14 May 2016

New Zealand’s housing affordability crisis worsens

Tom Peters & Jeremy Lin

The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand (REINZ) released figures on April 12 showing the median Auckland house price rising above $NZ800,000 for the first time, to $820,000. Auckland home prices have more than doubled in the past decade and climbed 13.6 percent in the past year alone.
While this housing bubble is focused in Auckland, houses are overpriced throughout New Zealand. The national median price increased by 64 percent in the past decade to $495,000. With 70 percent of household net wealth held in housing, there are growing warnings from the Reserve Bank and economists that any sudden, significant drop in prices could endanger the economy.
Yet, while it lasts, the bubble is a bonanza for the small minority who own large amounts of property. This includes members of parliament, two-thirds of whom own two or more houses. None of the political parties are proposing substantial measures to address the lack of affordable housing.
The political establishment has instead scapegoated foreign buyers. Last month Prime Minister John Key, in response to pressure from the opposition parties, raised the possibility of imposing a land tax on overseas buyers if data, to be released in coming weeks, shows a significant level of sales to foreigners.
The opposition Labour Party has used the housing crisis to promote anti-Chinese xenophobia. In July 2015, Labour’s housing spokesman Phil Twyford told TV3 that a “tsunami of Chinese investment” was looming and called for a total ban on foreign buyers purchasing New Zealand homes. The Maori nationalist Mana Party and the anti-immigrant New Zealand First joined Labour in scapegoating Chinese immigrants and investors.
The claims by Labour and its allies are false. Official data released this week shows that in the first three months of 2016 only 3 percent of house sales were to overseas tax residents. Less than 1 percent were to Chinese residents. Some of these overseas-based buyers are likely to be New Zealand citizens who live abroad.
A ban on overseas-based buyers would simply reduce competition in favour of local capitalists. Bank lending restrictions on overseas buyers in Australia have done nothing to stop soaring house prices.
The attacks on foreigners are intended to divert legitimate anger over widening social inequality in a reactionary, nationalist direction. The singling out of Chinese investors is also an expression of Labour’s strategic alignment with Washington’s drive to war with China. The National Party government, while no less supportive of the alliance with US imperialism, has been wary of making direct attacks on China, which is New Zealand’s second largest trading partner.
There are more than enough resources to build high quality, affordable housing for all, but this cannot be done under the profit system. In response to the global economic breakdown that began in 2008, the ruling elites in every country have increasingly turned to parasitic means of wealth accumulation, including speculation on property markets.
According to housing researcher Philippa Howden-Chapman, 25 years ago “around 30 percent of new homes coming onto the market were priced in the lowest quartile.” Today, that figure is 5 percent. The proportion of households renting a home increased from 26.2 percent in 1991 to 35.2 percent in 2013.
A growing section of society is struggling to afford basic needs. Rents have increased amid a wave of job cuts and austerity measures, including cuts to healthcare and welfare. In the first quarter of 2016, the Salvation Army reported a 9 percent growth in demand for food parcels, compared with a year ago, which the charity blamed partly on rising housing costs. The charity estimates 300,000 children live in poverty.
The Accommodation Supplement, a welfare benefit paid by the government to around 300,000 people (60 percent of renters) to help meet housing costs, has not been adjusted since 2007, when its level was based on 2005 rents.
The Salvation Army states that in 2015, rents were 15 percent higher in real terms than in 2005. According to property management company Crockers, in the three years from 2012 to 2015 alone, the national median rent for one- and two-bedroom homes rose by 16 percent. In some urban areas the rise was over 20 percent. In Christchurch, both house prices and rents have risen approximately 50 percent since the 2011 earthquakes.
Hundreds of thousands of people live in overcrowded conditions, including 99,030 people in working class South Auckland, and one quarter of all Aucklanders aged 20 to 24, according to the 2013 census.
The quality of many rental homes is extremely poor. An estimated 12 percent of children live in houses with serious cold, damp and mould problems, leading to 40,000 child hospitalisations each year. Tenants are increasingly insecure and vulnerable to landlords’ discrimination. The average stay in rental property is reportedly between 11 months and two years, making it impossible for many households to put down roots in a community.
As part of its assault on the working class, the government plans to sell over 1400 state houses in Invercargill and Tauranga this year. In March, 2,800 Auckland state houses were transferred to the Tamaki Regeneration Company. This corporation is jointly owned by Auckland Council and the government, but works in partnership with private “development, investment and housing services partners.” Several tenants protested against the transfer, calling it a step toward privatisation.
Housing NZ properties are usually provided to tenants at income-related rents. Their occupants include some of the poorest and most vulnerable families. The latest attack on state housing began in 2014 with the ending of the long-standing “house for life” policy. The government has so far removed 600 state house tenants who were deemed to be earning enough to pay market rents, and 3,000 more tenancies are being reviewed. In 2014, several Glenn Innes state-house residents, many of whom lived there for decades, were evicted in line with moves to gentrify the harbourside Auckland suburb.
The government’s Social Housing Reform Programme aims to transfer up to one-third of Housing NZ houses to government-designated “community housing providers,” which can include charities, Maori tribal businesses and other for-profit businesses. While the government claims privatisation will benefit tenants, in reality it will provide a windfall for investors. They will buy state houses at below-market rates, and receive government payouts in the form of the Income Related Rent Subsidy.
The Labour Party claims to oppose the privatisation plan. Successive Labour and National-led governments, however, are responsible for downsizing and under-funding public housing. The 1991–1999 National government sold about 11,000 state houses and introduced higher market-based rents for remaining tenants. The 1999–2008 Labour government re-instated income-related rents, but retained the corporatised structure of Housing NZ, requiring it to operate along business lines and deliver annual dividends to the government.
Labour increased the state housing supply by just 9,000 properties. Today there are only 68,000 houses owned or managed by Housing NZ, compared with 69,928 in 1992, prior to National’s sell-off, despite the population increasing from 3.5 to 4.5 million over that period.

