakistan to stand united and firm in support of democracy and to resist all attempts aimed at its subversion. The people of Pakistan have made great many sacrifices for the cause of democracy and they should not let any vested interests trample their right to have a democratic and an elected representative system run the country.
Undersigned (in alphabetical order by first name)
Posted on 15 December 2011 by Tea Server
The WIIS Switzerland Board plus speakers at the 2011 launch event
The field of foreign policy has been described as a ‘city of men’- but as can be imagined, it is not the only discipline where a gender imbalance has been noticed. I asked Patricia Moser, President and one of the founders of WIIS Switzerland, about the situation with respect to international security and security studies.
1. A few months back, there was an article on foreignpolicy.com which called the foreign policy sphere, ” A City of Men“. I’m going to hazard that the field of international security is similarly populated?
The reality described in the article is also true for the field of international security. Women who made it to the top leadership positions in organizations in the security policy field – be it in government, academia or the private sector – are still regarded and celebrated as exceptions. If we look at Swiss-based organizations working in the security policy sector and the Swiss government for example, women are in the minority on management boards or in leadership positions. The Federal Council is a rare exception as women are currently in the majority – leading to the Council often being cited as an example of equal representation. However, one exception should not be confused with balanced representation more broadly: women are still a minority in parliament.
2. You are President and one of the founders of Women in International Security (WIIS) Switzerland – what prompted you to take action?
The idea of founding a branch of WIIS in Switzerland is actually a few years old. It came up after one of my WIIS colleagues met a representative of WIIS Germany at a conference. The motivation to found WIIS Switzerland this year is mainly based on personal experience gained from years working in a security policy environment. The field is male-dominated, not only when it comes to those with influential voices but also in a day-to-day work environment. Only a few outstanding women have been able to establish themselves in Switzerland – Barbara Haering, Micheline Calmy-Rey or Heidi Tagliavini for example.
There are, however, many other capable and enthusiastic women outside of this prominent circle. So last year we joined forces with interested colleagues from Geneva in order to build up a Swiss affiliate of WIIS with the express aim of connecting and promoting women (and men supporting our cause) in the field. A network holds immense power and can help effect change. We aim to attract and also promote younger experts in the field, allowing them to break into the established circle and improve the environment. Being a female expert in the security field should not be viewed as a rarity anymore.
3. Is the underrepresentation of women in Switzerland tied up with ignorance do you think (on both sides), or does it go deeper than that? (and why?)
In this respect, my arguments are very much in line with the reasons explaining the gender gap outlined in the article City of Men. We at WIIS Switzerland strongly believe that underrepresentation cannot and should not be blamed on either men or women. And it definitively goes deeper than ignorance. The situation could be characterized as a combination of, in order of priority: a close-knit network of well-established men; a still-traditional allocation of roles in Swiss families and, potentially, a certain reluctance on the part of women to immerse themselves in the field of security studies. The work of WIIS Switzerland (and the WIIS network more generally) hopes to alter this (im)balance, encouraging and supporting women in their chosen career path.
4. Are women congregating in specific areas of (international) security policy and practice?
This is very difficult to determine, as this has not been reliably assessed as of yet. My initial reaction would be to suggest that women tend to predominantly work in the ‘softer‘ areas of security policy like development or human rights. This suspicion is based on the belief that the social and cultural system is steering women to the more “female” areas of security. It could, however, very well be that the talented women tend to go unnoticed in more male-dominated fields like homeland security, as Heather Hulbert argues in her reply to ‘City of Men’. I am convinced that if we took a closer and unbiased look at women working in the security field, we would reach surprising conclusions.
6. WIIS Switzerland is one branch of the transnational WIIS network; can these informal setting really hope to effect change in the field?
Certainly. I honestly think that it is a necessity for initiating change in the field of security – and policy and academia can only gain by also including women’s’ voices. As mentioned, networks can hold a lot of power and bring lasting changes. WIIS Germany is currently working on connecting the international affiliates more closely; new affiliates are continually being founded in various countries (Israel, Sweden). While the work of each affiliate is country-specific due to cultural and political reasons, the international network helps transfer knowledge and lessons learned. It is then the task of the national WIIS organization to adapt them to local circumstances. The transnational nature of the global organization combined with the freedom given to national affiliates is of key importance to its success.
7. In one to two sentences, how would you like the field of international security to change in the next ten years?
I personally would hope for the field to shift towards a balanced representation of men and women in leadership positions, at conferences, as voices in the media etc. On the other hand, I would also wish for the field to become more interdisciplinary and interconnected so that findings and recommendations from related social sciences – as well as less related but still relevant areas such as neuroscience – are acknowledged and used to improve policy and academic work.
8. Do you have any advice to women hoping to “break into” international security?
If we had a handbook providing a step-by-step guide, an organization like WIIS would not be needed. My advice would be to be open-minded, learn from one’s own experience as well as from colleagues and superiors, and grow based on these lessons and from knowledge gained. Of equal importance is not being afraid of taking risks, being open to taking on responsibilities, and believing in one’s own capabilities. Being a young manager myself, one key lesson I learned a few years ago is to be always true to myself and remain focused on my goals, which is especially difficult for a woman in a male-dominated field. Finally, to ‘break into’ international security, as you term it, people have to become engaged and take action. A first step towards establishing oneself is connecting with like-minded people in organizations such as WIIS.