Saudi Arabian regime gripped by factional infighting amid mounting economic crisis

Jean Shaoul

The ruling House of Saud recently [or has] issued a series of royal decrees unceremoniously dumping its longstanding oil minister Ali al-Naimi, central bank governor Fahad al-Mubarak, and other senior officials.
The wide-ranging shakeup of government bodies is part of an attempt to resolve the Kingdom’s growing economic crisis at the expense of the Saudi masses.
The sackings follow the removal last month of Abdullah al-Hasin, the water and electricity minister, in a bid to deflect popular anger over high water rates and new rules over the digging of wells and cuts in energy subsidies aimed at saving the ruling family collectively in excess of one and a half trillion dollars.
The shake-up is intended to concentrate power in the clique around Crown Prince Mohammed, the 30-year-old son of the aging King Salman. It will further exacerbate the enormous political, economic and social tensions wracking this semi-feudal regime that has, since 1945, constituted an essential prop for US imperialist policy in the region and a bulwark of reaction and repression in the Arab world.
The Saudi monarchy, threatened by the revolutionary overthrow of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the subsequent political turmoil that threatened almost every regime in the region, moved rapidly to topple the elected Muslim Brotherhood-led government of President Mohammed Mursi, even at the risk of conflicting with Washington, and helped install and bankroll the brutal military dictator Abdul Fatah el-Sisi to suppress the Egyptian masses.
It sought—at the cost of tens of billions of dollars—to move against the Syrian regime of President Bashir al-Assad in Syria by funding an Islamist insurgency, and to shore up the rule of its regional allies in Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan. Accompanying its moves in Syria, it sought to undermine pro-Iranian governments in Iraq and Lebanon, through direct or covert military interventions, the use of Islamist fighters as proxies, or economic aid.
Its relations with its chief backer, US imperialism, are now at an all-time low. Riyadh was furious over Washington’s failure to sustain its support for Mubarak against the Egyptian masses in 2011.
The US-led interventions in Iraq and Syria to assert Washington’s hegemony over the Middle East’s vast energy resources have destabilised Saudi Arabia’s neighbours. Washington’s various pragmatic manoeuvres, its failure to intervene decisively in the war to overthrow Assad in Syria allowing Russia to intervene to shore up the regime, its deal with Iran and support for the Shi’ite government in Iraq, helped strengthened the influence of Saudi Arabia’s main regional rival, Tehran.
At home, Riyadh attempted to assuage popular opposition and protests in the Shia-dominated Eastern Province with a combination of violent suppression and a $350 billion package of benefits and social spending, a lifeline for the estimated 28 percent of the population who live in poverty. Between 2 million and 4 million Saudi citizens are believed to be living on less than $530 a month. With its thousands of princes, the parasitic Saudi monarchy deprives its citizens of basic democratic rights It has sought to ruthlessly suppress public discussion of social inequality, imprisoning bloggers who dare to raise such issues or criticise the regime.
This attempt at repression is being undermined by the precipitous fall in oil prices, the result of the Saudis’ political decision to maintain output in an attempt to undermine Russia and Iran. This has led to a $100 billion government deficit in 2015 (15 per cent of GDP). The new oil minister Khalid al-Falih is not expected to rein in oil production and thus boost oil prices because this would also boost the revenues of Saudi Arabia’s rivals.
With 70 percent of its revenue dependent on oil, the government has cut public spending for 2016 by 25 percent, slashing subsidies on fuel, power and water, with gas prices set to increase by 80 percent. It took the unprecedented step of introducing a tax on Saudi nationals—a 5 percent value added tax—in a bid to prevent the budget deficit soaring to $140 billion and to conserve its $600 billion in reserves.
Riyadh’s sponsorship of Islamist forces has led to the advance of ISIS, al-Qaeda and similar outfits with their own agendas in Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula. ISIS cells have launched dozens of attacks over the last two years and were alleged to have been behind a spate of bombings targeting the Kingdom’s Shia minority.
Last week, Saudi forces carried out an operation against ISIS in Mecca, killing four “wanted” men in a shootout, and another in the southwestern province of Bisha, killing two ISIS suspects and injuring another. It followed the arrest of Ukab Atibi, allegedly a member of the ISIS cell that carried out a suicide attack on a mosque used by members of a local security force in southwest Saudi Arabia in August 2015. Security forces carried out another raid on a house in Jeddah, arresting two suspects.
The ruling clique is torn with dissent over the succession to the ailing King Salman, who promoted his 30-year-old son Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the positions of deputy crown prince and minister of defence in charge of the murderous, but largely unsuccessful war in Yemen, sidelining other older claimants to the throne. Mohammed has overturned the Kingdom’s decades-long policy of buying political quiescence with a social contract that has provided some security—via low utility prices, social subventions and public sector jobs—for the Saudi population, and promoted a wave of Sunni-based Saudi nationalism.
Last month, in an announcement that the Economist described as “manic optimism,” Mohammed unveiled his Vision 2030, drawn up by the McKinsey & Company global consultants McKinsey and aimed at ending the Kingdom’s dependence on oil by 2030. He later declared on Saudi-owned Al-Arabiyanews channel an end to “any dependence on oil” by 2020. The measures include the public listing of 5 percent of Aramco, the world’s largest oil company valued at $2.5 trillion, the creation of a sovereign wealth fund with a potential value of $2 trillion to invest in assets, the development of non-oil industries, including a domestic arms industry; more private sector jobs and a new visa system to allow expatriate Muslims and Arabs to work long-term in Saudi Arabia.
Symptomatic of the insoluble contradictions of the Saudi economy was the announcement last week that one of the largest companies, the construction giant the Saudi Bin Laden Group (SBG) that has built most of the country’s public buildings, was unable to pay its workforce.
SBG fired 77,000 of its 200,000 workforce and issued them with exit visas. Immigrant workers, angry that they had not been paid for months, have held daily protests outside SBG’s offices, burnt company buses in Mecca and refused to leave the country until they are paid. The company also dismissed 12,000 of its 17,000 Saudi managerial and professional staff, calling on them to resign or wait for their wages and a two-month bonus worth $220 million.
With $30 billion in debts, SBG’s financial problems stem from the cutbacks in government spending and the crane collapse on a major expansion of the Grand Mosque in Mecca last year that killed 107 workers and pilgrims. It prompted an investigation of its government projects, many of which were reportedly being carried out without any signed contracts. The company was hit with a withholding of government payments and a ban on SBG tendering for further public building projects.
The impending collapse of SBG provoked such a crisis that the government agreed to allow it to bid for state contracts, said it would ensure that government payments would continue and urged other companies to honour their commitments and pay up on their contracts with SBG.

Trump signals backing for cuts to Social Security, Medicare

Patrick Martin

Billionaire Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, shifted his position on cuts in Social Security and Medicare on the eve of his visit to Capitol Hill for meetings with Republican congressional leaders.
After claiming to reject such cuts throughout the Republican primary campaign—distancing himself from rivals who all backed one or another version of “entitlement reform”—Trump signaled Wednesday that he was reversing his position.
His top policy adviser Sam Clovis addressed a Washington DC conference hosted by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a group established by the billionaire former Nixon cabinet member to push for the dismantling of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the name of cutting the federal budget deficit.
Even attending the conference was something of a signal, given the Peterson group’s identification with entitlement spending cuts. Clovis underscored the message, telling the conference, “I think after the administration’s been in place, then we will start to take a look at all of the programs, including entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.”
He added that Trump would not propose any changes in these programs during the election campaign, but wait until a new administration and Congress were elected. At that point, he said, “We’ll take a hard look at those to start seeing what we can do in a bipartisan way.”
As late as a Republican debate in March, Trump claimed that his economic policies, based on protectionism and trade warfare, would make the United States so rich that no changes would be needed in Social Security or Medicare. He also claimed, in keeping with the nostrums of supply-side economics, that his proposed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy would cause economic growth to skyrocket, leading to a huge increase in federal tax revenue that would eliminate the federal budget deficit.
Clovis gave a more cautious undertaking to the Peterson group, which has forecast that Trump-sized tax cuts for the wealthy would produce $10 trillion in deficits, not a surplus. The Trump promise not to cut entitlements was conditional on tax cuts producing record economic growth, he said.
“Right now, we’re not going to touch anything because we can’t predict the growth,” Clovis said. “We have to start taking a look not just at Medicare and Social Security but every program we have out there, because the budgetary discipline that we’ve shown over the last 84 years has been horrible.”
Clovis also told the Wall Street Journal in an interview that Trump would support privatization of the Veterans Administration or its transformation into an insurance plan rather than a direct provider of health care services to veterans. “The VA’s a broken system now,” he said. “We can’t continue down that road.”
Trump’s well-publicized opposition to entitlement cuts, not his racist attacks on Muslims and other immigrants, were a major reason for the coolness towards his candidacy among congressional Republicans. House Speaker Paul Ryan, in particular, has long been identified with sweeping cuts in Medicare which he first proposed in 2011, after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives installed him as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
Ryan has repeatedly pushed through budget resolutions in which privatization of Medicare, through converting it into a voucher program, was the centerpiece of massive cuts in federal spending on the entitlement program.
Trump not only criticized the Ryan budgets, he blamed them for the defeat of the Republican presidential campaign in 2012, when Ryan was on the ticket as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential running mate.
Ryan’s declaration last week that he was “not there yet” in terms of an endorsement of Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee was aimed at securing assurances from Trump that his opposition to entitlement cuts was purely an electoral ploy, to be scrapped as soon as the votes are counted. Clovis’s appearance at the Peterson conference constituted such an assurance.
These maneuvers ensured that Thursday’s round of meetings on Capitol Hill between Trump and Republican congressional leaders would go smoothly. Trump and Ryan issued a joint statement that is remarkable for its cynical and reactionary character.
“While we were honest about our few differences, we recognize that there are also many important areas of common ground,” Trump and Ryan said. “We will be having additional discussions, but remain confident there’s a great opportunity to unify our party and win this fall, and we are totally committed to working together to achieve that goal.”
Ryan’s remarks to reporters after the meeting were just as effusive as the joint statement. “He’s a very warm and genuine person,” he said. “We really don’t know each other and we started to get to know each other.”
Trump responded in kind, indicating that he was satisfied with Ryan as the chairman of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland where he will be nominated. “I am happy to serve in this capacity at the Republican convention,” Ryan told reporters. “I would honor the decision of our presumptive nominee and he did express that preference.”
Every other top Republican congressional leader, in both the House and Senate, had already officially endorsed Trump before the Ryan-Trump meeting.
Whatever concerns there may be over the impact of Trump’s candidacy on the Republican Party’s electoral fortunes, there are no principled objections to his blatant anti-immigrant racism, encouragement of violence against protesters, or embrace of authoritarian methods of rule.
There remain significant differences between Trump and the congressional Republicans over foreign policy, where Trump has claimed opposition to the 2003 war in Iraq and to the current US saber-rattling against Russia. This is combined with advocacy of a huge increase in US military spending and escalation of the current war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Nearly all the opposition to Trump within the Republican Party has been from the right—motivated by his supposed “isolationism” in foreign policy and his now-dropped opposition to entitlement cuts. Sections of the Republican Party have moved to explicitly or implicitly support Clinton, seeing her as a more reliable defender of American imperialism.
The Clinton campaign continues to send out regular updates on each Republican declaration of non-support for Trump, including an email Thursday portraying the Trump-Ryan meeting as a debacle for the Republican candidate, under the headline, “Ryan Again Refuses To Endorse Trump as Conservative Opposition To The GOP Nominee Grows.”