Posted on 13 December 2011 by Tea Server
What's Next, Prime Minister? — From The Evening Standard, London
At least 23 and perhaps as many as 26 of the 27 members of the European Union have agreed to an inter-governmental agreement that may or may not save the euro from the bond market vigilantes. A full-blown treaty failed because there was not unanimous support for the idea – Britain stood alone in saying flat out that it wasn’t signing up for that. Prime Minister Cameron had little choice either on the grounds of national interests or domestic politics. However, the EU is a much different place than it was just last week.
Mr. Cameron went to Brussels demanding that the UK have a veto over any financial services regulations. While this may seem a bit extreme, one must remember that France and Italy have protected their farming sector with the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy for decades. And the euro’s greatest benefit to Germany was the protection of its neighboring export markets – a single currency ensured that German manufactured goods were still relatively affordable outside Germany, the Low Countries and Scandinavia. Britain simply wanted to protect the 10% of its GDP that comes from financial activity.
President Sarkozy of France explained why he could not accept that, saying “You cannot have an opt-out and then ask to participate in all the discussion about the euro that you did not want to have, and which you also criticized.” His European policy has always been to form a core group within Europe that excludes the more free-market British, Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans – this will maximize French power.
The details of the “fiscal compact” are pretty clear. The BBC reported them as “a cap of 0.5% of GDP on countries’ annual structural deficits, ‘automatic consequences’ for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3% of GDP; the tighter rules to be enshrined in countries’ constitutions; European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to be accelerated and brought into force in July 2012 adequacy of 500bn-euro (£427bn; $666bn) limit for ESM to be reassessed; Eurozone and other EU countries to provide up to 200bn euros to the IMF to help debt-stricken eurozone members.”
The agreement itself is far less important than Britain’s position in the EU. As the Economist noted, “Whether the agreement does anything to stabilise the euro is moot. The agreement is heavily tilted towards budget discipline and austerity. It does little to generate money in the short term to arrest the run on sovereigns, nor does it provide a longer-term perspective of jointly-issued bonds. Much will depend on how the European Central Bank responds in the coming days and weeks.”
Frankly, I don’t think it will work in the long-term. Greater austerity is not going to get the Greek or Portuguese economies growing anytime soon, but Hoover’s ghost haunts the eurozone now. And as a result, saving the whole thing is going to cost Germany more in the end than it would have a year or more ago.
Instead, Britain now finds itself alone on matters of budgeting and taxation within the EU. The 17 eurozone members and at least six others will be part of the inter-governmental agreement (just shy of a treaty in international legal terms), and Sweden, Hungary and the Czech Republic may sign up to it after parliamentary debates.
Why was Mr. Cameron so uncooperative? Quite simply because he had no choice. As noted, 10% of the UK’s GDP is finance based. Moreover, though, he leads a coalition that ranges from Conservatives who still think of Europe as the enemy, Conservatives who are tolerant of the EU’s existence, and Liberal-Democrats who are rabidly pro-Europe. His room for maneuver was very small, and his margin of error even smaller.
No matter what he did, he risked splitting these various factions. By vetoing a new treaty, he opted to distance the Conservative Party from the junior coalition Liberal Democrats. Not only is he Prime Minister, he is also leader of the Conservatives, so this should come as no surprise.
For their part, the Liberal Democrats are putting a brave face on it, but there is a clear sense that they know their policies have suffered a huge, perhaps lethal, setback. Leader of the LibDems and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg initially put the blame on the French and Germans rather than on Mr. Cameron. However, he has made it clear that he doesn’t like the result no matter who is to blame. He said on the Andrew Marr program on the BBC, “I’m bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week’s summit, precisely because I think now there is a danger that the UK will be isolated and marginalised within the European Union. I don’t think that’s good for jobs, in the City [the UK's financial district] or elsewhere, I don’t think it’s good for growth or for families up and down the country.” Since then, he has been more vocal in his protests.
Less diplomatic were statements from LibDem bigwigs Lords Oakeshott and Ashdown. Lord Oakeshott stated on the record that LibDem Business Secretary Vince Cable had “given a very serious warning last Monday in the cabinet against elevating these financial regulation points into a make or break deal.” Former leader of the LibDems, Lord Ashdown, put it in the blunt terms of the special forces soldier he once was stating that the veto “tipped 38 years of British foreign policy down the drain.”
Where does all this leave us? The British governing coalition is clearly divided and may not survive the remaining three-and-a-half years this parliament has to run. Europe will move forward toward fiscal union, but without the UK. Moreover the other 9 EU members that aren’t part of the eurozone may discover that having Brussels handle their economic policy to suit German and French desires is less than appealing. There will be legal battles over the use of EU-wide institutions to enforce rules that do not apply to the entire EU. And in the end, the problem of heavily indebted countries failing to achieve meaningful economic growth remains the central issue in European finance.
2011 can’t end soon enough.