Obama and the bombing of Hiroshima

Andre Damon

Later this month, Barack Obama will become the first sitting US president to visit the city of Hiroshima, Japan. The dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima by the American military on August 6, 1945, and the destruction three days later of the Japanese city of Nagasaki, rank among the greatest war crimes of the 20th century.
One would think that after 71 years, the United States would finally be prepared to acknowledge that the incineration of two defenseless Japanese cities, causing some 200,000 deaths, was a militarily unnecessary act.
Nothing of the sort will happen. Obama “will not revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II,” declared the White House. No apology will be forthcoming.
For decades, the US government has insisted that it was right to carry out the nuclear attacks on Japan, declaring that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the only alternative to an invasion of Japan and the ensuing loss of American lives. Every attempt to question the legitimacy of the bombings has been met with frenzied and dishonest propaganda, such as that which forced the Smithsonian Institution to shutter its exhibit commemorating the 50th anniversary of the bombing in 1995.
Typical of these apologetics is a comment published in the Wall Street Journal by the Reverend Miscamble of Notre Dame University. Miscamble declares, “There’s zero reason to apologize for the atomic bombing,” because “[President Harry S.] Truman authorized the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both major military-industrial targets, to help win the gruesome Pacific War as quickly as possible and with the loss of the fewest American lives—and, as it turned out, the loss of the fewest Japanese lives.”
Echoing these sentiments, the New York Times this week cited those who insist that the “decision to drop the bomb saved tens of thousands of American lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Honshu, Japan’s main island.”
These claims are without all credibility. They bear no relationship to the actual content of discussions taking place in Washington and the US military high command prior to the attacks.
By early 1945, the United States had gained total air supremacy over Japan and taken numerous islands within flying range of the Japanese mainland. Around the same time, the US switched from carrying out precision bombings of specific military targets to mass incendiary raids that ultimately leveled 67 Japanese cities, including the March 9–10 firebombing of Tokyo that killed some 100,000 people.
When General Curtis Lemay, the head of the US Strategic Air Command, was asked in 1945 how long he thought the war would last, he said, “We sat down and did some thinking about it, and it indicated that we would be pretty much out of targets around September 1, and with the targets gone, we couldn’t see much of any war going on at the time.”
The rationalizations for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were challenged within the US high command itself, which insisted that the incineration of another pair of Japanese cities had little military significance.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower said that, upon learning of President Truman’s intention to use the bomb against a civilian population, he felt a feeling of “depression” and voiced “my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”
Other high-ranking military officials subsequently made similar statements. Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Fleet, said after the war, “The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” President Truman’s Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy, acknowledged, “Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”
President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death on April 12, 1945, brought Harry S. Truman to the presidency. This limited and rather ignorant man was dubbed “The Senator from Pendergast” because of his connections with the convicted felon and gambling addict who ran the Missouri Democratic Party political machine.
Truman was completely indifferent to the moral implications of the use of nuclear weapons. One of his advisers later recalled that, when Truman learned of the bombing of Hiroshima, he “was tremendously pepped up by it and spoke to me of it again and again when I saw him.”
By the time Truman decided to use the bomb, the Japanese government had for months been sending strong indications that they were seeking to surrender, insisting only that they be allowed to retain their Emperor. The White House had by this time come to favor retaining the Emperor, but was divided over whether this fact should be communicated to the Japanese. President Truman ultimately decided to drop the bomb first, then let the Japanese government know the terms.
Why, then, did the United States government embark upon a course of action that, while having no military justification, would forever brand it with infamy in the eyes of the world?
As the war was reaching its end, the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was intensifying. In accordance with the terms of the Yalta agreement, the Soviet Union was about to invade Japan, laying claim to territories granted to it in that accord, and was seeking to play a role in post-war Europe commensurate with the losses it had endured during the war.
The use of the atomic bomb was, as two historians recently put it, “America’s first act of the Cold War.” It was intended to send a clear signal to the Soviet Union that, despite Soviet victory over Germany, the Americans were the masters of the world.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki announced the entry of the United States as the world’s unchallenged imperialist hegemon, bullying and dictating terms to all humanity. Behind the thin veneer of democracy, the United States was signaling that it would do whatever was necessary for the preservation and expansion of its own interests, no matter the scale of the crime or how many people had to die.
In the more than seven decades since the bombing of Hiroshima, the determination of the American ruling class to use military force to defend its interests has only grown. Obama will make his appearance in Hiroshima as part of his participation in a Group of 7 meeting where he will seek to strengthen America’s alliance with Japan against China and facilitate Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s re-militarization of the country.
Even as it demands “nuclear non-proliferation” from every other country, the White House is spending a trillion dollars to modernize the US nuclear stockpile and engaging in a continuous series of provocations against China and Russia that threaten war between nuclear-armed states.
In other words, Obama will go to Hiroshima not to apologize for past crimes, but to prepare new ones.
How can one expect the United States government, which since Hiroshima has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people in Korea and Vietnam—and, over the past quarter century, throughout the Middle East—to apologize for mass murder when it continues to practice it to this day?
But there will come a day in a socialist America, when the atrocities committed by the ruling class will be disavowed, and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be acknowledged for what they were: crimes against humanity.

Remembering Tagore in Turbulent Times

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera


I have become my own version of an optimist. If I can't make it through one door, I'll go through another door - or I'll make a door. Something terrific will come no matter how dark the present.”
Rabindranath Tagore
One hundred and fifty five years ago, the greatest and most illustrious son of Asia, Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore, was born. Tagore’s work inspired many individuals around the world including many Sri Lankan scholars and musicians. Tagore believed in creating an enviroment of multiculturalism and tolerance. He spoke of the importance of world peace, dialogue and non-violence. This vision remains unfulfilled. The value of Tagore’s vision – the restoration of human values - is more relevant today than ever.
Had the essence of Tagore’s philosophy been practiced, Bangladesh, one of the countries he wrote the national anthem for, would not be going through its present crisis. There have been more than fifty terrorist attacks in the last few years and out of this, the Islamic State (IS) was responsible for 13 of these, including the recent killing of a Sufi Muslim spiritual leader.
The IS has clearly stated that the “soldiers” of its declared caliphate have also been murdering targets in Bangladesh, and that it would expand further in South Asia and would “continue to terrorise the crusaders [westerners] and their allies until the rule of Allah is established on the earth.”
The South Asian region has been devastated by terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and now, Bangladesh. Providing security to civilians has become the top priority for many countries around the world. From Sri Lanka, more than fifty individuals have joined the IS, according to experts. The government must invest in focused strategic and security initiatives to keep track of such activities and work closely with Muslim organisations, particularly Muslim youth, to prevent them from joining the IS.
The region indicates all clear variables for a geopolitical nightmare as states surrounding India show much instability. All South Asian countries face similar and in some cases common economic challenges. Weak institutions, weak political culture, unemployment and inequality are potent triggers for youth unrest. From Naxalism in India to other domiciled terrorist entities, it can be predicted that they will take the advantage provided by weak states.
Weak states surrounding India are a direct threat to Indian security. It is important to strengthen small and larger states in South Asia through economic and social revival and through regional cooperation and global integration to address problems, particularly those of poverty and deprivation.
President Sirisena of Sri Lanka delivered the Lalith Athulathmudali memorial lecture recently. The legacy of the Oxford and Harvard scholar-turned-politician who was brutally gunned down in 1993 remains. The President addressed the importance of intellectuals such as Lalith in today’s politics. Lalith was ethical and the yeomen service he rendered to Sri Lanka was immense.
He initiated “Mahapola,” a scholarship scheme to ignite many young minds from rural villages by giving them access to university education. Speaking at the event, Lalith’s only brother said, “Lalith was offered an important place by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to serve Singapore but he declined to serve his own country.” Had he accepted this offer, his life would have not ended with assassin’s bullets - a clear explanation of Sri Lankan political culture.
President Sirisena was elected to change this culture. Dighting corruption and introducing transparent methods of governance remain top priority. This week in London, world leaders including Sri Lankan President and many economists will meet at the Anti-Corruption Summit to discuss measures to tackle corruption. This coincides with the revelations made by the Panama Papers, in which many global leaders including British Prime Minister David Cameron, the host of the landmark summit, feature. While large-scale initiatives are important, citizen-centric stakeholder movements have created better results, such as ipaidabribe.com in India, to quantify corruption data and educate the public.
All South Asian countries except Bhutan rank below the score 50 on the corruption scale – qualifying as ‘highly corrupt’ - according to Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International. Corruption increases the cost of doing business up to 10 per cent globally, says the World Bank. With corruption and the absence of transparency, market growth and sustainability cannot be attained.
Addressing another social issue, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe initiated a high level dialogue on Ragging and SGBV (sexual and gender-based violence) in Sri Lankan Universities. This is a very important step – a few days ago, another incident of ragging was reported at Kelaniya University. This is a violation of individual dignity and it is important to teach dignity at the school level and at universities. The Education Minister could introduce a programme such as Global Dignity, running in 65 countries, that teach values of dignity to school children.
With all these social implications, the much forgotten words of Tagore could help reinvigorate efforts to change society as it is now. No matter how dark the present, optimism is crucial.

WTO Verdict: A Roadblock to India’s National Solar Mission?

Ateetmani Brar


In February 2013, the US filed a complaint at the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) challenging the Indian government’s Domestic Content Requirements (DCR) for solar cells and modules under the latter’s ongoing National Solar Mission (NSM). On 24 February 2016, the WTO ruled in the US’ favour.

Why did the US challenge India’s DCRs? Given that the verdict is not in its favour, does New Delhi have to worry?

India’s NSM and DCRs: A Brief Overview
India’s NSM was launched on 11 January 2010 by the then Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. Its main target is to ramp up India’s solar power capacity to 100GW by the year 2022 and to generate green energy at lower costs in order to meet the country's growing demand.

The DCRs, which the US objected to, were introduced to serve a two-pronged objective:

a. To provide a boost to the domestic manufacturing sector
b. To guarantee the rate of purchase of electricity manufactured for a long term

To this end, New Delhi’s DCRs authorised solar power developers to use certain types of solar cells and modules that were manufactured in India during different phases of the project. As an incentive, in 2014, the Indian government offered a subsidy of USD 0.15 million (Rs 10,000,000) per megawatt installed, to those solar power developers who would use domestic components. In return those developers and the government would agree on a fixed rate at which the electricity thus generated would be sold to state agencies for a long term.

The Dispute and the Ruling
In February 2013, the US argued at the WTO that the Indian NSM’s DCRs denied global players a level playing field, and sought consultations with India on relevant matters. It also claimed that such DCRs nullify or impair the benefits the US could have otherwise gained – directly or indirectly – under the Agreement on Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs) and the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In February 2014, the US raised expressed its concern again when India decided to include thin film technologies in Phase II of the NSM. The same year, First Solar, a US-based thin-film manufacturer that had previously dominated the market in India, missed out on projects during the second phase of the NSM, after thin-film modules were included in India’s DCR framework.

In its defence, India argued that the DCR measures were reasonable under Article XX(j) of the GATT. It stated that due to the low manufacturing capacity that exists in the solar-related components sector in the country, India will nonetheless be unable to supplant concerned US businesses with its own supply. New Delhi also argued that measures like the DCRs help secure India's compliance with “laws or regulations” requiring it to take steps to promote sustainable development. At the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, India had promised massive increases in the carbon efficiency of its economy.  A key portion of the commitment was the promise of large-scale investments in renewable technologies, including a considerable increase in solar power generation.

India negotiated with the US by agreeing to apply the DCRs only for solar panels purchased for government consumption. New Delhi even assured Washington that power generated from such subsidised panels would not be sold for commercial use.

The WTO panel ruled that India’s DCRs “are inconsistent with both Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement” and that they “do accord “less favourable treatment” within the meaning of that provision.

This was not the first instance of such a ruling. In 2013, the Canadian province of Ontario too lost a similar case against the EU and Japan.

The Way Forward
While the key objectives of India’s NSMs include cost-effective energy efficiency along with environment protection, measures such as our DCRs are not entirely consumer friendly either.

Harnessing solar energy is expensive. The cost of producing and installing locally manufactured solar cells and modules is higher than the total cost incurred in producing solar energy through imported solar cells and modules. The use of imported equipment may benefit consumers by lowering rates.

Alternative ways – incentivising the production of solar cells and modules by pushing for traditional tools including tax breaks, low-interest long-term loans etc. – to encourage domestic production could be explored. These could help reducing manufacturing costs and thereby help make indigenous technology cheaper and provide for greater access to international markets.

New Delhi could also look at investing more in its research and development to improve domestic solar power technology and also collaborate on related efforts with international entities. Given how India launched an International Solar Alliance with over 120 countries to boost solar energy in developing countries in 2015, opportunities to do so are likely to present themselves. These measures will help India in its efforts towards meeting its NSM targets by 2022 while also being consistent with WTO terms.

The US’ key grievance at the WTO was regarding India’s DCRs and not the NSM itself. New Delhi should not feel disheartened with the recent ruling and continue to make efforts towards generating green energy with or without the DCRs.

12 May 2016

UNU-INWEH Scholarships in Integrated Drylands Management for Developing Country Students

UNU-INWEHMasters Degree
Deadline: 30 June 2016 (annual)
Study in:  Japan/Tunisia
Course starts Oct 2016



Brief description:
The Joint Master’s Degree (MSc) Programme on Integrated Drylands Management brings together different expertise and scientific resources of the partner institutes to build advanced human capital, and generate and adapt global knowledge for local solutions in drylands. The programme provides young professionals and scientists an international perspective on integrated resources management approaches in drylands and allows them to gain practical experience in different dryland countries.
Throughout the programme, a strong emphasis will be placed on multidisciplinary approaches. The MSc Programme will offer a short intensive course and field research leading to the development of a Master’s thesis.
Host Institution(s):
The Joint Master’s Degree (MSc) Programme on Integrated Drylands Management is offered jointly through the partnership between the:
Level/Field of study:
Masters in Integrated Drylands Management
Number of Scholarships:
Limited
Target group:
Students from developing countries
Scholarship value/inclusions:
A limited number of Fellowships will be provided to qualified candidates from developing countries on a competitive basis. These fellowships will cover the travel costs between the country of origin and IRA, CAREERI, ICARDA, and TU, as needed.  The tuition fee will be waived for students who are Fellowship recipients.
During the course work in 2016, IRA will house the students with full boarding and lodging in a suitable accommodation in Médenine, Tunisia. During laboratory research work, TU will provide non-Japanese students with allowance for accommodation and meals in Tottori, Japan.
Eligibility Criteria:
Admission is based on the following criteria:
• Applicants must already be registered in a Master’s degree programme at one of the Programme partner institutes and have completed their basic course work.
• Applicants registered in a Master’s programme at an accredited university outside the Programme partners may be eligible to apply if they have completed their basic coursework, and can establish a link with a Programme partners for their field research and thesis work which will be undertaken jointly with their current supervisor. Such applicants should contact the interested Programme partner institute directly to explore options and arrangements.
• Applicants must demonstrate a proved competence in relevant research methodologies, laboratory and computer skills.
• Applicants must demonstrate proof of proficiency in English (oral and written).
• Applicants must submit a research proposal of 5 pages, whose priority aligns with that of programme partner who will host the proposed research.
• Working experience in dryland management is desirable.
Application Instructions:
To apply, you must submit the completed and signed application form together with the supporting documents by 30 June 2016.
It is important to read the 2016-2017 Brochure and visit the official website (link found below) to access the applications form and for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.
Website:
Official Scholarship Website:  http://inweh.unu.edu/msc-drylands/

IMD MBA Future Leaders Scholarships

IMD
MBA Degree
Deadline: 30 September
Study in:  Switzerland
Course starts January 2017


Brief description:
The IMD MBA Future Leaders Scholarships are open to candidates who demonstrate leadership understanding and who is pursuing an MBA Degree at IMD.
Host Institution(s):
IMD Switzerland
Level/Field of study:
Masters in Business Administration (MBA)
Number of Scholarships:
3 scholarships are awarded each year
Target group:
Students from all over the world
Scholarship value:
CHF 30,000
Eligibility:
Accepted candidates who demonstrate exceptionally strong leadership potential.
Application instructions:
Before you can apply for the scholarship, you must have been accepted into an IMD MBA Program. You must also submit a 750-word essay on the following topic: “It has been said that success in business requires flexibility to be responsive, but also commitment to a recognized set of values. Discuss using your personal and professional experience.”
You must submit a completed MBA Financial Aid Application Form (when requested) and submit your essay using the IMD MBA Scholarship Template before 30 September 2016.
It is important to visit the official website (link found below) to access the application form and scholarship template and for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.
Website:
Official Scholarship Website:  http://www.imd.org/mba-admission-fees/#tab=3

Singapore International Graduate Award (SINGA) Scholarship in Science, Engineering and Research 2017

Application Deadline: for January 2017 intake is 1 June 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International Students
To be taken at (country): National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore

Brief description: Singapore International Graduate Award (SINGA) Scholarship for international applicants seeking admission to pursue a full-time PhD programme at NTU in January 2017
Eligible Field of Study: PhD in Science, Engineering and Research
About Scholarship
The Singapore International Graduate Award (SINGA) is a collaboration between the Agency for Science, Technology & Research (A*STAR), the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) to offer PhD training to be carried out in English at your chosen lab at A*STAR Research Institutes, NUS or NTU. Students will be supervised by distinguished and world-renowned researchers in these labs. Upon successful completion, students will be conferred a PhD degree by either NUS or NTU.
Scholarship Type: Full time PhD Scholarship
Eligibility and Selection Criteria
  • The scholarship is open to all international students
  • Excellent academic results to be in the top 20% of your cohort
  • Graduate with a passion for research and excellent academic results
  • Good skills in written and spoken English
  • Good reports from two academic referees
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship

  • Attractive monthly stipend over 4 years of PhD studies, which can support you comfortably. The stipend amount is SGD 24,000 annually, to be increased to SGD 30,000 after passing Qualifying Examination.
  • Full support for tuition fees for 4 years of PhD studies.
  • One-time SGD 1,000 Settling-in Allowance
  • One-time Airfare Grant of SGD 1,500
Duration of Scholarship: For the duration of the programme

How to Apply
Hard copies of the following supporting documents must be submitted to the SINGA Office:
Compulsory:
  • A copy of your Identity Card or Passport
  • Certified true copies of university transcript(s), one in English translation and the other in the original language
  • Certified true copies of degree scroll(s) or a letter or certification from the university on your candidature if your degree scroll has not yet been conferred.
  • Two Academic Referees’ Recommendation
  • Two recent passport-sized photographs
Not compulsory but good to include (if any):
  • A certified true copy of TOEFL / IELTS results
  • A certified true copy of SAT I & II / GRE / GATE results
  • Certified true copies of awards / prizes and certificates
  • List of publications
  • List of patents filed
If you need more Information about this scholarship, kindly visit the Scholarship Webpage
Sponsors
Agency for Science, Technology & Research (A*STAR), the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU)
Important Notes: Only short-listed candidates will be notified within 10 weeks from the application closing date.

DRD/DAAD Masters & PhD Full Scholarships for Africa (Study in South Africa & Germany) 2017

Application Deadline: 15 July 2016 and 31 December 2017 depending on the course of study
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa
To be taken at (country): School of Government, University of the Western Cape, South Africa andRuhr-University of Bochum, Germany

Brief description: For applicants from Sub-Saharan African countries with an excellent academic record, the DRD – Institute of Development Research and Development offers DAAD merit scholarships per year. The scholarship will be taken at University of the Western Cape, South Africa and Ruhr-University of Bochum, Germany
Eligible Field of Study
Scholarships are available for full-time students of
  • MA in Development Studies
  • Master in Public Administration
  • MA in Development Management
  • the different PhD options at the centre
About Scholarship
In order to adequately prepare the next generation of leaders through research-oriented training it is not sufficient to have the possibility to award scholarships to promising candidates from all over Sub-Saharan Africa, but it is also necessary to maintain a strong research focus on the work of the centre and to cooperate closely with other leading universities in the region.
Scholarship Offered Since: not specified
Scholarship Type: Masters & PhD
Selection Criteria and Eligibility
Requirements for application and application procedure
  • Applicants should be from Sub-Sahara Africa
  • Applicants should have an outstanding academic record – at least 70% for your last degree
  • Applicants should apply within 3 years of having completed their previous degree
  • The study must have been completed at an internationally recognized university
  • The previous degree (Baccalaureus or Master) should have been an academic discipline which is related to Development Studies or Public Administration
  • South African students are required to have an honours degree in order to be admitted to a Masters degree course. Other students need the equivalent of a 4 year undergraduate degree
  • Applicants must provide evidence of proficiency in English, both written and spoken. This can be TOEFL test or a similar standard test or a letter from an academic institution
  • Work and/or voluntary experience in your field of interest would be a recommendation
  • Women are encouraged to apply
  • Applicants must be able to study fulltime at the UWC for the required period.

 Scholarship applicants are advised to carefully read about the specific entry requirements and course application procedure of the programme of their choice. The information is available from the respective programmes sections.
Number of Scholarships: not specified
Value of Scholarship: Scholarships include monthly allowances of 650 Euro plus travel allowances for Master candidates and 900 Euro plus travel allowances for PhD candidates.
Duration of Scholarship: for period of the programme

How to Apply
You will have to fill in an electronic application form As the e-form can only be submitted once, please make sure that your application is complete before submitting it!
Essay
MA applicants will have to write a one page paper about 1 of the following 4 topics:
  1. François Bourguignon, a former Chief Economist of the World Bank referred to the “poverty growth inequality triangle”: Discuss this comment, critically evaluating the role of inequality in the current study of development in Africa.
  2. Write critically on perceptions about governance in Sub Saharan Africa.
  3. It has been claimed that climate change could potentially interrupt progress toward a world without hunger. Consider the evidence for this claim and discuss how climate change might impact on food security.
  4. Discuss the relationship between social movements and civil society in a specific SSA country of your choice.
Visit scholarship webpage for details
Sponsors: DAAD

Blue Revolution – Kuwaiti Women Gain Suffrage

Rivera Sun

This week in nonviolent history commemorates the successful conclusion of Kuwait’s Blue Revolution. On May 17th, 2005, Kuwaiti women gained suffrage after more than 40 years of struggle. The women used a wide variety of approaches to achieve their goals, including lobbying, introducing repeated legislation, protests and demonstration, marches, rallies, and mock elections.
Like many women’s suffrage movements around the world, the Kuwaiti women escalated their actions and campaigns, shifting from legislative and legal efforts into nonviolent direct action. The history of their multi-decade effort is complex, spanning from the 1960s when Kuwait won independence from the United Kingdom, through the Iraqi occupation in 1990-1991, and onward another 15 years until a series of nonviolent actions, changing political climate, and increased pressure finally won the vote for the women of Kuwait.
The movement first began to apply bolder methods of nonviolent action in 1996 when 500 women stopped working for an hour to demand suffrage. Then, as the Global Nonviolent Action Database reports, “In 2002, several women held a demonstration near two voter registration centers in Kuwait. The demonstrators waved banners outside the two centers, but were eventually asked to leave. Kuwaiti women continued to be very assertive in 2003. There were reports of demonstrations involving more than 1,000 women in a country with a total population of two million. The campaign also unsuccessfully sued both the Minister of the Interior and the Speaker of Parliament. During the elections of 2003, women established mock ballots that allowed hundreds of women to cast symbolic votes for real candidates.”
In March of 2005, after highly visible and captivating actions, 1,000 demonstrators gathered outside of the Kuwaiti parliament to continue their demand for basic voting rights. Many women wore pale blue to represent the struggle for suffrage, leading to the moniker, “The Blue Revolution.” On May 17th, Kuwaiti parliament passed the long-awaited suffrage bill, granting women the right to vote and run for elected office.
The Blue Revolution is part of the Color Revolutions, a series of nonviolent movements that erupted from the 1970s to present day, with a peak in the late 90s and early 2000s. These movements include, the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, the People Power Revolution (also known as the Yellow Revolution) in the Philippines, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Denim Revolution in Belarus, the Green Revolution in Iran, among many others. The use of identifiable colors and symbols was often used as an intentional tactic of solidarity and visible protest.